Luv and puthuk kavithai
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Recently M.Sundaramoorthy, in one of his replies my post re puthuk kavithai
versus yaappuk kavithai', had expressed that ThiruvaLLuvar ( = Luv)
had *needlessly* expressed something just to fill up lines to
satisfy 'yaappu'. He gave as an example ( I'm not sure whether this
example is picked up my Sundaramoorthy or one of the puthuk kavithai
experts) the following
selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam achchelvam
selvaththuL ellaam thalai
Sundaramoorthy says the second part 'achchelvam selvaththuL ellaam thalai'
is unnecessary ( waste, redundant, does not add anything substantial..)
and further goes on to suggest that the 'puthuk kavithai' marabu would
shorten it as
selvaththuL selvam
sevich chelvam.
This kind of criticism is born out of not understanding thirukkuRaL
and Luv's extraordinary mastery of expression.
If people who have puthuk kavithai
antennaas think that the shortened version suggested by Sunderamoorthy
is equivalent to the above thirukkuRaL, they are *seriously* mistaken!
One has to understand first that Luv had been quite emphatic in his
recommendation to _carefully_ examine anything. For example in this
same chapter ( as SelvaththuL..) he says 'nuNangiya kElviyallaar'
( = those who don't carefully listen' ), kEtpinum kELaathth thagaiyavE
( though you hear, it is same as not listening if you don't really
*understand* ..), and elsewhere says 'meyp poruL kaaNpathu
aRivu' ( = to understand the true meaning is wisdom),
'than kuRRam neekki..' ( having removed ones own
faults).. Not only these, he also says in #711 'sollin thogai aRindhu'
( understand the extent of words and vocabulary) and in #713 'sollin
vagai aRiyaar ( those who don't understand the semantics and root senses,
and different usages..).. Also remember that Luv says 'nuNNiya nool pala
kaRpinum, maRRundhan uNmai aRivE migum' and he says in #701
kooRaamai nOkki kuRippu aRi.. ( to infer what is not said)..
Luv also had given us 'payanila sollaamai' !
With the above info about Luv's expressed views, let me also very briefly
say how Luv uses an identical word several times in the same kuRaL
to mean different things !
I've already given an example of 'thozhu' in the kuRaL 'Deivam thozhaaL..'.
sometime ago when we were having discussions about aaN kaRpu and
peN kaRpu.
[1] See kuRaL #965 where he uses 'kunRu' in three different senses.
kunRu= small hill, kunRu = to diminish, kunRu maNi = a tiny
red seed with a small black spot ( sometimes used as 'eyes'
for piLLyaar pommai during 'piLLaiyaar chathurththi')
[2] Let me quote #1020 to show how he uses very poetically the word
'naaN' in two different senses ( having semantic unity).
naaN_akath thillaar iyakkam marappaavai
naaN_aal uyir_marutti yaRRu #1020
naaN akaththillaar yakkam = the action of those who don't
have 'naaNam' inside them
marappaavai naaNaal uyir maruttiyaRRu = marappaavaiyai (wooden
doll) naaNaal (kayiRRaal = by thread )
aatti 'uyir marutti' ( animated) athu pOla
( there is _much_ subtle beauty in this comparison which will be
beyond the scope of this post )
The point is the word 'naaN' in the first line and the second
are not the same; one is 'the characteristic known in tamil as
naaNam possessed by people' and the other is a 'thread'.
[3] There are many more examples, like in #1041, 1158, etc.
See for example how Luv uses 'kEL' in two different senses
in #808.
[4] Even in such familiar kuRals like
'eNNiya eNNiyaangu eythuba eNNiyar
thiNNiyar aagap peRin'
there is much beautiful double sense and subtlity which
usually goes unnoticed.
The word 'eN, eNNiya' has a much subtler meaning! The meaing
implied in the above kuRal is much denser and richer than
one usually recognizes.
Let me not spoil your own discovery, but let me just give you
a hint 'eL' > 'eLiya' > eN and it means 'easy'! :-)
The meaning of 'eN_pathaththaal' ( see # 991) and 'eNporuL' in
#760 and in the kuRaL in the chapter on 'kELvi' itself
which starts as 'eNporuLavaa selach cholli..' ..thus 'eNNiya,
eNNiyaangu, eNNiyar' and the contrast in 'thiNNiyar' etc.. are
to be reflected to perceive the beauty ! Here again Luv uses
'eN, eNNiya' in two senses.
Now, let me explain what the kuRaL 'selvaththuL selvam..' means
and why puthuk kavithai enthusiasts will have tough time trying to
trim thirukkuRaL and still retain its rich sense.
selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam = sevichchelvam ( the ability to
LISTEN ) is best of possessions ( selvam = possession)
achchelvam selvaththuL ellaam thalai = this power to LISTEN
is, among all those powers that lead one to various
lands ( states of awareness) , supreme.
In this part of kuRaL, 'selvaththuL' means 'selvanavaRRuL ,
sellum thiRaththanavaRRuL'.
First he uses in the sense of 'possession' for 'selvam'
and in the second line he uses 'selvam' to mean
as 'something capabale of carrying or penetrating into'.
There is a cascade of subtlity in kuRaL which is to be realized
by those who have 'nuNangiya kELvi' otherwise 'kEtpinum kELaath
thagaiyavE' !!
The meaning I've offerred is only a stripped down version!
I can't bring out all the subtlity of this kuRaL in this post.
The word 'sel' is used by Luv in great variety of meanings.
See for example the kuRaL in 'aRivudaimai' chapter where
he uses 'senRa idaththaal selavidaa..', elsewhere
'selach cholli' meaning 'sellumaaRu = ERkumaaRu'; the word selvam
itself from the kuRaL
nallavai yellaaam thIyavaam thIyavu
nallavaam selvam seyaRku #375
=====
Think what is this 'selvam' Luv is talking about !!
( warning: this is a very subtle kuRaL; don't depend on any
translation and try by yourself; ask yourself whether this
selvam is something that can eb 'possessed' or Realized !)
Finally, let me end this rather long post by stating my *considered*
opinion about thirukkuRaL and thiruvaLLuvar:
The beauty and richness of thirukkuRaL and Luv's
extraordinary insight will become visible ONLY
if we EVOLVE inside us. vaLLuvam poyyaa viLakkam !
vaLLuvam uRu thuNai !
anbudan
-Selvaa
"vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
M. Sundaramoorthy
>
>
> selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam achchelvam
> selvaththuL ellaam thalai
>
> Sundaramoorthy says the second part 'achchelvam selvaththuL ellaam thalai'
> is unnecessary ( waste, redundant, does not add anything substantial..)
> and further goes on to suggest that the 'puthuk kavithai' marabu would
> shorten it as
>
> selvaththuL selvam
> sevich chelvam.
>
> This kind of criticism is born out of not understanding thirukkuRaL
> and Luv's extraordinary mastery of expression.
> If people who have puthuk kavithai
> antennaas think that the shortened version suggested by Sunderamoorthy
> is equivalent to the above thirukkuRaL, they are *seriously* mistaken!
Can SP, VKV fame SS, Kathir, Meenan or others post the
commentaries of various scholars for the above kuRaL?.
I just want to see how best their understandings of Luv's
extraordinary mastery of expression are and also I am curious
to whether their antennas could pick up the same signal
as Selva's.
[ Lot of Luv's/Selva's advice and examples of how Luv uses the
same word in differnt meanings deleted, as I found they are
irrelevant to current discussion]
>
>
> Now, let me explain what the kuRaL 'selvaththuL selvam..' means
> and why puthuk kavithai enthusiasts will have tough time trying to
> trim thirukkuRaL and still retain its rich sense.
>
> selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam = sevichchelvam ( the ability to
> LISTEN ) is best of possessions ( selvam = possession)
>
> achchelvam selvaththuL ellaam thalai = this power to LISTEN
> is, among all those powers that lead one to various
> lands ( states of awareness) , supreme.
> In this part of kuRaL, 'selvaththuL' means 'selvanavaRRuL ,
> sellum thiRaththanavaRRuL'.
Can some one else, who understood this 'new' interpretation
tell what is the difference between the first and second
paras?. Still it looks same to me.
>
> First he uses in the sense of 'possession' for 'selvam'
> and in the second line he uses 'selvam' to mean
> as 'something capabale of carrying or penetrating into'.
>
>
>
>
> The beauty and richness of thirukkuRaL and Luv's
> extraordinary insight will become visible ONLY
> if we EVOLVE inside us. vaLLuvam poyyaa viLakkam !
> vaLLuvam uRu thuNai !
I have another kuRaL home work to Selva or other scholars.
At one place Luv says,
SelvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam; achchelvam
selvaththuL ellaam thalai
and at another place he says,
aruL selvam selvaththuL selvam; poruL selvam
pooriyaar kaNNum uLa.
I am confused with the two superlative selvams. Which is actually
the 'SelvaththuL selvam'?. aruL or sevi?.
>
> anbudan
> -Selvaa
> "vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
>
M. Sundaramoorthy
sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
"No conflict with Luv; only with Luvers"
--
Our business hours are: 8:00AM-6:00PM PDT, MONDAY through FRIDAY.
Should you see any post originating from this address during these
hours, inform 1-900-SundarM [the call costs $3.99 a minute :-)].
Sundara Pandian
Selva> Recently M.Sundaramoorthy, in one of his replies my post
Selva> `re: puthuk kavithai versus yaappuk kavithai', had expressed
Selva> that ThiruvaLLuvar ( = Luv) had *needlessly* expressed
Selva> something just to fill up lines to satisfy `yaappu'.
Selva> He gave as an example ( I'm not sure whether this example
Selva> is picked up my Sundaramoorthy or one of the puthuk kavithai
Selva> experts) the following
Selva> selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam achchelvam
Selva> selvaththuL ellaam thalai
Selva> Sundaramoorthy says the second part 'achchelvam selvaththuL
Selva> ellaam thalai' is unnecessary ( waste, redundant, does not
Selva> add anything substantial..) and further goes on to suggest
Selva> that the 'puthuk kavithai' marabu would shorten it as
Selva> selvaththuL selvam
Selva> sevich chelvam.
Selva> This kind of criticism is born out of not understanding thirukkuRaL
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Selva> and Luv's extraordinary mastery of expression.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I differ from you. ThirukkuRaL indeed suffers from redundancy
in some kuRaLs, where the author repeats the same message or
extends the kuRaL to fill up the 7 `seer' for a kuRaL veNpaa.
An illustration is the kuRaL # 392, we are so familiar with:
`eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
kaNNenba vaazhum uyirkku.' (#392).
What is so redundant in this kuRaL, some netters may ask.
For their ease, I just like to mark those `seer' in #392 that
are really needed to convey its message, below.
eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
======= ============
kaNNenba vaazhum uyirkku.
======== =======
I request netters to see the redundancy in `vaazhum uyirkku'.
Isn't it obvious that `uyir' itself means `a living being'?
Why should VaLLuvar refer to it as `vaazhum uyirkku' ? Is the
word `vaazhum' really needed there or is it redundant ?
Whereas a free verse can be written with about four seers to
convey the message in kuRaL #392, we don't have to do that.
Indeed, Auvayaar has already done the job of writing the message
in kuRaL #392 using only four seers in her `konRai vEndhan'.
Auvayaar says,
`eNNum ezhuththum kaNNenath thakum." (`konRai vEndhan')
[ Ragunathan gave me this example in our conversation! :-) ]
Selva> If people who have puthuk kavithai antennaas think that the
Selva> shortened version suggested by Sunderamoorthy is equivalent
Selva> to the above thirukkuRaL, they are *seriously* mistaken!
Again, I differ from you. I also think that the essential part
in KuRaL # 411 ends with the first 3 `seerkaL' `selvaththuL selvam
sevichchelvam'. Of course, the other 4 `seerkaL' `achchelvam
selvaththuL ellaam thalai' praises `kELvi' (hearing) again, but
this is common among many other kuRaLs in `aRam' and `poruL'.
[...]
Selva> With the above info about Luv's expressed views, let me
Selva> also very briefly say how Luv uses an identical word
Selva> several times in the same kuRaL to mean different things!
[...]
^
|__ Some interesting points by Selva well-noted. Thanks, Selva.
Selva> Now, let me explain what the kuRaL 'selvaththuL selvam..' means
Selva> and why puthuk kavithai enthusiasts will have tough time trying to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Selva> trim thirukkuRaL and still retain its rich sense.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let me make a quick note here. Those who try to `trim' kuRaL
and still retain the same sense are not necessarily `puthuk
kavithai' enthusiasts, unless you are willing to call Auvaiyaar
- who trimmed kuRaL # 392 in her `konRai vEndhan' and made it
crisper - a `puthukkavithai' enthusiast. :-)
Selva> selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam = sevichchelvam ( the ability to
Selva> LISTEN ) is best of possessions ( selvam = possession)
Selva> achchelvam selvaththuL ellaam thalai = this power to LISTEN
Selva> is, among all those powers that lead one to various
Selva> lands ( states of awareness) , supreme.
Selva> In this part of kuRaL, 'selvaththuL' means 'selvanavaRRuL ,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Selva> sellum thiRaththanavaRRuL'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, you got it wrong.
Selva> First he uses in the sense of 'possession' for 'selvam'
Selva> and in the second line he uses 'selvam' to mean
Selva> as 'something capabale of carrying or penetrating into'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is purely speculative and fancy. I wish Selva had
provided some similar usage of the word `selvam' like what
he interprets, in other ancient Tamil works.
[...]
Selva> I can't bring out all the subtlity of this kuRaL in this post.
Selva> The word 'sel' is used by Luv in great variety of meanings.
Selva> See for example the kuRaL in 'aRivudaimai' chapter where
Selva> he uses 'senRa idaththaal selavidaa..', elsewhere
Selva> 'selach cholli' meaning 'sellumaaRu = ERkumaaRu'; the word selvam
Selva> itself from the kuRaL
Selva> nallavai yellaaam thIyavaam thIyavu
Selva> nallavaam selvam seyaRku #375
Selva> =====
Selva> Think what is this 'selvam' Luv is talking about !!
Selva> ( warning: this is a very subtle kuRaL; don't depend on any
Selva> translation and try by yourself; ask yourself whether this
Selva> selvam is something that can eb 'possessed' or Realized !)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree with Selva as far as the translations of the kuRaL #375
are concerned. I checked with the translation given by Mu.Va.
that I often consult. Mu.Va. has translated `selvam' in #375 as
`poruL selvam' (material wealth). VaLLuvar means actually more here.
By `selvam', VaLLuvar doesn't mean `material wealth' alone in
his ThirukkuRaL. It will be a very particular meaning, if one
takes the available translations for the kuRaL #375. For clarity,
I quote the kuRaL #400 in `kalvi' (education), where VaLLuvar
says,
`kEdil vizhuchchelvam kalvi oruvaRku
=======
maadalla maRRai yavai' (#400)
What VaLLuvar says in this kuRaL is that `Education is the only
wealth for a person that doesn't get perished' and adds that `other
wealths are not that great as education'. Note also here that
VaLLuvar does not say that wealths other than education are useless.
What VaLLuvar says is that other wealths are `maadu alla' meaning
`siRappu alla'. (Selva and I discussed this kuRaL before when someone
asked in the net to explain the meaning of Sankarapandi's pseudonym
#2 `Sudalai Maadan' :-) )
It should be obvious, by now, that VaLLuvar doesn't mean
`selvam' as material wealth alone that one possesses. VaLLuvar
keeps the general meaning `wealth' for `selvam'. It is also clear
from the kuRaL #241,
`arutchelvam selvaththuL selvam porutchelvam
pooriyaar kaNNum uLa' (#241)
[Before any gastronomic reader takes a funny meaning for the word
`pooriyaar', let me make a note here that it means `izhinthavar'
here. I found this meaning in Mu.Va.'s translation. The food item
`poori' is different. `pooriththu iruppadhaal pooriyaa?' ? :-) ]
Here, VaLLuvar makes a distinction between material wealth
(`porut selvam') and spiritual wealth (`arut selvam'). As I said
earlier, VaLLuvar uses `selvam' to mean `wealth' in its general
meaning (which includes material wealth, spiritual wealth, etc.)
With this understanding, if one reads the kuRaL #375,
`nallavai ellaa_an theeyavaam theeyavum
nallavaam selvam seyaRku.' (#375),
he will find that `selvam seyaRku' doesn't really read as
`(porut) selvaththai eettum muyaRchikku' as translated in popular
kuRaL translations. `selvam seyaRku' has a more general meaning.
Having said that, I return to the kuRaL #411, that we left
earlier:
`selvaththuL selvam sevichchelvam achchelvam
selvaththuL ellaam thalai.' (#411)
There is only one meaning for `selvam' in this kuRaL, namely
`wealth'. If one takes the meaning `Hearing is the wealth of
all material wealths' for `selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam',
obviously he is mistaken, on the grounds explained earlier, namely
that `selvam' has the general meaning `wealth' in kuRaL. Hence,
`selvaththuL selvam sevichelvam' means `The art of hearing is the
wealth of all wealths', meaning `The art of hearing is a great
wealth for a person'. The other part of this kuRaL `achchelvam
selvaththuL ellaam thalai' only supports what has been said
already in the same kuRaL and hence, I would say, it is redundant.
Namaste, SP.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>In article <C9CEv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>
>>
>> selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam achchelvam
>> selvaththuL ellaam thalai
>>
>> Sundaramoorthy says the second part 'achchelvam selvaththuL ellaam thalai'
>> is unnecessary ( waste, redundant, does not add anything substantial..)
>> and further goes on to suggest that the 'puthuk kavithai' marabu would
>> shorten it as
>>
>> selvaththuL selvam
>> sevich chelvam.
>>
>> This kind of criticism is born out of not understanding thirukkuRaL
>> and Luv's extraordinary mastery of expression.
>> If people who have puthuk kavithai
>> antennaas think that the shortened version suggested by Sunderamoorthy
>> is equivalent to the above thirukkuRaL, they are *seriously* mistaken!
>
> Can SP, VKV fame SS, Kathir, Meenan or others post the
> commentaries of various scholars for the above kuRaL?.
yaar yaar vaaik kEtpinum meyp poruL kaaNuthal
aRivudaimai. There is absoulutely nothing
wrong in comparing. I would estimate that
I will be able to more than 100 kuRals where
previous commentators have miserably failed
to even hint at the deeper meaning. Without the
subtler layers of meanings in many kuRaLs,
the fame that kuRaL is
'kadugaithth thuLaith thEzh kadali puguththi' and
'aNuvaith thuLaiththEzh kadalai' etc are mere
empty rhetorics.
>
> I just want to see how best their understandings of Luv's
> extraordinary mastery of expression are and also I am curious
> to whether their antennas could pick up the same signal
> as Selva's.
All antennas don't have the same characteristics !
>
>
> [ Lot of Luv's/Selva's advice and examples of how Luv uses the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> same word in differnt meanings deleted, as I found they are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> irrelevant to current discussion]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you can NOT understand the importance of Luv's
use of multiple meaning in the same kuRaL, and
consider this fact as irrelevant ( !!!), I honestly
don't understand how I can debate with you !
You say you found the examples I cited of multi-meaning
instances as _irrelevant_. Would you please
care to share your understanding _why_ they are
irrelevant. It is my view that they are centrally
relevant !!
>
>>
>>
>> Now, let me explain what the kuRaL 'selvaththuL selvam..' means
>> and why puthuk kavithai enthusiasts will have tough time trying to
>> trim thirukkuRaL and still retain its rich sense.
>>
>> selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam = sevichchelvam ( the ability to
>> LISTEN ) is best of possessions ( selvam = possession)
>>
>> achchelvam selvaththuL ellaam thalai = this power to LISTEN
>> is, among all those powers that lead one to various
>> lands ( states of awareness) , supreme.
>> In this part of kuRaL, 'selvaththuL' means 'selvanavaRRuL ,
>> sellum thiRaththanavaRRuL'.
>
>
> Can some one else, who understood this 'new' interpretation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
An interpretation is what it is.
What has new and old have to do with it
for considering what is said ?
> tell what is the difference between the first and second
> paras?. Still it looks same to me.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you have to buy a new antenna :-)
( this is what my antennas are telling)
>> First he uses in the sense of 'possession' for 'selvam'
>> and in the second line he uses 'selvam' to mean
>> as 'something capabale of carrying or penetrating into'.
>> The beauty and richness of thirukkuRaL and Luv's
>> extraordinary insight will become visible ONLY
>> if we EVOLVE inside us. vaLLuvam poyyaa viLakkam !
>> vaLLuvam uRu thuNai !
>
> I have another kuRaL home work to Selva or other scholars.
>
> At one place Luv says,
>
> SelvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam; achchelvam
> selvaththuL ellaam thalai
>
> and at another place he says,
>
> aruL selvam selvaththuL selvam; poruL selvam
> pooriyaar kaNNum uLa.
>
> I am confused with the two superlative selvams. Which is actually
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the 'SelvaththuL selvam'?. aruL or sevi?.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No conflict here !! :-)
What Luv says 'sevich_chelvam' is
indeed what one understands as _aruL_ !!
One has to understand first before beginning to
interpret !
Consider the semantic ( and reality as well)
progression..
Listening > understanding > Love
( listening = understanding = Love )
I'll give another example in tamil: the word 'kEL' means
'to listen' it also means 'to love'. kELir means
friend or anyone who is 'anbu udaiyavar'.
kaathu means ear and kaathal means love.
Also note that 'aL' means ear and it also means
love ( aLi is love, aL = aLLal = to feel close and loving)
Even more _interesting_ is 'vaL' means ear and
it means love too ! [ note we are referring vaLLuvar
as Luv !! :-) ] [ vaLLal, vaLLi, vaLLiyam ( = mezhugu).
>
>>
>> anbudan
>> -Selvaa
>> "vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
>>
>
> M. Sundaramoorthy
> sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
>
> "No conflict with Luv; only with Luvers"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll quote vaLLuvar:
nuNmaaN nuzhaipulam illaan ezhilnalam
maNmaaN punai paavai yaRRu !!
>
>--
>Our business hours are: 8:00AM-6:00PM PDT, MONDAY through FRIDAY.
>Should you see any post originating from this address during these
>hours, inform 1-900-SundarM [the call costs $3.99 a minute :-)].
anbudan
-Selvaa
"vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
p.s. vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum olirththEn veRum 'business hours'il
mattum alla ! :-)
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
In article <930629062...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>Writes Selva(selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) on KuRaL #411:
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Selva> and Luv's extraordinary mastery of expression.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I differ from you. ThirukkuRaL indeed suffers from redundancy
> in some kuRaLs, where the author repeats the same message or
> extends the kuRaL to fill up the 7 `seer' for a kuRaL veNpaa.
If you differ from me on sustainable ground, thats fine.
You say 'thirukkuRaL indeed suffers from redundancy',
without carefully considering ! Can I say
you suffer from lack of perceptivity ! [ please don't
take it as an offence, I'm merely trying to point out
a possibility, you don't seem to have considered.]
thirukkuRaLin aazham theriyaamal, aLandhathuthaan
aazham enRu vathu iduvathu enna vagaiyil sErththiyO !
> An illustration is the kuRaL # 392, we are so familiar with:
>
> `eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
> kaNNenba vaazhum uyirkku.' (#392).
>
> What is so redundant in this kuRaL, some netters may ask.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What you _consider_ as redundant..
> For their ease, I just like to mark those `seer' in #392 that
> are really needed to convey its message, below.
>
> eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
> ======= ============
> kaNNenba vaazhum uyirkku.
> ======== =======
>
> I request netters to see the redundancy in `vaazhum uyirkku'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Isn't it obvious that `uyir' itself means `a living being'?
> Why should VaLLuvar refer to it as `vaazhum uyirkku' ? Is the
> word `vaazhum' really needed there or is it redundant ?
If you have 'kaN' as Luv says, you might not have
posed this question !
The words you've not marked are indeed _vital_
to what Luv is saying !
First Luv is saying 'enba' to draw attention to
the special importance and specificity of meaning.
He uses, in my opinion, eN in the senses of
'number' ( = mathematics) and 'think' .
First it appears the importance of
numbers is recognized and considered more vital than
the rest in 'kalvi'. [ even today number and language
skills are considered important right from grade 1 Many
consider math-type thinking is important for rational
thinking]
'Enai' is used to mark 'ezhuththu' as a secondary in
consideration. *eNNathth therindhaal thaan* ( if one knows to
think, only then s/he can appreciate and benefit from
'ezhuththu'; siRappu karuthiyE eNNai (number) eN (think)
enRa sollaalEyE kuRikkiROm; even in english we say reckon-
see the dictionary; other usages 'taking into *account*',
'recount, count' also imply the recognition of semantic
equivalence and importance of 'count,reckon = eN' and
reckon = think ( carefully consider) = eN ).
[ I should also remark that there is also philosophical
meaning to 'eN, ezhuththu, kaN']
You say in 'vaazhum uyirkku', 'vaazhum' is redundant !
Existence is different from living ! uyirOdu
iruppathu ellaam 'vaazhvu' alla !! If you don't believe me
see the meanings of 'vaazh, vaazhvu, vaazhkkai' in a dictionary !
vaazh = muRaimai, ozhungu ( = intelligently ordered)
vaazhthal = siRandhiruththal ( only meaning listed in Kazhagam Dic
These are dictionary meanings !!
vaazhippu means sezhippu, vaazhththuthal means
siRappu peRa vizhaivai theriviththal. One of my dad's friend
( Mr. Chokkanathan) used to say 'avangaLLaam vaazhaRaanga aiyyaa'..
I've often heard '_athu_ vaazhkkai' in the pointed sense of
'siRandhiruththal'. See the kuRaL 'nuNmaaN nuzhaipulam illaan..
maNpaavai ..'!! In fact vaLLuvar seems to imply
'puzhu pOlavum, poochchi pOlavum vaazhaathE aiyaa, manithan
enRu sollum padiyaaga, vaazhthal enRu kooRum padiyaaga
_siRappu _viLanga_ vaazh!'.
The root sense of 'vaazh' is 'to maintain continuity of
excellence' not just 'continuity of existence' especially
in this context.
Also, kaN means 'aRivu' not just 'eyes' only. Don't get
side tracked by 'ivviraNdum' ( here the two are emphatically
referrred) .
Anyone who removes words from this kuRaL and claims that
the meaning is very nearly same, has no clue to what
is the _essense_ of this kuRaL.
>
> Whereas a free verse can be written with about four seers to
> convey the message in kuRaL #392, we don't have to do that.
> Indeed, Auvayaar has already done the job of writing the message
> in kuRaL #392 using only four seers in her `konRai vEndhan'.
> Auvayaar says,
>
> `eNNum ezhuththum kaNNenath thakum." (`konRai vEndhan')
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Auvayaar's words don't mean the same as what Luv says!
Auvayaar's words mean that 'eNNum ezhuththum kaN
***pOnRathu**' whereas Luv says 'vaazhum uyirkku
kaN **enba**'. There is a world of difference
in import ! In fact the meaning can be closer
( with some poverty of sense ) to Luv's had
Auvayaar said 'eNNum ezhuththum kaNNE'. Auvayaar's
words 'thagum' robs most of the vitality of Luv's
words. Since Luv uses 'enba' there is more subtlity to it
than is outwardly apparent. I think Luv says
'eNNuvathum (= enquire) ezhuvathum ( = awakening) ,
vaazhum uyirkku enRu sollapadum 'uyviRku' kaN (=vazhi)
aagum'.
>
> [ Ragunathan gave me this example in our conversation! :-) ]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You may tell these explanations to Mr. Ragunathan
when you can communicate with him. :-)
[ Because some people have published some books or
their name has appeared in some magazines and papers,
many seem to regard them as some kind of authority-
ignoring the wisdom in 'epporuL yaaryaar vaaik kEtpinum
apporuL meyp poruL kaaNpathu aRivu'- ithu vaLLuvar sollukkum
porundhum.. ]
>
>Selva> If people who have puthuk kavithai antennaas think that the
>Selva> shortened version suggested by Sunderamoorthy is equivalent
>Selva> to the above thirukkuRaL, they are *seriously* mistaken!
>
> Again, I differ from you. I also think that the essential part
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> in KuRaL # 411 ends with the first 3 `seerkaL' `selvaththuL selvam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you _consider_ what I said ?
> sevichchelvam'. Of course, the other 4 `seerkaL' `achchelvam
> selvaththuL ellaam thalai' praises `kELvi' (hearing) again, but
^^^^^^^^^^
> this is common among many other kuRaLs in `aRam' and `poruL'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is NOT 'again' ! There are many kuRaLs I can cite
where the second part seem to say in the affirmative sense
an idea which in the first part Luv says in the negative.
This is a common mistake. It is only for shallow divers.
nuNmaaN nuzhai poruL aRiya muyalaatha maN paavaigaL !
>
> [...]
>
>Selva> With the above info about Luv's expressed views, let me
>Selva> also very briefly say how Luv uses an identical word
>Selva> several times in the same kuRaL to mean different things!
>
> [...]
> ^
> |__ Some interesting points by Selva well-noted. Thanks, Selva.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're welcome ! They are not just 'interesting',
if one carefully considers and seriously reflects
having understood the things said there, they may begin to see
more in kuRaL ( nuNangiya kELviyar aaga muRpadalaam)
>
>
>Selva> Now, let me explain what the kuRaL 'selvaththuL selvam..' means
>Selva> and why puthuk kavithai enthusiasts will have tough time trying to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Selva> trim thirukkuRaL and still retain its rich sense.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Let me make a quick note here. Those who try to `trim' kuRaL
> and still retain the same sense are not necessarily `puthuk
> kavithai' enthusiasts, unless you are willing to call Auvaiyaar
> - who trimmed kuRaL # 392 in her `konRai vEndhan' and made it
> crisper - a `puthukkavithai' enthusiast. :-)
Well, I was well aware of Auvayaar's shortening both
in words and sense ! Auvayaar tried and miserably failed
and it is my guess that only then she must have composed
the 'aNuvaith thuLaith thEzh kadalai..'.
Remember it was vaLLuvar who said 'sila sollith thERaathavar..
pala sollak kaamuRuvar' !! Has Luv vilolated his own
maxim ( he could have, but did he ? No, not to my knowledge)
In my opinion Luv is like
Himalayas and Auvaiyaar is merely like chinna malai in
Madras ( near Saidapet). No offence meant to Auvaip paatti..
It is my guess Auvaip paatti will gladly accept this view,
because she might understand the significance of this
view. It is just my view. However, the short maxims of
Auvai are indeed quite sweet and I like them quite a lot.
>
>Selva> selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam = sevichchelvam ( the ability to
>Selva> LISTEN ) is best of possessions ( selvam = possession)
>Selva> achchelvam selvaththuL ellaam thalai = this power to LISTEN
>Selva> is, among all those powers that lead one to various
>Selva> lands ( states of awareness) , supreme.
>Selva> In this part of kuRaL, 'selvaththuL' means 'selvanavaRRuL ,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Selva> sellum thiRaththanavaRRuL'.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Sorry, you got it wrong.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gee, thanks ! :-)
Can you kindly let us know why ? ( thanks in advance)
>
>
>Selva> First he uses in the sense of 'possession' for 'selvam'
>Selva> and in the second line he uses 'selvam' to mean
>Selva> as 'something capabale of carrying or penetrating into'.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is purely speculative and fancy. I wish Selva had
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In your dictionary, what you don't grasp is
called 'purely speculative and fancy' ?
> provided some similar usage of the word `selvam' like what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I had provided examples of uses of 'selvam'
and 'sel' in different kuRaLs in my original post.
Also consider the usage 'selvaakku' = palaridamum sellum
thiRam udaiya vaakku.
'intha kaasu sellaathu' means 'this coin will not pass,
is invalid'
'kuzhandhaigaLukku sellam kodukkak koodaathu'
( = children should not be treated too leniently)
MaaNikka vaasagar uses 'sellaa ninRa ith thaavara sangamaththuL'
and 'solliya paatin poruL uNarndhu solluvaar selvar
siva puraththil uLLaar' ..
> he interprets, in other ancient Tamil works.
>
>[...]
>
[..]
>
> `arutchelvam selvaththuL selvam porutchelvam
> pooriyaar kaNNum uLa' (#241)
>
> [Before any gastronomic reader takes a funny meaning for the word
> `pooriyaar', let me make a note here that it means `izhinthavar'
> here. I found this meaning in Mu.Va.'s translation. The food item
> `poori' is different. `pooriththu iruppadhaal pooriyaa?' ? :-) ]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nice joke ! :-) poori uppi irundhaalum uLLE onRum
illai enbathum karuththil koLLath thakkathu :-)
>
> Here, VaLLuvar makes a distinction between material wealth
> (`porut selvam') and spiritual wealth (`arut selvam'). As I said
> earlier, VaLLuvar uses `selvam' to mean `wealth' in its general
> meaning (which includes material wealth, spiritual wealth, etc.)
>
>
> With this understanding, if one reads the kuRaL #375,
>
> `nallavai ellaa_an theeyavaam theeyavum
> nallavaam selvam seyaRku.' (#375),
>
> he will find that `selvam seyaRku' doesn't really read as
> `(porut) selvaththai eettum muyaRchikku' as translated in popular
> kuRaL translations. `selvam seyaRku' has a more general meaning.
In #375 the word selvam has a meaning more like
'iruvinaium sEra iRai nilai'
>
> Having said that, I return to the kuRaL #411, that we left
> earlier:
>
> `selvaththuL selvam sevichchelvam achchelvam
> selvaththuL ellaam thalai.' (#411)
>
> There is only one meaning for `selvam' in this kuRaL, namely
> `wealth'. If one takes the meaning `Hearing is the wealth of
> all material wealths' for `selvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam',
> obviously he is mistaken, on the grounds explained earlier, namely
> that `selvam' has the general meaning `wealth' in kuRaL. Hence,
> `selvaththuL selvam sevichelvam' means `The art of hearing is the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would say 'the _gift_ of LISTENING' :-)
The art of hearing is well understood and utilized by
'hearing -aid' manufacturers :-)
> wealth of all wealths', meaning `The art of hearing is a great
> wealth for a person'. The other part of this kuRaL `achchelvam
> selvaththuL ellaam thalai' only supports what has been said
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> already in the same kuRaL and hence, I would say, it is redundant.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have to practice _listening_ rather than merely
_hearing_ ! I would say that the second part contains
valuable truth not contained in the forst part.
>
>
> Namaste, SP.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
anbudan
-Selvaa
"vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn'
Sundara Pandian
Selva> You say 'thirukkuRaL indeed suffers from redundancy',
Selva> without carefully considering ! Can I say
Selva> you suffer from lack of perceptivity !
[...]
Selva> thirukkuRaLin aazham theriyaamal, aLandhathuthaan
Selva> aazham enRu vathu iduvathu enna vagaiyil sErththiyO !
As I noted in my last article, it doesn't take great
scholarship for one to see the redundancy in the kuRaL
`eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
kaNNebba vaazhum uyirkku.'
For the benefit of the netters who read this article, I like
to mention another illustration that Ragunathan mentioned
to point out the redundancy in some kuRaLs. It is in the
chapter `payanila sollaamai'. The kuRaL is,
`solluka solliR payanudaiya sollaRka
sollil payanilaach chol." ( #200 )
If one takes the exercise of marking those words in #200 that
are sufficient to convey its meaning, he would mark the words,
solluka solliR payanudaiya sollaRka
======= ====== ===========
sollil payanilaach chol.
It is only a trivial observation that the first three words in #200
convey its meaning clearly, and the rest of the kuRaL `sollaRka
sollil payanilaach chol' is clearly redundant. Of course, we know
that a kuRaL veNpaa must have seven words (cheerkaL) and that
VaLLuvar has to fill up the kuRaL #200 with four additional words
even though he has conveyed what he wanted to say in the first
three words itself `solluka solliR payanudaiya'. This is what one
points out as redundancy in kuRaL. I am grateful to Ragunathan
for pointing out the redundancy in kuRaL in our conversation.
[.....]
SP> [ Ragunathan gave me this example in our conversation! :-) ]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Selva> You may tell these explanations to Mr. Ragunathan
Selva> when you can communicate with him. :-)
I have not yet transcribed my conversation with Ragunathan
as it is a rather long one. When I mentioned about your comments
on "inner meanings" of the kuRaLs in `peN vazhich chERal',
Ragunathan dismissed it saying that there is no inner meaning in
the kuRaL
`peNNEval seydhozhugum aaNmaiyin naanudaip
peNmaiyE perumai udaiththu." (#907).
Ragunathan also helped me with more observations on male-chauvinism
in ThirukkuRaL and in the early Sangam culture. We agreed on VaLLuvar's
religion, male-chauvinism in kuRaL etc. It was an informative talk.
Namaste,
SP
Sridhar Desikan
I am one of the 'read-only' subscribers of sct. I am taking liberty
to jump into this thread. Hope I am not obstructing the flow.
In article <930630052...@cec1.wustl.edu>, s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
|> Replies Selva(selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) SP's posting:
|>
[...]
|> As I noted in my last article, it doesn't take great
|> scholarship for one to see the redundancy in the kuRaL
|>
|> `eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
|> kaNNebba vaazhum uyirkku.'
|>
|> For the benefit of the netters who read this article, I like
|> to mention another illustration that Ragunathan mentioned
|> to point out the redundancy in some kuRaLs. It is in the
|> chapter `payanila sollaamai'. The kuRaL is,
|>
|> `solluka solliR payanudaiya sollaRka
|> sollil payanilaach chol." ( #200 )
|>
|> If one takes the exercise of marking those words in #200 that
|> are sufficient to convey its meaning, he would mark the words,
|>
|> solluka solliR payanudaiya sollaRka
|> ======= ====== ===========
|> sollil payanilaach chol.
|>
|> It is only a trivial observation that the first three words in #200
|> convey its meaning clearly, and the rest of the kuRaL `sollaRka
|> sollil payanilaach chol' is clearly redundant. Of course, we know
|> that a kuRaL veNpaa must have seven words (cheerkaL) and that
|> VaLLuvar has to fill up the kuRaL #200 with four additional words
|> even though he has conveyed what he wanted to say in the first
|> three words itself `solluka solliR payanudaiya'. This is what one
|> points out as redundancy in kuRaL. I am grateful to Ragunathan
|> for pointing out the redundancy in kuRaL in our conversation.
|>
rest of the article deleted
|> Namaste,
|> SP
|>
ThiruvaLLuvar has the method of emphasising something both in
positive and negative sense. For example, kuRaL #200 can be
interpreted as
Even if you do not say anything useful, do not say anything useless.
I think this makes the later part of kuRaL reinforce the meaning of
earlier one.
nanRi
-sridhar
******************************************************************************
Sridhar Desikan The best way to punish wrongdoers
Chemical Engineering Department is to do them good so that they
Bucknell University will be ashamed of their act.
Lewisburg, PA 17837 KuRaL
How come wrong numbers are never busy?
*****************************************************************************
SRINIVASAN,K
>
> As I noted in my last article, it doesn't take great
>scholarship for one to see the redundancy in the kuRaL
>
> `eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
I am writing this after a lot of hesitation as the three netters
involved in this discussion are all better informed than me on
this subject. However, since MS wanted to know if Selva's
interpretations appeal to anybody, I am making this posting.
I also originally thought kuRaL contains only what is known to
everybody and has redundancies. However, Selva's interpretation
of the two kuRaL's "selvathuL..." and "eNNenba..." has made me
think there is a lot to be gained by giving the benefit of
doubt to thiruvaLLuvar and trying to dig out possible meanings
of the kuRaL's.
I am really happy SP and MS are challenging Selva continuously
by asking him to defend kuRaL after kuRaL. I am getting
educated in the process. However, I find one thing surprising:
SP seems to ignore or brush aside all explanations of Selva.
Probably with his learning, the fallacies in Selva's postings
are obvious to him. For the benefit of netters like me, may I
request him to point them out? For example, Selva gave two
meanings to each of the words eN (number and thought) and kaN
(eye and path), and explained why there is no redundancy in it.
Now, SP says:
>it doesn't take great
>scholarship for one to see the redundancy in the kuRaLi
Since, I lack whatever scholarship it takes to see the redundancy
through Selva's defence, may I request SP to explain why Selva's
explanation of this kuRaL is wrong?
Thanks to SP, MS and Selva for starting this educative thread
and keeping it alive.
--
SRINIVASAN,K
School of Textile Engineering Georgia Tech.
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt4084c
ARPA: gt4...@prism.gatech.edu
Sundara Pandian
KS> I also originally thought kuRaL contains only what is known to
KS> everybody and has redundancies. However, Selva's interpretation
KS> of the two kuRaL's "selvathuL..." and "eNNenba..." has made me
KS> think there is a lot to be gained by giving the benefit of
^^^^^^^^^^
KS> doubt to thiruvaLLuvar and trying to dig out possible meanings
^^^^^
KS> of the kuRaL's.
KS> I am really happy SP and MS are challenging Selva continuously
KS> by asking him to defend kuRaL after kuRaL.
^^^^^^
I can't speak for MS, but I represent myself. I did not make
any serious charges in my last few articles on kuRaL. There is
no need to call for any defense counsel to represent VaLLuvar. I made
an observation that there is redundancy in some kuRaLs. It is not
a big issue, if you think about it calmly. In an ethical work, poets
indeed have the privilege to repeat their messages in their verses
and reinforce them again. But there are praises on kuRaL like
`kuRukath thariththa kuRaL' etc. So, it is good to examine the
kuRaL and see whether this praise applies to all kuRaLs or not.
What I pointed out is that not all kuRaLs are `kuRukath thariththa
kuRaL's. Some kuRaLs indeed suffer from redundancy. We can accept
that. Some netters may say, "VaLLuvar is a divine poet. Therefore,
he could not have written redundant words in his kuRaL. Therefore,
let us look for some hidden meanings." I say, "Take it easy, look
at the illustrations and see for redundancy". I do know that, unlike
the free verses, where a poet has the freedom to put his verse in
a crisp form he likes, the `yaappu' poets have to take care that
their verses obide by the `yaappilakkaNam'. In kuRaL, for instance,
a kuRaL has to have seven words for a kuRaL veNpaa and I do see
VaLLuvar's necessity to write his verses with seven words. So,
redundancy may occur in `yaappu' poems due to `yaappilakkaNam'.
We can accept the redundancy insome kuRaLs *honestly*, rather than
jumping in a bandwagon proclaiming `VaLLuvar is a divine poet,
look for hidden meanings' etc. I think that the greatness in kuRaL
is in its contents. So, accepting the redundancy in some kuRaLs,
which is an observation on the form of the kuRaLs, is not going
to any blackmark on VaLLuvar. There is no need to appoint any defense
lawyer for VaLLuvar. VaLLuvar is not on a trial here.
KS> I am getting educated in the process. However, I find one thing surprising:
KS> SP seems to ignore or brush aside all explanations of Selva.
KS> Probably with his learning, the fallacies in Selva's postings
KS> are obvious to him. For the benefit of netters like me, may I
KS> request him to point them out? For example, Selva gave two
KS> meanings to each of the words eN (number and thought) and kaN
KS> (eye and path), and explained why there is no redundancy in it.
The kuRaL is
"eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
kaNNenba vaazhum uyirkku." (#392)
I request the netters not to get carried away by rhetorics,
and examine the kuRaL by themselves. One of the praises on kuRaL
is `OthaRku eLiyathaay..'. Simplicity is one of the great things
about kuRaL. How does this kuRaL begin? `eNNenba..'.
eNNenba = eN + enba = eN enappaduvathu
The common meaning for the word `eN' is `numbers'.
Then we read
Enai ezhuththenba = Enai + ezhuththu + enba
= maRRaiya ezuththukaL enappaduvathaana
= other scripts for Tamil letters
( It is worthwhile to remember that Tamil had seperate scripts
for numbers. VaLLuvar distinguishes the scripts for numbers
from the scripts for Tamil letters)
ivviraNdum = these two together
kaNNenba = kaN + enba = kaNkaL enappaduvathaakum
vaazhum uyirkku = for living beings
The numbers and Tamil language formed the basis for education
in those days, and in the chapter for education, VaLLuvar stresses
the basic tools for education in his days. He praises them as they
are eyes to every human being. Just like, without eyes one is blind
and cannot see things, VaLLuvar says, without the basic tools of
education - numbers and Tamil language, one cannot learn anything.
In the next kuRaL, VaLLuvar says, "kaNNudaiyar enbOr kaRROr.."
What does Selva say? Selva interprets `eN' as `numbers' and
`think'. Whereas there are words like `eNNam' meaning `thoughts',
I would like to see a reference from Selva from the Sangam words
where the word *eN* has been used to mean *to think*. The word
`eN' in its verb form means only `to count'. Without any reference
for `eN' with the meaning `to think' (sindhiththal), I would call
it only a `speculation'. Next Selva says, "`Enai' is used
to mark `ezhuththu' as a secondary consideration." He adds,
"If one knows to think, only then he/she can appreciate and
benefit from `ezhuththu'." As I said earlier, `eN' in its verb
means only `to count'. If one knows counting well, can he appreciate
Tamil literature for instance ? I leave it to the netters to figure
it out. Also, what are `eN' and `kazhuththu' compared to ? To
the *eyes*. And Selva says, `ezhuththu' is secondary to `eN'.
I request the netters to think about this. Do we compare our
eyes and say one eye is beter than other in our poetry or in
common usage? Instead, we give the example of eyes to rule out
any comparisons! The reason, VaLLuvar gives the comparison of
eyes to numbers and letters is that, both were equally important
in the Sangam culture. The Sangam Tamils excelled in trade and
literature. Numbers formed the basic tools for Mathematics and
letters formed the basic tools for the Sangam literature. The oral
poetry took the form of written poetry in the post-Sangam days.
( I've to make more references on this. Zvelebil talks about it
somewhere.)
It is this importance of the basic tools for education -
numbers and letters - that has been praised in kuRaL #392 and
the social conditions in VaLLuvar's days substantiates this clear
meaning of #392. Selva tries to make this kuRaL a `silEdai'
with his fancy interpretation of `eN' to mean `sinththiththal'
(to think), but his interpretation to `defend' that kuRaL #392
does not have any redundancy is purely speculative. Also, VaLLuvar's
comparison of `eN' and `ezhuththu' to `kaN' (eyes) clearly rules
out Selva's interpretation that VaLLuvar holds `eN' (thinking)
superior to `ezhuththu' .
Auvaiyaar's verse
`eNNum ezhuththum kaNNenath thakum."
indeed is a crisp form of kuRaL #392 and she has captured the
spirit of kuRaL #392 in her `konRai vEndhan'. Actually, I find
the above verse having a better (crisper) form than kuRaL #392,
due to the redundancy in kuRaL #392.
KS> Thanks to SP, MS and Selva for starting this educative thread
KS> and keeping it alive.
You are welcome.
Namaste,
SP
Shiva Shivakumar
Selva's defense of Luv is no different from his defense of Baaradhi. I am yet
to hear a convincing argument from nettors against my claim that Baaradhi
MIGHT have meant talked about conversion of mosques into temples when
he said 'PaLLithalamanaithum kovil seiguvom'. Reasons such as Baaradhi was
such a great man he wouldn't have meant is, I am sorry, not acceptable. That
is very much like 'Luv was so great he wouldn't have been redundant'.
I agree, I goofed when I tried to cite Baaradhi's use of the word 'aariya'
in quite a few verses and his admiration for Aurobindo. I would like to
emphasis though, that my raising this question does not make me a Hindutva
agent or any such thing.
Anbudan
J.Shivakumar
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>
>Selva> You say 'thirukkuRaL indeed suffers from redundancy',
>Selva> without carefully considering ! Can I say
>Selva> you suffer from lack of perceptivity !
> [...]
>Selva> thirukkuRaLin aazham theriyaamal, aLandhathuthaan
>Selva> aazham enRu vathu iduvathu enna vagaiyil sErththiyO !
>
> As I noted in my last article, it doesn't take great
>scholarship for one to see the redundancy in the kuRaL
As I said in my earlier reply to SP, redundancy is
only apparent and not in reality.
>
> `eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
> kaNNebba vaazhum uyirkku.'
See my explanations. If you think in the
expression 'vaazhum uyirkku', vaazhum is
redundant, can you explain what Luv means
'vaiyaththuL vazhvaangu vazhbavan' in #50 ?
'vaazh'vin poruL uNaraathu neerum Mr. Ragunathanum
uraiyaadukinReer! Luv said not without reason
'ellaa viLakkum viLakkalla, poyyaa viLakkam'
kaaNa vENdum. kaNdathE kaatchchi, koNdathE
kOlam enil pEsip payan illai.
>
>For the benefit of the netters who read this article, I like
>to mention another illustration that Ragunathan mentioned
>to point out the redundancy in some kuRaLs. It is in the
>chapter `payanila sollaamai'. The kuRaL is,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:-) :-) [ payanila sollaamai kooRiya vaLLuvaraa ?! :-) ]
>
> `solluka solliR payanudaiya sollaRka
> sollil payanilaach chol." ( #200 )
>
>If one takes the exercise of marking those words in #200 that
>are sufficient to convey its meaning, he would mark the words,
^^^^^^^^^^^
Say as _you_ think ( or your friend Mr.Ragunathan thinks)!
Try to understand what _Luv_ thinks if you want to analyse
his words !!
>
> solluka solliR payanudaiya sollaRka
> ======= ====== ===========
> sollil payanilaach chol.
>
>It is only a trivial observation that the first three words in #200
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
!!
>convey its meaning clearly, and the rest of the kuRaL `sollaRka
^^^^^^^^^^
>sollil payanilaach chol' is clearly redundant. Of course, we know
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you feel it appears like redundant thats understandable.
Your claim that it is 'clearly redundant' shows you've not
seriously considered.
I ask you ( and those who think as you do ) to
look up the previous 3 kuRaLs in the _same_ chapter.
Then you might begin to see either Luv must be
an absolute idiot with full of carelessness
( can some idiots be careful, yes !) or some of you folks
don't see what Luv says. I'll quote the #198 first:
arum payan aayum aRivinaar sollaar
perum payan illaatha sol
( rough outer translation: Those wise-folks who
understand-analyse Great Benefit will not
utter words that are not of great benefit)
Now, please do reflect for a moment what Luv says in this
kuRaL #198. Okay now, let us see what Luv has to say in #199
_one_ kuRaL before SP ( and his friend Mr. Ragunathan's)
citation of kuRaL #200.
poruL theerndha pochchaandhum sollaar, maruL theerndha
maasaRu kaatchchi yavar.
( rough outer translation: maruL theerndha maasaRu kaatchiyavar:
those who are devoid of delusions/confusions and who are
of flawless insight
poruL theerndha - pochchaandhum sollaar = won't say meaningless
words _even_ forgetfully !!)
Now, SP and Mr. Ragunathan think that Luv has said
wasteful words 'to fill up seer' !!
First 'solluga solliR payanudaiya' has more meanings
than what SP and similar ones think. If what SP and
co think is all there is to it about this first part
then Luv could have said without violating any 'yaappu'
rules and with greater euphony 'solluveer solliR payanudaiya'.
Also it would well contrast with 'sollaRka'... But, for
argument's sake, let us assume that that is the _only_
meaning Luv wanted us to understand. Now the second part
which some think as 'filling up seer' ! -->
'sollaRka solliR payanilaach chol'
One of the outer meanings is what most might see
( 'don't say useless words' )
Another meaning is 'sollaRka payan nillaach chol'.
See #198 to understand more.
Just as in #198 'payan nillaatha' and payan illaatha'
are equally possible meanings, in #200 too
'payan nilla > payanilaa'.
'payan nillaa' means ' not of _lasting_ benefit'
Even more closer to the original I should say
'not _enduring_ benefit'. What is 'nillaap
payan and nilaiththu niRkum payan ', I leave people to infer !
I can only say that what is meant is pretty deep.
Because of the second part of
this kuRaL #200, we have an inkling of what 'payan' does
===================
he refer to in the first part !!
=================================
Therefore, the second part is NOT redundant, but rather
deeply enriching part even for the forst part of the kuRaL.
There are more subtler meanings which can be
appreciated only when one has a reasonable grasp of
the depth of Luv's words. There no point explaining to
folks who rather firmly believe that 'he was filling up
seer' ! :-(
I hope SP will tell his friend Mr. Ragunathan these
explanations ! :-) Of course Mr. Ragunathan might
'declare' 'I again dismiss !' :-)
PaaNdiayarudaiya naNbar allavaa :-)
[NO offence meant to Mr. Ragunathan,
I'm merely, light heartedly, taking a dig at
SP's announcements in the net ]
>that a kuRaL veNpaa must have seven words (cheerkaL) and that
>VaLLuvar has to fill up the kuRaL #200 with four additional words
>even though he has conveyed what he wanted to say in the first
>three words itself `solluka solliR payanudaiya'. This is what one
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>points out as redundancy in kuRaL. I am grateful to Ragunathan
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I might say to you, as Luv says in #197
'nayanila sollinum solluga, payanila sollaamai nanRu'
>for pointing out the redundancy in kuRaL in our conversation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mr. Ragunathan's observations are pretty shallow
in this matter. [ I mean about 'eN enba..' and
'solluga solliR..' kuRals ] [ No offence meant
to any one]
>
>
> [.....]
>
>SP> [ Ragunathan gave me this example in our conversation! :-) ]
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Selva> You may tell these explanations to Mr. Ragunathan
>Selva> when you can communicate with him. :-)
>
> I have not yet transcribed my conversation with Ragunathan
>as it is a rather long one. When I mentioned about your comments
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>on "inner meanings" of the kuRaLs in `peN vazhich chERal',
>Ragunathan dismissed it saying that there is no inner meaning in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the kuRaL
> `peNNEval seydhozhugum aaNmaiyin naanudaip
> peNmaiyE perumai udaiththu." (#907).
SP, we have not yet discussed #907. I think we
have discussed only upto #905.
We will debate when we come to #907, please ask
Mr. Ragunathan to stay his order of dismissal
until then- thanks :-)
>
>Ragunathan also helped me with more observations on male-chauvinism
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in ThirukkuRaL and in the early Sangam culture. We agreed on VaLLuvar's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is no male-chauvenism in ThirukkuRaL. There is a
slight male-dominated info in Sangam but by no means
it can be termed as male-chauvenism. But my
categorical statement based on my understanding of Luv is
'there is NO male-chavenism' in thirukkuRaL. You gentlemen
merely repeat without any substance. [ to keep in focus,
I've not yet discussed #906-910 ] To the best of my
knowledge I've offered counter arguments for other
kuRaLs - todate.
>religion, male-chauvinism in kuRaL etc. It was an informative talk.
>
> Namaste,
> SP
>
anbudan
-Selvaa
SRINIVASAN,K
SP>I did not make
SP>any serious charges in my last few articles on kuRaL.
Well, I never got into if your charge is serious or not.
If the word "defence" is what you are so worked-up about,
have you never heard it being used in games and other non-serious
contexts?
SP>Some netters may say, "VaLLuvar is a divine poet. Therefore,
SP>he could not have written redundant words in his kuRaL. Therefore,
SP>let us look for some hidden meanings."
May be I missed it. But I never saw anybody put up the
above argument.
SP>We can accept the redundancy insome kuRaLs *honestly*, rather than
SP>jumping in a bandwagon proclaiming `VaLLuvar is a divine poet,
SP>look for hidden meanings' etc.
Nice. If I agree with the redundancy theory, I am honest;
otherwise I am "jumping in a bandwagon"??
I will try to summarize your objections to deeper meaning in
eNNenba... Correct me if I am wrong.
1. eN has not been used for thought anywhere in sangam lit.
Though this may not be a valid argument formally (well, may be
vaLLUvar started it), I consider it a valid objection.
2. after calling them kaN, how can there be any distinction?
Well, one can always qualify an example with caveats (kambar has done
it). May be suitability of eyes as example ends with the importance
"to life" part. I tend to agree with Selva because of "Enai ezhuthenba".
****
3. If one knows counting well, can he appreciate
Tamil literature for instance ?
How come eN has been restricted to "knowing to count," while
ezhuthu has been extended to "appreciation of Tamil literature"?
If you assume eN encompasses the science of mathematics and ezhuthu
******
covers literature and philosophy (particularly the later), the connection
can be supported. Many great philosophers have been mathematicians
too (Aristotle to Russel). Of course, if you accept Selva's
interpretation that eN stands for anlytical ability, it is obvious
that it is a pre-requisite before you read literature, right? (otherwise,
you may accept everything in it as divine-;))
assume: Your saying eN and ezhuthu stand for just the scripts is
****** just another assumption, right?
4. is purely speculative.
Isn't poetry supposed to allow that -- interpretation by reader?
Saying there is no hidden meaning is again speculation, right?
5. Works of poets forced to use so many word in their work
will have more redundany than those who are not.
****
Quite likely, but not always.
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>>
>>Selva> This kind of criticism is born out of not understanding thirukkuRaL
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Selva> and Luv's extraordinary mastery of expression.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> I differ from you. ThirukkuRaL indeed suffers from redundancy
>> in some kuRaLs, where the author repeats the same message or
>> extends the kuRaL to fill up the 7 `seer' for a kuRaL veNpaa.
>> An illustration is the kuRaL # 392, we are so familiar with:
>>
>
>Selva's defense of Luv is no different from his defense of Baaradhi. I am yet
:-)
>to hear a convincing argument from nettors against my claim that Baaradhi
>MIGHT have meant talked about conversion of mosques into temples when
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you consider that Bharathi sang a song in praise of allaa !
>he said 'PaLLithalamanaithum kovil seiguvom'. Reasons such as Baaradhi was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll explain this in a minute !
>he said 'PaLLithalamanaithum kovil seiguvom'. Reasons such as Baaradhi was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>such a great man he wouldn't have meant is, I am sorry, not acceptable. That
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is very much like 'Luv was so great he wouldn't have been redundant'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is all you can understand from what I've been saying,
it is indeed a pity. Shivakumar, I did give many reasons
and with significant supportive evidences, NOT just
an empty rhetoric that Luv was such a great guy that he
would not have used redundant words ! Try and understand
what is said.
About Bharathi's paLLiththalam:
First know that paL > paN
paLLu enbathu sandham udaiya paattu , paNNudaiya paattu.
'paLLu paaduvOmE' is bharathi's expression as well.
In Tamil naL > naN
paL > paN
aL ( nerukkam) > aN
eL ( easy) > eN ( easy)
are common. paLLi ezhuchchi means 'paLLudan paadi
ezhupputhal'. paLLivaasal means mosque for a similar
reason. paLLi is also a common name for a 'village'.
'patti thotti ellaam' = ellaa oorum
What Bharathi says is 'oorellaam kOyil aakkuvOm'
Can't you see Bharathi says paLLith**thalam** ?
>
>I agree, I goofed when I tried to cite Baaradhi's use of the word 'aariya'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in quite a few verses and his admiration for Aurobindo. I would like to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At least we agree on something .
>emphasis though, that my raising this question does not make me a Hindutva
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>agent or any such thing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fine. But converting a mosque into a hindu temple
is hindutva thinking, won't you agree ?
>
>
>Anbudan
>
>J.Shivakumar
anbudan
-Selvaa
Sundara Pandian
[....]
KS>I will try to summarize your objections to deeper meaning in
KS>eNNenba... Correct me if I am wrong.
KS> 1. eN has not been used for thought anywhere in sangam lit.
That is, not to my knowledge. So, I will need some reference
from Sangam works in support of Selva's claim that `eN' also
stands for `to think'.
[.....]
KS> 5. Works of poets forced to use so many word in their work
KS> will have more redundany than those who are not.
KS> ****
^
|_______ wrong!
KS> Quite likely, but not always.
You are putting words into my mouth. All I wrote was that
"Redundancy *may* occur in the `yaappu' poems due to `yaappu
ilakkaNam'". I did not say that "Redundancy *will* occur in the
`yaappu' poems due to `yaappu ilakkaNam'" .
- SP
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>In article <1993Jun30.1...@b30news.b30.ingr.com>
> jshi...@b30news.b30.ingr.com (Shiva Shivakumar) writes:
>>
>paLLi = village is still used in some of the Tamil dialects.
>
>2. He NEED not have written poem on 'allah', then suggest demolition of
>mosques. Not that stupid.
>
>3. As I understand, the mosques in TN are called as 'paLLi vaasal'.
>Not as 'paLLi'. Even moslems, use 'paLLi' to mean school, the popular
>meaning in TN today.
Please see my reply. paL > paN
In schools children in olden days learned to 'recite'
simple things. 'oNNum oNNum reNdu'.. etc.
Most of the literature was also 'songs' which was
really sung. seppalOsai udaiyathu veNbaa etc..
paLLi = school must have come about due this
'singing place' concept. The sleeping quarters and
temples are called as 'paLLi' for the same reason
'singing places' ( paadi uRangap pOvathum, paadi
ezhuppap paduvathum vazhakku - ellOrukkum alla)
paLLi = village is more like 'pastoral'..
>
>KS
>
-Selvaa
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>
> [....]
>
>KS>I will try to summarize your objections to deeper meaning in
>KS>eNNenba... Correct me if I am wrong.
>
>KS> 1. eN has not been used for thought anywhere in sangam lit.
>
> That is, not to my knowledge. So, I will need some reference
>from Sangam works in support of Selva's claim that `eN' also
>stands for `to think'.
What is your interpretation of #696
'eNNiyaar eNNam izhappar idan aRindhu
thunniyaar thunnich cheyin'
Banking clerk will lose count
if some guy eats 'munch-munch' ( thunnuthal ?) nearby ? :-)
[ it is a light hearted joke, not meant to
hurt but make you see the point you're
majorly missing ]
[ if you think it is offensive, my sincere apologies]
> You are putting words into my mouth. All I wrote was that
>"Redundancy *may* occur in the `yaappu' poems due to `yaappu
>ilakkaNam'". I did not say that "Redundancy *will* occur in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>`yaappu' poems due to `yaappu ilakkaNam'" .
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree. But you've repeatedly said that the
redundancy indeed occurs in kuRaL, which you've not
substantiated, as far as I can see.
>
> - SP
>
anbudan
-Selvaa
Sundara Pandian
Writes Shiva Shivakumar (jshi...@b30news.b30.ingr.com) in his
posting on Bharathi:
JS> Selva's defense of Luv is no different from his defense of Baaradhi.
JS> I am yet to hear a convincing argument from nettors against my claim
JS> that Bharathi MIGHT have meant talked about conversion of mosques into
JS> temples when he said 'PaLLithalamanaithum kovil seiguvom'. Reasons such
JS> as Bharathi was such a great man he wouldn't have meant is, I am sorry,
JS> not acceptable, that is very much like 'Luv was so great he wouldn't have
JS> been redundant.'
1. Think about first where does this line
`paLLiththalam anaiththum kOyil seykuvOm'.
If you check in a standard book on Bharati, you will find that
this line occurs in the song, `baaratha dhEsam'. To describe this
song like `Bharati talks in praise of India' would be a meagre abstract
of this song. There is a _great_ sense of national pride, unity,
cultural exchanges, dreams, visual imagery in this song that one has
to read to enjoy it himself. This is one of the many songs where the
poet talks in praise of the unity of India, and to take a meaning
like `Bharati might have meant about conversion of mosques into
temples' is way off the truth and only illustrates the_ignorance of
the person claiming such a meaning. I am not sure about whether this
line is used by vested interests like the Hindutva propagandists
for their Hindutva propaganda but it suffices for me to say that
such claims are ridiculous.
2. As pointed out by Srini or Selva, the word `paLLiththalam' doesn't
mean `paLLi vaasal' as you have mistaken. What does the word
`paLLiththalam' mean ? Think about it. The word `sthalam' means
basically a `temple city' in Sanskrit. In Tamil, we say it as
`thiruththalam'. The word `paLLiththalam' means `paLLi' + `thalam'.
`paLLi' means a `residing place'. `paLLi koLLuthal' means `to sleep'.
Vaisnavites in the net well know that `paLLi koNda perumaaL' is the
name of Vishnu as sleeping. When you combine the two words,
`paLLi' and `thalam', you will see that `paLLiththalam' means
`a residing city of God'. As it is believed by religious people that
God is everywhere, by `paLLiththalam anaiththum kOyil seykuvOm',
Bharathi says that `Let us build temples everywhere(in India)'.
This is *the* general meaning for `paLLiththalam anaiththum kOyil
seykuvOm'. A meaning like this means `Let us convert the mosques
to Hindu temples' is just NOT there. The Tamil word for mosques is
*paLLi vaasal* and NOT *paLLiththalam*. I like to repeat that
`paLLiththalam' means a city or a village. It is a residence area
in general, and it does not stand for a religious temple of any
religion - Islam, Buddhism, Christianity etc. If one reads the
stanza slowly,
`veLLip panimalaiyin meedhulavuvOm - adi
mElaik kadal muzhuthum kappal viduvOm
paLLith thalam anaiththum kOyil seykuvOm engaL
baaratha dhEsam enRu thOL kottuvOm,"
he will see the visual imagery in this stanza. In the first line,
`veLLip panimalaiyin meedhlavuvOm', the poet takes us to the
snow covered Himalayan hills of India. Then, in the second line,
`adi mElaik kadal muzhuthum kappal viduvOm', the poet invites us
to sea travel in the vast Indian ocean below India and to run ships
all along Indian ocean. In the third line `paLLith thalam anaiththum
kOyil seykuvOm', the poet says that - in the place in between
Himalayan hills and Indian ocean below - namely, the country India,
let us build temples everywhere. This is a general visual imagery
that one gets after a first reading of this verse. Anything like
converting mosques to temples just does not fit this picture, this
imagery sketched in this stanza.
3. Also, `kOyil' is a general Tamil word. It does not stand for
Hindu temples alone. It is a common word. Some of my Christian
friends in TN (Catholic) used to refer to their Church as `maadhaa
kOyil'.
4. Bharati is a secular poet. Though Bharati has written more songs
about Hindu gods, he has also written devotional songs about
Allah, Jesus Christ etc. In his song `murasu', Bharati says,
"theeyinaik kumbidum paarppaar - niththam
thikkai vaNangum thurukkar
kOyiR siluvaiyin munnE - ninRu
kumbidum yEsu mathaththaar -
yaarum paNindhidum dheyvam - poruL
yaavinum ninRidum dheyvam,
paarukkuLLE dheyvam onRu; - idhil
=========== ======= ==== =====
paRpala saNdaikaL vENdaam "
======= ========= =======
Not only Bharati observes that all religious Gods are one and
the same, he also adds that as that is the case, the various
religions don't need to fight among themselves. Could such a
secular poet have taken side with a particular religion like
Hinduism and call for converting religious temples of another
religion like Islam to Hindu temples thereby bringing religious
chaos? Impossible. The poet clearly states that the Gods of
Hindus, Muslims, or Christians are one and the same. Why should
he ask to convert the temples from one religion to another one?
Does this not make it clear that Shivakumar's claim is absurd ?
Namaste,
SP
Kirubakaran P.
|> In article <930630052...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
|> >
|> > As I noted in my last article, it doesn't take great
|> >scholarship for one to see the redundancy in the kuRaL
|> >
|> > `eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
|>
|>
|> by asking him to defend kuRaL after kuRaL. I am getting
|> educated in the process. However, I find one thing surprising:
|> SP seems to ignore or brush aside all explanations of Selva.
|> Probably with his learning, the fallacies in Selva's postings
|> are obvious to him. For the benefit of netters like me, may I
|> request him to point them out? For example, Selva gave two
|> meanings to each of the words eN (number and thought) and kaN
|> (eye and path), and explained why there is no redundancy in it.
|> Now, SP says:
|> >it doesn't take great
|> >scholarship for one to see the redundancy in the kuRaLi
|>
|> Since, I lack whatever scholarship it takes to see the redundancy
|> through Selva's defence, may I request SP to explain why Selva's
|> explanation of this kuRaL is wrong?
|>
|> Thanks to SP, MS and Selva for starting this educative thread
|> and keeping it alive.
|>
|>
|> --
|> SRINIVASAN,K
|> School of Textile Engineering Georgia Tech.
|> uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt4084c
|> ARPA: gt4...@prism.gatech.edu
Though my knowledge of Tamil literature is minimal ..I have been able to
appreciate certain tamil poetry when people explain things on the net ..
for example I've been able to follow Selva's explanations of the Kural's.
Also I'd like to mention that the gentlemen involved in this thread are
setting a good example of how to carry on a meaningful,educative and a
decent debate on this electronic medium ..
Humbly,
- kiruba
[ kaRRathu kaiman alavu ..kallathathu kadal (or ulagu ) alavu ]
Arun C. Surendran
thread in detail. Here's what we learned at school about this
particular song:
"PaLLi" in Tamil has a reference to school. I guess the
obvious interpretation would be to say that "lets make all schools
sacred temples of learning".
I certainly agree with SP's idea that the context of the
song itself rules out any reference to mosques.
Yours,
Surendran
Sundara Pandian
SP> `solluka solliR payanudaiya sollaRka
SP> sollil payanilaach chol." ( #200 )
Selva> I ask you ( and those who think as you do ) to
Selva> look up the previous 3 kuRaLs in the _same_ chapter.
Selva> `arum payan aayum aRivinaar sollaar
Selva> perum payan illaatha sol' ( #198 )
Selva> ( rough outer translation: Those wise-folks who
Selva> understand-analyse Great Benefit will not
Selva> utter words that are not of great benefit)
Selva> `poruL theerndha pochchaandhum sollaar maruL theerndha
Selva> maasaRu kaatchchi yavar'. (#199 )
Selva> ( rough outer translation: maruL theerndha maasaRu kaatchiyavar:
Selva> those who are devoid of delusions/confusions and who are
Selva> of flawless insight
Selva> poruL theerndha - pochchaandhum sollaar = won't say meaningless
Selva> words _even_ forgetfully !!)
Selva> Now, SP and Mr. Ragunathan think that Luv has said
Selva> wasteful words 'to fill up seer' !!
Looks like you and some other folks still don't get it!
In the chapter `payanila sollaamai', as you have cited in
the kuRaLs #198, #199, what VaLLuvar advises is not to
speak benefitless (payan illaadha) words. He advises people
to speak useful words that yield benefit. What is our observation
on the kuRaL
"solluka solliR payanudaiya sollaRka
sollil payanilach chol." (#200) ?
[Translation: pEsum pOdhu payanuLLa soRkaLai mattumE pEsa vENdum.
payanillaadha soRkaLaip pEsak kUdaathu. ]
The four seers `sollaRka sollil payanilaach chol' are
*redundant* in #200. It does NOT mean that they have NO BENEFIT
to the people who read it. What VaLLuvar advises is not to speak
benefitless words. What prevents one from speaking benefitful
words again, as it bears benefit to those who listen to it?
We do not say that the part `sollaRka sollil payanilaach chol'
has no benefit at all to the people who read it. What we say is
that `sollaRka sollil payanilaach chol' does not add anything
NEW to the previous part `solluka solliR payanudaiya'. In fact,
`solluka solliR payanudaiya' and `sollaRka sollil payanilaach
chol' mean one and the same. In an ethical or moral work, a poet
can indeed *repeat* a moral message to stress or reinforce his
moral message. Likewise, VaLLuvar repeats here his message `solluka
solliR payanudaiya' with same meaning seers `sollaRka sollil
payanilaach chol'. This may be to fill the seven seers for a kuRaL
veNpaa or VaLLuvar may have thought to repeat his moral message.
Anyway, our observation that the kuRaL #200 suffers from redundancy
is a correct one. It is no big deal, however, as in moral works,
moral messages can indeed be repeated. We can admit it honestly.
Namaste,
SP
Bala SWAMINATHAN
> The kuRaL is
>
> "eNNenba Enai ezhuththenba ivviraNdum
> kaNNenba vaazhum uyirkku." (#392)
SP thinks that "eN" means count, and then goes on to explain the KuRaL.
He hasn't taken into account that "eN" could also mean eNNuthal => to think.
> What does Selva say? Selva interprets `eN' as `numbers' and
>`think'. Whereas there are words like `eNNam' meaning `thoughts',
>I would like to see a reference from Selva from the Sangam words
>where the word *eN* has been used to mean *to think*. The word
>`eN' in its verb form means only `to count'. Without any reference
>for `eN' with the meaning `to think' (sindhiththal), I would call
>it only a `speculation'.
There is at least one "naaladiyaar paadal" which use "eN" in the sense
of thinking. Let's look at #80
thAn_kedinum thakkAr_kEdu eNNaRka than_udambin
oon_kedinum uNNaar_kaiththu uNNaRka - vAn_kavintha
vaiyagam ellaam peRinum uraiyaRka
poyyOdu idaimidaintha chol
my rough translation:
--------------------
Even if destruction of ones self is imminent, he should not ``think''
about harming the sAnROr. Even if you must emaciate (due to hunger),
do not seek recourse to unqualified persons. Even if the whole world
is offerred, do not interpolate Truth with absurdities.
Just my contribution to this thread.
natpudan
S_Bala
PS: I understand that Selva has alread given numerous example from
the KuRaL itself.
th
--
____________________________________________________________________
| Time looks like an innocent thing; but verily it is a saw that |
| is continually sawing away the life of a man. -- Valluvar |
|__________________________________________________________________|
Chitra Ranganathan
Here is another one of Subramanya Bharathi's poem , which clearly shows
what he beleived in.
theeyinnai kummbidum paarppar,-niththandh
thikkai vaNangidum dhurukkar,
kOyirch chiluvaiyin munnE - ninRu
kumbidum yEsu madhaththaar __
yaarum panindhidum dheivam, - pOruL
yaaavinnum ninnRidum dheivam,
paarukkuLLE dheiva monRu;-idhil
parppala sandaigal vEndAm
--Bharathi
After saying that all religions should live in harmony, will he say 'demolish
mosques ' and be in harmony!!!
natpudan
--Chitra..
------------------------------------------------
cholvadhu theLindhu chol!!!....
------------------------------------------------
S. Sankarapandi
(lots of stuff deleted to save bw)
In article <930701054...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pand
ian) writes:
>
>Writes Shiva Shivakumar (jshi...@b30news.b30.ingr.com) in his
>posting on Bharathi:
>
>JS> Selva's defense of Luv is no different from his defense of Baaradhi.
>JS> I am yet to hear a convincing argument from nettors against my claim
>JS> that Bharathi MIGHT have meant talked about conversion of mosques into
>JS> temples when he said 'PaLLithalamanaithum kovil seiguvom'. Reasons such
>JS> as Bharathi was such a great man he wouldn't have meant is, I am sorry,
>JS> not acceptable, that is very much like 'Luv was so great he wouldn't have
>JS> been redundant.'
>
> 1. Think about first where does this line
> `paLLiththalam anaiththum kOyil seykuvOm'.
> poet talks in praise of the unity of India, and to take a meaning
> like `Bharati might have meant about conversion of mosques into
> temples' is way off the truth and only illustrates the_ignorance of
> the person claiming such a meaning. I am not sure about whether this
> line is used by vested interests like the Hindutva propagandists
> for their Hindutva propaganda but it suffices for me to say that
> such claims are ridiculous.
>
> This is *the* general meaning for `paLLiththalam anaiththum kOyil
> seykuvOm'. A meaning like this means `Let us convert the mosques
> to Hindu temples' is just NOT there.
> Hindus, Muslims, or Christians are one and the same. Why should
> he ask to convert the temples from one religion to another one?
> Does this not make it clear that Shivakumar's claim is absurd ?
>
This has already been explained to him by many netters on an earlier
occasion. Leave him guys/gals, he is trying to get some inner meanings
out of Bharathi similar to what Selva does with TirukkuRaL. However, there is
a great difference here. Selva is trying to get good inner meanings and he
uses his etymological knowledge in digging out the inner meanings whereas JS
uses the knowledge of colloquial Tamil to get a destructive inner meaning.
IMO, both are pointless exercises though JS's interpretaions can very
well help the Hindutva fascists. Anyway, both vaLLuvar and Bharathi are not
going to come out their graves to clarify what they wrote. Nobody is going to
follow what they say. Let us interpret whatever way we like.
So finally Kavidhai discussions transformed into TirukkuRaL discussions ! I
agree that `yaappu' can leave some reduntant words in kavidhai and TirukkuRaL
is no exception.
On the other hand, most of the modern day yaappuk kavidhais are written
only for the yaappu. They only have the form and not the content.
Similarly most of the so-called puthuk kavidhais have neither the form nor
the content. These are the ones which MS called as `kavidhai allaathathu'
but became popular as kavidhais.
So, we need to identify what are `kavidhai' and what are `kavidhai
allaathathu', no matter what form (yaappu or puthu) they are !
--
S. Sankarapandi
ssan...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Chitra Ranganathan
>>
>to hear a convincing argument from nettors against my claim that Baaradhi
>MIGHT have meant talked about conversion of mosques into temples when
>he said 'PaLLithalamanaithum kovil seiguvom'. Reasons such as Baaradhi was
>such a great man he wouldn't have meant is, I am sorry, not acceptable. That
>is very much like 'Luv was so great he wouldn't have been redundant'.
>
>
>
>J.Shivakumar
I am giving yet another illustration , that proves, how secular a poet
Bharathi was. This clearly shows that he was not biased towards any
one religion. For him all religions were the same.
This is the 'kAppu' he gives for his pudhiya Aththichoodi.
paramporuL vazhththu
--------------------
Aththichoodi yiLampiRai yaNindhu
mOnath thirukku muzhuveN mEniyaan
karuniRang konduppaar kadalmisaik kidappOn
mugamadhu nabikku maRaiyaruL purindhOne
yEsuvin thandhai yennappala madhaththinar
uruvagaththaalE uNarndhuNa radhu
palavagai yaagap paravidum paramboruL
onRE; adhaniyal oLiyirRu maRivAm;
adhanilai kaNdaar allalai agaRRinaar;
adhanaruL vazhththi amaravazh veidhuvOme.
--Bharathi.
thanadhu param poruL vazhththil ella madhaththaiyum
onRenakk kooRi vaNangiyavan Bharathi. appadipatta parandha nOkkudaiyavan,
oru madhaththaarai eppadi keezhaaga kooruvaan.
Think about it!
natpudan
--Chitra..
--
-----------------------------
cholvana theLindhu chol!!!..
-----------------------------
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
anpar js vidaama paLLiththalam anaiththum
kOyil seiyuvOmai kolai seiythu kaakaaikku
pOttuvittaar.
nanRi
kathiravan [from rmv's terminal]
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
In article <2C326D...@news.service.uci.edu> sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu (M. Sundaramoorthy) writes:
[ ..]
>>>
>>> [ Lot of Luv's/Selva's advice and examples of how Luv uses the
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> same word in differnt meanings deleted, as I found they are
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> irrelevant to current discussion]
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> If you can NOT understand the importance of Luv's
>> use of multiple meaning in the same kuRaL, and
>> consider this fact as irrelevant ( !!!), I honestly
>> don't understand how I can debate with you !
>>
>> You say you found the examples I cited of multi-meaning
>> instances as _irrelevant_. Would you please
>> care to share your understanding _why_ they are
>> irrelevant. It is my view that they are centrally
>> relevant !!
>
>
> as irrelevant, unless you assume you are discussing with a dumb
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> idiot.
^^^^^^
Is this an answer ?!
>
> (2). Even a dumb idiot would know that in a langauge there are many
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:-)
> words with multiple meanings and even such dumb people use words
> in multiple meanings. So no one will be surprised or will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> question if you have made a single statement pointing out the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> fact that Luv uses the same word with mulitple meanings
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> rather than giving half a dozen examples which are no way
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> related to the subject of discussion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[1] While many might know that a word might have
different meanings in a language, I don't think it is
without surprise to encounter Luv's use of the same
word with different meanings in a _single_
kuRaL. I cited many such examples where he does this.
It is not a trivial point. Occurence of
multiple meanings in a _language_ is a well
known fact for many ( even to the 'idiot's as you
observe ).
[2] If the occurence of multiple meanings a word in the same
kuRaL is acceptable to you, you could have said
'point well taken' or something similar, rather than
saying it is 'irrelevant'. It is centrally relevant
to my line of argument. Not 'irrelevant' as you say !
>>> tell what is the difference between the first and second
>>> paras?. Still it looks same to me.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> you have to buy a new antenna :-)
>> ( this is what my antennas are telling)
>
> Do you manufacture 'Luv' brand antennas?. :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, it would be great if many had Luv brand antennas !
:-)
Seriously, you've not tried to explain why you think
'still it looks same to me'.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I have another kuRaL home work to Selva or other scholars.
>>>
>>> At one place Luv says,
>>>
>>> SelvaththuL selvam sevich chelvam; achchelvam
>>> selvaththuL ellaam thalai
>>>
>>> and at another place he says,
>>>
>>> aruL selvam selvaththuL selvam; poruL selvam
>>> pooriyaar kaNNum uLa.
>>>
>>> I am confused with the two superlative selvams. Which is actually
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> the 'SelvaththuL selvam'?. aruL or sevi?.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> No conflict here !! :-)
>> What Luv says 'sevich_chelvam' is
>> indeed what one understands as _aruL_ !!
>> One has to understand first before beginning to
>> interpret !
>> Consider the semantic ( and reality as well)
>> progression..
>> Listening > understanding > Love
>> ( listening = understanding = Love )
>>
>
> OK. I accept for time being whatever Luv said was with a purpose
> and did was with perfection.
>
> So, listening is the first step, understanding is the next and love
> comes after that.
>
> The numbers of the concerned kuRaLs suggest that he talks
> about 'aruL' (#241) first and 'kELvi' (#411) next?. (I picked up
> these numbers from one of SP's postings). How come Luv failed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> in the order?. When he has already emphasised the ultimate selvam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 'aruL', where is the need to re-emphasies the 'kELvi' selvam as
> ultimate (that would lead to 'aruL' selvam, anyways?).
I think you're merely trying hard to find _some_ fault
with Luv ! Again, you've not considered your points well !
Luv talks about 'God' in the first chapter, but
that might be the last 'realization' ( assuming that it is
possible or one such God exists as Luv says)! Did I claim
that the kuRaL numbers indicate such meanings as you
attribute ?
>
> (Remember, I haven't ordered my new antenna from you yet :-),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and so you may still consider me as a 'maNmaaN punai paavai').
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
New powerful antennas can not be bought off the shelf,
but if you patiently try, you might be able to build one
for yourself :-)
[ I mentioned about 'nuNmaaN nuzhaipulam ..' to point out
that Luv did in fact place great emphasis on
subtlity...]
>
>
>> I'll give another example in tamil: the word 'kEL' means
>> 'to listen' it also means 'to love'. kELir means
>> friend or anyone who is 'anbu udaiyavar'.
>> kaathu means ear and kaathal means love.
>> Also note that 'aL' means ear and it also means
>> love ( aLi is love, aL = aLLal = to feel close and loving)
>> Even more _interesting_ is 'vaL' means ear and
>> it means love too ! [ note we are referring vaLLuvar
>> as Luv !! :-) ] [ vaLLal, vaLLi, vaLLiyam ( = mezhugu).
>
> Will you still discuss with me if I say the above para is irrelevant
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to the current discussion?. Anyways, this is my last post in this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> thread whether or not you are ready to discuss with me.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you care to consider what was said above ?! *sigh*
Your tone in the above seems to show that you're
emotionally affected. I cited other words involving
ear/hearing and 'love' to support the view that
listen=understand=love has a semantic equivalence in
tamil and other words with different phonemes also
support this ( thus kEL = listen and love is NOT a
fluke coincidence).
>
> Another kuRal where there is redundancy:
>
> thoonguga thoongi ceyaRpaala; thoongaRka
> thoongaadhu ceyyum vinai.
There is no redundancy in this kuRaL, even assuming
your meaning of 'thoongu'.
>
> There are many kuRaLs of this type dealing with 'do's and 'don't do's.
> 'Don't do's most of the times seem to be the extensions of 'do's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (my antenna says so).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, seem to be extensions, but not.
>
> ('ERRukkoLLa mudindhaal ERRukkoLLungaL; mudiyaavittaal ERRukkoLLa
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> vENdaam'. Do I hide something in the second sentence?. No, I am
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> not Luv or Luver :-) ).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[1] You don't seem to realize that the second part
'mudiyaavittaal ERRukkoLLa vENdaam' is NOT an
extension of 'don't' for a 'do' in the first
part. mudiyaavittaal, ungaLukku fatwa vidalaam :-)
( khomeini pathavi koduththa puNNiyavaan allavaa :-) )
'mudiyaavittaal, naan saNdaikku varuvEn, kObiththuk
koLLuvEn..' 'mudiyaavittaal, _neengaL_ innoru tharam
padiththup paarungaL..' thus there are
many possibilities, and only one possibility
is indicated by your second part. Thus you don't
hide anything in the second part, but you have
eliminated many other possibility by your
second part of the sentence.
[2] Well, you might have written something without
meaning anything deep, but can one assume the same
about Luv's words when he says in many places the
importance of saying something deep, unique etc.
He says 'solluga sollaip pirithOr sol
ach chollai vellum sol inmai aRindhu'
and he says 'arumpayan aayum aRivainaar sollaar
perum payan illaatha sol'...
Are we not trying to understand what Luv says ?
>
>>>> anbudan
>>>> -Selvaa
>>>> "vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
>>>>
>>>
>>> M. Sundaramoorthy
>>> sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
>>>
>>> "No conflict with Luv; only with Luvers"
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> I'll quote vaLLuvar:
>>
>> nuNmaaN nuzhaipulam illaan ezhilnalam
>> maNmaaN punai paavai yaRRu !!
>
> Again, "No conflicts with Luv: only with Luvers (aka Tamil 'langots')"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I quoted that kuRaL 'nuNmaaN..' to draw your
attention to his emphasis on subtlity in expression,
because you guys were taking a limited sense of
kuRaL and claiming that thats all to it.
Since your reference to Tamil 'langot' appears to
mean something like 'language bigot' probably because
I offer explanations about some linguistic aspects,
let me quote another one of Luv's kuRaL:
nayan_saaraa nanmaiyin nIkkum, payan_saaraa
paNbil_sol pallaar agaththu.
Luv indeed talks about 'vagai aRindhu vallavai vaay sOraar,
*sollin thogai aRindha thooymayavar*' and in another
kuRaL 'sollin vagai aRiyaar vallathooum il'.
Luv says :
kaRRu aRindhaar kalvi viLangum, kasadu aRa
sol_therithal vallaar agaththu.
Unfortunately, it is not as
'uNarvuthu udaiyaar mun sollal valarvathan
paaththiyuL neer sorindhaRRu'
>
>>--
>>>Our business hours are: 8:00AM-6:00PM PDT, MONDAY through FRIDAY.
>>>Should you see any post originating from this address during these
>>>hours, inform 1-900-SundarM [the call costs $3.99 a minute :-)].
>>
>>
>> anbudan
>> -Selvaa
>> "vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
>>
>> p.s. vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum olirththEn veRum 'business hours'il
>> mattum alla ! :-)
>
> This sounds as funny as Yogi Ramsurat Kumar's suggestion to chant
> Ramnaam 24 hours a day. If some one is ready to take care of me and
> my family needs, I don't mind immersing myself in "uyirkkuL inikkum
> oLirththEn" or chanting Ramnaam or whatever 24 hours a day, 7 days
> a week.
You've misunderstood my words ! entha nEraththil
vaLLuvaththai ninaiththaalum, athil aiyyam aRa
oLirum pEraRivuththEn, inippathaich chonnEn.
ennEramum vaLLuvaththaip pasiththuk koNdu, kaLiththuk
koNdu irukkiREn enRu solla villai. I'm not chanting
as you imagine ! 'ninaithoRum ninaithoRum' does NOT
mean 'always' but 'as you think more and more' which
can happen now and again but not 'always in the sense of
24 hours'.
>
>
> M. Sundaramoorthy
> sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
>
> "Conductor saar, check if all the passengers have the right antenna.
> There is a kuRaL written inside the bus you see".
I hope there is some people in the bus who have
the basic antenna to 'listen' to this call by
a fellow passenger, first !
>
> "I'll also check if they have 'semantic root' attachement, driver
> saar, that would help them go deeper and deeper".
Sure, sensible thing !
M. Sundaramoorthy
>
[Lot of stuff deleted as I don't have anything write on those]
>
> I think you're merely trying hard to find _some_ fault
> with Luv !
Let me emphasise last time, "No conflicts with Luv; only with Luvers".
If you assume the role of Luv's defence attorney, Good Luck.
Another request: Feel free to post your interpretations on 'kuRaLs',
no matter I agree or not, in which others may be interested. However,
please do not stretch your imagination to misinterprete the opinions
of the fellow netters.
>
> anbudan
> -Selvaa
M. Sundaramoorthy
sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>In article <C9pqA...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>
>
> [Lot of stuff deleted as I don't have anything write on those]
>>
>> I think you're merely trying hard to find _some_ fault
>> with Luv !
>
> Let me emphasise last time, "No conflicts with Luv; only with Luvers".
> If you assume the role of Luv's defence attorney, Good Luck.
This does look strange to me. If some one is offering
an interpretation of Luv's words, is he/she Luv's
attorney ? If you or SP or someone else says
that there is 'redundancy' and I
feel there is no redundancy, and I offer my reasons,
do I become Luv's attorney ?
You say you have conflict with Luvers, have you
advanced any sustainable arguement of whom you
call Luvers ? Sundaramoorthi, if there is flaws
in my arguement, please feel free to point out !
The one-line you selected to comment on was
re your 'point' that how come Luv chose to
write 'aruL' in an earlier kuRaL and 'kELvi'
in a later kuRaL. And this was in response to
my reply about the semantic equivalence of
'aruL' and 'kELvi' in the two kuRaLs you cited
to show that Luv proposed something conflicting.
>
> Another request: Feel free to post your interpretations on 'kuRaLs',
> no matter I agree or not, in which others may be interested. However,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In direct exchange of viewpoints, it is true I was
placing my arguements hoping that you would see what
I am saying just as you might be doing. About
providing interpretations, sure I'm not hesitating
to post because you or anyone else might not agree.
> please do not stretch your imagination to misinterprete the opinions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of the fellow netters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't understand why you should feel compelled
to issue this request. May I say that you're
implying something which is not a fact.
Am I misinterpreting fellow nettors opinions ?
Can you quote instances ?
>
>>
>> anbudan
>> -Selvaa
>
> M. Sundaramoorthy
> sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
>--
>Our business hours are: 8:00AM-6:00PM PDT, MONDAY through FRIDAY.
>Should you see any post originating from this address during these
>hours, inform 1-900-SundarM [the call costs $3.99 a minute :-)].
anbudan
-Selvaa