anthaNar
C.R. Selvakumar
I saw the following and I thought I should respond:
___________
@Subject: Re: andhaNar (Re: DRAVIDIAN CULTURE - BACK STABBING !)
@From: "Parthasarati Dileepan" <dile...@cdc.net>
@Date: 1998/03/30
@Message-ID: <6fplr8$h...@cdc2.cdc.net>
@Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
@
@[Subscribe to soc.culture.tamil]
@[More Headers]
@
@
@Y. Malaiya wrote in message <35202ABB...@cs.colostate.edu>...
@>
@>The kural occurs in the chapter dedicated to ascetics. Now in Jainism,
@>as well as in the vedic faith, the priests (those who perform sacred
@>rites for others) rank lower than ascetics. Thus "andhaNar" can not
@>possibly mean a priest, at least not in the sense of one who performs
@>worship for some gain.
@
@
@In Tamil literature the word andhaNar is often used to refer to
@those brahmins who recite the vEdhaas. They can be priests,
@but need not be. The main requirement is that they chant vEdhaas.
@The use of the word andhaNar is almost always accompanied by
@some reference to the vedhaas. Here are some examples:
ThiruvaLLuvar does not use the word 'andhaNar' to refer to
brahmins, caste or otherwise. I don't understand how your
citation from 'senkOnmai' supports your view !
The expression 'andhaNar noorkkum aRaththiRkum' can mean
one or both of the following meanings:
(1) 'carefully composed books of the wise and the aRam'
(the word aRam can not be adequately translated)
(2) 'the aRam practiced by the wise' ( nooRkum can also mean
'practice')
VaLLuvar defines the word 'andhaNar' as one who is 'a wise/just one
who is compassionate towards all life-forms'. ( see his
words 'andhaNar enbOr aRavOr..'). The Vedhists are those
ate meat and killed animals regularly. Kapilar is a highly
regarded Tamil poet roughly belonging to the period of vaLLuvar
and he is said to be a brahmin. He is a meat eater.
As is well known Vedic sacrifice involves killing animal. VaLLuvar
does not refer to Vedhic brahmins by 'andhaNar'. He strongly condemns
their practice as in
'avi corindhu aayiram vEttalin onRan,
uyir cekuththu uNNaamai nanRu.'
@
@
@(1) ThirukkuraL, senkOnami #3:
@------------------------------------------
@andhaNar nooRkum aRaththiRkum Athiyaay
@ninRadhu mannavan kOl.
@
@
@(2) MaNimEkalai, Chapter 13:
@--------------------------------------
@"mudhumaRai andhaNir..."
@
@"arumaRai mudhalvar andhaNar iruvarum ..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What are the words that follow the above. When the author says
'iruvarum' does he not talk about *two* ? Who are the two ?
@
@"Odhal andhaNarkku ovvAn ..."
@
@In this chapter Saaththanaar uses the term "andhaNar repeatedly
@to refer to brahmins, that too in quite condescending terms. In this
@chapter Saaththanaar puts some of the SCT brahmin haters to shame
@with his vitriolic attack on "andhaNars". There is no doubt that he
@clearly and unequivocally uses the term "andhaNar" to refer to brahmins.
@(Sorry Kathir, Saththaanaar does not agree with you on this one!!!)
@
@
@(3) ThoNdaradippodi Azhvaar's Thirumaalai verse 43:
@----------------------------------------------------------------------
@
@"... vEdhamOr naangumOthi, thamarkaLil thalaivaraaya
@ saathi andhaNarkaLElum ...."
Here the Azhvaar might have referred to 'brahmin', I'll have
to look into it.
@
@Please note that the Azhvaar uses the adjective "saathi" (caste)
@in front of "andhaNar". If "andhaNar" has nothig to do with caste
@why use this adjective?
The point is ThiruvaLLuvar had defined his word 'andhaNar'
and he had contrasted with 'avi corindhu aayiram vEttuvOr'.
He calls andhaNar 'aRavOr'. He defines a quality of a person
*not* a caste. ThoNdaradippodi aazhvaar might have used
in a different sense and he might have lived at a later period.
@>
@>Yes, they would interesting to examine. What is the origin of this
@>word?
@
@I have provided some quotes above. I am not familiar with the origin.
@If I were you I would take any explanation given by DK-centric Tamil
@enthusiasts with a grain of salt, a large grain that is.
@
@
@> Is it an exact equivalent of Sanskrit "BraahmaNa"?
@
@
@I think so. As you rightly pointed out earlier, birth alone does not make
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, not true.
@a "BraahmaNa" aka "andhaNar". Character is a prerequisite, vide
@conversation between Yudhishtra and Yaksha. Obviously, most
@brahmins just by birth won't qualify. Whether we like it not, the term
@andhaNar is understood by Tamils as a practising brahmin. At least
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, not true. Unless all tamils are Dileepan aazhvaars :-)
@in the years past, practicing brahmins exhibited exhalting characteristics
@and thus were held in high esteem.
@
@
@-- Dileepan
selvaa
Parthasarati Dileepan
C.R. Selvakumar wrote in message <89198735...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>...
>
>
> The expression 'andhaNar noorkkum aRaththiRkum' can mean
> one or both of the following meanings:
>
"can" is the operative word in the above!!!
Those who are ideologically motivated often refuse to see
straight forward interpretation and seek one that fits their
agenda. Let it be.
But, all I ask of fair minded people is to look into the literature
and see for themselves the volumes of reference to maRai Othum
andhaNar even as early as the days of Paripaadal.
-- Dileepan
C.R. Selvakumar
In article <6gg130$6...@cdc2.cdc.net>,
Parthasarati Dileepan <dile...@cdc.net> wrote:
>C.R. Selvakumar wrote in message <89198735...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>...
>>
>>
>> one or both of the following meanings:
>
>>
>
Beacuse there are two valid possibilities I used the word
'can', obviously not knowing that you will twist it to out of
the realm.
Can you deny that ThiruvaLLuvar had *defined* his usage of the
word 'andhaNar' ? Please first answer this.
Second, answer whether this definition will exclude 'avi corinthu
aayiram vEttuvOr' aka Vedhic Brahmins or not.
>
>Those who are ideologically motivated often refuse to see
>straight forward interpretation and seek one that fits their
>agenda. Let it be.
I wonder who ? Is it not you who want to show that it refers to
'brahmin caste'. What is astounding is for some people
any amount of cheap behaviour is okay, nothing is sacred for them !
It is a simple fact that VaLLuvar *had defined* the term 'andhaNar'
and yet this kind of mean 'my caste' arguments ! Don't come back and
protest 'I never claimed that I belong to brahmin caste'.
It is sickeningly clear. You talk of agendas !
Truth is of no value to you, Dileepan, is it ?!
For once do a good thing! Don't denigrate thiruvaLLuvar !
>
>But, all I ask of fair minded people is to look into the literature
>and see for themselves the volumes of reference to maRai Othum
>andhaNar even as early as the days of Paripaadal.
Jains called their sacred wrtings as Oththu, maRai. Same is true of
Buddists. Even as recently as the 17-19th centuries, the Christians
called their Bible as vEdam and maRai. Whereas 'avi corindhu aayiram
vEttuvOr' will surely point to Vedhic brahmins ( if not
at least as often as 9 out of 10 times).
We have to see what VaLLuvar says - not what Paripaadal
says *because* he had defined the word 'andhaNar'.
>-- Dileepan
selvaa
Parthasarati Dileepan
C.R. Selvakumar wrote in message <8920610...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>...
> Truth is of no value to you, Dileepan, is it ?!
> For once do a good thing! Don't denigrate thiruvaLLuvar !
I have no interest in arguing with the likes of Mr. C.R. Selvakumar.
Truth and ThiruvaLLuvar are not the property of any given
individual.
For others, let me just add what I said in my last post, "all I ask
of fair minded people is to look into the literature and see for
themselves the *volumes* of reference to maRai Othum andhaNar
even as early as the days of Paripaadal." References were
already proivided several days ago from Manimekalai and
Thirumaalai. In most of these cases, and others, the text stands
for itself, no interpretation is necessary from me or from others.
-- Dileepan
Kumar Soundrapandian
This is not fair to fair minded people, Dr.Dileepan. Then, you shouldn't
have brought this 'andhanar' subject in the first place. You were
pursuing Kathiravan till the end, and now when new questions are raised,
you are backing out. I'm reproducing CRS questions which I'm keen to
know your answer.
- Kumar
Can you deny that ThiruvaLLuvar had *defined* his usage of the word
'andhaNar' ? Please first answer this.
Second, answer whether this definition will exclude 'avi corinthu
aayiram vEttuvOr' aka Vedhic Brahmins or not.
>
> -- Dileepan
C.R. Selvakumar
In article <6gh754$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Kumar Soundrapandian <sou...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Parthasarati Dileepan wrote:
>>
>> C.R. Selvakumar wrote in message <8920610...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>...
>>
>> > Truth is of no value to you, Dileepan, is it ?!
>>
>> > For once do a good thing! Don't denigrate thiruvaLLuvar !
>>
>> I have no interest in arguing with the likes of Mr. C.R. Selvakumar.
>> Truth and ThiruvaLLuvar are not the property of any given
>> individual.
>>
>> For others, let me just add what I said in my last post, "all I ask
>> of fair minded people is to look into the literature and see for
>> themselves the *volumes* of reference to maRai Othum andhaNar
>> even as early as the days of Paripaadal." References were
>> already proivided several days ago from Manimekalai and
>> Thirumaalai. In most of these cases, and others, the text stands
>> for itself, no interpretation is necessary from me or from others.
>
>
>This is not fair to fair minded people, Dr.Dileepan. Then, you shouldn't
>have brought this 'andhanar' subject in the first place. You were
>pursuing Kathiravan till the end, and now when new questions are raised,
>you are backing out. I'm reproducing CRS questions which I'm keen to
>know your answer.
Kumar, I'm not not surprised by Mr. Dileepan's backing out.
I'm also not hoping that the "likes of" Mr. Dileepan will ever
get convinced of anything of what VaLLuvar says
other than the bigoted Manu Dharmic nonsense. It is an extremely
sad state.
enRu ozhiyumO indhath than-saathip piththam ?!
selvaa
C.R. Selvakumar
In article <6gh14g$j1j$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>,
Parthasarati Dileepan <dile...@utc.edu> wrote:
>C.R. Selvakumar wrote in message <8920610...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>...
>
>> Truth is of no value to you, Dileepan, is it ?!
>
>> For once do a good thing! Don't denigrate thiruvaLLuvar !
>
>I have no interest in arguing with the likes of Mr. C.R. Selvakumar.
>Truth and ThiruvaLLuvar are not the property of any given
>individual.
I've no interest in convincing you, or the 'likes of' you.
Haven't I seen enough of the mean 'than-saathip piththu'
in these fora ?! You've once again proven by not addressing
my very specific questions that you're not interested in
what thiruvvaLLuvar says.
>
>For others, let me just add what I said in my last post, "all I ask
>of fair minded people is to look into the literature and see for
>themselves the *volumes* of reference to maRai Othum andhaNar
>even as early as the days of Paripaadal." References were
>already proivided several days ago from Manimekalai and
>Thirumaalai. In most of these cases, and others, the text stands
>for itself, no interpretation is necessary from me or from others.
First, you've to answer the two questions I raised. We are
talking about what thiruvaLLuvar says. He had *defined*
the word *andhaNar*. If you don't want to see this simple
fact but want to believe in the racistic Manu 'Dharma',
go ahead !
Now the following is not addressed to Mr. Dileepan for whom
'Om bhadram karNEbi: sruNuyaama Devah ' ( the meaning is roughly
'Om. nallathE kEtkattum engkaL kaadhukaL, DevarkLE')
may not mean anything, it appears.
Now talking *not* about vaLLuvar's work:
In Tamil, maRai, vEdham, Oththu, vaaymozi etc. had been used for
sacred writings/sayings of all people. In some places 'maRai'
undoubtedly refer to the Vedic(/Sanskit) Vedas,
but in many other places it refers to tamil works, elsewhere
to Jainistic works and similarly to
Buddhistic works and much more recently to Christian Bible.
Now, what one has to ask here is: is this true or not.
Next, when the expression 'naanmaRai' is used in Tamil,
even then only in some places it would mean the
Vedic/Sanskritic Vedas. The first of these
four maRai had been explicitly stated to be 'aRam' ( 'aRam muthalaa naan
maRai'). This obviously means that maRai is not the Vedic/Sanskritic
Veda. Tamil literature says that the 'naanmaRai' was given
by Sivan under 'kallaalamaram' (literally, but not necessarily
meaning 'stone-Banyan-Tree').
Another thing to be kept in mind is that the Vedic/Sanskritic Vedas
are only *three* and for long they were known as 'thrayi' ( The Three),
although Atharvana Veda was later added to become chatur-Veda
(four vedas). Even today, the Adharvana Veda is not as common.
One has to ask whether these are true or not.
It is a glorious fact that Vedas (Vedic/Sanskritic)contain
supreme truths and insights. It was/is most highly regarded by Tamils.
Unfortunately along came the extremely mean minded racistic
Manu Dharmic perverts and there are more followers to this
monumentally shameful theory than the glorious, soul-stirring,
ancient Light called Vedas/Vedantha(Sanskriic/Vedic).
It is really a sad fact. Hopefully, at least in the 21st century
there will be greater understanding of the 'nan-marabu' ( Good Tradition)
selvaa
>-- Dileepan
Raghu Seshadri
C.R. Selvakumar (selv...@valluvar.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
I know very little about the subject under discussion,
and definitely Sri Dileepan and Sri Selvakumar know
infinitely more about it than I do. That said, I
make the following (what I consider to be)
common-sense observations.
Hope I don't annoy either side.
Sri Selvakumar writes -
: First, you've to answer the two questions I raised. We are
: talking about what thiruvaLLuvar says. He had *defined*
: the word *andhaNar*. If you don't want to see this simple
: fact but want to believe in the racistic Manu 'Dharma',
: go ahead !
Dileepan never even mentioned Manu in this
thread. This discussion can proceed just thru
quotations from Kural and other Tamil
literature, without Manu and his infamous
shastra being brought in. The resolution of
this controversy lies ONLY in Tamil
literature, so why not confine your attention
to that ?
: Now the following is not addressed to Mr. Dileepan for whom
: 'Om bhadram karNEbi: sruNuyaama Devah ' ( the meaning is roughly
: 'Om. nallathE kEtkattum engkaL kaadhukaL, DevarkLE')
: may not mean anything, it appears.
Not fair, Mr Selvakumar. Did Mr Dileepan
ever say that he doesn't like goodness ?
This is a mere scholarly debate, to paint
those who disagree with your interpretation
as "against goodness" is the kind of error
that educated scholars such as yourself
should not make.
: Now talking *not* about vaLLuvar's work:
: In Tamil, maRai, vEdham, Oththu, vaaymozi etc. had been used for
: sacred writings/sayings of all people. In some places 'maRai'
: undoubtedly refer to the Vedic(/Sanskit) Vedas,
: but in many other places it refers to tamil works, elsewhere
: to Jainistic works and similarly to
: Buddhistic works and much more recently to Christian Bible.
: Now, what one has to ask here is: is this true or not.
This is true. That's why we are having
a debate, as this meaning is ambiguous.
Thus we have to look at probability,
context and other fuzzy stuff to resolve
the matter.
Now what I said above is true for maRai.
But when we see the word naanmaRai, that
is an entirely different issue. There is
no buddhist, jain or christian work that
is called naanmaRai. That word is exclusively
and unambiguously used for the (4) vedas.
Just thought I 'll point that out.
: Next, when the expression 'naanmaRai' is used in Tamil,
: even then only in some places it would mean the
: Vedic/Sanskritic Vedas. The first of these
: four maRai had been explicitly stated to be 'aRam' ( 'aRam muthalaa naan
: maRai'). This obviously means that maRai is not the Vedic/Sanskritic
: Veda. Tamil literature says that the 'naanmaRai' was given
: by Sivan under 'kallaalamaram' (literally, but not necessarily
: meaning 'stone-Banyan-Tree').
: Another thing to be kept in mind is that the Vedic/Sanskritic Vedas
: are only *three* and for long they were known as 'thrayi' ( The Three),
: although Atharvana Veda was later added to become chatur-Veda
: (four vedas). Even today, the Adharvana Veda is not as common.
: One has to ask whether these are true or not.
My observations -
You are right about Atharva veda being a latecomer,
but by Valluvar's time, it had already appeared
and since then vedas have been called chaturveda.
Your observation that "aRam muthala naanmaRai"
proves that here vedas are not being referred to is
not clear to me. Why do you say this ?
Finally, which other scripture is called
naanmaRai in Tamil literature ? My education in
Tamil is close to non-existent, so please
educate me.
: It is a glorious fact that Vedas (Vedic/Sanskritic)contain
: supreme truths and insights. It was/is most highly regarded by Tamils.
: Unfortunately along came the extremely mean minded racistic
: Manu Dharmic perverts and there are more followers to this
: monumentally shameful theory than the glorious, soul-stirring,
: ancient Light called Vedas/Vedantha(Sanskriic/Vedic).
All true, but please don't mix up and drag in
Manu everytime there is a discussion on veda.
There is no connection between the two.
Mr Dileepan didn't mention Manu, lets all
drop Manu and let his shastra die a well-deserved
death.
: It is really a sad fact. Hopefully, at least in the 21st century
: there will be greater understanding of the 'nan-marabu' ( Good Tradition)
I concur with this good sentiment.
Please continue with the debate without
acrimony or bad feeling.
Thanks,
RS
K. Srinivasan
I am really saddened to see two people who are quite
knowlegeable and capable of bringing "culture" to
the group differing from each other in this style.
This is not the first time that people have differed
from Selva's interpretation of Kural -- Atheists, Saivaites,
Jains, feminists and Vedic Hindus are among the people
who have had differences with Selva's views. His views
may sound too strong and his interpretations might appear
to be a stretch to poeple who do not agree with him.
However, I cannot remember any occasion when
Selva was less than willing to entertain
challenges to his views. In fact, I am a bit surprised
by his retaliation to Dileepan as he has
ingnored even more blatant provocations in the past.
The net has many people who think they can glorify
Tamil only by denigrating Sanskrit. Selva is
one of the few who know the beauty of both too well
to be one of them.
Dileepan has made significant contributions to this
group with his knowledge of Vaishnavite Tamil
literature and, if I remember correctly, is one
of the people that has pointed
out how "non brahmins" have led the evolution
of Vaishnavite philosophy. At least I am not
aware of any saathi pithu posts from him saying
things such as my caste has higher IQ or some other
caste is a parasite.
In this thread, Dileepan cited works other than
KuraL to show a tradition of using the phrase
andhaNar to refer to vedic brahmins. Mallaiya
tended to agree with him? Selva has put forth
reasons as to why we cannot assume vaLLuvar
follows the same tradition ("andhaNar enbOr
aRavOr"). Let us hope through this thread
and others both Selva, Dileepan and the
likes of them :) will conitnue to share their immense
knowledge with the rest of the net.
Thanks,
Srinivasan
C.R. Selvakumar wrote in message <89213732...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>...
>In article <6gh14g$j1j$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>,
>Parthasarati Dileepan <dile...@utc.edu> wrote:
>>C.R. Selvakumar wrote in message <8920610...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>...
>>
>>> Truth is of no value to you, Dileepan, is it ?!
>>
>>> For once do a good thing! Don't denigrate thiruvaLLuvar !
>>
>>I have no interest in arguing with the likes of Mr. C.R. Selvakumar.
>>Truth and ThiruvaLLuvar are not the property of any given
>>individual.
>
> I've no interest in convincing you, or the 'likes of' you.
> Haven't I seen enough of the mean 'than-saathip piththu'
> in these fora ?! You've once again proven by not addressing
> my very specific questions that you're not interested in
> what thiruvvaLLuvar says.
>>
>>For others, let me just add what I said in my last post, "all I ask
>>of fair minded people is to look into the literature and see for
>>themselves the *volumes* of reference to maRai Othum andhaNar
>>even as early as the days of Paripaadal." References were
>>already proivided several days ago from Manimekalai and
>>Thirumaalai. In most of these cases, and others, the text stands
>>for itself, no interpretation is necessary from me or from others.
>
> First, you've to answer the two questions I raised. We are
> talking about what thiruvaLLuvar says. He had *defined*
> the word *andhaNar*. If you don't want to see this simple
> fact but want to believe in the racistic Manu 'Dharma',
> go ahead !
>
> Now the following is not addressed to Mr. Dileepan for whom
> 'Om bhadram karNEbi: sruNuyaama Devah ' ( the meaning is roughly
> 'Om. nallathE kEtkattum engkaL kaadhukaL, DevarkLE')
> may not mean anything, it appears.
>
> Now talking *not* about vaLLuvar's work:
> In Tamil, maRai, vEdham, Oththu, vaaymozi etc. had been used for
> sacred writings/sayings of all people. In some places 'maRai'
> undoubtedly refer to the Vedic(/Sanskit) Vedas,
> but in many other places it refers to tamil works, elsewhere
> to Jainistic works and similarly to
> Buddhistic works and much more recently to Christian Bible.
> Now, what one has to ask here is: is this true or not.
>
> Next, when the expression 'naanmaRai' is used in Tamil,
> even then only in some places it would mean the
> Vedic/Sanskritic Vedas. The first of these
> four maRai had been explicitly stated to be 'aRam' ( 'aRam muthalaa
naan
> maRai'). This obviously means that maRai is not the Vedic/Sanskritic
> Veda. Tamil literature says that the 'naanmaRai' was given
> by Sivan under 'kallaalamaram' (literally, but not necessarily
> meaning 'stone-Banyan-Tree').
> Another thing to be kept in mind is that the Vedic/Sanskritic Vedas
> are only *three* and for long they were known as 'thrayi' ( The
Three),
> although Atharvana Veda was later added to become chatur-Veda
> (four vedas). Even today, the Adharvana Veda is not as common.
> One has to ask whether these are true or not.
> It is a glorious fact that Vedas (Vedic/Sanskritic)contain
> supreme truths and insights. It was/is most highly regarded by Tamils.
> Unfortunately along came the extremely mean minded racistic
> Manu Dharmic perverts and there are more followers to this
> monumentally shameful theory than the glorious, soul-stirring,
> ancient Light called Vedas/Vedantha(Sanskriic/Vedic).
> It is really a sad fact. Hopefully, at least in the 21st century
> there will be greater understanding of the 'nan-marabu' ( Good
Tradition)
>
> selvaa
>
>
>>-- Dileepan
>
>
Parthasarati Dileepan
Kumar Soundrapandian wrote in message
<6gh754$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>This is not fair to fair minded people, Dr.Dileepan. Then, you shouldn't
>have brought this 'andhanar' subject in the first place. You were
>pursuing Kathiravan till the end, and now when new questions are raised,
>you are backing out. I'm reproducing CRS questions which I'm keen to
>know your answer.
>
>
>'andhaNar' ? Please first answer this.
>
>Second, answer whether this definition will exclude 'avi corinthu
>aayiram vEttuvOr' aka Vedhic Brahmins or not.
I have no desire to back out of this discussion. At the
same time I have no wish to get into a brawl with
someone who has a history of throwing personal and
mean-spirited insults. Since you say you are one of the
fair minded persons I will respond to you. (Aside: You
brought my name into something in which I was not
involved which makes me wonder whether you are really
neutral here; but I shall give you the benefit of doubt.)
Answer to your first question is easy, it is Yes. Please
note that this does not take anything away from the view
I presented. The second question dealing with 'avi
corinthu aayiram vEttuvOr' does not have direct bearing
to what we are discussing unless you make a tortured
connection. Here ThiruvaLLuvar is referring to those
who resort to Vedic rituals, which is not necessarily the
same as "naan maRai Odhudhuvaar". "naan maRai
Odhudhal" is the study and protection of the vEdhaas
including the Upanishads and living a life according to
the teachings of the vEdhaas. Where as, Vedic rites are
performed on behalf of others by vEdic brahmins for a
specific material benefit. The vEdhaas do talk of rites
that may be performed for some specific material ends.
But these are rejected as lower-ends. It is "brahma-
viddhai" of the Upanishads that is given the pride of place
as the most important "end" of the vEdhas; in other
words, that is the _only_ _worthy_ end. In this context
the kuRaL in question does not contradict the point of
view I presented. BTW, this kuRal appears in "pulaal
maRuththal", and andhaNar kulam is one of just a rare
few that heeded this advice from ThiruvaLLuvar. Lest I
am hounded by unnecessary barbs let me add, I am NOT
talking about those modern Brahmins for whom good
living includes fine wine, tender meat, and more.
To fully understand what the word "andhaNar" meant, we
must also look at other ancient Tamil works. I already
provided exact quotes from MaNimEkalai and
Thirumaalai. Now let me provide some references from
Paripaadal. Please note that these are not all. There is
more, but I don't have immediate access to the texts.
Paripaadal:
------------
The object of veneration of the verses from which I am
quoting is Thirumaal. Thus the term "maRai" is nothing
but the vEdhaas.
[1]
"naaval andhaNar arumaRaip poruLE" - Paripaadal #2
[2] The next quote comes immediately after a passage
describing a vELvi. The intent of the author is to show
that the Lord the andhaNars see in their vELvi is
Thirumaal.
"piRar udam paduvaraa ninodu puRaiya
andhaNar kaaNum varavu." - Paripaadal #2
[3] The next one talks of the Upanishads where the
Lord's countless divine qualities are elaborated:
".... ninnOr annOr andhaNar arumaRai" - Paripaadal #4
[4] Next from Paripaadal thirattu #1, the following
passage describes a temple that is surrounded by
andhaNars who have thoroughly studied the vEdhaas and
are living according to the vEdic teachings.
"oru saar aRaththodu vEdham puNarthava muRRi
viRaRpugazh niRpa viLangiya kELvith thiRaththil
thiRivillaa andhaNar INdi aRaththiR thiRiyaa pathi"
It is interesting to look at the commentary for "andhaNar
INda aRaththiR thiRiyaa pathi" by P. V. Somasundaranar.
Let me just cite one quotation given by P.V.S.:
Odhal vEttal avaipiRarch seydhal
Idhal ERRal enRu aRupurith thozhukum
aRampuri andhaNar vazhimozhinth thozhuki
-- pathiRRuppaththu
Here an andhaNar's ozhukkam is described, which
includes, Odhal, vEttal, etc.
MaNimEkalai
------------------
I would like revisit MaNimEkalai and give detailed
quotes. The plot runs something like this, Aputhran has
released a cow that was being held for a vELvi. The
Brahmins confront him. The exchange between these
Brahmins and Aputhran is the subject matter. Here, there
can be no doubt as to what "andhaNar" means and what
is meant by "arumaRai", "naanmaRai", "nannool", etc.
"mannuyir mudhalvan maganemakku aruLiya
arumaRai nannool"
(The vEdhaas that were given by the Lord to his son
Brahmmaa. Note: arumaRai nannool = vEdhaas)
"naanmaRai maakkaaL, nannool agaththu..."
(What does your vEdhaas have against the cow, you
vEdhic fools,... Note: nannool = vEdhaas)
"maarbidai mun^n^ool vanaiyaa munnar,
naavidai nanool nanganam naviRRi
Oththudai andhaNarkku oppavai ellaam..."
(Even before wearing the sacred thread Aputhran
was taught all the vEdhaas that are proper for the
andhaNars, Note: Oththudai andhaNar = vEdhic
andhaNar, naavidai nannool = vEdhaas)
"aatti ninRu alaikkum andhaNar ..."
(Those andhaNars who were abusing the cow...)
"theempaal aRantharu nencodu aruL surandhu oottum
Idhanodu vandha seRRam ennai?
mudhumaRai andhaNeer, munniayadhu uraimO?
(You who recite the old vEdhaas, tell me, all that this
cow does is give you nice milk, what is your enmity
towards such a creature? Note: mudumaRai = vEdhaas)
Please note that I am quoting these passages to establish
the meaning of the words andhaNar, mudhumaRai,
nanool, naanmaRai, etc. Clearly Saaththanaar is not
sympathetic to these Brahmins or to the vEdhaas. Yet he
repeatedly refers to the vEdhaas as mudumaRai,
naanmaRai, etc, and the Brahmins as "andhaNar" and
"Oththudai andhaNar".
From the above it must be clear to any fair minded person
that the term "andhaNar" was used routinely to refer to
"naanmaRaiyaaLarkaL". What ThiruvaLLuvar had in
mind is perhaps open to argument. Whether he reflected
widely held opinion or shaped the opinion of his
contemporaries is open to study. But with the evidence
presented here we can surely conclude, at the very
minimum, that the word was used to refer to those
Brahmins who were "naan maRaiyaaLargaL."
If you still doubt me, please explain what Saaththanaar
means when he says:
"mudhumaRai andhaNeer", or "Oththudai andhaNar", etc.
To state the obvious, my intent here is not collecting
accolades for any particular community, that too from
SCT:-(. All this started with a response to a comment in
the thread "DRAVIDIAN CULTURE - BACK
STABBING" that perpetuates the often repeated bogus
charge that somehow a particular minority community is
responsible for all that ails TN and India. Later, Sri. Y.
Malaiya turned it into an analysis of the word
"andhaNar". In this redefined context I continued to
participate in the discussion. Even now I see no problem
continuing this discussion further, within the constraints
of time, if arguments are presented with civility. I shall
not respond to those who specialize in the vulgar display
of self righteous ire.
To summarize, how ThiruvaLLuvar used the term
"andhaNar" is open to enquiry. I am presenting one POV
which is supported by commentators such as
ParimElazhagar. Many do not accept ParimElazhagar
and criticize him severely. I understand that. But, if you
are a fair person you must realize that whatever view one
may hold about ThiruvaLLuar's kuRals, the Tamils such
as the authors of Paripaadal, Saaththanaar, several
Azhvaars, etc. had Brahmins who were "naan
maRaiyaaLargaL" in their minds when they used the
word "andhanar".
Thank you.
-- Dileepan
sur...@usa.net
From article <6gj8t4$7...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, by sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu (Raghu Ses
hadri):
>
> I know very little about the subject under discussion,
> and definitely Sri Dileepan and Sri Selvakumar know
Seshadri!.
'Thiru' Ganga
> infinitely more about it than I do. That said, I
> make the following (what I consider to be)
> common-sense observations.
>
> Hope I don't annoy either side.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM
FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service
--------------------------------------------------------------------
V.C.Vijayaraghavan
> Kumar Soundrapandian wrote in message
>
> >'andhaNar' ? Please first answer this.
I will leave different Tamizh pulavars (which I am not) to sort out the
matter. But I want to take up the question whether Valluvar "defines" a
word (andhanar in this case) in his work.
We can only say Valluvar uses a certain word in certain context or with
a certain meaning. To find the "meaning" of the word, one can look up
different examples from literature. In fact one can also look up at the
popular way it is used. I have an old Chambers American dictionary. For
the meaning of many words it simply gives a quotation from english
literature which contains the word. Sometimes few quotations are given
becuase different literary luminaries have used the same word with a
different twist.
We can speak of a "definition" of a word only in a legal or scientific
context. For example, we can say how a metre is defined or an ampere
(unit of current) is defined or in a legal document we can say how a
particular word is defined for use within that legal document. But we
cannot sat that a particular literary word has been "defined" by a
particular author. I don't think it was ever Valluvar's intention to
define any paricular word. After all, he was not writing a scientific
thesis or a legal document. He was simply using a certain word with a
certain meaning.
So the answer to the question above i.e. Has Valluvar defined
andhanar?", is NO.
Raghu Seshadri
sur...@usa.net wrote:
: > I know very little about the subject under discussion,
: > and definitely Sri Dileepan and Sri Selvakumar know
: That should be Sri Dileepan and Thiru Selvakumar, Sri
: Seshadri!.
: 'Thiru' Ganga
Thank you, Thiru Ganga, but I don't like to treat
different people differently, so either they
are both Sris or both Thirus, unless they
specifically ask me, in which case I will
honor their request, ofcourse.
Bemused,
RS
V.C.Vijayaraghavan
C.R. Selvakumar wrote:
> enRu ozhiyumO indhath than-saathip piththam ?!
>
Never.
Rangaswamy Rajamanickam
Can anybody give me the 'numbers' of the kurals that
are alluded to in this debate? Unfortunately, my
knowledge of literary Tamil is not deep enough
to let me appreciate the nuances and subtilties of the points
that are raised. I want to look up the English translations
to see if I can follow this thread more intelligently.
Rangaswamy
--
Rangaswamy Rajamanickam
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!rr57
Internet: rr...@prism.gatech.edu
Rangaswamy Rajamanickam
Here are some passages from Kasthuri Sreenivasan's
transalation of Tirukkural that may be relevant
to this debate..
-----------------------
Thus, while the author is theistic, advocates worship and is completely
non-denominational, his emphasis throughout the book is not on belief,
but on right behavior - social as well as personal conduct for all people
and under all circumstances. He does not address himself exclusively to
any group of people, to any religion, caste or community. It is interesting
to note that distinctions such as caste or untouchability are nowhere
mentioned in his work. He does not advocate any system, doctrine, practice
or ritual. The conduct he prescribes is based on reason and logic, from
the standpoint of pure ethics. His philosophy is universal. He addresses
all man-kind not only of his time but of all times. However, he recognizes
distinctions in society. He talks of the High and the Low, but the
distinction is based not on birth, wealth or power, but on conduct and
character and wisdom. In this respect, the age of Tiruvalluvar seems to
have been far more progressive than later periods. Certainly, his ideas
in this respect - as in others - are based on ethical and humanistic
values rather than traditional considerations.
Living beings are all alike at birth,
The difference comes from acts of special worth.'
(972)
High-born, whose souls are mean, are never great ;
The low, of lofty mind, are not of low estate.' (973)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rangaswamy Rajamanickam
It appears that these two Kurals contradict each other.
Any thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------------
Living beings are all alike at birth,
The difference comes from acts of special worth.'
(972)
High-born, whose souls are mean, are never great ;
The low, of lofty mind, are not of low estate.' (973)
---------------------------------------------------------
Rangaswamy
Raghu Seshadri
Rangaswamy Rajamanickam (rr...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
: It appears that these two Kurals contradict each other.
: Any thoughts?
:
: --------------------------------------------------------
: Living beings are all alike at birth,
: The difference comes from acts of special worth.'
: (972)
:
: High-born, whose souls are mean, are never great ;
: The low, of lofty mind, are not of low estate.' (973)
I don't see the contradiction. The first one
says that no one is high or low simply by virtue
of birth in certain families - it is by his
actions in later life that a person deserves
titles like "high" and "low".
The second one uses words like "highborn" and
"low" as used by society - it is obviously not
Valluvar's definition, but he is using these
words as society uses them ( much as we use
words like high-caste and low-caste, not because
we believe that, but to refer to them as
the rest of society does ); so he is saying
that no matter what family you are born in,
your character defines your worth.
So the second one is agreeing with the
first; don't be confused by terminology.
RS
Parthasarati Dileepan
Rangaswamy Rajamanickam wrote in message <6gldlk$r...@acmey.gatech.edu>...
>It appears that these two Kurals contradict each other.
>Any thoughts?
>--------------------------------------------------------
>Living beings are all alike at birth,
>The difference comes from acts of special worth.' (972)
KuRaL:
"piRappokkum ellaa uyirkkum siRappovvaa
seythozil vERRumaiyaan"
At birth all (human) lives are alike; differences
in merit are due to differences in the work they do.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>High-born, whose souls are mean, are never great ;
>The low, of lofty mind, are not of low estate.' (973)
>
KuRaL:
"mElirundhum mElallaar mElallar keezhirundhum
keezhallaar keezhal lar"
In spite of occuppying great position one is not
great if he does not act great; in spite of occupying
low position one is not low if he does not act low.
mElirundhum = mel nilaiyil irundum = in spite of
having been in high position.
ThiruvaLLuvar does not mention birth in this kuRaL.
-- Dileepan
Tamil
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
> Rangaswamy Rajamanickam (rr...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
> : It appears that these two Kurals contradict each other.
> : Any thoughts?
> :
> : --------------------------------------------------------
> : Living beings are all alike at birth,
> : The difference comes from acts of special worth.'
> : (972)
> : High-born, whose souls are mean, are never great ;
> : The low, of lofty mind, are not of low estate.' (973)
>
> says that no one is high or low simply by virtue
> of birth in certain families - it is by his
> actions in later life that a person deserves
> titles like "high" and "low".
>
> The second one uses words like "highborn" and
> "low" as used by society - it is obviously not
> Valluvar's definition, but he is using these
> words as society uses them ( much as we use
> words like high-caste and low-caste, not because
> we believe that, but to refer to them as
> the rest of society does ); so he is saying
> that no matter what family you are born in,
> your character defines your worth.
>
> So the second one is agreeing with the
> first; don't be confused by terminology.
>
> RS
Further this also points to the reality that
the society always considered a section high
and a section low by status. Valluvan lived
in an unequal society. Caste, class distinctions
should have existed then in some form or other.
The original Tamil kuRaL
`mElirunthum mElallar mEl allaathavar keezhirunthum
keezh allar keezhallaathavar'
does not contradict the kuRaL 1) Ranga has quoted [piRapokkum
elaavuyirkkum.].
srini
C.R. Selvakumar wrote:
> I saw the following and I thought I should respond: ThiruvaLLuvar does
> not use the word 'andhaNar' to refer to
> brahmins, caste or otherwise. I don't understand how your
> citation from 'senkOnmai' supports your view !
>
> The expression 'andhaNar noorkkum aRaththiRkum' can mean
> one or both of the following meanings:
> (1) 'carefully composed books of the wise and the aRam'
> (the word aRam can not be adequately translated)
> (2) 'the aRam practiced by the wise' ( nooRkum can also mean
> 'practice')
> VaLLuvar defines the word 'andhaNar' as one who is 'a wise/just one
> who is compassionate towards all life-forms'. ( see his
> words 'andhaNar enbOr aRavOr..'). The Vedhists are those
> ate meat and killed animals regularly. Kapilar is a highly
> regarded Tamil poet roughly belonging to the period of vaLLuvar
> and he is said to be a brahmin. He is a meat eater.
> selvaa
Just curious to know, if any texts "require" that one should eat meatif one has
to be a "vedhist". (in ancient times.)
Most people of today carry the view that, in order to practice the meditation
yoga and other Gnaya techniques, one should totally give up meat as
well as all intoxicants, that is, be an andhaNar.
The Bhakti proponents (like Hare Krishna followers) are indeed
fanatic vegetarians, some even avoid roots like onions.
I do not know where these "meat eating" vedhists of ancient times fit in.
They could not have practiced the yogic techniques, while eating meat.
k. srinivasan
Wishing everybody a Happy New year and the sixth anniversary of SCT.
(:-) Going back to sleep after this short peek into s.c.t
Devendran
srini wrote:
>
> C.R. Selvakumar wrote:
>
> > I saw the following and I thought I should respond: ThiruvaLLuvar does
> > selvaa
>
> Just curious to know, if any texts "require" that one should eat meatif one has
> to be a "vedhist". (in ancient times.)
>
> Most people of today carry the view that, in order to practice the meditation
> yoga and other Gnaya techniques, one should totally give up meat as
> well as all intoxicants, that is, be an andhaNar.
>
> The Bhakti proponents (like Hare Krishna followers) are indeed
> fanatic vegetarians, some even avoid roots like onions.
>
> I do not know where these "meat eating" vedhists of ancient times fit in.
> They could not have practiced the yogic techniques, while eating meat.
>
> k. srinivasan
>
> Wishing everybody a Happy New year and the sixth anniversary of SCT.
> (:-) Going back to sleep after this short peek into s.c.t
Long long ago there were only "anthaNars" in TN. Even the invading
aryans were fascinated by the philosophy that they converted themselves
to "anthaNarism". These people also called themselves brahmins since
they were bilingual (Tamil and Sanskrit). As time passed only these
converts retained "anthaNarism" since most of the others got sucked in
by the dravidian philosophy of meat eating. This was lamented by
Thiruvalluvar as quoted by Selvakumar. Actually the anthaNarism spread
to other parts of India though the brahmins in some parts of
India(Bengal and Kashmir) refused to convert. But the dark forces of
Kali are overpowering the anthaNars to convert to the dravidian
philosophy of meat eating. Very soon there will be none left. But then
the "oosavadai and mOrekuzhambu" folks are getting physically strong and
that is a threat. Some of them are even using there poonUl (here is
another use!) to strangle the attackers.TN government has provided
incentive for the conversion of "anthaNars" to other communities. The
easiest is to embrace Islam the pet religion of the CM of TN. The
transformation is very simple: They should chop off their pigtails and
grow it as a beard: They should renounce sanskrit and learn urdu: they
could also have upto four wives ( since the central govt will not impose
uniform civil laws): also eat choice cow's flesh (sorry! pigs meat is
not permitted). Now there are special groups in TN providing training in
killing people en mass. Some even specialize as human "time bombs". If
the anthaNars convert to join these groups they will be permitted to
retain their original "anthaNar" name. TN govt is considering re writing
the defining kuRaL as:
"ANthaNar enpOr aRuppOr maRRevvuyirkkkum
ChAnthanmai thanthozhikalAn"
i.e, "ANthaNar" are the killers (cut with the knife) of other lives
since they provide death (chAnthanmai=chAvu+thanmai)