\bt thiruvembaavai-10 \et
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
=================
{ maaNikkavaasagar thiruvaNNaamalaiyil aruLiyathu }
paathaaLam Ezhinum kIzh soRkazhivu paatha malar
pOthaar punai mudivum ellaam poruL mudivE
pEthai orupaal thirumEni onRu allan
vEtha muthal viNNOrum maNNum thuthiththaalum
Otha ulavaa oru thOzhan thoNdar uLan
kOthil kulaththu aran than kOyil piNaap piLLai kaaN
Ethavan oor Ethavan pEr aar uRRaan aar ayalaar
Ethu avanaip paadum parisu ElOr embaavaay.
[ soRkazhivu paatha malar = sol kadandha paatha malar
pOthaar = pOthu + aar = malar niRaindha
( pOthu enbathu malarum paruvaththil uLLa mottu;
pOthuthal = agalal, virithal, neeLuthal, thaguthi peRRu uyarthal)
pOthaar punai = niRaiya malargaLaal punaiyappatta ( = alangarikkap patta)
pEthai orupaal thirumEni = peNNai oru pakkam koNdu uLLa thirumEni
maNNum = maNNil uLLavargaLum
Otha ulavaa = solla mudivu illaatha
kOthil = kOthu illaatha, kuRRam illaatha
piNaap piLLai = peN piLLai ]
anbudan
-Selvaa
\et
Sundara Pandian
\bt
> thiruvembaavai-10
> =================
> paathaaLam Ezhinum kIzh soRkazhivu paatha malar
> pOthaar punai mudivum ellaam poruL mudivE
> pEthai orupaal thirumEni onRu allan
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> vEtha muthal viNNOrum maNNum thuthiththaalum
> Otha ulavaa oru thOzhan thoNdar uLan
> kOthil kulaththu aran than kOyil piNaap piLLai kaaN
> Ethavan oor Ethavan pEr aar uRRaan aar ayalaar
> Ethu avanaip paadum parisu ElOr embaavaay.
\et
Selva translates this line as :
\bt
> pEthai orupaal thirumEni = peNNai oru pakkam koNdu uLLa thirumEni
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
\et
This line in Thiruvembaavai clearly illustrates the inherent
male-chauvinism in the work. I mean, the poet Maanikkavaasagar
referring to Paarvati as `pEthai'.
The word `pEthai' means `aRivillaaL', `muttaaL' (idiot, fool). Other
words sounding close to `pEthai' are `pEthu' = `unmaththam' (mental
derangement), `pEthuRaL' = `pEthu' + `uRal' (being mentally deranged),
`pEthaimai' = `aRivinmai' (ignorance), `pEthaiyar' = `keezhmakkaL'
(low people), etc. That `pEthai' has a root-sense of `aRivinmai' is
not hard to see.
By using `pEthai' as a synonym for `peN' (woman) even to refer to
his Saiva goddess, Maanikkavaasagar clearly shows his male-chauvinism
in this verse.
-SP-
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Sundara Pandian <s...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Posted Thiru C.R.Selvakumar <selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> :
>
>\bt
>> thiruvembaavai-10
>> =================
>
>> paathaaLam Ezhinum kIzh soRkazhivu paatha malar
>
> Selva translates this line as :
>
>\bt
>> pEthai orupaal thirumEni = peNNai oru pakkam koNdu uLLa thirumEni
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>\et
>
> This line in Thiruvembaavai clearly illustrates the inherent
>male-chauvinism in the work. I mean, the poet Maanikkavaasagar
>referring to Paarvati as `pEthai'.
\bt
piththan manaivi pEthai :)
maaNikka vaasagar piththup pidiththu
meththap pithaRRubavarE!
uNmaiyilEyE thamizh pithaRRalE !
[ piththu, pEthai, pithaRRu, pEththu, pEthu
ellaam aNukkath thodarbu udaiyanavE !
aanaal *ethai* ingu piththu enRu
kooRukiRaargaL, *En* piththu enRu kooRukiRaargaL enRu sindhippathu
aRivudaiyaaLar seyal. ithu 'male-chauvenism' enRu neengal
ninaiththaal athu ungaL paakkiyam :)
\et
>
> The word `pEthai' means `aRivillaaL', `muttaaL' (idiot, fool). Other
>words sounding close to `pEthai' are `pEthu' = `unmaththam' (mental
>derangement), `pEthuRaL' = `pEthu' + `uRal' (being mentally deranged),
>`pEthaimai' = `aRivinmai' (ignorance), `pEthaiyar' = `keezhmakkaL'
>(low people), etc. That `pEthai' has a root-sense of `aRivinmai' is
>not hard to see.
\bt
neengaL mElE kooRiyathellaam uNmaiyE! En pEthai enRum, Ezhai
enRum kooRi uLLaargaL enbathaiyO, allathu sivanai piththan enRum,
piNYagan enRum, innum palavaaRu izhivu pOla thOnRum
'pattangaLai' perumaiyaagavum kaathalOdum kooRi uLLaargaL
enbathiyO neengaL thIra eNNip paarththathaagath theriya villai.
\et
>
> By using `pEthai' as a synonym for `peN' (woman) even to refer to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>his Saiva goddess, Maanikkavaasagar clearly shows his male-chauvinism
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in this verse.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
\bt
sivan Ezhaip pangaaLan thaan, pEthai oru paagam koNdaan thaan :)
ithanaal thaan nOkkuariya nOkkE, nuNukkkariya nuNNuNarvE
enRaar. Oraathaar uLLaththil oLindhu iruppaaraam !
uNmaip poruLai eNNi paarungaL. ( innum sollap pOnaan
_eNNi_ uNaravEndum enkiRaargaL ! )
\et
>
> -SP-
>
anbudan
-Selvaa
Badrinarayanan Seshadri
: Posted Thiru C.R.Selvakumar <selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> :
: \bt
: > pOthaar punai mudivum ellaam poruL mudivE
: > pEthai orupaal thirumEni onRu allan
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > vEtha muthal viNNOrum maNNum thuthiththaalum
: \et
: Selva translates this line as :
: \bt
: > pEthai orupaal thirumEni = peNNai oru pakkam koNdu uLLa thirumEni
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: \et
:
: This line in Thiruvembaavai clearly illustrates the inherent
: male-chauvinism in the work. I mean, the poet Maanikkavaasagar
: referring to Paarvati as `pEthai'.
: The word `pEthai' means `aRivillaaL', `muttaaL' (idiot, fool). Other
: words sounding close to `pEthai' are `pEthu' = `unmaththam' (mental
: derangement), `pEthuRaL' = `pEthu' + `uRal' (being mentally deranged),
: `pEthaimai' = `aRivinmai' (ignorance), `pEthaiyar' = `keezhmakkaL'
: (low people), etc. That `pEthai' has a root-sense of `aRivinmai' is
: not hard to see.
: By using `pEthai' as a synonym for `peN' (woman) even to refer to
: his Saiva goddess, Maanikkavaasagar clearly shows his male-chauvinism
: in this verse.
Somebody can correct me if I am wrong. But I remember reading
in 8th standard text books that "....... , pEthai, pethumbai" etc. are
various stages (`paruvam') in a woman's life. (There are equivalent
stages for man too!) I don't remember the names of stages other than
"pEthai" and "pethumbai". So why consider "pEthai" as "aRivillaaL" ??
"pEthai" here simply means a girl in a particular age group or
in general a girl.
I think "pEthai = aRivillaaL" etc. were later day meanings
and did not exist when maanikkavaachagar sung this....
--Badri.
: -SP-
--
------------------------
S.Badrinarayanan
Dept. of Mech. and Aero.
Cornell University
------------------------
Sundara Pandian
[....]
Selva> \bt piththan manaivi pEthai :) \et
Your interpretation in a Bhakti-context certainly makes sense,
but I need to make some references in ThEvaaram to agree with
your interpretaion. I mean, whereas I have seen Sivan referred
to by Naayanmaars as `piththan' in many places in ThEvaaram
works, I have to see where Naayanmaars refer to Siva-Shakti as
\bt `piththan-pEthai' \et as you are interpreting here.
I take back my earlier comment on Thiruvempaavai. However,
I like to point out that many early Tamil poets have used the
word \bt `pEthai' \et to refer to `woman' as a synonym. This
is male chauvinistic in my opinion, as the root-sense meaning
of `pEthai' is `aRivinmai' (foolishness) which is derogatory.
I like to point out some male-chauvinistic kuRaLs where VaLLuvar
uses `pEthai' as a synonym for `woman', which are some illustrations
of male-chauvinism that prevailed in the early Tamil culture.
Before citing such male-chauvnistic kuRaLs, let me recapitulate
our earlier discussion.
I explained:
SP:> The word `pEthai' means `aRivillaaL', `muttaaL' (idiot, fool). Other
SP:> words sounding close to `pEthai' are `pEthu' = `unmaththam' (mental
SP:> derangement), `pEthuRaL' = `pEthu' + `uRal' (being mentally deranged),
SP:> `pEthaimai' = `aRivinmai' (ignorance), `pEthaiyar' = `keezhmakkaL'
SP:> (low people), etc. That `pEthai' has a root-sense of `aRivinmai' is
SP:> not hard to see.
And you agreed with the root-sense meaning I gave for `pEthai' :
Selva> neengaL mElE kooRiyathellaam uNmaiyE!......
At this stage, I like to say a few words to Badrinarayanan..
Badri replied:
badri> Somebody can correct me if I am wrong. But I remember reading
badri> in 8th standard text books that "....... , pEthai, pethumbai" etc.
badri> are various stages (`paruvam') in a woman's life. (There are
badri> equivalent stages for man too!)
In the first place, `pEthai, pethumbai..' are different stages in
a woman's life and *only* in a woman's life. I mean, these stages don't
describe the equivalent stages for man too, as badri wrongly writes.
`pEthai-paruvam' stands for a girl's life from 5 to 7 years old. Any
girl from 5 to 7 years old, esp. a 7 years old girl was referred to
as `pEthai'. Note this also carries the root-sense of `aRivinmai' as
this stage is even colloquially referred to as `aRiyaap paruvam'.
`pethumbai' stands for a girl from eight to eleven years old.
badri> I don't remember the names of stages other than
badri> "pEthai" and "pethumbai". So why consider "pEthai" as "aRivillaaL" ??
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Because, a common or the root-sense meaning for `pEthai' is
`aRivinmai'. Even in the `pethuvai-paruvam' that you referred to,
`pEthai' stands to mean `aRiyaatha' (folly)
badri> "pEthai" here simply means a girl in a particular age group or
badri> in general a girl.
The particular age group is 5 to 7 year old girls. Do you think
Siva married Paarvathi when Paarvathi was 5 to 7 years old? :-)
However, `pEthai' was also used as a synonym for women in the early
days, which is derogatory and male-chauvinistic in my opinion.
Also, can you think of a word with a derogatory sense like `pEthai'
that was used as a synonym for men in the early days? If there is no
such word, does it tell you something?
badri> I think "pEthai = aRivillaaL" etc. were later day meanings
badri> and did not exist when maanikkavaachagar sung this....
This is plain non-sense. There are plenty of references where `pEthai'
was used in the sense of `aRivillaadha' (idiotic, folly). ThiruvaLLuvar
has one full chapter in Porutpaal titled `pEthaimai'. Here is one sample
from the same chapter:
\bt
"kazhaa_akkaal paLLiyuL vaiththaRRaal saanROr
kuzhaa_aththup pEthai pukal." (Ku 840)
======
\et
[Tr. "A fool who intrudes when the wise men meet,
Like one who goes to sleep with unwashed feet" (Tr. KS) ]
Kannadaasan's song \bt `yaaraiththaan nambuvathO pEthai nenycham" \et
uses `pEthai nenychu' in the same sense VaLLuvar wrote long ago in his
kuRaL # 1248 (i.e. in the sense `folly heart' ) :
\bt
"parindhavar nalkaarenRu Engip pirindhavar
pinselvaay pEthai_en nenychu." (Ku 1248)
======
\et
[Tr. `My silly heart! His lack of love you know,
And yet behind the parted one, you go' (Tr. KS) ]
Having said that, I now come to the kuRaLs where VaLLuvar uses
`pEthai' as a synonym for `woman' thereby illustrating his male-
chauvinism :
\bt
" uRuthoRu uyir_thaLirppath theeNdalaal pEthaikku
=========
amizhdhin iyanRadhu thOL." (Ku 1106)
\et
[Tr. : \bt `porunthum pOthu ellaam uyir thaLirrkumpadiyaakath
theeNduthalaal ivaLukkuth thOLkaL amizthaththaal
seyyappattu irukkavENdum. ' (Mu.Va.) \et ]
(Of course, VaLLuvar is not talking about embracing a 5-7 years
old kid here. He is referring to a maiden woman as `pEthai'
here, which is derogatory.)
Another kuRaL is # 1272 in the chapter `kuRippaRivuRuththal' :
\bt
" kaN_niRaintha kaarikaik kaamparthOt pEthaikkup
==========
peN_niRaintha neermai perithu." (Ku 1272 )
\et
[Tr. \bt `kaN niRaidha azhagum, moongil pOnRa thOLum udaiya
en kaathalikkup peN thanmai niRainthu viLangum
iyalbu mikuthiyaaka uLLathu. " \et ]
In the above kuRaL also, VaLLuvar uses `pEthai' as a synonym
for a woman, and the kuRaL also implies that `pEthaimai' was a
virtue for woman. These should suffice for one to see the inherent
male-chauvinism that prevailed in KuRaL and other early Tamil works
which used `pEthai' (idiot, fool) as a synonym for women.
-SP-
Sundara Pandian
badri> Somebody can correct me if I am wrong. But I remember reading
badri> in 8th standard text books that "....... , pEthai, pethumbai" etc.
badri> are various stages (`paruvam') in a woman's life. (There are
^^^^^^^^^
badri> equivalent stages for man too!)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and I replied:
> In the first place, `pEthai, pethumbai..' are different stages in
> a woman's life and *only* in a woman's life. I mean, these stages don't
> describe the equivalent stages for man too, as badri wrongly writes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I regret misinterpreting your view in my article in this thread.
I misread your quote "THERE are equivalent stages for men too" as
"THESE are equivalent stages for man too" and criticized it. The
mistake was mine and it was unintentional. My apologies for the same..
-SP-
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Sundara Pandian <s...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Replied Thiru C.R. Selvakumar <selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> :
>
> [....]
>
>Selva> \bt piththan manaivi pEthai :) \et
>
> Your interpretation in a Bhakti-context certainly makes sense,
>but I need to make some references in ThEvaaram to agree with
>your interpretaion. I mean, whereas I have seen Sivan referred
>to by Naayanmaars as `piththan' in many places in ThEvaaram
>works, I have to see where Naayanmaars refer to Siva-Shakti as
>\bt `piththan-pEthai' \et as you are interpreting here.
I think you are misunderstanding when you say that I am
interpreting Siva-sakthi as piththan-pEthai - I did not.
I only said 'piththan manaivi pEthai :) '
I merely suggested to look for the meaning of the host of words
I wrote ( piththan, pEthai, pithaRRal, pEthuRal, piNYagan..)
>
> I take back my earlier comment on Thiruvempaavai. However,
>I like to point out that many early Tamil poets have used the
>word \bt `pEthai' \et to refer to `woman' as a synonym. This
>is male chauvinistic in my opinion, as the root-sense meaning
>of `pEthai' is `aRivinmai' (foolishness) which is derogatory.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The word pEthai is NOT derogatory when used for a woman.
Unfortunately people like you consistently misinterpret this word
and misapply it.
It is very true that one of the central meaning of pEthai
is to be foolish, but a lady is not called a pEthai because
she is considered foolish but because of a different angle
in the meaning that is considered characteristic of a lady.
vaLLuvar says
\bt pEthaimai enbathu onRu yaathenin - Etham koNdu
oothiyam pOga vidal ( 831)
Etham = kEdu tharuvana
oothiyam pOga vidal = aakkam tharuvana vaRRai vittu vidal
pEthaimai enbathu thanakku aakkam tharuvanavaRRai viduththuk
kEdu tharuvanavaRRaik koLvathu enRu kooRukiRaar vaLLuvar.
ithu aRivillath thanaththin oru iyalbu. peNNukku ithE iyalbu
* aga * uNarvugaLil uLLathu !! aanaal ithu aRivillaaththanam illai!
- ithu iyaRkaiyaaga avaLidam uLLa naaNam, thayakkam muthaliya
vaRRaal nigazhvathu. oru peN thanakku ethu inbam tharumO athanai
aRiyaathO allathu naaNaththaal eduththu iyambaamalO vittu vittu,
than inbaththukkuth thadaiyaaga uLLa naaNam muthaliyavaRRaik kaik
koLLukiRaaL enbathaal peNNaip pEthai enkinRanar. ithu igazhchchi
pOl thOnRum oru uyarvu naviRchiyE. pothuvaaga peN thannai meLLa
uNarkiRaaL, aaNaik kaattilum aazha uNarkiRaaL enbathu paravalaaga
nilavum karuththu..
\et
[..]
> \bt
>
> "parindhavar nalkaarenRu Engip pirindhavar
> pinselvaay pEthai_en nenychu." (Ku 1248)
> ======
>\et
>
> [Tr. `My silly heart! His lack of love you know,
> And yet behind the parted one, you go' (Tr. KS) ]
>
> Having said that, I now come to the kuRaLs where VaLLuvar uses
>`pEthai' as a synonym for `woman' thereby illustrating his male-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>chauvinism :
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you've not understood the undercurrent of this
beautiful kuRaL ( 1248). There is a rich agam-feeling
in this song !! \bt piruvup pEraaRaamaiyaal thalaiviyin
uLLam palavaaRu uLLip parithal paRRik kooRum
urukkamudaiyap paattu ! \et
I think your infatuation for 'male chauvenism'
prevents you from seeing the feeling expressed in these !
>
> \bt
>
> " uRuthoRu uyir_thaLirppath theeNdalaal pEthaikku
> =========
> amizhdhin iyanRadhu thOL." (Ku 1106)
>
> \et
>
> [Tr. : \bt `porunthum pOthu ellaam uyir thaLirrkumpadiyaakath
> theeNduthalaal ivaLukkuth thOLkaL amizthaththaal
> seyyappattu irukkavENdum. ' (Mu.Va.) \et ]
>
> (Of course, VaLLuvar is not talking about embracing a 5-7 years
> old kid here. He is referring to a maiden woman as `pEthai'
> here, which is derogatory.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No. It is not !
>
> Another kuRaL is # 1272 in the chapter `kuRippaRivuRuththal' :
>
> \bt
>
> " kaN_niRaintha kaarikaik kaamparthOt pEthaikkup
> ==========
> peN_niRaintha neermai perithu." (Ku 1272 )
>
> \et
>
> [Tr. \bt `kaN niRaidha azhagum, moongil pOnRa thOLum udaiya
> en kaathalikkup peN thanmai niRainthu viLangum
> iyalbu mikuthiyaaka uLLathu. " \et ]
>
> In the above kuRaL also, VaLLuvar uses `pEthai' as a synonym
>for a woman, and the kuRaL also implies that `pEthaimai' was a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>virtue for woman. These should suffice for one to see the inherent
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>male-chauvinism that prevailed in KuRaL and other early Tamil works
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
pEthaimai is her character but it does NOT mean 'foolishness'
as you interpret quite wrongly. There is no male chauvenism
in vaLLuvar's kuRaL, it is only your misunderstanding.
>which used `pEthai' (idiot, fool) as a synonym for women.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your understanding is seriously flawed !
>
> -SP-
>
anbudan
-Selvaa
Sundara Pandian
[...]
> The word pEthai is NOT derogatory when used for a woman.
[...]
\bt
> pEthaimai enbathu thanakku aakkam tharuvanavaRRai viduththuk
> kEdu tharuvanavaRRaik koLvathu enRu kooRukiRaar vaLLuvar.
> ithu aRivillath thanaththin oru iyalbu. peNNukku ithE iyalbu
> * aga * uNarvugaLil uLLathu !! aanaal ithu aRivillaaththanam illai!
> - ithu iyaRkaiyaaga avaLidam uLLa naaNam, thayakkam muthaliya
> vaRRaal nigazhvathu. oru peN thanakku ethu inbam tharumO athanai
> aRiyaathO allathu naaNaththaal eduththu iyambaamalO vittu vittu,
> than inbaththukkuth thadaiyaaga uLLa naaNam muthaliyavaRRaik kaik
> koLLukiRaaL enbathaal peNNaip pEthai enkinRanar. ithu igazhchchi
> pOl thOnRum oru uyarvu naviRchiyE...
\et
I am not sure if other Tamil patriots could come up with an
"inner meaning" like above to make the usage of `pEthai' to
refer to `woman' in early Tamil works look like a praise and
not derogatory! Your above remark - VaLLuvar's calling of
women as `pEthai' is only in a `uyarvu-naviRchi' sense (that
is to praise them) - is funny indeed.
I like to remind you a kuRaL from the male-chauvinistic
chapter `peN vazhich chERal' (Being led by women) in
ThirukkuRaL. In this chapter, VaLLuvar says,
\bt
"aRavinaiyum aanRa poruLum piRavinaiyum
peN_Eval seyvaarkaN il" (K.908)
\et
[Tr. \bt `aRach cheyalum adhaRkuk kaaraNamaaka amaindha
poruL muyaRchikaLum, maRRak kadamaikaLum
manaiviyin Evalaich cheyvOr idaththil illai' \et
[Mu.Va.] ]
I gave the above kuRaL for the benefit of those who have not
read or heard of this chapter. Coming to the subject, contrary
to what you interpret `pEthai' as `woman', VaLLuvar says in
kuraL #907
\bt
"peNNEval seydhozhugum aaNmaiyin naaNudaip
peNmaiyE perumai udaiththu." (K. 907)
[Tr. \bt `manaiviyin Evalaich cheydhu nadakkinRavan udaiya
aaNmaiyai vida, naaNaththaith than iyalbaaga
udaiyavaLin peNmaiyE perumai udaiyadhu.' \et
[Mu.Va.] ]
\bt
peN Eval seydhu nadakkum aaNkaLukku aRavinaiyum, poruL
vinaiyum, maRRak kadamaikaLum illai enRu sollum VaLLuvar,
mElE uLLa kuRaLil, peN Eval seydhu nadakkum aaNmaiyai
mattam thattukiRaar. evvaaRu avar mattam thattukiRaar
theriyumaa? `naaNudaip peNmaiyE perumai udaiththu' enRu
solli mattam thattukiRaar. adhaavadhu, manaiviyin Evalaich
cheydhu nadappavanin aaNmaiyai vida, naaNaththai iyalbaakak
koNda peNmaiyE perumai udaiyathu enRu mattam thattukiRaar.
\et
This is contrary to your Tamil patriotic praise of VaLLuvar's
referring to women as `pEthai'..
[...]
> pEthaimai is her character but it does NOT mean 'foolishness'
> as you interpret quite wrongly. There is no male chauvenism
> in vaLLuvar's kuRaL, it is only your misunderstanding.
Read the kuRaL #907 and the chapter `peN vazhich chERal' that
I have referred to in this posting.
[...]
>anbudan
> -Selvaa
-SP-
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Sundara Pandian <s...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Replied Thiru Selva <selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> :
SP had been trying hard to prove that tamils
exhibited their male-chauvenism by using derogatory
words for women and he claims that vaLLuvar, maaNikavaasagar
and vaLLalaar ( raamalinga adigaL ) were some of those culprits.
I've been trying to convey my understanding that what SP is saying
is untrue and stems from his serious misunderstanding of the
texts.
I know for a fact that there is and was male-bias
( in some cases serious male abuse) in the tamil society.
This is being perpetuated by various modern 'soft weapons'
like cinema, tv and popular print media.
However, a careful study will reveal that although tamil
society is male-biased like most other societies are, its
male bias arises due to (1) the tradition of giving
respect to elders and a husband is traditionally much
older than the wife and (2) man is physically stronger than
a woman. But these factors did not, in my assessment, lead
to serious imbalance ( there was probably a slight
imbalance in power-position but not as 'male-chauvenism'
- at least as portrayed by some people ) in pre-800 A.D
society. Now, this view may be disputed by some, but I've
not heard or read anything to revise this view. Since there is
more serious male bias and even male chauvenism _now_ and in the
more recent past, some people ( SP seems to follow this view),
wrongly extrapolate that it was present in Sangam period and
religious leaders and literary figures like vaLLuvar also
espoused such serious male-chauvenism. SP goes even one step more
says words like 'pEthai, madam' in the tamil language is reflective
of such serious bias. If I extend my understandings and the
underlying arguements it might easily fill up 50-60 pages of
a small booklet. But I will "briefly" show how seriously SP
and people who think like him are wrong.
SP writes follwoing my reply :
> [...]
>> The word pEthai is NOT derogatory when used for a woman.
> [...]
> \bt
>> pEthaimai enbathu thanakku aakkam tharuvanavaRRai viduththuk
>> kEdu tharuvanavaRRaik koLvathu enRu kooRukiRaar vaLLuvar.
>
>> ithu aRivillath thanaththin oru iyalbu. peNNukku ithE iyalbu
>> * aga * uNarvugaLil uLLathu !! aanaal ithu aRivillaaththanam illai!
>> - ithu iyaRkaiyaaga avaLidam uLLa naaNam, thayakkam muthaliya
>> vaRRaal nigazhvathu. oru peN thanakku ethu inbam tharumO athanai
>> aRiyaathO allathu naaNaththaal eduththu iyambaamalO vittu vittu,
>> than inbaththukkuth thadaiyaaga uLLa naaNam muthaliyavaRRaik kaik
>> koLLukiRaaL enbathaal peNNaip pEthai enkinRanar. ithu igazhchchi
>> pOl thOnRum oru uyarvu naviRchiyE...
>
> \et
>
> I am not sure if other Tamil patriots could come up with an
> "inner meaning" like above to make the usage of `pEthai' to
> refer to `woman' in early Tamil works look like a praise and
> not derogatory! Your above remark - VaLLuvar's calling of
> women as `pEthai' is only in a `uyarvu-naviRchi' sense (that
> is to praise them) - is funny indeed.
>
> I like to remind you a kuRaL from the male-chauvinistic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>chapter `peN vazhich chERal' (Being led by women) in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ThirukkuRaL. In this chapter, VaLLuvar says,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This chapter is not male-chauvenistic but it appears so to you
because you're not looking with an open mind. vaLLuvar does speak
very highly of women and had devoted several kuRaLs and chapters.
In the \bt inbaththup paal (allathu) kaamaththup paal \et
he devotes roughly half of the kuRaLs in most of the chapters as
views expressed by woman. To accuse him of male-chauvenism shows
your inadequate study and understanding of vaLLuvar. The chapter
\bt peNvazhich chERal \et is about advise given to men
about not becoming _sex-slaves_ of women. \bt Eval sethal \et
here refers 'to do as a servant' ( even the english word servant
is related to servile-slavish ). vaLLuvar is advising prospective
pro-action, achievement-oriented people to be careful not to become
a slave of woman fearing to lose her ( being too much attached to
pleasures she gives ). This advice is equally valid for women too
( that is not becoming slave of men ).
> \bt
> "aRavinaiyum aanRa poruLum piRavinaiyum
> peN_Eval seyvaarkaN il" (K.908)
> \et
>
> [Tr. \bt `aRach cheyalum adhaRkuk kaaraNamaaka amaindha
> poruL muyaRchikaLum, maRRak kadamaikaLum
> manaiviyin Evalaich cheyvOr idaththil illai' \et
> [Mu.Va.] ]
> I gave the above kuRaL for the benefit of those who have not
>read or heard of this chapter. Coming to the subject, contrary
>to what you interpret `pEthai' as `woman', VaLLuvar says in
>kuraL #907
>
> \bt
> "peNNEval seydhozhugum aaNmaiyin naaNudaip
> peNmaiyE perumai udaiththu." (K. 907)
>
> [Tr. \bt `manaiviyin Evalaich cheydhu nadakkinRavan udaiya
> aaNmaiyai vida, naaNaththaith than iyalbaaga
> udaiyavaLin peNmaiyE perumai udaiyadhu.' \et
> [Mu.Va.] ]
>
> \bt
> peN Eval seydhu nadakkum aaNkaLukku aRavinaiyum, poruL
> vinaiyum, maRRak kadamaikaLum illai enRu sollum VaLLuvar,
> mElE uLLa kuRaLil, peN Eval seydhu nadakkum aaNmaiyai
> mattam thattukiRaar. evvaaRu avar mattam thattukiRaar
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> theriyumaa? `naaNudaip peNmaiyE perumai udaiththu' enRu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> solli mattam thattukiRaar. adhaavadhu, manaiviyin Evalaich
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
\bt
migath thavaRaagap purindhu koNdu uLLIrgaL !!
sari, nIngaL kooRuvathu iNmai enRu koLvOm - appadi enRaal
vaLLuvar 'naaNudaip peNmai' yai izhivaagak karuthukiRaar
enRuthaanE poruL ? eththanai kuRaLkaLil naaNaththin perumaiyai
virivaagap pEsukiRaar enbathai nIngaL aRiyavillai pOlum !!
iru vagaiyaana naaNam pEsap padukiRathu, onRu pothuvaaga
ellaa makkaLukkum ( aaN peN iru paalaarukkum ) irukka vENdiyathu
maRRonRu peNNukkE siRappaaga iruppathu. iraNdumE perumaiyaana
aNikalam thaan. iraNdu naaNamumE uyir pOnRa muthanmai vaaythathu.
peNNin naaNaththai izhivu seykiRaaraa ?!!! vaLLuvar kuRaLkaLai
nanRaagap padiyungaL ! athu mattum alla sanga ilakkiyaththaiyum
padiththup paarungaL ( kuRippaaga aka naanURu )
\et
> cheydhu nadappavanin aaNmaiyai vida, naaNaththai iyalbaakak
> koNda peNmaiyE perumai udaiyathu enRu mattam thattukiRaar.
thavRaaga purindhu koNdathil viLaivu !
mattam thatta villai, ungaLukkup poruL kitta villai ! :)
> \et
>
> This is contrary to your Tamil patriotic praise of VaLLuvar's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> referring to women as `pEthai'..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is not a 'patriotic praise of vaLLuvar' but a fact that
vaLLuvar is an extremely fair law-giver and least of all
a male-chauvenist. Please read the chapter 'naaNudaimai'
( kuRaLkaL 1011-1120). Read at least the first kuRaL
\bt
karumaththaal n^aaNuthal n^ANuth thiru n^uthal
n^allavar n^ANup piRa
\et
( in this kuRaL vaLLuvar speaks about two \bt n^ANam \et
one which everybody should have known to tamils in everday speech
\bt n^ANayam \et ( I notice that this word is also becoming less
frequent these days in view of the prevailing standards, I would guess )
and the other is \bt thiru n^uthal n^allavar naaNam = peNNin n^ANam \et.
Since the first is vital and common to both sexes, he says about it
first and the second is special virtue of women.
I also recommend reading kuRaL 951, 952, 960, 983 to understand
how important the first kind of naaNam is as viewed by vaLLuvar.
To understand the naaNam ofg women, I suggest read 1089 ( piNaiyEe
mada nOkku naaN..), 1162 and 1163 and tell me honestly whether
vaLLuvar considers naaNam as 'cheap' ( you say that 'mattam thattu
kiRaar' ).
>
>> pEthaimai is her character but it does NOT mean 'foolishness'
>> as you interpret quite wrongly. There is no male chauvenism
>> in vaLLuvar's kuRaL, it is only your misunderstanding.
>
> Read the kuRaL #907 and the chapter `peN vazhich chERal' that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I have referred to in this posting.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Read the kuRaL's I've suggested, let me know whether you
understand better. I'll try to write more on the last 5 kuRaL's
in the peNvazhich chERal when I find time.
>>anbudan
>> -Selvaa
>
> -SP-
anbudan
-Selvaa
P.S. SP, are you doing your Ph.D involving these topics ? - in which case
I should be your co-supervisor, I say ! :) I'm really curious !
V. Nagarajan
.....
> I know for a fact that there is and was male-bias
> ( in some cases serious male abuse) in the tamil society.
> This is being perpetuated by various modern 'soft weapons'
> like cinema, tv and popular print media.
>
> However, a careful study will reveal that although tamil
> society is male-biased like most other societies are, its
> male bias arises due to (1) the tradition of giving
> respect to elders and a husband is traditionally much
> older than the wife and (2) man is physically stronger than
> a woman. But these factors did not, in my assessment, lead
> to serious imbalance ( there was probably a slight
> imbalance in power-position but not as 'male-chauvenism'
> - at least as portrayed by some people ) in pre-800 A.D
> society.
Why would there not have been "male bias" in pre-800 AD society?
Did reasons (1) and (2) not apply then? Why not?
- Nagarajan
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Good question. I'm making a distinction between male-bias
and male-chauvenism. The male bias I am talking about refers
to a more predominant role played by men compared to women.
While more men might have been occupying powerful positions
than women, women were not denied opportunities in
any systematic way ( the two factors cited above is worth keeping
in focus) by scriptures and other sactions.
The male-chauvenism, ( by this I mean formally
declaring and acting that men are superior and more privileged
compared to women and women are denied several basic rights and
considered unworthy of receiving education, spiritual liberation
etc. etc. )
which gained inroads into tamil society, is mainly as a result of
Jainist influences and Sanskrit-based aryan culture ( for example
buddhist influence which is also an 'external' influence )
did not so much affect).
If you look at epigraphical evidences and literary evidences,
you'll see that tamil society in the pre-800 A.d period was,
although probably slightly male baised,
was not male-chauvensitic ( women enjoyed indpendence, owned and
managed property, excelled in various arts and received
education { there were numerous women poets and some of them
seem to have been advisors to kings} ).
In short, yes those two reasons did exist in pre-800 A.D
and resulted in a slightly more powerful postion for men
but women were not systematically put down or denied
opportunities for growth as had happened in more recent times.
Fortunately, there is greater awareness now and women are
rightly asserting for greater share of their role in
society.
>
> - Nagarajan
anbudan
-Selvaa
Sundara Pandian
[...]
> The male-chauvenism, (..) which gained inroads into
> tamil society, is mainly as a result of
> Jainist influences and Sanskrit-based aryan culture.
> If you look at epigraphical evidences and literary evidences,
> you'll see that tamil society in the pre-800 A.d period was,
> although probably slightly male baised,
> was not male-chauvensitic ...
Selva in his rampant Tamil patriotic self as usual..
It is well-known that many pan-Indian customs having to do
with women have a Dravidian origin. The sacred power associated
with a woman's chastity and myths around it all hail from
the ancient Dravidian religion. In the Draividian religion,
a woman in her menstrous period must stay outside the house
and she cannot touch dishes. Also for a period of several
days after childbirth, she is impure and she cannot see her
husband. When her husband dies, she has to lead a very severe
ascetic life - she must shave her head, sleep on a bed of
stones, and eat lily seeds instead of rice. The tonsure of
widows in early Tamil society (pre-800 AD) is well-documented
in early classical works like Puranaanooru.
It is not hard to see the inherent male-chauvinism..
-SP-
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Sundara Pandian <s...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Replied Selva <selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> :
>
> [...]
>
>> The male-chauvenism, (..) which gained inroads into
>> tamil society, is mainly as a result of
>> Jainist influences and Sanskrit-based aryan culture.
>
>> If you look at epigraphical evidences and literary evidences,
>> you'll see that tamil society in the pre-800 A.d period was,
>> although probably slightly male baised,
>> was not male-chauvensitic ...
>
> Selva in his rampant Tamil patriotic self as usual..
I see :) :)
So, now, our SP in his anti-tamil-patriotic self as usual..
>
> It is well-known that many pan-Indian customs having to do
>with women have a Dravidian origin. The sacred power associated
>with a woman's chastity and myths around it all hail from
>the ancient Dravidian religion. In the Draividian religion,
>a woman in her menstrous period must stay outside the house
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and she cannot touch dishes. Also for a period of several
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>days after childbirth, she is impure and she cannot see her
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To say that she is impure is nonsense and I'm not aware of
such descriptions in tamil ( in pre-800 A.D ) but these are
sensible practices ( health-wise), if you look at it
from an unbiased angle.
In fact in tamil society, a person who had given birth to
a child is celebrated and pampered. If some restrictions were there
they were thought to be beneficial and some of these might be
considered wrong or unncessary practices by modern medical
wisdom or understanding.
Your attempt to describe these as male chauvenism is
quite pathetic though :)
Also, I am not sure about the practice of menstrual seclusion
being followed by tamil society in general ( yes, upper caste tamils
followed these practices).
>husband. When her husband dies, she has to lead a very severe
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ascetic life - she must shave her head, sleep on a bed of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>stones, and eat lily seeds instead of rice. The tonsure of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is certainly cruel and it is serious male-chauvenism,
since man is allowed to remary ( but please note that vaLLuavar
had not spoken about remarriage either for man or woman :)).
>widows in early Tamil society (pre-800 AD) is well-documented
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in early classical works like Puranaanooru.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think there is one song where this is mentioned, but
it might have been the practice of one or two communities and
I don't believe that this was common. 'kaimai nOnbu' seems to
have been common and it is certainly partial since no such things
have been extended to men ( vaLLuvar does not talk about kaimai
nOnbu either for men or women).
>
> It is not hard to see the inherent male-chauvinism..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, if you feel justified in saying that male-chauvenism
was prevalent in tamil society because of this one practice
( it is serious enough even though it is just one practice),
I don't know what to say except to call your judgement
strange. I don't know how many practices you are aware of where men
were excluded ( for example certain religious practices, but I
understand these were secretive and mostly to do with praying to God
for a prolonged married life). Ofcourse,
nothing is comparable to widowhood ( even here I should mention that
there seems to have been *widower*hood in tamil society and this is
called \bt thabuthaara nilai \et ( \bt thaputhal enRaal keduthal,
saathal, izhaththal, vilaguthal \et ) and there was a literary genre
called by this name. A widower was called \bt thabu thaaran \et
( some of the nettors might remember a post by Raj from UK on this).
Since I've not seen any works of thabuthaara nilai I can't say
what were the restrictions and what were the sufferings a man
underwent ; from recent practices I'm aware of no such restrictions
applicable for men. In brahmin community, at least at one time the
widower can NOT perform a vELvi since he is ineligible).
>
> -SP-
anbudan
-Selvaa
V. Nagarajan
...
>
> you'll see that tamil society in the pre-800 A.d period was,
> although probably slightly male baised,
> was not male-chauvensitic ( women enjoyed indpendence, owned and
> managed property, excelled in various arts and received
> education { there were numerous women poets and some of them
> seem to have been advisors to kings} ).
>
Would you be more specific about these evidences?
About your last point within paranthesis, it proves nothing; it is
merely a statement of fact, perhaps. For example, if you consider
china in the last century and the early part of this century, there
were female poets and even an empress but women were subjugated
nonetheless. One could also point to our contemporary reality and
the contradiction of women in high positions in an intensely
patriarchial society.
> In short, yes those two reasons did exist in pre-800 A.D
> and resulted in a slightly more powerful postion for men
> but women were not systematically put down or denied
> opportunities for growth as had happened in more recent times.
> Fortunately, there is greater awareness now and women are
> rightly asserting for greater share of their role in
> society.
>
Again, i would like to see your evidence. You may very well be right
but i can't shake off the feeling that such a clear-cut distinction
between pre- and post-800 AD (give or take a few centuries) is
impossible. BTW, why 800 AD?
- Nagarajan
V. Nagarajan
I don't know about it being pathetic, but i essentially agree with
the point you're making about this particular assertion by SP.
Agrarian societies have tended to hold fertility in respect and
awe. This makes sense because conception, pregnancy and delivery of
a fully developed being were mysterious processes, ones over which
they had little control. There was an external power controlling it
and the mother was the recipient of such power. The mensturating woman
and the new mother were pampered. In villages even today, among
families that can afford it, a woman in her period is isolated in
a place where she can rest. If you consider that painkillers were
not common until a decade or so ago, it makes perfect sense for a
woman experiencing her periodic discomfort to be rested and fed.
Granted that once you ritualize this practice, that become its
death, with the original meaning gone. This indeed is what happens
when orthodox village people move to urban areas and cramped quarters
and the practice of seclusion continues by force of habit making
life miserable for everyone concerned.
- Nagarajan
Sundara Pandian
SP> In the Dravidian religion,
SP> a woman in her menstrous period must stay outside the house
SP> and she cannot touch dishes. Also for a period of several
SP> days after childbirth, she is impure and she cannot see her
SP> husband...
> To say that she is impure is nonsense and I'm not aware of
> such descriptions in tamil ( in pre-800 A.D ) but these are
> sensible practices ( health-wise), if you look at it
> from an unbiased angle.
There are mentionings in early literature. I avoid details
on rites of first menstruation or rites of the birthing room
continued to be practiced by the upper caste community. In the
Dravidian religion, menstruating women are considered inauspicious
and polluted. Also, in the Dravidian religion, a pregnant woman
should not enter the temple after the sixth month of pregnancy,
as she is considered unclean and polluted. These practices are
still continued among many (Hindu) castes in TN and Jaffna.
[...]
> Also, I am not sure about the practice of menstrual seclusion
> being followed by tamil society in general ( yes, upper caste tamils
> followed these practices).
Doesn't Maraimalai AdikaL claim that VELaaLar culture is the
true Tamil culture? :-) About Dalits in the early Tamil culture,
both Dalit men and women were considered impure and polluted.
Thus the difference between menstruating women and Dalits is,
Dalits are considered (and discriminated) permenantly untouchable
in the Dravidian culture. Dalits also play a role in first
menstruation and birthing room rites, but I avoid details here.
[...]
> anbudan
> -Selvaa
-SP-
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Sundara Pandian <s...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Replied Selva <selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> :
>
>SP> In the Dravidian religion,
>SP> a woman in her menstrous period must stay outside the house
>SP> and she cannot touch dishes. Also for a period of several
>SP> days after childbirth, she is impure and she cannot see her
>SP> husband...
>
>> To say that she is impure is nonsense and I'm not aware of
>> such descriptions in tamil ( in pre-800 A.D ) but these are
>> sensible practices ( health-wise), if you look at it
>> from an unbiased angle.
>
> There are mentionings in early literature. I avoid details
Of what ?
>on rites of first menstruation or rites of the birthing room
>continued to be practiced by the upper caste community. In the
>Dravidian religion, menstruating women are considered inauspicious
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and polluted. Also, in the Dravidian religion, a pregnant woman
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>should not enter the temple after the sixth month of pregnancy,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>as she is considered unclean and polluted. These practices are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, you're saying many things with no support. First,
tell us what you mean by dravidian religion. I'm not
aware of any. I vaguely suspect that you might be referring to
maRaimalai adigaL's concept of 'thamizhar madham'.
The pregnant woman is treated with great respect and
consideration to the best of my knowledge but you
say that in a non-existing 'dravidian religion' they are
considered inauspicious and polluted.
>still continued among many (Hindu) castes in TN and Jaffna.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The practice of pregnant women not visiting temple is
a sensible one based on common sense. Out of ones practice,
a pregnant woman might involuntarily prostrate or do such
things as to cause serious internal injury. Although in many
families it is recommended that the pregnant women do good
physical work ( it is said this helps to deliver the baby with
greater ease ! ), certain types of bending etc. might be risky.
Further, the pregnant woman might feel less wholesome in her
worship if she did not do certain things she is used to do.
The temple being a public place, if anything untoward was to
happen it might pose serious problems in transporting her to
her home. In general a pregnant woman was not allowed to go to
any public place ( say markets, public theatres etc.)
in view of the increased risk of accidents. To the best of my
knowledge pregnant women were not considered 'inauspicious' - rather
they were very highly considered since they are about to bring
forth a new baby on earth and were treated with great consideration.
I suspect that you're seriously misinterpreting certain things.
> [...]
>
>> Also, I am not sure about the practice of menstrual seclusion
>> being followed by tamil society in general ( yes, upper caste tamils
>> followed these practices).
>
> Doesn't Maraimalai AdikaL claim that VELaaLar culture is the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>true Tamil culture? :-) About Dalits in the early Tamil culture,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Does he ? :)
>true Tamil culture? :-) About Dalits in the early Tamil culture,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>both Dalit men and women were considered impure and polluted.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't know what you mean by 'early tamil culture'. The tamil
culture, as evident from sangam literature ( sung by 450 plus
poets and numerous post sangam poets and epigraphical citations)
it appears that 'untouchability is not a dravidian or tamil
culture but something introduced by Manu dharmic followers.
>Thus the difference between menstruating women and Dalits is,
>Dalits are considered (and discriminated) permenantly untouchable
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in the Dravidian culture. Dalits also play a role in first
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>menstruation and birthing room rites, but I avoid details here.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The untouchability is not a dravidian culture but an
aryan cultural baggage which we still are not able to
throw aside. The fact that Dalits play a significant role
in the first menstuation and birth-room rites should reveal that
they were knowledgeable people and had a respectable position
once in the society before the Manu dharmic practices took hold
of tamil society. The barbers and wahsermen ( washerpeople does
not sound right ! :) ) were knowledgeable people. The so called
vaLLuvans also became untouchable in later years. paRaiyar were
considered very knowldgeable and highly capable people who were
oppressed by the upper caste. The caste system as we know it today
is not a dravidian culture but an aryan culture.
For the upper caste people, following Manu dharmic laws,
all those who actually produce wealth in a nation
( farmers, craftspeople et al ), and all the creative people
such as artists of various types are untouchable....
>
> [...]
>
>> anbudan
>> -Selvaa
>
> -SP-
SP, you've not answered whether you're working for a Ph.D
or some such degree involving these topics. Don't worry,
the journal editors won't send your paper to me for a review ! :)
pEthai > maaNikkavaasagar is a male-chauvensit > vaLLalaar
is a male-chauvenist > vaLLUvar is a male-chauvenist >
tamil society in sangam period is male-chauvenist > tamil
langauge is male chauvenist > women in certain times are
untouchable > Dalits were untouchable = tamil culture is
aryan culture ?? :) :) Good luck, but wrong from the beginning
and every step of the way !
anbudan
-Selvaa
Sundara Pandian
[ I have deleted a lot of Selva's Tamil patriotic attempts
of gilding the pill, but I will just keep this one. ]
> The untouchability is not a dravidian culture but an
> aryan cultural baggage which we still are not able to
> throw aside. The fact that Dalits play a significant role
> in the first menstruation and birth-room rites should reveal that
> they were knowledgeable people and had a respectable position
> once in the society before the Manu dharmic practices took hold
> of tamil society.
How smart of you to turn my argument against myself! :-)
(Do you know what significant role the Dalits play in the
menstruation and birth-room rites ?) Many scholars opine
contrary to the Tamil patriotic view and they point out
how Dalits were considered as `polluted' and discriminated
from the early Tamil culture.
Now, a personal question from Selva:
> SP, you've not answered whether you're working for a Ph.D
> or some such degree involving these topics. Don't worry,
> the journal editors won't send your paper to me for a review ! :)
No, I am not working for any degree on the stuff I write.
Most of the things I have written (in this thread) so far
are from published works of Dr. George Hart and some other
western scholars.
As this is an informal forum and I engage in informal
discussions, I can't pre-order threads in anyway I like.
Also I am not a scholar in early Tamil culture, and I form
my opinions on what I have learnt from books, magazines etc.
-SP-
PS: This is my LAST article in this thread.
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
: Replied Thiru C.R. Selvakumar <selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> :
: [....]
: which used `pEthai' (idiot, fool) as a synonym for women.
Women have contributed a lot in ancient thamizh
society. The sheer number of poets, bards and the respect
given for viraLiyars will reveal that.
All the works SP has quoted do not come
close to akam, puram or kuRunthokai times.
neer kaNNathaasanaich cholli appuram
thirukkuRaLai kuzhappi, piRagu and other thamizh
works enRu 8 aam nooRRaaNdukku piRagu samaiththa
noolkaLai saanRu kaattukireer.
sankarapaaNdi had posted a detailed article
depicting the status of women in thamizh society during
sangkam times. The situation of
women was better than the period after Brahmanical
revival. men were dominant. women had access
to education and were free to choose their husbands.
On the other hand>
oru peNNaiyum, thaazntha saathiyayum sankaracharrya skc/ paththaam
nooRRaaNdu | thEvathaasiyai kOvilil saami pErach cholli
vaiththavargaL, kEraLaavil uLLa rig vEtham kadipidiththa
namboothirimaarai vida thaazhthi yaar paarkka mudiyum.
Note: Until recently the namboodiris who were following
Rig vEda had a practice of
the officiating brahmin sleeping with the bride on the first night.
pure vedic practice in the name of God. Shaving off the head of
a widow etc were part and parcel of brahmanism.
anban
kathir
: -SP-
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Sundara Pandian <s...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Inquired Selva <selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> :
>
>[ I have deleted a lot of Selva's Tamil patriotic attempts
>of gilding the pill, but I will just keep this one. ]
Well, I've to conclude that whatever you don't understand in my
reply, you're prone to describe them as 'Selva's patriotic
attempts of gilding the pill' :) :)
SP, I've not cooked up the meanings of
pEthai, madam etc. Read vaLLuvar's work and other's work carefully.
To say that tamil words 'pEthai, madam' used in reference to women
as derogatory is to totally misunderstand these words.
You have not understood basic words like naaNam ( the two distinct
senses), madam and obviously peNvazhich chERal
( do you know the difference between chEral and chERal ?).
Did you answer my question about vaLLuvar's use of 'naaNudai
peNNE perumai udaiththu' ? [ the question I asked was : do you
think that vaLLuvar thinks having naaNam for ladies as izhivu ?
In this connection I cited a few kuRaLs, did you read them ? ]
>
>> The untouchability is not a dravidian culture but an
>> aryan cultural baggage which we still are not able to
>> throw aside. The fact that Dalits play a significant role
>> in the first menstruation and birth-room rites should reveal that
>> they were knowledgeable people and had a respectable position
>> once in the society before the Manu dharmic practices took hold
>> of tamil society.
>
> How smart of you to turn my argument against myself! :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is not turning against you, but pointing out a basic
fact. Read Manu Dharma and see how discriminatory it is.
Untouchability and birth-based discriminations are well
recognized aspects, as far as I know, of aryan cultural baggage.
I'm open for correction.
>(Do you know what significant role the Dalits play in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>menstruation and birth-room rites ?) Many scholars opine
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, I know to some extent; but the basic fact which we need to keep
in mind here is that barbers and washerman were not untouchables
in many communities; on the contrary they were respected members.
So too were paNdaarams.
>contrary to the Tamil patriotic view and they point out
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>how Dalits were considered as `polluted' and discriminated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>from the early Tamil culture.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I understand, only in the so called 'upper caste' communities
( constituting less than 3-4 % of tamil people)
were the barbers and all others except the 'upper caste' people
themselves were considered polluted ( the concept of pollution
must have come about based on the nature of their jobs; but
serious discrimination and denial of basic rights and practice
of untouchability are extremely painful facts. )
[..]
> -SP-
> PS: This is my LAST article in this thread.
Wish you a happy new year SP.
anbudan
-Selvaa