On valluvar, Dravidian philosophy etc.
Rajarama Krishnan
Hi everybody,
Guys please note this. My intention is not to demean Valluvar or Bharathiar or
Tamil or anything else for that matter.
Lot of people keep quoting Valluvan said this, Bharathiyar said that, to
substantiate their arguments. But with my LIMITED exposure to both these
poets I havent seen any profound original thought. There is a major
difference bet form and content. Both their works have very good form.
They say things in a very beautiful way. Their similies are wonderful.
All agreed, but do you see anything philosophical, profound, original in their
works (ie. in the content part of it). Valluvar's work seems only to be
putting all very well known social morals into beautiful 2-liners.
What is profound about saying "innA seydhArai oruththal, avar naaNa
nannayam seidhu vidal" or "karkka kasadara, karpavai kattra pin, nirkka
adharkku thaga" or .. Same goes for Bharathiyar also. So please stop
quoting them to substantiate your point. Note that I mentioned "with
my limited knowledge". If you think they had some original thoughts to
contribute, I would like to know more about them.
BTW are there any philosophical works of ancient Dravidian culture (similar to
Upanishads or Bhagavat Gita of Aryan culture) ? Once again I am not claiming
superiority of Aryan culture or anything like that. But I do feel that
those did have lots of original and profound stuff in it.
I also have many more questions about the Dravidian culture.
1. What kind of religion and gods did they have?
I have heard that Murugan, Aiyappan etc. were Dravidian gods and that they
were integrated into the Aryan god families when they merged. I have also
seen the kovils at the end of small villages the gods of which are supposed
to guard the village. I forgot their names. I have heard that these are
also typically Dravidian.
2. What were their philosophical schools?
3. Did they migrate from somewhere else or did human life begin in south India
also? I remember reading in someone's posting that this is still unanswered.
4. When did a proper civilisation originate? Geographically where all did it
permeate.
5. Have Cholas, Cheras and Pandiyas been ruling from the time civilisation began
here (I mean South India and not US :) )? Otherwise who else was there?
...
Any other info about the Dravidian civilisation (please without any derogatory
reference to Aryan civilisation) will also be appreciated.
Rajaram
ps. Why do I have this feeling that this will also degenerate into Aryan vs
Dravidian argument?
S Venkatanarasimhan
3. Did they migrate from somewhere else or did human life begin in south India
also?
There is proof that the Indian subcontinent and the African continent were
attached in the distant past. So early man had an easy access to the Indian
subcontinent (It is common belief that the first man/woman appeared in Afr-
ica). So the Dravidians were definitely well established before the aryans
came.
Venkat.
Rajarama Krishnan
I have heard this explanation before. But I think this is wrong. Africa, Asia
and Australia were attached several millions of years before. Man has been
around only for a few hundred thousand years.
Rajaraman
R. Parthasarathy
At the time when most of the land mass was one big piece, termed as
PANGEA by geologists, dinosuars ruled the landscape. To this day, there has been
no anthropological or paleontological or any other evidence to show
that humans had evolved by then. That was the time the Indian
sub-continent began to drift away from Africa, along with Madagaskar,
Australia and other lands. So the Dravidian existence at that time
is out of question, until someone can prove that human beings existed
then in the first place. Or, unless someone wants to claim that Dravidians
descended from the dinosaurs.
It is very difficult to term who is a pure native and who is the
migrant in India, considering the innumerable waves of migration
into the sub-continent for ages. If you are considering cultural
aspects to distinguish southern and northern Indian populations
then you are right in saying that the southern cultures have more
native elements in them in known history than their northern counterparts.
But that cannot be stretched too far. Cultures themselves keep evolving and
changing according to times. The south Indian cultures are termed
Mediterranean (!) in some history books (Ref: Romilla Thapar in History of
India: Part I). Even among modern day Tamils, there are many groups who are
descendents of migrants from neighbouring regions - Gounars, Nayakkars,
Mudaliars, Chettiars, Marathas, Sourashtrans and of course some Brahmins (there
are dark skinned native Brahmins who were probably elevated in their
caste status during Ramanuja and Nammazhvar's times). Who are Dravidians
amongst these groups is very difficult to make out. Because the forefathers
of the migrants in their places of origin themsleves could have migrated
from elsewhere. These migrations are spread over such long periods of time
that everyone can claim native status in the long run. So all this
talk on Aryan/Dravidian division based on human anatomy is a big waste.
Culturally, may be one can achieve a difference. But then what?
Give me a time before which the inhabitants of India, migrants or
otherwise can be termed as the "real natives". Say, 40000 years?
In the case of Australia, Papua New Ginea etc.., such a clear cut
time of their migration into these lands is used to term them as
natives. I do not buy this theory of "native" owners of India simply
because India has seen massive scales of migration unlike other places.
All that talk comes from politicians who use divisive methods to win
public support and whip up hatred amongst frustrated people.
Give me a clear cut time in the past after which the so called Aryan
influence began to "pollute" the ever so pure Dravidian blood. Then
we can discuss which is the oldest and the best. The term Aryan should
strictly refer to lingusitic branching in modern science. There has
been no proof of a tribe named Aryan coming into India, whereas there
is sufficient proof of tribes named - Huns, Scythians, Afghans, Mughals
etc.. which migrated via the northwest passage and made India its
permanent home.
Partha sarathy
Rajarama Krishnan
>In article <1kriph...@copland.cs.unc.edu> kris...@cs.unc.edu (Rajarama Krishnan) writes:
>>
First of all Thanks Meenan for the detailed reply.
>work but he put his ideas in beautiful language. However, Bharatiyar's
>(like other Indian freedom fighters) were a couple of step ahead in their
>thinking and like them he was well versed in Ancient Indian works
>(both SKt and Tamil) and also had foresight.
I agree with that. He does deserve credit for that.
>
>However, like many other Tamils I feel Valluvan is different. I think
>(correct me if I am wrong) that there have not been any other work
>that is all-encompassing. Valluvar's work mentions about domestic
>virture, virtue of renunciation, secrets of making war, on secret love
>and chaste wedded love.
I agree with this too. His work was quite all encompasing. But once again
I would like to point out that most of what he said is already well
known. To quote a off-beat example, would you consider the editors of
Brittanica Encyclopedia as the greatest minds of the 20th century. I myself
wont. Nor will I consider the writers of the constitution as the
greatest brains of the nation. Their work is essential for the time and
is of great importance. One may quote Freud when arguing about Psycology.
But one should not quote Valluvar in the same way when arguing about what
is right and what is wrong. (Actually I beleive, arguing what is wrong and
what is right is quite pointless in the first place).
>Now coming to the question of originality: It was allged
>(as late as 40 years ago) and even written in TN textbooks
>that Valluvar took his aRaththuppaal (dharma) from Manu's work,
>his section on Science of Polity from Kauthilya (ChaNakkiya's artha sastra)
>and his section on Love from Kama Sutra.
When I said he wasnt original, I didnt mean that he copied from this
book or from that book, what I meant is that what he wrote are fundamental
principles of life which every person is capable of thinking for himself.
You and I are also capable of thinking up all the things which he has
written in thirukkuraL. (Once again, we might not be able to organise it so
well or write something which is so broad in its vision).
>Compared to this Valluvar's work is so much more civilized. eg
>compare with veruvantha seyyaamai on how king's punishments should
>be.
>
>Now about the science of polity and ChaNakkiya's work (artha sashtra):
>Here is a quotation of ChaNakkiya's work from Dr. Radhakrishnan's book:
I had made a request to all to avoid comparing and being judgemental on things
written thousands of years back. But I guess people cant avoid it. One of my
cousins who is a film critic told me "For a good critic there arent any good
movies or bad movies. The critic considers the movie just as a reflection
of the director, actor etc. and its popularity as a reflection on the society
of that time." It would be nice if we all would view old philosophies and
literature in the same way. Never make judgemental criticisms like one is bad
or that another is good.
>Meenan Vishnu
>
Rajaram
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>However, like many other Tamils I feel Valluvan is different. I think
>(correct me if I am wrong) that there have not been any other work
>that is all-encompassing. Valluvar's work mentions about domestic
>virture, virtue of renunciation, secrets of making war, on secret love
>and chaste wedded love.
>(as late as 40 years ago) and even written in TN textbooks
>that Valluvar took his aRaththuppaal (dharma) from Manu's work,
>his section on Science of Polity from Kauthilya (ChaNakkiya's artha sastra)
>and his section on Love from Kama Sutra.
Even now there is a prof in Carleton Univ (a guy from TN
) who writes all this nonsense about aRam
from arthasaashtra.
>Now anyone who has read these works and Valluvar's work will
>realize that this is a big joke.
**** *** ***** ****** ****
>Now Everyone knows that Kama sutra which deals with just sex
>(it also talks about how to do prostitution how to have pimps
>etc) is a far cry from Valluvar's sensual and civilized and
>monogamous form relationships.
Well said meenan:
"malarinum melliyathu kaamam" enRaan vaLLuvan.
Love is softer than flower.
kaamasoothraa is about physical love.
vaLLuvan in kaamathuppaal talks about
philosophy*1* of love and beauty*2* .
Even that he placed after, aRam-virtue
and poruL-wealth.
*1* for ex. oodal is dealt at length. This is philosophical as
opposed to a few pictures and physics.
"uNalinum uNdathu aRalinithu kaamam
puNarthalinum oodal inithu" [kaamathuppaal -I forgot the athikaaram]"
aRal-digest
uNal-eat
puNarthal-union
oodal-feigned or real dislike- there is no single word
in english to say this correctly.
To digest the food that has been eaten
is more delightful than to eat more;
likewise love is more delightful in dislike
than intercourse.
*2* "mathiyum madanthai muganum aRiyaap
pathiyiR kalangkiya meen" [kaamathuppaal]
mathi-moon, madanthai-maiden, pathi-location,
kalakkam-confusion.
" The stars were lost in the locations without being
able to distingiush between the moon and the maid's
countenance"
>So in short Valluvars work was a revolutionary work from the works
>of the northern culture and it helped to Tamils by defining Tamil
>culture at a crucial moment when Tamils were confused by contraditory
>northern idealogies (Vedic, Buddhist, Carvaka etc).
"Few saints have given people as much knowledge as vaLLuvan
in minimum number of words".
thEsap pithaa mahaatmaa GANDHIJI.
aanaal thamizh kavithai:
vaLLuvanOdu kavithai saakavillai,
kamban, paarathi, puthumaippiththan,
kaNNadhaasan...............
vairamuthOdum athu saakaathu,
thamizhan kavithai padaiththukku koNdE iruppaan.
ulagam irukkum varai.
>Meenan Vishnu
anbudan,
kathiravan.
A. Meenakshi
>Guys please note this. My intention is not to demean Valluvar or Bharathiar or
>Tamil or anything else for that matter.
>
>Lot of people keep quoting Valluvan said this, Bharathiyar said that, to
>substantiate their arguments. But with my LIMITED exposure to both these
^^^^^^^
>poets I havent seen any profound original thought. There is a major
>difference bet form and content. Both their works have very good form.
>They say things in a very beautiful way. Their similies are wonderful.
>All agreed, but do you see anything philosophical, profound, original in their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The above statement that you have made is more than a good proof that
your exposure to Barathiyar and Valluvar is LIMITED!!!!!
>works (ie. in the content part of it). Valluvar's work seems only to be
>putting all very well known social morals into beautiful 2-liners.
>What is profound about saying "innA seydhArai oruththal, avar naaNa
>nannayam seidhu vidal" or "karkka kasadara, karpavai kattra pin, nirkka
>adharkku thaga" or .. Same goes for Bharathiyar also. So please stop
>quoting them to substantiate your point. Note that I mentioned "with
>my limited knowledge". If you think they had some original thoughts to
>contribute, I would like to know more about them.
Then, why do you go on to derive hypotheses which IMHO are totally incorrect?
>
>BTW are there any philosophical works of ancient Dravidian culture (similar to
>Upanishads or Bhagavat Gita of Aryan culture) ? Once again I am not claiming
>superiority of Aryan culture or anything like that. But I do feel that
>those did have lots of original and profound stuff in it.
>
I want to make a request to all those who are into this Aryan/Dravidian
thing: Please define Aryan and Dravidian concretely. YOU CANNOT, because
it is totally unclear. Btw, is it going to be of any use to anybody?
I think we have enough barriers as it is amongst us.
When things are so murky as to which is Aryan and which is dravidian,
or even if such a thing existed, why even bother extrapolating them
into literature/ culture etc..? If you want to discuss the merits/
demerits of Tamil poets and literature and compare with those
of vedas, gita etc.., just do so.
[other stuff deleted]
>
>Any other info about the Dravidian civilisation (please without any derogatory
>reference to Aryan civilisation) will also be appreciated.
>
>Rajaram
>
>ps. Why do I have this feeling that this will also degenerate into Aryan vs
>Dravidian argument?
Why do I have a feeling that that is what you wanted in the first place?
Correct me if I am wrong.
-meena
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>
>Guys please note this. My intention is not to demean Valluvar or Bharathiar or
>Tamil or anything else for that matter.
>
>Lot of people keep quoting Valluvan said this, Bharathiyar said that, to
>substantiate their arguments. But with my LIMITED exposure to both these
>poets I havent seen any profound original thought. There is a major
>difference bet form and content. Both their works have very good form.
>They say things in a very beautiful way. Their similies are wonderful.
>All agreed, but do you see anything philosophical, profound, original in their
>works (ie. in the content part of it). Valluvar's work seems only to be
Yes ! Plenty !
>putting all very well known social morals into beautiful 2-liners.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What do you mean by 'only to be putting ....2-liners'.
VaLLuvar had given insigtful couplets on three major
categories 'aRam' ( not equivalent to Skt. dharmam),
'poruL' and 'inbam' and indeed thirukkuRaL is wisdomful
and beautifyl.
>What is profound about saying "innA seydhArai oruththal, avar naaNa
>nannayam seidhu vidal" or "karkka kasadara, karpavai kattra pin, nirkka
>adharkku thaga" or ..
The above words of yours remind me of this:
There was a person who was iritated with poets and artists.
He said, hey guys ! Yes, I went to that spot you said
( with lots of trees..) , yes there was a waterfall.. yes
there was a peacock, yes it moved here and there with its
tail ( train) upright and unfolded....*but* i did't see
any 'beauty' you guys were raving about.
:) :)
What is profound is to be _felt_ and _perceived_ sir !
> Same goes for Bharathiyar also. So please stop
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>quoting them to substantiate your point. Note that I mentioned "with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sometimes noble thoughts are 'invoked' to inspire
and to draw support but not necessarily to substantiate
unless the logic is inlaid.
>my limited knowledge". If you think they had some original thoughts to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>contribute, I would like to know more about them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are numerous people who had derived inspiration
and you too might try...
>
>BTW are there any philosophical works of ancient Dravidian culture (similar to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Upanishads or Bhagavat Gita of Aryan culture) ? Once again I am not claiming
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[1] Many scholars both western and indian think that
several Upanishads are philosophical works of
dravidian culture. Some claim that they were
even composed by some dravidian speakers who did
not know the Sanskrit language well enough at that
time.
[2] Many scholars are of the opinion that much of
sublime and non-ritualistic cultural and philosophical
works are of dravidian origin. Much of hinduism,
buddhism and jainism are dravidian ( except
indo-iranian culture of ritualistic vedic culture and
philosophy; I'll give you an example below for this.
Note Avestan is an old Iranian religious text like Vedas.
Avestan | Sanskrit
tem amavantem yazatem | tam amavantam yajatam
surem damohu sevistem | suram dhamasu savishtham
mithrem yazai zaothrabyo | mitram yajai hotrabhyah
Meaning: This powerful strong god Mithra
strongest in the world of creatures,
I will worship with libations.
( the above is from the book: J.P. Mallory, "In search of
Indo-Europeans- language, archeology and myth" Thames
and Hudson publications. 1991 - page 35. )
If you read carefully and reflect, you will realize that
the aryan culture and philosophy is of indo-iranian origin
( i don't mean anything inferior or superior here)
The dravidian culture which is the native culture of india
before the arrival of the aryans ( a long long time ago) is
still thriving and evolving. Thus most of what one sees in
india in terms of culture and philosophy is of dravidian
origin whether it is in sanskrit or tamil. However there are
some significant differences in the philosophy and culture
inferred and perceived from sanskritic and tamil sources
( two of the oldest languages; without language records
not much can be inferred about past..)
[3] You ask, are there philosophical works of
ancient dravidian culture ?
Yes quite a lot. The Tamil works of Thirumanthiram,
Thiruvasagam ( both belonging to about 3rd century A.D)
Thevaram ( Saiva works belonging to 7-8 century A.D),
SivagnaganapOtham ( 1200 A.D), uNmai viLakkam, irubaa
irupathu....in short Saiva and Vaishnava literature
is very vast and very deep. The tamil tradition is also
continuous and thrives even today ( most recent philosophers
who contributed extensively are Pattinathtaar, thaayumaanavar,
Ramalinga adigaL, RamaNa baghavan..). The depth and
breadth of Tamil/Dravidian philosophical works are
indeed extremely extensive. For example, it is said that
thiruvaasagam is the first work where the progression of
soul at different stages ( uyirin padi muRai vaLaRchchi)
are described. The depth of 'thirumanthiram' is indeed
incredible and this 'moolan marabu' ( = the tradition of
Moolan) is considered unique. Most of Siva and Vishnu
philosophies are of dravidian and they are extensively
discussed in numerous Tamil works.
Further, linguistic, music theories and principles are
extensively portrayed.
>superiority of Aryan culture or anything like that. But I do feel that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>those did have lots of original and profound stuff in it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I thought you said you had LIMITED knowledge. If you had
read understood and imbibed 1/10 th of Tamil philosophical
works you will be in some position to make comments. The
knowledge available in Tamil which is distinctly different
in many ways from the ritualistic-vedic-aryan
culture-philosophy is quite profound and quite vast.
Please let me know how the sanskrit works that are
as soulfully moving and yet so incredibly philosophical
as Thiruvaasagam, ThEvaram. Please ask knowledgeable people
whether what is said in Thirumoolar's Thirumanthiram is given
in some Sanskrit works; also find out whether any works
are there in sanskrit like AruNagirinaathar's works
( Thiruppugazh, Kanthar anupoothi etc..). The 14 Saiva
Siddhantha Sastra works like uNmai_viLakkam etc. are
considered deep. Please also read the bhashyams of
Vaishnava works and you might get some idea..
>
>I also have many more questions about the Dravidian culture.
>
>1. What kind of religion and gods did they have?
>I have heard that Murugan, Aiyappan etc. were Dravidian gods and that they
>were integrated into the Aryan god families when they merged. I have also
>seen the kovils at the end of small villages the gods of which are supposed
>to guard the village. I forgot their names. I have heard that these are
>also typically Dravidian.
Most scholars concur that the Siva, Vishnu, Ganapathy, Murugan
and Mother Godess worhips are Dravidian. On the other hand
Indra, VaruNa, Mithra are considered Aryan Gods. Agni is another
Aryan deity. A vast majority of south indian hindu practices
including temple worship, father-mother view etc. are dravidian.
The village deities ARE local mother-godesses and this practice
is as ancient as Indus Valley Civilization.
>
>2. What were their philosophical schools?
illaRam and thuRavaRam.
>
>3. Did they migrate from somewhere else or did human life begin in south India
>also? I remember reading in someone's posting that this is still unanswered.
There is no conclusive evidence that the dravidians came from
somewhere else.
>
>4. When did a proper civilisation originate? Geographically where all did it
>permeate.
Please give us an idea of what you mean by 'proper civilization'.
Based on historical records, it appears that the dravidian
civilization flourished at least from Indus Valley days.
Most international scholars think that the Indus Civzn. is
a dravidian civzn. ( some indian scholars like S.R. Rao and
a few others think that Aryans might have _lived_ in India
at that time; but it does not mean that the civzn is aryan).
The dravidian Civilization appears to have florished
throughout india prior to the arrival of aryans.
It appears that geographically these dravidians seem to have
spread out throughout india well before 2000 B.C and thus
where they originated and when they began to spread out etc. are
not answerable from the present knowledge. That the dravidians
were present througout the subcontinent is corroborated by
numerous means including the linguistic data ( Brahui
spoken in West pakistan in Baluchistan is a dravidian language;
almost all north indian languages are built on dravidian
substratum- see Stephen Tyler's works)
>
>5. Have Cholas, Cheras and Pandiyas been ruling from the time civilisation began
>here (I mean South India and not US :) )? Otherwise who else was there?
The Chera ChOzha Pandian dynasties were said to have been ruling
from time immemorial. Asoka's edicts, Greek and Roman evidences
support.
The Indian history is somewhat better known only from
Mouriya period and we have very little info about Nandas and
their predecesors. The Sanskrit works like Mahabharat and
Ramayan also evidences of Tamil kingdoms ( chera chOzha paandia)
The more ancient Vedas contain several tamil words to indicate
the exstence of tamil and the tamil sources claim that these
kingdoms existed from time immemoral.
So it is difficult to say from when they began,
but we can say when they ended .
>
>...
>
>Any other info about the Dravidian civilisation (please without any derogatory
>reference to Aryan civilisation) will also be appreciated.
I would suggest reading Tamil works with an open mind to
gain more understanding of dravidian culture.
If you wish you could compare with the works of vedas,
Manu smrithi, Yagnavalkya smrithi, puranas of Skt.
>
>Rajaram
>
>ps. Why do I have this feeling that this will also degenerate into Aryan vs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Dravidian argument?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Probably because you are too scared :)
- Selva
Rajarama Krishnan
>In article <1kriph...@copland.cs.unc.edu> kris...@cs.unc.edu (Rajarama Krishnan) writes:
>
>
Thanks a lot for those detailed answers to my questions. Though you still
havent improved my regard for Valluvar as a original thinker (I have great
regard for him as a poet), you were certainly right in that, my knowledge of
old Tamil literature is pathetically poor. Thanks for giving me some pointers
to improve it. I will do the best I can. Maybe my question asking info on the
philosophical works of Dravidian culture immediately following my views on
Valluvar, might have appeared like I am saying there were no such works.
I didnt mean any such thing. It was purely a question. So were the other
questions on the Dravidian culture.
You say that all the cultural elements in India other than the Vedic rituals
were Dravidian. But still I see a clear division in Indian culture into two.
The North Indian langs are all similar and the South Indian langs are all
similar. They certainly have some commonalities but are quite easily
divisible into two. In the North Rama and Krishna are worshipped much more
than in the South. And in the South gods like Muruga and Aiyappa are worshipped
a lot. Similarly division is there in other cultural elements. What do you
think is the reason for this division? When I said Aryan and Dravidian,
I guess I meant these two parts of the same Dravidian culture. I also find
it more believable that Indians are all Dravidian than that some Indians
are the same race as whites (Aryans or Caucasians as you may call it).
May be Semitic (Iranians, Jews, Palestainians etc.) but Aryan seems
quite unbelievable to me too.
Yesterday one person in a reply-posting to my original posting had criticised
my disliking Valluvar and accused me of wanting to spark off a Aryan-Dravidian
controversy. I prefer a more constructive criticism like Selvakumar's.
And let me assure you, I have no pride in belonging to either one of these
races/cultures. I have no desire to read lot of anti-anything mails. But I
do want to know more about our culture/history which I dont know much about.
That was the only reason for these postings. If people found my postscript
offensive, I can only say that it was only meant to be a cheeky remark.
Nothing more serious than that.
Rajaram
M. Sundaramoorthy
>
>Though you still
>havent improved my regard for Valluvar as a original thinker (I have great
>regard for him as a poet), you were certainly right in that, my knowledge of
>old Tamil literature is pathetically poor.
>
I think you are trying to analyse Valluvar in the contemporary
context and find he is not that great.
An author should be analysed in the time and mileu he wrote,
and we should see what were the works preceded by his works to see
how much original he was. We can not judge him based on the
contemporary works and thinking.
As far as Tamil is concerned, the works preceded by Thirukkural
were the Sangam literature, whose context and subjects were totally
different from Thirukkural. Without, any precedence of any great
moral work in Tamil, Valluvar first wrote the moral work of
Thirukkural covering almost all the aspects life relevant in his
times. And there is no claim to this date he relied on the works
in other language(s) either. So it is a original work that is
radically different from the earlier works in Tamil. On the
other hand other moral works written after this, which in fact
are classified alongwith Thirukkural as 'needhi noolgaL' or
'padhineNkesszh kaNakku noolgaL', do not get same importance
as Thirukkural, beacause they more or less repeat the same that
were already told by Valluvar. Judging him as not_a_original thinker
based on what we know today, about two millennia after him is
ridiculous.
Secondly, Thirukkural is more of a moral and hence, philosophical
(more materialistic than spiritualistic) work than a literary work.
He is more of a moralist and philosopher than a literateur.
We have a tendency to think all the versified works are
literature. It is wrong. Versification was the only mode of
writing until the advent of prose in the west. So everything
was written in verse form till 18th century. Even treatises
on grammar were written in verses. That doesn't mean they are also
literary works.
Eventhough you repeatedly claim that Valluvar is not a original
thinker, you haven't substantiated your claim yet. If you think
he is not an original thinker, where do you think he got ideas for
his works?.
M. Sundaramoothy
sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
Rajarama Krishnan
>In article <1l6hj8...@tlab1.cs.unc.edu> kris...@cs.unc.edu (Rajarama Krishnan) writes:
>>
>>Though you still
>>havent improved my regard for Valluvar as a original thinker (I have great
>>regard for him as a poet), you were certainly right in that, my knowledge of
>>old Tamil literature is pathetically poor.
>>
>>Rajaram
>
> context and find he is not that great.
>
> and we should see what were the works preceded by his works to see
> how much original he was. We can not judge him based on the
> contemporary works and thinking.
>
> based on what we know today, about two millennia after him is
> ridiculous.
I agree with this point of view. But what he has said are about subjects
which havent got affected (or improved) in the last 2000 years. Moral
codes for men/women, what is good or bad etc. arent the kind of subjects
that can be developed beyond a certain point which was reached as soon
as men became civilised which I think is much before Valluvar came.
>
> Secondly, Thirukkural is more of a moral and hence, philosophical
> (more materialistic than spiritualistic) work than a literary work.
Moral I agree, but philosophical I would not. There is nothing contemplative
in his work. He has just stated codes of conduct for various sets of
people and describe the good and bad in things he saw. This doesnt qualify
as philosophy. This is what I meant by saying there wasnt anything profound
or anything which made me rethink.
> Even though you repeatedly claim that Valluvar is not a original
> thinker, you haven't substantiated your claim yet. If you think
> he is not an original thinker, where do you think he got ideas for
> his works?.
I thought I did. Anyway to restate my point. He has written about lots of
things which are quite obvious. The fact that he compiled them beautifully
and presented them so well does deserve great credit but only that of
a poet or that of an author, but not that of a original thinker. Let me
try to explain. Charles Dickens or Thomas Hardy belong according to me
to the same class. They are also very good authors but they havent got
any original new thought which makes people think. Whereas Newton or
Freud or Kant are original thinkers because they did see in this world
something which others couldnt see.
Whereas in what Valluvar says, I am sure any of us could have thought of
every single thing that is said in thirukkuraL. I quoted the examples of
"karkka kasadara ..." and "yaakaavaaraayinum naa kaakka ...". See isnt it
quite obvious that One shouldnt just study passively, he should structure
his life according to what he believes in. Is it also not obvious that
one should control his/her tongue even if he/she doesnt control anything else
and that he/she will otherwise suffer.
I had on the other hand said metaphysical contemplations do qualify as
original thought. Even the metaphysical questions dont come so easily to
ones mind. ie. Questions like
1. What really makes one happy?
2. What is this life, what is this death?
3. Is there anything called good or bad? Like Socrates said
"And Phaedrus, what is good and what is bad
Who are we to decide these things."
4. What is this Universe? What are its properties?
5. If it is a totally closed system, isnt everything inside it predictable?
And if it is a closed system wont every small action of ours affect the
rest of the world?
...
Several question like this have been raised by metaphysical speculation and
answers have been attempted and are being attempted. These do require
original thought. This speculation metaphysical or otherwise is the
essence of philosophy. (Note the "otherwise"). I dont see any kind of
speculation in ThirukkuraL. I see only blank statements which are also
quite obvious. Hence I dont consider it a work of original thought. Once again
I explained what I meant by original. I am not saying that he copied the
works of some other person.
Rajaram
Meenan Vishnu
(his lines are converted by Madurai for clarity)
In <C21F...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> mvi...@bcr3.uwaterloo.ca (Meenan Vishnu) writes:
>Now coming to the question of originality: It was allged
>(as late as 40 years ago) and even written in TN textbooks
>that Valluvar took his aRaththuppaal (dharma) from Manu's work,
>his section on Science of Polity from Kauthilya (ChaNakkiya's artha sastra)
>and his section on Love from Kama Sutra.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Even now there is a prof in Carleton Univ (a guy from TN
) who writes all this nonsense about aRam
from arthasaashtra.
>Now anyone who has read these works and Valluvar's work will
>realize that this is a big joke.
**** *** ***** ****** ****
>Now Everyone knows that Kama sutra which deals with just sex
>(it also talks about how to do prostitution how to have pimps
>etc) is a far cry from Valluvar's sensual and civilized and
>monogamous form relationships.
Well said meenan:
(( .--. o ___ o .--.
. __ _ . ._|__| ____ . . __ / \ . __ _ . _ | .|
| | | ( \ | | | | / /\ \ | | | | |_ | | | | ( \ | ( \ ||
|__|__| O \_/ | | O_\/_/_| |__|__| (_) | |__|__| O \_/ O \_/
/ (___/
o )) o
. . .___ . .___ .____ . __ . __ _____ ______
| | | |_|_ | |_|_ | | | | | | | | ( | / /\ |
v_/|__) (_./_)J (_./_) | | |__|__| |__|__| O | O \/ |
(___/
o o o
._ _. .____ ______ ___ . _ ___ | _ ___ ___ . ______
( V ) | | / /\ | ( / | ( \| | |( \| | ( / | / /\ |
____/ | | O \/ | O L__| O | | \ O | |_ O L__| O \/ | 0
/ \_____/
Love is softer than flower.
kaamasoothraa is about physical love.
vaLLuvan in kaamathuppaal talks about
philosophy*1* of love and beauty*2* .
Even that he placed after, aRam-virtue
and poruL-wealth.
*1* for ex. oodal is dealt at length. This is philosophical as
opposed to a few pictures and physics.
(( .--. o o
o. ________ _ | .| ____ . . __ o. ________ .
_) / /\ /\ | ( \ || / /\ \ | | | | _) / /\ /\ | |
(_____ O \/ \/ | O \_/ O_\/_/_| |__|__| (_____ O \/ \/ | |____
(___/
.--. .--.
.___ . o ._ _. _ | .| ___|__| .___ . .___ .____ . __
|_|_ | ___\_| ( V ) ( \ || / /\ | | |_|_ | |_|_ | | | | |
(_./_)J \__/ | ____/ O \_/ O \/ | (_./_)J (_./_) | | |__|__|
(___/ / (___/
o o .--. o
. __ . . ________ .____ .___ _ | .| ____ . . __
| | | | | / /\ /\ | | | |_|_ ( \ || / /\ \ | | | |
|__|__| |___| O \/ \/ | | | (_./ ) O \_/ O_\/_/_| |__|__|
| / / (___/
o ____ .--. ))
o. . _ . / o \ ___|__| .___ . .___ .____ . __
_) | ( \ | _|__\_ | / /\ | | |_|_ | |_|_ | | | | |
(__oTT_ |____ O \_/ \_\_// | O \/ | (_./_)J [ (_./_) | | |__|__|
(___/
o o
.___ . . . . . .____ _ .
|_|_ | | | | | | | ( \ |
(_./_)J |___| |___| | | O \_/
(___/
-I forgot the athikaaram]"
aRal-digest
uNal-eat
puNarthal-union
oodal-feigned or real dislike- there is no single word
in english to say this correctly.
The word 'sulk' is used in English though they might not have exactly
the same meanings.
.--. o o
. __ ._|_ | . . . __ . __ . .___ ____ .___
| | | |_|_ | | | | | | | | | | | | |_ / /\ \ |_|_
|__|__| (_./ ) v_/|__) |__|__| |__|__| |____ | _) \)\/ / (_./ )
/ | /
o .--. o
. . __ .___ ____ . . __ o ._ |_.| . . .____ . .
| | | | |_|_ / /\ \ | | | | ___\_| ( V )| | | | | | | |
| |__|__| (_./_) O_\/_/_| |__|__| \__/ | ____/ v_/|__) | | |___|
|____| (___/ /
.--. .--. o o .--.
. . ._|_ | . | .| ._ _. .___ _ . .__ . ._|_ | . .
| | |_|_ | | | || ( V ) |_|_ ( \ | | |_ | |_|_ | | | |
|___| (_./ ) v_/|__) ____/ (_./_) O \_/ | )_| (_./_) v_/|__)
/ /
.--. o (( o o
. |_ | ______ .___ .____ . __ .___ . . . . . .____ _ .
| | |0 / /\ | |_|_ | | | | | |_|_ | | | | | | | ( \ |
|__|__| O \/ | [ (_./_) | | |__|__| (_./_)J |___| |___| | | O \_/ ]
(___/
mathi-moon, madanthai-maiden, pathi-location,
kalakkam-confusion.
" The stars were lost in the locations without being
able to distingiush between the moon and the maid's
countenance"
o .--. o .--.
o ______ .____ _ . .___ . |_ | . . .___ ___| .|
___\_| / /\ | | | ( \ | |_|_ | | || |_( )_ |_|_ ( / ||
\__/ |. O \/ | | | O \_/ (_./ ) |__|__| \. (_./_) O L__|
o_) / /
____ .___ 0
/ /\ \ |_|_
\)\/ / (_./ ) 0
/
o ___ ___
___ . _ ___ | _ ___ ___ . / (_) ______ .____ / _ .___
( / | ( \| | |( \| | ( / | [ _ / /\ | | | | |_. |_|_
O L__| O | | \ O | |_ O L__| \_(_) O \/ | | | \___| (_./_)
\_____/
.--. .--. o
___| .| ____ .___ .___ .____ .___ ___| .| _ . ____ _ .
( / || / /\ \ |_|_ |_|_ | | |_|_ ( / || ( \ | / /\ \ ( \ |
O L__| \)\/ / (_./ ) (__) | | (_./_) O L__| O \_/ \)\/ / O \_/ |
/ /
o o .--.
.___ . __ . . ______ . . .____ .____ ._|_ | . .
|_|_ | | | | | / /\ | | | | | | | |_|_ | | |
(_./_) |__|__| |___| O \/ | | |___| | | | | (_./ ) | |___|
/ / / / |
o .--. o o
.___ . ____ . __ . . . | .| .___ .___ ______ .___
|_|_ | / /\ \ | | | | | | || |_|_ |_|_ / /\ | |_|_
(_./_)J \)\/ / |__|__| |___| |___| (_./ ) (_./ ) O \/ | | (_./_)
(___/ / / /
o o
________ ________ .___ .____ .___ ______
/ /\ /\ | / /\ /\ | |_|_ | | |_|_ / /\ |
O \/ \/ | O \/ \/ | (_./ ) | | (__) O \/ | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
/
___ ___ o
____ ___ . .____ . . __ / (_) .___ .____ / _ . __
/ /\ \ ( / | | | | | | | [ _ |_|_ | | | |_. | | |
\)\/ / O L__| | | | |__|__| \_(_) (_./ ) | | \___| |__|__|
/ |____| /
o .___ . .___ .____ .___ .____ .___ . .___
___\_| |_|_ | |_|_ | | |_|_ | | |_|_ | |_|_
\__/ | (_./_)J (__) | | (_./_) | | (_./_)J | (_./ )
(___/ (___/ / /
.--. o .--.
. |_ | . . ______ .___ ___| .| ____ .___ . . ____ .
| | || |_( )_ / /\ | |_|_ ( / || / /\ \ |_|_ | | / /\ \ |
|__|__| \. O \/ | (_./_) O L__| \)\/ / (_./ ) |___| \)\/ / |____
/ /
o o ___ o ___
.___ .___ . .___ . .___ / \ .___ .____ ________ / (_) .
|_|_ |_|_ | |_|_ | |_|_ |_ | |_|_ | | / /\ /\ | [ _ |
(_./ ) (_./_)J (_./_) |(_./ ) (_) | (_./_) | | O \/ \/ | \_(_) |____
/ (___/ \____/
____ o o
/ o \ / .____ . . . . .____ ______
_|__\_ | | | |__ | | | | | | / /\ |
\_\_// | | | | | |___| |___| | | O \/ | 0
\______/
o ____ o o
o. _ . .___ . __ / o \ / .____ .___ . .___ . __
_) ( \ | |_|_ | | | _|__\_ | | | |__ |_|_ | |_|_ | | |
(_____ O \_/ (_./_) |__|__| \_\_// | | | | | (_./_) |(_./ ) |__|__|
\______/ \____/
___ . ____ .____
( / | / /\ \ | |
O L__| \)\/ / | | 0
/
o o .--.
o ______ . . . ______ .___ ._|_ | .____ ___ .
___\_| / /\ | | | | / /\ | |_|_ |_|_ | | | ( / |
\__/ | O \/ | |___| |____ O \/ | | (_./_) (_./ ) | | O L__|
| / / /
o
______
/ /\ |
O \/ | 0
Meenan Vishnu
