• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Enge Brahmanana?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Raghy

Well-known member
Respectable members,

Greetings. More on "are AndhaNars' and 'Paarppaans' the same? Thiruvalluvar did not seem to think so; Kapilar did not seem to think so either.

இன்னா நாற்பது

...அந்தணர் இல் இருந்து ஊண் இன்னா வாங்கின்னா
மந்திரம் வாயா விடின். - 1

பார்ப்பார் இல் கோழியும் நாயும் புகல் இன்னா
ஆர்த்த மனைவி அடங்காமை நன்கின்னா .....2

In the first and the second songs, Kapilar used the word 'அந்தணர்' in the first song; used 'பார்ப்பார்' in the second song.

Kapilar said chickens and dogs can't even take refuge in caste brahmins homes; they are unlikely to get that (they would be chased away).

Clearly Kapilar differentiated 'andhaNar' and 'Paarppaan'. He did not seem to think they were one and the same.

Cheers!
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
Many Thanks Raghy Sir.

To anyone's mind, the first thing that wud strike is -- if Kapilar or Thiruvalluvar wanted to mean a brahmin they would have mentioned it clearly as such (as a Piramanan or a Paarpanan).

Now am wondering if the two different terms "anthanar" and "brahmin" has some connection with the stand-off between Badrayan and Jaimini. Can someone please let me know if Badrayana or Jaimini have been mentioned in Sangam literature?

Regards.
 
Last edited:

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste Nara.

Let us not forget the fact that you and I are also obscure bloggers--rather not even that, just forum posters; and yet we assume that we have scholarship that is impeccable, while the knowledge of others out there is flawed for one reason or another. Your contempt for my quoting the views of KAnchi ParamAchArya or from other Websites is aweful. That you are an atheist and a (probably better) scholar does not in any way invalidate those views.

Your challenge to show TiruvaLLuvar's religion from his own words, which you have repeated in post no.70, is an empty one! As everyone knows, VaLLuvar has concealed his religious and sectoral identity to make his work universal. One thing is certain, however: that he is not an atheist, so certainly had a religion. There is absolutely nothing wrong or invalid in Hindus seeing pointers in his works to consider his religion as Hinduism.

There is one obvious pointer that strongly suggests and that he is a Hindu: the name VaLLuvar. VaLLuvar is a Hindu community having its origins during the time of the Pallava kings, and they have been either Shaivites or VaiShNavites. According to Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, VaLLuvar's kulatthozhil--family profession, was weaving. Here are the relevant links:
Valluvar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Introduction

Some more pointers to show that VaLLuvar is a Hindu:

• He had other names that are Tamil Hindu names: nAyanAr, devamudaRpAvalar, deivappulavar, nAnmukhanAr, mAtAnubhanggi, perunAvalar, chennAppOdAr.

• People of the VaLLuvar caste and its subsects had various occupations in life: astrology (vaLLuva-sAttiram), soothsaying (vaLLuva paNDAram), weaving, and being priests of the Pallava kings before brahmins took over it.
Valluvar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tamil lexicon

Your lamenting in post no.67 about the loss of Jaina scripts gave me the impression that you considered TiruvaLLuvar as a Jain. If considering VaLLuvar as a Hindu is putting him in a Hindu cage as you said in post 76, it would be far more sanAtana--universal, than considering him as belonging to any other religion!

**********

For all your scholarship and intellectual honesty, Nara, I am surprised to find that some of your statements in posts 79 and 80, are ridiculously inane and naive:

• You said that the four-fold goals, aRam-poruL-inbam-vIDu, is a "secular concept" and that "Hindu religion appropriated it" (post 79)!!!

The four puruShArthas were first given to the world by the Hindu religion, which is the oldest in the world. The Indian religions born of Hinduism, adapted--I won't say appropriated--these concepts. There are/were no such concepts in the religions that exist(ed) outside India.

If we mark the four puruShArthas as belonging to the realm of science or religion, we would find that only artha--poruL, belongs to science, and the three other concepts dharma, kAma and mokSha, belong to the realm of religion. Since artha is material life and kAma exists in the mind that desires such life, Hinduism codified that secular, worldly life with the precepts of dharma, and the goal of mokSha.

• You said, "This one indisputable fact is enough to show Thiruvalluvar did not care for Hindu religion or any other religion." (post 79)

The very fact that VaLLuvar has allotted an entire adhikAram--chapter, on Uzh--destiny, and has talked about karma and reincarnation and asceticism in several kuRaLs is enough to show that VaLLurvar cared for religion in his work. Although he does not speak explicitly about mokSha, he has made it clear in many kuRaLs that the goal of life is the world beyond the physical, which is why he gives so many strict codes about the sAmAnya dharma of secular and worldy life.

• You said: "Saidevo can't produce one single Kural where anthanar is used for the Brahmin varna, yet he will not admit it." (post 80)

In post 74, I have given the various dictionary meanings of the term andhaNan and shown that TiruvaLLuvar has employed some of those meanings. Many eminent scholars have translated the term 'andhaNar' as brahmins in kuRaL 543:

'andhaNar nURkum aRatthiRkum AdiyAi
~ninRadu mannavan kOl.'

"Even to the Vedas of the brahmins and the dharma ingrained in them,
the King's sceptre stood as the basis."

VaLLuvar reinforces this meaning in his kuRaL 560:

'Apayan kunRum; aRutozhilOr nUlmaRappar
kAvalan kAvAn enin.'

The term 'aRutozhilOr' clearly refers to brahmins and their 'nUl' to Vedas here. One more reference here, in kuRaL 134:

'maRappinum otthukkoLLalAkum; pAppAn
piRappozhukkam kunRak keDum.'

Here VaLLuvar is talking about the svadharma of brahmins: "Even if a brahmin forgets chanting the Vedas, he can learn it again; but if he fails in his piRappozhukkam--svadharma/kuladharma, of chanting it, he gets lowered in status."

TiruvaLLuvar has only echoed the Sangham tradition in using the terms andhaNar, aRutozhilOr, and pArppAn for brahmins, as many scholars have reiterated. If you don't agree with it, it is not my problem. There is no denial, however, that VaLLuvar has extended the term andhaNar to mean sages, compassionate and dharmic people and God. To say that he does not include brahmins with the term is, IMO, short-sighted.

• You said: "Here folks, this is what I am talking about. An ultra-orthodox religious head considers Thiruvalluvar a Hindu and therefore their interpretations in line with Hindu religion must be correct, or at least logical. Let me give an example of how ridiculous some of the reasoning gets. One of Saidevo's bloggers claims Thiruvalluvar is a Hindu because he used 7 words in each kural, and Hindus believe in lots of 7s."

KAnchi ParamAchArya was an "ultra-orthodox religious head", but IMO you being an atheist, have no locus standi to judge whether his statements are correct and logical or not. I can also find a hint of irreverence here in your references to SmArtha/Shaiva sages as against your reverential references to VaiShNava sages, but that is only to be expected from your VaiShNavite moorings.

As for the other literary techniques used in the KuRaL, such as the seven words I have quoted in post 77, I don't care if you recognize them or not, for, they are as valid to those who believe in tradition and religion, as they are invalid to those who dismission tradition and religion.

• Finally, you said: "I repeat my challenge to you, show me from Thiruvalluvar's own words that he was a Hindu, not some commentary or blog post. Make your case in your own words. Cite authentic sources as reference, but make the case by yourself if you can." (post 79)

I am not a person like you to consider personal opinions to be unchallengeably scholarly expressions. It is easy to become personal and stand alone with negativism, but positive approaches always respect and include other complementary opinions. Therefore, your challenge is meaningless to me, and IMO, I have already answered it.

I do not expect you to agree with any of the above points, so let's agree to disgree and leave it at that.
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
This is not exactly related to the topic (am sorry to be posting here but hope a spin-off is created from this to an other thread).

There are so many version about the origins of the Pallavas. Some Early- Pallava kings like Simhavishnu and Paramesvaravarman I (670 -695 CE) were Jains. Mahendravarman I (600 - 630 CE) was a Jain in the early part of his life (he was later converted to saivism by the saint Appar). Some details are here: Encyclopaedia of Jainism - Google Books

Moreover, the Saivism of Pallavas is linked to the Pandaram / Gurukkal / Adi Saiva Sect, who possibly were not recognized as brahmins by the vedic religion.

Possibly Thiruvalluvar was not considered a brahmin for this reason.

If anyone has information reg the association of Valluvars with the Pallavas, esp from Tamil source, kindly provide them (either here or in a seperate thread). Also, if anyone has any info on the religious practices of the Pallavas, please do share. This is one abhichara (magic) ritual associated with the Pallavas: Kalādarśana: American studies in the ... - Google Books

Thanks.
 

Brahmanyan

Well-known member
அன்புள்ள ப்ரஹ்மண்யன் ஸார்,

உங்கள் கேள்விக்கு மூன்று விதமான பதில்களை அளிக்க விரும்புகிறேன்.


  • வர்ணாச்ரம தர்மம் ப்ராஹ்மண வருணத்துக்கு பலவிதமான குணங்களும் செயல்களும் அவசியம் என்று வரையறுக்கிறது. ஆவற்றில் சில அந்தணரின் குணாதிசியங்களுடன் பொருந்துவதால், "அந்தணர் என்ற சொல் "ப்ராஹ்மணன்" என்றே பொருள் பெரும்" என்றாகாது. ஆகும் என்றால், காளமேக புலவர் சிலேடை கவிதைகளில் வரும் பொருத்தங்களின் அடிப்படையில் அபத்தமான பல அர்த்தங்களை ஏற்றுக்கொள்ள நேரும். உதாரணமாக, பித்தன் தலையேரும் கவிதையின் மூலம், பாம்பு என்ற சொல், எலுமிச்சை என்றே பொருள் பெரும் என்று ஏற்கவேண்டி வரும்.
  • வருண தர்மம், ஒருவன் எந்த வருணத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவன் என்று முதலில் முடிவுசெய்து, அதன்பின், அவன் குணங்களையும் நடத்தை விதி முறைகளையும் விதிக்கிறது. திருவள்ளுவரோ, ஒருவனின் குணங்களும், நடத்தையையும் பொருத்து அவன் அந்தணனா என்று முடிவு செய்கிறார். ஆக, வருண தர்மமும், திருக்குறளும், ஒன்றுக்கொன்று முழுமையாக எதிர் மறையானது.
  • திருவள்ளுவர், அந்தணரின் விளக்கத்தில், அவன் எந்தவிதமான தொழிலில் ஈடுபட்டுள்ளான் என்பதை ஒரு பொருட்டாகவே கொள்ளவில்லை. திருவள்ளுவர் காணும் அந்தணன், ஒரு வியாபாரியாக இருக்கலாம், ஒரு வண்ணானாக இருக்கலாம், ஒரு தச்சனாக இருக்கலாம், ஏன், அவன் வருணங்களுக்கு அப்பார்ப்பட்ட ஒரு பஞ்சமனாகவோ அல்லது ம்லேச்சனாகவோகூட இருக்கலாம்.

ஆகவே, திருவள்ளுவரின் அந்தணனை வருண ப்ராஹ்மணனாக காண்பது தவறு, அவ்வாறு காண்பதை மிகவும் கடுமையாக கண்டிக்கவேண்டியது அவசியம்.

அடியேன் நாராயண தாஸன்


அன்புள்ள திரு நாராயணன் அவர்களுக்கு,

தாங்கள் விவரமாக எழுதியிருப்பது படிக்க மகிழ்ச்சி ஆனால் இன்னமும் எனது சந்தேகம் முழுமையாக தீரவில்லையே ஒருக்கால் எனது எண்ணத்தை தங்களுக்கு சரியாக விளக்கவில்லையோ என அச்சப்படுகிறேன் .பகவத் கீதையில் கண்ணனும் வள்ளுவர் சொன்னதைத் தானே கூறியிருக்கிறார். குணங்களை ப் பொறுத்துதானே ஒருவருடைய வர்ணத்தைஅறியவேண்டுமெனக் கூறுகிறார் . நான் தங்களுடன் தர்க்க வாததிற்காக இதை எழுதவில்லை

The qualities of a Brahmin are given in the Bhagavad-gita: (Ch:18.42)


samo damas tapah saucam
ksantir arjavam eva ca

jnanam vijnanam astikyam

brahma-karma svabhava-jam


“Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness–these are the natural qualities by which the Brahmanas work.”



"வெளி இந்திரியங்களை அடக்குவது , மனதை அடக்குவது , சாஸ்திரம் இசைந்த வகைகளில் உடலை உலர்த்துவது,சுத்தி , பொருமை, மனோ-வாக் -காயங்கள் . ஒத்திருக்கை பரததுவத்தையும் அவர் தத்துவத்தையும் உள்ளபடி அறிதல் பர தத்துவத்துக்கு இருக்கும் அசாதாரண விசேஷங்களை அறிதல் , மறை உரைக்கும் பொருள் எல்லாம் மெய் என்று உணர்தல் - இவை யாவும் பிராம்மண ஜாதிக்குப் பூர்வகர்மாநுகுணமாக இயற்கையாக ஏற்படும் செயல்களாகும்" . (ஸ்ரீ வைஷ்ணவம் )


தாங்கள் மேலும் விளக்கமளிக்க வேண்டுமென ஆசைப் படுகிறேன்.


தங்கள் நலங்கோரும்,

ப்ரஹ்மண்யன்,
பெங்களூர்
 

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste shrI Raghy.

As you know, the Sangham poet Kapilar was a brahmin. Although he did not use the term 'andhaNan' for a brahmin in his 'innA nARpadu', he has used it in his puRa-nAnURu verse no.200 and 201. In these verses he narrates how he sang the 7th 'patthu' of the 'padiRRuppatthu' on the king 'SelvakkaDungkO vAzhiyAdan' and obtained a gift of one hundred thousand gold coins and a malainAdu--hillside country.

In puRa-nAnURu 200 Kapilar says:
'yAnE parisilan mannu mandhaNan'
"I am the one, an andhaNan--brahmin, who was given the gift."

In puRa-nAnURu 201 Kapilar says:
'yAnE, ta~ndai tozhan ivaren magaLir
andhaNap pulavan koNDu vandananE'

"I, an andhaNa pulavan--brahmin poet, am the one who brought the daughters of king PAri."

Poet Kapilar earned the praise from other poets as, 'poyyA nAviR kapilan'--Kapilan, who has a tongue that never utters a lie".

Thus, there is no doubt that the term 'andhaNan' stood (also and mostly) for brahmins in the Tamizh Sangham Literature, and that TiruvaLLurvar honoured the tradition, by using the term in the same meaning, albeit in one or two instances.
 
S

SwamiTaBra

Guest
Some atheist scholars like Nannan believe that many of the Kurals are not Valluvar's creations. So where do we go...

To expect commentaries from ancient poets on their own works would be asking for moon. In fact most poets have a distaste for laboured prose.

No way all this can be proved conclusively, so each one takes what suits them.

Regards,
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
But Sir, the below can also be translated as:

In puRa-nAnURu 200 Kapilar says:
'yAnE parisilan mannu mandhaNan'
"I am the one, an andhaNan--brahmin, who was given the gift."
"I am the one, an andhaNan--philosopher, who was given the gift."

In puRa-nAnURu 201 Kapilar says:
'yAnE, ta~ndai tozhan ivaren magaLir
andhaNap pulavan koNDu vandananE'

"I, an andhaNa pulavan--brahmin poet, am the one who brought the daughters of king PAri."
"I, an andhaNa pulavan--philosopher poet, am the one who brought the daughters of king PAri."

Here Kapilar uses the word andhaNa and not piramanar / paarpanar / brahmanar. So there is no necessity to take andhana as brahmin, i feel. But due to lack of Tamil knowledge i may have understood this wrongly. So i hope someone clarifies on this.

Regards.
 

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste Smt.HappyHindu.

In the two verses 200 and 201 of PuRanAnURu, Kapilar, one of the several brahmin poets of the Sangham age, describes a poignant situation. He was the closest friend of the king (vEL) PAri, who was famous for his compassion towards all living creatures, and was adored by the aDaimozhi--epithet, 'mullaikkut thEr Indha pAri'--who gave his chariot for a jasmine creeper to establish itself.

The King was killed by treachery after years of war against the three kings Chera, Chozha and PANDya. The duty of taking care of PAri's two daughters named Angavai and Sanghavai fell on Kapilar, who took them to the other VELir kings asking them to marry the daughters. After some unsuccessful attempts, Kapilar left the daughters with his brahmin friends at TirukkovilUr. Later, he took them to other kings. He narrates two of his encounters in the verses 200 and 201 above.

Verse 200

As you are aware, the verses of PuRanAnURu are famous for their descriptive content. When a poet meets a king, he should sing the king's glory, introduce himself with his name, qualifications and kulam and then speak about the purpose of his visit. In verse 200, Kapilar describes his encounter with a king named VichchikkO. Kapilar says that as the closest friend of the deceased king PAri, he is like father to the two daughters, his duty is to give them in marriage (as in kannikA-dAnam--sd), since he is an andhaNan--brahmin, he has all the qualifications of magaL-koDai--charity of daughters in marriage, and that the only parisil--gift, he seeks from king VichchikkO, is the king marrying these daughters.

The term 'mannum andhaNan' is the key in poet Kapilar's verse. By this phrase he lets the king understand the traditional roles ordained for brahmins in TolkAppiyam and other texts, which roles include discussing marriage of a daughter, giving her in marriage, and going on royal missions. Kapilar asks the King to play his role as a kShatriya, just as he is playing his role as an andhaNan--brahmin.
(page_wise)

Verse 201

Since Kapilar speaks about his encounter with a king named IrungkOvEL, it is clear that his attempt with king VichchikkO had failed. Kapilar describes the lineage of the deceased king PAri, says that these are the king's daughters, he is a close friend of their king, so these are (like) his daughters, and that as an andhaNan--brahmin, he has the qualification to give them in marriage.
(page_wise)

Kapilar's attempts to get the daughters married failed, and leaving them with the brahmins at TirukkovilUr, he finally gave up his life in honour of his friendship with King PAri, following the Tamizh custom vaDakkirutthal--sit in fast unto death, facing north.

The honour of getting the daughters married devolved upon AvvaiyAr by the divine grace of God Shiva. She commanded the mUvEndars--three kings Chera, Chozha and PANDya, through a palm leaf message, to come and attend the marriage and bless the daughter, and they readily obliged her.
//www.tamilbrahmins.com/philos...upakhyanam-tales-about-gurus-7.html#post45131

**********

I have not known about these two verses earlier, nor am I in any way versed in Tamizh sangham literature. If with such scanty knowledge but with willingness to analyze in context, I can get so much, it makes me sad that people who have read more should resort to personal, indifferent, inhibitive, and prohibitive opinions, which are freely expressed, with further insistence that the rabbit they caught has three legs!

I would request Tamizh Arvalars--enthusiasts, to explore the excellent online library at before they venture to speak their opinions:
Library Details - TVU
 

Nara

Well-known member
Saidevo, All said and done, I have shown what அந்தணர் meant to Thiruvalluvar from (i) where and how he used the term, as in Kurtal #30, and (ii) where he chose not to use it even though he could have used the term அந்தணர் for Brahmin as in Kural #134. This is the crux of the matter. What Sankarachariyar said, or I am an atheist, etc., have no relevance. Your gratuitous parting shot in your reply to Happyhindu (post #89), given below, only shows what I am up against.
If with such scanty knowledge but with willingness to analyze in context, I can get so much, it makes me sad that people who have read more should resort to personal, indifferent, inhibitive, and prohibitive opinions, which are freely expressed, with further insistence that the rabbit they caught has three legs!
Folks, later today I will make another post using only Thiruvalluvar's kurals to further cement my point that for Thiruvalluvar அந்தணர் was not the same as Brahmin.

But now, I want to address some of Saidevo's unnecessary and untrue characterizations of me. I am really getting tired of this tactic from Saidevo, sooner or later he gets down to talking about I am this or I am that. Call my arguments silly, foolish, inane, naive, ridiculous, stupid and what not, I have no problem, but when you say I have contempt for a particular individual or I am showing disrespect or some such thing, you need to put up your evidence, or retract your words. Having come to know you Saidevo, I expect neither.


Your contempt for my quoting the views of KAnchi ParamAchArya or from other Websites is aweful. That you are an atheist and a (probably better) scholar does not in any way invalidate those views.
Not agreeing with Sankarachariyar does not mean I showed contempt. I am an athiest, yes, and I am no better scholar, never claimed to be one, but I never said Sankarachariyar's interpretations are invalid for these reasons. Such things are only in your imagination. Sankarachariyar's interpretation that anthaNar is Brahmin, like that of Parimelazagar and a host of others are invalid because of internal evidence from Thiruvalluvar's own Kurals, not because I am an atheist.

KAnchi ParamAchArya was an "ultra-orthodox religious head", but IMO you being an atheist, have no locus standi to judge whether his statements are correct and logical or not.
Saidevo, you can't cite Sankarachariyar and then prohibit me from commenting. Further, to say that my atheism disqualifies me from commenting on the logic of Sankarachariyar's statement is irrational.


I can also find a hint of irreverence here in your references to SmArtha/Shaiva sages as against your reverential references to VaiShNava sages, but that is only to be expected from your VaiShNavite moorings.
Now you see irreverence, do you? மருண்டவன் கண்ணுக்கு இருண்டதெல்லாம் பேய்.

Whether Vaishnava or Smartha, I have no reverence for any Brahminist, that is true. But I have always tried to be not disrespectful to any individual, whether it is EVR or Sankarachariyar. This is my record. Show me otherwise from my own words -- oh, well, I know, you have difficulty with original words, you need motivated commentaries to make your point don't you, I forgot. (See Saidevo, I can give as well as I can take, I think it is better for everyone to not go there).

thank you ...
 

Nara

Well-known member
....பகவத் கீதையில் கண்ணனும் வள்ளுவர் சொன்னதைத் தானே கூறியிருக்கிறார். குணங்களை ப் பொறுத்துதானே ஒருவருடைய வர்ணத்தைஅறியவேண்டுமெனக் கூறுகிறார் . நான் தங்களுடன் தர்க்க வாததிற்காக இதை எழுதவில்லை
அன்புள்ள ப்ரஹ்மண்யன் ஸாருக்கு நமஸ்க்காரம்,

அடியேனுடைய எண்ணத்தில் தர்க்கத்தில் தவறே இல்லை. உண்மையை சரிவர அறிய தர்க்கம் மிகவும் அவசியம் -- இது உங்களுக்கு தெரியாதது இல்லை.

The qualities of a Brahmin are given in the Bhagavad-gita: (Ch:18.42)
“Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness–these are the natural qualities by which the Brahmanas work.”
Sir, did you notice the phrase I have highlighted above? This shloka is actually saying that these qualities are natural for a Brahmana, not that these qualities make one to be a Brahmana. On the contrary, Thirukkural defines the qualities and says anyone who exhibits these qyalitiers is an அந்தணர்.

My above point becomes even more evident when we look at the previous sholaka, 18.41, which is in fact the introductory shloka for this section of chapter 18.
ब्राह्मण क्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परंतप ।
कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः ॥

brahmana kshatriyavishaam shudraanaam cha parantapa |
karmaani pravibhaktaani svabhaava pranavair gunai: ||
ब्राह्मण क्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च = Brahmana, Kashatriya, Vaisya, and Shudra
स्वभाव = natural, by birth
प्रभवै र्गुणैः = distinguishing/unique characteristics
कर्माणि = occupation/தொழில்
प्रविभक्तानि = divided up

The overall meaning: based on the unique and natural inborn characteristics of Brahmanas, Kashatriyas, Vaisyas, and Shudras, their individual occupations are divided up.

Then, in shloka #42, which you have cited, the characteristics and occupation for Brahmins are described. Then, in sholka #43 the same is described for Kashatriya, and in shloka 44 that for Vaishya and Shudra. Now, to get a real sense of how different the message of BG is from that of Thirukkural, look at what shloka #44 says about Shudra: परिचर्यात्मकं कर्म शूद्रस्यापि स्वभावजम् (to serve every will and desire of the other three varnas is the natural state of a Shudra).

You will not find anything like this in Thirukkural.


.... இவை யாவும் பிராம்மண ஜாதிக்குப் பூர்வகர்மாநுகுணமாக இயற்கையாக ஏற்படும் செயல்களாகும்" . (ஸ்ரீ வைஷ்ணவம் )
அடியேன் மேலே விண்ணப்பித்ததை இந்த வ்யாக்யான வாக்யம் இன்னும் ஊர்ஜிதப்படுத்துகிறது. இந்த ச்லோகத்தின் தாத்ப்பர்யம், பூர்வ கர்ம அடிப்படையில் ப்ராம்மண ஜாதியில் பிறந்த்தவர்களுக்கு இந்த குணங்களும், செயல்களும், இயற்கையாக அமையும்.

44ம் ச்லோகத்தில், சூத்திரர்களுக்கு முந்தைய மூன்று வர்ணத்தவர்க்கும் ஏவல் தேவை பணிவிடை செய்வது முன் செய்த வினைக்கு (பூர்வ ஜன்ம கர்மா) அனுகுணமாக (அடிப்படையாக) ஸஹஜமாக ஸம்பவிக்கும் செயல், என்று ஸ்ரீவைஷ்ணவர்கள் அர்த்தம் செல்லுகிறார்கள். ஸ்மார்த்தர்களும் இதையே தான் சொல்லுகிறார்கள். இதுவே ஒரு கொடுமை, மேலும், இதைத்தான் திருக்குறளும் சொல்லுகிறது என்பது அதைவிட கொடுமை அல்லவா. உங்களுடை பதிவுகளிருந்து நீங்கள் கனிவான மனம் படைத்தவர் என்பது தெளிவு, திருவள்ளுவர் பாராட்டும் ஓர் அந்தணர். நீங்களே சொல்லுங்கள், இது ஞாயமா? ஒரு சூத்திரனாக பிறந்தவன் என்றுமே ஏவல் பணி செய்வதர்க்கு மட்டும்தான் லாயக்கா? அவன் ஓர் அந்தணனாக வாழ்க்கை நடத்த முடியாதா? ஏன் முடியாது என்று கீதை சொல்லுகிறது?

அன்புடன், அடியேன் நாராயண தாஸன்
 

Raghy

Well-known member
Sri.Saidevo Sir,

Greetings. I wish to address your message in post #86, please. Yes, as mentioned by yourself, Kapilar was born in a caste brahmin family. Yes, amoung the 'Pura naanuru' (புறநானுறு) songs, his poems are included in which he introduced himself as 'andhaNan' (அந்தணன்). True. But the discussion is not about Kapilar. Importantly, the discuussion is not about 'Whether a caste brahmin could become an andhaNan or not'...Yes, a caste brahmin could very well become an andhaNan. But the issue is 'are andhanars and caste brahmins one and the same?' Thiruvalluvar did not seem to think so; Kapilar did not seem to think so either.

I request you to look at my message in post #61, please. Based on Thiruvalluvar, all I am saying is
As per Thiruvalluvar, A Paarppan can become an andhanan; but an andhanan need not be a parppaan.

In my humble opinion, your quoting Kapilar has not proved that someone other than a caste brahmin could not become an andhaNan; all it showed was, a caste brahmin, in this case Kapilar could become an AndhaNan. It had not proved in anyway that an andhaNan is exclusively a caste brahmin.

Cheers!
 

Brahmanyan

Well-known member
அன்புள்ள ப்ரஹ்மண்யன் ஸாருக்கு நமஸ்க்காரம்,

அடியேனுடைய எண்ணத்தில் தர்க்கத்தில் தவறே இல்லை. உண்மையை சரிவர அறிய தர்க்கம் மிகவும் அவசியம் -- இது உங்களுக்கு தெரியாதது இல்லை.


44ம் ச்லோகத்தில், சூத்திரர்களுக்கு முந்தைய மூன்று வர்ணத்தவர்க்கும் ஏவல் தேவை பணிவிடை செய்வது முன் செய்த வினைக்கு (பூர்வ ஜன்ம கர்மா) அனுகுணமாக (அடிப்படையாக) ஸஹஜமாக ஸம்பவிக்கும் செயல், என்று ஸ்ரீவைஷ்ணவர்கள் அர்த்தம் செல்லுகிறார்கள். ஸ்மார்த்தர்களும் இதையே தான் சொல்லுகிறார்கள். இதுவே ஒரு கொடுமை, மேலும், இதைத்தான் திருக்குறளும் சொல்லுகிறது என்பது அதைவிட கொடுமை அல்லவா. உங்களுடை பதிவுகளிருந்து நீங்கள் கனிவான மனம் படைத்தவர் என்பது தெளிவு, திருவள்ளுவர் பாராட்டும் ஓர் அந்தணர். நீங்களே சொல்லுங்கள், இது ஞாயமா? ஒரு சூத்திரனாக பிறந்தவன் என்றுமே ஏவல் பணி செய்வதர்க்கு மட்டும்தான் லாயக்கா? அவன் ஓர் அந்தணனாக வாழ்க்கை நடத்த முடியாதா? ஏன் முடியாது என்று கீதை சொல்லுகிறது?

அன்புள்ள திரு நாராயணன் அவர்களுக்கு,

தாங்கள் அளித்த விளக்கஉரை "வர்ணாஸ்ரம" முறையை புதிய கோணத்தில் நோக்க எனக்கு வாய்ப்பளித்திருக்கிறது . இதை பூரணமாக ஜீரணிக்க எனக்கு அவகாசம் தேவை . ஆனால் தாங்கள் கடைசி பத்தியில் கூறியுள்ள கருத்துக்களை நான் இதய பூர்வமாக ஆமோதிக்கிறேன் .

அன்புடன்,
தங்கள் நலங்கோரும்,
ப்ரஹ்மண்யன்,
பெங்களூர்.
 
Last edited:

Nara

Well-known member
அந்தணர் நூல்

Kural #543
அந்தணர் நூற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் ஆதியாய்
நின்றது மன்னவன் கோல்.

anthaNar nURkum aRaththiRkum AthiyAy
ninRathu mannavan kOl.
It has been claimed that anthaNar nool is the Brahminical Vedas, and anthaNar aRam is the Brahmnical Dharmam, or the code of conduct prescribed exclusively for Brahmins.

Is this a reasonable claim?

If reasonableness is to be determined under the premise that questioning what great commentators of the past have said (like Parimelazhagar), or, what highly respected religious figures of more recent times have said (like Sankarachariyar), is ipso facto irreverence and blasphemy, then, of course, there is no question, it is not just an imminently reasonable claim, but it is nothing short of immutable truth.

But, more rational people are open to alternative arguments and will decide the question not on the basis who says what, but on the merits of what is being said, without fear or favor. It is to them I make the following case. In making my case, I shall try to use the way Thirvalluvar himself has deployed, or not deployed, the terms in question.

The term anthaNar has been discussed threadbare already. In kural #30, he could have used pArpanar enbOr aRavOr, or, maRaiyOr enbOr aRavOr, without violating any grammar rules, but he didn't. Further, he elaborated the prime quality of anthaNar as one who is compassionate to all living things. Contrast this with how Thiruvaluvar derides the one activity Brahminsts hold most reverential, namely performing Yagam, in a later chapter condemning meat eating. If anthaNar was Brahmin for Thiruvalluvar, then, that would mean he first praised Brahmins as those who are compassionate to all living people and later derided them for conducting vELvi where animals are sacrificed -- முன்னுக்கு பின் முறண்பாடு. The only way to refrain from causing such glaring contradiction to Thiruvalluvar's own words is to not insist anthanar is Brahmin.

Next is nool. nool simply means a book or text. It could mean any text. On the other hand, the common term for the Brahminical Vedas is நான்மறை (nAn maRai), or simply மறை (maRai). Thiruvalluvar has not நான்மறை anywhere. The only time Thiruvalluvar uses மறை that may obliquely refer to Brahmnical Vedas is in Kural #847.
அருமறை சோரும் அறிவிலான் செய்யும்
பெருமிறை தானே தனக்கு.
The அருமறை in the above Kural could be interpreted to mean Brahminical Vedas, but nobody has done that , not even the much revered commentators. They have all interpreted it simply as esoteric knowledge of any kind.

But all this is about மறை (maRai), what about நூல் (nool)?

Thirvalluvar has used the term நூல் (nool) quite often, and every time it is about books by scholars of many kinds. Let me give a few examples.

Kural #743:
உயர்வுஅகலம் திண்மை அருமை இந்நான்கின்
அமைவு அரண் என்றுஉரைக்கும் நூல்.

(Texts say a fort must be of built with sufficient height, width, strength, and unscalable.)
The நூல் (nool) here is text about building forts, a construction manual perhaps, not Brahmnical Vedas.

Kural #683:
நூலாருள் நூல்வல்லவன் ஆகுதல் வேலாருள்
வென்றி வினைஉரைப்பான் பண்பு.

(An ambassador who can go into the enemy's camp and negotiate must be a scholar among scholars.)
The நூலார் refers to well read scholars, not Brahmins who can recite Vedas backwards and forwards.

Kural #322:
பகுத்துண்டு பல்உயிர் ஓம்புதல் நூலோர்
தொகுத்தவற்றுள் எல்லாம் தலை.
(Of all the good deeds compiled by scholarly books, the best deed is to preserve and protect all lives by sharing the riches among all.)

Now it is time to combine these two terms, அந்தணர் (anthaNar) and நூல் (nool). From Thiruvalluvar's own choice of when to use and when not to use the words anthanar, parpanar, etc., we see clearly that அந்தணர் are simply good people (அறவோர்) with compassionate outlook. Their scholarly texts are அந்தணர் நூல், such as Thirukkural itself, or a range of texts that teach us all to lead our lives in a compassionate mode, with equal respect to all. There is only one code (சாமான்ய தர்மம்) for all, that which is detailed in the most part in Thirukkural. No special code of conduct determined by birth, at birth all are equal, differences come not out of birth, but what we make ourselves out to be.

Cheers!

p.s.
I do find Thirukkural to be best நீதி நூல் I have come across, and in the most part, a life fashioned out of Thirukkural will be an admirable one. But, I am not an unabashed admirer of all things Thirukkural. Thiruvalluvar's views on women (வாழ்க்கை துணைநலம்) and the male dominating views expressed in பிறனில் விழையாமை are quite distasteful to me, to say the least. But these are quite mild in comparison to the disgusting vile oozing out of Dharmashashtra texts.
 

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste shrI Raghy.

My contention is NOT THAT the term andhaNar and brahmin exclusively mean each other, NOR THAT TiruvaLLuvar used the term to mean only brahmins in all the three kuRaLs where he has used it. My contention IS THAT in Sangham Tamizh literature the term andhaNar was also--and perhaps mostly--used to refer to brahmins and that TiruvaLLuvar followed suit, by using it to mean brahmins, in at least one kuRaL, kuRaL no.543--'andhaNar nURkum aRam'.

As you might have noticed, I have given the dictionary meanings of the term 'andhaNan' and how TiruvaLLuvar used them, IMO, in post 74. While there is no dispute that VaLLuvar used the term to mean God in kuRaL 8 (perhaps he was the first to do so), some eminent scholars (brahmins as well as non-brahmins) have interpreted the term in other two kuRaLs 30 and 543 to mean brahmins.

So, my contention is, whatever explanation Nara, yourself or any other member seeks to give, the interpretation of these scholars cannot be treated as wrong. The best we can have in such circumstances is that both interpretations are right. Since TirukkuRaL which preaches sAmAnya dharma, is a universal text, TiruvaLLuvar would definitely have known and let different interpretations for his kuRaLs, which only adds value to the text.

Thus, it is not my intention to prove--or even go into the question--that someone other than pArppAn can become an andhaNan or not.
 

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste everyone.

I said in post 95 and earlier that the term 'andhaNan' in Sangham (and classical) Tamizh literature also--and perhaps mostly--meant brahmins. Here is a list of the various terms related to 'andhaNmai', each of which includes a meaning related to brahmins, including the term 'andhaNmai'.

Please also note that the terms 'a~ndhaNATTi, a~ndhaNi'--brahmin woman, 'a~ndhaNpADi, a~ndhaNarchEri'--Quarters where Brahmins reside, and 'a~ndhaNarvAkku'--the Vedas, reinforce the primary meaning of the terms as related to brahmins.

University of Madras Tamil lexicon 1924-1936
Tamil lexicon

அந்தண்புலவன்
--பார்ப்பனப் புலவன்
’மறையறிப வந்தண் புலவர்’ (நான்மணிக்கடிகை ௯௧)

அந்தண்மை
--௧. அழகிய கிருபை
--௨. பார்ப்பனத்தன்மை
’அந்தண்மை பூண்ட அருமறை அந்தத்துச் சிந்தைசெய் அந்தணர்’ (திருமன்திரம் ௨௩௪)
’குறிகொளந்தண்மைதன்னை யொளித்திட்டேன் (திவ். திருமாலை ௨௫)

அந்தணத்துவம்
--பார்ப்பனத்தன்மை
’அந்தணத்துவமடைந்தனன்’ (உபதேசகா. சிவவிரத. ௩௩௭)

அந்தணரறுதொழில்
--ஓதல், ஓதுவித்தல், வேட்டல், வேட்பித்தல், ஈதல், ஏற்றல் (திவாகர நிகண்டு)

அந்தணன்
--௧. அந்த + அணவு (திருமுரு. ௯௪-௬ உரை)
--௧. அழகிய தட்பமுடையான் (குறள் ௩0)
--௨. பார்ப்பான் ’நூலே கரகம் ... அந்தணர்க்குரிய’ (தொல். பொ. ௬௨௫)
--௩. முனிவன், ௪. பிரம்மா (பிங்)
--௫. வியாழன் (பரிபா ௧௧.௭)
--௬. சிவபிரான் ’யாழ்கெழுமணிமிடற்று அந்தணன்’ (அகநா. கடவுள்)

அந்தணாட்டி, அந்தணி
--பார்ப்பனி
’மந்திர நாவினந்தணாட்டி’ (பெருங். இலாவாண் ௧௭,௧௮)
’அந்தணி ... தவத்துறை நீங்கி’ (பெருங். உஞ்சைக் ௩௬.௧௯௫)

அந்தணாளான்
--௧. அழகிய கிருபையுடையான்
’செந்தீவண்ண ரந்தணாளர் கண்டீர்’ (தேவா ௧௮௧.௬)
--௨. பார்ப்பான்
’அந்தணாளர்க்கரசு வரைவின்றே’ (தொல். பொ. ௬௩௭)

அந்தண்பாடி, அந்தணர்சேரி
--பிராமணர் குடியிருக்குமிடம்
’அந்தண்பாடியுமணுகி யல்லது (பெருங். மகத ௪.௩௩)
’அந்தணர்சேரியக விதழாக (பெருங். மகத ௩.௮௭)

அந்தணர்வாக்கு
--வேதம் (சின்தா. நி ௧௫௬)

*****

a~ndhaNpulavan
--pArppanap pulavan--brahmin scholar
'maRaiyaRipa va~ndhaN pulavar' (~nAnmaNikkaDikai 91)

a~ndhaNmai
--1. azhakiya kirubai--sweet graciousness
--2. pArppanatthanmai--brahminhood
'a~ndhaNmai pUNDa arumaRai a~ntatthuch chi~ndaisey a~ndhaNar' (tirumandiram 234)
'kuRikoLa~ndhaNmaitannai yoLitthiTTEn (div. tirumAlai 25)

a~ndhaNatthuvam
--pArppanatthanmai--brahminhood
'a~ndhaNatthuvamaDai~ndanan' (upadEsakA. sivavirata. 337)

a~ndhaNaraRutozhil
--six occupations of the brahmins
--Odhal, Odhuvitthal, vETTal, vETpitthal, Idhal, ERRal (divAkara ~nighaNTu)

a~ndhaNan
--1. a~nta + aNavu (tirumuru. 94-6 urai)
--1. azhakiya taTpamuDaiyAn (kuRaL 30)
--2. pArppAn '~nUlE karakam ... a~ndhaNarkkuriya' (tol. po. 625)
--3. munivan, 4. bhirammA (pi~g)
--5. viyAzhan (paripA 11.7)
--6. sivapirAn 'yAzhkezhumaNimiDaRRu a~ndhaNan' (aka~nA. kaDavuL)

a~ndhaNATTi, a~ndhaNi
--pArppani--brahmin woman
'ma~ndira ~nAvina~ndhaNATTi' (peru~g. ilAvAN 17,18)
'a~ndhaNi ... tavatthuRai ~nI~ggi' (peru~g. u~jchaik 36.195)

a~ndhaNALAn
--1. azhakiya kirubaiyuDaiyAn
'se~nthIvaNNa ra~ndhaNALar kaNDIr' (dEvA 181.6)
--2. pArppAn
'a~ndhaNALarkkarasu varaivinRE' (tol. po. 637)

a~ndhaNpADi, a~ndhaNarchEri
--bhirAmaNar kuDiyirukkumiDam--Quarters where Brahmins reside
'a~ndhaNpADiyumaNugi yalladu (peru~g. magada 4.33)
'a~ndhaNarchEriyaga vidazhAga (peru~g. magada 3.87)

a~ndhaNarvAkku
--vEdam (chintA. ~ni 156)

*****

In the light of above information, I can only consider the argument that TiruvaLLuvar did not anywhere refer to brahmins by the term 'andhaNar' in his TirukkuRaL as vitaNDAvAdam--cavil/ perverse or frivolous argument.
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
Well, i feel here the historical scenario of Valluvars being priests of Pallavas is important. Till date i do not think the pandarams are considered brahmins. It looks like Valluvars were priests before Brahmins came into Tamilakam (??).

Since the Valluvar priests were not considered brahmins from the vedic religion pov; i feel there can be no question of Thiruvalluvar being a brahmin.

I feel Thiruvalluvar could not have referred to brahmins as anthanar, if Thiruvalluvar had penned his kurals before the arrival of brahmins into Tamilakam.

Even if Thiruvalluvar penned his work after the arrival of brahmins into Tamilakam, i feel Thiruvalluvar possibly may not have referred to brahmins as anthanars, esp considering that the former untouchables and brahmins had some sort of a "stand-off" (caused because brahmins began taking over the position of the former-untouchables as the 'energy providers' for the tamil kings thru ritualism). It is more likely that Thiruvalluvar referred to the Valluvar priests as Paarpan.

Some questions that can be explored in this context is -- were the brahmin priests who came to tamilakam the followers of any sort of philosophy (were they philosophers)? Was advaitha known in tamilakam at the time of Thiruvalluvar? Who (which possible community) were the philosophers in Tamilakam at the time of Thiruvalluvar?

Regards.
 
Last edited:

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste Smt.HappyHindu.

I wish to address a couple of points in your post 97:

01. The brahmins DID NOT come to Tamizhagam from the North or anywhere. There are numerous evidences in the earliest Sangham literature to show that they were part and parcel of the Sangham Tamizh society, wherein different communities lived a life of harmony.

Of the Sangham poets, many were brahmins. Earlier, I gave the example of Kapilar. Many scholars believe that TolkAppiyar, author of the oldest extant Tamizh work TolkAppiyam, was a brahmin. His original name was TRNadhUmAgni, he was a son of the JAmadagni RShi and the most favourite among the twelve disciples of Agastya RShi. (Tamil literature - Google Books)

Here is some recent news about the conclusion of the date of TolkAppiyam as 711 BCE:
Tolkappiyar belongs to 711 BC | ??????????????? ????? ??.??. 711

02. The Sangha-kAla Tamizh literature is classified into those created during the Sangha-kAlam (500 BCE--100 CE) and those created during the Sandham-maruviya-kAlam (100 CE--600 CE). These texts together are classified into PatthuppATTu, ETTutthogai and PadhineN-kIzhkkaNakku nULgaL. TirukkuRaL belongs to the PadhineN-kIzhkkaNakku nULgaL group, composed during the Sandham-maruviya-kAlam.

Thus, there is no question of TiruvaLLuvar composing his TirukkuRaL before or after the arrival of brahmins to TamizhnADu, since brahmins were already native subjects during the Sangha-kAlam. playing their roles described in TolkAppiyam and Tirumandiram eminently, and earning respect and admiration from all around.

Thus, IMO, TiruvaLLuvar was very well aware of the association of the term 'andhaNar' to brahmins from the earliest times and did refer to them by the term in his kuRaLs.
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
Dear Saidevo Sir,

I would suggest that you make an other thread "Was Tholkappiyar a Brahmin".

If brahmins were already native of Tamilakam wud they be "arya brahmins" ? Or they were philosophers and shamans of non-arya origin ?

I wud be interested in discussions on the above point from Tamil sources. I will not be able to take part in the discussion as i am handicapped due to the inability to read and write tamil (i depend on tranliteration software).

Therefore, i will wait for points put forth by others in this regard.

Thanks.

Regards.
 
Last edited:

Nara

Well-known member
..... It is more likely that Thiruvalluvar referred to the Valluvar priests as Paarpan..

Happy, the Kural in which Thiruvalluvar uses the term pArppAn, he says that even if you forget you can learn it back (maRappinum OththukkoLalAm,). Here, the phrase OththukkoLalAm indicates he is talking about the Brahmnical Vedas. Therefore, Thiruvalluvar must have had Vedic Brahmins only in mind for pArppAn.

Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks