• 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.

Nara

Well-known member
.... So, the point is, why hold one opinion to be superior and bully the other opinion as poison, irrationally traditional, or illogical?

You and I need to defend our traditional and progressive points of view, only if we criticise and attack each other's viewpoint. We might differ or even caution each other about the traps in the viewpoint, but let us not condemn it.
Saidevo, what we have here is not a case of two equally valid POVs. I believe it is a travesty to superimpose MDS upon Thirukkural. I am not bullying anyone, I never called anyone any name, like you have done. I did not wantonly bait Brahmins with provocative criticisms of even MDS, let alone Parimelazhagar or Sankarachariyar Swami. All I did was respond to outrageous claims that are being repeatedly made. You guys never respond to my questions. Now, you are making this claim of equivalency. This simply is not the case.

When I point out the vile that oozes out of MDS page after page, there is just silence. When I point out that in interpreting a Kural, Chandrasekara Sankarachariyar Swamigal groups some human beings, panchamas, and, dogs and other animals, as a single group, there is just silence. Then, you claim Thirvalluvar incorporated MDS, and that is a legitimate POV deserving equal respect.

No, it is not a legitimate POV. MDS is indeed poison. Superimposing MDS upon Thirukkural is indeed equivalent to pouring poison into milk. I do condemn this with all the force I can muster.

Saidevo, I will readily concede that I may get interpretation of one word here, or one phrase there wrong. But, the overall approach of interpreting Thirkkural based on MDS is simply malicious and wrong.

Saidevo, I am not saying I am a better person than you. I am not saying I am superior to you. I am not saying you should be condemned. If I did any of this, I would be guilty of what I am condemning. But, in good conciseness, I cannot acquiesce to your wish that our two views on this matter could somehow be equally valid.

Cheers!
 

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste everyone.

Nara says in post 121:
"Superimposing MDS upon Thirukkural is indeed equivalent to pouring poison into milk."

This was in response to his finding KAnchi ParamAchArya's quotes of MDS and ParAshara smRti. What about the POV of the VaiShNava scholars? Here is a sample:

From the Website Sriramadesikan.com:
Tirukkural at Sriramadesikan.com

shrI S.N.Sriramadesikan is a great scholar in Sanskrit and Tamizh, who has translated most of the TirukkuRaL in Sanskrit:
Thirukkural in Sanskrit

In the article at his Website, shrI SNS explains how TirukkuRaL, although seemingly contains the truths of Jainism and Buddhism,

• is predominantly Hindu in character and has borrowed freely from Sanskrit texts;

• has specific verses that speak either directly or in veiled terms about the four castes, four ashramas, six duties of the brahmins whose excellence acquired at birth would suffer if they fail in their work;

• verses related to the law of karma and rebirth, destiny or fate, the other worlds (heaven and hell), VaLLuvar’s belief in 'Devils', 'Sri Devi', 'Moodevi', 'Mohini', etc. and the Vedantic idea of mukti.

The renowned scholar asks:

A consideration of the points stated above will make it clear that there is no iota of truth in the contention that Valluvar has not used ideas found in Sanskrit works even a whit, arid that he is an exponent of pure Tamil culture which is not Vedic, and stands unique.

It is strange that theistic Tamilians who accept with pride and glorify the many literary contributions of the atheistic Jams, permeated by their own beliefs should hesitate to accept the Vedic culture inextricably mixed with Tamil culture in its own domain. Why should the “broadmindedness”manifested in accepting Jain literary contributions get “narrowed” in respect of Vedic culture?

As to the Conclusions of Scholars, he says:

Sri P.S.Subrahmanya Sastrigal, Ex-Principal of Tiruvaiyar College and a great Oriental Scholar well versed in Sanskrit and Tamil, has prepared a work entitled 'Balar Urai' for the Aiathuppal of Tirukkural. Under each Kurair he has given parallel quotations from the Mahabharata, the Upanishads and Manusmriti, and has brought out the striking similarity of ideas between the Tamil work and the Sanskrit works.

Sri Panditamani Kadiresan Chettiar, rendering Kautilya’s Arthasastra in Tamil has quoted the Kural in many places and has shown how greatly the same ideas are echoed in the two works.

Sri V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar has set out the Line-to-line correspondence between Tirukkural and Sanskrit works as shown below:

Part I - ‘On Virtue’ (Aratthuppaal): With ideas in Rigveda, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Parasarasamhita, and Srimad.

Part II - Wealth (Polity): With ideas in Kainantaka Niti, Kautilya’s Artha Sastra, Sukra niti and Bodhayana Smriti.

Part III - ‘On love’: with ideas in Vatsyayana’s Kamasutras.

• Not only such ideas but also pure Sanskrit terms — over 1 25 in number-have been used by Valluvar-—This has been stressed by Prof. S.Vaiyapuri Pillai. who has also boldly expressed the view that Tirukkural shGuld have been composed only in the 6th Century A.D. He has further indicated that the chapters on 'Nature of fortifications (Araniyalbu)', 'Espionage' and 'Messenger' (Ambassador) are derived from Kautilya’s 'Artha Sastra'.

• The great Tamil Scholar, Prof. S.Vaiyapuri Pillai is the author of a book entitled 'Ilakkia Vilakkam'. It contains an essay-—Val1uvar and Manu,. This is what he says in it on page 97:

"Many chapters in Tirukkural embody the ideas contained in many Sanskrit works.
Many Kurals are translations of Manu’s work." He has quoted the relevant passages in support of his statements.

• Others go a step further and declare that all the essential passages have been translated verbatim from Sanskrit and have adduced sufficient proof in support of the contention. A dispassionate comparison of the Sanskrit passages and the Kurals reveals the truth of this statement; Dharma Sastra, Artha Sastra, and Kaina Sastra have been translated, as it were, as three different parts Into which the whole of Tirukkural is divided.

*****

Here is an article that VaiShNavas could be happy about:
'vaLLuvamum vaiShNavamum' by R.Sounder
??????????? » ?????????? ????????
 

Nara

Well-known member
..... What about the POV of the VaiShNava scholars? Here is a sample:

From the Website Sriramadesikan.com:
Tirukkural at Sriramadesikan.com
Srirama Mahadesikan was a great scholar indeed, but he was also an avowed Brahminist. He was bitterly opposed to allowing Dalits to enter Oppiliappan temple. This was quite ironical as Bhagavat Ramanuja was the one who coined the term திருக்குலத்தோர் for Dalits and made arrangements for them to enter the temple in Thirunarayanapuram 3 days each year, and that was about 1000 years ago.

In any case, let me state for the record, I condemn all attempts to superimpose MDS upon Thiruvalluvar and putting him in Hindu cage, regardless of who is doing it. I will oppose it even if a Dalit scholar does it. My opposition to this is based on principle, not based on who is doing it.

With respect to the other names cited, their superior scholarship not withstanding, I condemn conflating Thirikkural with the MDS vile, whoever may be doing it, Sri P.S.Subrahmanya Sastrigal, Sri Panditamani Kadiresan Chettiar, Sri V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, Prof. S.Vaiyapuri Pillai, or R.Sounder.

The similarities found between Artha Shashthra etc., could be because the Sanskrit authors copied from Thiruvalluvar, or these concepts were prevailing wisdom independently recorded. Please give some evidence to show on what basis these scholars claim it was Thiruvalluvar who copied from the Sanskrit authors?

Saidevo, once again, instead of answering my questions, you are citing commentators who are part of the Brahminist establishment, what else would they say? How can anyone say that the six activities Thiruvalluvar was talking about was that of Brahmanas which included thinking of Panchamas as belonging to the same category as dogs? Do you think Thiruvalluvar even accepted the notion of panchamas, let alone grouping them with dogs? Why are you unwilling to touch this question?

I can guess why. I think you are unwilling to answer this question because of who said it, not because you believe that it is true. Free yourself from the bondage of having to accept traditional wisdom, lock, stock, and barrel. You can reject what is clearly an unacceptable idea and still not lose any of your reverence for the Swamigal. There is no need to commit yourself to every last syllable of conveyed wisdom.

Cheers!
 

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste Nara.

Your guess is wrong. I have clearly told you in post 118 that I am not qualified to judge a person like KAnchi ParamAchArya. It you want me to be more precise, here it is: I am an aRai-kuRai--half-baked, nunippul-mEyum--browsing only the tips of the grass, forum poster, who ventures into arguments with little knowledge: 'Ayiram pATTukku aDi teriyum, nURu pATTukku ~nuni teriyum'--'I know the last words of a thousand verses and the first of a hundred.' When I have not felt the necessity to read either the Manu SmRti or TirukkuRaL completely and ponder over any similarities and differences between them, how can I offer an opinion? Right now I don't find the need or time to do it, so you may say that I live in blissful ignorance.

Yes, I accept traditional wisdom lock-stock-and-barrel, but I am not in helpless bondage to it. Personally, being a laukika brahmin, I can only consider myself as a brahma-bandhu, but I am sufficiently aware that these days there are no panchamas and the most orthodox brahmins do not entertain any caste differences. When brahmins today are not behind the caste conflicts that constantly take place in TN, all our discussions for the pros and cons of our smRtis can only be to satisfy our egos.

One thing seems certain to me. VarNa and caste did exist in the Tamizh society during the times of TiruvaLLuvar, yet VaLLuvar only refers to the brAhmaNa varNa somewhat explicitly. This does not mean, however, that he favoured the brAhmaNa varNa, favoured the other varNas or was against all varNa and jAti. IMO he designed his TirukkuRaL in the way he did due to the compulsion of his times. He was not alone in such design: the text NAlaDiyAr, written by Jain sages, has a similar assign and the two texts are often mentioned together: "Alum vElum pallukku uRudi, nAlum iraNDum sollukku uRudi".

Thus, all our opinions about the KuRaL and its author, whether we are on the traditional or rational side, are bound to be only speculations. Ironically, the rational opinions are all expressed with strong emotion, and with vitriolic outburst against tradition and religion, which only goes against the concept of rationality.
 

Nara

Well-known member
.... When I have not felt the necessity to read either the Manu SmRti or TirukkuRaL completely and ponder over any similarities and differences between them, how can I offer an opinion? Right now I don't find the need or time to do it, so you may say that I live in blissful ignorance.
Saidevo, you know it just as much as I do, this is simply a cop out. You don't have to do a Ph.D. in MDS and Thirukkural to have an opinion on whether Panchaman and dogs belong to the same category. You also know, just as as I much as I do, that it is patently false to say, "...the most orthodox brahmins do not entertain any caste differences." I am very intimately aware -- first hand knowledge -- how NBs are treated in Brahmnical matams even today, i.e. literally today.

... Ironically, the rational opinions are all expressed with strong emotion, and with vitriolic outburst against tradition and religion, which only goes against the concept of rationality.
To object to associating MDS with Thirukkural is not vitriolic outburst. It has nothing to with emotion.

Thank you ....
 

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste Nara and others.

When I said in post 108 that the period of the Kalabhras dynasty is "generally considered to be dark age--an interregnum", that ended the earlier Chera-Chozha-PANDya rule, "disturbed the prevailing order, and created a situation of unrestrained morality and lawlessness in society", Nara accused me of making outlandish claims and then running away.

Now, what sort of claim is the following that Nara makes, in reply to my post 122?

The similarities found between Artha Shashthra etc., could be because the Sanskrit authors copied from Thiruvalluvar, or these concepts were prevailing wisdom independently recorded. Please give some evidence to show on what basis these scholars claim it was Thiruvalluvar who copied from the Sanskrit authors?

I won't say that this claim of Nara is outlandish. It is more than that: he is trying to show us a unicorn which is visible only to his eyes.

In post 122, I quoted from the Website of shrI S.N.Sriramadesikan wherein he says that Sri V.R.Ramachandra Dikshitar "has set out the Line-to-line correspondence between Tirukkural and Sanskrit works", which includes the RgVeda, RAmAyaNa, and the MahAbhArata.

Would Nara say that these texts also copied from the KuRaL and that he included them in his 'etc.' in the above quote?

The strange thing is that it is Nara who makes such a claim and yet he wants me to "give some evidence to show on what basis these scholars claim it was Thiruvalluvar who copied from the Sanskrit authors".

Since you make a strange claim, Nara, the onus of proof is on you: you need to prove that authors like ChANakya and Manu knew Tamizh, studied TirukkuRaL and copied its contents in their works. Even the non-traditional scholars have not made such a claim (so far as I know), because everyone generally believes that VaLLuvar was a scholar in Sanskrit and Hindu texts, so he had occasion to use the material in the texts in his work, which is not to say that his work identical to the texts he used.

I am very intimately aware -- first hand knowledge -- how NBs are treated in Brahmnical matams even today, i.e. literally today.

It is a common and well-known fact that politicians, VIPs and celebrities, whatever their caste, creed or religion, will receive preferential treatment in any MaTham or temple, whether it is managed by brahmins or non-brahmins. As for oridinary people, just as non-brahmins enjoy preferential treatment in non-brahmin MaThams and temples, there is nothing wrong in brahmins receiving preferential treatment in brahmin MaThams and temples.
 
S

SwamiTaBra

Guest
Could any of enlighten me the distinction between a "sandroor" and an "andhanar" ?
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
Am sorry but am not able to understand how post # 126 is a reply for post # 125.

Also, am confused -- this website says Thiruvalluvar was a weaver. Was weaving occupation allowed for a brahmin in the past?
 

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste Swami.

The term 'chAnROr' is from the root chAl--abundance, fullness, be great, noble; the root chARu--essence, is also connected with it (eg. chAnRANmai = chARu + ANmai). Thus, a chAnROn is one who is full of greatness and nobility, which may also be related to valor shown in a battle. The term 'chAnRon' as used in the following PuRanAnURu verse includes the meaning of a brave and noble warrior who would not show his back to the enemy:

ஈன்று புறந்தருதல் என்தலைக் கடனே;
சான்றோன் ஆக்குதல் தந்தைக்குக் கடனே;
வேல் வடித்துக் கொடுத்தல் கொல்லற்குக் கடனே;
நன்னடை நல்கல் வேந்தர்க்குக் கடனே.

InRu puRa~ntarudal entalaik kaDanE;
sAnROn Akkudal ta~ndaikkuk kaDanE;
vEl vaDitthuk koDutthal kollaRkuk kaDanE;
~nannaDai ~nalkal vE~ndarkkuk kaDanE.

[A mother teaches her son]
"My duty is to bear and get you out;
the father's duty is to make you learned;
the blacksmith's duty is to shape you a vEl--spear;
and the king's duty is to give you good conduct."

TiruvaLLuvar perhaps includes this meaning in his kuRaL too:

InRa pozhidin periduvakkum tan-maganaich
chAnRon enak kETTa thAi--69

When a mother hears about his son as a nobleman,
she will be happier than when she gave him birth.

*****

The term andhaNan, on the other hand, as I have collected in post 96, is exclusively related to dharmic people who mean no harm to any living being.

For the use of the term 'chAnROn' in Tamizh classics, check:
Tamil lexicon
 
S

SwamiTaBra

Guest
namaste Swami.

The term 'chAnROr' is from the root chAl--abundance, fullness, be great, noble; the root chARu--essence, is also connected with it (eg. chAnRANmai = chARu + ANmai). Thus, a chAnROn is one who is full of greatness and nobility, which may also be related to valor shown in a battle. The term 'chAnRon' as used in the following PuRanAnURu verse includes the meaning of a brave and noble warrior who would not show his back to the enemy:

ஈன்று புறந்தருதல் என்தலைக் கடனே;
சான்றோன் ஆக்குதல் தந்தைக்குக் கடனே;
வேல் வடித்துக் கொடுத்தல் கொல்லற்குக் கடனே;
நன்னடை நல்கல் வேந்தர்க்குக் கடனே.

InRu puRa~ntarudal entalaik kaDanE;
sAnROn Akkudal ta~ndaikkuk kaDanE;
vEl vaDitthuk koDutthal kollaRkuk kaDanE;
~nannaDai ~nalkal vE~ndarkkuk kaDanE.

[A mother teaches her son]
"My duty is to bear and get you out;
the father's duty is to make you learned;
the blacksmith's duty is to shape you a vEl--spear;
and the king's duty is to give you good conduct."

TiruvaLLuvar perhaps includes this meaning in his kuRaL too:

InRa pozhidin periduvakkum tan-maganaich
chAnRon enak kETTa thAi--69

When a mother hears about his son as a nobleman,
she will be happier than when she gave him birth.

*****

The term andhaNan, on the other hand, as I have collected in post 96, is exclusively related to dharmic people who mean no harm to any living being.

For the use of the term 'chAnROn' in Tamizh classics, check:
Tamil lexicon

Thank you.

Are you also saying (implcitly) that some of the virtues could be common to both "sandroor" and "andhanar"?

Rgds.,
 

saidevo

Well-known member
Swami, the answer to your question is to be found in the following:
adhikAram 99 on chAnRANmai of TirukkuRaL
 

pannvalan

Well-known member
Swami,

The definition given by Valluvar for 'Sandror' is as follows.


அன்புநாண் ஒப்புரவு கண்ணோட்டம் வாய்மையோடு

ஐந்துசால்பு ஊன்றிய தூண்.

அதாவது, அன்பு (love), நாணம் (வெட்க வேண்டியவற்றுக்கு வெட்கப்படுதல்), பிறருக்கு உதவி செய்தல், மற்றவரைப்
பொறுத்துக் கொள்ளுதல், உண்மையே பேசுதல் ஆகிய ஐந்து சிறந்த பண்புகளும் தூண்களாகக் கொண்டது சான்றாண்மை
ஆகும்.

இத்தகைய பண்புநலன்களைத் தம்மிடத்தே கொண்டவர் சான்றோர் ஆவர்.

அந்தணர் என்போர் எல்லோரிடத்தும் நேர்மையோடும், கனிவோடும் நடப்பவர் ஆவர்.

So, the former is being virtuous and the latter is being righteous. This is the broader distinction. It may be noted that being righteous
itself is a virtue,

 

Nara

Well-known member
.....
When I said in post 108 that the period of the Kalabhras dynasty is "generally considered to be dark age--an interregnum", that ended the earlier Chera-Chozha-PANDya rule, "disturbed the prevailing order, and created a situation of unrestrained morality and lawlessness in society", Nara accused me of making outlandish claims and then running away.
Saidevo, thank you for bringing this back again and reminding all of us that you have not given an answer to my question and you did runaway. You made the statement Kalabharas "created a situation of unrestrained morality and lawlessness in society". Now tell us on what you base this statement. If all you have is so-and-so said it, then my accusation stands.

Now, what sort of claim is the following that Nara makes, in reply to my post 122?

[..]

Since you make a strange claim, Nara, the onus of proof is on you.....
Sorry Saidevo, you are just mistaken. I did not make any claim, I was only responding to your claim that Thirukkural borrowed from such and such Sanskrit texts. I was only pointing out the two other possibilities, namely, (i) Sanskrit authors copying from Thirukkural and (ii) both independently recording prevailing wisdom. This was to show that your claim is not self-evident. Since you are the one making a claim -- I was only showing alternative possibilities -- it is up to you to provide convincing evidence. Don't simply say this author said, or that author showed it, for every Brahminist author making these claims there are scores of others making the opposite claim. You make a claim, then you show the evidence, that is how debates work.


It is a common and well-known fact that politicians, VIPs and celebrities, whatever their caste, creed or religion, will receive preferential treatment in any MaTham or temple, whether it is managed by brahmins or non-brahmins. As for oridinary people, just as non-brahmins enjoy preferential treatment in non-brahmin MaThams and temples, there is nothing wrong in brahmins receiving preferential treatment in brahmin MaThams and temples.
Ok, fair enough, but then why did you say this:
but I am sufficiently aware that these days ...... most orthodox brahmins do not entertain any caste differences.
What is it Saiedo, (a) the orthodox brahminis do not entertain any caste differences, or (b) there is nothing wrong in brahmins receiving preferential treatment in brahmin MaThams and temples? Both can't be true, make up your mind!


Well, Saidevo, all this is extraneous to the issue of அந்தணர் and அறுதொழில். This particular branch of this thread is about அறுதொழில். Let us refocus on this for a moment. Please remember, it was you who cited Kamakoti.org to bolster your argument about what is அறுதொழில், I didn't. Now, I am asking you whether you are willing to standby the commentary Sankarachariyar Swamigal has given for this அறுதொழில் in which he classifies a group of human beings to dogs.

In response you said:
I am not qualified to judge a person like KAnchi ParamAchArya.
Saidevo, I am not asking you to judge the Sankarachariyar. Just say whether you agree with him when he included the above clearly offensive comment as part of the அறுதொழில்.

You also said:
When I have not felt the necessity to read either the Manu SmRti or TirukkuRaL completely and ponder over any similarities and differences between them, how can I offer an opinion?
This is also, I am sorry to be blunt, dishonest. In this very thread you have provided a lot of analysis and opinion. Now, suddenly, when asked to defend a clearly unacceptable statement from Sankarachariyar, you have become very coy.

I understand your reluctance to disagree with someone you revere. That is the crux of the issue. You are too wedded to this idea of inerrancy of passed down and received wisdom, you want to just take all of it, uncritically, lock, stock and barrel. This by definition means you are not open to new ideas that can be more reasonable or rational. This is why your arguments cannot be relied upon by people who wish to think about these things, by people for whom that Rg Vedic line "Let noble thoughts come to us from all directions" is not merely a tag line, by people unafraid of rationality.

Thank you ...
 

pannvalan

Well-known member
It is observed that one can interpret any kural in Thirukkural as per one's own whims and fancies.

பொருள் இலக்கணத்தில் 'பொருள் கோள்' என்று ஒன்று உண்டு. அதன்படி, ஒரு செய்யுளின் சரியான பொருளை அறிவதற்கு
அச்செய்யுளில் உள்ள சொற்களைப் பிரித்து அவற்றின் வரிசையைச் சரியான முறையில் மாற்றி வாசித்தால், நமது எண்ணம் ஈடேறும் என்பர்.

ஒரு செய்யுளுக்கு ஒரு பொருளே உண்டு. அதிலும் முரண்பட்ட இருவேறு பொருள்களை நாம் ஒரே செய்யுளில் காண முடியாது.

ஆனால், இங்கே என்ன நடக்கிறது? ஒரே குறள் வெவ்வேறு வகையிலே பொருள் கொள்ளப்பட்டிருக்கிறது.

அப்படிப் பார்க்கையில், இக்குறளுக்கு இப்படியும் ஒரு பொருள் உண்டல்லவா?

மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கம் குன்றக் கெடும்


பார்ப்பான் மறப்பினும், கற்றுக் கொள்ளலாம். ஆனால் அவன் ஒழுக்கம் குன்றினால், இந்தப் பூமியில் பிறப்பு என்னும் தொழிலே நடக்காமல் கெட்டுப் போகும்.

நான் இந்த அர்த்தத்தை ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளவில்லை என்றாலும், ஒரு வாதத்திற்காக இப்படியும் சொல்லலாம் என்று தெரிவித்துக் கொள்கிறேன்.
 

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste everyone.

I said in post 108 that the period of the Kalabhras dynasty is "generally considered to be dark age--an interregnum", that ended the earlier Chera-Chozha-PANDya rule, "disturbed the prevailing order, and created a situation of unrestrained morality and lawlessness in society". Here is some information which help us to infer the nature of the people and rule of the Kalabhras.

KaLappirar--Kalabhras in Sangham literature
Paraphrased from the book 'Some Contributions of South India to Indian Culture'
by S.Krishnaswami Aiyangar, published in 1923

It is not as if the Kalabhras invaded the Tamizh lands overnight, defeated the mUvendars--three kings, Chera, Chozha, and PANDya and established their rule. The Kalabhras clan included several hills-and-forest tribes residing in the borderlands of the then Tamizhagam, making frequent incursions and finally establishing their rule in Tamizhagam for around 300 years.

It was the time when Emperor Ashoka was keen on expanding his kingdom southwards, which resulted in persistent Maurva invasions through the hills that formed the borderlands of TamizhnADu, by breaking the hills and creating roads through them. Uprooted from their habitat by this activity of the Mauryas, the tribes in the hills and forests lands who formed the Kalabhras clan made repeated incursions into the Tamizh lands, and finally succeeded in establishing their rule for around 300 years.

Sangham classics, especially Aha-nAnURu, has many verses that speak about the tribal chieftains, specifically these groups: KOchar/KOsar, VaDugar/VaDukar, Mazhavar and PuLLi. Subdued by the Mauryas, these groups either invaded the Tamizh lands on their own or assisted the Mauryan armies by serving as mercenaries.

The scenario portrayed by Aha-nAnURu is an interesting one: Thalaivan--lover/husband, separates from his Thalaivi--love, and goes away in search of Diraviyam--money and riches, in far away lands, often crossing the hills that bordered the Tamizh lands. He is driven northward by the stories he had heard of the treasures the Nandas accumulated in PATali(putra) being then buried under the waters of the GangA (Aham.264). Days and months pass by, with no sight of the Thalivan; and the Thalaivi laments her state, with her Thozhi--friend, consoling her. The history of the times is weaved in the text of their conversation, admist beautiful descriptions of nature and people.

VaDugars/VaDukars are described as a class of hunters. Their chief occupation was cattle-raiding and they are always said to be accompanied by cruel dogs (Aham.213,381).

• Their language (which was researched to be Telugu) was considered by the Tamils as unlearned in character (Aham. 295,107).

• NakkIrar, in Aham.253, speaks of Erumai of KuDanADu as the cattle-lifting tribe of VaDugar. Another poet, IDaiyan Chendang-koTRanAr, in Aham.375, speaks of the victory of the Chozha king ILam-perum-chenni over the VaDugars at PAzhi.

Mazhavars, who suffered a defeat at the hands of NeDuvEl Avi at Podini (Aham.1), were habitually residents in forests and lived by way-laying travellers. They worshipped NaDukal (Aham.35, KuraL 771)--stones planted in honour of warriors who fell in battles), and offered sacrifices to them. PuLLi of VengaDam, subjugated the Mazhavars (Aham.61).

KOchars/KOsars entered the country of TuLu by defeating Nannan and killing his state elephant (ParaNar in Kuruntogai 73). Nannan's territory included both TuLu and KonkANam (NatRiNai 491).

Aham.196 speaks of the KOchars as having violently blinded (அருளின்றிக் கண்களைந்து--AruLinRik kaN kaLaindhu) the father of a woman called Anni Mijnili. At her instance, their two chieftains KuRumbiyan and Tidhiyan avenged this act by killing the KOchars at AzhundUr.

SillapadhikAram speaks of them as 'kongilam kOchar', and the poet MAmUlanAr in Aham.251 describes Kochar winning against their enemies at Podiyil hill, but MOhUr declined to submit to them, which resulted in the Mauryas advancing South.

• Since the KOchars settled in four places they were known as NAlUr kOchar. Poet KAri-kaNNan of KAvEripUmpaTTinam refers to the practice of the younger members of this tribe learning the use of weapons by hurling them against a pillar made of the wood of Murungai maram.

*****

From the book Temples of KRShNa in South India: history, art and traditions in Tamilnadu by T.Padmaja

• We get clear references to the hostile activities of the Kalabhras against the Vedic religion and Vedic establishments in the contemporary literature and also inscriptions. The VELvikuDi grant of the PANDyas (8th centure CE) describes how KaDungOn PANDyan liberated the PANDya country from the clutches of the Kalabhras and emerged as a resplendent sun from the dark clouds of the Kalabhras.

• There is still dispute among the scholars as to the identification of the Kalabhras. But recent researches, based on epigraphical and literary evidences, tend to identify them as a fanatical jain group, very hostile to the Vedic institutions and rituals which entrenched itself strongly in some places in Tamilnadu. The Kalabhras took away the grant of brahmadeyam lands (as gifts to brahmins), which were restored to them only after the PANDyas defeated the Kalabhras.

• The activities of the Kalabhras provoked a strong reaction which was given expression in the hymns of AzhvArs and NAyanmArs. We see in their works repeated condemnation of the Jainas and the Buddhists. In the works of JnAnasambandhar in particular, we get vivid descriptions of Jainas wandering about naked with their dishevelled hair which, according to him, was revolting.

*****

Thus, we have groups of people who were tribes, capable of unrestrained violence, did not speak Tamizh, were not Hindus, made their living by cattle-raiding and robbery, acting as mercenaries, and injuring innocent citizens--by plucking out their eyes as in one instance. What sort of morality and law and order could have prevailed during the rule of these Kalabhras? This was the reason, as I said earlier, that so many nIti-shAstras were written in Tamizh, headed by TirukkuRaL, by the brave native poets who had lost their Sangham kings who afforded protection and yet would not fail in their duty to attempt at restoration of order by the might of their ezhuththANi--stylus.

*****

I do NOT agree with Nara saying in post 133 that he only spoke of the 'possibilities' of the Sanskrit texts copying from TirukkuRaL or 'independent wisdoms' prevailing. These are Nara's opinions which he expressed to counter the several instances of many authors showing lines of texts that are similar between TirukkuRaL and Sanskrit works.

Since for the Sanskrit texts to TirukkuRaL assertion, several examples are shown in the works of authors I have referred to, Nara cannot escape simply by saying that he hinted at the possibility of a unicorn which he believes in and most others don't. Therefore, I urge Nara to provide some examples for the two other possibilities he has stated above.
 
Last edited:

Nara

Well-known member
......Thus, we have groups of people who were tribes, capable of unrestrained violence, did not speak Tamizh, were not Hindus, made their living by cattle-raiding and robbery, acting as mercenaries, and injuring innocent citizens--by plucking out their eyes as in one instance.
Saidevo, this is really pathetic. If you don't have any answers for my questions, it is enough to simply say so, I won't insist. There is no need to kick up a dust storm. Let me remind you once again of the two most recent questions you are carefully avoiding:

  • What is it Saiedo, (a) the orthodox brahminis do not entertain any caste differences, or (b) there is nothing wrong in brahmins receiving preferential treatment in brahmin MaThams and temples? Both can't be true, make up your mind!
  • In this very thread you have provided a lot of analysis and opinion. Now, suddenly, when asked to defend a clearly unacceptable statement from Sankarachariyar, you have become very coy.
IMO, an honest interlocutor will address the important questions before branching off.

Kalabharas
Whether Kalabharas were good or bad, I really don't care. My objection was only to your sweeping statement that they "disturbed the prevailing order, and created a situation of unrestrained morality and lawlessness in society". Instead of tackling the question head-on, you have done a cut-and-paste snow job.

I wonder whether you even read some of the cut-and-paste text. Why would being a hunter or having a cruel-looking dog make them bad people. They conquered Tulu country and killed an elephant, and therefore what? I am sure they were not the first to invade another country or kill an elephant. They worshiped nadukal to honor their fallen warriors, so that makes them lawless and immoral? They spoke Telugu, oh, that surely means they are monsters!!! It is just inconceivable for me that you read all this and still felt they offered support for your case.

Gouging out opponent's eyes is cruel, but was routinely done by the powerful establishment, whoever they may be. At least the Kalabhars did it to their political opponents, Kulothunga Cholan is supposed to have gouged out the eyes of elderly SV leaders for no greater crime than refusing to declare sivat parataram naasti.

Saidevo, you say Kalabharas lived by way-laying travelers. Did they do this during the 300 years they ruled all of Tamil country? You know, Thirumangai Azhvar was supposed to have done the exact same thing, way-laying people. But, why would Kalabharas have to live by way-laying anybody if they were ruling the entire country? Does this make any sense at all?

Taking land away from Brahmins or being anti-Vedic does not necessarily make them immoral. Being fanatical Jain is no more a sin than being a fanatical Hindu.
I don't know much about Nayanmargal, but I know many Azhvar pasurams reek with absolute hatred for Buddhits and Jains, would that not make them fanatical SVs? The official hagiography account of Bhagavat Ramanuja, who is feted as காரேய் கருணை இராமானுசா, says he put thousands of Jains whom he defeated in debates to death by grinding them to pulp in காற்கடை (செக்கு). Nice ha?

Why Jains and Buddhists, some Azhvar pasurams are hostile towards Saivas as well. Here is one by திருவரங்கத்து அமுதனார், not an Azhvar, but this prabhandham has equal reverential status as that of Azhvar prabhandhams.
இராமநுச நூற்றந்தாதி #99:
தற்கச் சமணரும், சாக்கியப் பேய்களும், தாழ்சடையோன்
சொற்கற்ற சோம்பரும், சூனிய வாதரும், நான்மறையும்
நிற்கக் குறும்புசெய் நீசரும் மாண்டனர் நீள்நிலத்தே
பொற்கற்பகம் எம்இராமாநுச முனி போந்தபின்னே.

Would all this make SVs murderous hordes?

Finally, here is a nugget that Saidevo very deftly inserted in his arguments:
There is still dispute among the scholars as to the identification of the Kalabhras.
So, Saidevo says the very identity of Kalabhras is in dispute, but that did not stop him from making the grand conclusion:
Thus, we have groups of people who were tribes, capable of unrestrained violence, did not speak Tamizh, were not Hindus, made their living by cattle-raiding and robbery, acting as mercenaries, and injuring innocent citizens--by plucking out their eyes as in one instance. What sort of morality and law and order could have prevailed during the rule of these Kalabhras?
Once again I repeat, I really don't care how good or bad Kalabharas were, my objection was only about your sweeping statement as though it is well established fact. Tamil kings were no greater angels nor any less of demons. Wielding state power makes them all demons sooner or later. All said and done, if you think most of Kalabharas created unrestrained morality (whatever that means) and lawlessness in society, I will let you have it, if only you will stick to the questions:

  • Do orthodox brahminis really not entertain any caste differences, or entertaining caste differences is alright?
  • Do you agree with Sankarachariyar that some human beings belong to the same group as dogs for the purpose fulfilling what he sees as the அறுதொழில் six fold duties of Brahmins?


Thirukkural and Sanskrit texts
I do NOT agree with Nara saying in post 133 that he only spoke of the 'possibilities' of the Sanskrit texts copying from TirukkuRaL or 'independent wisdoms' prevailing. These are Nara's opinions which he expressed to counter the several instances of many authors showing lines of texts that are similar between TirukkuRaL and Sanskrit works.

Since for the Sanskrit texts to TirukkuRaL assertion, several examples are shown in the works of authors I have referred to, Nara cannot escape simply by saying that he hinted at the possibility of a unicorn which he believes in and most others don't. Therefore, I urge Nara to provide some examples for the two other possibilities he has stated above.
Here is what I said about the two other possibilities to Thiruvalluvar borrowing from Sanskrit texts in post #123.
The similarities found between Artha Shashthra etc., could be because the Sanskrit authors copied from Thiruvalluvar, or these concepts were prevailing wisdom independently recorded. Please give some evidence to show on what basis these scholars claim it was Thiruvalluvar who copied from the Sanskrit authors?
Saidevo, I have highlighted the key phrase for your convenience. I hope I don't have to explain to you what "could be" means. Saidevo, you are the one who made the claim and it is you who must provide evidence. All the authors you quoted assume that if Tamil text A is similar to Sanskrit text B, then, Tamil text borrowed from Sanskrit text. This is Brahminist thinking.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:

saidevo

Well-known member
namaste Nara and others.

Actually what you say is pathetic, Nara. You have nothing to offer except vitaNDAvAdam--cavil/ perverse or frivolous argument, when confronted with questions of proof for your opinions. You have no answer for my observation as to why, unlike in the Sangham age, when even small kings were celebrated in poetry, no poet has sung about the kings of the Kalabhra period and why were there as many as twelve nIti-nUlgaL--ethical texts, written during this period, as never before or after.

All I have done is to point out the opinions of the scholars as to the similarities between Sanskrit texts and TirukkuRaL. I told you I have not studied Manu SmRti or other Sanskrit texts and TirukkuRaL deeply, to make any claim that VaLLuvar copied from the Sanskrit texts.

On the other hand, you used the phrase 'could be' to speak about two other possibilities, and now in post 136, you fortify your opinion by saying, "All the authors you quoted assume that if Tamil text A is similar to Sanskrit text B, then, Tamil text borrowed from Sanskrit text. This is Brahminist thinking."

Since your thinking is against Brahminist thinking, it is incumbent upon you to show that the Brahminist thinking is wrong, by giving proof for the other two posibilities and make your unicorn come alive with life.

Nara, I cannot care less for what you think about my credentials from my posts. I have said all that I have wanted, so, I am not going to indulge in replying to your vitaNDAvAdam any further.
 

sarma-61

New member
namaste Nara and others.

...You have no answer for my observation as to why, unlike in the Sangham age, when even small kings were celebrated in poetry, no poet has sung about the kings of the Kalabhra period and why were there as many as twelve nIti-nUlgaL--ethical texts, written during this period, as never before or after.

I am reading the discussions in this thread with interest, though i am just a layman.
But on reading the above portion, with what little i know of history, it looks to me that the kalabhras ought to have been a people of ascetic disposition basically, not interested in recording their doings or achievements, not entertaining court poets who will sing praises by imagined and invented greatnesses for money, etc., but that the kalabhras were as just and efficient as other rulers of those times and at least did not discourage (if not actively encourage) neetinuls being written, preserved and passed on to next generations.

If these neetinuls were written as protests against kalabhra rule of neetikedu, it must have been easy for the rulers to completely destroy any evidence of such writings, is it not? and just publicly gouge out the eyes of one such author of neetinul, and nobody will dare to do it again, am i not right?

There seems to be some evidence for the presence of ajivikas in the south

Jainism Articles and Essays: The Ajivika Sect of Ancient India

There is also a possibility that -


  1. There is no evidence to support anybody named kalabhras existed.
  2. Pallavas were in south, chalukya in north and Gangas in the middle, so there is no evidence to show anybody else existed.
  3. Looting was a common practice to refer others as thieves. So this must be just that.
  4. This is just an attempt to advance tamil antiquity. It advances the sangam works age to before christ. The legend just gives some three hundred years of history in between that advances the tamil antiquity.
Controversies in History: Kalabhras Interruption Tamil Myth
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
In addition to what Sarma Sir says, i also wish to add a few notes, which may perhaps add an other perspective.

1) According to AK Aiyangar in the book "Ancient India and South Indian history & culture", the Kalabhras were the Kalavar or the Kallars.

2) According to MD Raghavan in the book "India in Ceylonese history, society, and culture", the Buddhist monk-scholar Buddhadutta Thera was patronised by the Kalabhra Chieftain, Acutavikkanta (aka Acutavikkanta Kalambakulanandana / Acyuta vikranta).

3) According to the book "Encyclopaedia of Hindu Iconography: Śiva", the Kalabhras were of Jain-Buddhist lineage.

Generally praises have been sung of hindu kings by brahmins. If the kings were Jain/Buddhist there is no necessity to expect praises to be sung of them, esp if they were the austere sort of Jains and Buddhists who did not engage the brahmin class.

4) According to the book "History of ancient India" by Arun Bhattacharjee, the Andhras entered into the current Andhra regions and pushed the Kalabhras out of Andhra. Due to this, the Kalabhras had to move into present Tamilnadu region. However, came across a few books on google-books that mention the Kalabhras as Jains from the present Karnataka regions.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Haridasa Siva

Haridasa Siva

New member
This is why your arguments cannot be relied upon by people who wish to think about these things, by people for whom that Rg Vedic line "Let noble thoughts come to us from all directions" is not merely a tag line, by people unafraid of rationality.

Thank you ...


I condemn such an indirect reference to me. I mean what my tag line says. Good thoughts are totally different from "empty arguments".
 
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