• 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.

Politics of Thirukkural

Status
Not open for further replies.
Happy, Nara,

Agnihotram Ramanuja Thathachariar has said very clearly, in his book 'hindu matham engE pOkiRathu?", that thiruvenkadam was an amman temple of the original hill tribes and that he has personally verified the plaits (pinnal) in the rear part of the rock-cut idol. I have no reason to doubt his statement.

It is possible that the present garbhagriham is a vestige of some early buddhist shrine because there is a claim of the place having been a buddhist place of pilgrimage and also historical references of the idol having been considered as Muruga during some period of time. When the dispute arose during the time of Ramanuja, the opposite party is stated to be siva worshippers but I am not sure whether the idol was then considered siva or muruga.
Dear Sir,

Could it be possible that Agnihotram Ramanuja Thathachariar was mistaken due to the presence of plaits...i mean old time chieftains used to tie up their hair in ways which are reserved for females today. So what appear to be plaits on a sculpture could belong to a male as well.

Am reminded of napolean's hair as kulothunga chola in the kamalhassan movie dasavataram -- long hair which could easily be mistaken for a female, if seen from the behind. May be the key point is whether or not the idol has breasts. Here too again, the breastplate can get confusing with its protrusions, like this one.

The native tribes of gadaba and chenchu consider the deity a male. Am yet to come across traditions that it is a female, although i would not rule out the possibility of vrishnis considering it a female goddess. Am not very clear who were the vrishni tribes in those regions around the sangam period, although tamil literature knows of Mayon.

The key point IMO is that it is a rock cut idol. Rock-cut sculptures were the specialty of the pallavas before any other group in the south. The Pallavas conceptualized themselves originating from Vishnu. Maybe it was considered Murugun during the reign of Kumaravishnu who supposedly took himself to be the amsam of both Murugan and Vishnu. However, the details are not at all clear. The only thing clear is that Pallavas claimed descent from Vishnu.

Going by various possibilities, i would say the chances of this idol being Vishnu is greater than any other possibility. This may apply if we speak of 'religion' proper. However, instead of saying religion proper, as Jain, Buddhist or Hindu, i tend to go with the term 'tribal'. Because the period was still tribal. And specific deities were unique to specific clans at that time.

Padmavati and Saraswati are present in jain and buddhist literature, as Yakshinis. Maybe due to the presence of jainism and buddhism in the southern regions, both these religions were the first to absorb a large number of tribal deities into their religions.

Hindu literature mentions Kubera is Yaksha (which makes Ravana, Vidyadharas, Gandharvas, Kinnaras, etc all Yakshas). Kubera is mentioned for the first time in Atharvaveda. But in Shatapata Brahmana he is the chief of evil spirits -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubera

Am not surprised to see brahmanas (texts) mentioning certain groups as evil. I suppose this merely brings out the antagonism between the atharvans against the trayee-veda groups. Perhaps the jaina traditions were right in saying they were against vedic sacrifices where animals were killed mercilessly, but perhaps there were deeper reasons why they got represented as evil in the brahmanas (texts). Culture conflict, ie, idol-worship versus the idea of non-idol-worship?? Or maybe even tribal-ethnic conflict...

Anyways, so far it appears perhaps Thiruvenkata, Padmavati, Saraswati, Murugan, Shiva, Kubera, and perhaps Rama and Ranganatha Swamy also, were Atharva gods of clans/groupings that were designated Yaksha at some point of time.

The context of Yaksha in folk literature is associated with Naga worship, or Sarpa Kavus. Or to say Yakshas and Yaskshinis are nature spirits guarding over kavus. Which would make them serpent divinities. Perhaps that is why we have Ranganatha Swamy resting on Sesha Naga.

There are also legends of historical alliances between Pallavas-Nagas, and Nagas with others. So apparently, the Nagas experienced gene flow and culture admixture due to mixing with a wide variety of groups.

But the Nagas were mundari austro-asiatic tribes. Would this mean the Yakshas were austroasiatic tribes...If yes, then this gets highly interesting. I support the thesis of South Asia origin for austroasiatic speakers, or at most neolithic farming dispersal from asia-minor. Very highly interesting indeed.....
 
Last edited:
I tend to believe that Thiruvalluvar was a jain but probably born in the vaLLuvan (pariah) caste of royal drum beaters. Attached is a page from the book "The Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature (Vol.V) (Sasay to Zorgot) by Mohan Lal".

It expounds more of a secular morality and practical attitude to life and refrains from talking of hopes and promises of the other-worldly life as most religious scriptures do.

It concerns itself with the ways of cultivating one's mind to avhieve the other-worldly bliss in the present worldly life itself. When occasionally Thiruvalluvar refers to bliss beyond, it is only to equate what can be achieved here on earth with what may be attained in the hereafter; kural does not at all highlight the heavenly bliss or moksha.

Read also the other reasons given by the author for his view that Thiruvalluvar must have been a Jain not a brahmin toeing the religious line.

The page can be accessed at-http://books.google.com/books?id=KnPoYxrRfc0C&pg=PA4334#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dear Sir, Am somehow thinking that social-organisation amongst the tamils during Thiruvalluvar's time was an independent concept that carried from a tribe-clan continuum into occupational organisations...I would say the society at that time was influenced by or practiced Atharva, Jaina, Avestan Zoroastrian concepts. It seems highly likely that the brahmanas (texts) of the trayee-veda groups were alien to them or resisted by them.
 
I was told the same thing too; that is, Thiruvenkadam was a Sakthi temple. This was mentined to me by a Gurukkal whose family hailed from Kalahasthi. His ancestors had connection to Kalhasthi temple and other temples in that locality.

Cheers!
Dear Raghy Sir,

The seven hills have a number of temples on them. The whole hill range is home to very many tribes and very many gods and goddesses. I suppose Thiruvenkata koil started becoming so popular (like a tourist place) only in the past 60 years or so. Before that it was rather restricted perhaps esp due to lack of roads....

Ever since the temple got popular there are so many claims about the deity. Does the Gurukkal refers to the specific Thiruvenkata koil or some other koil on the hills ? It maybe quite possible that Alamelumangapuram as Alamelu Valli was a shakti peetham at one point of time.

My mother's side has a strange belief that Ranganatha Swamy of Srirangam is the same god as Thiruvenkata, that is, both deities are from the same kutumbham. However, i don't know if there is even one single folk tale or story that links Thiruvenkata and Ranganatha Swamy anywhere (except that both are considered Vishnu incarnations).

Regards.
 
கால பைரவன்;108480 said:
Many research scholars have opined that the caste system is a creation of the society. The religions can at best be accused of endorsing it. Hindu religion is not the only religion to ratify it!
KB, Yet again you confuse varna system with caste system. I too would say clans, castes, occupational groupings existed before varna system. Manusmrithi was the first to postulate many different groups and tribes as products of various varna combinations. No one else before Manu tried to represent so many tribes, groups in their smrithis. Manu was merely trying to bring everyone into the Varna scheme. Clans, tribes, groups have existed way before Manu.

The problem is that Varna proponents want to assign varnas by birth to social groups who resist it. They must have been resisting it for a long time indeed. Afterall, in the scheme of smrithis, shudras cannot escape slavery.

Please do not forget bonded slaves existed even after independence in India. Even as recent as the 1990s, the brahmin Ranvir Sena was accused of suppressing farm labourers, preventing their kids from going to schools to get a secular education, and forcing them to work as agricultural labourers. I wish musahars lived in Bihar instead of Tamilnadu to understand exactly what varna system is about.

Also, please do not use the generic term "Hindu" when speaking of Varna scheme. The Hindu way of life is far too varied and diverse to be bogged down by Varna proponents. Am sure someday or the other the vast hindu majority will find a way to get rid of rigid birth-based varna rules.
 
Last edited:
In the Srirangam History to preserve all the costly jewels and ornaments of Lord Ranganatha
during Muslim dynasty from seizing, it is mentioned that all the valuable articles were transported
to Tirupathi and Lord Kubera did pooja at the Thirumala and hence Tirupathi Balaji is richer according to
some puranaas.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur
 
The Vedas pronounce, "He who, dwelling in all things, yet is other than all things, whom all things do not know, whose body all things are, who controls all things from within--He is your soul, the Inner Controller, the Immortal." Aum Namah Sivaya.
 
கால பைரவன்;108521 said:
This sounds self-contradictory.

Worldly life and Jain philosophy do not go together!!!

Jain Philosophy [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Jainism or whatever Mahavira established, was not merely to create a large group of jain sadhus and sadhvis; this should be as evident as daylight to any ordinary indian. So, your comment is surprising, to say the least.

For a brief account of the rules of conduct for jain householders, please see www.Jinalaya.com - The code of conduct according to Jainism

Even if Thiruvalluvar was a jain monk, nothing prevented him from composing a text giving guidelines for the life and conduct of ordinary persons, whether jain or non-jain.
 
Jainism or whatever Mahavira established, was not merely to create a large group of jain sadhus and sadhvis; this should be as evident as daylight to any ordinary indian. So, your comment is surprising, to say the least.

For a brief account of the rules of conduct for jain householders, please see www.Jinalaya.com - The code of conduct according to Jainism

Whether a monk or householder, "renunication" is key in Jain philosophy. In his earlier post Sangom postulated that Thiruvalluvar gives more importance to wordly pleasures than heavenly bliss and therefore he cannot be hindu and must be a Jain. My point is such deduction does not hold.

Even if Thiruvalluvar was a jain monk, nothing prevented him from composing a text giving guidelines for the life and conduct of ordinary persons, whether jain or non-jain.

Of course. But then it would be futile to try and deduce Thiruvalluvar's religion from his work Thirukkural.
 
KB, I must remind you once again, I am not here trying to defend every last word found in Thirukkural. Also, what other Tamil texts like நாலடியார் say is not the topic here. The topic of this thread is only the following proposition you have made.
கால பைரவன்;107827 said:
Thirukkural does have several verses upholding caste system that was prevalent in TN at that time.

In this post I would like to discuss the following Kural KB cites in support of his proposition.

கால பைரவன்;108219 said:
ஆபயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர்
காவலன் காவான் எனின்

To properly understand this kural we need to look at where this kural appears. It appears in பொருட்பால் dedicated to politics and governance, and specifically, in the chapter dedicated to bad governance "கொடுங்கோன்மை".

When we look at the kural with this context in mind it is apparent that Thiruvalluvar is warning of the consequences of misrule by the king -- if the king does not fulfill his duty to protect, ஆபயன் குன்றும், and அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர்.

There is nothing here that can be construed as a support for caste system. At best what one can say is an acknowledgment of varna system, if anything -- more on this below. Also note that there is nothing in this kural about birth, or birth based conduct or anything of that sort. To see support for caste system one has to resort to esoteric interpretations. Now let us look at the interpretation KB offers and I leave it to the judgement of critical readers to make up their own mind.

கால பைரவன்;108219 said:
பசு பால் தராமல் போவதும் பார்ப்பனர் வேதங்களை மறப்பதும் வள்ளுவருக்கு ஒன்றுதான். ஆனால் இதை விட பிறப்பொழுக்கம் முக்கியம். பார்ப்பானுக்கு மட்டுமல்ல. எல்லாருக்கும் பிறப்பொழுக்கம் முக்கியம் என்பது தான் வள்ளுவர் காட்டும் வழி.
I have a little further to add about this அறுதொழில், which is interpreted in the above as something unique to just பார்ப்பான். That is not true. In the Tamil tradition all the four groupings, namely, அந்தணர், அரசர், வணிகர், வேளாளர் (not necessarily the four varnas) have six-fold duties. From the text called திவாகரம் I give below what they are for the other three groups -- taken from sishri.org.

“அரசர் அறுவகைச் செய்தொழில், ஓதல், விசையம் (போர் புரிதல்), வேட்டல், ஈதல், பார்புரத்தல் படைக்கலம் கற்றல் ஆகும்.”

“வேளாளர் அறுதொழில், உழவு, பசுக்காவல் (தெள்ளிதின்) வாணிகம், குயிலுவம், காருகவினை, இருபிறப்பாளருக்கு ஏவல் செயல்”

Further, சூடாமணி நிகண்டு (here) says:

For a king: படை, குடி, கூழ், அமைச்சு, நட்பு, அரண்

For Vaishya: ஓதல், வேட்டல், வேளாண்மை, வாணிகம், பசுக்காத்தல், உழவு

For Shudra: பசுக்காத்தல், பொருளீட்டல், பயரிடல், புராணாதிகளையோதல், ஈதல், அந்தணா முதலியோர்க்கு அநுகூலமாகிய தொழில் செய்தல்



From these we can see that there is no reason to believe Thiruvalluvar meant only the six-fold duties of just பார்ப்பான். Why can't it include all sections of society? This makes more sense, as, if a king fails in his duty to protect, then everyone engaging in their respective six-fold duties will suffer, not just பார்ப்பான், and there is danger of all of their trade becoming extinct. Why would only the பார்ப்பான் get affected if king fails to protect, wouldn't everybody else also suffer?

One might be tempted to take this அந்தணர், அரசர், வணிகர், வேளாளர், as evidence of Varna system system in Tamil country and that Thiruvalluvar was endorsing the Varna/jAti system.

First of all, warning that those engaging in the six-fold duties will suffer is not an endorsement or support of the system, it is just an observation of what will happen to society. Further, there is no evidence to jump to the conclusion that the four-fold division of Tamils அந்தணர், அரசர், வணிகர், வேளாளர் is the same as the Varna/jAti system of Manu. It is very likely that this was nothing more than a four fold guild like arrangement and the Brahmin immigrants from the north appropriated it into their birth-based hierarchical varna/jAti system.

Cheers!

p.s.
KB, on the names like அறவாழி அந்தணன், பகவன், இறைவன், எண்குணத்தான் -- திருமந்திரம், திருவாசகம், etc., are of a much later period. By this time Jainism was almost totally eradicated from Tamil country. So, it is more reasonable to infer that these jain names for exalted person came to be used to mean the gods of the Tamil bhakti literature.

Thirukkural and Silappathikaram are of a period when Jainsim was dominant. They both are approximately of the same epoch, much different from the time of Bhakti literature. So, it is not unreasonable to infer these names used in Thirukkural refer to the same entity as in Silapathiakarm, and it is indeed unreasonable to reject this obvious link with Silappathikaram and jump to a much later text of a different era and make a link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KB, I must remind you once again, I am not here trying to defend every last word found in Thirukkural. Also, what other Tamil texts like நாலடியார் say is not the topic here. The topic of this thread is only the following proposition you have made.


Reference from நாலடியார் was included to describe the society that existed at the time during which Thiruvalluvar lived! I see it relevant to this argument. Nara can ignore but let the readers get the whole picture.


Nara said:
In the Tamil tradition all the four groupings, namely, அந்தணர், அரசர், வணிகர், வேளாளர் (not necessarily the four varnas) have six-fold duties.


The kural does not merely say "அறுதொழிலோர்". It says "அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர்". That is why it was meant to denote பார்ப்பனர் here.


Nara said:
I have a little further to add about this அறுதொழில், which is interpreted in the above as something unique to just பார்ப்பான். That is not true. In the Tamil tradition all the four groupings, namely, அந்தணர், அரசர், வணிகர், வேளாளர் (not necessarily the four varnas) have six-fold duties. From the text called திவாகரம் I give below what they are for the other three varnas -- taken from sishri.org.


“அரசர் அறுவகைச் செய்தொழில், ஓதல், விசையம் (போர் புரிதல்), வேட்டல், ஈதல், பார்புரத்தல் படைக்கலம் கற்றல் ஆகும்.”


“வேளாளர் அறுதொழில், உழவு, பசுக்காவல் (தெள்ளிதின்) வாணிகம், குயிலுவம், காருகவினை, இருபிறப்பாளருக்கு ஏவல் செயல்”


Please note above that for வேளாளர் "இருபிறப்பாளருக்கு ஏவல் செயல்" is considered as a duty. Yes, That is tamil tradition. In fact, the tamil society deemed that to serve the three high varnas is the prime duty of Vellalars - the fourth varna. Tamil literature right from sangam period have always had references to varna system that existed in TN.

Nara wrote in his first post that he cannot convince me. The truth is it is the brabas who can't be convinced. No matter how much evidence one submits, it is not possible to change the mindset of brabas. The reason is, as I have mentioned before, accepting that the tamil society had varna system will tantamount to destroying the basis on which hatred against brahmins is constructed in this forum. Therefore I would like to say that I am writing not for the benefit of brabas but for others!
 
கால பைரவன்;108593 said:
Of course. But then it would be futile to try and deduce Thiruvalluvar's religion from his work Thirukkural.
How will it become "futile" and Why not this be done?
 
Sangom: Even if Thiruvalluvar was a jain monk, nothing prevented him from composing a text giving guidelines for the life and conduct of ordinary persons, whether jain or non-jain.

KB: Of course. But then it would be futile to try and deduce Thiruvalluvar's religion from his work Thirukkural.

Sangom: How will it become "futile" and Why not this be done?


Dear Sangom,

If you submit that Thirukkural describes code of conduct for ordinary people who are not Jains, how are you going to deduce that he was a Jain from that very same work, which is about non-Jains? Therefore I said it would be a futile exercise to deduce.
 
கால பைரவன்;108614 said:
.....If you submit that Thirukkural describes code of conduct for ordinary people who are not Jains, how are you going to deduce that he was a Jain from that very same work, which is about non-Jains? Therefore I said it would be a futile exercise to deduce.
Everone knows Thirukkural is a non-sectarian work, meant for everyone, Jains and non-Jains alike. I don't think Shri Sangom is saying what you say he may be saying, namely, Thirukkural is for ordinary people who are not Jains.

Thiruvalluvar does not come out and say he is a Jain. But, there is strong textual evidence to infer he must have been a Jain. This is not based just on the similarities of the names he uses for iRaivan in the first ten kurals with those used for Arugan by Ilango, but also his high praise for Neethar and vegetarianism, and the likely date of his life which coincides with Jain rule in Tamil Nadu. All this point to the strong probability that he was a Jain. So, this deduction is not as futile as you say it is.

Cheers!
 
கால பைரவன்;108609 said:
...Nara wrote in his first post that he cannot convince me. The truth is it is the brabas who can't be convinced. No matter how much evidence one submits, it is not possible to change the mindset of brabas. The reason is, as I have mentioned before, accepting that the tamil society had varna system will tantamount to destroying the basis on which hatred against brahmins is constructed in this forum. Therefore I would like to say that I am writing not for the benefit of brabas but for others!
KB, you may call me a brabas all you want, and you may accuse me of harboring hatred for brahmins all you want, but it is not going to change the reality or the perception of reality.

Whatever you may think of me not withstanding, I am not one to blindly support the so called dravidians or their agenda, whatever that may be. I reject anything irrational and anything that deprives basic humanity of our brothers and sisters. If Brahmins do it, I condemn them, and if the NBs do it I condemn that also with equal vigor.

Whatever may be the truth of the past, the truth perceived by most people in Tamilnadu, and elsewhere, is, that the Brahmins are responsible for introducing the oppressive caste system. They are held responsible for it, with ample justification, and for offering it the intellectual and religious justification, and enforcing it using the state power through their upper caste sponsors.

You and I can argue about it till we both are blue in our faces, but this is what most people believe. You may say all this is because of the "dravidian" propaganda and the legacy of EVR, and argue that no no, Brahmins are not responsible, it is the upper or middle castes who are to be blamed. May be, but, it really doesn't matter, even if there is a boat load of truth in your protestations, you won't find many takers. Why? Sadly, it is the Brahmins themselves who provide ample evidence for the "propaganda" to stick -- just take a look at the Sankara Matam web site and the brahminical texts that are hailed as inerrant words direct from god. Is it any wonder then that the 97% (100% - 3%) want to hold the Brahmins responsible?

There is no use calling me brabas or Brahmin hater, if the Brahmins are interested in a remedy for this they will have to do some introspection, turn inward, see to what extent the "dravidian" propaganda is on the mark, and do something about it. On the other hand, if all you find rational and appropriate is to curse the dravidians for having a nefarious agenda to hold only Brahmins and nobody else responsible for the oppressive caste system, and to curse us as brabas and Brahmin haters, then, well, we can keep talking past each other.

Anyway, change is already in the air. Ordinary Brahmin youngsters are primed to ditch their caste identity. To stop them from this, and to persuade them to cling to it, is a disservice. Our task now is to encourage them to go where their intellect and compassion will lead them.

Let us not try to blame others, who may very well be blameworthy, no doubt. But, I think if we treat the speck in our eyes as logs and the logs in others eyes as specs, that will go a long way to reverse the perception problem I mentioned above.

This is what I am trying to accomplish with my contrarian postings. Call me brabas and Brahmin hater, it does not matter, it will not change the reality or the perception of reality.

BTW, let me state here for the record, I love Brahmins just as much as I love any other human being.

Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KB, you may call me a brabas all you want, and you may accuse me of harboring hatred for brahmins all you want, but it is not going to change the reality or the perception of reality.

And what is this reality or the perception of reality? That the brahmins introduced the oppressive caste system or the brahmins were/are the only oppressors. Isn't it? I am sorry to say it but that is very weak defense of one's position. To agree with something just because that is the perception of NBs (the very statement is casteist) is preposterous. In any case, the issue is not one of mere agreement. Nara has every right to express solidarity with all the casteists out there and can join them in their hatred of brahmins. I recognize his right to do so! I am only pointing out the fact that he does so. Because the issue is not one of what is being perceived by others. No Sir; what the brabas write here cannot be considered as merely reporting or characterizing the reality or perception of reality. Their writings in this forum help to solidify such perceptions. They are in the forefront of keeping such perception intact. They provide intellectual support to hatred directed against brahmins. They must be held responsible to that effect! In any other forum, I would agree with Nara that calling them out is useless. But not here. Because anyone who understands the caste system would know that the key to the continuance of discrimination and oppression of any group is to create an impression among the members of the very same group that such discrimination and oppression are deserved. Nara, whose secular heart bleeds for MF Hussain, but who finds it convenient to dismiss the attacks on brahmins by DK activists as isolated incidents, does so because in his heart of hearts he believes the attacks are deserved. Another member who wrote fervently in support of discrimination of poor brahmins does so because he believes such discrimination is deserved. What I write here may not change the perception of 97% of the people including the brabas. But it may change the perception of the remaining 3%. That is why I write here! Thank you!
 
கால பைரவன்;108633 said:
... But it may change the perception of the remaining 3%. That is why I write here!
And in what way dear KB is it going to help the 3%? To encourage the 3% to nurse victimhood complex is not what I would call constructive.

Cheers!
 
And in what way dear KB is it going to help the 3%? To encourage the 3% to nurse victimhood complex is not what I would call constructive.

Cheers!

Dear Nara,

IMO, Introspection is one thing! Being a fall guy is another!

Who was the victim, who was the victor cannot perhaps be objectively judged. But one can avoid being victimized in the future.

When one is being reduced into a sacrificial victim, what is wrong in fighting against?
 
Last edited:
கால பைரவன்;108609 said:
Reference from நாலடியார் was included to describe the society that existed at the time during which Thiruvalluvar lived! I see it relevant to this argument. Nara can ignore but let the readers get the whole picture.
[...]
Please note above that for வேளாளர் "இருபிறப்பாளருக்கு ஏவல் செயல்" is considered as a duty. Yes, That is tamil tradition. In fact, the tamil society deemed that to serve the three high varnas is the prime duty of Vellalars - the fourth varna. Tamil literature right from sangam period have always had references to varna system that existed in TN.
Just because a society is represented as 4 divisions, that does not make them "Varnas". Does tholkappiyam, thiruvalluvar or any sangam literature prescribe rigid birth-based divisions of அந்தணர், அரசர், வணிகர், வேளாளர் ?? Does any sangam literature prescribe the அரசர் to inflict torture on the வேளாளர் ?? Does any sangam literature say the அந்தணர் can snatch wealth from the வேளாளர் ? or that a வேளாளர் can never be freed from slavery?

Guess what KB, i thank God that varna sensibilities of aryavarta never took deep root in the south....I ask you now -- what prevents you from taking pride in being the exalted அந்தணர் of the sangam period, WITHOUT the association of smrithis ??
 
Last edited:
In continuation of the rebuttal of KB's proposition:
கால பைரவன்;107827 said:
Thirukkural does have several verses upholding caste system that was prevalent in TN at that time.

for which he offered in evidence:
கால பைரவன்;108219 said:
மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கங் குன்றக் கெடும்.

ஆபயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர்
காவலன் காவான் எனின்
I have already discussed these two kurals in previous posts. In this post I will discuss the last remaining evidence KB provides, namely, that Thirukkural talks about பிறப்பின் அடிப்படையில் பெருமை, ஒழுக்கம் ...

The direct meaning of குடி/குலம் is family lineage/tribe. So, when Thiruvalluvar says குடிப்பிறப்பு உயர்குலம், கீழ்குலம், the direct and natural meaning is respected family, tribe, etc. There is no rational reason to interpret these words as jAti. Since I object to this interpretation, simply saying some have interpreted them this way is not evidence. Your task is to show why interpreting குடி/குலம் as jAti makes more sense than the direct and natural meaning family/tribe.

Thirukkural does not say anything overtly that unambiguously offer support to jAti or varNa system. Only commentators who enjoyed the backing of establishment power have inserted such thoughts. Alternative interpretations were not possible because even basic literacy was denied to those who did not have the backing of the establishment power. So, it is no wonder Parimelazhagar urai remained unchallenged until quite recently, when alternative voices found their footing. Parimelazhagar is no longer the undisputed diviner of Thiruvalluvar's thiruvullam.

Now we have competing views, interpretations. One such new interpretation that frees Thiruvalluvar from the clutches of Manu is திருக்குறள் அறிவியல் அகவுறை by மாத்தளை சோமு தமிழ்க்குரல் பதிப்பகம் 15(5) 5ஆவது முதன்மைச்சாலை, இராமலிங்க நகர், திருச்சிராப்பள்ளி 3. I highly recommend this publication. He gives very logical and rational interpretations and exposes how tortured the interpretations that connect varna/jAti system to Tirukkural really are.

Cheers!

p.s.
கால பைரவன்;108609 said:
The kural does not merely say "அறுதொழிலோர்". It says "அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர்". That is why it was meant to denote பார்ப்பனர் here.
My point is why should the நூல் in "அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர்", is only about பார்ப்பனர் நூல், which may not have even been the Brahminical chatur or thraiyee veda during the time of Thiruvalluvar?

Such narrow interpretation is possible only if one throws all the context out. In as much as a ruler failing in his duty to protect will affect all the citizens, the more direct and natural interpretation for அறுதொழிலோர் is all categories of people engaged in their respective அறுதொழில் and a more direct and natural interpretation for நூல்மறப்பர் is the knowledge of their avocation will become extinct.

கால பைரவன்;108609 said:
...Please note above that for வேளாளர் "இருபிறப்பாளருக்கு ஏவல் செயல்" is considered as a duty. Yes, That is tamil tradition.
This was not from Thirukkural. I cited this from a text called திவாகரம் taken from sishri.org. The reason I cited it is to show that six-fold duty is not unique only to பார்ப்பான். Also, சூடாமணி நிகண்டு does not say இருபிறப்பாளர் or ஏவல், it only says அந்தணா முதலியோர்க்கு அநுகூலமாகிய தொழில் செய்தல். In other words, there is no one indisputable picture that emerges in support of the jAti/varNa system of Brahminical dharmashasthras.

Be that as it may, the proposition is not whether caste system was part of Tamil tradition at some point in time in the hoary past. The proposition is Thirukkural lends support to caste system, and I think I have persuasively shown that the evidence you have provided does not support your proposition.
 
The direct meaning of குடி/குலம் is family lineage/tribe. So, when Thiruvalluvar says குடிப்பிறப்பு உயர்குலம், கீழ்குலம், the direct and natural meaning is respected family, tribe, etc. There is no rational reason to interpret these words as jAti. Since I object to this interpretation, simply saying some have interpreted them this way is not evidence. Your task is to show why interpreting குடி/குலம் as jAti makes more sense than the direct and natural meaning family/tribe.

The point here is Thirukkural deems that nobility and/or greatness is assigned at birth. Hence the குடி/குலம்/ lineage or whatever word one might use, it means the same as Jati in that context!

Thirukkural does not say anything overtly that unambiguously offer support to jAti or varNa system. Only commentators who enjoyed the backing of establishment power have inserted such thoughts. Alternative interpretations were not possible because even basic literacy was denied to those who did not have the backing of the establishment power. So, it is no wonder Parimelazhagar urai remained unchallenged until quite recently, when alternative voices found their footing. Parimelazhagar is no longer the undisputed diviner of Thiruvalluvar's thiruvullam.

Nara's view is that every commentator who lived before this dravidianist "renaissance" interpreted Thirukkural so as to support the establishment. This is just a convenient argument - not persuasive by any standards! If one goes by the same logic, one can also say that Thiruvalluvar himself wrote in support of the caste system so as to please the established order. After all, he did write "உலகத்தார் உண்டென்பது...."

the more direct and natural interpretation for அறுதொழிலோர் is all categories of people engaged in their respective அறுதொழில் and a more direct and natural interpretation for நூல்மறப்பர் is the knowledge of their avocation will become extinct.

This explanation is not direct and most certainly not natural! If it meant everyone there is no reason for Him to specifically mention "அறுதொழிலோர்".
 
கால பைரவன்;108786 said:
The point here is Thirukkural deems that nobility and/or greatness is assigned at birth. Hence the குடி/குலம்/ lineage or whatever word one might use, it means the same as Jati in that context!
Which kural implies that greatness is assigned at birth? Kulam (Clan) is obviously different from Jati (occupation).

Let me say Mr.X is a அந்தணர் or a அரசர் land-owner and needs farmers. There are tribals who offer to become farmers, they get attached to the soil. So the land-owners are melOr and the வேளாளர் farmers are keezhOr. Does Thiruvalluvar say the agricultural farmers remain keezhor by birth? Or that they can never be freed from slavery and can never become a வணிகர் or an அந்தணர் ? May i know what does Thiruvalluvar or any sangam literature say about the origins of the அந்தணர் -- from where did they arise?
 
கால பைரவன்;108786 said:
The point here is Thirukkural deems that nobility and/or greatness is assigned at birth. Hence the குடி/குலம்/ lineage or whatever word one might use, it means the same as Jati in that context!
Why, just because you say so? Well well !!!!


Nara's view is that every commentator who lived before this dravidianist "renaissance" interpreted Thirukkural so as to support the establishment.
Yes, of course.

This is just a convenient argument - not persuasive by any standards!
I know you think a lot of yourself, but, even though this may seem inexplicable to you, not persuasive by your standard does not mean it is not pesrsuasive, let alone by any standard :)!!


If one goes by the same logic, one can also say that Thiruvalluvar himself wrote in support of the caste system so as to please the established order. After all, he did write "உலகத்தார் உண்டென்பது...."
But he didn't, at least in a way that is indisputable, and that is the whole point.

Anyway, we have had our say, I am willing to leave it to the critical examination of the readers.

Cheers!
 
Which kural implies that greatness is assigned at birth? ?
Happy, in fact Thiruvalluvar proclaims in no uncertain terms, "பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லாவுயிர்க்கும்". But then, what do we, or Thiruvalluvar know, we are brabas and brahmin haters, like SV. Thiruvalluvar, unbeknownst to himself, was a Brahminist who sang in praise of Manu Dharmashasthras and supported caste system.

Cheers!
 
Happy, in fact Thiruvalluvar proclaims in no uncertain terms, "பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லாவுயிர்க்கும்". But then, what do we, or Thiruvalluvar know, we are brabas and brahmin haters, like SV. Thiruvalluvar, unbeknownst to himself, was a Brahminist who sang in praise of Manu Dharmashasthras and supported caste system.

Cheers!
Oh yes sir, not just brabas, so blinded we are, we cannot even realise that
மன்னவன் கோல்-அந்தணர் நூற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் ஆதி is nowhere remotely connected to precepts of the dharmashastras...i suppose it is unacceptable that the அந்தணர் follows stuff laid down by the அரசர்.
 
Oh yes sir, not just brabas, so blinded we are, we cannot even realise that
மன்னவன் கோல்-அந்தணர் நூற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் ஆதி is nowhere remotely connected to precepts of the dharmashastras...i suppose it is unacceptable that the அந்தணர் follows stuff laid down by the அரசர்.

Actually that is a critical Kural. One must thank HH for bringing it up. Thiruvalluvar, in no uncertain terms, says that it was the king who was responsible for everything. And this includes the caste system.

The Kshathriyas, the descendants of whom are the middle castes, were and are still pretty much responsible for the atrocities perpetrated in the name of caste! And Thirukkural provides proof for it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top