Politics of Thirukkural

[கால பைரவன்]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

I know you think a lot of yourself

Coming from a person, who indulges in self-praise at the drop of a hat!

The "reformist", "rationalist", "civilized", "Vivekanandar-equivalent", "liberal" Nara knows it all!

...............

So he thinks!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Which kural implies that greatness is assigned at birth? Kulam (Clan) is obviously different from Jati (occupation).

What does kulam/clan refer to here? Isn't one's kulam determined at birth?

Thiruvalluvar associates good qualities to குடிப்பிறப்பு. That is, according to Thiruvalluvar, good qualities does not result from practice but from birth! I had already given examples.

இற்பிறந்தார் கண்ணல்ல தில்லை இயல்பாகச்
செப்பமும் நாணும் ஒருங்கு.

ஒழுக்க நேர்மையும், பழிக்கு நாணுதலும் ஒருசேர நல்லகுடிப் பிறந்தாரிடத்து அல்லாமல் பிறரிடத்து இயற்கையாக அமைவதில்லை

ஒழுக்கமும் வாய்மையும் நாணுமிம் மூன்றும்
இழுக்கார் குடிப்பிறந் தார்.

நல்ல குடியில் பிறந்தவர் ஒழுக்கம் வாய்மை பழிக்கு நாணுதல் ஆகிய மூன்றில் ஒருபோதும் தவறமாட்டார்.

குடிப்பிறந்தார் கண்விளங்கும் குற்றம் விசும்பின்
மதிக்கண் மறுப்போல் உயர்ந்து

நல்ல குடியில் பிறந்தவரிடத்திலுள்ள குற்றம் வானத்தில் நிலாவிலுள்ள களங்கம் போல் எல்லார்க்கும் தெரியுமாறு விளங்கித் தோன்றும்

அடுக்கிய கோடி பெறினும் குடிப்பிறந்தார்
குன்றுவ செய்தல் இலர்

நல்ல குடியில் பிறந்தவர் பலவாக அடுக்கிய கோடிக்கணக்கான பொன்னைப் பெறுவதாயிருப்பினும் தம் ஒழுக்கம் குன்றுவதற்குக் காரணமான இழி செயல்களைச் செய்யமாட்டார்.

நிலத்தில் கிடந்தமை கால்காட்டும் காட்டும்
குலத்தில் பிறந்தார்வாய்ச் சொல்

நிலத்தின் இயல்பை அதில் முளைத்த விதையின் முளை தெரிவிக்கும். அதுபோல குலத்தின் இயல்பை அதில் பிறந்தவர் உரைக்கும் சொல் தெரிவிக்கும்.

The key word in all these things is "பிறந்தார்". Good qualities come from birth. That is Valluvar's position. Notwithstanding the claims of dravidianists of this forum!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Post #49

i suppose it is unacceptable that the அந்தணர் follows stuff laid down by the அரசர்.

It appears that the self-styled reformists are not really for abolition of caste. They are for caste system - only they want their own caste to be at the top of the hierarchy.

The அந்தணர் over அரசர் is a no-no to them. That is baddy baddy. But the அரசர் over அந்தணர் is goody goody!

 

[happyhindu]

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!

KB, First and foremost, please address stuff to me in a single post, so that there is continuity of context.

Yes the king is responsible for the scriptures, but did the king in the times of Thiruvalluvar practice violent slavery? Was the system rigid birth-based?

Again, lets say Mr.X is an அரசர் (a king) and as a land-owner, he needs farmers. There are tribals who offer to become farmers, they get attached to the soil and find sustenence. Or his own soilders clear land and double as வேளாளர் farmers during peaceful times. Thus we have the context of peasant-militias led by chieftains.

Does Thiruvalluvar (or any sangam literature) say the வேளாளர் farmers remain agricultural farmers and keezhors by birth? Does any sangam literature say the வேளாளர் farmers can never be freed from slavery ?? Does any sangam literature ask the வணிகர் to inflict violence on the வேளாளர் farmers and keep them subjugated as farmers??

The key here is rigidly putting down people into a slot, using violence. I have said time and again, caste by itself is not discriminatory. The discrimination part mainly comes from 2 things (1) clamping down fixed birth-based laws, and (2) grading castes in a hierarchy juxtaposed with varnas, such that each caste clamps down on the one below it, and tries to climb up to the next higher varna.

On what basis can you allege that during Valluvar's time, there was anything called a "caste-system" (as in the context of dharmashastras), let alone discrimination based on occupation (jaati) ?? Kindly note, am not contesting the presence of castes (occupational categories of people). Am asking if caste-discrimination is present in any sangam literature, including Thirukkural.

All you can infer from the Thirukkural is that it was a time period when numerous clans (each with their own chieftain) fought against one another. Their chieftains were their அரசர் (kings). If we take this to be around 300 BC until around 200 AD, then this will simply mean a primitive set-up where clans (kulams) had their own arasars (kings), paarpanars, and primitive tradesmen (vanikars) and farmers.

Till date in africa there are clans/tribes with their own cheiftains, soilders cum farmers and petty traders. These tribal clans fight against one another. But they exile the defeated ones (deshabrashtam) that is, they ban the defeated ones from the conquered area, without slavery.

Again if we are speaking of the BRW culture phase, then you cannot ignore that the earliest temples discovered in southern india are in caves (hence the name 'gudi' for a temple from guha=cave). There is nothing to suggest that proper towns with sanitation facilities and all had developed by this period. At most we could possibly say brick/stone constructions of the primitive sort. The religions prevelant were buddhism and jainism and tribal beleifs.

KB, are you able to provide proof for the presence of towns requiring slaves as menial workers, as well as the prevalence of hinduism in the context of varnas, during Thiruvalluvar's time? If you suggest Thirukkural even remotely endorses slavery, and that too using violence, then you need to provide the requisite kurals on the same.

Infact i am eager to know if there is anything like that in any sangam period literature. AFAIK, there is no evidence of caste-discrimination during Thiruvalluvar's time, but IMO the system in Thiruvalluvar's time collapsed in the Chola period.

What does kulam/clan refer to here? Isn't one's kulam determined at birth?

Thiruvalluvar associates good qualities to குடிப்பிறப்பு. That is, according to Thiruvalluvar, good qualities does not result from practice but from birth! I had already given examples.

இற்பிறந்தார் கண்ணல்ல தில்லை இயல்பாகச்
செப்பமும் நாணும் ஒருங்கு.

ஒழுக்க நேர்மையும், பழிக்கு நாணுதலும் ஒருசேர நல்லகுடிப் பிறந்தாரிடத்து அல்லாமல் பிறரிடத்து இயற்கையாக அமைவதில்லை

ஒழுக்கமும் வாய்மையும் நாணுமிம் மூன்றும்
இழுக்கார் குடிப்பிறந் தார்.

நல்ல குடியில் பிறந்தவர் ஒழுக்கம் வாய்மை பழிக்கு நாணுதல் ஆகிய மூன்றில் ஒருபோதும் தவறமாட்டார்.

குடிப்பிறந்தார் கண்விளங்கும் குற்றம் விசும்பின்
மதிக்கண் மறுப்போல் உயர்ந்து

நல்ல குடியில் பிறந்தவரிடத்திலுள்ள குற்றம் வானத்தில் நிலாவிலுள்ள களங்கம் போல் எல்லார்க்கும் தெரியுமாறு விளங்கித் தோன்றும்

அடுக்கிய கோடி பெறினும் குடிப்பிறந்தார்
குன்றுவ செய்தல் இலர்

நல்ல குடியில் பிறந்தவர் பலவாக அடுக்கிய கோடிக்கணக்கான பொன்னைப் பெறுவதாயிருப்பினும் தம் ஒழுக்கம் குன்றுவதற்குக் காரணமான இழி செயல்களைச் செய்யமாட்டார்.

நிலத்தில் கிடந்தமை கால்காட்டும் காட்டும்
குலத்தில் பிறந்தார்வாய்ச் சொல்

நிலத்தின் இயல்பை அதில் முளைத்த விதையின் முளை தெரிவிக்கும். அதுபோல குலத்தின் இயல்பை அதில் பிறந்தவர் உரைக்கும் சொல் தெரிவிக்கும்.

The key word in all these things is "பிறந்தார்". Good qualities come from birth. That is Valluvar's position. Notwithstanding the claims of dravidianists of this forum!

The context was -- does kulam/clan refer to jaati (occupation) greatness by birth? Did they practice a fixed birth-based caste (occupation) system? Did they practice caste-discrimination ?

Post #49

It appears that the self-styled reformists are not really for abolition of caste. They are for caste system - only they want their own caste to be at the top of the hierarchy.

The அந்தணர் over அரசர் is a no-no to them. That is baddy baddy. But the அரசர் over அந்தணர் is goody goody!

Pot shot specialist at work, all with his own deluded inferences.

Again i ask -- May i know what does Thiruvalluvar or any sangam literature say about the origins of the அந்தணர் -- from where did they arise?

Regards.

 

[Raghy]

Sowbagyavathy Happy Hindu, Greetings.

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.

The said Gurukkal was not mentioning about Alamelumangapuram. In fact, he was talking all the Vishnu temples in general too while talking about Thirumala temple. He said, Vaishnavam was a comparitively recent concept in Hinduism. At the time Vaishnavism was spreading, coincidently, Saktham was declining. He reasoned, the Devi deities from Saktha temples got converted to Vishnu temples. But the initial topic had nothing to do with this anyway. Conversation drifted to this subject.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

The said Gurukkal was not mentioning about Alamelumangapuram. In fact, he was talking all the Vishnu temples in general too while talking about Thirumala temple. He said, Vaishnavam was a comparitively recent concept in Hinduism. At the time Vaishnavism was spreading, coincidently, Saktham was declining. He reasoned, the Devi deities from Saktha temples got converted to Vishnu temples. But the initial topic had nothing to do with this anyway. Conversation drifted to this subject.

Cheers!

Dear Sir,

There are so many claims about the Thirumala temple, it is rather difficult to make out what things were really. Maybe the gurukkal has a point i woudn't know. However, am unable to agree that Vaishnavism is a recent concept.

I would say the SV religion as streamlined and put together by Ramanuja Swami is about a 1000+ years old. Certainly that happened after Saivism became the prominent religion of the Cholas. However, the deities of Vaishnavism predate Ramanuja Swami.

I do beleive the worship of Perumal is rather ancient. Sangam period literature (example - perumbanarrupatai of around 200 AD) contains references to Perumal / Rama. The older religion prevalent in the south, ie, Jainism, also contains worship of Vaishnava deities. So the Vaishnava deities are certainly ancient.

I feel Ramanuja Swami was a social revolutionary for his times. Was going thru some papers and it turns out that Pillai Urangavilli Dasar was a Bana chieftain. You must be aware the Pallavas were trounced by the Cholas. It seems very probable the Pallavas were made untouchables (enslaved) or pushed to the outskirts of a society (became "low-caste"). Cholas patronized Saivism. Those were difficult days for Vaishnava adherents.

Story goes that Ramanuja Swami used to lean on Urangavilli Dasar, which i feel, was to show that untouchability has no dharmic value (or that untouchability was just a political ideology). Moreover, Ramanuja Swami brought in the liberal Pancharatra Agama and absorbed the neo-low-castes of his time into odd jobs in temples (ie, various temple services). This to me, was quite a political statement. It might have gone against the Chola establishment to do so.

Am told some people actually take Ramanuja as gotra because they were so indebted to Ramanuja Swami for buffering their fall into a social abyss (by atleast giving them some odd jobs in temples) and hold him as the gotrakarin founder or saviour of their grouping.

It may also be possible that Ramanuja Swami could not go beyond a certain extent. Considering how brutally cruel the Cholas were, going against 'dharmashastras' could have got him a death penalty.

Ofcourse when the chola administeration got weak, periodically various feudatories arose and exerted power. But the best times for Vaishnavism came during the Vijayanagar empire. I suspect after the muslim armies laid everything to bare, the people who arose from low-caste obscurity were former military people who got their opportune time to come up again.

I often wonder why the nayaks did not enslave the nadars (instead they exiled a section and absorbed the nadar nelamaikarrars into the nayak administration). Maybe it was the old Pallava ties that prevented them from enslaving kin, allies, friends. I do have reason to think the ezhavas, nadars and bana chieftains, were from the Pallava grouping which claimed to be Somayajins and Somakula (will elaborate on this at a later time).

Time like a wheel ensures yesterday's low is today's high and vice-versa. Something that was ancient came to the fore during the Vijayanagar time, so Vaishnavism flourished during the Vijayanagar period. Many people mistake that Vaishnava deities were brought into Tamilakam during the Vijayanagar period and hence assume the religion to be new to the Tamilians. However, imo this is simply not true.

Regards.

 

[sangom]

It seems very probable the Pallavas were made untouchables (enslaved) or pushed to the outskirts of a society (became "low-caste").

Happy,

One doubt I have. I have been so far thinking that the Pallavas were a dynasty and certainly not a society like Tamizh, Andhra, Utkala, Banga, Maharashtra, etc.

So, how the Pallavas as a society could have been enslaved and made untouchables, by the Cholas?

 

[happyhindu]

Happy,

One doubt I have. I have been so far thinking that the Pallavas were a dynasty and certainly not a society like Tamizh, Andhra, Utkala, Banga, Maharashtra, etc.

So, how the Pallavas as a society could have been enslaved and made untouchables, by the Cholas?

Yes sir i too wud not bring linguistic groups into this. So certainly not a society. I wud use the terms 'administration' or 'overlords' to say the core royalty (dynasty) were pallava. It was a feudal system (all kingdoms afaik survived on the feudal system wherein the core royalty (dynasty) depended upon their feudatories and administered them).

When an army lost, the victorious king got to take over (or own) the losing king's armies. The victorious king could enslave the losing side's top brass (which included the royal family, some of their more powerful chieftains, relatives and allies), or put them to death or exile them. I would say instead of putting to death or enslaving, (in comparison), exiling wud be an act of kindness.

In the case of Pallavas, it appears they became enmeshed and closely related to some of their feudatories, mainly the banas (the group to which pillai urangavilli dasar belonged). It seems long drawn battles against the western chalukyas and pandyas had exhausted the pallava kingdom / pallava administration. The final bang however came from the Cholas.

According to the Thiruvalangadu plates, the chola king Aditya I (871–907 AD) defeated a pallava king who ironically was named Aparajita. The historian Gabriel Jouveau-Dubreuil says this marked the downfall of the Pallavas. And after that their rise was never seen again.

So far, i found no conclusive confirmation as yet that the Pallava-Bana Chieftains were enslaved by the Cholas. However, after this downfall period, we find Pillai Uranga Villi Dasar, a bana chieftian, is mentioned as a low-caste or an untouchable.

So it seems rather likely that the Cholas had enslaved their rivals or made them untouchables or into a low-caste.

Funnily, the Keralolpathi describes one Bana named Palli Bana Perumal (305-317 AD) as one of the twenty-five kings who were brought by the Namboodiris to rule over Kerala from the east (since there were no kshatriyas in kerala at that time; and since the Parashurama legend was associated with Banas).

But this Bana Perumal became a Buddhist and after much negotiation (by the nambus) he re-converted back into a hindu and supported vedic sacrifices. I found this funny, ironial, because from historical sources i find the (former buddhist) ezhava grouping is closely associated the banas and early-cheramans of Kerala. But years later, the same namboodiris were practicing untouchability against ezhavas, in cahoots with their nayara allies (whose rise imo coincides with the presence of cholas).

Regards.

 

[Raghy]

Sowbagyavathy Happyhindu, Greetings,

Dear Sir,

There are so many claims about the Thirumala temple, it is rather difficult to make out what things were really. Maybe the gurukkal has a point i woudn't know. However, am unable to agree that Vaishnavism is a recent concept.

I was under the impression, Vaishnavism is 'comparitively' a recent concept. Saktham, Souravam and Saivam were ancient. Koumaram and Ganapathyam followed. By the time Vaishnavam was taking roots, Saktham was disappearing. Amoung the 'Shan-mathas', Vaishnavam was kind of last concept to develop. Your point of views about this are welcome, please. Thanks.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....I was under the impression, Vaishnavism is 'comparitively' a recent concept.

Raghy, among the earliest Tamil anthologies were poems about Thirumaal and Murugan. Shiva came much later. Silapathikaram talks of Thirumaal. Vaishnavam is mentioned in Manimekalai. Then of course there are Azhvars. From the Brahminical side, Vishnu Puranam is one of the earliest of puranas. Thus, post Vedic period, Vaishnavam has been around for a long time.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Raghy, among the earliest Tamil anthologies were poems about Thirumaal and Murugan. Shiva came much later. Silapathikaram talks of Thirumaal. Vaishnavam is mentioned in Manimekalai. Then of course there are Azhvars. From the Brahminical side, Vishnu Puranam is one of the earliest of puranas. Thus, post Vedic period, Vaishnavam has been around for a long time.

Cheers!

Dear Sri.Nara, Greetings.

Than you very much for the information. I was not aware.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Raghy Sir,

So far it appears to me that the Linga worship belonged to the mundari austroasiatic groups wherein the symbology was pindi for lingam (hence the term 'pind' in punjabi for village, to mean those who arose out of the same pindi formed a pind).

I do not find evidence that the linga was originally called Shiva. The linga was a symbol, something like an iconography representation, of fertility. Probably it represented a founder ancestors' lingam with or without a yoni at an ancient time when people saw reproduction, childbirth, as a sign of inexplicable divine power.

Then there were Thirumaal, Maayon, Seeyon, Murugan as deities, some of which were part of tantra vidya. It maybe surprising for some to hear that Narasimha is also part of tantra deployment as a highly powerful spirit for protection (which i feel possibly developed around 5th century AD coinciding with the pallavas).

It may be quite likely that tantravidya arose as parallel traditions in various regions. Ganapatyas in presentday Maharashtra, Atharva in Gujarat and Andhra, Kalamukhas in Gujrat and Karnataka, Kapalikas in present day Karnataka, etc.

As you can notice most of tantra development is in the pancha-dravida region (maybe some gujratis won't like it but they are considered southies atleast as per the pancha-dravida classification btw). The ones who involved in tantra were Shamans (some say the term Sharma comes from a 'Sharman' or tantrik priest). These were non-vedic (to be precise non-trayeeVedic).

The exception to this is Shakta worship which probably originated and took deep root in various regions of north-east india. It is quite possible that tantra forms of worship were once upon a time widespread throughout india, but somehow got restricted to the south.

Shiva, as a physical diety starts in puranas (others, please correct me if am wrong here). I suppose Shiva as a physical deity was superimposed and merged into the pre-existing linga worship of mundaris. Shiva as a physical deity, instead of linga, is more common in northern india and nearly absent in the tamil regions (where linga remains the worship motif).

Possibly, Shiva as a physical form (now merged with linga) became identified with Rudra of the Vedas (when i dunno). This worship with or without the linga motif developed in numerous forms. Notably, Mahadev (identified as Shiva) is also part of tantra groups such as Kalamukhas.

As regards rise of Vaishnavism and Shaktaism disappearing, it appears quite probable this happened in the puranic time. When exactly, i dunno, but i suspect it happened during the time, when Shaktas (devi worshipping folks) 'married' off Narayana's sister Narayani (Parvati) to Shiva and her cult perhaps dwindled in the south (with shakta adherents either choosing to go with Narayana or with the brother-in-law Shiva).

It is probable that some adherents saw Shiva as an ascetic, and hence unworthy son-in-law for a princess like Parvati, and hence added to the numbers of Vaishnava adherents. The ones who sought moksham thru self-realisation means of thyagam, vairagyam, kundalini yoga, etc might have chosen Shiva. Just a thot.

Regards.

 

[Raghy]

Sowbagyavathy Happyhindu, Greetings.

I think, Siva worship was prevalant even before the Purana period. Rudhra Japam is found in Yajur Veda; the name Siva is in the 8th Anuvaka of Rudhram. Sri. Paramacharyal in his book 'Deivathin Kural' mentioned, Saktham was very much alive and was widely practised even during Sri. Adi Sankara's period; but, Vaishavism was well established during that period. The possibilities are, although practice of Saktham was reduced by the time Sri. Adi Sankara's period, still it was widely practised. Thanks for the informations provided.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

Sowbagyavathy Happyhindu, Greetings.

I think, Siva worship was prevalant even before the Purana period. Rudhra Japam is found in Yajur Veda; the name Siva is in the 8th Anuvaka of Rudhram. Sri. Paramacharyal in his book 'Deivathin Kural' mentioned, Saktham was very much alive and was widely practised even during Sri. Adi Sankara's period; but, Vaishavism was well established during that period. The possibilities are, although practice of Saktham was reduced by the time Sri. Adi Sankara's period, still it was widely practised. Thanks for the informations provided.

Cheers!

Raghy sir, afaik Yajur Veda also does not contain lingam worship (sangom sir please correct me if am wrong). I read some commentries that Rudra worship came to be used for Shiva Lingam worship. I don't how far its true. Sangom sir may be able to elucidate and enlighten us on all this. Undoubtedly various forms of worship have existed since a long time, Shakta worship included. Ever wondered why Adi Shankara chose just 6 deities in shanmata worship?