Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Thiruvalluvar Aandu - what Karunanidhi does not know of Thiruvalluvar!

Despite opposition from the people of Tamilnadu,

Karunanidhi has gone ahead with passing the order

that the 60 year cycle (with Sarvadhari having just started) must be dropped

and from now onwards only Thirvalluvar aandu must be mentioned

along with Christian years in all official and administrative correspondence.

Only a person who has no inkling of the science of ‘mana’ (measurement) of time

can pass such an order.

Only a person who has no grasp of the cultural past of India – the oldest in the world –

can pass such an order.

Only a person who has no respect for democracy can pass such an order.

Above all,

only a person who has no knowledge of Thiruvalluvar can initiate Thiruvalluvar aandu!

If only he knows who Thiruvalluvar was,

I bet he would not even turn to his side,

not have built a kOttam and a statue for him.

It looks like an irony of Fate that Thirvalluvar is getting a pet treatment

in the hands of Karunanidhi!!

I wonder what he will do if he comes to know that Thiruvalluvar was a parma vaishnava,

one who worshiped none but Rama, his bete noire!

And this is exactly what was true of Thiruvalluvar.

Thiruvalluvar’s origins and background had been quite an enigma

but it is possible to unearth the face of him from his work.

One of the intriguing ones is that

whether he had any particular god in mind when he wrote

the first chapter on God (kadavuL vaazhtthu).

There are indeed some clues to unravel this mystery.

Let me go step by step.

There is an overwhelming evidence his book, Thirukkural,

that Thiruvalluvar promoted Vedic religion only.

The very arrangement of the book into 3 divisions (muppaal)

is a vedic concept of Purusharthas, dharma, artha and kaama.

He left out the 4 th division, Moksha, because

adherence to the principles of the first 3

will automatically elevate one to Moksha or

Liberation from the cycle of life and death.

The compartmentalization of the ‘adhikaras’ into the mystic number 108

for Dharma (aram) and Artha (poruL)

also is indicative of a definite plan to present his book

on the vedic notion of spirituality.

The choice of the term, ‘Adhikaram’ itself for the chapters

is indicative of the vedic practice of Yatho-desa paksham –

which means the spread of control / influence by itself and its own sake,

that is, the message of Kural will spread by itself the message of Purusharthas.

The positioning of adhikaram, ‘voozh’ (destiny) after dharma (aratthu-p-paal)

is also demonstrative of a Vedic influence.

How-much-ever dharmic one may be,

one can not stop or escape from the interference of ‘oozh’ or destiny

is the message given at all ages,

from Gita onwards (one has control over one’s actions only, not on the results)

to Silappadhikaaram (oozh vinai urutthu vandhu ootttum)

and this has been aptly given as a finale for Aratthu-p-paal by Thiruvalluvar.

The only source book he quotes for all rules is the ‘nool’

The ‘nool’ that he often speaks in kural is the Vedas

and he has repeatedly glorified the ways the ‘Saandror’ or Aryans.

(read my post on http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-aryan-dravidian-divide-it-was-one_3029.html)

Brahmins (anthanar) and Vyakarana sastras (725)

are the respected ones he looks at,

for any reference to acts of dharma.

Devas and their habit of receiving Havis from humans are often mentioned by him.

He disapproves animal sacrifice in yajnas but not yajnas themselves,

giving indication of his leanings towards vedic practices

and his willingness to usher in modifications –

which is what sages too had said for kali yuga.

The Vamana avatara is clearly mentioned in kural 610

where he tells that the king must be like “ulagu aLandhaan”,

Vamana in conquering worlds.

He makes a veiled mention of Rama’s valour in kural 773

for showing mercy to the enemy in the war field when he is down in spirits.

Most important of these is his veiled reference to Rama

in his opening verse.

Thiruvalluvar begins his book with a worship of god.

The Akaara Brahman is indicated in his very first verse

as also the Bhagam (6 qualities) of Bhagavan – a vedic concept.

Akaara Brahmam is equated to Vishnu in Bhagavad Gita.

Beyond this there is something also.

He has indicated his God – ishta devatha in this verse – ‘agara mudala..’

It has been a practice in ancient times

for the poets to reveal their God or Lord or the Lord of the song (paattudai-th-thlaivan)

in their first verse as a puzzle.

Thirvalluvar too had done that.

These ancient norms of poetry indicated in Tholkaappiyam were aimed

at spreading and preserving the greatness of the Lord or God

who had been praised by the poet.

The praise of the Lord to live long can not just be empty words

but it also must incorporate certain features

that help in making the Lord and his name immortal.

We come across such norms of Tholkappaiyam explained in Choodamani nigandu, as sutras

and when I attempted to apply these rules to Thirukkaural,

I am in for a surprise.

Thiruvalluvar indeed had followed these ancient norms

and had indicated his Lord, his Ishta devatha as Rama!!

One will be surprised to know that these norms were in tandem

with certain rules of astrology, meant for longevity and greatness!

In 12-31 (“I-vagai sthaanam for seyyuL”) of Choodamani nigandu is like this.

This is about the sthanas.

A person is said to undergo 5 stages of life, such as

Bala (infant)

Kaumara (boyhood)

Youvana (youth)

Vriddha (old age) and

Marana (death)

These are known as 5 sthaanas.

In astrology, each house / rasi (constellation) is divided

into these 5 sthanas also known as avasthas

and predictions depend on the position of a planet in the sthana

Even is a planet is exalted, if it is placed on, say, marana sthana / avastha

(the degrees indicating death), the planet can not bestow the results of its exaltation.

That planet is as good as dead.

That is the implication and interpretation.

Therefore this sthana-bala was given prime importance by ancients,

even in poetry.

Their rule of poetry is that the lord / god of the Poet

must be indicated in the first verse.

But that indication must happen in the favorable sthaana or position.

Of the 5 sthaanas, the first 3 are about growth, a period of happiness.

So the norm was that the name of the Lord must be indicated in the first 3 sthanas.

If indicated in the last 2 sthanas (of old age and death)

the poet’s work would not stand long in spreading the name of his lord.

The Sutra in Choodamani nigandu says

that the poet must indicate the first letter of his lord

in the first 3 letters of the first verse of the poem.

But it must be given as the shortened one, if the letter has deergha swara.

That is if the letter is ‘nedil’, its complimentary ‘kuril’ must be used.

“baalanE kumaran mannan padu muthir kizhavan saavu

kOlundhan pEr ezhutthu kuritthadu mudalaaga-k-koLga

yElu mun ezhutthu moondrum inbham pin-irandum theedhaam

saalu moovagai seer thane saatriya kavidahikki inbham.”

(bala, kumara, mannan (king), old man and death.

Fix the first letter of your lord as a shortened swara (kuril- ezhutthu) in these.

The first 3 are good. The last 2 are bad.

Fixing the letter in the first 3 is a happy beginning for the poem)

Applying this to the first verse of Thirukkural,

Agara mudhala –

we have to look into

‘agara’ only, that has three letters, a, ga, ra.

All these are ‘kuril’ only.

The Lord of Thiruvalluvar must begin with any of these 3 only

and that letter could also be ‘aa’, ‘gaa’ and ‘raa’,

reduced into ‘kuril’.

Now the next rule is given in 12-102 of Choodamanu nigandu

as “seyyuLukkuriya nakshathram”. (the star of the poem)

“thanadu naaLil pinnaLum saarnthiru naalum aarum

vinaviya ettu vonbaanum viruttham vondrillai thanaaL

iNaiya moondrudan aindhaa naaL yEzhaa naaL ivai porundhaa

ninaiyum im-moondru vonbhan yErpadu moondru vattam”.

As per this rule, the poet must indicate the letters of those stars

which are 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 9th from the birth star of the lord

counted in 3 rounds of 9 stars for all the 27 stars.

The 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7 th stars from the birth star of the lord are not advised.

This means the poet must begin the poem with the letter that are indicated for the stars

that are 2 nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 9th from the birth star of the Lord.

In Vedanga Jyothisha, each star is assigned some letters

which one can refer from the almanacs.

The poem must start with the letter of those stars that are 2nd, 4th, 6th , 8th or 9th from the

birth star of the Lord, counted in groups of 3 covering all 27 stars.

The Kural begins with ‘a’.

“a” is the letter for the star krittika.

If we look at probable stars that come in that order mentioned above,

we get Punarpoosam (punarvasu) as the star of the Lord.

Krittika is the 6th star from Punarvasu in the 3rd round of 9 stars.

Punarvasu is the birth star of Sri Rama.

The ‘ra’ in agara is the 3rd letter which is the kuril of ‘raa’ of Rama.

This is place at “mannan” sthaana as per the Sutra of Nigandu.

This also stands for Youvana – youth immortalized in verses.

This means the poetic work as well as the Lord of the poet

will live for ever.

The second rule is to start the poem with letter of the star of Rama’s star group.

It is done.

The poem starts with ‘a’, the star of krittika

which is 6th in the 3rd round from Punarvasu.

Thiruvalluvar has followed this ancient rule of poetry writing

and has succinctly indicated his Ishta devata as Rama.

Needless to say

he went on to incorporate the Brahma-tattva

in the very first verse itself

in akkaraantha Brahman and Bhagavan.

The only other god that he has mentioned in his work

is Lord Vamana.

What an irony of Destiny

that an avowed hater of Brahmanic and Vedic culture,

promoting one whose book is nothing but Vedas in Tamil

(Tamil marai, uttara vedam are the other names of Thirukkural)

Such a devotee of Rama and follower of Vedic ways,

is being resurrected by none other than Karunanidhi,

to demonstrate his Tamil leanings.

If only Karunanidhi is sincere in his love for Thiruvalluvar,

let him first close all Tasmac shops (liquor shops).

Only then he would get the blessings of Valluvar who was dead against drinking.

Particularly when the liquor shops are run by the government

and the government shamelessly boasts of increasing the liquor sales

in the excuse that it is being used to augment the expenses

for buying Colour TVs for the poor,

Thiruvalluvar would not like to have anything to do with him.

He would not live in any kottam or statue or aandu that

Karunanidhi proposes .

Next issue is that

Karunanidhi must stop meddling with years and

instead revert to Prabhavaadhi cycle of years.

Only then he could get the blessings of Thiruvalluvar.

Of all the people Thiruvalluvar could not have tolerated

the scrapping up of the prevalent system of years and New year.

He is one who sticks to ancient practices.

By scrapping the existing years, Karunanidhi is

causing irreparable loss

to the ancient body of knowledge.

Already we lost many ancient treasures, due to negligence and ignorance.

To state an example, we know about the 60 years

starting from Prabhava from Surya siddhantha.

But the Siddhnatha talks about them in the context of Brahaspatya mana

-of the rounds 5x12=60 years of Jupiter, that start from Vijaya of this cycle.

The start of Soura mana with Prabhava is yet to be located in the texts.

Though we have information that this 60 year cycle of the sun

undergoing 3 stages of 20 years , of superior, medium and inferior kind of results,

we are still trying locate the source that tells about the origins of this cycle.

All clues lead to Prajapatya mana that describe manvantharas,

that might have contained information on yuga classification

on the basis of precision of equinoxes,

starting from Prabhava

But that knowledge seems to have been lost.

Today, by dropping the cycle of Prabahva etc,

Karunanidhi is committing a grave blunder -

a blunder that will be not forgiven by destiny for un-doing the existing knowledge.

The future generations are likely to lose all knowledge about this

as how we have already lost most treasures of the past.

Another issue is that

Thiruvalluvar himself would not have allowed the switch over

to this Thiruvalluvar aandu,

for, he was not born at that time that Karunanidhi and his coteries say that he was born

and he would have been dead against changing the age old system

which was based on sound principles of astronomy

and measurement of time.

The irony of sorts is that Karunanidhi is promoting a core Vishnu-bahkta,

who has indicated his Lord as Rama in his wonderful book of Dharama-artha-kaama

in a beautiful way in conformity with the norms of poetry writing.

The mockery of sorts is that Karunanidhi who had no qualms in writing preface to a work

that said that Thiruvalluvar copied from Christian thoughts

(a so-called research work by M.Deivanayagam, “Thiruvalluvar Christhuvara?”

-“Was Thiruvalluvar a Christian?” had the preface written to it

by none other Karunanidhi),

should promote Thiruvalluvar’s name for Tamil / Hindu years.

The sad state of times is that

if Thiruvalluvar were to be born again,

he would be given a SC status!!

Valluvar and Thiruvalluvar are scheduled castes according to Tamilnadu govt.

What a beautiful service these people are doing to Thiruvalluvar’s memory!!



Anonymous said...

Madam, You are indeed an ocean of knowledge, your works would definitely be hailed in future. But I have a few doubts:- If Thiruvalluvar was a devotee of Sri Rama, then why did'nt he sport a Thirunaama on his forehead? And even confusing is why was'nt this understood by Tamil Shaivites who proudly claim that the philosophy in Thirukkural was Shaiva Siddhanta and it has also inpired Thirumurai. They hail Thiruvalluvar as a Shaivite poet like Gnanasambandar or Thirumoolar.
I was impressed to see the reference to Vaamana avatar:- "ulagu alandhaan". But the other reference you had shown, that to Rama, where he showed mercy to his enemy, is I doubt, could have even been to Murugan or Subhramanya, who too used the "Indru poi naalai vaa" to Soorapadman.
Anyway, your works are great, and I hope you many be the next AMR.
Why don't you create a website and put all these treasures in them, like how Stephen Knapp (Sri Nandanandana Dasa) had done? And may I know (if you don't mistake) what is your profession/qualification. I ask this because you seem to use so many references. How did you learn all of them? I hope if you tell, would be useful to me, as I too have a similar vision of Dharma as that of yours!

Jayasree Saranathan said...

Thanks Balaji for your comment.

That the kural 773 refers to Rama is told by none other than Parimelazhagar (13th century) in his Urai. For Kural, Parimelazhagar's is a wonderful urai. It gives a wonderful idea of the mind of Thiruvalluvar.

We have to read Thirukkural with the aid of olden commentaries such as Parimelazhagar,
and must not depend on present day writers, you can guess the one among others, whom i mean.

In those days their aim was to bring out what Thiruvlluvar would have meant, and not to further one's own theories and opinions.
I dont depend on todays' commentators for any of the texts I quote. Dr U.ve.Sa has done yomen service by bringing out old commentaries as found in palm leaves. I go by those commentaries only for sangam texts.

About your query on Shaiva or vaishnava....

Though the siddhanthas of both shaivism and vaishnavism are treated differently, they have sprung from the same sruthi source.
And the variation as such was recognized only Post- Ramanuja.
In Thiruvalluvar's time , which I see as sometime before 5000 years ago (before Mahabhartatha), the sidhantha was same (un-differentiated as shivite or vasihnavite)- but ishta devathas were different for different people.

In those times, when Tholkappiyam was not in force, the rules of writing verses were different - particularly for the beginning letters as mentioned in Choodamani nigandu. Thirukkural does not obey the rule of Tholkappaiyam for starting the verse. (this is one of the reasons why the Kural can be considered as older than Tholkappiyam or preceded the times when Tholkappaiya- rules got into shape.) It follows the much ancient practice of 'Naama nakshthra'- This is the original and oldest practice whereby the writer not only indicates his god but also his own name in the verses. I guess somewhere in the first or last 10 kurals, Thiruvalluvar must have indicated his name too!

But he was born in Valluva-k-kudi- family of weavers.
Mamoolanaar in one of his verses had said that he must be considered as Devan and the one who calls him as 'Valluvan' is a ‘pEdhai’ (fool)!!

About your suggestion on creating web site etc..

To tell you the fact I dont know what to do. I used to be talking all these things all these days. But I dont get to see many people who are interested in knowing these things. When i came to know about blogging, I decided to record my thoughts and views in this, so that those interested in these topics will land up here and read them, and interact on them - as you are doing:)

This is where i stand at present. Thats all. People tell me that i must copyright etc. I am right at the moment clueless about what to do about this or should I do anything about this. What i am doing is vidhya daanam. This is very very less than what our Rishis and vediks of olden days had done by giving us the wisdom but not claiming it as theirs. But we remember them for what they had given us - every person is born with a ruNam (kadan or debt) to rishis for what they had given us.

I want to get only those readers who have such integrity to recognize my name while using or reproducing the contents of this blog.

At the same time I also recognize the fact that I am not very well versed as Stephan Knapp or Sri AMR or others.

About my qualification.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the interests in these things were in born. Right from the time I remember, i have been watching skies, stars and planets, asking questions on them, on life and dharma and pursuing these questions endlessly.

Added to this are the experiences in my life - and the opportunity to know the experiences in others' life through astrology.

M.S.N.Anandh said...

Announcing a new year from the month of 'Thy' would be a bad decision. But you have stated that Thiruvalluvar as a devotee of Rama. First try to understand that Indu valley Dravidians are Shaivites. All the Siddhars(Cittars) are Saivites. Great King Ravana was a devotee of Siva(Civa), the war between Rama vs Ravana is Aryan vs Dravidian is Shaivism vs Vaishnavism.

Jayasree Saranathan said...

Hello Mr Anandh,

I really feel sorry for you for the 'pedamai' for saying that the war between Rama vs Ravana is Aryan vs Dravidian-is Shaivism vs Vaishnavism.

I wish you first acquaint yourself about what is Aryan, Dravidian and the period of Shaivism vs Vaishnavism and Ramayana also!! You also need to get updated about the recent findings on Indus Vally etc and also about Tamil's past. Study Pathirru-paatu also and Kaakaai padiniyaar's padikam for 6-m patthu on Aadu kOt paatu-cheraladhan that reveals the aadu - varudai conenction to Tamil's New year on Chithirai / Meda raasi.

Better come out of the Dravida - maayai. Thamizhan is not a Dravidan.If all those sanga-p-pulavargal + Thirvalluvar get to hear this Dravida slang to Tamils, they will damn all of you!

If you read the other posts in this blog you will know how and why Thamizhan is not a dravidan. Or else wait for my series on 'YengE Dravidan' - to be started soon.

Reg Rama as Thirvalluvar's ishta devatha, I have given the reasons. Read other posts on Thirukkural to know the mention of Vamana and Rama in Thirukkural and Thirukkural as the Tamil version of Vedas. This is not my version. This is how it has been written by commentators 1000 years ago. I pity all those like you who are misled in the past few decades into thinking what is not true of Thirukkural. Why blame people? If they search for themselves from olden writers like Pairmelazhagar and Nemi naathan, they will know the import of Thirukkural as has come down for ages. The Kazhaga- padhippaLargal and Kazhaga writers have distorted enough. The loss is for the people!!!

Jayasree Saranathan said...

Here are some links to my posts on what Thirukkural says:-




mohan.mallar said...

I totally regret giving a hit to this stupid page, which totally smells of aryan supremacy.

I had to leave this comment here, just to let you (Jayashree) know that thiruvallur was never a devotee of rama, it sounds so stupid just like if i said that lord murugan was also born to rama and sita.

When i type this comment i know this comment will not be published in your blog, because that's what you aryans do, hiding the truth from the world. But i had made my point well and to the right eyes(you).

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ mohan.mallar

Read the link given below on the deity (Rama) that Thikruvalluvar worshiped.

It is based on the rules of literature on hinting at the personal God in the first first line of the work that poets did in those days. Based on the aphorisms given, we can even deduce the personal God mentioned in a hidden way by Kambar in Kamba Ramayanam. The aphorisms cane be applied to any work of yore.


You call me having Aryan supremacy. Here is a link on how Thiruvalluvar's work is "Aryan"


I suggest you expand your horizon of knowledge on Aryan and Dravidian issues by reading this series in


Anonymous said...

Firstly, I don't see why moderation is set to such a blog. However, I'm not going to jump to any conclusions. If this isn't posted, then I will, and that conclusion is fear of being wrong.

Firstly, the tradition of thiruvâLuvàr is not of importance. Whether He incorporated vaidhigàm in His work or not, I don't see much as a point of debate from my view. It is a given that Dravidians and Aryans would've been influenced by each other. However, the fact that He incorporates âRàm, poruL, inbàm and veeDú in His Work, proves that He was sent to re-give the naanmâRay, which existed before the Sanskrit vehdhaas, shows that He leaned towards Tamil Culture. As far as the Aryan debate goes, there is a possibility that iraamàn was Aryan, however, kâNNàn was Dravidian. According to the history of dheepaavâli goes, iraamàn was more central India -- one can only wonder if, 8000 years ago, the thâmiZH would've still been ruling that area.

My focus is on which philosophy He belonged to. Many claim He belongs to their. The most ridiculous is that of the Atheists as, by the first Chapter Title, they are refutes. The Jains did not support agriculture and, did not have hair. Buddhists take the pitaka tree to be their idea of the highest of existences, but, then they believe at the same time, that it is not existent. ThiruvaLuvar makes no reference to their core beliefs, and at the same time, supports war-fare and extremeties. As far as Christianity goes, thirukkuRàL is 3BC, the bible is 2nd Century AD.

I think, the one who has about the strongest claim, are the vainàvàr. However, mere reference to an âvadhaar of maal isn't enough. In 610, thiruvâLuvàr does not mention God, but, simply, 'the one'. If His intention was to show that maal was the God He was referring to, will this not be in kâDàvuL vaaZHthú? Plus, mentions of indiràn, kalaymâgàL, thirúmâgàL, etc., are also mentioned -- what prevents one from then saying that thiruvâLuvàr was referring to one of them? vainàvàm believes that maal is moolà prakrithi, and he evolves into the world and that vaiguNDàm is the highest Abode that one can attain, however, kuRàL 3 says that the Feet of the Lord is above all worlds, which will include vaiguNDàm, which is a world. thiruvâLuvàr does not say that God becomes the world. kuRàL 10 tells us that God is beyond birth as, only one who is unaffected by the misery of birth can give freedom from it yet, maal takes birth and, is does classified along the same type of intelligence which thiruvâLuvàr address, and that is, souls.

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ anonymous

// If this isn't posted, then I will, and that conclusion is fear of being wrong. //

Your comment was in spam folder. You will know better how it went to the spam folder. Other than this, there is nothing worthy to answer to any point written in your comment. But what is seen is that you need to read more on Thiruvalluvar and not just parrot what the Dravidian chauvinists are writing.

Anonymous said...

A very scholarly scholarly response, I must say. Why is it that it is always South Indian greats who are taken and 'Aryanised' but, attempts won't be taken to take an Aryan personality and forcefully try to prove Dravidian traits. Interpretation is such that if you desperately wish to prove your ideas, you'll go looking for it and you will find something insignificant and try your best to give it some significance to back your idea. Why is it that there isn't an iconic statue of thiruvâLLuvàr anywhere in the North, yet, He announces proudly the South Indian coastline. The kuDumbi is unmistakebly Dravidian. You're the one trying to disprove what has already been clarified -- I'm just supporting. What is is what is. I don't know what's the general idea in India or what the greater Dravidian world is saying. What I say is my understandsing derived from personal studies. I thought this blog was about education and debate -- not childish accusations. I have no idea how my comment ended-up in spam; I didsn't even know there was provision for spam. Why I saids what is said is because you chose settings that gives you the power to choose what goes and what doesn't and, in my book, and many other, that's being bias. But, anyway, that isn't what this blog is about. What did I say in my comment which is 'chauvanist'? Squak:-)

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ anonymous

> The above comment of yours again appeared in spam folder. Once I chanced to click the spam folder and found that some mails are there. From then onwards, I am checking the spam folder regularly to see if any comment worthy of publishing is there.

> I am not computer savvy and didn't do anything all these years to change the blogger settings.

> I cant even change or manipulate the comments - I think any blogger would know this. I can only approve or reject a comment. For eg, I saw another comment in spam which sounded strange and so deleted it.

> The accusations - Let me remind that I reacted to an accusation that I may not post your comment.

> The issue of Chauvinism is about the repeated mention of "Dravidian". What is Dravidian? Lot of researches have come up particularly in genetics showing that there is nothing Dravidian. I have written umpteen times in this blog about it and am running a separate blog in Tamil on that topic alone. Inspite of me giving links to read them all, if people don't read them and write the same stuff again and again, I think that is time to call a stop to it. By saying this I might sound arrogant, but I can't help it. I am keen on spending my time on writing clarification for the already written info or write new info rather than spending time on justifications which can anyway be known if one reads my Tamil blogs. Hope I conveyed.

Anonymous said...

If mentioning Dravidian is chauvanist, is it not chauvanist to mention Vedic? The fact is, by lifestyle alone, there shows a difference in Cultures between North India, who represent the Aryans or North Indian Ancestors (NIA) and South Indians who represent the Dravidians. It is concluded that the culture of the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilisation is peculiar to South Indians thus, the term Dravidian was used. Honestly, I prefer the term Ancient Tamils. But, for reference, use Dravidian. Is it not strange that in current day North India there is no or very little Dravidian people who are indegenous to the North, however, the are strong communities of Dravidians indigenous to Pakistan? Furthermore, even in the DNA of those inhabiting the area around the Indus Valley today, there is closer similarity to South Indians than North Indians. All these are scientific and archaeological findings -- not fairy tales pulled out of a top hat. It cannot be termed as chauvanist if that is what is. The style of worship, that is, the use of flower, water and incense, found in the Indus Valley screams South Indian. This is distinct from fire-alter worship, which is very much Aryan, introduced from Iranian ancestry, especially, horse sacrifice. And yes, I know and have read-up about all the various ideas and objection to the Dravidian and Aryan classifications and the Aryan invasion theory. I agree, whilst there is no signs of violent entry into India, there was definitely a movement of one or more races, which can be termed North Indian Ancestors into India, which was then, populated by Tamils. You can either spend a life-town arguing this or take it as 'so-what?' and get on with life.

But, it seems all of your attention just went to my mention that thiruvaLLuvàr used the naanmaRay tradition of âRàm, poruL, inbàm and veeDú -- Tamil literature has many places which refer to the once existent naanmaRay, referring to it as 'naanmaRay' or 'naalvehdham'. How can this be chauvanist when, bottom line is, He is Tamil and thirukkuRàL is a Tamil work? That's like calling me chauvanist for saying that Vedaviyaasa was Sanskrit/Aryan/Vedic.

In doing so, you completely missed my main arguement -- I said, so what if thiruvaLLuvàr embraced vaidigà traditions; my focus is more on which philosophy He embraced, which, by explanation which I gave, was definitetly not Christianity, Atheism, Buddhism, Jainisim or Vainavam. You can't term this Dravidian chauvanist as it does not refer to a tradition or culture but a philosophy, which can incorporate many traditions and can be incorporated into traditions.

BTW, your interpretation of saanDRohr is logically flawed. If you say that this refers to only, Aryans, it will mean that all noble people are Aryan and all Aryans are noble people. Saying that there could not be any noble Tamil people or people of other cultures or races is what you call a racist, culture-bias and chauvanist.

Anonymous said...

Btw, to respond to the title, I agree. Karunanidhi should stay in politics and not tamper with history, religion or culture. He is suggesting thiruvaLLuvar aaNDa based on the misinterpretation that thirukkuRàL is purely secular and that thiruvaLLuvar meant 'pagalvan' when He wrote 'pagavan' -- lame. On the other hand, I disagree that Tamils could not have come-up with the yoogam-system -- both math and alphabets, which thiruvaLLuvar emphasises the study of, runs deep into Tamil History. If they understood penance before the NIA came into India, what for language and math? Whilst I'm not anti-Aryan, I get sick of suggestions being made which infer that Tamils were a bunch of primative animals running wild in India before the Aryans came. I'm for what is. If evidence suggests that the Aryans civilised the Tamils, I'll accept. If ideas that the Tamils were well established before the Aryans came in, and what the Aryans taught and adopted was a distortion of what was there, plus ideas which were not distorted, then, those of Aryan descent should not fight it. I will forthrightly state that most Tamils today are lost and follow a distortion of their ancestors Truths. It isn't about being good or bad and neither is it condemning -- it is True. I know many who praise the thirukkuRaL and speak highly of it and proudly hold it in their hand and thereafter go dine on mutton briyani. Yes, I know it is almost impossible to live word by word by thirukkuRaL but, not impossible. Things like sexual emotions towards one's spouce is harder to give-up than eating meat.

Anonymous said...

•In kuRàL 2, thiruvâLLuvà naayànaar refers to God as 'vaal âRivàn' -- in sithaandhàm, sivàperumaan, in His Special Nature, is Pure Natural Intelligence.
•kuRàL 1, God is said to be 'aadhi pâgàvàn' -- in sithaandhàm, God is known as the Efficient Cause of the universe.
•kuRàL 3 says that those Who attain His Feet flourish long above all worlds -- sithaandhàm says that the attainment of sivàperumaan's Feet leads one to the transcending of all worlds, which is liberation, where the state of Bliss is an eternal experience.
•kuRàL 4 says that God is without likes and dislikes and does not experience misery -- sithaandhàm says that sivàperumaan does not have favourites or dislikes; those Who are Devoted to Him, will reap the benefits He offers and those who are not, don't - like a fire on a cold day, if you want warmth you go to it; staying away, won't get you warmth, either way, the flame remains unaffected by both. •kuRàL 5 speaks of God being unaffected by karma; Those Who attach to His Feet, will also be relieved of the experience of good and bad fruit -- sithaandhàm speaks of iruvinai woppú where, the soul, once it has attain a state where it is in continuous contemplation of sivàperumaan, will not experience the fruit of good and bad deeds that the body is subject to. •kuRàL 6 speaks of the Lord as being beyond the 5 senses -- sithaandhàm says that sivàperumaan destroyed the Forts of the 3 guNaas and controls them thus teaching that He is Naturally Unaffected by bondage, and, in addition, in the stage of yohgàm, control over the senses is gained by contemplating on sivàperumaan.
•kuRàL 7 speaks of God being without any worry what-so-ever as, He is God without an equal and those Who attain Him will also not experience any worry -- sithaandhàm teaches that no two entities, even of the same class, are identical therefore, God has no match and is void of any worries and offers the same to Those Who attain His Feet.
•kuRàL 8 says that the Feet of God is complete virtue and is free from vices and offers freedom from these vices to all which Attain His Feet -- sithaandhàm says we cannot beat our vices on our own thus, we should admit them to sivàperumaan and worship as only He can relieve us from these vices.
•kuRàL 9 speaks of God having 8 Natures -- sithaandhàm lists sivàperumaan's 8 Special Natures: 1. Absolute Freedom, 2. All Pure, 3. Natural Intelligence, 4. Omniscience, 5. Omnipotence, 6. All Blissful, 7. All Merciful and 8. Naturally Untainted by Ignorance.
•kuRàL 10 speaks of God being the only salvation from the cycle of birth and death -- sithaandhàm calls sivàperumaan as piRàppil perumaan and adds that only One Who is Eternally Unaffected by birth and death can save us from birth and death - 'pohkkum vâràvum puNàrvumillaa puNiyàneh", say thirú maaNikkavaasàgà naayànaar.

This refutes those who claim the thirukkuRàL to be only secular, and not only that, but proves that thirukkuRàL is saivà sithaandhàm, thereby silencing claims to thirukkuRàL by other religions and philosophies.

Anonymous said...

I've been looking for a proper history of pârimehlâZHgàr. Can you give me a brief run-down or a link to a proper history of his?

Anonymous said...

parimehlaZHagar's Commentory of the word 'yeNguNathaan', in kuRaL 9, kaDavuL vaaZHthu

yeNguNangaLaavana: thanvayathanaadhal, thooyavuDambinanaadhal, iyaTkay_yuNarvinanaadhal, muTRumuNardhal, iyalbaagaveh paasangaLineengudhal, pehraruLuDamay, muDivilaaTRaluDaymay, varambilinbamuDaymay yenavinay; ivaaRu saivaagamathu kooRappaTTadhu.
- parimehlaZHagar.

The Tamil word kaDavuL does not appear in the Sacred thirukkuaRaL. However, there are many words describing sivaperumaan's Nature in the first chapter of the thirukkuRaL. The word 'yeNguNathaan' (One having 8 Special Natures) which appears in the nineth verse of the first chapter, refers to the Lord's 8 Special Natures. parimehlaZHagar, whose commentary on the Sacred thirukkuRaL is considered to be the best, says that the word 'yeNguNathaan' refers to the eight special natures of sivaperumaan as explained in the saiva aagamaas. The saiva world is indebted to parimehlaZHagar, who, in spite of being vaiNavar, brought out this Truth without bias. The 8 Special Natures of sivaperumaan are as follows:

•thanvayathanaadhal - Absolute Freedom •thooyavuDambinanaadhal - All Pure •iyaTkay_yuNarvinanaadhal - Natural Intelligence
•muTRumuNardhal - Omniscience
•aaLavilaa aaTRal wuDay_yan aadhal (muDivilaaTRaluDaymay) - Omnipotence
•varambilinbamuDaymay yenavinay - All Blissful
•pehraruLuDamay - All Merciful
•iyalbaagaveh paasangaLineengudhal - Naturally Untainted by Ignorance

- sithaandha theLiviyal by 'sithaandha kalaymaNi' 'mudhu perum pulavar' 'mahaavivaa, Dr. Arunaivadivehl Si. Mudaliar (translation by (paN)isai selvamNi thiru Arunajalam Thiagarajan Govender Dip. Saiva Sithaandha Annaa University BA. Tamil Madras University).

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ anonymous,
Please continue from what you have left in Parimelazhagar's commentary - "saivaagamathu kooRappaTTadhu."

Parimelazhagar continues to say " aNimaavai muthalaaka udaiyana enavum..." means these 8 qualities are ashta siddhis starting from Anima, Mahima etc. In other words the En huNam are the ashta siddhis starting from Anima.

These qualities are mentioned for Vishnu also in Vishnu sahasranama - verse 27 "Siddhartha siddhi sankalpa siddhi dah siddhi saadhanaha"

Chronologically Vishnu sahasranama preceded Saivagama as Vishnu sahasranama was given by Bheeshma on arrow bed (Mahabharatha).

Even Jains talk about 8 siddhis for Jina and claim that Thirukkural refers to Jina!

So we have to see what Thirukkural Devanar meant. Take a look at 27th kural where Parimelazhagar mentions 25 tattwas which are purely Vedic and Vaishnavite philosophy. How would you justify that from saivagama?

To understand all these, one must know what Vedic polytheism says about One Brahman who has many manifestations. The one Brahman is Narayana who is the 'a-kaara' (agaram). The 10th kural speaks of surrendering to His feet which is not told for Shiva or any other God (who are actually manifestations of Brahman). Wherever a description comes on a facet of Brahman which is known by a specific God, Parimelazhagar had mentioned that.

One who is knowledgeable in Vedic religion will not call oneself as saivite or vishnavite or a sakhtha and so on because such a person would know what each of these Gods mean and would find them as manifestations of Brahman which is established as Narayana by Vedas. Thirukkural Devanaar (Thiruvalluvar)is one such knowledgeable person and uses the descriptions aptly. Parimelazahagar points them out aptly.

Anonymous said...

1. Did parimehlaZHagar mention any other belief or philosophy in kaDavuL vaaZHga, the section which decides the religion of the thirukkuRaL?

2. Did maal not take birth, like all other souls?

3. Did raamaa not accept sivaperumaan as guru?

4. Was kaNNan not initiated into siva-worship?

5. Were the first sithars not saiva?

6. What birth did sivaperumaan take; can you give the name of one parent?

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ anonymous whose comments continue to appear in the spam folder:-

It will stretch into a book if I start writing a reply to you, as you keep asking one by one. Instead I suggest that you learn what Hinduism says on Godhead and take a re-look at Thirukkural with that learning. Or read my articles on Hinduism in this blogspot.

For Kadavul vaazththu of Thirukkural, the basis is Tholkappiya sutra "Kodinilai, kanthazi" . The details of this can be read in Mu. Raghava iyangar's 'Tholkaappiyap porul agaraathi aaraaycci".

To know how this sutra fits in Thiurukkural, read vai. mu. sadagopa iyengar's urai for Thirukkural- parimelazagar urai.

Don't get disturbed that I am asking you to read books by Iyengars. Theirs are standard books. fyi Any evolved Iyengar will have a better grasp of Vedic religion and the meaning of several Gods of Hindu pantheon. I would suggest D.A. Joseph's write ups for beginners.

Anonymous said...

//Please continue from what you have left in Parimelazhagar's commentary - "saivaagamathu kooRappaTTadhu."

Parimelazhagar continues to say " aNimaavai muthalaaka udaiyana enavum..." means these 8 qualities are ashta siddhis starting from Anima, Mahima etc. In other words the En huNam are the ashta siddhis starting from Anima.//

From the description given on the 8 powers of God, and taking into consideration, athamaasithi, they are completely different. There is no way that parimehlaZHagar could've interpreted these 2 sets of 8 powers to be the same. Athamaasithi is given to souls and applies to the body (maayai). No matter what the religion, it is still sivaperumaan Who bestows these 8 powers as, given His 8 special powers, as listed by parimehlaZHagar, which only saivam ascribes to God, only He has the Power to do so. The body of sivaperumaan is aruL, the bodies of all other intelligent entities (souls) is maayakkaariyam. This is what athamaasithi effects. Why will God need athatmaasithi when She is already present in all and all is present in Him (kaDavuL), from the tiniest particle of matter to all of the universes? Furthermore, athamaasithi is not the final stage. In saivam, this is bestowed in yohgi stage. Truly speaking, all popular sithargaL in saivam, were nyaanies, that is, above the yohgi stage and had access to these 8 sithies if they were destined to be used -- unlike the sithar of other religions, the nyaanies of sithaandham never asked for these powers.

//These qualities are mentioned for Vishnu also in Vishnu sahasranama - verse 27 "Siddhartha siddhi sankalpa siddhi dah siddhi saadhanaha"//

Exactly my point. This goes to show that maal was confined by maayai thus, this will contradict one of the 8 powers, namely, thanvayathanaadhal - Absolute Freedom, which God is in possession of. As I said, a soul is bestowed athamaasithi. maal is a soul. History also supports that he did not maintain the states he received. In saivam, the naayanmaar are not praised for attaining liberation but, maintaining the state of performing sivathoNDu thus we have "thiruthoNDar" thogai (thillayvaaZH andhaNar) by thiru sundharamoorthi naayanaar. As kaNNan, maal experienced thathvamasi and possessed athamaasithi. As iraaman, he clearly did not possess this state nor did he athamaasithi. In fact, the history indicates that iraavaNan possessed these powers and so too did aNumaan. Furthermore, Who gave dhasarath liberation?

//Chronologically Vishnu sahasranama preceded Saivagama as Vishnu sahasranama was given by Bheeshma on arrow bed (Mahabharatha).//

In saivam, with bringing the universe into its gross form for the first time, sivaperumaan assumed the Form of sadhaasivamoorthi. Whilst the 4 outward-facing heads recite the naanmaRai (thamiZHvehdhaa), eesaana mugam recites the sivaagamaas. Saivaagamaas are both in Tamil and sanskrit and compliment each other however, the Tamil sivaagamaa, which is considered to be thirumandhiram, preceded the sanskrit. Tradition ascribes the age 6000BC to 3000BC for the thirumandhiram. The reason given for thirumoolar remaining here was that the thamiZHvehdham were not being adhered to. At this point in time, there was no Sanskrit Vedas

Anonymous said...

//Even Jains talk about 8 siddhis for Jina and claim that Thirukkural refers to Jina!//

thirukkuRaL praises the agriculturalist thus, samanam's claims are refuted. No part of the thirukkuRaL can be interpretted where it contradicts the next.

//So we have to see what Thirukkural Devanar meant. Take a look at 27th kural where Parimelazhagar mentions 25 tattwas which are purely Vedic and Vaishnavite philosophy. How would you justify that from saivagama?//

You'll have to excuse my Tamil. Tamils in SA are unfortunate as those before my current generation failed to preserve the language. It is not my native language and I'm still studying. From what I gather, I have the gist that puruDan experiences the effects of maan (moola prakriti). In vainavam, moola prakriti is maal. In saivam, moola prakriti is not a thathuva but an aspect of impure maayai. What explanation then will you give to puruDan and the mention of the 7 thathuvas (vithya thathuvaas) which are beyond moola prakriti? The 25 that he mentions is puruDan and aanma thathuvaas; moola prakriti, which is an aspect of impure maayai, which results in the 24 aanma thathuvaas has seegaNDa paraman (rudhraa), Who is controlled by sivaperumaan, as its master. puruDan is not a seperate thathuva but, is considered the 7th of 7 vithya thathuvas. From impure maayai comes 'maayai', classified as the 1st vithya thathuva from which kaalam (time) comes. Then comes niyadhi (destiny) followed by kalai, vithai and araagam. When the soul is clad in these 5 vithya thathuvas (kaalam, niyadhi, kalai, vithai and araagam) it becomes know as puruDan. Thus, puruDan, or the 25th is a combination of 5 thathuvas, which makes the soul ready to experience the 24 effects (aanma thathuvaas) of maan. In saivaagamaas, there are 36 thathuvas. Above the vithya thathuvas, is sivathathuvas, which give rise to the world of speech and is controlled directly by sivaperumaan and is thus known as sutha maayai. Both sutha maayai and asutha maayai are effects of Causal Maayai. Therefore, the idea of thathuvas (instrumental existences), is saiva and pre-vedic.//To understand all these, one must know what Vedic polytheism says about One Brahman who has many manifestations. The one Brahman is Narayana who is the 'a-kaara' (agaram).//

What you call vedic polytheism is what is originally known as dhaandhaanmiyam. This is the inseparable relationship between sivan (One) and sathi (many). This is still monotheism as sathi is the inseparable Nature of sivan. There is no authentic support for siva being a manifestation of maal or vice versa. If maal was brammam, then saivam should not have been proven as the most ancient of Hindu sects. In addition, how many examples can you think of that has sivaperumaan worshipping maal or any other entity and compare it to the number of examples where you have maal and other entities, worshipping, prostrating and surrendering to sivaperumaan? agaram is infering the opening of the mouth, without which, there can be no agaram. This also refers to the gross manifestation of the universe with 'a' being the first part of 'ohm'. Agaram is used as the world of speech is an effect of the sivathathuvas, the first 5 instruments which make-up the universe. As sivaperumaan is the One Who Decides to join the soul (pasu) with causal maayai and causal kanmam, He is known as the first of the world, that is, not being the material cause, but the Efficient Cause, Who, out of Mercy for the souls, brought the universe into gross existence.

Anonymous said...

//The 10th kural speaks of surrendering to His feet which is not told for Shiva or any other God (who are actually manifestations of Brahman).//

'namachivaaya vaa_aZHga naadhanDRaaL vaaZHga'.

- maaNikkavaasaga naayanaar (3rd Century AD)

namachivaaya refers to siva, the transcendental Special nature of sivaperumaan and naadhanDRaaL, not only refers to the 1st thathvuva, naadham (siva), but, the Feet of sivaperumaan, is His sathi. It is in the Feet of sivaperumaan that everything exists and, as His sathi brings all into gross existence and pervades them, the Feet of sivaperumaan is symboli of sathi. Saivam is all about the Feet of sivaperumaan. Liberation is the soul being detached from the universe (paasam neekkam) and being attached to the Feet of sivaperumaan (sivapehru), by being merged in a subtle, non-dual inseparable union. This merging with the Feet of sivaperumaan is scattered throughout the thirumuRaygaL and saathirangaL. Correct me if I'm wrong but, is liberation in vaiNavam not considered to be more of a marriage? In saivam, the Feet are most 'obsessed' over as, eventually, we are 'slaves' to the Lord rather than an equal. Again, maaNikkavaasagar says, "neeLkaaZHgaL kaaTTi" - "You Revealed Your Omnipotent Feet". At the end of the sivapuraaNam, He says, "selvar sivapurathin wuLaar sivanaqDi keeZH pallohrum yehtha paNindhu" - thoßse (Who realise the meaning of these songs and chant them) will go to sivapuram (sivalohgam), which is situated at the bottom of sivaperumaan's Feet, where they will remain amongst the other liberated souls, as Slaves, and praise Him. So, the idea of the Feet of sivaperumaan, which are evetually, beyond all worlds, is the central focus of saivam. This is cemented by thirunaavukkarasar appar naayanaar where, when kailaasanaadhar appeared to Him, He (appar) said, "kaNDehn avar thirupaadham". If you look at pooZHiyarkohn, in praise of the naalvar, not only sivaperumaan's Feet are held in the highest regard, but the Feet of His Devotees.

//Wherever a description comes on a facet of Brahman which is known by a specific God, Parimelazhagar had mentioned that.//

The facets all mentioned in kaDavuL vaaZHthu are taught specially by saiva sithaandham and are attributed to sivaperumaan Himself. Yes, he would've mentioned aspects of god as per other religions, but, this will just be general. saiva sithaandham does not only focus on Its own philosophy, but goes indept into other philosophies as well.

//One who is knowledgeable in Vedic religion will not call oneself as saivite or vishnavite or a sakhtha and so on because such a person would know what each of these Gods mean and would find them as manifestations of Brahman which is established as Narayana by Vedas.//

The Vedas are not conclusive as to Who is God Head. I met a Vedic-saiva sithaandhan who was convinced that the Sanskrit Vedas were pure saiva sithaandham. The reason as to why there are different aagamaas to the same vedas is because it gives contradictory reasoning to God Head. For the manner in which brammam exists as celestials, like the trimoorthi, one must understand suthathuvidham. Why can one not say that brammam is parasivam? Do you not consider yourself vaiNavar?

//Thirukkural Devanaar (Thiruvalluvar)is one such knowledgeable person and uses the descriptions aptly. Parimelazahagar points them out aptly.//

If you look at the hand-gesture of thiruvaLLuva naayanaar's moorthi at kanyakumaari, how would you explain it from a vedic-vaiNava perspective?

Btw, I must thank you for giving me this chance to engage in a debate of this kind. As religious education isn't embraced in SA, when scholarly debate is engaged, the opposition turn to insults which is a waste of time. I've learnt a lot from this blog.

Anonymous said...

I think my first 5 questions require a simple yes or no and a line of explanation. At present, I'm studying sivanuyaana sithiyaar which will cover Hindu studies across the board and indept. I'm not disturbed by you asking me to do so. Maybe one day, through sivaperumaan's Grace, when I'm blessed with the kind of knowledge I will need, I will definitely read. Just to clarify, my primary objective is to completely grasp aagamic saivam.

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ anonymous,

There is no yes or no answers to your questions because all your questions were based on one facet of understanding of, say, the huge elephant which was explored by 6 blind people. It is like answering the questions raised by the one who understood the elephant as a long tubed animal, based on his exploration of the tusk alone.

You are into saivagama and therefore seeing whatever looks similar to the notions of saivagama. But know that saivagama is only a branch of the vast Vedantha - though what you are reading prohibits you from understanding or accepting that. As I didn't want to hurt your sentiments and instead wanted you to move ahead in your path of exploration, I am refraining from commenting any further.

A person goes through several stages and several births by exploring the nuances of the Wisdom which is enshrined in Vedas and which one catches up as one becomes more sattvic in disposition. A time will come when you will also reach that state. At that time you will realise that Thirukkural is dharma sastra of he Vedantic system of life. At that you will become a thinker by yourself and realise what each of the Godheads and their activities convey. Best wishes.

Sheela said...

Dear Madam,

incidentally my son asked when there is whole adhikaram on vegetarianism in Thirukural why few kurals from this adhikaram is not given in Tamilnadu text syllabus for students?

may be Government does not want to show this facet of Thirukural to young students!!


Jayasree Saranathan said...

Dear Ms Sheela,

Yes, there is selective use of Thirukkural by the present day people who are mostly influenced by Dravidian ideology. I even had a person who swore by Thirukkiural, argue in my Tamil blog that eating non-veg is the cultural habit of Tamils for all along.

But the reality picture is that Tamils and Indians in general have been strict vegetarians until a century ago. John Phillip Wesdin, the Austrian traveler who traveled through India between 1776 to 1789 had written in his book "Voyages to the East Indies" that

"Their (Indians) total abstinence from all flesh, and the express prohibi¬tion of their religion which forbids them to kill animals, prevent them from dissecting them and examining their internal construction."

The Census Report of 1881 says "that Hindoos are almost completely vegetarians and that the Mahammedans are the butchers and the flesh eaters of the country". The Report even showed surprise that the so called fishermen (Shembadavas) did not reside near the sea but lived in-land and were engaged in other activities. The first culprit to have sown the seeds of difference among the Hindus in the name of caste are the Britishers. It was further refined by the Dravidian ideologues. It was only after they started to wield influence on the people of Tamilnadu, the ways of life even in eating habits were changed. Ask any Tamil on his ancestry, you will get a reply on how their grand parents were pious, religious and non-meat eaters.

Even looking at the temple inscriptions, one comes to know that every village lived as a compact system of unity among various people whose life centered around the temple. Such a life based around temple did not allow meat eating or other vices.

With all these, there are however a small percentage of people who had taken to meat eating and liquor. In a Paripaadal there is a mention of a few persons lying near the fields in inebriated condition. But that was not justified, nor accepted. Such people were not accepted by the people at large. The roots of untouchability started with that only. Those who killed cows were never allowed inside the village. Such a situation started only with the advent of the Mughals.

There are a couple of inscriptions which show leniency when a person had killed an animal unintentionally. They were asked to light the lamps everyday in the temple as a mode of prayaschiththa.

Killing any life, and eating other life were never promoted nor tolerated in India. The one who kills, the one who sells the killed animal and the one who eats - all these three get the negative effect for this killing. Of them the one who eats meat gets more of the negative effect (Paapam) because it is for him that the animal is killed primarily.

One may ask whether killing applies to eating vegetables too. This requires a detailed reply which I have already written in "athithi Bhojanam" article


In short, no life is killed in eating vegetarian food. Only the stored up extra energy for the planet is used. Eating plant food is also necessary because the Atman enters through the plant food into a man's alimentary canal and get fixated in his sperm. As a prayaschiththa for whatever discomfort is caused to vegetable life, a man must pay back by watering the plants everyday.

This part taken from my Tamil article might help:-

"ஒவ்வொரு குடும்பஸ்தனின் வீடும் ஒரு கொலைக் களம் போல் உள்ளது என்கின்றன தர்ம நூல்கள். வீட்டில் அடுப்பு எரிப்பதாலும், நீர் கொதிக்க வைப்பதாலும், உணவு சமைப்பதாலும், மாவு அரைப்பதாலும், வீட்டை விளக்குவதாலும் – இப்படி ஐந்து வழிகளில் பல நுண்ணுயிர்கள் கொல்லப்படுகின்றன. எனவே குடும்பஸ்தனின் வீடு ‘சூனா’ எனப்படும் கொலைக் களம் போல இருக்கிறது. கொல்லுதல் பாபத்தை உண்டாக்குவது. ஆனால் அறியாமலும், வேறு வழியில்லாமலும் இங்கே நுண்ணுயிர்கள் கொல்லப்படுவதால், அதற்குப் பிராயச்சித்தமாக தினமும் இந்த பஞ்ச யக்ஞங்கள் செய்ய வேண்டும் என்று தர்ம நூல்கள் சொல்லுகின்றன."

More on


Sheela said...

Dear Madam,

i agree with you.

i would like to place my experience as non vegetarian converted into strict vegetarian. one its very difficult task to control our taste sense initially., which needs strongwill n God's grace.

secondly resentment shown by friends, relatives.

one can only experience the bliss & a sense of lightness of being a vegetarian.

having experience both sides i can understand a non vegetarian, who are prone to tendencies (even I had)such as
chauvinism/ mocking and lack of empathising.

with all humility i try to advocate vegetarianism which leads one to path of Dharma.


karthikeyan pandian said...

This blogpost is half cooked

Selva said...

Wow what a mess. Totally childish argument. Please read Nakkerer's Thirumurugattrupadai for Meat eating practice in Tamils land. Please read Tholkappium, Naladiyar about aram, porul and inbam. Earlier I did refer to your blog for some good input. But this one, I can tell it is a total childish work...