God in Tirukkuṟaḷ - Alternator or the Absolute R.K.K. RajarajanSchool of Tamil, Indian Languages and Rural Arts, Gandhigram Rural University, Gandhigram – 624 302 rkkrajarajan@yahoo.com
Abstract: The Tirukkuṟaḷis a masterpiece of ancient South Asian literature, the universality of which has been acclaimed by scholars the world over. The names Tiru-Kuṟaḷand Tiru-Vallūvar do not appear in ancient Tamil classical works. Vaḷḷuvar’s Kuṟaḷ(tiru or śrī, honorific prefix) is not a compendium of religious precepts. The man and society are more important in Vaḷḷuvar’s mental eyes as the poet-laureate was guided by the ethical notions that are a codification of ancient Indian heritage from various sources of thought such as the Tamil maṟai (Sanskrit Veda), Buddhist-Jain didactics, and the poet’s meditated thoughts. He had no pretext to talk of religion, gods and rituals. Vaḷḷuvar was a secular poet that way universal who strived to see a man of excellence, brave woman of parts, adroit society, best government, good social behavior and righteous sexual life. The present article hopes to demonstrate what Vaḷḷuvar’s archetypal God is?
It is almost an accepted universal claim that the Tirukkuṟaḷis a masterpiece of ancient South Asian literature, considered “infinite riches in little rooms” (cf. the ‘Essays’ of Francis Bacon); the universality of which has been acclaimed by scholars the world over. His work under poetics may be brought under kuṟaḷ-veṇpā“couplet” (Tamil Lexicon II, p. 1047), an innovation by about the 4th century CE1. Later myths were concocted to the effect that his work was rejected by the orthodox poets (maybe maṟaiyōr, Vedis) of the ‘Tamil Caṅkam’ at Maturai2. It was his ladyfriend (elder sister?), Avvaiyār, another puritan-moralist, that came to recognize the merits of the work, and got the due approval from the ‘Tamiḻ Caṅkam’ (Congress of Poets) by immersing the Kuṟaḷin the ‘Poṟṟamaraikkuḷam’ of the Great Temple at Maturai3 (Rajarajan 2006: pls. 4-5). It may note the names Tirukkuṟaḷand Tiruvaḷḷuvar appear nowhere in ancient Tamil classical work4. These seem to be later innovations on part of the Tamil academicians (see note 3).
Writing in his ‘Tamil Literature’, Kamil Veith Zvelebil (1974: 119) adds the following brief note. “The Sacred Kuṟaḷ” is undoubtedly quite exceptional as to its literary qualities among the ‘Eighteen Shorter Works’, Patiṉeṇkīḻkaṇakku. It is usually acclaimed for didactic values if not aesthetics5. It is a comprehensive manual on ethics [aṟam/dharma], polity [poruḷ/artha] and erotica [iṉpam/kāma]. Its date being debatable, the tendency is to trace the impact of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya-Cāṇakya (considered a Drāmiḍācārya of Candragupta Maurya [c. 325-301 BCE] Sathyanathaier 1980: 120, Thapar 1980: 13) and Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana (early century CE; cf. Upadhyaya 1970, Basham 1971: 172-73) on the Kuṟaḷ. It consists of 1,330 “distiches”, divided into 133 sections of ten couplets each; the first 38 on moral and cosmic order (aṟam), the next 70 on polity (poruḷMachiavellian politics and social behavior, cf. Arthaśāstra) and the rest on sensual pleasure (kāmam cf. Kāmasūtra). The author was probably a Jain with eclectic leanings and good knowledge of early Tamil poetry as well as of Sanskrit, including Prākṛt and Pāli gnomic and legal texts6. We have no authentic information on his life. Even the name, Tiruvaḷḷuvar is not quite clear (Fig. 1, for several visual models see Samuel 2017: 246-50). Hindus, Jains and Christians, including the Muslims (cf. the chapter on ‘Veruvanta Ceyyāmai’, G.U. Pope: “Obnoxious Terrorism”) have claimed this work highly esteemed and prestigious reflecting on religious scriptures. The Kuṟaḷdoes not speak of vīṭu/mokṣa, the fourth subject of the puruṣārthas (cf. the Ciṟiya Tirumaṭal and Periya Tirumaṭal of Tirumaṅkai Āḻvār that question vīṭu), and so there is no need to talk of God even if there is an introductory Kaṭavuḷvāḻttu “Praise of Almighty”. It is precisely the concern of the present article to examine whether Vaḷḷuvar has any pretext to talk of Śiva, Viṣṇu, Indra (one among the Aṣṭadikpālakas Wessels-Mevissen 2001), Lakṣmī, Jyeṣṭhā/Alakṣmī, Yama (God of Death), Rāhu, one among the Navagrahas (Mevissen 2000: 1267-97), ‘Aṇaṅku’ (a genre of Tamil lore, cf. aṇaṅgaḥ“part-less” or “organ-less”) and so on (Ferro-Luzzi 1993: 394). We compliment the essay with art historical evidences of presumably of later saga of Indian thought to be abreast with the author’s specialization of Indian art.
To begin with a moot-point for discussion may be considered casually. The eminent British professor, J.L. Brockington (1996: 130-31; cf. Rajarajan 2012: 62 note) says the origin of bhakti may be traced in the Tirukkuṟaḷ. When Vaḷḷuvar has no pretext to talk of vīṭu, where is the need for bhakti? When vīṭu is not the concern, what warrants bhakti; or yoga, the cream of ancient Indian monastic legacy to the world? Zvelebil (1974: 49) categorically says “on the banks of the Vaikai, that bhakti was born” (e.g. Paripāṭal; Vaḷḷuvar’s nativity is considered Mayilāpūr/Mylapore in modern Ceṉṉai). Precisely it is Tamil-bhakti, the ‘Nālāyiram’ and ‘Tirumuṟai’ considered Tamil- [Drāviḍa-] veda (Kalidos 2015). The pan-Indian bhakti had its root in the Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa worship of the Vṛṣṇi-yādavas (Tamil Āyar, cf. ‘Āycciyarkuravai’ in Cilappatikāram), dated a few centuries anterior or posterior to the Common Era. R.G. Bhandarkar (1913: chap. I) would find the roots of bhakti in the Upaniṣadic concept of upāsana. Some consider Vaḷḷuvar a Jain (Bhaskaran 2001: 33) and “atheist”; an atheist may wear black shirt or shouldercloth (Tamil tuṇṭu), and not saffron or yellow. The ‘Kaṭavuḷvāḻttu’ in the Kuṟaḷis a conventional method of beginning a literary work with ‘Invocation to Providence’. This ‘Praise the Lord’ is opening the gates toward ‘Universal Religion’.
The introductory chapter of the Kuṟaḷinducts several terms and phrases that could be interpreted in the contexts of the various Indian sectarian groups (considered “six”), the aṟuvakaiccamayam or aṟucamayam (Tēvāram 4.30.50, Tiruveḻukūṟṟirukkai l. 31, Nāṉmukaṉ Tiruvantāti 38; Tiruvāymoḻi 1.3.5, 9.4.8).
‘Ātipakavaṉ’/Ādibhagavān (Kuṟaḷ1), literally means “Primeval Divinity”; maybe Brahmā7, Śiva for the Śaivites (Ajāyaḥ “Birthless”, Śivasahasranāma-133), Viṣṇu (cf. Ādimūrti or Vaikuṇṭhamūrti in Śrītattvanidhi 2.2) for the Vaiṣṇavas, Mahāvīra for the Jains (cf. Pakavaṉ, Civakatināyakaṉ, Paramaṉ “Eternal”, Iṟaivaṉ, Īcaṉ and Cayampu/Svayambhū in Cilappatikāram10.176-186) and the Buddha (cf. Ādi-Buddha) for the Buddhists. It is a many-faceted epithet.
‘Malarmicai-ēkiṇāṉ’ (Kuṟaḷ3) “the divinity mounted on flower” is Brahmā (Fig. 2) or Lakṣṃi? Padmapāṇi, holder of the lotus, is the Buddha or padmāsana-Buddha (Figs. 4-5); the Jain-Tīrthaṅkaras are normally seated or standing on the lotus-pedestal (Fig. 3), padmapīṭha (Settar 1986: pl. xxxii, Haripriya-Rangarajan ed. 2001: pls. III-IV).
‘Iṟaivaṉ’ (Kuṟaḷ5, 10) is a cosmopolitan term that may denote God8 in general; this would suggest Vaḷḷuvar was not an atheist. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010: 665) adds “the God’ is not employed in Judaism, Christianity and Islam; cf. the Buddha, Jesus the Christ. Godhead is a universal belief.
Aṟavāḻiyantaṇaṉ (Kuṟaḷ8) is disputable. The problem here is antaṇaṉ; is he a brāhmaṇa?
Aṟavāḻi would denote one who turns the wheel of dharma, i.e. Gautama Buddha. The Jain God is Taruma-mutalvaṉ “Beacon of Righteousness” (Cilappatikāram 10.178)9. The brāhmaṇa and the Buddha are opposites because the origin of Buddhism was due to Gautama’s reaction against brāmaṇical domination in religious affairs, the Vedic yajña or Tamil vēḷvi. The epithet could as well denote Viṣṇu, cf. Viṣṇu-dharma in the Gītā. Viṣṇu’s cakra “wheel or disc” is kālac-cakkaram “Wheel of Time” (Tiruvāymoḻi 4.3.5, 7.2.7); Viṣṇu is beyond the time factor, Kālacakkarattāṉ (ibidem 4.3.5-6, Īṭu IV, 94); nigrahacakra (“punishing wheel” Tiruvāymoḻi 4.7.5), and dharmacakra (“wheel of righteousness”, see Aśoka’s Pillars in Mookerji 1972: pls. VII, IX, VIII, V), aṟamuyal āḻi “the righteous Disc” (Tiruvāymoḻi 5.1.6; Rajarajan, Parthiban & Kalidos (2017a: 205-206).
The Kaṭavuḷvāḻttu presents a case for “god” in the Kuṟaḷ(Kalidos 2017: 126-27). It is not clear which God Vaḷḷuvar means. This issue is confusing and self-contradictory because Vaḷḷuvar is oscillating on different sides of the polarities of multiple religious creeds. Otherwise, it could a case for “universalism” of godhead as Ferro-Luzzi (1993) suggests.
Kuṟaḷ(1103) makes a note of tāmaraik-kaṇṇāṉ-ulaku “world of the lotus-eyed”10 that could be either Kṛṣṇa (cf. paṅkayak-kaṇṇāṉin Tiruppāvai 14) or Viṣṇu, puṇḍarīkākṣa, and padmapāni-Buddha, cf. the paintings in Ajaṇṭa caves (Fig. 5); cf. Pūmakaṉ “son on flower”, Brahmā son of Viṣṇu was ordained on the lotus emanating from the umbilicus of Raṅgaśāyī (Nāṉmukaṉ Tiruvantāti 1, Nācciyār Tirumoḻi 4.3); the Ārāvamutaṉ “never-satiating Ambrosia” (Periya Tirumoḻi 1.10.3, 4.7.8, 7.6.9; Tiruvāymoḻi 5.7.11, 5.8. 10), the Śayanamūrti (Tiruvāymoḻi 5.8.1) of Kuṭantai/Kuṃbhakoṇam.
Kṛṣṇa
The couplet comes under puṇarcci-makiḻtal (“delight of embrace” Pope) that may stand for a case of viraha-bhakti (Hardy 2014). This idea was popularized in the hymns of Nammāḻvār (cf. Tiruviruttam, Periya Tiruvantāti and Tiruvāymoḻi e.g. 5.3.1-10) and Āṇṭāḷ (e.g. Nācciyār Tirumoḻi). It is difficult to digest the idea in an age when the Kuṟaḷis dated (first century BCA to fourth century CE). Again, Vaḷḷuvar would have never equated the “delight of woman” (sensual with “devotion” (spiritual). If Kaṇṇaṉ (Rajarajan, Parthiban & Kalidos 2017a: 516-18), it may be Kṛṣṇa; kaṇṇāṉis a synonymous term giving different but analogous meaning, “He of the (beautiful) eyes”, Kaṇṇaṉ is “dear to the eyes”. Any man or woman with lotus-like eyes could be designated so. Kaṇṇaṉ and kaṇṇāṉare subtly differentiated. Therefore, to link the term with Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu may be contextually problematic.
Śrī-Lakṣmī
Kuṟal (179) makes a note of the word, tiru, which in Śrīvaiṣṇava11 ideology is Śrī or Lakṣmī. It stands for “good fortune” in the present context (Kuṟaḷ179)12. ‘Tiru’ in Vaiṣṇava lore (cf. Rajarajan, Parthiban & Kalidos 2017a: 1388-89) stands for ‘Śrī’. It gives various other meanings such as “wealth”, riches, distinction, eminence, brilliance, “fertility”, blessing, fortune, holiness, sacredness, good deed [nalviṉai opposed to tīviṉai genocide - terrorism, e.g. Empire State, Mumbai, Paris and London in the recent past], an ancient head-ornament (Tamil Lexicon III, p. 1896), and a prefix to proper names, e.g. Tiru-Māl, Tiru-Murukaṉ, Tiru-Vaḷḷuvar, Tiruk-Kuṟaḷ, Tiruk-Kōvalūr and so on. In the cited Kuṟaḷ, tiru stands for “good fortune” as G.U. Pope says; and not Śrī or Lakṣmī. Tiru and Śrī were equated in course of time, meaning Lakṣmī; cf. the Paripāṭal (1): Tirumaṟu (i.e. Śrīvatsa), Tiruviṉ-kaṇavaṉ“spouse of Śrī” (ibid. 3), and Tirumakaḷ (Tiruvantāti I 42, 86; Tiruvāymoḻi 4.8.1, 4.9.10, 8.1.1).
Alakṣmī/Jyeṣṭhā
Kuṟaḷ(617) notes ‘Tāmaraiyiṉāḷ’13 (Fig. 6) that may stand for a Goddess seated on lotus. The couplet notes the “Goddess of Misfortune” whose dwelling place is where sluggish people squander. Jyeṣṭhā (Tamil Cēṭṭai or Mūtēvi, ‘Mukaṭi’ in the cited Kuṟaḷ[Tamil Lexicon VI, p. 3223], Tavvai [Tiruvāymoḻi 6.3.6]) was treated the elder sister of Lakṣṃī, once a revered Goddess, and later discarded14. The Paraṅkuṉṟam north group of rock-cut temples accommodates Jyeṣṭhā in garbhagṛha (Rajarajan 1991: figs. 1-2, 5; Kalidos 2006: III, pls. LXI.3, LXVII). She is not seated on lotus. The note in Kuṟaḷis vague. The Goddess in societal setting is to mean poverty and degradation, and is not as an idol of worship; in ordinary parlance an unlucky person is scolded mūtēvi.
Trivikrama (Fig. 7)
Kuṟaḷ(610) makes a note of aṭi-aḷantāṉ(who measured by His lifted foot; cf. Kuṟaḷuruvāy … aṇṭamum niḻaṉum aṭi oṉṟiṉāl koṇṭa “as Dwarf … annexed the cosmos and the lands in one stride” (Nācciyār Tirumoḻi 4.9). It is not actually Vāmana in the Kuṟaḷ(see Vāmaṉaṉ in Nācciyar Tirumoḻi 4.2; Ferro-Luzzi 1993: 394, cf. Kalidos 2017: 126) but the magnified Trivikrama. ‘Kuṟaḷ’ in ‘Nālāyiram’ denotes Vāmana (Rajarajan & Parthiban 2017: 150, e.g. Tiruvāymoḻi 2.6.1). The reference in the present context is metaphor for a tyrant (Rajarajan 2016a) and fails to occur in the religious context; see contra in ōṅkiyulakaḷanta uttamaṉ(Tiruppāvai 3). Purely a case of literary analogy, it is unimportant for historians of religion. Again, rulers of the subcontinent had a fascination for the name, e.g. Vikramāditya15 among the Western Calukyas of Kalyāṇi, also Pallava Mahendra-Vikrama (i.e., Mahendravarmaṉ I c. 610-30) to symbolically suggest “ruler of the three worlds”.
Nīlakaṇṭha
The proposition regarding Nīlakaṇṭha in Kuṟaḷ(580) is purely a case of misinterpretation (Ferro-Luzzi 1993: 394)16. In fact there is no reference to the Lord that consumed the hālahāla poison making His throat blue. The couplet reads as follows:
“Those that behave in a cultured manner drink poison if offered with love (talebearers are not, and one who listens to aspersions or overhears [e.g. Poṟkai Pāṇṭiyaṉ, see Rajarajan 2016b: 94] is not a good administrator)”
Anyone could drink poison, and he need not necessarily be Śiva. Nīlakaṇṭha does not come into the picture at all. Śiva consumed the hālahāla poison under compelling circumstances, which his consort stopped by holding the neck tightly (Rajarajan 2006: II, pl. 71). The poison did not harm Śiva; his throat/neck alone was scarred that was blue-coated (nīlakaṇṭam in Tēvāram 1.116.1-10); Śiva’s complexion is golden, poṉṉārmēṉiyaṉ(Tēvāram 7.24.1). The Kuṟaḷunder note offers no clue to the name, nīla-kaṇṭha “blue-throated”. Śiva-Nīlakaṇṭha (Fig. 8) is an exemplary model for consuming poison in an effort to do away with the Satanic evil and afford protection to the righteous gods.
A number of other references to the divinities of the Hindu pantheon in the Kuṟaḷare detected by scholars (Ferro-Luzzi 1993) thereby by judging Vaḷḷuvar on a par with the Jain-Iḷaṅkō and Buddhist-Cāttaṉār (cf. Kalidos 2017: 126-27).
· A clear reference to Indra (Fig. 9), Intiraṉ appears in Kuṟaḷ(25) as king of gods and commander of the pañcabhūtas. Indra, a Vedic divinity, is common to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. In Indian iconographic tradition Indra may be found in caves IXIII (Buddhist), XIV-XXIX (Hindu) and XXX-XXXIV (Jain) in Ellora circa 600-900 CE (Soundararajan 1981: 9).
Kuṟal (899) makes a note of king of kings, vēntaṉum-vēntu but the social setting of the hymn is different. It notes a king who is ruined if he fails to listen to the words of expert advisors. He need not be Indra, and may denote any wise minister or poet; e.g. the myth relating to Avvaiyār and the Mūvēntar vis-à-vis the daughters of Pāri (Rajarajan 2014: 9-19).
· Kūṟṟam and Kūṟṟu in Kuṟaḷ(269, 326) is not the God of Death, Yama; it means “death” (Rajarajan 2018 & 2019). Kūṟṟu in the Tēvāram (1.30.1) stands for Yāma. Kālakālaṉ (Tēvāram 1.50.6) is Śiva; Naṭarāja is Kālaṉ (literally “Time”): ‘Kāyntu vīḻntavaṉ Kālaṉē kaṭu naṭañceyyuṅ Kālaṉ’ (ibid. 3.374.6), denotes Kālāri-Naṭarāja.
· Kuṟal (1146) notifies the mythical event of a snake catching or seizing [grahaṇam] the moon, which Ferro-Luzzi considers Rāhu or Ketu arresting the moon (cf. Mevissen 2000).
This is a rare example of the mythical astrophysics noted in an early literature, much anterior in point of time to the Tēvāram (2.221.1) that makes a note of pāmpiraṇṭu “two snakes”, Rāhu and Ketu.
· The learned professor (Ferro-Luzzi 1993: 394) finds references for aṇaṅku in the Kuṟaḷ (1081) that actually refers to the deluding or wanton beauty of a cajoling woman-punk. Contextually the “beauty of woman” is an abstraction for aṇaṅku (Rajarajan 2016: 194-
95); cf. Kōvalaṉ and kāṉuṟai-teyvam in the Cilappatikāram (11.171). The proverb is: Intiraṉkeṭṭatum peṇṇālē Cantiraṉkeṭṭatum peṇṇālē(Indra was ruined because of a woman, and Candra was wrecked by a woman). Cleopatra causes the collapse of Mark Antony, and Helen of Troy ‘launched a thousand ships and toppled the topless towers of Ilium’. The ideal womanhood in Tamil tradition is Kaṇṇaki and in pan-Asian tradition Sītā:
Peṇṇiṉ peruntakkayāvuḷa kaṟpeṉṉum/ Tiṇmai uṇṭākaperiṉ (Kuṟaḷ54). “What makes a woman great is the vital energy, kaṟpu (chastity), and if she orders it will rain” (Kuṟaḷ55); e.g. Sāvitrī stopping the Solar movement, and the mahāyogī-Kṛṣṇa hiding the Sun by his disc during the Great Bhārata War. The deluding dancing girl, e.g. Mātavi, the havoc of her paramour and the entire family of mānāyakas/mahānāyaka (great Lords) of Pukār; cf.the end of Mātavi and Maṇimēkalai, and the parents of Kōvalaṉ and Kaṇṇaki (Cilappatikāram 29. 9-10) that either die or embrace Buddhism or the Ājīvika sect. The doomsday is forecasted when aṟam/dharma is staked.
Generalization
Vaḷḷuvar’s Kuṟaḷis not a compendium of religious precepts such as the āgama or śāstraśilpa.
The society and man are more important in his mind’s eye as the poet-laureate was guided by the ethical notions that are a codification of ancient Indian heritage from various sources of thought such as the maṟai-veda, Buddhist-Jain didactics and the Tamil heritage from classical (i.e., Caṅkam) lore. He had no pretext to talk of religion, gods and rituals (such as pūjāand utsava) or bhakti, and this way Vaḷḷuvar deviates from Iḷaṅkō and Cāttaṉār that present a list of the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain gods and goddesses (Kalidos 2017: 126-27). He had no need to drag the gods
into picture by narrating mythologies or iconographies that we find abundantly restored in the Cilappatikāram and Maṇimēkalai. Vaḷḷuvar was a secular poet that strived to see a man of Purakala excellence [uttamaṉ, Puruṣottama in Viṣṇusahasranāma-24], brave woman of parts [kaṟpiṉ-kaṉal, e.g. Kaṇṇaki], adroit society [tiruk-kūṭṭam], best government [nallaracu], good social behavior [ilakkaṇa-vāḻvu] and righteous livelihood [taruma-cintaṉai/dharma-yoga]. Everything in the cosmic installation is expected to revolve round peace for the universal frame as the Upaniṣads preach Harmony for the Milky Way: OṃŚāntiḥŚāntiḥŚāntiḥ. Terrorism will have to be rooted out at any cost. A despot ruling any part of the world is curse on humanity, the scourge of history.
Bernard Shah said “for forms of government let fools contend, whatever best administered is best” (cf. Rajarajan 2016a). Above all do not preach morality; set an example by following the noble models already formulated. Do not listen to talebearers and evil-preachers of war. “Let us fight for peace” is the dictum of UNESCO. A terrorist not only ruins his own nationalities and communities but also harms dharmātmas. Do not be an Othello, and do not be the devil-Iago; be a man; “to be a man is great” as the Great Buddha said. When I was in Berlin as Alexander von Humboldt postdoctoral fellow, I received a letter from my noble-teacher, citing from [Vaḷḷuvar-in]-Shakespeare (cf. Sarma 1989: 35-44, Sachidanandan 1989: 117-26)17:
Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportioned thought his act … [Kuṟaḷ411]
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel; [ibid. 242]
Beware of entrance to a quarrel, but, being in
Bear ’t that the opposed may beware of thee, [ibid. 874]
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice; [ibid. 414]
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment … [ibid. 504]
This above all; to thine own self be true (‘Hamlet’ I, iii) [ibid. 282]
Vaḷḷuvar seems to be a forerunner of Arnold J. Toynbee who preached ‘Universal State’ and ‘Universal Church’ (cf. Kosminski 1966). Religion was not Vaḷḷuvar’s focal point. He did not talk of God of a specified religious denomination. The follower of any creed may claim to discover his god or gospels in the couplets of the poet of all times for the Tamils, now acclaimed universal (cf.Ferro-Luzzi’s “universalism”). Vaḷḷuvar’s iṟaivan or pakavaṉ could be any God that religions of the world advocate, may be the Buddha, the Tīrthaṅkara, Śiva, or Viṣṇu (see note 8)18.
1 The running ‘Vaḷḷuvar Era’ year is 2046 CE, which means the Tamils accept 30 BCE as the beginning of the Era. Zvelebil (1974: 119) dates the work “some between 400-500” coinciding with the Gupta Era (320 CE) in north India*. Ardent Tamil scholars and others date the work from c. 1250 BCE to 600 CE (Kalidos 1976: 70). In any case the Tirukkuṟaḷseems to have existed by about the time of the Cilappatikāram, dated c. 150 CE (Subrahmanian 1981: 20-22) to 450 CE (Zvelebil 1974: 132) and the cultural idioms portrayed in the epic getting back to the immortal past (Rajarajan 2016: Preface). * Vikrama Era 58 BCE, Śaka Era 78 CE, Harṣa Era 606 CE, Kollam Era 825 CE; the mythical Era is Kali 3102 BCE (Basham 1971: 325, 494-97). ‘Vaḷḷuvar Era’ is a modern innovation.
2 Tiruvāymoḻi (1.6, 1.8, 10.5) of Nammāḻvār is in vañciviruttam or vañcittuṟai and Periya Tirumaṭal of Tirumaṅkai in kaliviruttam seem to be of this metrical order or prosody.
3 This myth may be dated in the thirteenth-sixteenth century coeval with the Tiruviḷaiyāṭaṟ Purāṇams of Nampi and Parañcōti (Rajarajan & Jeyapriya 2013: chap. I). The episode is portrayed in an old Tamil movie called ‘Avvaiyār’, starred by K.B. ****arāmpāḷ (maybe 1950s).
4 Considering Vaḷḷuvar of a caste of that name, belonging to the paṟaiya cadre (Ferro-Luzzi 1993: 393, Hanumanthan 1996-97: 51) is of some concern. Vaḷḷuvaṉ(maybe soothsayer) stands for the drummer (cf. pratilomaja ‘vena’ Kalidos 2010: 76), one who announces state decisions to the public seated on an elephant. Cf. the announcement the ‘Intiraviḻā’ in the ‘Twin Epics’ (Cilappatikāram, Kātai 5-6, 25-26, Maṇimēkalai, Kātai 1, cf. Rajarajan 2016: pl. 77). However, in Kēraḷa the vaḷḷuvar-untouchables are treated a sub-caste among the āḻvārs (cf. the Vaiṣṇava mystics called Āḻvārs and among them Tiruppāṇāḻvār, pāṇar treated low-born Rajarajan 2013: 48-50) as also dāsari (Thurston 1909: I, 25). I am thankful to R.K. Parthiban who drew my attention to Thurston 1909.
5 The aesthetics of diction and theme in the Kuṟaḷ(66) is unequivocal; e.g. Kuḻal iṉitu yāḻ iṉitu eṉpa tam makkaḷ maḻailaic col kēḷātavar “some say the lute and lyre are mellifluous; they have not heard the prattling of babies”, melody/aesthetics is lisping of the child.
6 These legal texts called dharmaśāstras and nītiśāstras proliferated during and after the time of Vaḷḷuvar (cf. Kane, 1930-62, Dutt 1978-79). Few of the authorities are Yājñavalkhyasaṃhita, Vasiṣṭhasaṃhita, Viṣṇusaṃhita, Manusaṃhita, Baudhāyana-srautasūtra, Kaśyapa-jñānakāṇḍa and so on (Kalidos 2010:49-80).
7 The Maṇimēkalai (‘Camayakkaṇakkartiṟamkēṭṭa-kātai’ 96) notes ‘Piramavāti’, the sectarians following Brahmā as the foremost God. We have a temple for Trimūrti (Brahmā-Śiva-Viṣṇu) at Prāmbanan in Central Jāva (Rajarajan 2014a: fig. 2) and the Trimūrti cave temple in Māmallapuram with cult images. Separate temples for Brahmā came to be derecognized in course of time. ‘Pakavaṉ’ in the Cilappatikāram (10.177) is the Jain God.
8 ‘Iṟaivaṉ’ is the Jain God, cf. Cilappatikātram 10.184. See iṟaivaṉ(“king”) or iṟaiyāṉin Rajarjan, Parthiban & Kalidos (2017a: 427-28). The Webster’s New Dictionary & Thesaurus notes the following synonyms of God: Brahma[n], Holy One, Jehovah, Lord, Lord God, Numen, Providence, the Almighty, Yahweh, Zeus and so on. Meister is Master.
9 Brāhmaṇahood does not come by birth. It is acquired merit; cf. Vasiṣṭha vs. Viśvāmitra. One who follows dharma is an antaṇaṉ, antaṇar eṉpōr aṟavōr (Kuṟaḷ30). Also consider the brāhmaṇa-fanatic Śāṅkarācārya for whom the caṇḍālaguru was Śiva-Kirāta.
10 Ulaku is “world” (or Cosmos) for Vaḷḷuvar and the Vaikuṇṭha or the Paramapada for the Ācāryas (Rajarajan, Parthiban & Kalidos 2017: 1462-63).
11 Śrīvaiṣṇavism was an innovation of the Ācāryas that thoroughly Sankskritized the Tamil pirapantam, e.g. the Īṭu of Nam Piḷḷai (see Naiḍu 2012) and the commentaries of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai on the ‘Nālāyiram’. Jan Gonda (1954 & 1970) and R.G. Bhandarkar (1913) talk of Viṣṇuism or Vaiṣṇavism and not Śrīvaiṣṇavism (cf. Rajarajan 2012: 98 & 2913: 62-63). Nothing of the type exists in north India.
A Sanskrit-based group of scholars migrating to the western hemisphere some fifth years ago (e.g. A.K.Ramanujan) have channelized western scholarship toward [vaṭakalai]-Śrīvaiṣṇavism* citing the Ācāryas (cf. Klostermaier 2014: 181-95). The Āḻvārs were perun-Tamiḻaṉ “dignified Tamil (mystics)” (Pūtattāḻvār Tiruvantāti II, 74), teṉ-Tamiḻaṉ (Periya Tirumoḻi 6.6.5), patrons of Tamil (Caṅkam), the southern Pāṇḍya, Drāviḍa-paṇḍita (fails to appear in Caṅkam literature) according to Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, cf. Āriyaṉ-Rāma in Kampa-Irāmāyaṇam (6.37.238). The Irāmāṉucanūṟṟantāti (v. 19) on Ācārya-Rāmānuja (1017-1137), annexed to the ‘Nālāyiram’, considers Tiruvāymoḻi the cen-Tamiḻ-āraṇam “Arch of classical Tamil”.
* Inscriptions in the Śrīraṅgam (teṉkalai-based ARE 1892, no. 71) and Kāñcīpuram (vaṭakalai-based
ARE 1919, no. 406) do note the Śrīvaiṣṇava-brāhmaṇas.
12 The other two references cited by Ferro-Luzzi (1993: 394), i.e. Kuṟaḷ84 & 910 are irrelevant.
13 Tāmaraiyāḷ (Fig. 6) is Devī-Lakṣmī in Tiruvanṭati I (v. 67) and Tāmaraiyāṉ (Fig. 2) is Brahmā (Tiruvantāti I, v. 60).
14 Such a discarded image of the early Cōḻa period may be found in the Mēlappaḻuvūr temple. The rockcut chapel for Jyeṣṭhādevī in the Tirupparaṅkuṉṟam hill is kept closed.
15 Vikrama means “stride or stepping over” (Apte 2012: 506) and Āditya is Sūrya; thereby equating a king with Āditya-Viṣṇu who comes around the globe or ruler of the three worlds. Trivikrama’s solar origin in the Vedas is almost an accepted idiom.
16 Interestingly, Vāmana is ‘Kuṟaḷ’ in Vaiṣṇava lore (Rajarajan, Parthiban & Kalidos 2017: 667-68 citing Tiruvantāti I 20, Tiruvantāti II 18, 99, Tiruvantāti III 52, Tiruvāymoḻi 1.4.3 and so on). Vāmana’s other dimension is Trivikrama accommodated in the garbhagṛha of the Ūrakam (Rajarajan 2007: 41) and Kōvalūr divyadeśas. For a note on ‘Kuṟaḷ’ see Kalidos (1995: 387-88, cf. Anantaraman 1994: 315-26).
17 I have tried to find out the parallels in Vaḷḷuvar and Shakespeare, which is up to the interested scholars to trace avenues of interaction. The concerned Kuṟaḷs are cited below (the précis presented within parentheses; for translation see G.U. Pope):
* 411: Celvattuṭ celvam ceviccelvam accelvam/ Celvattuḷ ellām talai (the great wealth one inherits is by listening to others)
* 242: Nallāṟṟāṉ nāṭi aruḷāḷka pallāṟṟāṉ/ Tēriṉum aḥtē tuṇai (Seek the advice of righteous friends …)
* 874: Pakainaṭpāk koṇṭuoḻukum paṇpuṭaiyāḷaṉ/ Takaimaikkaṇ taṅkiṟṟu ulaku (it is up to the person
concerned to convert a foe to a friend)
* 414: Kaṟṟilaṉ āyiṉum kēṭka aḥtoruvaṟku/ Oṟkattiṉ ūṟṟām tuṇai (even if you are illiterate listen to others…)
* 504: Kuṇamnāṭik kuṟṟamumnāṭi avaṟṟuḷ/ Mikaināṭi mikka koḷal (search for the good and bad, reserve your comments)
* 282: Uḷḷattāl uḷḷaḷum tītē piṟaṉporuḷaik/ Kaḷḷattāl kaḷvēm eṉal (it is a crime to covet others possessions; be true to yourself).
18 See Kalidos 2017; the book (Samuel ed. 2017) cited in this article includes essays by scholars familiar with Jainism, Buddhism, Śivaism, Viṣṇuism, Christianity and Islam that attempt to find their own religious beliefs in the Tirukkuṟaḷ, which is in my opinion is far-fetched. Because when Vaḷḷuvar was living there was no Islam. May be Muḥammad of Mecca (seventh century CE) borrowed not only from the Semitic religions but also the Tirukkuṟaḷand other Indian scriptures because the pre-Islamic Arabian pirates were busy plundering ships of the Hellas in the western sea, Tamil Kuṭakāṭal (later Arabian Sea).
References
Anantaraman A.K., (1994) “Theory and Function of the State. The Concept of aram (virtue) in Tirukkural”,
East and West (Rome) 44.2-4, pp. 315-26.
Apte V.S. (2012) The Student’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal.
ARE: Annual Report on Epigraphy 1892, 1919.
Basham A.L. (1971) The Wonder that was India. Calcutta: Rupa.
Bhandarkar R.G. (1995) Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems. New Delhi: Asian Educational
Services.
Bhaskaran G. (2001). “Jain Philosophy as Expounded in the Merumandara Purāṇam”, [in:] Jainism Art,
Architecture, Literature and Philosophy, Haripriya Rangarajan (et al. eds.) Delhi: Sharada Pub.,
pp. 33-38.
Brockington J.L. (1981/1996) The Sacred Thread. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Cilappatikāram, Nāṭṭār ed. Ramayya: Chennai 2008/2011.
Ciṟiya Tirumaṭal, part of ‘Nālāyiram’.
Dutt, Manmath Nath (1978-79) The Dharmaśāstra, 6 vols. New Delhi.
Ferro-Luzzi, Gabriella Eichinger (1993) “If Whorf Had Known Tiruvaḷḷuvar? Universalism and Cultural
Realism in a Famous Work of Ancient Tamil Literature”, Anthropos 87.4-6, pp. 391-406.
Gonda, Jan (1954) Aspects of Early Viṣṇuism, Delhi: Motilal.
Gonda, Jan (1970) Śivaism and Viṣṇuism: A Comparison. South Asia Books, London.
Hanumanthan K.R. (1996-97) “Evolution of Untouchability in Tamilnadu up to 1600”, The Indian
Historical Review 23.1-2, pp. 41-65.
Hardy, Friedhelm (1983/2014) Viraha Bhakti, The Early History of Kṛṣṇa Devotion. Motilal, Delhi.
Īṭu, see Naiḍu (2012).
Kalidos, Raju (1976) History and Culture of the Tamils. Dindigul: Vijay Publications.
Kalidos, Raju (1995) “A Note on the Kuṟaḷ”, East and West (Rome) 45.1-4, pp. 387-88.
Kalidos, Raju (2006) Encyclopaedia of Hindu Iconography: Early Medieval, III Śakti Goddesses. Delhi:
Sharada Pub.
Kalidos, Raju (2010) “Historical Setting of Caste and Communalism in India”. In Studies in Art History of
India, R.K.K. Rajarajan, S. Ganeshram (eds.) Delhi: Sharada Pub., pp. 49-80.
Kalidos, Raju (2015) History of the Tamil-bhakti Movement: Divyadeśas of Toṇṭaināṭu, Sir William Meyer
Endowment Lecture, University of Madras: Chennai 2015.
Kalidos, Raju (2017) “Tiruvaḷḷuvar and Viṣṇuism: Tirukkuṟaḷ vis-à-vis Nālāyiram”. In International
Conference on Tirukkuṟaḷ, John Samuel (ed.) Institute of Asian Studies: Cemmañcēri, pp. 126-31.
Kane P.V. (1930-62) History of Dharmaśāstra, 6 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Research Institute.
Klostermaier, Robinson (2014) “Śrī and Viṣṇu: One God in Two Persons”, Religions of South Asia 8.2, pp.
181-95.
Kosminski Y. (1965/1966) Professor Toynbee’s Philosophy of History. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Maṇimēkalai, Kaḻakam ed. Chennai 1975.
Mevissen, Gerd J.R. (2000) Īṣat-paṅgu Śanaiścara, the Lame Planetary God Saturn and His vāhanas, South
Asian Archaeology 1997…, In Maurizio Taddei & Guiseppe de Marco (eds.) Rome, pp. 1267-1297.
‘Nālāyirativviyappirapantam’ Four-Thousand Divine Revelations (Roman Transcription, English Summary and Transcendence), 4 vols. MS (circa 2500 pages) Jawaharlal Nehru University: New Delhi.
Rajarajan R.K.K., R.K. Parthiban & R. Kalidos (2017a) Concise Dictionary of Viṣṇuism with special reference to ‘Nālāyiram’. MS (circa 2200 pages) Jawaharlal Nehru University: New Delhi.
Sachidanandan V. (1989) “Shakespeare and Milton in Tamil”, Journal of the Institute of Asian Studies 6.2,pp. 117-26.
Samuel John G. (2017) ed. International Conference on Thirukkural. Cemmāñcēri: Institute of Asian Studies.
Sarma M.V. Rama. (1989) “The Mahābhārata and Paradise Lost: Epics of Revelation”, Journal of the Institute of Asian Studies 6.2, pp. 35-44.
Sathyanathaier R. (1980) A Political and Cultural History of India, Vol. I. Viswanathan: Madras.
Settar S. (1986) Inviting Death: Historical Experiments on Sepulchral Hills. Dharwad: Institute of Art History.
பொழிப்பு (மு வரதராசன்):கொல்லாத அறத்தை மேற்கொண்டு நடக்கின்றவனுடைய வாழ்நாளின்மேல், உயிரைக் கொண்டு செல்லும் கூற்றுவனும் செல்லமாட்டான்.
மணக்குடவர் உரை: கொல்லாமையை விரதமாகக் கொண்டு ஒழுகுமவன் வாழ்நாளின் மேல், உயிருண்ணுங் கூற்றுச் செல்லாது. பிறவாமை யுண்டாமாதலால் கூற்றுச் செல்லாது என்றார். இது கொல்லாமையின் பயன் கூறிற்று.
பரிமேலழகர் உரை: கொல்லாமை மேற்கொண்டு ஒழுகுவான் வாழ்நாள் மேல் - கொல்லாமையை விரதமாக மேற்கொண்டு ஒழுகுவானது வாழ்நாளின்மேல், உயிர் உண்ணும் கூற்றுச் செல்லாது - உயிர் உண்ணும் கூற்றுச் செல்லாது. (மிகப்பெரிய அறம் செய்தாரும் மிகப்பெரிய பாவம் செய்தாரும் முறையான் அன்றி இம்மைதன்னுள்ளே அவற்றின் பயன் அனுபவிப்பர் என்னும் அறநூல் துணிபு பற்றி, இப் பேரறம் செய்தான் தானும் கொல்லப்படான்: படானாகவே, அடியிற்கட்டிய வாழ்நாள் இடையூறின்றி எய்தும் என்பார் வாழ்நாள்மேல் கூற்றுச் செல்லாது, என்றார். செல்லாதாகவே, காலம் நீட்டிக்கும்; நீட்டித்தால் ஞானம் பிறந்து உயிர் வீடு பெறும் என்பது கருத்து. இதனான் அவர்க்கு வரும் நன்மை கூறப்பட்டது.)
குறள் 38:
வீழ்நாள் படாஅமை நன்றாற்றின் அஃதொருவன் வாழ்நாள் வழியடைக்கும் கல்.
மணக்குடவர் உரை: ஒருவன் ஒரு நாளிடைவிடாமல் நன்மையைச் செய்வானாயின் அச்செயல் அவனது பிறப்பும் இறப்புமாகிய நாள் வருகின்ற வழியை யடைப்பதொரு கல்லாம். இது வீடு தருமென்றது.
மு. வரதராசன் உரை:
ஒருவன் அறம் செய்யத் தவறிய நாள் ஏற்படாதவாறு அறத்தைச் செய்வானானால் அதுவே அவன் உடலோடு வாழும் நாள் வரும் பிறவி வழியை அடைக்கும் கல்லாகும்.
கலைஞர் உரை: பயனற்றதாக ஒருநாள்கூடக் கழிந்து போகாமல், தொடர்ந்து நற்செயல்களில் ஈ.டுபடுபவருக்கு வாழ்க்கைப் பாதையைச் சீராக்கி அமைத்துத் தரும் கல்லாக அந்த நற்செயல்களே விளங்கும்.
சாலமன் பாப்பையா உரை: அறத்தை செய்யாது விட்ட நாள் இல்லை என்று சொல்லும்படி ஒருவன் அறம் செய்தால், அச்செயலே, அவன் திரும்பப் பிறக்கும் வழியை அடைக்கும் கல் ஆகும்.
கொல்லாமை மேற்கொண்டு ஒழுகுவான் வாழ்நாள் மேல் செல்லாது உயிர் உண்ணும் கூற்று. (திருக்குறள் 326)
மணக்குடவர் உரை: கொல்லாமையை விரதமாகக் கொண்டு ஒழுகுபவன் வாழ்நாளின் மேல், உயிருண்ணுங் கூற்றுச் செல்லாது. பிறவாமை யுண்டாமாதலால் கூற்றுச் செல்லாது என்றார். இது கொல்லாமையின் பயன் கூறிற்று.
பரிமேலழகர் உரை: கொல்லாமையை விரதமாக மேற்கொண்டு ஒழுகுவானது வாழ்நாளின்மேல், உயிர் உண்ணும் கூற்றுச் செல்லாது. (மிகப்பெரிய அறம் செய்தாரும் மிகப்பெரிய பாவம் செய்தாரும் முறையான் அன்றி இம்மைதன்னுள்ளே அவற்றின் பயன் அனுபவிப்பர் என்னும் அறநூல் துணிபு பற்றி, இப் பேரறம் செய்தான் தானும் கொல்லப்படான்: படானாகவே, அடியிற்கட்டிய வாழ்நாள் இடையூறின்றி எய்தும் என்பார், ‘வாழ்நாள்மேல் கூற்றுச் செல்லாது’ என்றார். செல்லாதாகவே, காலம் நீட்டிக்கும்; நீட்டித்தால் ஞானம் பிறந்து உயிர் வீடு பெறும் என்பது கருத்து. இதனான் அவர்க்கு வரும் நன்மை கூறப்பட்டது.).
கொல்லாமையாகிய அறத்தை தம்முடைய மேலான அறமாகக் கொண்டு வாழ்பவர்களின் உயிரை உண்ண கூற்றுவனும் செல்லமாட்டான் என்பது இக்குறளின் கருத்து. இக்குறளுக்குப் பொருள் சொல்வதற்குப் பரிமேலழகர் உள்ளிட்ட அத்துணை உரையாசிரியர்களும் சிறிது தடுமாறியிருக்கிறார்கள் என்றே சொல்லவேண்டும். பிறப்பு, இறப்பு என்ற இருமை இல்லாத நிலையென்பது, இப்பிறப்புக்கு பிறகு எய்தக்கூடிய ஒன்றே. சிரஞ்சீவி என்கிற நிலை இருப்பதாக நாம் படித்தாலும், உலகியல் வாழ்வில் நாம் அதைப் பார்ப்பதில்லை. கூற்று அவ்வுயிர்களை உலகில் நீண்டகாலம் வாழ அனுமதிக்கும் என்பது வேண்டுமானால் ஒப்புக்கொள்ளலாம்.
யாரும் உண்ண முடியாக உயிரைக்k கூற்று உண்ணும் என்றது உபசார வழக்காய் அவனது உயர்வை விளக்குகின்றது.
உண்டற் குரிய அல்லாப் பொருளை உண்டன போலக் கூறலும் மரபே. (1159)
என்று தொல்காப்பியம் சொல்கிறது. இந்த இயல் விதி ஈண்டு எண்ணி யுணரவுரியது. கொல்லாமையாகிய அறம் வலியுறுத்தப்படவேண்டிய ஒன்றுதான். அதை மேலான அறமாகக் கொண்டொழுகுபவர்கள் யாராக இருந்தாலும் அவர்களும் மீண்டும் பிறப்பும் அதனால் இறப்பும் கிடையாது என்கிற கூற்றும், அதனால் கூற்றுவன் அவர்கள் வாழ்வை முடிக்கச் செல்ல வேண்டியதில்லை என்பது வேண்டுமானால் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளக்கூடிய ஒன்றாகும். கம்பராமாயண நாட்டுப்படலத்தில், “கூற்றம் இல்லையோர் குற்றம் இலாமையால்” (70) என்று கோசல நாட்டு மக்களின் நிலையைச் சொல்லியிருப்பார் கம்பர்.. குற்றங்கள் இல்லாமையால், அந்நாட்டினருக்கு மரண பயம் இல்லையாம்.
வீழ்நாள் படா.அமை நன்று ஆற்றின் அஃது ஒருவன் வாழ்நாள் வழியடைக்கும் கல். (திருக்குறள், 38),
அறத்தைச் செய்யாது விட்ட நாள் இல்லை என்று சொல்லும்படி ஒருவன் அறம் செய்தால், அச்செயலே, அவன் திரும்பப் பிறக்கும் வழியை அடைக்கும் கல் ஆகும்.
செல்லாது உயிர் உண்ணும் கூற்று என்னும் தொடருக்கு, கொல்லாமை என்ற அறத்தை மேற்கொண்டு ஒழுகும் மனிதனுக்கு அவன் இப்பிறவியில் செய்யும் வினைகளுக்கு உரிய தீங்கும் நன்றும்) இல்லாமல் போவதால், அவனுக்கு மேற்கொண்டு பிறவிகள் இல்லை.
