While the volume Aṟatuppāl is mainly concerned with the personal life of man, the Poruṭppāl shows him the society. He would like to have security in life for himself, for his relatives, and others, for which he is ready to earn wealth and pay a portion of his earnings to the state by way of tax called iṟai and expects the state to give him protection. He has to earn wealth to support his family through legal means and he should have to use it with freedom. He needs protection to his wealth. At the same time he need to earn his wealth not through illegal means. He also need to live with his relatives, and friends. Someone must ensure his freedom, wealth and family; that power is vested in the king. So this chapter required the Kingship, with necessary power to regulate the people's life.
This volume therefore, deals with wealth, the protective power — the kingship, the civil administration of the territory and state, necessary force to prevent the external invasion and internal security the judiciary to determine crime and punishment and king personally inspecting the security.
This second volume is thus deals with wealth and ease the largest in the collection. It deals with kingship called araciyal, its various limbs like army, police force, councilors, ambassadors, etc., and other miscellaneous requirements this volume is dedicated into three parts as: 1. Kingship (aracu-iyal), 2. Laws of Administration (aṅka-iyal) and 3. Miscellaneous (oḻibu-iyal) and a total of seventy chapters.
A study of chapter reveals headings and their sequence, are well thought out. The kings own educational qualifications his neglect of study, his acquisition of knowledge, his own intelligence are listed one after the other. His willingness to seek the advices of great men, appreciate decisions and understanding one's own strength and choosing appropriate time, place, actions and chose the proper course of action and other qualities required for the king. The king must cultivate the servants, remain impartial and upright at all times refrain from harsh injustice and treat people with compassion with grace, maintain enthusiasm, number of servants, face bravely adverses etc. these are called the three great powers of a king. These are prabhu śakti, mantra śakti, utsāha śakti in ancient Indian text.
The second part of the volume called aṅka-iyal, the limbs of administration, deals with ministers their qualification, their purity, their ability to advice the king are dealt with. It also deals with army, and its strength, friendship, enemity, freedom meanness, absolve and understand internal, external enemies etc.,
The third part deals with mostly abstract requirements like citizenship, pride, honour, magnanimity, civilized behavior, gratefulness, poverty, etc., There is a chapter on agricultural cultivation. It is to be noted that the volume is treated after the Dharma — Aṟattu pāl and evidently in the same manner as treated inManu, Yājñavalkya and other Dharma Śāstras.
The sequence of layout is exactly the same. It virtually is what is dealt with in Artha Śāstra of Kauṭilya. Both Manu and Yājñavalkya deals with rājanīti and kingship are in the same manner and many parallels are seen between Tirukuṟaḷ on the one side and the Manu and Yājñavalkya's code on the other. V.R.R Diskhitar is most celebrated scholar who have dealt with this subject. I am citing his analysis.
We have seen that Tiruvaḷḷuvar used extensively the Dharma Śāstra in Aṟattuppāl and in this volume Poruṭppāl, he draws from both the Dharma Śāstra and also the Artha Śāstra of Kauṭilya. We will be seeing he also have drawn Naṭya Śāstra and Kāma Śāstra in writing his third volume Kāmattuppāl. It is but natural that these three major aspect of human life, has been formulated by the early writers, Tiruvaḷḷuvar did not hesitate in using in the work.
Tiruvaḷḷuvar has two chapters on Kingship especially on upright rule, which are titled upright justice (செங்கோண்மை) and crooked justice (கொடுங்கோண்மை). These two highlight the Tamiḻ ideal ruler ship and justice. Each chapter has ten verses and emphasize the ideology of State rule. We will deal with only a few select verses, though both are critical around one ideal, both emphasizing the role of Vedas and Dharma Śāstras in the rule of the State. The third verse in the chapter on ceṅkōl (upright rule), is as follows அந்தணர் நூற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் ஆதியாய் நின்றது மன்னவன் கோல். — 55.3 antaṇarnūl stands for the Vedas and aṟaṉ for Dharma Śāstras. This is specifically mentioned by Manu as Śruti (i.e., Vedas and Smṛti (the Dharma Śāstras). The Dharma which stands for righteous rule is rooted in Śruti and Smṛti. (The Dharma Śāstra was created for the use of Brāhamaṇa Dharma. आचारो परमो धर्मः श्रुत्युक्तः स्मार्त एव च । तस्माद् आचारेण सदा युक्तः नित्यं स्यात् आत्मवान् जनः ॥ According to Manu, the Vedas are the root of Dharma and Smṛti. वेदोखिल धर्ममूलं स्मृतिशीले च तद्विदाम् । आचारः चैव साधूनां आत्मनः तुष्टिरेव च । यः कस्यचित् धर्मः मनुना धर्म कीर्तितः । सः सर्वो अभिहितो वेदे सर्वज्ञानमयो हि सः ॥ So When Vaḷḷuvar says the King's scepter is the root of Vedas of Brāhmaṇas and Dharma Śāstra is the root, is clearly shown that the Tamil's ideology was to uphold the path of Veda and Dharma is an unmistakable evidence of Vaidika Dharma Mārga was the ideal of Vaḷḷuvar's teaching and the path of ancient Tamiḻs and that was called cenkoṇmai — just ideal rule of the Tamiḻs. So the scepter of (Tamiḻ) King's was the symbol proclaiming the root of Veda and Dharma (antaṇarnūl and aṟan).
All the commentators including Rev. Lazzarus, interpreted Antaṇannūl as the Vedas of the Brāhmaṇas. Pope, however, does not indicate anything. Parimēlaḻakar says the King's scepter stands as the protective symbol of the Vedas, the texts of the Brāhmaṇas and the Dharma, mentioned in them. Continuing his commentary, Parimēlaḻakar says that though the Vedas are common to Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas and others, as Brāhmaṇas heads the list, the Vedas are mentioned as the texts of the Brāhmaṇas. Aṟam refers here also Dharma stands for customs other than judiciary. Though Śruti Vedas and Smṛti Dharmās are conceived as immortal, the scepter symbolizes the backing of rulership and so it is said to remain foremost in ruler ship. The word niṉṟatu stands for “firmly stands” behind Vedas and Smṛti (Parimēlaḻakar).
Pari Perumal, another commentator holds that in the country, there are (Vedic) reciters and executors of Dharmas, live, the verse the Scepter is foremost in the country. It means in such a country, education and righteous life will prosper (Pari Perumal).
“The King's ceṅkōl” says Paruthyar, another commentator, Vedic and Dharmic path are given first protection in the State. Kalingar, another commentator says, it is the Vedas that preach all the righteous conduct of the world. Following the sacred paths of the Vedas and the Dharma Sūtra path, they are mainly the King's justice, symbolizing the upright scepter. Evidently, all the ancient commentators held that ruling King should protect the Vedic and Dharmic path.
There is a verse in the chapter (ch.56. ver. 10), which says that if the King does not rule righteously, then the cows will loose their usefulness and the Brāhmaṇas will forget their profession of justice. ஆபயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நூன்மறப்பர் காவலன் காவான் எனின். — 56.10 In the verse the word aṟutoḻilor, “those with six fold profession” stands for Brāhmaṇas — This is also mentioned in Tolkāppiam, the Tamiḻ grammar. Evidently Vaḷḷuvar links Brāhmaṇas with righteous ruler as this is a Chapter on injustice. All the commentators, up to 20th Centrury have taken the word aṟutoḻilor as Brāhmaṇas. Even Pope has taken the word to Brāhmaṇas. But M. Balasubrahmaniam, who wrote his commentary in 1965, when the Dravidian movement was at its height (they captured power in 1967 — two years later the M. Balasubramanyam's work) invoked the anti-Brahmins ideology and secularism thread takes this word to mean six fold workers.
VRR Dik****ar is however takes the antaṇarnūl as the books of the Brāhamaṇas and the other word aṟutoḻilor as Brāhamaṇas. VRR wrote in his book in 1949. Thus up to the middle of 20th Century for 2000 years, all learned men took these references to mean Brāhmaṇas and their books as Vedas Balasubrahmanaiam's new found ideology has made him to change Vaḷḷuvar's intention. We may leave the new ideologies to themselves, saying it had no relevance to Tiruvaḷḷuvar's writing 2000 years earlier. Even Balasubramanaiam has not ruled out of the possibility of Vaḷḷuvar's might have been they represented Brāhmaṇas, their text and the culture.
We are convinced that Vaḷḷuvar was clear in his mind that his text reflected the Vedic and Dharma Śāstra Mārga as the firm ideology of the ancient Tamiḻs and their Kingship. So Vaḷḷuvar emphasized the fact, that Vedic life and conduct and wrote the Dharma Śāstra in Tamiḻ for the use of Tamiḻ speakers. Vaḷḷuvar's system was Vedic system. Evidently, Vaḷḷuvar made Vedic thoughts as the guiding principles of the Tamiḻs. Vaḷḷuvar's path is Veda Mārga has been established in the Aṟattuppāl and in the Poruṭpāl, he showed that it was the ideology of the Tamiḻ State.
Whatever be the date of the Āryan advent in Peninsula India1 one fact is clear, namely that Āryan ideas and ideals had become completely popularized in Tamiḻ India sometime during or before the epoch of the Saṅgam. A study of the nīti? texts in Sanskrit Literature bears out that the state came into existence for the progressive realization of the trivarga or the muppāl of Tamiḻ Literature2. The conception was that progress of the world (lokayātra) meant the progressive realization of the chief aims of life and these chief aims of life according to the then prevalent notions and standards were Dharma (Aṟam), Artha (Poruḷ) and Kāma (Inpam). Though the end of this realization is Mokṣa (Vīṭu) yet neither the Artha Śāstra writers of Sanskrit Literature nor the political thinkers of the ancient Tamiḻ land have thus expressed it. The idea was that the trivarga was the means towards that end, and if once the means were realized, the end would automatically follow. That the importance of trivarga was well realized in Tamiḻ India of the Saṅgam period is evident from the Tolkāppiyam and the eighteen poems of Kīḻkkaṇakku, traditionally accepted as the Saṅgam works. These eighteen poems among which the Tirukkuṟaḷ claims the first place of importance have for their object how best to realize the trivarga or the muppal which would lead to the attainment of heaven. In his commentary on the Kuṟaḷ the celebrated commentator Parimēlaḻakar refers to the indebtedness of Tiruvaḷḷuvar to the accredited authorities on dandaniti? such as vyāḻan (Bṛhaspati) and veḷḷi (Sukra). Unanimously Indian tradition records that Bṛhaspati and Sukra were the first political theorist to whom other writers including the illustrious Kauṭilya and the compiler of the Rāja Dharma section of the Mahābhārata were indebted.
Alleged indebtedness to Sanskrit - In a recent publication in Tamiḻ3, an attempt has been made to study the Kuṟaḷ from a Tamiḻ point of View. It is contended that there is no warrant for the statements of the commentator Parimēlaḻakar in regard to the indebtedness of Vaḷḷuvar to Sanskrit authors, and that there is a marked difference in the classification of the muppāl and that the concept of muppāl is the result of a slow process of evolution of the Tamiḻ genius, and that the ideas underlying the Kuṟaḷ have no correspondence with those of Sanskrit writings.4 We do not propose to examine here these views which are yet to be proved before they could be adopted as conclusive. It may be that the Tamilian genius developed itself on independent but parallel lines, and the process of such slow but sure development culminated in the genius of the Tirukkuṟaḷ's author. End Notes 1. The generally accepted date is 700 B.c 2. The author's Hindu administrative Institutions, p.35 3. Studies in TIRUKKUṞAḶ by R.P.Sethu pillai with a foreward by K.Subramania Pillai, Madras (1923) 4. See the chapter entitled (— திருவள்ளுவரும் பரிமேலழகரரும்) and especially p.163
5.3. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Whatever be the decision which future research will arive at in regard to the above particulars, it is a fact of the utmost importance that the Kuṟaḷ and other poems of Kīḻkkaṇakku deal with the trivarga or the muppāl. Though a cursory examination of the work has been made already, still we shall proceed to examine the same in detail to know whether any facts could be gleaned out of the fiction that has gathered round this notable poet and philosopher. The chief sources of information for the life sketch of this author are the Kapilar Ahaval and the Tiruvaḷḷuvamālai, while the Ceylon traditions as transmitted in its chronicles throw some welcome light. Besides, we have multifarious references in Tamiḻ classical literature which go a long way to fix the chronological limits of Vaḷḷuvar's age.
Legends — Of these the story contained in the Kapilar Ahaval belongs to the realm of pure mythology. A reference to this work and its value to the historian of Tamiḻ India has already been made in our study of the Saṅgam poet, Kapilar. The story runs that he was the son of a Brāhman, Bhagavān by name, by his wife, a Pulaya woman, named Ādi. The circumstances which brought about their marriage are peculiar and quite incredible. One vow taken by them on the eve of the marriage was to give away their children as presents and retain none. It is said that the marriage was over and as time went by, they had seven children four daughters and three sons. The four daughters were Uppai, Uruvai, Avvai and Vaḷḷi. These were presented to a washer man a toddy-drawer, a pāṇaṉ, and a kurava respectively, who brought them up. The three sons were Atikamān, Kapilar, and Vaḷḷuvar. While Atikamān became the adopted son of the chieftain of Vañji, Kapilar was brought up by a Brāhaman. Vaḷḷuvar was presented to one Vaḷḷuva, a resident of the modern Mylapore. Thus the parents fulfilled the vow which they took on the occasion of their marriage. Tradition further narrates that the adopted father introduced Vaḷḷuvar to the profession of weaving in which he spent his time.
Criticism of the Legend — The story is so full of inaccuracies and incredible statements that we are afraid there is no basis of truth in it excepting the mention of the two names Bhagavān and Ādi. These names are found in the first Kuṟaḷ in the order of the Ādi-Bhagavan, which means, the God of the Universe and has possibly nothing to do with his parentage. There is no reliable literary evidence, first in regard to his parents, his brothers and sisters, secondly his adoption by a Vaḷḷuva, thirdly his being brought up at Mylapore, and lastly his taking to the profession of a weaver. It seems that the ingenious author of the legend took up the compound word Ādi-Bhagavan in the first Kuṟaḷ and also the name of Vaḷḷuvan, and wove a story out of his fertile imagination. அகர முதல எழுத்தெல்லாம் ஆதி பகவன் முதற்றே உலகு — (1.1). To repeat once again, it is a very late work and the account contained therein cannot be credited with any authenticity whatsoever.
The story of the Tiruvaḷḷuvamālai — The circumstances under which the Tiruvaḷḷuamālai came to be written, and the legendthat has gathered round this, are of supreme interest. It is said that Vaḷḷuvar was not merely a weaver but also a man of letters and an erudite scholar (See Abhidānachintāmaṇi). His profound scholarship attracted to him Elelasinga, a prominent merchant, who carried on overseas trade. Elelasinga became much attracted to Vaḷḷuvar and accepted him as his teacher. At his request and for the use of his son, Vaḷḷuvar composed the great Kuṟaḷ. What was originally intended for a single individual has become the book of morals to be usefully read by the whole world. In that golden age when Vaḷḷuvar had the good fortune to live, it was the custom to get every literary work approved by the Saṅgam Assembly, then located at Madura. In accordance with this practice, the book was taken to the Saṅgam Hall. At that time, forty-nine poets were the guiding lights of the Academy. When the work was presented it met with opposition from all sides. It was remarked that it was an inferior composition much beneath the recognition of the Saṅgam. But when it was pressed that it might be placed on the Saṅgam plank and thus tested, it was agreed to. When once this was done, the Saṅgam plank made enough room to be occupied by the book, to the utter surprise of the members of the Academy. They then recognized the great value of the work and placed the author in the first rank of the poets.
This was not all. Every one of the forty-nine realized his mistake in having rejected it in the first instance, and perhaps to make up for it, every one of them hailed it as a first class work by singing a verse in praise of the work, the Kuṟaḷ and its celebrated author Iṟaiyanār (God Śiva in disguise) compared the poet's tongue to the kalpa flower. Goddess Sarasvati claimed it as the Veda itself. The King Ukirap-peru-Vaḻuti compared Vaḷḷuvar to Brahma himself. Similar panegyrics were uttered by every one of the poets constituting the Saṅgam. A collection of these songs was then made and thence it went by the name of Tiruvaḷḷuvamālai. The story in the Ceylonese Chronicles — Another source of information is the semi-legendary story of Elelasinga as narrated in the Ceylon chronicles. These documents mention various incidents connected with the story of Alara and the term alara is only a corruption of the Tamil world Elela, the just and proper ruler that ever ruled the island of Ceylon. It is said that this Alara of Elela was a noble of the Cōḻa kingdom who invaded Ceylon with an army, had the local ruler Asela defeated and slain, got himself crowned king of the island, and reigned for forty-four years from 145 to 101 B.C (Mahavamsa, Ed. Wm. Geiger (1912) Intro, p. xxxvii) He ruled the island so justly and impartially that he was loved by all classes of people. The details of his administration of justice, such as hanging up a bell of justice to be rung by such as should be in need of justice, killing his son who had accidentally killed a calf, offering his head to be cut off as a penalty for unwittingly damaging a stupa, need not detain us at present (Mahavamsa, S. B. of Ceylon, vol, I, pp. 107-10)
Apart from the story, what is of importance to us is, if Alara or Elela can be proved to be the Elela, disciple and contemporary of Vaḷḷuvar, then there is a clue and a remarkable clue to attribute the author of the Kuṟaḷ to the second century B.C.
Criticism of the Legends — The following arguments disprove the authenticity of the legends mentioned above. First the reference to semi-Brahmanical parentage is curious and unworthy of the birth-story of a saint like Vaḷḷuvar. The Ādi-Bhagavan in the first Kuṟaḷ veṇpā refers to God and certainly not to his parents. Secondly, Atikamān is a king of much repute who is extolled by poets like Kapilar and Avvaiyār. Thirdly, the adoption of the poet by a Vaḷḷuva at Mylapore is yet to be proved. Even if this were proved there is the difficulty of interpreting the term Vaḷḷuva. Was it the name of caste, or the name of a person, or name of an office, are questions, the answer to which is shrouded in deep mystery. Vaḷḷuva may mean a member of the depressed classes, a priest, a foreteller, a nobleman, and an officer of the State. This interpretation could be sustained if the term could be identified with the Sanskrit term Vallabha (See The Tamilian Friend, vol. x, pp 7-9).
Fourthly, there is nothing to corroborate the fact that Vaḷḷuvar took to the occupation of weaving (See the twenty-first poem of Tiruvaḷḷuvamalai attributed to Nalkur Veḷviyār?). What is known is that Vaḷḷuvar was a native of Madura. But if we could credit the tradition in the Tamiḻ Nāvalar Caritam with any authenticity, there is here a stanza attributed to Vaḷḷuvar himself where he says that his profession was weaving. my கக்கிநூனெருடு மேழை From the fact that this line and the stanza wherein occurs this line admit of other interpretations, we cannot cite this as an authority to hang anything like a theory. Fifthly, the circumstances narrated for the composition of the Tiruvaḷḷuvamālai contain an epic interest not quite useful for purposes of historical investigation. Sixthly, the introduction of Gods and Goddesses like Śiva, and Sarasvati presupposes a super-human atmosphere far from being believed by ordinary men. The introduction of these deities detracts the value of the document as a reliable account. Seventhly, the same epic and puranic interest centers round the story of the Alara in the Ceylon traditions. How this story is an authentic one it is not possible to say. Probable Historical data of the Legends — In spite of such inconsistencies and incredibilities, the legends could not be set aside as affording no value to a student of history. Bereft of the story, the Tiruvaḷḷuvamālai bears out the suggestion that Vaḷḷuvar was a member of the so-called third Saṅgam and a contemporary of some of the celebrated Saṅgam poets. We can also gather that he bore the name of Vaḷḷuvar. It may be that the saint belonged to the Vaḷḷuvakkuṭi, a community whose profession was to publish Government orders by beat of drum. It is the interesting suggestion of Professor Rangacariyar that the term Vaḷḷuvar is equal to Rajanya in Sanskrit literature, and that from the political and practical wisdom he displays in the book (See Studies in Sangam History, Ed. Review, October 1928.), Vaḷḷuvar must have held one of the high offices of the State. We are reminded of the fact that a political theorist like Kauṭalya wrote his treatise, the Artha Śāstra for his Narendra or king Chandragupta. In a similar mannerVaḷḷuvar might possibly have done this as a guide to his friend Elela or his son. It is also possible that just as Kauṭalya was appointed Chancellor of the Empire, Vaḷḷuvar might have been chosen for a high office of the State.
Though there is nothing impossible in this, yet, there is nothing definite to venture a conjecture like this. If this could be proved, it would falsify the suggestion that the term denoted the caste, and not office or occupation.
