| Author | Subject: Re: Thiruvalluvar was a staunch hindu |
| ruiner | Posted At 19:16:53 05/05/2005
2. "..he searched for the truth from whatever he heard from his jain, vedic-hindu, non-vedic, christian, buddhist and other friends..." People who spout this nonsense should provide evidence to back this up. Again let us see some kuraLs. It is simply a rehash of my previous post in literature forum addressed to Mr. Tamizhan. He conveniently forgot to reply. 1. KuraL 413 -> People who receive "seviyuNavu" (wisdom) compared to devas who received "aviyuNavu" - havishyannam. Offering 'havis' oblation to devas is a distinctive vedic practice. Haviryaga is one of the 3 types of yaga. 2. KuraL 25 -> Indra himself praises the ascetics. Indra, the Rig vedic God is mentioned by name. 3. KuraL 617 -> Ill luck will be there with lazy fellow. With a person with manly effort, lotus-seated Goddess Lakshmi would stay. 4. KuraL 543 -> King's sceptre should protect the virtues and vedas of brahmins. The statement about a brahmin forgetting his vedas is already mentioned above. Now, Valluvar mentions vedic god by name, displays aspects of 'hindu culture' and mentions the importance of brahmin's learning. I have provided necessary evidences from KuraLs themselves. If somebody claims Valluvar learned good things from buddhists, jains, jehova witnesses, mormons and african Yorubas, they should back that claim with evidence. Nowhere he mentions samaNars who are well known for their absolute ahimsa - even in "pulAl maRuthal" adigaram. He could have easily mentioned it there. He doesn't mention anywhere about bodhi dharma, anatta: non-self, or buddhist sanghas or uses buddhist terminology, though he mentions fire oblations to devas, Rig vedic god Indra, lakshmi, vedas and the like. One cannot claim both - (a) brahmins were spiritual people during valluvar's time. So, one should not take 'brahmins per se' when he mentions that brahmins should be protected by the King, as well as (b) he learnt good things from bauddhas, jains and the like. We have a contradiction - either bauddhas and jainas were non-existent during valluvar's time and he did not mention them or they indeed were there and he even learnt a few good things from them; but did not find them 'spiritual enough' so that he excluded them and mentioned only brahmins worthy to be protected by the king. Pick your choice. Regds... |