Talk:Thirukkural

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.

[edit] Comment

Thirukkural is a non-sectarian work, intended for the benefit of all. The fact that the author belonged to one specific religion, should not minimize its significance. Thiruvalluvar made no attempt to hide the fact that Jainism was his personal faith, although he did not emphasize it. Majority of non-sectarian scholars recognize Thiruvalluvar to be a Jain.

"Adi pakavan" is indeed Adi Bhagavan. Here is Sanskrit translation of the first verse by Govindarai Shastri:

अ वर्णो वर्तते लोके शब्दानां प्रथमं यथा |
तथादिभगवानस्ति पुराणपुरुषोत्तमः ||

Note that

Vegetarianism is an ancient practice in India, including Tamilnadu, but because of the influence of Jainism. Non-Jains in Tamilnadu were generally not vegetarian in ancient times. For example note the story of Aputra in Manimekhalai Canto 13.
In Jainism, while the monks practice austerities, the ordinary householders live worldly lives (laukika dharma) while aiming for moksha on the longer term (paralukika dharma). They are both to be praised, as Valluvar does, from different points of view.
Kural 6 can only apply to someone who had five senses (i.e. was born as a human being), and conquered them. There is no question of a supreme God having five senses, and a need for Him to conquer them.

[edit] Rename This Page

This article should be renamed, Thirukkural. If you literally translate it from tamil into prouncable English, it should be spelt like that.

திருக்குறள் := தி (thi) + ரு (ru) + க் (k) + கு (ku) + ற (ra) + ள் (l).

There are different spellings (i.e tamil and thamil) but that is the most accurate one. I don't know where Wikipedia got there translation but the one above is the most widely used.

[edit] kaRka kacadaRa kuRaL

The explantion given by Venkatraman is given by others such as C.R. Selvakumar of Waterloo Canada a long time ago. Is it necessary to attach an authorship?--Aadal 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Aadal

Thanks for pointing that out. Being a first-time user, I was ignorant of the posting conventions and sincerely thought I must leave my user-stamp to take responsibility for what I posted. I have since removed the author reference.--Venkat 18:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Venkat, you're welcome.--Aadal 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Aadal

[edit] First kuRaL

The tamil word pakavan is not the same as Bhagvaan. If the previous editor wants to retain the original word it should be pakavan (with the first letter p and not b and the last syllable van and not vaan). The promordial God is what is meant and commonly understood and makes perfect sense with the first part of the couplet. --Aadal 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Aadal

I'm looking for a better literature based explanation for your removal since you called it as spurious.--Rrjanbiah 20:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See the well-known Tamil encycolpaedia called 'kalaikaLanjiyam' edited by Periyasamy Thooran under the title aathi pakavan. --Aadal 03:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kundakunda

Kundakunda Acarya As The Kural's Author? Jains claims that he none other than the renowned Jaina Ācaharya Kundakunda. Valluvar is identified with Āchārya Kundakunda, well known in Tamil tradition as Elāchārya (Chakravarti, 1953; Subramanyam, 1987; Champakalakshmi, 1994). This info need to be added to the page any objections meghamitra 06:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MGC22T (talk • meghamitra 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)contribs) 06:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tags

Read edit summaries preceding this edit for reasons why the tags have been added. Nitpicking trolls may also take note. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Would the nitpicking vandals do themselves a favor and understand the tags they want to add? The tags need to be justified with specific concerns on the talk page. Lotlil 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing sourced material

I have a kind request to all the editors. I do not want to incite a edit war, but please do not delete sourced material branding them as POV. If you have another source which contradicts the claim, please do highlight them or place both rephrasing the sentences, rather than deleting it.

Regarding the entry that was removed, it was from a paper presented in the International Thirukural Conference in 2005 held at the State of Maryland and authorised by the Governor Robert L. Ehrlich. It was organised by Tamil Sangam of Greater Washington and many more organisations and institutes, with noteworthy keynote speakers. It is therefore a reliable source.Cheers! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 10:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reformatting

The article needs to be scrubbed quite a bit. Some of the things I could think of:

1. Lead: The lead section needs to be rewritten. Many unencyclopaedic constructs like: represents the dawn of modern consciousness in India, the whole sentence beginning with Irrespective of the value... etc. Plus, there are many prose issues too.

2. Sections: This part needs to be rewritten in prose style and expanded quite a bit. One suggestion is to say: The three sections of Kural are Arathuppal, Porutpaal and Inbathuppal. Arathupaal deals with.... We should add more discussion on each of these sections, rather than a single-line intro to them.

3. Thirukkural and religion: This could be reframed to be a section on Kural's views on various aspects of life such as love, friendship, education etc. This, again, needs to be in prose style rather than just a list of individual kurals.

4. Some famouse couplets: I don't know if we need a separate section for this (may be better to just integrate them with the prose discussion in other sections). But, even if we keep this section, it needs to be formatted better rather than indenting and italicising. One way to do it is like the box in Ainkurunuru. Or may be a table of some sort.

More later. Lotlil 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think its a good idea. I'm right now bugged with finding sources to most of the unsourced claims (honestly I dont have the heart to tag nor delete them). Sorry that I took phrases/words from the refered journels and used them straight away. Afterall I didnt want to be bombarded of pushing my own interpretation and hence been branded with a POV claim. What about including a section on praises of noteworthy people on the Kural? For eg., Gandhi called it textbook of indispensable authority on moral life. Cheers! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I too think a section on notable quotes about Kural would be nice. And, if there's enough citable material, may be even a write-up on "Tirukkural in Popular Culture" would be interesting. BTW, the references you have provided have a lot of useful information to expand this article. Very cool! Lotlil 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, me too agree with your thoughts:

1.Lead: Hypotheses and facts are lumped together. I think (please correct me if I am wrong) it will be a good idea to start sentences with It is hypothesized (for example) that Thirukkural represents the dawn ... to cite published articles. So that, the users of Wikipedia could verify the claim at the source.

2.Sections: Yes we should start a discussion. Would you like to start it!! I will, certainly, chip in.

3.Thirukkural and Religion: Yes, this must be reframed/renamed. The views, objectives, underlying theme, benefits and limitaions of various chapters in the Kural must be made available to the users.

4. Some famous couplets: I think, correct me if wrong, this section is redundunt. famous by whose standard!! I tried to change the title to A few other couplets.

Regards S.Ratnakumar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S.Ratnakumar (talk • contribs) 01:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I will try to give it a start soon. Work just got unexpectedly hectic the past couple of weeks. Will try and write something up by this week. Lotlil 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if more people who have carried (or in the process of carrying) out an indepth (critical) analysis on each of the 1330 Kurals could join in. It, certainly, will enhance the accuracy (quality) of the information about Thirukkural.S.Ratnakumar 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment (certainly not a complaint)- the sentence "It is presumed that if one leads life according to ethical principles set out in the text, the fourth goal will automatically be achieved(9)." appears as if it is a statement/hypothesis rather than a conclusion made by Dr. Nagarajan(9). Wonder if this can be verified!!. Regards.S.Ratnakumar 10:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That statement doesn't belong here the way it's written. If enough commentators have the same opinion, we should qualify the statement appropriately (as a hypothesis) and if not, we should just delete it. Lotlil 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication

Just curious - The description of Thirukkural is also found under the article Thiruvalluvar. Is there a reason for duplication!! Can this be moved under the main artcle Thirukkural? Wonder if you could comment!! S.Ratnakumar 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Since, Thirukkural was composed by Tiruvalluvar, it should find a summary style mention in the article on Tiruvalluvar. utcursch | talk 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, merge both articles and redirect(pipelink) Tiruvalluvar to Tirukkural. Sarvagnya 05:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of them are important topics in their own right, so it won't be proper to merge them -- that's like merging the articles on Tulsidas and Ramacharitamanas. Somebody might like to expand both the articles in future. Maybe the Thirukkural section in Tiruvalluvar should be trimmed. utcursch | talk 05:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wonder if

The sentences He calls the God by " AAdhibagavan, valarivan, malarmisaiyehinan, vennduthal venndamaiyilan, porivayil ienthaviththan, thanakkuvamai illathan, aravazhianthanan, eraivan". These are general term used in tamil to denote any god - no one in particular. can be challanged. They appear to be someone's opinion.

Wonder if these sentences can be changed to

He used words such as Aathipahavan, Vaalarivan, Malarmisaiyehinan, Vehnduthal Vehndaamaiyilaan, pohRivaayil Ienthavithaan, Thanakkuvamai Illaathaan, ARavaazhianthanan, IRaivan. Some Tamils interpret these words to typify God. Regards S.Ratnakumar 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR by S Ratnakumar

Ratnakumar, I've been observing relentless addition of OR by you to both articles -Tirukkural and tiruvalluvar. I request you to stop it. Other editors cannot be expected to keep a watch over every edit of yours and revert it each time you add it. After a while it becomes impossible to distill your good edits from your bad(OR) edits. That will leave one with no option but revert your edits wholesale and/or tag the article for various things like OR, unsourced etc.,. I once again request you to refrain from adding your original research, opinions and commentary to the article. Thanks. Sarvagnya 04:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and I will take note of your advice. Regards S.Ratnakumar 05:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR with respect to Thirukkural

Will the sentence (citing the Thirukkural as the source) "There are 9310 cirs in the Thirukkural out of which 9260 cirs are Tamil words and the rest of the 50 words may have the influence of Sanskrit." become an original research?

In other words, will the sentence lead to any of the seven undesirable complications (consequences) listed in the Wikipedia (OR).

Please take note: The sentence quoted above is based on the Thirukkural per se. One will not be able to make productive (or effective) contribution to the article on Thirukkural without having a good understanding of each one of the 1330 couplets (or 9310 cirs) in the Thirukkural. Does a sentence added (or edited) in the article about Thirukkural on the basis of what one has read in the Thirukkural, per se, become OR? Wonder if the experienced editors or administrators could comment. Thank you.

Regards S.Ratnakumar 01:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A paragraph about the kural 758 is included

The inclusion of the paragraph adds value to the article. The Kural 758 (per se) is the source and reference to the paragrap.

This Kural is a good (unbiased) example to illustrate the importance of applying the logic (of combining or splitting the cirs) to arrive at an interpretation (meaningful or otherwise). Needless to say, one does not have to depend on someone else’s interpretation to live by the Thirukkural. Anyone who knows Tamil will be able to interpret it.

It is inevitable that only the editors/administrators who have a thorough knowledge of Tamil and good understanding of the importance of cirs to Thirukkural will appreciate the necessity for the inclusion of the paragraph in the article.

Please, modify it (only if it will add value) but do not deprive the readers(of Wikipedia) from knowing the importance of the cirs to Thirukkural.

Please note: Reading the Kural 849 ( It is foolish to try to educate an arrogant person who believes that he is knowledgeable for it is impossible to make him aware of his shortcoming) is a (salve) way to look at those editors/administrators who strongly believe that they know everything and, therefore, think they have the right to intimidate other editors. Regards S.Ratnakumar 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it about Thirukkural or about principles of Sanskrit ??

There are unnecessary (and perhaps, unverifiable) content on the principles of Sanskrit linking to Thirukkural is added under the sub heading Sections. There is no need to promote Sanskrit using Thirukkural.

Thirukkural has nothing to do with the principles of Sanskrit.

It would be great if the real administrators/editors evaluate the situation. Regards S.Ratnakumar 06:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello... dharma, artha, kama was already there in the article. I presume you had added it yourself! all I did was wikilink them and cpedit the prose to improve it from the incoherent ramble that it was. if you can improve the prose even further, be my guest. As for the sanskrit concepts themselves, no scholar worth his salt proceeds with a discussion of the tirukkural without first pointing out the (aram, porul, inbam) == (dharma, artha, kama) congruency. If that makes you uncomfortable, too bad. Better get used to it. Sarvagnya 06:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for providing this opportunity. I realy appreciate it.

First, your presumption that I added (or introduced) the sentence about Dharma … is wrong. Please check it out!!!

1.Dharma is not a Tamil word and I am not very familiar with it. However, according to scholars in Sanskrit, Manu-dharma is Manu’s commandments in Sanskrit which describe the origin of the caste-system and the duties (rights and obligations) to be performed by individuals and communities of various castes.

2. Aram, on the other hand, is a Tamil word. According to Thirukkural, Aram is doing things, with honor and conscience, for the good of the less fortunate.

3. By the way there is Buddha-Dharma and according to scholars of Buddhism, Manu-Dharma is not the same as Buddha-dharma. Needless to say, some of the Kurals echo Buddha-Dharma.

4. Above all, the chapter 4 (on Aram) in the Thirukkural indicates that Aram is not the same as Manu-Dharma. Please check it out.

5. According to scholars, Sanskrit is the language of the Hindu Scriptures and belongs to the highest caste of the Hindu community. Whereas the language used in the Thirukkural is Tamil and it (in particular, Kural 972) affirms that people are born alike. Thirukkural belongs to the mankind at large.

6. Porul, also, is a Tamil word. According to Thirukkural, Porul is seeking facts. For example, Kural 423, emphasizes that it is the ability to think, reason, and understand that enables one to extract the facts (Porul) from hearsay. Whereas, Sanskrit scriptures, according to scholars, deal with what the saints heard when Manu spoke about the world and its content. Questioning a Sanskrit text to find out the facts is prohibited. Therefore, Artha of a Sanskrit scripture may not be the Porul of that scripture. Therefore Artha and Porul may not be identical. Correct me if I am wrong.

7. Further, according to Thirukkural, in particular Kural 358, the knowledge of facts will reveal that the notion of rebirth is a fallacy. This kural contradicts one of the concepts of Sanskrit. Please check it out.

8. The word Kama might have originated from the concept of Sanskrit Kama sutra. Kama sutra addresses the mechanism of intimacy, extra marital affairs, and discrimination. Whereas, Inbam is the pleasures experienced by a man and a woman in the course of their relationship. Therefore the Sanskrit concept of Kama is not the same as Inbam addressed in the Thirukkural.

One does not have to carry out a research to understand the 1330 Kurals. Therefore, quoting the appropriate kurals or chapters in the Thirukkural to affirm a point about Thirukkural is not OR. The quoted kurals or chapters will become the (reliable) sources and points quoted can be easily verified.

The interpretation of the Thirukkural by different scholars will vary depending on the logic of combining and splitting the cirs. Kural 758 illustrates why some scholars interpret it on the basis of elephants at war and some others on the basis of the person ran up to a hilltop. The importance of the cirs to the thirukkural should be made known to the public who refers the Wikipiad for information on Thirukkural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Ratnakumar (talk • contribs) 01:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Above all, the link between the Thirukkural and the principles of Sanskrit is that Thirukkural questions/contradicts the Sanskrit principles/concepts. For example, Kural 18 affirms that sacrifices and rituals will cease if the rainfall ceases. This contradicts the belief that sacrifices and rituals are the factors that initiate the rainfall. Please check it out.

The usefulness of Sanskrit in the creation of Thirukkural is nil (at the most minimal) and one does not need the knowledge of Sanskrit to understand or live by the Thirukkural.

Please note: Quoting sentences from published articles is meaningless unless those sentences are the conclusions made in the articles.

Finally, your hypothesis that "a discussion on Thirukkural cannot proceed without first describing the Sanskrit concepts" cannot be accepted at any level of confidence. By the way, the kural 849 keeps coming in my mind.

Thank you, once again for this wonderful opportunity.

It would be great if the real editors/administrators could evaluate the situation. Regards S.Ratnakumar 01:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bharathidasan Vs Parimelazhagar Vs Thirukkural !!!

Bharathidasan’s name (and not Parimelazhagar’s name) has been deleted from the article. Removing/deleting his name is totally unfair, unethical, and uncalled for.

Bharathidasan’s name should be reinstated. The editor who deleted his name is an ignorant person. He/she does not know that Bharathidasan is one of the very few Tamil poets who, inter alia, made Thirukkural understandable to Tamils at the street level as well.

Please take note:

1. Parimelazhagar ( a vishnavite, Sanskrit scholar, and lived in the13th century) interpreted and provided commentary on the Thirukkural. His commentary conforms to the Sanskrit principles/ideas. Needless to say, his interpretation/commentary is celebrated by the intellectuals of Sanskrit thoughts/ideas.

2. Bharatidasan (a rationalist, teacher, and Tamil poet in the 1890s) also interpreted and provided commentary on the Thirukkural. His commentary, however, is on the basis of logic and rational thinking. Needless to say, his interpretation/commentary is well celebrated by millions and millions of Tamils scattered all over the world.

To make things worse, Bharathidasan’s name has been blocked (prevented from appearing in the article) as well by a narrow minded editor. He/she is a bully and thinks he/she could get away with his/her oppressive mentality.

It would do world of good if the real editors/administrators could take the one who blocked Bharathidasan’s name (from appearing in the article) to task. Thanks

Regards S.Ratnakumar 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ratnakumar, Bharathidasan is notable enough to merit a mention in the article, but the assertion that his commentary is free from religious bias needs to be backed up with a source. I know you are knowledgeable enough to make that inference, but in wikipedia, it needs to be supported by reliable published sources (books, papers etc.). Please read through WP:NOR. Another suggestion: don't get bogged down with 'defending' the Kural against Sanskrit influence. There's enough parallels (may be influence) between the Kural and Sanskrit works like Arthasasthra that we need an entire section to discuss this aspect, leave alone the occurrence of Sanskrit words in it. But, that can wait till the article gets into some shape. I think what's needed now is a coherent write up on the structure of the Kural (its divisions and grammar) and what it says about society, ethics, economy etc. Lotlil 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lotlil. I (really)respect your comments and the suggestion to moving forward. Regards S.Ratnakumar 07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)