Talk:Kural/Archive 1

Response
Nammalwar in Thiruvaimoli refers God Vishnu as aadhi am p(B)agavan. Pasuram 2701.

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

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).

Valluvar, no where links to Jainism. He never referred Arugan in his kurals. But refers Thamarai Kannan(God krishna), Thaamarayinaal, Seyyaval(Goddess lakshmi). So, its well known fact that he was a vaishnava and may be kshathriya. Many of the Kurals matches to Alwars Pasurams too. "Vendudhal vendaamayilaan" to "Velgai Velgaiyilaan" and many more.

The early days scholars and commentators of Kural, like Tamil thaatha U. Ve. Swamy nathaiyer and many were mostly from saivaite sect. They dont want to refer valluvar as vaishnavar, and they were not able to claim him as saivaite with enough proofs. Hence, they linked him to jainism.

interestingly, those scholars were some - who injected few saivaite oriented songs or paadalgal in Kamba ramayanam too. [ref. Puthur KrishnaSwamy books of sanga ilakkiyam. Trichy].

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)

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)

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).
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

OR with respect to Thirukural
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)

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)

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)

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 vaishnavite, 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)

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)

Regards, Bharati dasan is not a rationalist, but athiest. He attacks only hinduism and not other religions for the sake too. He had written some cheap tasted novels, hence his commentary cannot be taken as primary level. He did not stand to the valluvar's "aram" level.

Valluvar itself a sanskrit oriented person, as he mentions aadhi, bhagavan which are not tamil words and denotes "Vaanor ulagu", "Iraivanadi", which are against atheism.

Trivia on the use of முகம் நக நட்பது... in Boys deleted. Reason: 1. Inappropriate for in the article, 2. Wikipolicy discourages Trivia. --Sivaraj 17:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed theories in the lead
The Budhist & Jain origins of Tirukkural are disputed and should be removed from the Lead.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is sources with WP:RS. If you have sources that call it disputed you are free to add them there. The best would be to strike a mid-point as in Thiruvalluvar article where it is stated clearly that he is claimed by both the Tamils who practice Hinduism and the Tamils who practice Jainism as their own. But you will have to find sources to back them, and when you do please feel free to add them. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 10:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

74.12.5.212 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I agree.

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)

The only book translated into Sanskrit
Normally literary works are translated from Sanskrit into other languages. But THIRUKKURAL has the unique distinction of being translated into Sanskrit from Tamil... Really Kural is great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.254.47 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There are also claims that Arathuppaal matches from Bhagavat Gita(ref: Kuralum Geethayum book), Porutpaal matches from Arthasastra and Kamathuppaal matches from Vatsalyayanaas Kaama Sutra.

Non-sectarian work, written by a Jain
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


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.

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.

Famous Quotes from Thirukkural
Do we need the above section? I would assume that such quotes should be dealt with at Wikiquotes rather than in an encyclopedia. I am removing that section for this reason. In case someone disagrees please feel free to add it back to the article. --Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 16:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is still such a section on quotes, in English listing several. These are definitely not from the first translation from G U Pope. (I checked that.) Any quote should have reference or at least a number (of the 1330) for verification and ordered. I second the opinion that this section be removed unless someone is willing to number them and also cite the source of the English translated verses. --Betasam - Talk 19:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Date
The lede really needs to state clearly when this work was written. At the moment the only dates are for when the commentaries were written. Readers have no way of knowing whether this work was produced in 1000BC or in 1920AD. It should also briefly outline who the author is, rather than simply linking to his article.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Adi Bhagavan" (a common Jain reference to Lord Rishabha)
((1) introductory reverence for an "Adi Bhagavan" (a common Jain reference to Lord Rishabha) having specifically eight spiritual attributes (in Jainism, God, or the pure soul, has eight major attributes); (2) insistence upon complete vegetarianism and not eating even already killed/dead animals (in stark contrast to Buddhism); (3) praise for ascetics who "control the five senses"; (4) rejection of ritual sacrifices (contrary to common Vedic Hindu practices); (5) insistence upon eschewing violence even against one's enemies;

Response
are not these common to saivasm too?? so why only state jain is the article?? i'm not sure about the sixth. but all rest refers to saivasm as well.
 * The reference to Jainism is not at all well founded.

முருகன் குமரன் குகனென்று மொழிந் துருகும் செயல்தந்து உணர்வென்றருள்வாய் பொருபுங்கவரும் புவியும் பரவும் குருபுங்கவ எண்குண பஞ்சரனே Another example from Thrugnana Sambandar (திருஞான சம்பந்தர்) sang a song in Thirumuthu kunram, மெய்த்தாறு சுவையும் ஏழிசையும் எண்குணங்களும் விரும்பு நால்வே தத்தாலும் அறியவொண்னா..
 * Adi pakavan (not bhagavaan) referes to the primordial force, the God. The term 'எண் குணத்தான்' eight attributes are commmon to Saivism too, but significantly here the author says 'எண் குணத்தான்' meaning Lord who is kind (in the sense of easy to approach). For Saivism, see among many sources (Arunagirinathar's famous songs),


 * Vegetarianism is an ancient practice in Tamil Nadu and it is not an exclusive practice of Jainism, at least not in Tamil Nadu.
 * All religions praise ascetics, but the fact is Thruvalluvar praises married-household life as supreme quite unlike Jainism. Household life section comes ahead of Ladies and ladyhood are praised unlike Jainism. See Chapter 4 esp. the kuRaLs 46-50. He has devoted 1/3 of the sections to Love life, contrary to Jainism.
 * All religons may share some points in common and for that reason the author should not be painted with any religious colour. He had clearly stayed away from portraying him in any religious garb. And it does violate the very essence of this great work to paint the author as a Jain.
 * All one can at best claim is he is a theist (even here people have offered quite credible explanations that does not even require a theist attrribute).
 * Therefore I recommend deleting such biased opinion about Thiruvalluvar's religious affliations. He has not declared any affliations and it is not fair to attribute any religious colors.

Response
The word Adhi Bhagawan is not pure tamil, but sanskrit. Pure tamil words of it are "Thodakka" and "irai".

More than Adhi Bhagawan in jainism, its completely linked to vaishnavism.

Nammalwar states God Narayana as Andhamil "Aadhi am Bhagawan" - Divya Prabandham. 2701

Sanskrit Author Baanini refers "Adhi Idhi Bagavatho Narayana". Hence, adhi bhagavan cant stand for Rishaba devar, but God Narayana.

Vegetarianism is an ancient practice in India (Sama veda states about Ahimsa and not killing animals for food) and it is not an exclusive practice of Jainism

EnGunathan can also mean as Ennatra Gunangaludayaan - which is famouns as "Anatha Kodi Gunangaludaya Narayanan" by Alwar talk. Thiruvalluvar cannot be atheist, as he mentions Iraivanadi, Aadhi bhagavan. He cannot be christian, as he mentions "Oozh"(prior birth deeds), Piravi perunkadal(re-birth) and vegetarianism(pulal unnaamai). He cannot be Jain, since he mentions "Avi soriyum Velvi(Yagna)", "Aravali Andhanan", "iruvinayum cheraa iraivan" The only God names he mentions are Thamarai Kannaan (God Krishna), Adiyalandhaan(God Vishnu - Vamanan), Thamarayinaal, Thiru, Seyyaval as Goddess Lakshmi [ref. Parimelazhagar urai]. Hence, there is no place to change its identity.

He not ever mentioned tamil dominant religion Saiva God "Shiva" or Tamil Kadavul "Muruga" or Jain God "Arugan" or Village goddess "Kotravai" or others. He mentions only God Krishna and Lakshmi in his kurals.

Thiruvalluvar must would have belonged to madurai region vaishnava kshathria(being a minister) as the books were handled by its first commentators, who were belonged to same area. Parimelazhagar (Names stands for God of Alagar Kovil), Pari perumal(God of alagar kovil), Kalingar (Kalinga krishna).

Kural also has the meaning "Vamana" (as referred by Nammalwar in Nalayira Divya prabandham).

Thiruppathisaram temple near Nagarkovil and Aranmula Parthasarathy temple in kerala, have the Vishnu deities in the name of Thirukkuralappan.

Barring above all concepts, thiruvalluvar himself shows his own identity by denoting God Vishnu on his Kural no. 1103 and Kural no. 610 and notes on Goddess lakshmi by Kural nos. 167, 617, 408, 519, 565, 568 and 616.

Hence, as the followers of Valluvar, we are not supposed to manipulate or over-change his straight forward own words from our concepts and need to follow "Therindhu Seyal vagai" and "Vaaimai". Changing or generalizing his identity are totally against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maayan pandithevan (talk • contribs) 09:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy
An unknown user has added this as controversy (without citation). Seems like a personal opinion: ''Though it is known as "Ulaga podhu marai", it has its own concept, which is not uniform with all the religions - like it don't accept flesh eaters or non vegetarians and it is not widely acceptable by the modern women concept. It also derives about Piravi perunkadal (Re birth), Oozh(Prior birth deeds), Andhanar(Brahmins-not by birth), Yagna(Avi soriyum Velvi), Thamarai kannan(Supreme God Krishna), Thiru(Goddess Lakshmi) etc.'' Can this be deleted? Aravindk editing (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's already been deleted from the article. And it's indeed a personal opinion. The deletion is supported for the following reasons:
 * Your very question has the answer. Just because it is not bound to or bent towards any particular religion, has Kural come to be known as "Ulaga podhu marai" (or the Universal Veda).
 * 1) Answer to your first point about Kural not supporting flesh eaters: What's good according to one religion is bad to another. So, let's not go by any religion. The unbiased nature of the Tirukkural is universally acknowledged for centuries. Kural does not support flesh-eating just as it does not support drinking, violence, fraud, killing, adultery, and other universal sins. Even holy books do not support these. Violence and tyranny are considered foremost of the universal sins by every sane religion and are condemned in all their forms. Killing is a subset of violence and tyranny, and flesh-eating is a subset of killing. That said, with violence and tyranny being condemned universally, killing and flesh-eating can never be accepted, let alone glorified, in ethics, no matter how customary or economical they are. Although these are indicated subtly or otherwise in every holy book, holy books still fail to do this unambiguously. Only Kural is bold enough to say this in an exclusive and unambiguous way. A murder is a murder, no matter how it is committed, even if committed in a 'good' or 'humane' way. A murderer cannot do away with his crime saying it was done only in a religiously-prescribed manner. Similarly a cannibal cannot do away with his crime saying his killing is justified by his eating the kill. The Kural is essentially a condensation of all good things acknowledged by undiluted human conscience. All that is required to understand the Kural is a rational and open mind. The Kural is too sane and pure to be understood through a strictly religious lens. For this reason, it is considered holier than the holiest, even by great intellectuals and religious leaders down the ages. Flesh eaters blaming the Kural cannot be considered a controversy just as all drinkers, fraudsters, killers, liars, etc. taking it out on the Kural (because it condemns all these behaviours) cannot be considered a controversy. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * But Islam and Chrstianity strongly supports having non-veg. Its proved that, even Jesus was told as he had non-veg. So Thirukkural cannot be common for Islam and Christianity. Even some tamil Islamic websites condemn Thirukkural for its "Pulaal Unnaamai" Chapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maayan pandithevan (talk • contribs) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 2) Answer to your second point about modern woman concept: Valluvar tries to generalise the social issue as much as possible, and so he gives the most contemporary example available during his time. His examples are not biased towards one gender but covers both (e.g, wife dedicated to her husband [Ch. 6], man coveting his neighbour's wife [Ch. 15], female prostitute [Ch. 92], father's duty towards his son [Kural 67], mother's pride [Kural 69]). We only have to read it in a rational sense to understand its pertinence to the other gender (i.e., a husband dedicated to his wife, woman coveting her neighbour's husband, male prostitute, mother's duty towards her daughter, father's pride) rather than expecting Valluvar to explicate both. For example, a woman cannot covet her neighbour's husband saying Valluvar only spoke out against a man coveting his neighbour's wife. This is insane, and also a form of escapism. When one thing is said, we should be matured enough to understand the other. What is said of one is applicable to the other, and it goes without saying. Moreover, with just seven words in a couple of lines, Valluvar can never afford to use our modern gender-neutral language or the "he or she" and "himself or herself" business. His intention is not to make us nod our heads by massaging our egos but only to get the ultimate truth (and only the truth) across to the future generations. And he did just that. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * He told morals for Men and morals for women separately, not generalising. He ultimately concluding Men to be working outside with honesty and women or wife to serve that men. But current modern world women concept is being different. Still, Its common moral of that days and even he derives it. We should not deviate it, but accept it as that day moral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maayan pandithevan (talk • contribs) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 3) Answer to your other points: The concepts of rebirth, prior birth deeds, andhanar, yagna, Thamarai kannan/God Krishna, Thiru/Goddess Lakshmi, etc. are just metaphors and, again, should not be taken literally. These are the best contemporary examples Valluvar could give in his time during the pre-Christian era, when only the ancient Indian religions of Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. were prevalent in the Subcontinent. One cannot expect Valluvar to mention the names of Prophet Muhammad or Jesus in place of Krishna or Lakshmi, Alpenrose in place of the local "aniccham" flower, reindeer milk in place of cow's milk, etc. which are unknown to people of his time. Having imbued in religions for millennia, we are used to reading everything literally. Just try substituting these ancient terms with contemporary ones (e.g., "rebirth" with the term "forever", "prior birth deeds" with "previous deeds/sins", "Yagna" with "contemporary religious customs", "Thamarai Kannan/Thiru" with "God/Goddess") and you get the meaning of the Kural unaltered. This is the way of reading the Thirukkural. Last but not the least, the genuineness of Valluvar is obvious and cannot be overstated when he says "To discern the truth in every thing, by whomsoever spoken, is wisdom" (Kural 423). No religious text ever had the audacity to utter such a statement. Cheers. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * But Valluvar states "Avi Soriyum Velvi" not as "contemporary religious customs". if it is accepted that its before christian era, then please remove the notes on christianity concept mentioned by G.U.Pope in Universality heading in the main page. if you give such meaning of "oozh", then you are changing the base of tamil, which was not known by ilangovadigal too. Mr. Ilangovadigal had given clear meaning of "oozh" in silapathikaram as prior birth deeds, not prior deeds. Even famous phrase, you can remember "Oozh vinai uruthu vandhu oottum", "oozhir peruvali yaavula" etc. etc. what a 5 year old blind kid will have prior deeds to suffer as blind, this cannot be answered by even chrstians/muslims too. Only indian religions Hinduism, budhism and jainism have the answers - that as prior birth deeds.
 * If he was denoting Thamari kannan, adiyalandhaan, Seyyaval, Thiru for God Vishnu and Goddess Lakshmi just for examples - why did he not mentioned lord "Shiva" of Saiva religion or Tamil Kadavul "Murugan" or Village goddess "kotravai" or so much claimed jain god "Arugan".
 * So, its clearcut that he used only one god from a sect, which he belonged to.
 * We may be thinking ourselves as more talented and generous thru current world circumstances. But for that, we should not try to pull valluvar also in our path by manipulating the straight words. People of those days must had their own identity. Even Valluvar had. We should not delete him or erase him(his identity) by generalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maayan pandithevan (talk • contribs) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * hello rasna boy, you want to feed your thoughts into thirukkural and put your words in valluvar's mouth. There is no need to teach others that in what way it should be read. It should be read, in the own words of Valluvar from anyones mind. There is no need for middleman between a reader to valluvar.
 * you are bounded by modern world secularism and somehow try to make all the religions to accept it by generalising thirukkural or thiruvalluvar. Its completely incorrect. its kind of erasing his identity from him.
 * We should follow Valluvar's Vaaimai concept and should go as per the exact word meaning instead going per our imagination.
 * The word Aadhi is not tamil and Bhagavan is not tamil. Thodakka and irai are the correct words for it in tamil.
 * Aadhi Idhi Bhagavatho narayana - as mentioned by Baanini in his sanskrit grammer book. Same is mentioned by Valluvar as Aadhi bhagavan. More than all, i have given the enough kural nos to find the same and exact words given by Valluvar to show his clean identity. Still you want to bound him thru your ideas and overchange his words - then either you would have been from any christian back ground or under dravida parties maayai or just emotional tamil group follower.
 * You are able to give the place for christianity in the page to claim. But you are not able to give own indian religion vaishanavism to have space in the page, which is factually have clearcut notes.
 * If any objections are there please object it thru valluvar statements or his own straight words, not by your concepts or understandings or some others understandings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maayan pandithevan (talk • contribs) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Valluvar shows his words thru "kai ilangu Nellikkani" - still you want to manipulate it, then valluvar wont have any other go apart from tearing.
 * Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maayan pandithevan (talk • contribs) 05:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Dating the Kural
I removed the statement that "First century BCE remains the most probable date and the most favoured date by scholars as the period of Valluvar."

The sources cited for this statement were:


 * M. Rajamanickam's தமிழ் மொழி இலக்கிய வரலாறு [History of Tamil Language and Literature] (1963)
 * Thamizhannal's உலகத் தமிழிலக்கிய வரலாறு [History of World Tamil Literature] (2004)
 * C. Dhandapani Desikar's வள்ளுவரும் கம்பரும் [Valluvarum Kambarum] (1975)

These are not authoritative sources for history of literature. Local Tamil scholars tend to argue for earlier dates for ancient Tamil texts, but hardly any modern mainstream authority on literature, linguistics or history would date Tirukkuṛaḷ to first century BCE. utcursch &#124; talk 15:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pitching in, utcursch. Have been struggling over this. Not sure how to word it. Hence put it that way. It's okay to remove that for now. Can you clarify what sources qualify as modern mainstream ones? Because only the Desikar (1969) citation that I used ("திருக்குறள் அழகும் அமைப்பும் [Tirukkural: Beauty and Structure]") cites another book titled Studies in Tamil Literature for which I don't have access to the original work. The rest are all authoritative sources by academicians, some of which I have access to. These include the works Rajamanickam (1963), Desikar (1975), and Zvelebil (1973, 1975) and the more recent works such as Tamizhannal (2004), V. M. Gopalakrishnamachariyar (2009), and Tarlochan Singh Bedi (2012), many of which are published by academic bodies such as the Madras and Annamalai Universities, the International Institute of Tamil Studies, and the Central Institute of Classical Tamil. Maybe if I hit the National library, I might get the remaining ones. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * For the date, Zvelebil is a decent source: he mentions several other scholars and their reasoning. The writings of the Tamil 'revivalist' authors, especially those from 20th century, often suffer from antiquity frenzy: their opinions can be stated in the article, but their writings cannot be used to support a statement like "the date most favoured date by scholars is xyz". The likes of Tarlochan Singh Bedi may be a good source for description of the text's contents, but not a great source for its dating. utcursch &#124; talk 00:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Veganism in Tirukkural
See the discussion on this topic at the talk page of the related article,. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Title of the page
The title should be "Tirukkuṟaḷ", with a -ṟ- rather than -ṛ-. According to the ISO 15919 romanisation standard, ற is to be transcribed with <ṟ>, and not with <ṛ>. The French Wikipedia is titled "Tirukkuṟaḷ" as well. Magic Abyss - ( talk ) 18:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

SPP source
Does anyone know a link or isbn/details of this cite: ''SSP (2012). Thirukkural: Couplets with English Transliteration and Meaning (1st ed.). Chennai: Shree Shenbaga Pathippagam''. I presume SSP means the publisher "Shree Shenbaga Pathippagam". I have searched for it, without success. on both free platforms such as Google books, as well as academic paywalled services for scholarly sources. A search of the Shree Shenbaga Pathippagam catalog for and after 2012 returns a blank too. I will remove this source if the cite details are not forthcoming in the next few days. I will try to retain the content the SSP (2012) source allegedly supports, if I can verify it in any WP:RS. Else that too will be gone. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's me who added this years ago. Am trying to find the source. And fortunately these points are found in various sources (e.g., Kovaimani and Nagarajan, 2013). If the source SSP (2012) is not available, we can individually cite these points to various sources. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Kovaimani and Nagarajan is a WP:NONENG source. Asking of quotes and scholarly translations thereof may be a lot of work. Would you have an equivalent source in English with page numbers to support the content in "Similes and contradictions" section where previously SPP was cited? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kovaimani and Nagarajan is just one of the many sources. Will find out an English one. Maybe for the time being, shall we add a "citation needed" tag, if we are to remove SSP (2012)? Rasnaboy (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is what I did. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Substance of the work section etc expansion / rewrite
Tirukkural has three parts. This section (and the general tone of the article) is almost entirely about virtue, the first part of the text. All three parts should be covered. Given the fact that the second part (politics, statecraft) is just about twice the size of first (virtue) and about three times the third (love), a more balanced section/article would include much more about the second part – porul – and rest accordingly. Another issue with the article is the use of questionable sources, rather than peer-reviewed scholarship and similar RS. Additional comments and suggestions for this important article are welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense. We may need to add some more about Porul and Inbam (it's there to some extent now). However, we need not go by sheer size of the three books since the whole work is centered around "aram" (dharma) and hence needs more emphasis on ethics/virtue. Like you said, some more info on the other two books will give a more complete picture of the work. Will do it in the coming days. Also am gathering every source available to me (from ancient to modern), so should you feel any source appear spurious please don't hesitate to mark/delete it or notify me. All we need is the best sources available. Thanks for revamping the article. Coming to the tone of the article, given the Kural itself emphasize "aram" throughout the work (in all its three books), the tone of the article should invariably remain focused on virtue rather than anything else. That said, I feel the same tone needs to be maintained. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Virtue section/aspects are important indeed, but this important text has much on forts, statecraft, army, king, ministers, etc. All this needs to be summarized. On sources: this article should reflect the peer-reviewed and mainstream scholarly sources. We should avoid questionable/SPS/websites/other unreliable sources per RS guidelines. I would also recommend avoiding NON-ENG sources because personal-translation-then-summary of NON-ENG sources can introduce OR. Tirukkural has attracted much English language scholarship. I will try to return to this article in a week or two from now. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sarah, for reviewing the article. That's a long pending task. Am yet to review your changes fully. Will review it probably over this weekend. Meanwhile, I would need few clarifications. I see, while removing several inaccurate sources, you have also removed the contents from some authentic sources, maybe mistakenly: for example, Zvalebil, 1973, pp.156-171; Manavalan, 2009, pp.26–27; Ramasamy, 2001, pp.28–47; Sanjeevi, 1973, pp.44-49; Ilankumaran, 2018, p.xi; etc. And is not Sanjeevi (1973) (published by the University of Madras Press) to be considered a scholarly one (as are others)? The Malayalam manuscript of 1595 info was taken from that. This has also been removed from the article. I strongly feel we may need to add some of these, if not all, back in the article. Will add them back once we come to a consensus. Thanks again for all the help. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Since you did not provide edit diffs, here is the generic answer: I removed repetitions (and that removed some of these sources too). There is no need to summarize/repeat the same thing, two or three times, in this or any other wikipedia article. The note on the 16th-century Malayalam Tirukkural manuscript is still in the article, in two sections! even after cleanup. One in Translations section sourced to Zvelebil, and another sourced to Sanjeevi in Publication section. The cited pages from Manavalan were mostly relying on colonial-era / non-HISTRS sources, and this is not okay. We should try to summarize from more recent peer-reviewed scholarship (last 50 or so years). I plan to continue further cleanup. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Rasnaboy: One additional note... I have been finding too much OR and WP:Synthesis. In some cases, the cited source(s) did not verify the old version, not even vaguely, either on the alleged page numbers or anywhere else in that source. That is disappointing. Your help and a careful check of the old version's cited sources would be most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Will do. I happened to see such instances, too. One thing I find confounding sometimes is to decide whether the source is scholarly. The reason why I included Robinson and other sources. Hope your expertise will help me with that. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

133 Chapter titles
with this edit, you changed many of the 133 chapter titles. Do you have a scholarly source that supports the changes you made? FWIW, I prefer the chapter titles as translated by Kamil Zvelebil, here (pages 160–163). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention that. The previous one was too vague and many were unclear unless you read the chapter for yourself. So I took the simplest titles from the "Compendium of Tirukkural Translations in English" by A. A. Manavalan (2010). (4 vols.) Central Institute of Classical Tamil, a compilation of 18 English translations. Nevertheless, do you think we should go by the titles by the same author throughout? That's kinda vague in certain chapters. The earlier one (before changing) was that of G. U. Pope (1886). Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, we can either use Zvelebil or revert it to G.U. Pope's. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * We should generally avoid non-HISTRS and pre-1960 translations by Christian missionaries, except in sections such as the history of translations/publication and the reception. Manavalan (2010) is just a compilation of very old (outdated) to old sources. For the chapter list, Zvelebil's titles in the source I linked above, or P.S. Sundaram's titles published by Penguin (2005, ISBN 978-0144000098), would be better. Let us strive for quality/accuracy/honesty and NPOV per peer-reviewed scholarship, as our admins and the arbcom have repeatedly affirmed. Take Chapter 3 title for example. The latest edit made it "The Greatness of Righteous Persons". Zvelebil titles it as "The greatness of those who have renounced", while P.S. Sundaram titles it as "Ascetics". There is a big difference between "righteous persons" (generic), versus "renounced/ascetics" (sadhu/bhikshu/sannyasi/monk/nun). Similarly in Chapter 7, there is a difference between "children" (sons+daughters) after the latest edit, versus "sons" in both Zvelebil and Sundaram. Pick Zvelebil or Sundaram or some such recent scholarly version, stick with it please, and intext mention the author(s) – with a cite – right between "Outline" and "Book I" per our WP:Plagiarism guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)