No Aryan - Dravidian divide - it was one Aryavartha - (6)
None other than the Great Thiruvalluvar
can be a better guide to us to know
whether Aryanisation enveloped the Tamil land too.
I look upon him for guidance for the following reasons.
Thiruvalluvar seems to be from a much older time than what many think.
He seems to have preceded many well known poets of the remote past
and the treatises of Tamil grammar too.
Many have quoted him in their works,
but none have been quoted by him,
as though indicating that he lived prior to them.
One may say that such non-quote is by itself his style of composing.
May be.
But he did make references or quotes
that had concealed reference - not to kings of Tamil nadu of the last 5000 years,
but to Aryan kings, Aryan Gods and Aryan values!
Another reason is the land where he was supposed to have lived.
The name Maathaanubhangi, associated with him in an ancient reference
identifies him as having lived in Then-Madurai.
(“Uppakka nOkki UpakEsi thOL maNanthaan,
Utthara MAdurai-k-ku acchu.
Ippakkam Maathaanubhangi maRuvil pula-ch
ChennaappOdhar punal koodal acchu”
The explanation to be found in my blog on
“The original name of Nappinnai”)
The ‘punal koodal acchu’ places him at a time more than 5000 years ago
in a land lined with the sea in the east that was dug by sagara
and
where the river Kumari was flowing
that was a witness to a legendry and grand ‘punal aadal’ (bathing)
in its confluence with the sea,
which also saw the confluence of the three seas from east, south and west!
It will be wiser to look into his words of wisdom
to decipher whether he has said of this entire land as Aryavartha.
Aryan In Thirukkural.
What was Aryan known as in Tamil is a good question to begin with.
Two instances help us to pin point the Tamil Equivalent of Aryan in ThirukkuraL.
(1) The opening verse by Krishna in Bhagavad Gita.
This happens in the 2nd chapter of the gita.
On seeing Arjuna put down his bow and refuse to fight,
Krishna says that it is “an-aaryam” (not noble) to get into such despondency.
It is “a-swargyam” (will not grant him a place in Heaven)
It will get him “a-keerthi” (un-fame)
What is referred to as ‘anaaryam” is his refusal to do his duty
- the duty of fighting in the war.
This is also the opening verse of “SaandraaNmai” (kuraL 981)
which means ‘nobility’.
“kadan enba nallavai ellaam kadan aRindhu
saandraaNmai mEr koLbhavarkku.”
This says that “saandrOn is one who knows his duty and does his duty”
Krishna refers to “an-aaryam” as dereliction of one’s duty.
This means,
the foremost attribute to be an Aryan is to do one’s duty!
To cross check whether “saandrOn” is indeed the synonym of Aryan in Tamil,
Let us look at another instance.
(2) This instance is from Puranaanuru, (“vadaadu..” by Kaari kizhaar)
written in praise of the Pandyan king “pal yaaga shaalai mudu kudumi peruvazhuthi”
This verse is of importance because
this king had lived before the sub-mergence of kabaada puram,
that is, 5000 years ago
when the II sangam was held.
(This is mentioned by another verse by another poet
who wished the king
that he live for long
more than the number of the grains of sand of the river PaHruLi.)
The verse dedicated to him speak of his raj-neeti, the just and stable rule.
His rule was compared to a Balance.
The three seas,
the one dug by Sagara in the east,
the olden sea in the west
and the big sea in the south
join at his kingdom and are at a balance.
The land and sea and the heaven join at his place
as though they are held stable by a balance.
He, the king was capable of analyzing everything
at the convergence of
the land, the sub-terrain and in the ‘gO-lokam’ (aa-nilai) situated in the heavens!
(The Go-lokam is an off-shoot of Vedic concept!
It is mentioned in this verse.)
The king never wavers but is upright like a Balance.
What kind of a person one will be if he is ‘balanced’,
is something mentioned by Thiruvalluvar.
He is a “SaandrOn”, a noble person,
translated as Aryan in Sanskrit.
In kuraL 118, he speaks of this balanced nature as that of a ‘balance’
that is the jewel of ‘saandrOr’.
(“saman seidhu seer thookkum kOl pOl amaindhoru paal
kOdaamai saandrOrkku aNi”)
SaandrOn is Aryan as per the description from Kural.
It is interesting to note that Thiruvalluvar had sequenced his kural
in a methodical fashion.
The 2 important purushaarthas, namely dharma and arttha
(aRam & poruL)
have been explained in 108 adhikaaramas (chapters).
Of these “saandraaNmai” on the nature of Aryan is
set as the 99th chapter.
All the chapters preceding this chapter
talk about the attitudes
and requirements
without which a person can not be called as “SandrOn”.
The 100th chapter further glorifies this attitude of the SaandrOn
as “paNbu”
Thereafter till the 108th chapter,
(barring one on ‘vuzhavu’ or farming –
this was brought here as it can not be placed earlier)
it is about the ‘don’ts’ to be followed
by one who wants to be a SandrOn.
It appears that the entire range of 108 chapters is about
how one must conduct oneself to be a SaandrOn or Aryan.
The rest 25 are about the 3rd purushaartha, namely kaama.
It must be noted that Thiruvalluvar assigned importance
to the mystic number 108
that encompass all that is needed for betterment in this world
and the other world (or after death).
Kaama was not included in this group.
This is perhaps because kaama is something of personal life
that may differ in accordance with
differences in space and time,
from country to country,
from culture to culture
and from time to time.
The first two are about
how one must be in the society
or in matters that can affect the society.
There lies a crucial issue of the Aryan life.
In matters of love life, certain rules are relaxed.
The great persons who have been praised as wonderful Aryans
have had personal life / relationship that is questionable.
The great Parashara who wrote sutras and astrological treatises
and even the yuga dharma for Kali yuga had indulged in a way
that is questionable in a civil society.
But he was accepted as an Aryan,
because of his adherence to Dharma –arttha (aRam – pOruL)
His son Vyasa who had questionable birth
also begot children in questionable ways.
But that in no way spoiled his image as an Aryan.
Kings married many girls, either with or without their consent.
But that did not reduce their stature as Aryan.
In such marriages, there is only one exception which will make the king Anaaryan.
That is ‘piranil vizhaidhal’.
“desiring another man’s wife”.
Ravana – an otherwise Noble person became a fit candidate to be removed,
because he desired another man’s wife.
Ravana had many wives who were married by him by force or by consent.
Hanuman was impressed with Ravana’s riches and kingdom
to an extent that
a silly thought ran into his mind for a moment,
“couldn’t he (Ravana) bring in Sita in a straightforward way?”
Because Sita was the only woman who was already married
when he brought him.
All the others were not so.
Ravana was such a noble soul, having lot of good things to his credit.
He could not be eliminated unless he wavered from his Aryanism.
That is why the God had to stake his wife to trap him
to behave in an un-aaryan way..
Similar incidence is seen in Mahabharatha too.
No one can fault the good natured-ness of Duryodhana.
(Even Krishna was praising him Duryodhana at his death-bed
that made Arjuna jealous.)
His ambition to take away the land of the Pandavas was well within his raja dharma.
And he did that within the established rules of the day and
with the consent of others
(for the dice game).
But what changed the story is
dis-honouring the woman
who married into their household!
Such dis-honouring activities are un-aaryan.
We find the similar trends in Tamil lands too.
At no time the three kings of the three Tamil lands were at peace.
There was regular blood-shed in the name of expansion of territory.
But when it comes to personal life, one must not cross the established rules.
Particularly, in matters concerning woman,
Upholding the honour of other women was of prime importance.
But the man / king was within his rights to get the girl of his liking,
even if it is not liked by her –
with the condition that he has not trespassed into another man’s territory.
The girl will elope with the boy or
the boy will kidnap the girl and forcibly marry her.
The boys had to attract girl by hook or crook.
All that was not considered un-Aryan.
But an Aryan can not and will not do an activity
that will bring dishonour to the woman.
That is why Bheeshma asking Amba to leave was Aryan.
Krishna abducting Rukmini was Aryan.
Interestingly enough and intriguingly too,
I am not able to locate a single incidence of
such un-aaryan behaviour by any king of Tamil land!!!
I can only recall a Pandyan king
who actually didnt bring dis-honour to the woman,
but brought dis-repute to his rule,
by harming her in a grave way.
HE was Aryan to the core,
as he died instantly
on knowing from Kannagi
that he had unjustly ordered the execution of kOvalan!
The Tamils were indeed more Aryan
than those who are branded as Aryans !
