chap_5_2
chapter_5_1.html
chapter_5_2.html
chapter_5_3.html
TIRUKKURAL
An Abridgement of Śāstras
R. Nagaswamy
VOLUME - II
Poruṭpāl
5.2. Poruṭpāl a study by V.R.R. DIKSHITAR
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 toward that end, and 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 daṇdanīti such as vyāḻan (Bṛhaspati) and veḷḷi (Sukra). Indian tradition unanimously records that Bṛhaspati and Sukra was the first political theorists 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 writings4. We do not propose to examine here these views which are yet to be proved before they can 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 Tirukkural by R.P.Sethu Pillai with a foreword by K.Subramania Pillai, Madras (1923)
4. See the chapter entitled (— திருவள்ளுவரும் பரிமேலழகரரும்) and especially p.163