chap_6_4
chapter_6_3.html
chapter_6_4.html
chapter_6_5.html
TIRUKKURAL
An Abridgement of Śāstras
R. Nagaswamy
VOLUME - III
KĀMATTUPPĀL
6.4. Nātaka Vaḻakku
The Kamātuppāl by Thiruvaḷḷuvar has attracted the attention of scholars for its different style of narration. Unlike the earlier two, this book adopts a style reminiscent of dialogue in a dramatic performance. Parimēlaḻakar, the celebrated commentator held all three books were by one and the same author Vaḷḷuvar, and also he derived his source from Sanskrit śāstras (vaṭanūl). For example, Parimēlaḻakar says, that Vaḷḷuvar based his work on the Dharma Śāstras of authors like Manu and others. Similarly, Parimēlaḻakar cites Bhoja's Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa, for the tradition. Parithiyar, another commentator cites Vātsyāyana's Kāma Tantra. Evidently, early commentators have always held Vaḷḷuvar based his text on Sanskrit Sources.
Please note Parimēlaḻakar notes on Kāmattupāl.
“Now he has taken up the topic of delight which gives happiness in life, utilising the help of wealth generated (as mentioned in Poruṭpāl). Here the word delight (inpam) refers to sexual delight born out of Kāma which gives happiness to the senses. Because of this specialty, Bhojarāja has mentioned this as the greatest delight, (in his book Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa) though others may say so many other sources of joy. According to him this Śṛṅgāra Rasa is the only greatest enjoyment (rasa). It is of two kinds — joy in known and joy in separation. This classification of meaning, are brought about in aṟam, poruḷ, and inpam (dharma, artha, kāma) by Sanskrit.”
So this author (Vaḷḷuvar) has followed the Sanskrit sources and brought them under these categories Parimēlaḻakar has categorically stated that Vaḷḷuvar has written his text based on Sanskrit texts (vaṭanūl). Let me add this that the classification into puṇarcci and puravu which are exact Tamiḻ rendering of sambhoga śriṅgāra and vipralambha śṛṅgāra which forms the main plank of Sanskrit authors.
Further, another commentator — Pari-perumal also asserts that Vaḷḷuvar follows the Sanskrit tradition அறம் பொருள் இன்பம் என வடநூல் வழியே கூறினார். It clearly shows that all the commentators ever since Vaḷḷuvar wrote his text emphasize that it was based on Sanskrit text.
These observations show that Vaḷḷuvar’s work is a vaḻinūl (derivative text) and not an independent composition.
The great Tamiḻ Scholar T.P. Meenakshi Sundaranar and Mu. Varadarajanar states that Kāmattupāl is in the form of a dialogue (nāṭaka vaḻakku). nāṭaka vaḻakku is synonym of Naṭya Dharmi of Bharata’s Naṭya Śāstra. Thus, Vaḷḷuvar clearly has also benefited from Naṭya Śāstra.
Here, I would like to point out that none of the ancient commentators have questioned the authenticity of all three volumes, Aṟattuppal, Poruṭpāl and Kāmattupāl as they consistently declare that the three were by the same author. However, recently one author has suggested that the text consists mostly of stray verses already prevalent and someone has compiled them as a book, at a later time. He has not given any reason or evidence to prove his proposition and seems to be his impression. Such an impression will not be acceptable without adequate evidence. It would lead to as many impressions as there are readers, but that would mean nothing. This view will stand rejected especially in view of several ancient commentaries, for the past over one thousand years, furnishing a homogeneity of authorship. Even the proponents of exclusive Tamiḻ tradition accept the influence of Sanskrit sources as in the case of the great Tamiḻ Scholar, Prof. T.P. Meenakshi Sundaranar and Dr.. Varadarajanar.
T.P. Meenakshi Sundaranar has agreed that the language of the Kāmattupāl is no doubt in the language of the dramatic persons, and at the same time raised a question whether such images found in the Kuṟaḷ, are found in any other text.
There is one point on which some scholars question the Sanskrit source. That is, they hold that the division of poetry into Aham and Puṟam classification is a Tamiḻ tradition, not seen in Sanskrit tradition. The division of Kaḷavu and Kaṟpu under the Aham category is also a Tamiḻ tradition. As Vaḷḷuvar divides the classification under Kāmattupāl, Sanskrit sources need to be rejected. This objection has been met with by the ancient commentator Pari Perumāḷ who has pointed out that Vaḷḷuvar has not classified his text under Aham and Puṟam, but classified them as Aṟam, Poruḷ and Kāmam which are of Sanskrit origin as dharma, artha and kāma. Hence this objection has no validity.
Further, I would like to point out that even the classification Aham and Puṟam are Sanskrit terminologies. Aham stands for Śṛṅgāra and Puṟam, other three dharma, artha and mokṣa. This classification is first introduced by Bharata in his Naṭya Śāstra, where at the beginning of his text classifies Śṛṅgāra under Sukumāra and the other as Āviddha. The Aham and Puṟam classification is from Naṭya Śāstra and not a Tamiḻ concept. On both grounds, the Tirukkuṟaḷ classification into dharma, and artha are from Sanskrit sources. There is a possibility of Vaḷḷuvar selecting a few parts from Kāma Śāstra as well for inclusion in his Kāmattupāl.
The conclusion is inevitable that Tirukkuṟaḷ is a derivative text, vaḻinūl.