Talk:Aram (Kural book)

Veganism in Tirukkural

Scholars have variously translated the chapter "Pulaal marutthal" (renunciation of meat-eating) as shunning meat, no-meat diet, etc. Does this refer to vegetarianism or veganism? Which one should be retained in the articles? Bhagya sri113 (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This confusion occurs only when the chapter is read or interpreted in isolation. The word "veganism" was coined in the 1940s and became widespread only in the 1970s. Given the fact that Tirukkural itself was ancient and all the ten scholarly commentaries on the Kural book and all major translations were written before this period, one cannot expect the word "veganism" in any of these works. Book I of the Kural primarily bases its preachings on ahimsa (non-violence), interpreted by scholars as the Jaina moral code of compassion, which insists on a vegan lifestyle (see article Jain vegetarianism). Other chapters in the book such as Chapter 25 (Compassion), Chapter 32 (Non-violence), Chapter 33 (Non-killing) too insists on this. One of the couplet in non-killing chapter even says, "Even at the cost of one's own life one should avoid killing" (couplet 327). Thus the whole work pertains more to veganism. However, since some of the old translations use the word "vegetarianism" (due to the non-existence of the term veganism then), it's better to include both to avoid misinterpretation. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification Rasnaboy! It make sense. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Although I agree with your point, more than in "Pulaal Marutthal", the concept of veganism is explained more in the chapter "Inna Seyaamai" (or ahimsa). While Prof. Mylan Engel (2000) describes veganism as "moral vegetarianism," which the Pulaal Marutthal chapter insists, ahimsa, as described in Inna Seyaamai, is globally considered the moral foundation of veganism (e.g., American Vegan Society). Thus, it is Inna Seyaamai, rather than Pulaal Marutthal, where veganism is insisted. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. This is more sensible here. Thanks. You can add this in this article (and also in Tirukkural main article) with the source. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the message

Looks like I wrongly marked it as citation needed. Aram in tamil is not same as Dharma in sanskrit. How do I fix this actual discrepancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshsambandam (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Even I thought the same initially. However, only much later did I find that this is only a misconception, chiefly among many of the 20th-century "rationalist" scholars, who claim aram is not equal to dharma, simply as a way to counter the brahminical tradition. Aram is precisely the exact equivalent of the Sanskrit term dharma. In fact, Tamil is the only Indian language that has exclusive equivalent terms for dharma, artha, kama and moksha (respectively, aram, porul, inbam and veedu). However, difference is only between how dharma is perceived in many Sanskrit texts (such as Manusmirthi) and how it is perceived in the Tirukkural (where it is used as aram). In those Sanskrit texts, the term dharma is used ambiguously, whereas in the Tirukkural, the term aram is used with extreme precision in its application (consistently and without ambiguity). This is what makes the above-mentioned scholars perceive the terms as non-equivalent. This is explained under the section "Valluvar's position on aṟam or virtue" in the article Aram (Kural book). Hence, in my opinion, a separate citation or explanation is not necessary, which would otherwise be superfluous. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)