Valluvar
on Avoiding Violence
Dr.
R. Prabhakaran
Bel
Air, Maryland
Introduction
Generally, violence is defined as the use of physical force to injure, abuse, damage, or
destroy another living being. In fact, violence is much more complicated than
that. The definition of violence given by the Old Testament Scholar Professor Terence
Fretheim seems more appropriate and comprehensive. He says that violence may be
defined as follows: any action, verbal or
nonverbal, oral or written, physical or psychical, active or passive, public or
private, individual or institutional/societal, human or divine, in whatever
degree of intensity, that abuses, violates, injures or kills. Since violence implies a
multitude of actions caused by words and deeds, it is difficult to know which
actions should be avoided.
Avoiding violence towards other human beings
Consistent with Professor Terrence Fretheim’s
definition, violence against other human beings would include verbal as well as
physical violence. Verbal violence refers to harsh and unkind words, slander,
and lies that offend and hurt another person’s feelings. Physical violence
would include any kind of physical attack which may cause pain, injury, or
death to another person. Valluvar condemns verbal as well as physical violence.
According to him, one should avoid any type of violence through the use of words
or deeds.
There is a rule known as the Golden Rule,
also referred to as the Law of Reciprocity. It refers to the principle of
treating others as one would like to be treated. It is a maxim that is found in
many religions and cultures. The Golden Rule is often attributed to the Chinese
philosopher
Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC). This Golden Rule has two versions. One is the
positive version, and the other is the negative version. The positive version of the Golden Rule states, “Do
unto others what you would want others to do unto you.” The negative version
states, “Do not do unto others what you do
not want others to do unto you.” The positive version stresses what a compassionate person should do, and
the negative version emphasizes the actions one should avoid. Valluvar
has a simple and elegant form of the negative version of the Golden Rule, which
can provide guidance as to what actions should be avoided.
What
one has realized as causing pain to oneself, one should not inflict it on
others.
(kural - 316)
He expresses a similar idea in another
kural, where he asks, “Why does a man inflict
upon other living beings those things he found harmful to himself (Kural -
318)? “
Valluvar
has another profound idea about what to do with those who harm us. He says that
if someone has harmed you or hurt you somehow or the other, then the best thing
to do is to return good for evil. That is, do something good for someone who
did evil so that he will be vexed at his own actions. The relevant
kural is as follows:
The best punishment for those who do evil to you is to shame them by
returning good for evil and after doing good in return, just forget the evil
that was done to you as well as the good deed you did. (kural
– 314)
In
another context, where he describes the qualities of a man of perfection,
Valluvar questions the value of perfection of character by asking, “Of what use
is the perfection of character if it does not do good unto those who did evil
(kural - 987)?
Doing good in
return for evil is very difficult for most people. If someone does good in
return for evil and continues to harp on the evil deed that was done to him and
the good deed he did, then the person who did the evil deed might feel
humiliated, and the purpose of doing the good deed will be lost. That is why
Valluvar says that the evil deed, as well as the good deed, must be forgotten.
In a
way, Valluvar’s idea that evil deeds should be reciprocated with good deeds is
somewhat similar to the statement in the Bible, which says, “You resist not
evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other
(King James 2000 Bible, Luke 6:29).” The dictum in kural 314 is far more
profound than the statement from the Bible or the Golden Rule. Therefore, it is
apt to refer to kural 314 as the Platinum Rule of Valluvar.
Valluvar
is cognizant of the fact that the world has all kinds of people with different
levels of intelligence and other values. He wants to appeal to all his readers
to avoid violence. Therefore, he puts forth various
arguments in order to convince his readers to avoid violence at all costs. He
challenges his readers’ intelligence by asking them, “What benefit does someone
derive from his intelligence if he does not treat others’ suffering as his own
(kural – 315)?”
Valluvar appeals to his
readers’ innate good nature and says that virtuous people will not venture into
violent behavior. According to him, violent behavior is not justified, even if
it would result in gaining riches and significant fame. Even if someone has
caused great harm out of anger and malice, people of virtue will not harm
others.
Even if it would yield
great wealth and attendant prestige, men of virtue will not harm others. (kural - 311)
Even if someone harms
them out of malice, men of virtue will not retaliate with harmful acts. (kural
- 312)
He tries to dissuade his
readers by pointing out the dangers of violence towards fellow human beings. He
warns those who harm others that they will undoubtedly face similar
consequences. Therefore, one who seeks happiness should not cause pain and
suffering to others. He insists that even when someone causes harm to us when
we have not provoked him, we should refrain from causing harm to him because
such acts on our part will bring about endless miseries to us.
If you harm others in the
forenoon, harm will automatically come to you in the afternoon. (kural
– 319)
All the pain in the world
rebounds on the one who caused it. Therefore, one who seeks freedom from pain
should not cause pain to others.
(kural – 320)
Even vengeance against planned
evil-doers will bring endless
miseries inevitably. (kural
– 313)
In an ideal society,
violence will have no place. But human society has never been ideal, and
perhaps it never will be. Philosophers like Valluvar try to guide society with
the hope of achieving the goal of universal peace, harmony, and prosperity. In
order to achieve such a goal, Valluvar tries to guide the individuals rather
than preaching to society as a whole. He feels that if individuals change, then
society will change. He says that avoiding the four evils, such as envy, greed,
anger, and harsh words, is a great virtue (kural – 35). In another kural, he
says that the real virtue is having a mind that is pure (kural -34). Violence
has its roots in anger, envy, and other blemishes of the mind. Therefore,
Valluvar emphasizes the importance of never having a harmful thought and
maintaining the purity of mind so that there will be no chance of violence due
to words or deeds.
It is the supreme virtue
not to have a harmful thought about anybody to any degree at any moment.
(kural - 317)
Valluvar’s ideas
regarding nonviolence have significantly impacted people like Leo Tolstoy and
Mahatma Gandhi. In 1908, the famous Russian Novelist Leo Tolstoy wrote a letter
to the Editor of Free Hindustan, an Indian newspaper. In that letter, he mentioned
that he admired Valluvar’s ideas on nonviolence and quoted six kurals (kurals
311, 312, 313, 314, 315, and 319) from the Chapter on Avoiding Violence
(Chapter 32). A few months later, Mahatma Gandhi happened to read that letter.
Gandhi appreciated Tolstoy’s remarks about the Kural, and he translated that
letter into the Gujarathi language and published it. It is said that Gandhi was
so impressed by the Kural that he wanted to learn Tamil so that he could read
the Kural in the original language in which it was written. Obviously, Gandhi
was impressed with the ideas of Valluvar regarding nonviolence, and he adopted
them and took them to a different level. Gandhi used the idea of nonviolence as
a tool in his successful freedom fight against British rule in India. Later,
Martin Luther King, the American Civil Rights activist, adopted Gandhi’s
approach of nonviolence in his fight for equality for African Americans.
Avoiding
violence to other life forms
All religions
of the world forbid hurting or killing fellow human beings. However, they all
have differing views with respect to hurting or killing other living beings.
Among the three ancient religions of India, viz., Jainism, Buddhism, and the
Vedic religion (the predecessor of Hinduism), Jainism has the most stringent
restrictions against violence towards animals and plants. Jainism strictly
prohibits its followers from eating meat or poultry, or fish. When the root
vegetables like potato, yam, onion, garlic, etc., are extracted from the
ground, the worms and other small insects are likely to be hurt. In order to
avoid hurting them, Jainism requires its followers to refrain from eating all
root vegetables. Jainism lays down several other restrictions for the monks so
that they would not even inadvertently hurt any living being, including plants
and trees. Buddhism has fewer restrictions regarding eating meat, poultry, or
fish. The original version of Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, prohibits its
followers from eating meat, poultry, or fish. The later version of Buddhism, Hinayana
Buddhism, states that one can eat meat (poultry or fish) if one does not kill
the animal for the sake of eating. The Vedic religion had a mixed message about
killing animals. While it emphasizes that nonviolence is the duty of all
classes of people (Manusmiriti 10:63), it allows killing animals for
sacrificial purposes and eating the meat of the sacrificed animals. Manusmiriti
(5:27) says that the meat of an animal can be eaten after it has been killed
for sacrificial purposes. Also, according to Manusmiriti, meat can be
eaten when someone is in dire need of food. However, modern-day Hinduism
condemns meat eating. But the majority of Hindus regularly eat meat.
Jainism, Mahayana
Buddhism, and modern-day Hinduism consider eating meat a sinful act that will
produce adverse karmic effects upon those who do so. In other words, the
non-vegetarians are likely to suffer in their next birth for committing the sin
of eating meat during this birth. In some cases, non-vegetarian food is considered
a hindrance to spiritual progress. The avoidance of killing the animals was not
advocated out of love and compassion for the animals. It was out of the desire
to seek a better life in the next birth and to make progress in the spiritual
journey towards salvation.
Valluvar strongly
condemns violence towards any living being. Unlike the religions, Valluvar’s
disapproval of violence towards animals is out of compassion towards them. He
is critical of the stance of Hinayana Buddhism and the Vedic religion regarding
meat eating. As mentioned before, the latter-day Buddhists believed that one could
eat the meat of animals killed by others. Valluvar comments that if nobody bought
meat to eat, nobody would be selling meat (kural – 256). In other words,
butchering animals is to sell their meat to those who want to eat it. In
general, it is the demand that creates the supply. Therefore, if there is no
demand for meat, then there will be no killing of animals for their meat.
As already mentioned, Manusmiriti
states that animal sacrifices are allowed during prayers as oblations to gods,
and it was permissible to eat the meat of the sacrificed animals. Valluvar
criticizes this practice by saying, “Not killing and eating the meat of an
animal is better than a thousand sacrificial offerings (kural – 259)”.
Valluvar’s concern is compassion for the animals. He says, “Not killing is an
act of compassion. Killing is an act of cruelty. Therefore, it makes no sense
to eat the meat from such killings (kural – 254).” He wonders, “How could one
be considered compassionate if one fattens oneself from the meat of a fellow-creature
(kural – 251?)”. He tries to discourage the meat eaters by saying, “Those who
realize that meat is the carrion ulcer of an animal’s body should abstain from
eating it (kural – 257).”
Valluvar’s compassion
extends far beyond saving the animals from the meat eaters. He considers that
all life forms must be protected, and he is absolutely against killing any
living being for any reason. He says, “Non-killing is the highest virtue;
whereas, the killing will bring in its wake all the evil (kural – 321).”
According to him, “The right path of life can be defined as the one which
includes the virtue of non-killing (kural- 324).” In fact, Valluvar considers
that non-killing alone is just not adequate. He is of the opinion that “Sharing
your food and other resources to protect all lives is the best of all precepts
in the books of the world (kural – 322).”
Conclusion
If everyone has genuine
love and compassion towards all living beings, then there will be no violence
in this world.
Bibliography
Aiyar, V.V. S. Thirukkural. Sri
Ramakrishna Thapovanam, Tiruparaithurai, Tirucirapalli District,
India: 2001.
Diaz, S.M. Thirukkural. Volumes 1
&2. Ramanandha Adigalar Foundation,
Chennai: 2000.
Drew, W.H., Lazarus, John, Rev.
Thirukkural – English Translation. Asian Educational services,
Madras (Chennai):
1996.
Kulandaiswami, V.C. The Immortal
Kural, Second Edition, International Thirukkural Conference,
Columbia,
Maryland: 2005.
______________, Souvenir,
International Thirukkural Conference 2005. The Tamil Sangam of
Greater
Washington: 2005.
Meenakshisundaran, T. P. Philosophy of
Thiruvalluvar. Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai:
1999.
Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated. Merriam -Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
Edition, 1996,
Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated, Springfield, Massachusetts.
Nambi, Agamudai, K.C. Thirukkural
(With English verses). K.C. Agamudai Nambi, Madurai, 2004.
Schweitzer, Albert. Indian Thought And
Its Development, Third Printing. The Beacon Press,
Boston: 1960.
Rammohan, Alagappa, (Ed.).
Thirukkural, The handbook of Tamil Culture and Heritage.
International
Tamil language Foundation, Chicago: 2000.
தமிழண்ணல். . திருவள்ளுவர் அருளிய திருக்குறள் . மீனாட்சி புத்தக நிலையம்,
மயூரா வளாகம்,
மதுரை: 1999.
இரா. சாரங்கபாணி, திருக்குறள் உரைவேற்றுமை.
அண்ணாமலைப் பல்கலைக் கழகம், அண்ணாமலைநகர்: 1989.
The Laws of Manu. Penguin
Books India (P) Ltd. Community Centre, Panchsheel Park,
New Delhi 110017, India
Appendix
அறன்வலியுறுத்தல்
அழுக்காறு அவாவெகுளி இன்னாச்சொல் நான்கும்
இழுக்கா இயன்றது அறம். (குறள் -35)
புலான்மறுத்தல்
தன்னூன் பெருக்கற்குத் தான்பிறிது ஊனுண்பான்
எங்ஙனம் ஆளும் அருள்? (குறள் – 251)
அருளல்லது யாதெனின் கொல்லாமை கோறல்
பொருளல்லது அவ்வூன் தினல். (குறள் – 254)
தினற்பொருட்டால் கொல்லாது உலகெனின் யாரும்
விலைப்பொருட்டால் ஊன்தருவார் இல். (குறள்
– 256)
உண்ணாமை வேண்டும் புலாஅல் பிறிதொன்றன்
புண்ணது உணர்வார்ப் பெறின். (குறள் – 257)
அவிசொரிந் தாயிரம் வேட்டலின் ஒன்றன்
உயிர்செகுத் துண்ணாமை நன்று. (குறள் – 259)
இன்னாசெய்யாமை
சிறப்பீனும் செல்வம் பெறினும் பிறர்க்கு இன்னா
செய்யாமை மாசற்றார் கோள். (குறள் – 311)
கறுத்துஇன்னா செய்தவக் கண்ணும் மறுத்தின்னா
செய்யாமை மாசற்றார் கோள். (குறள் – 312)
செய்யாமல் செற்றார்க்கும் இன்னாத செய்தபின்
உய்யா விழுமந் தரும். (குறள் – 313)
இன்னாசெய் தாரை ஒறுத்தல் அவர்நாண
நன்னயஞ் செய்து விடல். (குறள் – 314)
அறிவினான் ஆகுவ துண்டோ பிறிதின்நோய்
தந்நோய்போல் போற்றாக் கடை. (குறள் – 315)
இன்னா எனத்தான் உணர்ந்தவை துன்னாமை
வேண்டும் பிறன்கண் செயல். (குறள் – 316)
எனைத்தானும் எஞ்ஞான்றும் யார்க்கும் மனத்தானாம்
மாணாசெய் யாமை தலை. (குறள் – 317)
தன்னுயிர்ககு ஏன்னாமை தானறிவான் என்கொலோ
மன்னுயிர்க்கு இன்னா செயல். (குறள் – 318)
பிறர்க்கின்னா முற்பகல் செய்யின் தமக்கு இன்னா
பிற்பகல் தாமே வரும். (குறள் - 319)
நோயெல்லாம் நோய்செய்தார் மேலவாம் நோய்செய்யார்
நோயின்மை வேண்டு பவர். (குறள் – 320)
கொல்லாமை
அறவினை யாதெனின் கொல்லாமை கோறல்
பிறவினை எல்லாந் தரும். (குறள் – 321)
பகுத்துண்டு பல்லுயிர் ஓம்புதல் நூலோர்
தொகுத்தவற்றுள் எல்லாந் தலை. (குறள் - 322)
நல்லாறு எனப்படுவது யாதெனின் யாதொன்றும்
கொல்லாமை சூழும் நெறி. (குறள் – 324)
