Saturday, 25 September 2021

Beware : Anti-Hindus Are Using Shaivism to Spread Hatred Among Hindus in Malaysia !


The Shaiva Siddhantam movement in Malaysia is doing a commendable job in spreading Shaivism.But there is more to this.The movement is actually controlled by anti-hindus who intend to create division among hindus.

These individuals who claim to 'represent' shaivism are spewing hatred on the Vedic tradition.They have been constipating their way for the past few decades to alienise anything that has to do with sanatana dharma - be it the Vedas,Agamas,smritis etc

They claim that the original 'Tamizh religion' was independent and had no elements of Vedaagamas to them.

I first learnt about their dirty plot through my cousin Sharmalan Thevar's write-up 6 years ago.You can find his article here

Darmalingam,prez of the Malaysia Shaiva Siddhanta Movement has been constantly tarnishing the authentic Vedic tradition with baseless points.He has recently done the same in a zoom meeting,evidenced by video below :

Video above by Mr.Nages,Sivasiddhi foundation

In this zoom meet,Darmalingam once again,plays an irresponsible figure by quoting a point with no evidence whatsover.He claims that the Brahmana-s and temple archaka-s disallowed 'Tamizhs' to venture into spirituality.

Does he quote a reference to it ? Nope - coz there ain't any.

In the past,Darmalingam and his followers have thrown insults to the sacred rituals of Hinduism like Yaaga and Abhisheka.They have also demonised temples which function based on Agamas.

Like a sly fox shaving off its mairu and replacing them with patches of wool,Darmalingam and his followers pretend to be representatives of Shaivism.However,their objective is to actually strip the essence of Vedas and the authentic Hindu customs from Tamizhs.

It is not difficult to debunk Darma.Unlike him,I will provide by stance with evidence here.

1.Darma claims that the original 'tamizh' religion had no vedic elements to it.

Let us look at Shaiva Siddhantam itself.Among the Nayanmars ( the 63 revered Shaivite saints of TAMIZH NADU ),is a saint called Pashupati.His sole sadhana was to actually recite the Shri Rudram which is a portion from Yajur Veda for Paramashiva and he was ultimately blessed and liberated by Paramashiva Himself.

He belonged to the Brahmana sect who held to the dharma of teaching Vedas.

You can find its reference in the Periya Puranam and Thiruthondar Thogai.


If the 'original shaiva religion' of Tamizhakam was devoid of Vedic elements as claimed by Darma,why would Sundarar include Saint Pashupati into the list of the saints who stand authority to shaiva siddhantam ?

In fact,even today, Saint Pashupati is more commonly referred to as 'Rudra Pashupati' , indicating the Rudra japa he did as sadhana.

2. Darmalingam and his followers have criticised the sacred fire sacrifice ( yaagas ) which serves as the soul for vedic tradition.

The ancient Tamizhs themselves had great reverence for these rituals.For example,Karikala Chola patronised grand Vedic rituals.



The description of such Vedic rituals finds place in the eulogy sung by Karungulal Athanar on the occasion of Karikala Chola's death.


Puranuru 224  : 

அறம் அறக் கண்ட நெறி மாண் அவையத்து,
முறைநற்கு அறியுநர் முன்னுறப் புகழ்ந்த  5
தூ இயற் கொள்கைத் துகள் அறு மகளிரொடு,
பருதி உருவின் பல் படைப் புரிசை
எருவை நுகர்ச்சி யூப நெடுந்தூண்
வேத வேள்வித் தொழில் முடித்ததூஉம்;


Pur.224.II.4-9

Translation : 

In the assembly,the great ( Brahmanas ) who had mastered dharma,Vedas and rites guided the conduct of the ceremony.The sacrifical hall was round and surrounded by walls.A structure was built in it in the shape of an eagle.At a tall Yupa-pillar planted there,the Brahmanas conducted the Vedic Yagna along with their wives who were praised by all for their character and chastity.

(3) The very draviDa hymns accept the Vedas and Agamas as the authority of Hinduism

Taking reference from Thirumantiram

திருமூல நாயனார் அருளிய திருமந்திரம்
எட்டாம் தந்திரம்
ஆறந்தம்
பத்தாம் திருமுறை

திருச்சிற்றம்பலம்

வேதமொடு ஆகமம் மெய்யாம் இறைவன் நூல்
ஓதும் பொதுவும் சிறப்பும் என்றுள்ளன
நாதன் உரையவை நாடில் இரண்டந்தம்
பேதமதென்பர் பெரியோர்க்கு அபேதமே.

திருச்சிற்றம்பலம்

Here,the Vedas are referred as 'podhu' and Agamas as 'sirappu'.Thirumoolar says that the Vedas are science while the Agamas, the technology which utilises the science.

Thirumoolar adds in this verse - saying that both the Vedas and Agamas are indeed two sides of the same coin.

Thirumoolar is one of the nayanmars and he is a very prominent figure of Shaivism.His contribution - Thirumantiram holds a lot of reference on the Vedic tradition.


3. Thiru Gyaana Sambandhar acknowledges Vedas through his Thevaram

In this verse, he declares : ' the vibhooti is revered in the Vedas ! '.

What is Darma's Objective ?

Darmalingam and his like-minded followers are not ignorant.They are here for a different purpose.Gone are the days when anti-hindu-s were transparent about their mission.Today,it is latent.Like a fox dressed up as a sheep,Darma is simply pretending to be a Shaivite.

This is very similar to what the Christian missionaries used to do in India.


These rice bag convert spawns of Vatican no longer knock at doors to sell Jesus.The image above is a reality which happens in India - where pastors dress up as sannyasi-s and sadhu-s.They exhibit themselves as Hindus,and even promote Hinduism.

They would promote the Vedas and after gaining rapport with a village,they unwool themselves.They immediately declare a '5th' form of Veda which is apparently forgotten by Hindus.They pronounce the '5th' and ultimate Veda as the bible and convince the villagers to accept Christ.

You think this ain't happening in Malaysia ? 


The grandpa you see in the image above is Nagappan.Like Darma,he preaches Shaivam against the Vedic tradition.

He promotes 'thirumurai thirumanam'  where weddings are conducted without following the prescription of agamas and vedas.

The irony ? This grandpa married a Christian lady.Nagappan's wife is a Christian but he goes around telling Hindus not to conduct their wedding as per Hindu customs.

The stench of hypocrisy he carries is unremarkable.Even the beef eating Jallikatthu supporters of Tamizh Nadu who held the definition for hypocrisy are feeling insecure now.


Daddy Periyar did a similar feat to destroy Hinduism from Tamizhakam.

E.V Ramasamy a.k.a Periyar did not attack Hinduism as a whole initially as believed.He actually pretended to be in favourism to Shaivites ( similar to what unkil Darma and grandpa are doing now ).He went against only Vaishnavism,at the early stage.

The Shaivites were supporting Daddy Periyar initially !


Then gradually,Daddy Periyar opposed Shaivism as well.However,it was then too late when the Shaivites realised the Santa Claus doppleganger's cheap strategy.

Draw a parallel between Daddy Periyar's cunning strategy to Darma's and you will understand what I am trying to convey.



Learn Hinduism from a proper Guru Parampara

This is why the guru parampara is important.We won't have random clowns brainwashing Hindus with their anti-brahmin,anti-Veda mentality which bear nothing but hatred and division.

We won't have followers of unkil Darma ridiculing the sacred yaaga-s as 'cute campfires'.

When Darma claims that the Brahmana-s stripped spiritual rights from Tamizhs,he is actually talking about his personal agenda.He is using the word 'brahmana' as an apple polish.Darma is actually truly trying to strip off the spiritual culture from Tamizhs.This will make conversion easier.

He wants to first limit Hindus to only Thirumurai.Once this is done,it will be easy for a 3rd party to christianise the thirumurai to introduce Christ.They have already done this with the Thirukkural in India.



It is time that Hindus stand up for their rights and give no space for compromise.

Let the filth of Anti-vedic culture stay in India.Don't let it pollute the Hindus of Malaysia.

Use the nayanmars as a standard to practice Shaivism.When the Shaivite saints themselves revered the Vedas and Agamas,who in the blazes is Darma to preach otherwise ? 

What is the guru parampara that he represents ? Where is the evidence to support his hate speech? Is he fit to preach Shaivism when he is against what the great Nayanmars practiced ?



Also Read : 






109 comments:

  1. Well written. Even Tirumular has clearly mentioned about the importance of Guru Parampariyam in his Tirumantiram. Saivam must be learned from a qualified teacher who was initiated and trained by a legitimate parampara. If Malaysian Tamils eants to learn Saivam, they should first check out the publications by legitimate adheenams such as Tiruvavaduthurai Adheenam or Dharmapuram Adheenam and not from useless NGOs who know nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. credits actually goes to you.You initiated the awareness 6 years ago

      Delete
  2. Thanks for this enlighten article. It is timely. Om Namasivaya 🙏🕉️

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thank you sir for exposing the recent zoom meeting they conducted.

      Delete
  3. The author of this knows neither the Vedas or the Siva Agamas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually teach Vedas, including the Shri Rudram.

      Delete
    2. List out the meaning of all the slokas of Sri Rudram both in the Krishna padsham and Sukkila padsham.

      Delete
    3. I would, if you can actually first recite the entire prashnam with correct akshara,maatraa and svara shuddhi - which you evidently lack :-

      (1) firstly the verses of vedas are not called shlokas ( which applies to hymns of non-veda origin.Example - PuraNoktam hymns )

      (2) The meaning of Shri Rudram does not have variations because the verses are the same regardless of which veda shaakha they appear in.Rudra adhyaaya is recited with varying 'style's in various shaakhas of the Vedas.

      - Rudram is found in all 4 yajus branches
      - it is also recited as per the unique naambuudri tradition of Kerala

      (3) What is Sukkila ? I believe you are trying to mean 'shukla'.What is padsham ?

      (4) The usage of shloka ( misspelt as sloka ) as a term is inaccurate as mentioned.The Rudra prashna consists of riks in the 1st,10th and 11th anuvakas.The 2nd - 9th anuvaka consists of yajur verses which come as prose.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    4. வேதத்தின் சிம்மிருதிகள் சூத்திரர் வேதத்தை ஓத தகுதியில்லை என்று கூறும்போது அதனை அடியேன் ஓத வேண்டிய அவசியமென்ன?

      Delete
  4. As regards to your comments on personal life of Dr. Nagappan Arumugam, it clearly shows that you have no good intention in writing this article. All that you want to do is to spew hatred against Dr. Nagappan because you can't take on him on the philosophy of Saiva Siddhantam or Saiva religion in general. Hence, you tried to portray him as Christianity missionary's agent by dragging in his wife! Yes, he married a Christian woman during his young days and let her practice her faith until today without any hindrance because he respects his wife's right to practice her faith. However, all their children were educated in Saivite Religion while their daughters have mastered Thirumurai and one of them is conducting Thirumurai class professionally. Surely, you don't know the truth. His wife has always stood by him and respected his right to follow his own faith. This is how a household comprising different faith can live harmoniously by understanding each other. Doesn't this speaks by itself of Dr. Nagappan's principled way of life? I have attended their Son and daughter's wedding which were conducted at KL temples without the Vedic yajna but followed the traditional ceremonies of Tamilian wedding with recital of Thirumurai as Mantra. It was allowed at the Sri Ramalingeswarar Temple at Bangsar, KL and likewise at the Sentul Sivan Temple. You are writing with hearsay evidence which indicates that you are spewing venom against him out of someone's personal vendetta of others. Stop your childish writing. I noticed that you were not aware that the present Thirumandram and Thiruttondar puranam have been adulterated along the way to accommodate the Vaidika Saivism. That's enough for the time being.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How ironic ! Nagappan will allow his wife to practice her religion because of 'respect' but he will harrass those who follow the veda-agamas ? He will criticise vaidika rites ? Don't you find this hypocritical ?

      Nagappan has even made his statement on how ' those who worship other deities lack rights to worship Paramashiva'.

      ' Thirumandiram and thiruttondar puranam have been adulterated along the way ' ? Please provide evidence - else you are throwing an insult to these great scriptures just because they do not support your fanatical views

      Bangsar Ramalingeshwara temple is the first Shaivite temple in Malaysia which was built as per agamas and they never entertain the fanatical views of Dr Nagappan.All he can do for now is have his shaiva siddhanta lessons with a group of devotees in the temple.He has no rights to dictate on how a wedding should occur in a temple.

      Delete
    2. I think the ones who are being childish are those who think they can imprison Paramashiva within their tamizh fanaticism.

      Delete
    3. சிவசிவ

      தங்களுக்குத் தமிழ் மொழியில் படிக்க எழுத இயலுமென்பதால் இனி தமிழிலேயே எமது கருத்தைப் பதிவிடுகிறேன்.

      முனைவர் நாகப்பன் ஆறுமுகம் அவர்களின் மனைவி தான் நிற்கும் நெறியை ஏற்கச் சொல்லி அவரை வற்புறுத்தவில்லை. அவர் மீது கிறித்துவம் திணிக்கப்படவில்லை. ஆனால் வேதம் முதல் மூன்று வர்ணத்தாருக்கு மட்டுமே உரியது என்று சிம்மிருதிகளில் கூறி அவற்றைச் சூத்திரர் ஓதக்கூடாது என்னும் தடையை விதித்ததால் இன்றைய தமிழர்கள் வேதத்தைப் பின்பற்ற வேண்டிய அவசியம் ஏதுமுள்ளதா? இல்லையாயின் அதனை ஏற்க வேண்டுமென்று தமிழர்கள் மீது அயலார் திணிப்பதை எதிர்ப்பதானது எப்படி போலித்தனமாகும்?

      ஒன்றாய் இருந்த சைவத்தைப் பிரித்தாண்டனர் ஏகான்மவாதிகள். அதன் அடிப்படையில் வெவ்வேறு தெய்வ வழிபாடுகளின் அடிப்படையில் பல்வேறு மதங்கள் உருவாகின. அந்தந்த மதத்தவர் அவரவர் தெய்வத்தைப் பரம்பொருளாக ஏற்று வழிபட்டனர். தென்னாடுடைய சித்தாந்த சைவம் சிவனை மட்டுமே பரம்பொருளாக ஏற்கும் சமயமாகும். ஆதலின் பிற தெய்வங்களைப் பரம்பொருளாக ஏற்போருக்கு சிவவழிபாட்டில் என்ன வேலை? அவரவர் மதத்தில் நின்று அந்தந்த மதங்கள் கூறும் தெய்வத்தை வழிபடுவதுதானே அவர்களுக்குச் சிறப்பகும். சைவம் என்றால் என்னவென்று புரியாதோருக்குப் புரிய வைக்க வேண்டி அவரவருடைய தெய்வ வழிபாட்டில் நில்லுங்கள் என்று சொல்வது எப்படி தவறாகும்? தான் பின்பற்றும் மதம் எதுவென்று அறியாதோரே பல தெய்வ வழிபாட்டில் நின்று அல்லல்படுவார். ஆதலின் மலேசிவ சைவ சமயப் பேரவையின் தலைவர் என்னும் முறையில் பிற மதத்தவர் சிவநெறியில் புகுந்து சைவத்தைக் குழப்ப வேண்டாமென்பதற்காக அவரவர் மதம் கூறும் வழிபாட்டில் நில்லுங்கள் என்று உபதேசிக்கப்பட்டது. இதில் தவறு ஏதுமில்லையே. தொடரும்.

      Delete
  5. சிவசிவ

    காமிகாகமத்தின் பூர்வபாகத்தில் சிவாலய அருச்சனை விதிபடலத்தில் பிரம்மாவின் முகத்திலிருந்து தோன்றிய பிராமணர் எனக் கூறப்படுவோரை சாமாண்ய பிராமணர் எனக் கூறி அவர் சிவாலயத்தில் நித்திய நைமித்திய பூசைகளை மேற்கொள்ளக்கூடாதென்னும் தடை உள்ளது. அவ்விதியைக் கூறுவதே திருமந்திரத்தில்,

    பேர்கொண்ட பார்ப்பான் பிரான்தன்னை அர்ச்சித்தாற்
    போர்கொண்ட வேந்தர்க்குப் பொல்லா வியாதியாம்
    பார்கொண்ட நாட்டுக்குப் பஞ்சமு மாம்என்றே
    சீர்கொண்ட நந்தி தெரிந்துரைத் தானே (திருமந்திரம் 10;2;19-5)

    காமிகாமத்தின் உபாகமாகிய மிருகேந்திரத்தின் ஞானபாதத்தில் வேதாந்த கோட்பாடு பின்வருமாறு மறுக்கப்படுகின்றது:

    Refutation of the Concepts of Liberation as held
    in the Systems other than Saiva Siddhanta

    Sage Bharadvaja:

    O, Lord!, the state of liberation along with relevant means (upayas) has been well declared in the scriptures of Vedanta, Sankhya and of various other systems (such as Kanada) which propound different views on the categories of existent (sat) and non-existent (asat). If so, what is the specific nature present in the Agamic concept of liberation?

    The Lord:

    Since the expounders of those systems and authors of those scriptures were not the all-knowers (were
    not endowed with fullness and perfection of knowledge) and since, for the same reason, they were inferior to the Supreme Authority, they did not know the exact nature of the Reality as ascertained and as expounded in the Agamas, Therefore, ascertainment of the Eternal Existent (vasut niscaya), effective means and the fruits thereof have not been vividly and irrefutably set forth in their scriptures. But, since this Agama has been revealed by Paramesvara who transcends the limitations and incapacitated nature effected in the souls by the bonds and who is with the power of all-knowing and all-doing, the concepts set forth in the Supreme Scriptures (Agamas) stands always unexcelled and irrefutable.

    “The one and the only self is seen projected as the intelligent and the non-intelligent. The visible world in all its entirety of moveable and immovable existents is this self only. Apart from this supreme self, nothing exists.” So say the followers of Vedanta. This view is untenable. Without giving due consideration to the knowledge gained by reasoning (upapatti) and the contrary of that (anupapatti), this view may be accepted as mere proposition (prima facie). What authentic means is there to ascertain this proposition through reason and example? If it be said that there is scriptural testimony to validate this view, then, is that scripture the self or different from the self? If it is different from the self, then it is non-existent and therefore it cannot be a pramana. If it be one with the self, then there is the inconsistency of one and the same thing serving as pramana (which proves) and prameya (which is proved). Where there exist both the means of knowledge (pramana) and the knowable (prameya), both the knower (pramatru) and the knowledge (pramiti) also should essentially be there.

    ... to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  6. ..continuation

    In that case, there occurs the total obliteration of this advaitic view of the Vedantins. Or, if it be said that there is no such scriptural authority, then there is no valid proof for this advaitic view. Since there is no karmic effect in the form of merit and demerit apart from the one and the only self, there should be equal enjoyments (bhogas) to all the individual souls. But this is not seen. Moreover, if absorption into the Supreme Self is considered to be the liberation, such liberation does not prevail since the re-appearance of cit and acit is seen. If there is no liberation, then all the ordained means and practices and the scriptures which explain them become purposeless. If the Supreme Self is considered to be the material cause also, then He should be both cit and acit. But, both darkness and light cannot exist simultaneously in one and the same place. Therefore, in view of all these defects and contradictions, the non-dual self cannot be accepted.

    மேற்பதிவிட்டது வேதந்த கோட்பாட்டை மறுக்கும் சிவாகமத்தின் நிலைப்பாடாகும். இவ்வாறு மறுத்தப்பிறகு,

    வேதமொ டாகமம் மெய்யாம் இறைவன்நூல்
    ஓதும் பொதுவும் சிறப்பும் என்றுள்ளன
    நாதன் உரைஅவை நாடில் இரண்டந்தம்
    பேதம தென்னில் பெரியோர்க் கபேதமே
    (திருமந்திரம் 10;8;15-28)

    என்னும் பாடல் எவ்வாறு திருமந்திரத்திற்குள் வந்திருக்க முடியும்? பிற்காலத்தில் வைதிக பிராமணர் தென்னாடுடைய சிவாலயங்களில் குடிபுகுந்த பிறகே இத்தகைய இடைச்செருகல் திருமந்திரத்திற்குள் வந்திருக்க வேண்டுமென்பது சொல்லியா தெரிய வேண்டும். தொடரும்.

    ReplyDelete
  7. சிவபெருமானால் அருளப்பெற்ற சிவாகமமே வைதிக பிராமணரையும் வேதாந்த கோட்பாட்டையும் மறுக்கும்போது அதனை முனைவர் நாகப்பன் ஆறுமுகம் எடுத்துச் சொன்னால் அது எப்படி தவறாகும்? வேதத்தை ஓதி ஓதுவிக்கும் தாங்கள் சிவாகமத்தைக் கற்றுத் தெளியவில்லை என்பது தெளிவாகின்றது. அப்புறம் தாங்கள் தென்னாடுடைய தமிழர் பின்பற்றும் சித்தாந்த சைவ நெறியைக் குறை கூறுவது எவ்வாறு அறிவுடைமையாகும்?

    ReplyDelete
  8. சிவசிவ

    திருத்தொண்டர் புராணத்தில் வெள்ளியம்பலவான சுவாமிகள் இயற்றிய பாடல்கள் இடைச்செருகலாக சேர்க்கப்பட்டுள்ளன என்று கண்டுப்பிடித்து அவற்றை நீக்கம் செய்ததாக தருமை ஆதினப் புலவர் கொடுத்த வாக்குமூலம் காணொளியாக யூடிப்பில் உள்ளது. நீக்கப்பட்ட பாடல்களுக்குப் பதிலாக எந்த புதிய பாடல்கள் திருத்தொண்டர் புராணத்தில் சேர்க்கப்பட்டன? இவ்வாறான கேள்வி எழுவதற்குக் காரணம் திருத்தொண்டர் புராணத்தில் உள்ள மொத்த பாடல்களின் எண்ணிக்கை சேக்கிழார் புராணத்தைப் பாடிய உமாபதி சிவாச்சாரியாரால் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது. இன்று இருக்கும் மொத்தப் பாடல்களின் எண்ணிக்கை அன்று சேக்கிழார் புராணத்தில் கூறப்பட்ட எண்ணிக்கையிலேயே இருப்பதால் நீக்கப்பட்ட பாடல்களுக்குப் பதிலாக புதிய பாடல்களைச் சேர்த்திருக்க வேண்டுமல்லவா? அந்த பாடல்கள் எவை எனக் கேள்வி எழுவது நியாயம்தானே?

    நந்தனார் புராணத்தில் திருபுன்கூர் தலத்தில் சிவபெருமான் காட்சியளித்தபோதே அவர் மல நீக்கம் பெற்று புனிதம் அடைந்தார். அவ்வாறாயின் அவருடைய புராணத்தின் பிற்பகுதியில் தில்லையில் தீக்குளித்தப் பிறகே அவர் பூணூல் அணிந்த அந்தணராகத் தோன்றினார் என்று கூறுவது எதற்காக? இவ்வாறு பிற்பகுதி கதை ஏற்படுத்தப்பட்டதின் நோக்கம் என்னவாக இருக்கும்?

    சூத்திரருக்கு மோட்சமில்லை என்பது வைதிக நெறியாகும். சிவதீக்கை உயிரின் குற்றத்தை மட்டுமே நீக்கவல்லது உடல் குற்றத்தை நீக்காது என்பம் வைதிகரின் கொள்கையாகும். ஆதலின் சிவதீக்கையால் ஒருவருடைய வர்ணாசிரமமோ அல்லது சாதியோ மாறாது என்பது வைதிக மதத்தவரின் கொள்கையாகும். ஆகையால் திருபுன்கூரில் நந்தனாருக்கு சிவபெருமான் காட்சியளித்தபோதும் அவருடைய சாதியத்தால் சிவகதி அடைய இயலாதென்ற வைதிகரின் கொள்கையை நிறுவுவதற்கே பிற்பகுதி கதை புனையப்பட்டுள்ளது என்பது தெளிவாகின்றது. இதற்கு மேலும் இன்றைய திருத்தொண்டர் புராண அச்சு நூலில் பல இடங்களில் வைதிக மதத்தைக் காக்க வேண்டி சொற்கள் மாற்றியமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன. சித்தாந்த சைவராக வாழ்ந்தால் தங்களுக்கு இவ்வுண்மை புரிய வாய்ப்புள்ளது. இல்லையேல் இதனைத் தங்களால் புரிந்து கொள்ள இயலாது.

    இது போதுமா இல்லை இன்னும் வேண்டுமா?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not just that,ayya darmalingam has also mocked people who take kavadi for thaipusam.It makes perfect sense when we link all this happenings to christian funding... hmmm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Vedas have demeaned Idol worship and the rituals associated therewith. Did anyone complained about that?

      Delete
    2. Don't simply associate one with Christianity missionary just because Mr. Dharmalingam mocked those who are performing their duties in contravention of religious order. Similarly, the Malaysian Hindu Sangam also mocked such devotees and MHS was rebuked by the Batumalai Kovil Devathanam President, Dato Nadaraja. Don't just say that Mr. Dharmlingam mocked the devotees without saying why he do. Don't take his speech out of context.

      Delete
    3. The Vedas demean idol worship ? Evidence please ?
      I can show you verses from the yajur veda which describe the process to consecrate the shiva linga.
      The benefits of doing abhisheka is also found in athrarva veda.
      In addition, the temples which are built based on agamas have vigraha worship - we don't pray to walls my dear friend.

      Delete
    4. எசூர் வேதத்தின் நாற்பதாவது அத்தியாயத்தில் காணப்படும் ஈசாவாஸ்ய உபநிடதத்தின் ஒன்பதாவது சுலோகத்தில் காணவும்

      Delete
    5. அதர்வ வேதத்தில் பல பிற்கால சிவநெறிக்குரிய உபநிடதங்கள் சேர்த்து இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன. வேத மதம் கூறும் எரியோம்பல் கிரியைப் பின்பற்றாது திருமேனி வழிபாட்டைக் கொண்டு புராணிக மற்றும் தாந்திரிக மதங்கள் பாரதமெங்கும் வளர்ந்த பிறகு அதனை மறுக்க இயலாது திருமேனி வழிபாட்டை கீழ்நிலை வழிபாடாக ஏற்றுக் கொண்டனர் வேத மதத்தினர். அதர்வ வேதத்தில் உள்ள சிவலிங்கத்தைப் பற்றிய உபநிடத குறிப்புகளெல்லாம் சிவ நெறிக்குரிய உபநிடதங்களில் உள்ளவையாகும். நூற்றுக்கும் மேற்பட்ட முக்கிய உபநிடதங்களில் 14 அல்லது 15 உபநிடதங்கள் மட்டுமே சிவ நெறியைப் பற்றியவையாகும். அவையும் பிற்காலத்தில் இயற்றப்பட்டவையாகும்.

      Delete
  10. கோலாலம்பூர் இராமலிங்கேசுவரர் கோயிலில் தமிழக ஓதுவார் சண்முக திருவரங்க யயாதி முன்நின்று திருமுறைகளை ஓத கிரியைகளை மற்றொவர் செய்திட முனைவர் நாகப்பன் ஆறுமுகனார் தம்பதியரின் மகளின் திருமுறைத் திருமணம் செவ்வனே நடந்தேறியது. இதற்குச் சாட்சி சொல்ல எமக்கு முழு உரிமையும் தகுதியும் உள்ளது காரணம் அந்த திருமணத்தில் அடியேன் கலந்து கொண்டேன். அத்திருமணத்தில் முனைவர் நாகப்பன் ஆறுமுகம் அவர்களின் மனைவியும் கலந்து கொண்டு தமிழரின் சமயம் சார்ந்த சடங்கு சம்பிரதாயங்களை மேற்கொண்டார் எனின் அவரை கலங்கப்படுத்தும் தங்களின் முயற்சியைத் தற்குரித்தனமென்று கூறுவதில் தவறேதுமில்லை. திருந்த வழியைக் காணுங்கள். இல்லையேல் தாங்கள் வேதம் ஓதுவதால் எப்பயனுமில்லை. சிவசிவ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With due respect to mr kamalanathan, I appreciate your scholarly ie academic based knowledge ie paasa gnanam from your lengthy explanations I believe you are a great scholar but unfortunately you don’t see it from the devotion side of other devotees and what you have said could be an insult and peruman is all about karunai and I believe the fact that adulterated etc whatever terminology one use is based on mere divisions caused by humans with sitruarivu for whatever reason. Its takes grace of the lord to understand 14 meikandar saathiram 12 thirumurai as it is. You sound more of spite when you mentioned ithu pothumaa etc you could be a true practising devotee of peruman may be but what I see there is boastful nature of “well read” scholarly traits which sidantha saivam doesn’t preach I believe. Reminds of a story when arulnandi sivam came to meet meikandar deva nayanar.

      Delete
    2. It is not boasting. The writer of this article deserves a piece of my mind. The same as what Saint Meykandar showed to Saint Arunanthi Sivacariyar when he confronted Meykandar.

      Delete
    3. Fanatics who inspire hatred towards a particular clan, caste and language in the name of shiva must be taught a lesson too - hence this article

      Delete
  11. Please let know which wife attended. First or secon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His second.

      Delete
    2. His wife, his problem. What's your problem in that? Try to respect people, at least for their age.

      Delete
  12. Those who are commenting in this blog should come forward by stating their original name. Don't hide under a fictitious name.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So his christian wife replaced by Hindu wife for Hindu rites?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop your personal attack against the other because that is not the issue here.

      Delete
  14. The problem with Kamalanathan and his like minded people from some of of the Saiva group is they only read Meykandar's works and claim it to represent the entire Saivism. Even that they will misquote to suit their own agenda. Saivism has several branches and the Saiva Siddhantam which we Tamils follow is a big umbrella that covers the teachings of the Nayanmars and not just the later day Meykandar. None of the Nayanmars were against Sanskrit, Vedas or Agamas. In fact, Tamil temples are constructed as per the rules laid out in the Agamas and this is studied by learned Sivachariyars, not any Tom Dick or Harry who formed some useless NGO and claim to be preaching true Saivism. In case Kamalanathan is unaware, the year is 2021 and everyone have access to scriptures in Sanskrit, Tamil and other languages. As such, we are able to cross check and confirm that some Saiva movement are just spreading lies for their own communal propaganda. May the holy words of Tirumular, Appar and all the Nayanmars knock some sense into their heads.

    Veda Sirappu
    வேதத்தை விட்ட அறம்இல்லை வேதத்தின்
    ஓதத் தகும்அறம் எல்லாம் உளதர்க்க
    வாதத்தை விட்டு மதிஞர் வளமுற்ற
    வேதத்தை ஓதியே வீடுபெற் றார்களே

    Agama Sirappu
    அஞ்சன மேனி அரிவையோர் பாகத்தன்
    அஞ்சொ டிருபத்து மூன்றுள ஆகமம்
    அஞ்சலி கூப்பி அறுபத் தறுவரும்
    அஞ்சாம் முகத்தில் அரும்பொருள் கேட்டதே

    https://sharmalanthevar.blogspot.com/2015/08/tamil-saivism-vedas.html?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My justification here is based on the Agamas because the Agamas are the only scripture which provides the rules and regulations relating the temple building, the idol worship and temple rituals etc. I am living in 2021 with knowledge of Agamas as it is available now and am aware of later incorporation of vaidika ideology as to the Diksha and others in the Agamas.

      Delete
    2. None of the Nayanmars were against the Sanskrit. It is true. But they opposed those who championed the Sanskrit, prakrit and pali languages by discarding the Tamil Language. Hence, Thirunjaanasambanthar and Appar said that both Tamil and 'Vadamozhi' are the languages pronounced by Lord Siva to show that the Tamil language is not in anyway inferior to the Sanskrit language and its offshoots. Such pronouncement could not be found in any Sanskrit text! Why? That is a historical fact of Southern India when Sanskrit and its offshoots were championed as the foremost literature languages. A lot of water has passed through the bridge between the 7th century CE and now. Sanskrit has lost its prime position as literature language and is replaced by Tamil language among the Tamillians. Then why some people are trying to impose the Sanskrit language upon the Tamillians when it is an alien language to the Tamils and it is not the mother tongue of Tamillians?

      Delete
    3. Foremostly sanskrit is not an alien language. Vaidika bhasha has also been coexisting with Tamizh
      Thiru gyana sambandhar Himself was born into a Brahmin family which you guys demonise.

      No one championed or imposed sanskrit here. These are your fanatical fantasies.

      Sanskrit has always been there.
      ' the Nayanmars opposed those who championed sanskrit '

      Kindly quote evidence : who championed sanskrit and which nayanmar went against it ?

      Delete
    4. ' incorporation of vaidika influence '

      Any evidence ?

      Remember that we are not morons to swallow any form of lie that you present bro.
      Hindus are awake now.

      Delete
    5. “ஆரியத்தொடு செந்தமிழ்ப்பய னறிகிலா”
      (3;39;4)

      என்று சமணர்களைப் பார்த்துக் கூறியதின் காரணமென்ன? அன்று அவர்கள் ஆரியமொழியை உயர்த்திப் பிடித்தனர். அதனால் தமிழும் ஆரியமொழிக்குச் சளைத்தல்ல என்று திருஞானசம்பந்தர் கூறினார்.

      இது தெரிந்தால் ஏன் சம்பந்தர் தமிழை வலிந்து போற்றினார் என்பது தெரியும்.



      Delete
    6. வேதமொ டாகமம் மெய்யாம் இறைவன்நூல்
      ஓதும் பொதுவும் சிறப்பும் என்றுள்ளன
      நாதன் உரைஅவை நாடில் இரண்டந்தம்
      பேதம தென்னில் பெரியோர்க் கபேதமே .
      (10;8;15)

      வேத நெறியினரும் சிவாகம நெறியினரும் வேதாந்த கோட்பாட்டையும் சித்தாந்த கோட்பாட்டையும் ஏற்காமல் பத்தாம் நூற்றாண்டு வரை ஒருவரோடு ஒருவர் மறுத்து வந்துள்ளதை அஷ்டபிரகண நூல்களும் மிருகேந்திர பவுட்கர உபாகமங்களும் தெள்ளத் தெளிவாகக் காட்டும்போது ஐந்தாம் நூற்றாண்டில் இயற்றப்பட்ட திருமந்திரத்தில் எங்ஙனம் மேற்கூறிய சமரசம் ஏற்பட்டிருக்க முடியும்? பத்தாம் நூற்றாண்டுக்குப் பிறகே இந்த பாடல் திருமந்திரத்தில் இடைச்சேர்க்கையாக சேர்க்கப்பட்டிருக்க வேண்டுமென்பது தங்களுக்கு விளங்கவில்லையென்றால் யார்தான் என்ன செய்ய முடியும்.

      காமிகாமத்தின்கண் வேத மந்திரங்கள் கீழ்த்தரமானவை என்று கூறும்போது மேற்கூறிய பாடலிலுள்ள கருத்து இடைச்சேர்க்கை என்று தெரியாது போனதின் காரணமென்ன?

      1.75-76

      My worship is of three kinds – the foremost, the medium and the lower. The worship performed with the recital of only those mantras which have been revealed in the Saivagamas is considered to be the foremost kind of worship. The worship performed with the recital of Agamic mantras and the Vedic mantras is of medium type. The worship performed with the recital of Veda mantras only is considered to be of lower kind.


      Delete
  15. ஐந்தாம் நூற்றாண்டில் எழுதப்பட்ட ஆகம நூலாகிய திருமந்திரத்தில் 'வேதத்தை விட்ட அறம் இல்லை' என்று திருமூலர் கூறியிருந்தால் அவர் வேதம் கூறும் உயிர்பலி யாகத்தையும் ஏற்றுக் கொண்டார் என ஆகும். உயிர்பலி யாகம் புனிதமானதென்று பாதராயனார் எழுதிய பிரம்ம சூத்திரமே சான்று கூறுகின்றது! அன்பே சிவம் என்னும் சிவாகமத்தில் உயிர்பலி யாகம் ஏற்கப்படவில்லையே. அவ்வாறாயின் திருமந்திரத்தில் காணப்படும் வேதத்தையொட்டிய இந்த பாடல் இடைச்செருகல் இல்லையா? கேழ்வரகில் நெய் வடிகிறதென்றால் கேட்பாருக்கு மதியில்லையா என கேட்கத்தோன்றுகிறது. சிவசிவ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i'm baffled that you actually don't know the meaning of aram in that thirumoolars song, well not that i know the meaning because i thought you are highly scholarly person based on the "evidences" you gave above. based on some other school of ideology you equated to the aram thirumoolar mentioned and stamped it as idaiserukkal? high time you read meikandar saathiram properly. aram is pothu sol and even how high a scholarly person find it difficult to write urai for thirumanthiram. you seem like demeaning arulnandi sivam who mentioned vedas and agamas as muthal nool by peruman in 8th nurpa sivagnana sithiyaar by equating it to different ideology.

      Delete
    2. Meikanda Sastras were given between 13th to 14th century. By then, the Saivite Tamils have succumbed to the pressure of Vaidika Brahmins. Hence, they choose to accept that the Vedas are general while the Agamas are special scriptures for Saivites. What is the meaning ascribed to that verse? When there are differences between the Vedantic and the Agamic theology, the Agamic theology shall prevail over and above Vedantice theology. That was the compromise set forth in the Meykanda Sastras. That was also reflected in the Sivanjana Yogi's explanatory notes in Sivanjaana Maha Bashiya. Look at the explanatory notes for 'Sirappup paayiram'. There, Sivanjaana Yogi also noted vaidikas vehemently opposed to the idol worship and cursed the Vaidika Brahmins for carrying on rituals in the agamic temples.

      Delete
    3. சிவசிவ

      சுழிந்தகங்கை தோய்ந்ததிங்கட் டொல்லராநல் லிதழி
      சழிந்தசென்னிச் சைவவேடந் தான்நினைந் தைம்புலனும்
      அழிந்தசிந்தை யந்தணாளர்க் கறம்பொருளின் பம்வீடு
      மொழிந்தவாயான் முக்கணாதி மேயதுமு துகுன்றே.
      (1;53;6)

      இப்பாடலில் சிவபெருமான் அறம், பொருள் இன்பம் வீடு ஆகிய நான்கு அற நூல்களையும் சனகாதி முனிவர்களுக்கு அருளினான் என்று புராணக்கூற்றைக் கொண்டு பாடினார் திருஞானசம்பந்தர். அவரே மற்றொரு பாடலில் வேதம் கூறும் அந்த நான்கு புருஷார்த்தங்களை ஓதி உணர்ந்த சனகாதி முனிவர்கள் சிவகதி அடைய இயலாது பல காலம் மந்தார மலையில் சிவனை நோக்கி தவமிருந்து சிவமுத்தி அடையவதற்கான வழியை உபதேசமாகப் பெற்றனர் என்னும் ஸ்ரீ ஸ்காந்த மகா புராணத்தின் கூற்றை பின்வரும் பாடலில் கூறினார்.

      நூலடைந்த கொள்கையாலே நுன்னடி கூடுதற்கு
      மாலடைந்த நால்வர்கேட்க நல்கிய நல்லறத்தை
      ஆலடைந்த நீழன்மேவி யருமறை சொன்னதென்னே
      சேலடைந்த தண்கழனிச் சேய்ஞலூர் மேயவனே
      (1;48;1)

      பொழிப்புரை

      “சேல் மீன்கள் நிறைந்த குளிர்ந்த வயல்களால் சூழப்பட்ட திருச்சேய்ஞலூரில் மேவிய இறைவனே! வேதம் முதலிய நூல்களில் விதிக்கப்பட்ட முறைகளினால் உன் திருவடிகளை அடைதற்கு முயன்றும் அஞ்ஞானம் நீங்காமையால் சனகாதி முனிவர்களாகிய நால்வர் உன்னை அடைந்து உண்மைப் பொருள் கேட்க, அவர்கள் தெளிவு பெறுமாறு கல்லால மர நிழலில் வீற்றிருந்து அருமறை நல்கிய நல்லறத்தை எவ்வாறு அவர்கட்கு உணர்த்தியருளினாய்? கூறுவாயாக.”

      அப்படியானால் வேதத்தில் கூறப்பட்ட நான்கு புருஷார்த்தங்களால் சிவகதி அடைய இயலாதென்று திருஞானசம்பந்தர் கூறியதை ஏன் ஏற்க மறுக்கின்றீர்கள்? தங்களின் கொள்கைகளுக்கு ஏற்றவாறு உண்மையைப் புறம் தள்ளுவதா தாங்கள் பின்பற்றும் அறநெறி? சிவசிவ

      Delete
    4. with due respect to mr kamalanathan you seem to be very selective in quoting maha bashya of sivagnana munivar if at all thats what munivar meant according to your comment. sivagnana munivar is a gnani and he comes from a respected lineage which i'm sure you are well aware. from your comments i wonder if you understand what are gnanis vaaku by saying compromise this that. you were arguing from "academic" point of view, have you considered looking into the angle of devotion to peruman? have you read sivapragasam verse 80 whereby gnanis are saakiraatheetham mevinar. do read with clear mind sivapragsam verse 31 too. when their arivu and seyal thiruarulai saarnthu, their words are not different from siva perumans. if you read throughout the sirappu paayiram of the paer urai he has mentioned " atharvasigai muthaliya upanidatham kurum porulgal sivaagama porulai nokkumvazhi suthiramum paadiyamum pola thoolarunthathi muraimaiyaam aagalin vetham pothu nool yenavum agamam sirappu nool yenavum kurapattana" further he goes on to give explanation for sivapragasam verse 7 and he says " iv unmai unarnthu kolla maattathaar upanidathangal ondru odu ondru muranum yenavum, upanidatham siva agamam tammul muranum yenavum, siva agamathullum ondru odu ondru muranum yenavum MAYANGI,ondran porule patri yennaivatrai igalvaar, thondruthottu varum kelviyaan anubavam udaiya thesigan thiruarul peraamaiyaan yenbathu" munivar also goes on to explain details in nurpa 1 of maapadiyam. like i have mentioned above you need His grace to understand thirumurai and saathiram as it is. i'm a maapadiyam student and i will only follow whats in the scriptures not my own views or academic dissection because i'm not above gnanis. hereafter i will stop my replies to you because its evident you only have one answer adulterated and compromise. time is limited as humans in this world, it will be only right to seek his Grace to get us out of this cycle of birth and death as we have anathi kutram in our arivu. the very reason i started to comment because i feel you are insulting the words of gnanis with your paasa gnanam intellect. to the blogger, sir, with due respect to you its not right to spew implications such as darma ayya is funded christian propaganda. He advocates love for siva peruman as the ultimate thing which is what sivagnanabotham preaches as ayara anbin aran kalal selumeh.

      Delete
    5. Mr Kamalanathan,
      1. “meikandar saathiram succumb to the pressure of vaidika Brahmins and chose to accept vedas pothu and sirappu”- I vehemently refute it based on gnani’s are sivaperuman no sweeping statements here based on some one sided reading that puts thirukailaya parampara as mere mortals like us. Gnanis are siva peruman please read thoroughly 10th nurpa maapadiyam. I hope you don’t deny the stature of meikandar as described in sirappu paayiram. You are trying to say meikandar succumb to the pressure is it? paranjothy munivar who gave upadesam to meikandar is mere mortals like us is it?
      2. “Compromise set forth if differences prevail and agamic theology to be looked at and told in maha bashiya” did you read the sirappu paayiram fully? in so many instances munivar quotes and gives kandanam to people who say vedas and agamas are muran/selective pramanam, one of which “vedatitkum sivaagamatitkum vetrumai kandilem”, sivalinga pusai, thiruneetru uthirakkam tarithal both is in veda and siva agama and since both karuta oruvaneh aagalaan porul ondreh for both. Please know the difference, Vedanta as in Upanishads and commentaries given for Upanishads called Vedanta too. I believe you would know the difference of pothu and sirappu if you read the sirappu paayiram maapadiyam(do read from thoola aruntathi nyayam explanation onwards) so please no sweeping statements or selective quotes. You accused the author for being selective ie kolgai yetravaaru etc, I actually gather that from you based on the sirappu paayiram maapadiyam metkols you gave.
      3. you quoted thirumurai 1.53.6 and 1.48.1 and the most baffling you mentioned skanda mahapurana, some people here don’t accept the authority of it. I ‘m reading kantha puranam by kachiappar sivachariyar, so I believe i can still quote based on verse 33 from it. Song 415 utpatthi kaandam meru padalam – gist being: makkal yentha thevargal vananginaalum av vanakkam yellam sivan thiruadiyil serum. not denying the agamas but reminder vedas from sivan. about your mandara malai statement, I read somewhere its mentioned in upapurana saura puranam chapter 45 or something. I haven’t read the skanda mahapuranam.

      Delete
  16. His daughter gave definition to "Kadhalagi Kasinthu kanneer malgi...Vetham naangilum meiporul aavathu" as something not related to the 4 Vedhas. She claims "Vetham naangilum..." refers to "Aram", "Porul", "Inbam" and "Veedu" as per Saiva tradition and are not the Rg. Yjr, Sama and Athrv Vedas. Be it so, that too are 4 purushartas of Dharma, Artha, Kama and Mokhsa which she clearly escaped from elaborating. There is video on this in YouTube Channel "SaivaPetagam"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes , darma's daughter actually ridiculed the sacred yajna as ' cute campfire' in her early videos in saiva pettagam.
      Darma's wife also makes videos to explain manusmriti to demean it. The irony - she has 0 knowledge on sanskrit.

      Delete
    2. If she has said so then what is wrong with that? The four purusharta dharmas which the Vedic smiriti said are based upon the rules enshrined in accordance with the four varnas of people while the Tamillians version four purushartas did not refer to the varnas as could be seen in Thirukkural. So there is a distinct difference between the four purushartas of vedic religionist and the Tamillian's tradition. Hence, she is correct in her stand.

      Delete
    3. The purusharta-s are found in the vedas ( shrutis ). The smritis are based on the vedas, not otherwise. In addition - the vedas are called apaurusheya ( not of human origin )
      Hence, the concept of purushartha-s are taken from the Vedas

      Delete
    4. சிவசிவ

      "சுழிந்தகங்கை தோய்ந்ததிங்கட் டொல்லராநல் லிதழி
      சழிந்தசென்னிச் சைவவேடந் தான்நினைந் தைம்புலனும்
      அழிந்தசிந்தை யந்தணாளர்க் கறம்பொருளின் பம்வீடு
      மொழிந்தவாயான் முக்கணாதி மேயதுமு துகுன்றே".
      (1;53;6)

      இப்பாடலில் சிவபெருமான் அறம், பொருள் இன்பம் வீடு ஆகிய நான்கு அற நூல்களையும் சனகாதி முனிவர்களுக்கு அருளினான் என்று புராணக்கூற்றைக் கொண்டு பாடினார் திருஞானசம்பந்தர். அவரே மற்றொரு பாடலில் வேதம் கூறும் அந்த நான்கு புருஷார்த்தங்களை ஓதி உணர்ந்த சனகாதி முனிவர்கள் சிவகதி அடைய இயலாது பல காலம் மந்தார மலையில் சிவனை நோக்கி தவமிருந்து சிவமுத்தி அடையவதற்கான வழியை உபதேசமாகப் பெற்றனர் என்னும் ஸ்ரீ ஸ்காந்த மகா புராணத்தின் கூற்றை பின்வரும் பாடலில் கூறினார்.

      "நூலடைந்த கொள்கையாலே நுன்னடி கூடுதற்கு
      மாலடைந்த நால்வர்கேட்க நல்கிய நல்லறத்தை
      ஆலடைந்த நீழன்மேவி யருமறை சொன்னதென்னே
      சேலடைந்த தண்கழனிச் சேய்ஞலூர் மேயவனே"
      (1;48;1)

      பொழிப்புரை

      “சேல் மீன்கள் நிறைந்த குளிர்ந்த வயல்களால் சூழப்பட்ட திருச்சேய்ஞலூரில் மேவிய இறைவனே! வேதம் முதலிய நூல்களில் விதிக்கப்பட்ட முறைகளினால் உன் திருவடிகளை அடைதற்கு முயன்றும் அஞ்ஞானம் நீங்காமையால் சனகாதி முனிவர்களாகிய நால்வர் உன்னை அடைந்து உண்மைப் பொருள் கேட்க, அவர்கள் தெளிவு பெறுமாறு கல்லால மர நிழலில் வீற்றிருந்து அருமறை நல்கிய நல்லறத்தை எவ்வாறு அவர்கட்கு உணர்த்தியருளினாய்? கூறுவாயாக.”

      அப்படியானால் வேதத்தில் கூறப்பட்ட நான்கு புருஷார்த்தங்களால் சிவகதி அடைய இயலாதென்று திருஞானசம்பந்தர் கூறியதை ஏன் ஏற்க மறுக்கின்றீர்கள்? தங்களின் கொள்கைகளுக்கு ஏற்றவாறு உண்மையைப் புறம் தள்ளுவதா தாங்கள் பின்பற்றும் அறநெறி? சிவசிவ

      Delete
    5. வேதம் அபௌருஷேயம் என்றால் அதனை சிவனே அருளினானென்று சிவாகம நெறியாளர்கள் கூறுவதின் காரணமென்ன?

      Delete
  17. Part One
    Tamil Answer to Saivam Movement - At: www.mayiliragu.com

    A very interesting debate, but from where is this debate starting from is the essence. The Tamil Aryan debate has been going on for a long time, and its CORE THEME is – “do the Tamils have, their own religious concept or not”. I would like to highlight the following for discussion, and an answer from the participants is appreciated.
    1. One must look at how one writes history. Today the Indus civilization has become the Saraswathi Civilization, not based on script writings, pottery, brick making, metallurgy, tradeable items, ship building, architecture, Yoga & Meditation or any other “ARCHAEOLOGICALLY DUG EVIDENCE”, but merely on a hypothesis of a lost river “Saraswathi” mentioned in the Rig Vedas. However, there is not a single full chapter in the Rig Vedas mentioning that the writers of the Rig Vedas had ANY of the above skills.

    2. As for dried rivers, one can obtains a list of dried-up rivers from Iran into Afghanistan, present day Pakistan, North and South India. SARASWATHI COULD BE ANY ONE OF THEM OR NONE OF THEM. To pinpoint “a died river at the Indus and to claim that as the Aryan Saraswathi” is beyond scientific comprehension. This is minus the above “archaeologically dug evidence.”

    3. To say that “PasuPathi, Yoga & Meditation and the Holy Ash” is Vedic in nature is also like the above. There is countless Sanskrit material to proof that the above are not Vedic in nature. Sanskrit authors have written many articles which are available to confirm and proof the above statement.

    4. On top of these, there are even more numerous Sanskrit materials that adulterate that “Siva is Rudra or Uma is related to Siva, just because Rudra is related to Uma. SUCH “GIBBERISH NOTION” IS NOT FOUND IN THE RIG VEDAS. One does not find the “SIVA (RUDRA) UMA association; the BRAHMA SARASWATHi association or the VISHNU LETCHUMI association in the Rig Vedas. THESE ARE FALSE TEACHING CREATED BY THE VEDIC TRADITIONS and are not of Tamil origin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. in the shiva upasana mantra of the yajur veda, Shiva and Rudra are seen as ONE.The verse ' umapataye' declares that He is the Lord of Uma.

      Stop making a joke out of yourself,please....

      Delete
  18. Part Two
    5. THEOLOGY AND HAGIOGRAPHY ARE TWO DIFFERENT BRANCHES. The Vedas and the Puranas depend on. Minus hagiography the Vedic (Hindu) Religion will die. The essence of Hinduism is hagiography and to request people of the 21st century to place their faith based on hagiography is just “Vedanta based political system, with blind faith (bhakti) teaching” and has nothing connected to intellectual disclosure.

    6. The worse part is the Vedic hagiography tradition is unable to “catalog the Puranas and their Upanishads in accordance with chronology by their published time frame”; but suggest ‘highly bombastic years reaching into a few hundred thousand of years. Absolutely ridiculous, but Hindus MUST accept these hagiography, without question.

    7. Even the concept of the VISHNU AVATARS IS NOTHING BY RANDOM HAGIOGRAPHY. There is not a single official instance where the present list is well defined in any of the 18 Puranas or Ithigasas. All are made up names REACHING ABOUT 40 AVATARS; some of which we cannot even trace where they are mentioned or the stories about them. The Vedic Hagiographers even go much to include Buddha of another religious concept as a Vishnu avatar. SUCH IS THE “FELONY” OF THE VEDIC TRADITION.
    8. When Veda Viasar (one who is assumed to have coined the Hindu theology) did not include any of the Siva based religions in these 6 ideologies. He only had Nyaya by Aksapada; Vaisheska by Kashyapa; Sankhya by Kabilar; Yoga of Patanjali, Mimamsa of Jaimini; and Vedanta by Viasar. Now where is SIVA THEOLOGY in any one of the above? This is proof to say that the SIVA THEOLOGY IS NOT PART OF THE VEDIC TRADITION AND IS NOT HINDUISM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you can talk anything you want sir- but these are speculations without evidence.
      For instance,the puranas clearly describe and mention all the vishnu avataras,but here you are crapping something else.

      I request you to realise the fact that hindus can no longer be fooled by your movement.

      People have access to knowledge and they won't but every lie you sell.

      Delete
  19. Part Three
    9. Of the above there are numerous instances where Sanskrit books and authors (including Panini) who have objected to the practice of Yoga Meditation and the us of the Holy Ash, as part of the Vedic tradition. Later books are written to modify to accept them as Vedic tradition.

    10. Also, MIMAMSA OF JAIMINI IS NOTHING ABOUT THEOLOGY. I am sure many have not even read the book of Mimamsa; but just “Cut & Paste” saying that it is theology. Hope someone here can PROOF ME WRONG BY JUST QUOTING THE REFERENCE OF ITS “THEOLOGY TEACHINGS” OF MIMAMSA. Only Kumarila Bhatta (around 690 ADE) tries to infuse a theology concept to it; but that is nearly 1,000 years after Jaimini compiled the Mimamsa treatise. Even that is quickly objected by many well-known Sanskrit scholars in the later years.

    11. Seer Adi Sankara (one who is assumed to have coined the Hindu religion (not theology) includes the Tamil based Siva & Murigan) in the six God list. The others are the Sun God (of the Yadavas); the Ganapathi of Maharashtra; and Sakthi (a mixture of the indigenous fertility goddess and to represent the female deities of the Rig Vedas) and finally the less known Vishnu of the Rig Vedas. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE INCLUSION OF THE MAIN 33 GODS OF THE RIG VEDAS. These great “teachers of the Hindu Dharma care to explain why?”

    12. The “Dakshinamurthy Stotram” (also attributed Seer Adi Sankara) informs and preaches that all the above are Vedic Theology. So where does the element of SIVA Theology come into play in Hinduism. SIVA IS PORTRAYED AS TEACHING VEDANTA in 750 ADE. Where is the logic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adi shankaracharya has given commentary on the upanishads which is inclusive of the rig vedic deities.

      Delete
  20. Part Four - Final

    One can go on and one but there is no end to this diverse discussion. Immediate retaliation is to brand “ANY TAMIL BASED RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT AS ATHEIST” but since they’re teaching “A RELIGIOUS CONCEPT” IT NOW TURNED AS “A CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT”.

    They fear the truth that the TAMIL SIVA THEOLOGY WAS NEVER A PART OF HINDUISM, even in the times of Veda Viasar or Adi Sunkara. They only considered the Tamil people as out castes, and it took more than one thousand five hundred years (1,500 years); from the APPAR Tamil Movement till the year 2021, to allow Tamil priest into temples. THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. NOT RELIGION AND NOT HINDUISM.

    THE UNDERLYING DISAGREEMENT IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF “TAMIL BASED RELIGIOUS THEOLOGY; TAMIL BASED WORSHIP IN TEMPLES AND TAMIL BASED TEMPLE PRIEST” MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLOURISH. THE HINDU BASED CASTE SYSTEM AND SANSKRIT MUST BE MAINTAINED ALL TIMES EVEN IN MALAYSIA.

    Rasainthiran Menayah
    Comments to:
    rasainthiran@sivaniam.net
    September 29, 2021

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read all four parts that you have posted.You have done nothing other than using bombastic vocabulary to speculate and demean the Vedas and throw random insults to the Vedic tradition which has nothing to do with this article.

      You are deviating from the fact that the Nayanmars supported and practiced the Vedic elements and even the work of Thirumoolar is rich in Vedic essence.

      You are trying hard to alienise brahmins and sanskrit without realising that the very nayanmars consisted of brahmanas.Thiru Gyaana sambandhar himself was a brahmana.He belonged to the Kaundiya gotra of the Brahmins.This is found in the thirumurai itself.

      You are bringing your extreme fanaticism and trying to lock Paramashiva within your limited logic - which will never work

      Lord Shiva is beyond the boundaries of language and caste.What you are trying to do is to destroy all agamic worship and to play politics using Tamizh - similar to the parties in Tamizh Nadu.

      Your fanaticism is nothing less than terrorism where you don't mind destroying others for the sake of promoting what you feel as belonging to you.

      The worst part is when you paint the colour of your fanaticism on Paramashiva.

      Once again, I will look at my Karikala Chola and Rudra Pashupati Nayanmar as ideals for what the Tamizhs stood for.Not random NGO-s and funded organisations who spread hatred in the name of Shaivam.

      Delete
    2. You have only denied what I have said, which is your right, but you have not proven me wrong. I still retain that "Hinduism" is nothing but pure hagiography and there is not an instance where Siva was officially a part of Hinduism. You have not proved it is NOT so. Please proof it.

      1. Vedas is a useless book. Repeat – VEDAS is a useless book for THEOLOGY. Provide me the Mandala and one FULL Chapter of intellectual substance and I will retract this statement. And all who accept the VEDAS were either DECEIVED or were PURE STUPID. This includes all the Nayanmars.

      2. Yes, my "fanaticism is nothing less than terrorism" against individuals who are going full throttle to ESTABLISH that, "Tamils are stupid and that they do not have a religion of their own". It is also against ALL VEDIC HINDUS who forced the destruction of ALL the SIVA BASED THEOLOGIES that were established way before APPAR was born.

      3. It will be easier for the VEDIC HINDUS to build temples for their " 33 VEDIC Gods" and do what they like and leave our indigenous GODS alone. That will solve everybody’s problem.

      4. SIVA is A Tamil God, and we can take care of it without your VEDAS and HINDUISM. You just take care of your 33 Gods, because they are the dead Gods of the Vedas.

      Rasainthiran Menayah
      September 30, 2021

      Delete
  21. This is exactly what Tirumular warned us about 3000 years ago. Tirumular's Tirumantiram will always remain as the prime reference for Saivism in Tamil. If at all any of you have doubts about Saivism, all you need to do is to refer back to the Tirumantiram. It is the ultimate guide book.

    "Those who did not get the concept of these two
    great scriptures hit the wall that they are different. But those who could see the complete picture and essence, the conclusions of both (Vedanta and Siddhanta) are the same."

    திருமூல நாயனார் அருளிய திருமந்திரம்
    எட்டாம் தந்திரம்
    ஆறந்தம்
    பத்தாம் திருமுறை

    திருச்சிற்றம்பலம்

    வேதமொடு ஆகமம் மெய்யாம் இறைவன் நூல்
    ஓதும் பொதுவும் சிறப்பும் என்றுள்ளன
    நாதன் உரையவை நாடில் இரண்டந்தம்
    பேதமதென்பர் பெரியோர்க்கு அபேதமே

    vedham and Agamam are the truthful Godly scriptures.
    They are there as general and special.
    When the conclusion of those two Lord's words
    are sought, some say 'they are different',
    but for elevated ones they are not different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vedas are apaurusheya, so says Mr. Vinnith Pullavarayar. Then why it should be said 'Vedham and Agamam are the truthful Godly scriptures'? Don't you see the contradiction in terms?

      Delete
    2. Because the Agamas are the application of the Vedas. They are not contradictory.
      Vedas are science and the Agamas are the technology which applies the science.

      Delete
    3. When did the notion that the Vedas as general and Agama as special came about when they opposed each other all the way.

      Delete
    4. Vinnith

      Even if Tirumular comes down and talks to him, he will still be in denial because he has ego issues. He tried saying something and the moment we showed prime source evidence to counter it, he simply cannot accept it.

      Delete
    5. Kamalanathan

      Even your question is absurd. I took the effort to show the exact verse from Tirumantiram and you can still ask a question like that? Don't you realise that you are making a mockery of your own intelligence?

      Delete
    6. When the Vedantic scholars said that Veda is apaurusheya, they said that the Agamanic njaana pada, which represents the theology of Saiva Siddhantam, delivered by Lord Siva (being a prusha) will vanish during the apocalypse. But the Vedas, being aparusheya will remain forever. This was refuted by Sivanjaana Yogi in Sivanjaana Maha Bashiya. There, he explained as to why the Vedantic and Siddhantic Theologies were delivered by Lord Siva separately to suite the knowledge of each recipients. Please read the Sivanjaana Maha Bashya's explanatory notes for 'Sirappup paayiram'. Then you will understand as to why I posed that question.

      Delete
    7. which vedantic scholar said this ? Do you have evidence ? Again,another concocted lie of yours...

      Delete
  22. Darma's daughter made fun of fire sacrifice and our dear Kamalanathan blindly supported but the Tirumantiram disagrees with them. Here is the evidence:

    அக்கினி காரியம்
    214.
    வசையில் விழுப்பொருள் வானும் நிலனும்
    திசையும் திசைபெறு தேவர் குழாமும்
    விசையும் பெருகிய வேத முதலாம்
    அசைவிலா அந்தணர் ஆகுதி வேட்கிலே. 1

    215.
    ஆகுதி வேட்கும் அருமறை அந்தணர்
    போகதி நாடிப் புறங்கொடுத்து உண்ணுவர்
    தாம்விதி வேண்டித் தலைப்படு மெய்ந்நெறி
    தாமறி வாலே தலைப்பட்ட வாறே. 2

    216.
    அணைதுணை அந்தணர் அங்கியுள் அங்கி
    அணைதுணை வைத்ததின் உட்பொரு ளான
    இணைதுணை யாமத்து இயங்கும் பொழுது
    துணையணை யாயதோர் தூய்நெறி யாமே. 3

    217.
    போதிரண் டோ திப் புரிந்தருள் செய்திட்டு
    மாதிரண் டாகி மகிழ்ந்துட னேநிற்குந்
    தாதிரண் டாகிய தண்ணம் பறவைகள்
    வேதிரண் டாகி வெறிக்கின்ற வாறே. 4

    218.
    நெய்நின்று எரியும் நெடுஞ்சுட ரேசென்று
    மைநின்று எரியும் வகையறி வார்க்கட்கு
    மைநின்று அவிழ்தரும் அத்தின மாம் என்றும்
    செய்நின்ற செல்வம் தீயது வாமே. 5

    219.
    பாழி அகலும் எரியும் திரிபோலிட்டு
    ஊழி அகலும் உறுவினை நோய்பல
    வாழிசெய்து அங்கி உதிக்க அவைவிழும்
    வீழிசெய்து அங்கி வினைசுடு மாமே. 6

    220.
    பெருஞ்செல்வம் கேடென்று முன்னே படைத்த
    வருஞ்செல்வம் தந்த தலைவனை நாடும்
    வருஞ்செல்வதது இன்பம் வரஇருந் தெண்ணி
    அருஞ்செல்வத்து ஆகுதி வேட்கநின் றாரே. 7

    221.
    ஒண்சுட ரானை உலப்பிலி நாதனை
    ஒண்சுட ராகிஎன் உள்ளத்து இருக்கின்ற
    கண்சுட ரோன் உலகு ஏழும் கடந்த அத்
    தண்சுடர் ஓமத் தலைவனு மாமே. 8

    222.
    ஓமத்துள் அங்கியின் உள்ளுளன் எம்மிறை
    ஈமத்துள் அங்கி இரதங்கொள் வானுளன்
    வேமத்துள் அங்கி விளைவு வினைக்கடல்
    கோமத்துள் அங்கி குரைகடல் தானே. 9

    223.
    அங்கி நிறுத்தும் அருந்தவர் ஆரணத்து
    தங்கி இருக்கும் வகையருள்செய்தவர்
    எங்கும் நிறுத்தி இளைப்பப் பெரும்பதி
    பொங்கி நிறுத்தும் புகழது வாமே. 10

    ReplyDelete
  23. English...

    11 RELATING TO SACRIFICIAL FIRE
    214: Prosperity Springs From Sacrifice
    Riches from obloquy free, the spreading sky and earth,
    The directions all, and the godly hosts who there hold sway,
    All flourish in Victory's wake when Brahmins true,
    With Vedas commencing, pursue the sacrificial way.
    215: They Give Before They Eat
    The Vedic Brahmins who holy sacrifices perform
    ,On Salvation intent, give before they eat;
    Even as in knowledge true, supreme they stand,
    So in conduct they lead--to the One Goal headed straight.
    216: Sacrifices Lead to Heaven
    They who invoke our Lord--the Fire within the Fire,
    The Brahmins true are they and our goodly support;
    Who, night and day, raise the Sacrificial flame
    Guiding us along the pure Path to our heavenly port.
    217: Karma's Depart When Mantras are Chanted
    Morn and eve, when in devotion rapt they chant,
    The two damsels (Gayatri and Savitri) with them in smiling grace stand;
    Then do the two birds of one seed sprung
    Karmas, good and bad, fluttering, in haste depart.
    218: Sacrificial Fires Consume Sins
    They who know in the sacrificial ghee's steady flame,
    All dark things are for ever consumed;
    They also know when from Karma's hold we're freed,
    That day is our day of abiding wealth,
    The holy Fire's truest meed.
    219: It Scorches Karmic Evils
    All sins fly like wick fast consumed in flame,
    All diseases fade that Karma brings in its wake;
    They fade and fall in the rising sacrificial fire.
    And all evils are scorched that our Karmas make.
    220: Sacrifices Give Wealth Imperishable
    Firmly holding that vast riches are a grievous curse,
    They hungered for the Lord who to us richest treasure gave;
    Hoping and dreaming they waited for the immortal prize,
    All sacrifices performed, the undying wealth to achieve.
    221: Lord is the Sacrificial Flame of the Heart
    The Pure Flame is He, the immortal Lord is He,
    The Radiant Flame who in my heart's core resides;
    The Lord whose eyes are the Three Fires,
    Who the Seven Worlds transcends,
    The Lord of Homa's Cool Flame, and my heart's King besides.
    222: He is the Fire Within All Fires
    Inside the Fire of the Homa is my Lord,
    Inside too is He seated in the flame of the funeral pyre;
    The Fire of Homa which scorches Karma's surging sea,
    The Fire, that the mighty Churner in the sea begot, still abides.
    223: Sacrificial Flame is Undying
    In true penance striving, to Vedic rites conforming
    They, who everywhere raise the sacrificial flame,
    Tireless, unsparing in kindling the Holy Fire--
    Theirs the true flame eternal, theirs the undying name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does the Vaidika sacrifices and the Siva Agama Sacrifices follows the same route?

      Delete
    2. Can you show anywhere in the quoted verses that sacrifice of animal is accepted in agamic rites? If none, then those verses does not subscribe to the sacrifice rituals mentioned in the Vedas.

      Delete
    3. The above is taken directly from the Tirumantiram. Word of Tirumular. if you are unable to accept the scripture, then the problem is not Tirumular or Tirumantiram, not the Vedas or Agamas, it is just you and your own ego.

      Delete
    4. The fire rituals which are stated in the present Thirumantiram are after the Vaidika Brahims forced through the Agamic worshippers to accept fire rituals when they don't perform the idol worship as it is considered to be of lower class. Hence, the present Siva temples are conducting two types of rituals for the attainment of salvation. Can you now connect the dots and see as to why our temples are practising idol worship in the temples and also the fire rituals outside of sanctum sanctorum. I know for a fact the true identity of Sembiyar.

      Delete
  24. The present day Thirumndram is an adulterated text which has incorporated the Vaidika Saiva principles along the way. Hence, it has to be distinguished by comparing with siva agamas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only counter you do is throw an accusation with no evidence to support it because you hit the brick wall and you are unable to move beyond it.it is becoming obvious. This is a symptom of schizophrenia. You imagine anything that does not fit your fairytale as "must have been altered".

      Delete
    2. Those who have studied the Agamamic principles from its original state and after the intrusion of Vaidika rituals knows very well that the present day Thirumandram is an adulterated text. We worship the Idol of God to attain salvation. Then why there should be another mode of prayer in the name of fire rituals? Don't you think that it is a duplication of rituals. The combination of Vaidika rituals with Agamic Idol worship can be clearly seen in Thirumandram. Hence, we know for certain that the Thirumandram of present day is no the original text. Use your sixth sense to understand the difference between those rituals for the same purpose!!!

      Delete
    3. As mentioned earlier, I think you have serious schizophrenia. You cannot accept when people show evidence to prove your statement as wrong. You then start hallucinating that someone must have done something to change because it does not fit your half baked theories :) Seek immediate medical attention. Your condition is quite worrying.

      Delete
    4. சிவசிவ


      பெற்றநல் ஆகமம் காரணம் காமிகம்
      உற்றநல் வீரம் உயர்சிந்தம் வாதுளம்
      மற்றவ் வியாமள மாகுங்கா லோத்தரம்
      துற்றநற் சுப்பிரம் சொல்லும் மகுடமே
      (10;1;3)

      குறிப்புரை:

      இத்திருமந்திரத்தின் மூன்றாம் அடி, `நாயனார் திருமொழியன்று` என்பது தெளிவாய்த் தெரிகின்றது. எவ்வாறெனில், `யாமளமாகும் காலோத்தரம்` என்பது பெரும்பான்மையும் ஒன்றாகவே கொள்ளத்தக்கதாய் உள்ளது. அவ்வாறு கொண்டால், ஒன்பது கூறவந்தவர் ஒன்றனை மறந்தார் ஆவர். `யாமளம், ஆகும் காலோத்தரம்` என இரண்டாகக் கொள்ளினும், யாமளம் சைவாகம மன்று; வாம தந்திரம். அது சைவத்திற்குப் புறம்பானது. `காலோத்தரம்` என்ற பெயரில் பல உள. ஒன்றேனும் மூலாகமம் அன்று. அதனால், வாம மதத்தினர் ஒருவர் தமது தந்திரத்தையும் திவ்வியாகமங்களில் ஒன்றாக்கிக்கொள்ள இத்திருமந்திரத்தைத் திரித்துவிட்டார் போலும்! அவ்விடத்தில் நாயனார் கூறிய இரு ஆகமங்கள் இவை என்பது அறியப்படாது போயினமை வருத்தத்திற்குரியது.


      இந்த குறிப்புரையை எழுதியவர் முதுமுனைவர் அருணை வடிவேல் அவர்கள் ஆவார். பத்தாம் திருமுறையின் உரையாசிரியர். அவரே திருமந்திரத்தில் எவ்வாறு இடைச்சேர்க்கை உள்ளது என்பதை ஆராய்ந்து கூறுயபோது அதனை மறுக்க தங்களிடம் என்ன ஆதாரம் உள்ளது.

      Delete
    5. Excuse me what refutation? You are in denial. It is more like you intentionally refuse to look at the verses we give you. Let me explain in point form what your problem is:

      1. You say A does not exist
      2. We show you A exist
      3. We show you the exact verse where A exist
      4. You then argue childishly by saying the verse is adulterated/edited/distorted etc

      You are having a mental bloc. That is what has been happening since morning. It is quite obvious you are suffering. That is why you go on in a loop repeating like a parrot although whatever you said has been debunked. The fire sacrifice/agni kariyam was a good example. You didn't expect me to provide the verses from Tirumantiram and the moment i did, you come up with your usual lie "this is adulterated, this is not the original verse, Brahmins imposed their Vaidikam on us" etc etc

      You are hallucinating :)

      Delete
    6. Yes this is indeed something to consider.Kamalanathan exhibits signs of psychosis.His delusional disorder makes me consider schizhophrenia as a differential diagnosis...

      Ayya Kamalanathan,have you been chasing the dragon lately ?

      Delete
  25. Shameful. Soriyar's ideology senms to have spread its ugly tentacles here too. I've noticed that many Tamil/Hindu/Indian organizations/associations in MY espouse Soriyar/dravida ideology. Their offices are often packed with books about soriyar/dravidam & saivism (as apart from vedic Sanathana rituals/beliefs)
    I'm not a vedic scholar in any way or form,I don't know anything about vedas/agamas. But what I DO know is that my ancestors worshipped murthis, went to temples, participated in vedic rituals & DEFINITELY performed homa rituals.
    So whatever these saivite "scholars" say, I WILL continue worshiping in the same manner my ancestors did. Anyone who says I'm wrong can shove it.
    This anti-brahmin narrative & caste issues, which seem to have made their way across the ocean, have to be nipped in the bud. As it is, Indians in MY are only a handful. There's no need to divide us further, for the sake of a few rice bags.
    If this soriyar/dravida group doesn't believe in murthi worship, that's fine. You do you. But DON'T tell the rest of us what to believe or not to believe. And DON'T denigrate our beliefs. That's NOT what Sanathana is. Only Abrahamic religions claim exclusivity. Sanathana Dharma is inclusive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These people are funded by the draviDa groups in India..

      Delete
  26. Why not get Darmalingam ayya and Nagappan ayya to give you a piece of their mind. Instead of arguing on their behalf, they can do it. If you feel they are diverting the Hindus, go right out and ask them. Via zoom is good. You up to it?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I am sure both of them will be glad to do so. Then you will know how knowledgeable they are. Not only that, they live for saivam. Nothing is more important to them than educating everyone. Great souls they are. If you have enough punniyam, maybe you will get to know them like we did. Please invite them for the talk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whether they live for saivam or asaivam is none of my business.Whoever they are,they have no rights to insult the vedic tradition.

      you are talking like they are the next nayanmars - 'having enough punniyam' to meet them.. what do you smoke dude ?

      Delete
    2. The refutation of Vedic theology which is called Vedanta has been going on for the last 15th centuries. Thirumoolar, Thirunjanasambanthar, Appar, Sundramurthi Nayanar and Manickavasagar together with many other Saivite Njaanis have disagreed and refuted the Vedantic theology. So, no one can impose the Vedanta theology upon the Saivites. The Saivites are not bound by the Vendatha theology.

      Delete
    3. 'The Saivites are not bound by the vedanta theology'

      Tirumoolar acknowledges Vedanta in Thirumantiram :

      0054 :

      திருநெறி யாவது சித்தசித் தன்றிப்
      பெருநெறி யாய பிரானை நினைந்து
      குருநெறி யாம்சிவ மாம்நெறி கூடும்
      ஒருநெறி ஒன்றாக வேதாந்தம் ஓதுமே.

      Meaning of last verse :

      They reach the path of Shiva - as the Vedanta commands.

      You are clearly insulting Thirumoolar and Shaivism with your fanaticism.I will ban you from this forum if you come up with another stupid speculation on how the tirumantiram has been edited by the Brahmanas..because you are using that as a spam response for any explanation we demand from you.

      Delete
    4. mr kamalanathan, you speak for yourself you have no authority to speak for other saivites. let me put this, if you are true practicing saivite you will understand peruman is the very reason behind all school of thoughts as illustrated in 8th nurpa sithiyaar.


      1-108-1
      வேத வேள்வியை நிந்தனை செய்துழல்
      ஆத மில்லியமணொடு தேரரை
      வாதில் வென்றழிக் கத்திரு வுள்ளமே
      பாதி மாதுட னாய பரமனே
      ஞால நின்புக ழேமிக வேண்டுந்தென்
      ஆல வாயி லுறையுமெம் மாதியே.
      1-108-2
      வைதி கத்தின் வழியொழு காதவக்
      கைத வம்முடைக் காரமண் தேரரை
      எய்தி வாதுசெ யத்திரு வுள்ளமே
      மைதி கழ்தரு மாமணி கண்டனே
      ஞால நின்புக ழேமிக வேண்டுந்தென்
      ஆல வாயி லுறையுமெம் மாதியே
      1-56-2
      சடையினன் சாமவேதன் சரி கோவண வன்மழுவாட்
      படையினன் பாய்புலித்தோ லுடை யான்மறை பல்கலைநூல்
      உடையவ னூனமில்லி யுட னாயுமை நங்கையென்னும்
      பெடையொடும் பேணுமிடம் பிர மாபுரம் பேணுமினே.
      1-58-6
      வேதமாய் வேள்வியாகி விளங் கும்பொருள் வீடதாகிச்
      சோதியாய் மங்கைபாகந் நிலை தான்சொல்ல லாவதொன்றே
      சாதியான் மிக்கசீராற் றகு வார்தொழுஞ் சாத்தமங்கை
      ஆதியாய் நின்றபெம்மா னய வந்தி யமர்ந்தவனே.
      1-65-9
      அங்கமாறும் வேதநான்கு மோதுமய னெடுமால்
      தங்கணாலு நேடநின்ற சங்கரன் றங்குமிடம்
      வங்கமாரு முத்தமிப்பி வார்கட லூடலைப்பப்
      பங்கமில்லார் பயில்புகாரிற் பல்லவ னீச்சரமே.
      1-64-9
      பொய்யாவேத நாவினானும் பூமகள் காதலனும்
      கையாற்றொழுது கழல்கள்போற்றக் கனலெரி யானவனூர்
      மையார்பொழிலின் வண்டுபாட வைகைமணி கொழித்துச்
      செய்யார்கமலந் தேனரும்புந் தென்றிருப் பூவணமே.

      12-54-5
      சைவநெறி வைதிகத்தின்
      தருமநெறி யொடுந்தழைப்ப
      மைவளருந் திருமிடற்றார்
      மன்னியகோ யில்களெங்கும்
      மெய்வழிபாட்டு அர்ச்சனைகள்
      விதிவழிமேன் மேல்விளங்க
      மொய்வளர்வண் புகழ்பெருக
      முறைபுரியும் அந்நாளில்

      thirugnanasambandhar also mentioned that these schools of thoughts created by peruman.

      1-36-10
      துணைநன் மலர்தூய்த் தொழுந்தொண் டர்கள்சொல்லீர்
      பணைமென் முலைப்பார்ப் பதியோ டுடனாகி
      இணையில் லிரும்பூ ளையிடங் கொண்டவீசன்
      அணைவில் சமண்சாக் கியமாக் கியவாறே

      mr kamalanathan, tamil language is revered and i firmly believe thirumurais are manthras and so please dont spoil the sanctity of these by appearing to be giving selective metkols and trying to speak for gnanis without reading properly, this will give a wrong implication to people. thirugnanasambandhar hailed the tamil language and at the same time he didnt allow others to preach falsehood as i have given metkol above, at least this is what i gather from my sitruarivu.who am i even to give metkols from thirugnanasambandhar song but i had to because you commented haphazardly as if speaking for all saivites and dragged gnanis in sweeping statement.

      Delete
    5. Your failure to look at the development of Agamic Saivism, particularly its theology in Southern India in relation to the Vedantic theology shows your shallow knowledge of Saivism.

      Mrgendra Agama refutes the Vedanta theology as shown in my posting on 26-9-2021 @ 19:21. You have not accepted the Agamic authority. So where do you stand? Are you a Saivite in first place? If not, why are you passing disparaging remarks about Mr. Dhamalingam and Dr. Nagappan when they are repeating what was said in the Siddhanta Saivism.

      The Pauskara Agama states that the Vedas only explains the bondage of souls up to the 24 Atma Tattvas as expounded in the Vedanta theology while the Siva Agamas showed the path to final liberation with 36 tattvas which includes the pure maya tattvas and its purposes. Hence, the soul could not attain the final liberation without reaching the pure maya tattvas where Lord Siva pervades as pati. It was explained so in the Pauskara Agama – Njaana Pada: Revelation of the Agamas: verse 68 & 69 as follows:

      “Although the Vedas and others constitute another path, the initial part of the Vedas and those Scriptures composed by Brahma, Vishnu and others propose the goals which constitute the bondage of the individual soul. This is because they have prevalence only up to the categories (tattvas) admitted therein. The path of final liberation, however, lies beyond the enjoyment of heavenly pleasures and such other enjoyments.”

      The above is the explanation of Siddhanta Saivism in relation to final liberation of soul.

      திருநெறி யாவது சித்தசித் தன்றிப்
      பெருநெறி யாய பிரானை நினைந்து
      குருநெறி யாஞ்சிவ மாநெறி கூடும்
      ஒருநெறி ஒன்றாக வேதாந்தம் ஓதுமே
      (10;1 – வேதச் சிறப்பு – 4)

      The meaning of the above verse:

      `வீட்டு நெறியாவது, ஞானாசிரியன்வழி உளதாவதாய், சித்தும், அசித்தமாய் இருதிறப்பட்டு நிற்கும் உலகத்தை நினையாமல், “அவை அனைத்தையும் கடந்து நிற்கும் சிவபெருமான் ஒருவனையே நினைந்து அவனாந் தன்மையைப் பெறுகின்ற ஒரு நெறியே” என வேத முடிவு ஒருதலையாக அறுதியிட்டுக் கூறும்.

      The explanatory Note:

      ‘அதனால், வேதத்தைச் செய்தவன் சிவபெருமானே’என்பது குறிப்பெச்சம்.

      You have been saying that the Vedas are apaurusheya meaning it is NOT the words of human or prusha.

      Then why you are relying upon the abovesaid verse in Thirumantiram which is against your point of view? Now, do you see who is hypocrite in this instance?

      That is why I am saying the Thirumantiram text of present day has been adulterated after the Vaidika Saivism penetrated the Agamic Saivism in Tamil Nadu.

      Do you accept the Vedas as ‘apaurusheya’ or pronounced by Lord Siva?


      Delete
    6. Mr. Vinnith, your are blocking my replies and letting others to post their comments. As you are biased in your action, there is no point posting any further comments.

      Delete
    7. Hi,I am not blocking your comments unless they are spams.. I only blocked your comment in which you kept referring the thirumurai as an adulterated scripture..

      Delete
    8. Mr kamalanathan,
      1. “your failure to look at development aagamic saivism vs vedanthic theology” I think you don’t understand that schools of thoughts developed based on what the saints “derive” from the maha vaakiya of the Upanishads. even in aga samayam you see the differences.
      வேதநூல் சைவநூலென் றிரண்டே நூல்கள்
      வேறுரைக்கும் நூலிவற்றின் விரிந்த நூல்கள்
      ஆதிநூல் அநாதிஅம லன்தருநூ லிரண்டும்
      ஆரணநூல் பொதுசைவம் அருஞ்சிறப்பு நூலாம்
      நீதியினால் உலகர்க்கும் சத்திநிபா தர்க்கும்
      நிகழ்த்தியது நீள்மறையி னொழிபொருள்வே தாந்தத்
      தீதில்பொருள் கொண்டுரைக்கும் நூல்சைவம் பிறநூல்
      திகழ்பூர்வம் சிவாகமங்கள் சித்தாந்த மாகும்
      vedas for ulagathaar and agamas are for sathinipathars, sathinipathars mind you which means anubava paguthi deemed for katra kelvi vallaargal like sanagathi munivargal. you inferred they seek siva peruman due to “realizing” the vedas don’t give sivagathi. say what read sithiyaar song 267 (above) munivars urai then you will understand that siva agamas explains in detail what the vedas say ie soothiram and bashyam pol. selective understanding again. no doubt siva agamam sidantham aagum but read properly and understand munivars urai for it. I hope you don’t tell me you are sathinipathar. I’m for sure not one.

      2. “mrgendra agamas refutes the vedantha theology”: there again you don’t understand between Upanishads and commentary on the Upanishad. selective quotes and sweeping statement again. do look into mrgendra agama vidya pada intro chapters at least who is the principal lord in the vedas. don’t give me the yarn Rudra mentioned there is not peruman, we are talking about the mrgendra agama quoting it since you quoted mrgendra agama why want to be selective.

      3. did the author say he didn’t accept the agamic authority? if I’m not mistaken he clearly told you vedas is science and its application is agamam.
      4. now are you a saivite in first place for being selective with your quotes by disregarding siva peruman?

      Delete
  28. my only request to ayya darmalingam and dr nagappan..
    Indians in Malaysia are already minority.. do u think it is wise to create further division in us ?
    tamilan ah valvom ya.. dun use tamil to destroy tamilan.this is my humbly request

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Meykandar Sastras and Sivagnanabotham were written about 1,500 years after Tirumantiram. Tirumular's Tirumantiram is a prime source of Tamil Saivism because it is part of the Tirumurai. Meykandar's works are secondary source and it is not part of Tirumurai. Tirumular is a Nayanmar and a Siddha, Meykandar is not.

    The Tirumantiram is not just the oldest available Tamil scripture for Saivism, it is also the most authoritative. As such, Meykandar Sastras or later day work cannot be used as a yardstick when defining Saivism from the Tamil perspective. You still have to refer back to the Tirumurai especially the Tirumantiram.

    The problem with many present day Tamil Saivas is that they read a few lines of Meykandar's work, memorise few Thevaram songs and think they know everything about Saivism. They listen blindly to certain NGOs without cross checking with the contents of Tirumurai or even the Tirumantiram in particular. These NGOs are often headed by individuals with ulterior motives and they are not from any legitimate Guru parampara of Saivism.

    Saivas should also read the publications of established Saiva adheenams such as Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam or Dharumapuram Adheenam as they are from legitimate parampara.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sir with due respect, please respect the sentiments of saivites who hail meikandar as sivan himself. do not dissect academically or put some history stamp just trying to prove a point to the NGOs on what is tamil saivism. I believe you are also trying to stress the point not to hurt other people’s practises so I believe you will be tactful in what you are addressing too. gnanis are above time and human intellect so please do not "brandish" meikandar that he is not a nayanmar and sidha. you mentioned about guruparampara, so below is quoted in munnurai by the then kumaraswami tampiran of dharmapuram aadhinaem in 2008 during a book release.
      வேதம் பசு; அதன்பால் மெய் ஆகமம்; நால்வர்
      ஓதும் தமிழ் அதனின் உள்ளுறு நெய் - போதம்மிகு
      நெய்யின் உருசுவையால் நீள்வெண்ணெய்
      மெய்கண்டான் செய்த தமிழ் நூலின் திறம்.

      Delete
    2. Dear Shanti, Good morning to you

      With due respect, I am not putting down Meykandar. In fact I admire him alot. However, my argument was based on the Thirumurai and as we all know, Meykandar is neither a Nayanmar nor a Siddhar. His works are great but not part of the Thirumurai. Therefore, when we quote the Thirumurai we should give our points based on that alone. I believe that is what the author of this blog tried to highlight as he was only referring to Nayanmars and the Thirumurai. But some deviated in their comments by referring to works of non-Nayanmars. Thank you.

      Delete
    3. i was under the impression the author was referring to the saiva sidantha movement in malaysia esp with the "lets look at shaiva sidantham itself" he started off with that and he quoted sangam lit too. saiva sidantham is the tatuvam or philosophical aspect of the saiva samayam, 12 thirumurai and 14 meikandar saathiram are the tenets so you cannot eliminate or i would say cut off one from another conveniently even for argument or point sake. no authority to do so in fact as the aadhinaems are torch bearers. you need the philosophy to understand whats written in thirumurai. the tamil movement cut off the vedic aspect and you cut off meikandar from thirumurai under the pretext he is not nayanmar nor sidhar just as selective as everyone else but rather quote under the pretext of Shaiva Sidantham.

      Delete
    4. Not cutting off Shanti but getting everyone to focus on the crux of the matter. The whole purpose of the article was to highlight the alienation of Sanskrit and Vedic tradition by certain groups with vested interest. When reference from Tirumurai were given, the members of the concerned group were trying to divert the topic by ignoring reference from Tirumurai. That's all.

      Delete
  31. I find these comments or intellectual discourse very intense and enriching. However, statements by Sembiyar 28th September 2021 at 00:53 are totally uncalled for and total disrespect to someone whom you don't share your values or different in opinions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a very biased opinion.Sembiyar is only responding ( with valid evidences ) to a cult organisation under the banner of 'saiva siddhantam' which is spreading hatred towards a particular caste,clan and language.

      Darmalingam and his supporters are the ones who are willing to sabotage the thirumurai and brand is as 'adulterated' just because it doesn't agree to their views.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Dr vinnith, darma ayya has got the title thirumurai chemmal he will not demean the thirumurais as adulterated. I have not heard him say so. Mr kamalanathan appears to be in support of darma ayya from the comments above but i believe he might belong to a teacher who believe thirumurais are adulterated or it might be from his reading somewhere. true saivites in general will fear to put stamp or brandish their scriptures because gnanis are siva peruman himself and it will be an act of aanavam too.

      Delete
  32. A very intense debate indeed.As a neutral observer,being an agnostic atheist myself,I would like to give my views

    (1) The article is written with clear bullet strong prove
    (2) While the Tamizh favouring saiva people write lengthy explanations,none of them have debunked any of the points other than the possibility of christian inculturation of the respectable author.

    I agree that respectable Mr.Kamalanathan has great knowledge but none of them can actually prove the points in the article wrong.When cornered,Mr kamalanathan desperately strikes with statements like 'adulteration' which is a clear sign of defeat which I agree.

    Mr Kamalanathan and his fellow team-mates only try to divert the attention of audience away from the main points presented in the article with lengthy words which are not related to the article.


    ReplyDelete
  33. மலேசியாவிலிருக்கும் இந்த நாகப்பன் மற்றும் அவரது சீடர்கள், இதுபோல உளருவதே வழக்கம். ஏற்கனவே டெலிகிராம் குழுவிலிருந்து இதுபோல உளறியதற்கும்அவதூறாக பேசியதற்கும் நீக்கப்பட்டார். பிறகு இவரிடமிருந்து பண உதவி பொருளுதவி பெற்றவர் தமிழகத்தில் நடத்தும் வாட்சப் குழுவில் இவரின் உளரல்களை கேள்விகேட்ட எம்போன்றவர்களை விலக்கி விட்டார்.
    உளருவார்களிடம் பேசினால் அவர் திருந்தப்போவதுமில்லை.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well said ayya but i feel its because we have been quiet and go about practising our spiritual path people taken the opportunity to belittle it. the issue here from what i see is love for mother tongue has taken centre stage rather than whats actually in the scriptures. no harm in loving the mother tongue esp tamil as we know how great of a language it is and deva tanmai it has as peruman gave 12 and 14 scriptures for us to understand but at the same time we must not be blind sided to whats actually in the scriptures and blindly quote to suit our emotions/"ideals". i do not support sanskrit supremacist neither tamil supremacist as their views will be one sided. oppression is all over even gnanis faced it but they stood by the words of god and chose not to taint it and spoke the TRUTH. its in every individual to do a proper research in what path they want to follow rather than being a herd on emotional grounds. if we are well read no one can bully us.

      Delete