There are two views with regard to this particular volume. One is that Vaḷḷuvar gives expression to purely Tamiḻ aspect of Kāma. According to this the whole can be conveniently divided into Kaḷaviyal and Kaṟpiyal, and these again are based on the five Tiṇais peculiar to the Tamiḻs. But the celebrated commentator of the Kuṟaḷ would again find correspondences between this treatment of the subject and that in Sanskrit literature. According to that authority Kaḷaviyal and Kaṟpiyal correspond to the samyoga and vipralambha of the Kāmasūtra treatises. In the Kaḷaviyal section again Parimēlaḻakar would find corresponding terms for the different incidents like selavu ? (Sanskrit - pravāsa, āṟṟāmai (Sanskrit — viraga) viṭuppu (Sanskrit — ayogam), and pulavi (Sanskrit, — mānam). The Sanskritists add the fifth incident sapa ?. As this is quite uncommon, says the commentator, Vaḷḷuvar did not include it in his treatment of the subject. While the chapter (116) pirivāṟāmai is devoted to selavu ?, the chapters (117-26) deal with the āṟṟāmai, viṭuppu is dealt with in three chapters (127-9), while the last four chapters (130-33) are devoted to the incident of pulavi.
