Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 1725262728 LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 279

Thread: Is tamil derived from Sanskrit

  1. #261
    Senior Member Seasoned Hubber
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    My
    Posts
    1,789
    Post Thanks / Like

    // the Clear Conclusion is that They are parts of Rig Group of Vedas, and NachinarKiniyars Comment was made to show Tholkappiyar as Older, on a biased note.//
    Why should Nachinaarkiniyar be biased? Clearly materials available to him are no longer available to us as many Tamil works of his time are now lost. What personal benefit did he get by saying that Tolkaappiyam was older? What is meant by you by saying "Rig Group of Vedas" ? Where do these terms appear in the Rig Veda: "Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam"? Where did PaavaaNar express this conclusion? It is clear that they were Tamil Vedas. Why would Tamil works refer to Arya Vedas?


    //Now on Tholkappiyams dating. Paavnar first dated to 2000BCE and later brought down to 650 BCE. Much Widely Accepted Scholars such as L.Rasamanickanar and Tho.Po.Mi. said older of Sangam Collecctions and datings were around 200-300BCE.
    Presently we have much Objective Research and Various Datas to conclude.//
    On what basis are you saying PaavaaNar revised his Tolkaappiyam dating? Pl give us the citations, name of books, page numbers and dates of publication.
    Who is L Raasamaanickanaar? (Is the initial correct?) What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Why do you say "much objective research"? Why "much objective?"

    // his son was Nediyon. As per Aham 116 this Nediyon was called Nilantharu Thiruvin Nediyon.//
    What is the point that you are making?

    // from end of Ist Cen.BCE, only from then on referring of MuVenthar starts and Tholkaapiyar says that once.//
    What evidence do you have to say this?

    //1. Late 3rd Cen. 100 BCE, BT brahmi Tamil
    So 50-100CE, must be the earliest of the dating for Tholkappiyam.//
    No basis for this opinion!!

    //As for as God name Shiva- we do not have Once Even in Sangam to Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai. And most of the time Sangam refers to Shiva- it is always as Veda Giver.//
    You are contradicting!
    Not all Sangam works and those written by individual authors of that period have been found. Many have been lost or destroyed. If a word is not found in Sangam works, it is not a basis for concluding it is not a Tamil word. The root of Sivam is Sivaththal; it is a Tamil word. The Vedics hated Siva and Linga worship.

    // As for as books you referred were written when Indus Saraswathi river Civilisation remains were just been found and Misinterpreted as proofs of Aryan attacks on Dravidians are proved and today no Scholar of any Repute agree those.
    To say Saraswathi valley proves Dravidian is far fetched and no basis as it stands today. I give a latest Opinion.//
    The cited opinions do not necessarily depend on Aryan Invasion Theory. The theory is denied by some historians only because there was no evidence of any invasion in the M& H scenes. The cited opinions stand whether or not there was any invasion anywhere.

    // He suggests that the weight of evidence is against it and that it should no longer be regarded as the main model of interpreting ancient India.//
    What is the evidence and what weight are you talking about?

    // the dating of the Vedic age ........................ of India has been shaken.//
    The arya vedas are not as old as they made them out to be. That I agree.


    // "The certainty seems to be growing that the Indus civilization was carried by the Vedic Indians, who were not invaders from Southern Russia but indigenous for an unknown period of time in the lower Central Himalayan regions."//
    This conflicts with the DNA results now known and your summing is not worth our time. People with Indo-European male lineage blood picture have been found mixed with certain groups of Indian population. See the other threads in history section where this was discussed.

    //The roots of the Words- Shiva are Purely Sanskrit Origin is accepted by Cambridge University Scholars, and the name appears in Rig and Samhitas and some of this has been given in Saiva Thread in History Section.//
    Replies have also been given ad nauseam. You keep repeating.

    // SivaLinga worship is never seen in any of Tamil Lit. of Sangam to Manimekhalai.//
    I remember the word "kanthazi". What is it?


    //. Where as we see Stone buildings from Asoka days itself in North.//
    What buildings and where?

    // sa cannot be start of words //
    Only sow!! I have answered this before.


    //India has One tradition that is Indic.//
    Your Wishful Thinking and history revisionism is driven by your own indic ideology.

    B.I. Sivamaalaa (Ms)

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #262
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber devapriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    350
    Post Thanks / Like

    THOLKAPPIAYAM DATING

    Dear Friends,

    Bismala tries to run away when proper references given.

    Just go through the Web site of NVK Ashraff, who dates Sangam and Tirukural, his collection on Tholkappiyam dating is based on Tho.po.mi, L.Rassaa etc., But the current level of Scholarship is not taken.


    Bismala run away from Kural DATING. On Sa word starting I have replied from Kural Proofs, which just have 3 Kurals with Sa.

    Why is Sivalingam absent from Sangam and name Shiva is absent.

    Stop quoting 50 year old misinterpretations.

    Devapriya.

  4. #263
    Senior Member Veteran Hubber thamizhvaanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    chennai
    Posts
    2,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    devapriya, just answer the logical queries than bismala has raised!!!
    A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere.

  5. #264
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber devapriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sanskrit and Tamil

    Dear Friends,
    Mala asks
    //On what basis are you saying PaavaaNar revised his Tolkaappiyam dating? Pl give us the citations, name of books, page numbers and dates of publication.
    Who is L Raasamaanickanaar? (Is the initial correct?) What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Why do you say "much objective research"? Why "much objective?"//

    I am sorry that you want me to repeat after APPROPRIATE REPLIES TO YOUR LIES, given in respective Threads- You repeat them in another thread to show your Position is totally without Proofs. L Raasamaanickanaar- is of same status as Mu.Va and Tho.po.Mi, on those days and Author of many Tamil Historical books.

    //Why should Nachinaarkiniyar be biased? Clearly materials available to him are no longer available to us as many Tamil works of his time are now lost. What personal benefit did he get by saying that Tolkaappiyam was older? What is meant by you by saying "Rig Group of Vedas" ? Where do these terms appear in the Rig Veda: "Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam"? Where did PaavaaNar express this conclusion? It is clear that they were Tamil Vedas. Why would Tamil works refer to Arya Vedas?//
    You Live in an ARTIFICIAL FALSE ISLAND- There is no such Aryans or Dravidian only Indic- and that Sangam Period Tamil was Proud for:

    Ţ 󧾡 Ţ
    Ţ Ţ
    ¢ Ƣ Ĩ,
    šƢ ﺢ Ƣ
    Ƣ¢ ơ, ¢. , this is a Song from Paripadal and Paripadal song -3 says Lord Vishnu as
    ž ھĢ Ǣ

    Every Branch of Vedas are listed and they have been analysed my many who do not believe in it. And when Saamam is Samavedam listed by Nachinarkiniyar in 13th Cen. As an earlier Collection, it is part of Standard Collection of Vedas, as the Sangam Song says, the others are parts of Vedas and Pavanar Collected and verified and confirmed this as follows.

    Now on Pavanr dating the name of the book and page verses have been given in the past. For to make it up to date, Dr.Mathivanan- famaous for 3rd rate Forgery of reading the Right-to-Left written Indus Saraswathi Scripts in the Opposite Direction Left-to-Right, in his frist book on this subject (1991) announcing the decipherment, authored jointly by Mathivanan and M. Ramachandran (a retired Chief Engineer of the Indian Railways)dates The Mythological Kumari Kandam Floods to 16000BCE and Tholkappiyam dated to 700-600BCE.


    Quote:
    // from end of Ist Cen.BCE, only from then on referring of MuVenthar starts and Tholkaapiyar says that once.//

    What evidence do you have to say this? Please Collect all Songs of Sangam and work on it. As per Sangam Collection Pandias are the Aliens who after loosing their LAND in Flood came to Tamilnadu (might be some small Island like Lakshdeep). The Oldest of the Pandiyas was BoothaPandiya, who did not rule from Koodal(Madural).
    His own songs say that He was a small ruler, and his son Nediyon got over Koodal, and slowly Consolidated over the Generation. Thalayanang Kanathu Chery Vendra Pandiyan Period is what Panidyas became Powerful, and he can be dated to 1St Cen. BCE. Now look at Asoka Mysore(BCE 240) Scripts- He refers Chora, Keraloputra, Sathiyaputra and Pandya- that is FOUR Rulers are equal. Athiaman tribe lost over the next 150 -200years, and Poetic Tradition of saying Muventar starts some time afer than that i.e., Close to Common Era or say 25BCE.

    Quote:
    //1. Late 3rd Cen. 100 BCE, BT brahmi Tamil So 50-100CE, must be the earliest of the dating for Tholkappiyam.//
    And further my above points confirm this conclusion.
    Quote:
    //As for as God name Shiva- we do not have Once Even in Sangam to Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai. And most of the time Sangam refers to Shiva- it is always as Veda Giver.//

    //You are contradicting!
    Not all Sangam works and those written by individual authors of that period have been found. Many have been lost or destroyed. If a word is not found in Sangam works, it is not a basis for concluding it is not a Tamil word. The root of Sivam is Sivaththal; it is a Tamil word. The Vedics hated Siva and Linga worship.//

    It is your Misconception based on False interpretations and I have given you the actual position in Saiva and Arab Threads. So Please do not Bluff based on 3rd rate 80 year old falsehoods.

    Quote:
    // the dating of the Vedic age ........................ of India has been shaken.//
    The arya vedas are not as old as they made them out to be. That I agree.//
    AGAIN you stand against SCIENCE. The Entire Root of SARASVATHI River has been Mapped and it dried by 1900 BCE and drying Process started by 2200BCE. Vedas say greatly of Saraswathi. So it can be dated to much earlier than present 2000-600BCE for the complete Collection. Even if a Word appaears in Sangam it need not be Tamil as TholKappiyar clearly says- Vadasol Kilavi Vadaezuthu Orie Use Sanskrit words leaving Sanskrit Letters. And for the Waste Arguments- Vadasol can be Prakrit etc., Prakrits do not have sha, Ja, Sa, ha etc., so Tholkappiyar is clear.

    The name Shiva is not based on Red and I have given the roots agreed by International Universities, and how it has been used in RigVeda in other Threads.

    Professor HART on Burrowing of Sanskrit words in to TAMIL AS FOLLOWS:
    lNeither Sanskrit nor Tamil are particularly old in the world scheme of things. Sanskrit is documented earlier than Tamil.

    Sanskrit has borrowed quite as much from Dravidian as Dravidian has from Sanskrit. Tamil has borrowed more words from Sanskrit than Sanskrit has from Dravidian.

    Both languages are carriers of wonderful and rich intellectual and literary traditions. The only way to appreciate either language is to read these literatures and spend a lot of time pondering them

    Indian Culture and Civilisation is the Oldest and If Foriegners wrote meaninglessly, then the Indian by Birth, but Christian Fathers- and writers did it, and MahaKavi Bharati condemens it in his Short ARTICLE called
    ¡ Ǣĸ ç Ӿ Ө. Ţ .
    Ӿġ, Ȣ â. â측Ţ áŢ
    Ȣ â , Ţ ú 򧾺 Ȣ â â Ģ, â ¢ Ȣ 򾢧 ž ָȸ.
    󨾸 ¢ θȡ , â (츢, ǡ Մ ¢ġ ) и Ţ š ָȡ. Ө â׸Ǣ Ǧġ θȡ. Ȣ âǡ Ţ. Barathiyar, Ψ-

    ž è Ǣ (1:114, 2:33, 7:46) ŢϨ Ǣ (1:154,155; 7:100) 츢. 측 ħ ž ɢ Ǩ ǡ Ȣɡ. ɡ ɢ վ 츢ɢ ŢŢ ž ǢM . ž Ţ ǡ . - 217
    ž ž  ġĢ- " ; ž(10:92:9) ڸ. ͧžž "âè- úš" "" "š" "š" ڸȡ. . 89

    ž ¡¢ 츢 ¢ ǡ Žɡ. 3:8

    " Ɋ! âš ׾ Ǣ츢. á ¢ š¡. ž 츢 ǡ ¢ ɔ
    Ӿ Ģ Ȣɡ.

    ɡ ž Ž â. 측 측 ĸ Ģ θ. Ģ " ƒ" ž ( 7:59:12, ƒ 6:30) θ. ž ľĢ Ģ ⃢ 󾨾 θ. - 101

    quotes from Tamil Arignar R.Shanmugasundaram- PazhanthTamil Varalaru-this book has supportive foreword by Dr.R.mathiwanan- former Director of Tamil Etymological Dictionary project (NuulNalan).

    Now we have the same by Dravidians.



    Your Wishful Thinking and history revisionism is driven by your own indic ideology. SORRY Sangam Tamil Song has been given as Proof.
    Dravidian Artificial name given for a Linguistic Group, and no Race are people are connected with this.
    Roots as you assume is meaningless.
    Yes, indeed. The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary of Burrow and Emeneau contains over 5,000 etyma and it has been shown that over 4,000 of these etyma have Indo-Aryan, Munda cognates (cf. http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/Indian_Lexicon which contains over 8,000 semantic clusters.)
    Please look at objectively, Read Sangam Literature- Most of them are available at www.tamil.net/projectmadurai

    Devapriya[/b][/u]

  6. #265
    Junior Member Admin HubberNewbie HubberTeam HubberModerator HubberPro Hubber
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sanskrit and Tamil

    Quote Originally Posted by devapriya
    Dear Friends,
    Mala asks
    //On what basis are you saying PaavaaNar revised his Tolkaappiyam dating? Pl give us the citations, name of books, page numbers and dates of publication.
    Who is L Raasamaanickanaar? (Is the initial correct?) What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Why do you say "much objective research"? Why "much objective?"//

    I am sorry that you want me to repeat after APPROPRIATE REPLIES TO YOUR LIES, given in respective Threads- You repeat them in another thread to show your Position is totally without Proofs. L Raasamaanickanaar- is of same status as Mu.Va and Tho.po.Mi, on those days and Author of many Tamil Historical books.

    "There are many schools of thought existing and the author conveniently quotes from those least popular theories and authors."

    //Why should Nachinaarkiniyar be biased? Clearly materials available to him are no longer available to us as many Tamil works of his time are now lost. What personal benefit did he get by saying that Tolkaappiyam was older? What is meant by you by saying "Rig Group of Vedas" ? Where do these terms appear in the Rig Veda: "Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam"? Where did PaavaaNar express this conclusion? It is clear that they were Tamil Vedas. Why would Tamil works refer to Arya Vedas?//
    You Live in an ARTIFICIAL FALSE ISLAND- There is no such Aryans or Dravidian only Indic- and that Sangam Period Tamil was Proud for:

    Ţ 󧾡 Ţ
    Ţ Ţ
    ¢ Ƣ Ĩ,
    šƢ ﺢ Ƣ
    Ƣ¢ ơ, ¢. , this is a Song from Paripadal and Paripadal song -3 says Lord Vishnu as
    ž ھĢ Ǣ

    "There are not only Aryans and Dravidians but also the Mongloids - those from North East India. If you close your eyes and ears to it like a true philosopher, there exists no difference. Open your eyes."

    Every Branch of Vedas are listed and they have been analysed my many who do not believe in it. And when Saamam is Samavedam listed by Nachinarkiniyar in 13th Cen. As an earlier Collection, it is part of Standard Collection of Vedas, as the Sangam Song says, the others are parts of Vedas and Pavanar Collected and verified and confirmed this as follows.

    Now on Pavanr dating the name of the book and page verses have been given in the past. For to make it up to date, Dr.Mathivanan- famaous for 3rd rate Forgery of reading the Right-to-Left written Indus Saraswathi Scripts in the Opposite Direction Left-to-Right, in his frist book on this subject (1991) announcing the decipherment, authored jointly by Mathivanan and M. Ramachandran (a retired Chief Engineer of the Indian Railways)dates The Mythological Kumari Kandam Floods to 16000BCE and Tholkappiyam dated to 700-600BCE.


    Quote:
    // from end of Ist Cen.BCE, only from then on referring of MuVenthar starts and Tholkaapiyar says that once.//

    What evidence do you have to say this? Please Collect all Songs of Sangam and work on it. As per Sangam Collection Pandias are the Aliens who after loosing their LAND in Flood came to Tamilnadu (might be some small Island like Lakshdeep). The Oldest of the Pandiyas was BoothaPandiya, who did not rule from Koodal(Madural).
    His own songs say that He was a small ruler, and his son Nediyon got over Koodal, and slowly Consolidated over the Generation. Thalayanang Kanathu Chery Vendra Pandiyan Period is what Panidyas became Powerful, and he can be dated to 1St Cen. BCE. Now look at Asoka Mysore(BCE 240) Scripts- He refers Chora, Keraloputra, Sathiyaputra and Pandya- that is FOUR Rulers are equal. Athiaman tribe lost over the next 150 -200years, and Poetic Tradition of saying Muventar starts some time afer than that i.e., Close to Common Era or say 25BCE.

    "There were at times more than three kingdoms. Others were only the fallouts of easrtwhile powerful kingdoms. There were Ayes and Waynad dynasities as well. There were Pallavas as well though at a later stage.

    The Pandian Dynasty is one of the oldest in India and were very powerful but as they rise they fall too. And become smaller kingdoms. When India became independent there were actually more than 545 big and small kingdoms. It doesn't mean the mighty British didn't exist or there weren't no big kingdoms like the Ashokas, the Guptas, the Cheras, the Pandyas or the Cholas."

    Quote:
    //1. Late 3rd Cen. 100 BCE, BT brahmi Tamil So 50-100CE, must be the earliest of the dating for Tholkappiyam.//
    And further my above points confirm this conclusion.
    Quote:
    //As for as God name Shiva- we do not have Once Even in Sangam to Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai. And most of the time Sangam refers to Shiva- it is always as Veda Giver.//

    //You are contradicting!
    Not all Sangam works and those written by individual authors of that period have been found. Many have been lost or destroyed. If a word is not found in Sangam works, it is not a basis for concluding it is not a Tamil word. The root of Sivam is Sivaththal; it is a Tamil word. The Vedics hated Siva and Linga worship.//

    It is your Misconception based on False interpretations and I have given you the actual position in Saiva and Arab Threads. So Please do not Bluff based on 3rd rate 80 year old falsehoods.

    "From around 5th century BC to 5th Century AD, the most popular religions in India were Jainism and Buddism. "

    Quote:
    // the dating of the Vedic age ........................ of India has been shaken.//
    The arya vedas are not as old as they made them out to be. That I agree.//
    AGAIN you stand against SCIENCE. The Entire Root of SARASVATHI River has been Mapped and it dried by 1900 BCE and drying Process started by 2200BCE. Vedas say greatly of Saraswathi. So it can be dated to much earlier than present 2000-600BCE for the complete Collection. Even if a Word appaears in Sangam it need not be Tamil as TholKappiyar clearly says- Vadasol Kilavi Vadaezuthu Orie Use Sanskrit words leaving Sanskrit Letters. And for the Waste Arguments- Vadasol can be Prakrit etc., Prakrits do not have sha, Ja, Sa, ha etc., so Tholkappiyar is clear.

    The name Shiva is not based on Red and I have given the roots agreed by International Universities, and how it has been used in RigVeda in other Threads.

    "As I mentioned earlier, works of 3rd Sankam were during the prosperous Jainism and Buddism period. Hence it is of little surprise that the Great Shiva didn't get mentioned in their work. For that matter any hindu God."


    Professor HART on Burrowing of Sanskrit words in to TAMIL AS FOLLOWS:
    lNeither Sanskrit nor Tamil are particularly old in the world scheme of things. Sanskrit is documented earlier than Tamil.

    Sanskrit has borrowed quite as much from Dravidian as Dravidian has from Sanskrit. Tamil has borrowed more words from Sanskrit than Sanskrit has from Dravidian.

    Both languages are carriers of wonderful and rich intellectual and literary traditions. The only way to appreciate either language is to read these literatures and spend a lot of time pondering them

    Indian Culture and Civilisation is the Oldest and If Foriegners wrote meaninglessly, then the Indian by Birth, but Christian Fathers- and writers did it, and MahaKavi Bharati condemens it in his Short ARTICLE called
    ¡ Ǣĸ ç Ӿ Ө. Ţ .
    Ӿġ, Ȣ â. â측Ţ áŢ
    Ȣ â , Ţ ú 򧾺 Ȣ â â Ģ, â ¢ Ȣ 򾢧 ž ָȸ.
    󨾸 ¢ θȡ , â (츢, ǡ Մ ¢ġ ) и Ţ š ָȡ. Ө â׸Ǣ Ǧġ θȡ. Ȣ âǡ Ţ. Barathiyar, Ψ-

    ž è Ǣ (1:114, 2:33, 7:46) ŢϨ Ǣ (1:154,155; 7:100) 츢. 측 ħ ž ɢ Ǩ ǡ Ȣɡ. ɡ ɢ վ 츢ɢ ŢŢ ž ǢM . ž Ţ ǡ . - 217
    ž ž  ġĢ- " ; ž(10:92:9) ڸ. ͧžž "âè- úš" "" "š" "š" ڸȡ. . 89

    ž ¡¢ 츢 ¢ ǡ Žɡ. 3:8

    " Ɋ! âš ׾ Ǣ츢. á ¢ š¡. ž 츢 ǡ ¢ ɔ
    Ӿ Ģ Ȣɡ.

    ɡ ž Ž â. 측 측 ĸ Ģ θ. Ģ " ƒ" ž ( 7:59:12, ƒ 6:30) θ. ž ľĢ Ģ ⃢ 󾨾 θ. - 101

    quotes from Tamil Arignar R.Shanmugasundaram- PazhanthTamil Varalaru-this book has supportive foreword by Dr.R.mathiwanan- former Director of Tamil Etymological Dictionary project (NuulNalan).

    Now we have the same by Dravidians.



    Your Wishful Thinking and history revisionism is driven by your own indic ideology. SORRY Sangam Tamil Song has been given as Proof.
    Dravidian Artificial name given for a Linguistic Group, and no Race are people are connected with this.
    Roots as you assume is meaningless.
    Yes, indeed. The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary of Burrow and Emeneau contains over 5,000 etyma and it has been shown that over 4,000 of these etyma have Indo-Aryan, Munda cognates (cf. http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/Indian_Lexicon which contains over 8,000 semantic clusters.)
    Please look at objectively, Read Sangam Literature- Most of them are available at www.tamil.net/projectmadurai

    "It's not of any Christian bias but the modern day RSS and BJP idiologies of History revisioninsm to suit there own taste."

    Devapriya[/b][/u]

  7. #266
    Senior Member Veteran Hubber
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,096
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sanskrit and Tamil

    Quote Originally Posted by arul_satish
    Quote Originally Posted by devapriya
    Dear Friends,

    Mala asks

    //On what basis are you saying PaavaaNar revised his Tolkaappiyam dating? Pl give us the citations, name of books, page numbers and dates of publication.

    Who is L Raasamaanickanaar? (Is the initial correct?) What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Why do you say "much objective research"? Why "much objective?"//

    I am sorry that you want me to repeat after APPROPRIATE REPLIES TO YOUR LIES, given in respective Threads- You repeat them in another thread to show your Position is totally without Proofs. L Raasamaanickanaar- is of same status as Mu.Va and Tho.po.Mi, on those days and Author of many Tamil Historical books.

    "There are many schools of thought existing and the author conveniently quotes from those least popular theories and authors."

    //Why should Nachinaarkiniyar be biased? Clearly materials available to him are no longer available to us as many Tamil works of his time are now lost. What personal benefit did he get by saying that Tolkaappiyam was older? What is meant by you by saying "Rig Group of Vedas" ? Where do these terms appear in the Rig Veda: "Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam"? Where did PaavaaNar express this conclusion? It is clear that they were Tamil Vedas. Why would Tamil works refer to Arya Vedas?//
    You Live in an ARTIFICIAL FALSE ISLAND- There is no such Aryans or Dravidian only Indic- and that Sangam Period Tamil was Proud for:

    Ţ 󧾡 Ţ
    Ţ Ţ
    ¢ Ƣ Ĩ,
    šƢ ﺢ Ƣ
    Ƣ¢ ơ, ¢. ,

    ... this is a Song from Paripadal.

    ... and Paripadal song -3 says Lord Vishnu as
    ž ھĢ Ǣ

    "There are not only Aryans and Dravidians but also the Mongloids - those from North East India. If you close your eyes and ears to it like a true philosopher, there exists no difference. Open your eyes."

    Every Branch of Vedas are listed and they have been analysed my many who do not believe in it. And when Saamam is Samavedam listed by Nachinarkiniyar in 13th Cen. As an earlier Collection, it is part of Standard Collection of Vedas, as the Sangam Song says, the others are parts of Vedas and Pavanar Collected and verified and confirmed this as follows.

    Now on Pavanr dating the name of the book and page verses have been given in the past. For to make it up to date, Dr.Mathivanan- famaous for 3rd rate Forgery of reading the Right-to-Left written Indus Saraswathi Scripts in the Opposite Direction Left-to-Right, in his frist book on this subject (1991) announcing the decipherment, authored jointly by Mathivanan and M. Ramachandran (a retired Chief Engineer of the Indian Railways)dates The Mythological Kumari Kandam Floods to 16000BCE and Tholkappiyam dated to 700-600BCE.

    Quote:

    // from end of Ist Cen.BCE, only from then on referring of MuVenthar starts and Tholkaapiyar says that once.//

    What evidence do you have to say this? Please Collect all Songs of Sangam and work on it. As per Sangam Collection Pandias are the Aliens who after loosing their LAND in Flood came to Tamilnadu (might be some small Island like Lakshdeep). The Oldest of the Pandiyas was BoothaPandiya, who did not rule from Koodal (Madural).

    His own songs say that He was a small ruler, and his son Nediyon got over Koodal, and slowly Consolidated over the Generation. Thalayanang Kanathu Chery Vendra Pandiyan Period is what Panidyas became Powerful, and he can be dated to 1St Cen. BCE. Now look at Asoka Mysore(BCE 240) Scripts- He refers Chora, Keraloputra, Sathiyaputra and Pandya- that is FOUR Rulers are equal. Athiaman tribe lost over the next 150 -200years, and Poetic Tradition of saying Muventar starts some time afer than that i.e., Close to Common Era or say 25BCE.

    "There were at times more than three kingdoms. Others were only the fallouts of easrtwhile powerful kingdoms. There were Ayes and Waynad dynasities as well. There were Pallavas as well though at a later stage.

    The Pandian Dynasty is one of the oldest in India and were very powerful but as they rise they fall too. And become smaller kingdoms. When India became independent there were actually more than 545 big and small kingdoms. It doesn't mean the mighty British didn't exist or there weren't no big kingdoms like the Ashokas, the Guptas, the Cheras, the Pandyas or the Cholas."

    Quote:

    //1. Late 3rd Cen. 100 BCE, BT brahmi Tamil So 50-100CE, must be the earliest of the dating for Tholkappiyam.//
    And further my above points confirm this conclusion.

    Quote:

    //As for as God name Shiva- we do not have Once Even in Sangam to Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai. And most of the time Sangam refers to Shiva- it is always as Veda Giver.//

    //You are contradicting!

    Not all Sangam works and those written by individual authors of that period have been found. Many have been lost or destroyed. If a word is not found in Sangam works, it is not a basis for concluding it is not a Tamil word. The root of Sivam is Sivaththal; it is a Tamil word. The Vedics hated Siva and Linga worship.//

    It is your Misconception based on False interpretations and I have given you the actual position in Saiva and Arab Threads. So Please do not Bluff based on 3rd rate 80 year old falsehoods.

    "From around 5th century BC to 5th Century AD, the most popular religions in India were Jainism and Buddism. "

    Quote:

    // the dating of the Vedic age ........................ of India has been shaken.//

    The arya vedas are not as old as they made them out to be. That I agree.//

    AGAIN you stand against SCIENCE. The Entire Root of SARASVATHI River has been Mapped and it dried by 1900 BCE and drying Process started by 2200BCE. Vedas say greatly of Saraswathi. So it can be dated to much earlier than present 2000-600BCE for the complete Collection. Even if a Word appaears in Sangam it need not be Tamil as TholKappiyar clearly says- Vadasol Kilavi Vadaezuthu Orie Use Sanskrit words leaving Sanskrit Letters. And for the Waste Arguments- Vadasol can be Prakrit etc., Prakrits do not have sha, Ja, Sa, ha etc., so Tholkappiyar is clear.

    The name Shiva is not based on Red and I have given the roots agreed by International Universities, and how it has been used in RigVeda in other Threads.

    "As I mentioned earlier, works of 3rd Sankam were during the prosperous Jainism and Buddism period. Hence it is of little surprise that the Great Shiva didn't get mentioned in their work. For that matter any hindu God."

    Professor HART on Burrowing of Sanskrit words in to TAMIL AS FOLLOWS:

    lNeither Sanskrit nor Tamil are particularly old in the world scheme of things. Sanskrit is documented earlier than Tamil.

    Sanskrit has borrowed quite as much from Dravidian as Dravidian has from Sanskrit. Tamil has borrowed more words from Sanskrit than Sanskrit has from Dravidian.

    Both languages are carriers of wonderful and rich intellectual and literary traditions. The only way to appreciate either language is to read these literatures and spend a lot of time pondering them

    Indian Culture and Civilisation is the Oldest and If Foriegners wrote meaninglessly, then the Indian by Birth, but Christian Fathers- and writers did it, and MahaKavi Bharati condemens it in his Short ARTICLE called...

    ¡ Ǣĸ ç Ӿ Ө. Ţ .
    Ӿġ, Ȣ â. â측Ţ áŢ
    Ȣ â , Ţ ú 򧾺 Ȣ â â Ģ, â ¢ Ȣ 򾢧 ž ָȸ.
    󨾸 ¢ θȡ , â (츢, ǡ Մ ¢ġ ) и Ţ š ָȡ. Ө â׸Ǣ Ǧġ θȡ. Ȣ âǡ Ţ. Barathiyar, Ψ-

    ž è Ǣ (1:114, 2:33, 7:46) ŢϨ Ǣ (1:154,155; 7:100) 츢. 측 ħ ž ɢ Ǩ ǡ Ȣɡ. ɡ ɢ վ 츢ɢ ŢŢ ž ǢM . ž Ţ ǡ . - 217
    ž ž  ġĢ- " ; ž(10:92:9) ڸ. ͧžž "âè- úš" "" "š" "š" ڸȡ. . 89

    ž ¡¢ 츢 ¢ ǡ Žɡ. 3:8

    " Ɋ! âš ׾ Ǣ츢. á ¢ š¡. ž 츢 ǡ ¢ ɔ
    Ӿ Ģ Ȣɡ.

    ɡ ž Ž â. 측 측 ĸ Ģ θ. Ģ " ƒ" ž ( 7:59:12, ƒ 6:30) θ. ž ľĢ Ģ ⃢ 󾨾 θ. - 101

    quotes from Tamil Arignar R.Shanmugasundaram- PazhanthTamil Varalaru-this book has supportive foreword by Dr.R.mathiwanan- former Director of Tamil Etymological Dictionary project (NuulNalan).

    Now we have the same by Dravidians.

    Your Wishful Thinking and history revisionism is driven by your own indic ideology. SORRY Sangam Tamil Song has been given as Proof.
    Dravidian Artificial name given for a Linguistic Group, and no Race are people are connected with this.Roots as you assume is meaningless.

    Yes, indeed. The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary of Burrow and Emeneau contains over 5,000 etyma and it has been shown that over 4,000 of these etyma have Indo-Aryan, Munda cognates (cf. http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/Indian_Lexicon which contains over 8,000 semantic clusters.)

    Please look at objectively, Read Sangam Literature- Most of them are available at www.tamil.net/projectmadurai

    "It's not of any Christian bias but the modern day RSS and BJP idiologies of History revisioninsm to suit there own taste."

    Devapriya[/b][/u]
    Good presentation.... even though I differ on certain points.

  8. #267
    Senior Member Seasoned Hubber
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    My
    Posts
    1,789
    Post Thanks / Like

    please answer

    Quote Originally Posted by bis_mala
    //On what basis are you saying PaavaaNar revised his Tolkaappiyam dating? Pl give us the citations, name of books, page numbers and dates of publication.
    Who is L Raasamaanickanaar? (Is the initial correct?) What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Why do you say "much objective research"? Why "much objective?"//

    Quote Originally Posted by devapriya
    I am sorry that you want me to repeat after APPROPRIATE REPLIES TO YOUR LIES, given in respective Threads- You repeat them in another thread to show your Position is totally without Proofs. L Raasamaanickanaar- is of same status as Mu.Va and Tho.po.Mi, on those days and Author of many Tamil Historical books
    .
    You never had explained this:On your claim that the present day researches are much objective research: What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Make a comprehensive comparative study and post the details. I do not find anything in your old posts answering my new question raised above.

    Rasamaanickanaar: He is M Raasamanickanaar, not L. Please check.
    B.I. Sivamaalaa (Ms)

  9. #268
    Senior Member Seasoned Hubber
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    My
    Posts
    1,789
    Post Thanks / Like

    ancient language was Tamil

    To save our hub friends some trouble of referring here and there, I am posting the following: (This will be edited and shortened later in a week to save space. )

    ANCIENT LANGUAGE OF WHOLE OF INDIA WAS TAMIL F.S.Gandhi vandayar
    PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:51 am

    http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=164251

    Eminent historian Rajwade acknowledges that the original indigenous residents of India were the Naagas. They were expert in drawing pictures, they later turned Naaga vamsha into the Vedhic fold. He also acknowledges the presence of non-Sanskirt languages like Asur bhasha, Dravida bhasha, Chinese and Red Indian and African languages. [Rajwade V. K., bharatiya vivah sansthe cha itihas, marathi, p. 100]

    Paishachi language was Tamil is the experts' view. Having made it clear that Paishachi language was a very rich language, and very widely spoken, let us see the experts' views on what was this language.

    Before Sanskrit could influence things here, the language of India was "Paishachi", which meant Tamil, and it was spoken from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.

    Nair observes: "According to Mr. Oldham there are ample evidences to show that the so-called "Paisachi" language was spoken throughout India.

    He says "It is evident that the Sanskrit Grammarians considered the language of the Dravidian countries to be connected with the vernaculars of Northern India; and that in their opinion it was especially related to the speech of those who as we have seen, were apparently descended from the Asura tribes. Thus in the Shahasha Chandrika Lakshmidhara says that the Paisachi language is spoken in the Paisachi countries of Pandya, Kekaya Vahlika, Sahya, Nepala, Kuntala, Sudarsha, Bota, Gandhara, Haiva and Kangana and there are Paisachi countries. Of all the vernaculars the Paisachi is said to have contained the smallest infusion of Sanskrit". [Nair B. N., "The Dynamic Brahmin", p.70]

    Dr. K. M. Panikar has something equally interesting to say; "The distribution of the indigenous races even today in the uplands of South Bihar and in the eastern areas of Madhya Pradesh and the persistence of the Bhils in the Aravalli and Vindhya ranges show that as a population momentum ceased to have any momentum after it reached the Gangetic valley. The gradual spread of Hinduism all over India and with the Vedhic speech should not blind us to the fact that even in North India outside the Punjab Tamil was there. In Gujrat and in Maharashtra the neo-Vedhic were able to improve their language but in the Deccan and in the South the Dravidian speech not only held its own but was able to drive out the Austric and other linguistic elements. The spread of Sanskrit, originally associated with Agastiyas' crossing of the Vindhyas became, an accomplished fact only in the first centuries of the Christian era as may be seen from the earlier Paisachi tamil tradition of the Satavahana Emperors of Pratishtan" [K. M. Panikker, Geographical Factors in Indian History, 1955, quoted by Nair B. N., "The Dynamic Brahmin", p.70]

    IMPORTANT

    Paisachi was Tamil- Nair confirms that Paishachi was Tamil. Not only the inscriptions, but even the classical Tamil literature of second or third century AD was not Sanskrit, but Tamil. The same author observes: "If we now consider the ancient Tamil works, we find in almost all some allusion to vedic rites and the use of some north words though very few. When Indo Aryan words are adopted in Tamil in Sangam literature they are more frequently borrowed form Prakrit forms or with Prakritic features. Surely Sanskrit and Prakrit cultures were known to some extent in Tamilanad but rather through Prakrit than through Sanskrit. Massive influence of Sanskrit in Tamil literature took place much later". [Dr. J. Filliozat on Tamil and Sanskrit in South India, in Tamil Culture, vol. IV, No. 4, Oct. 1955 quoted by Nair B. N., "The Dynamic Brahmin", p.71]
    B.I. Sivamaalaa (Ms)

  10. #269
    Senior Member Seasoned Hubber
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    My
    Posts
    1,789
    Post Thanks / Like

    you hate the term Dravidian?

    Quote Originally Posted by devapriya
    Your Wishful Thinking and history revisionism is driven by your own indic ideology. SORRY //Sangam Tamil Song has been given as Proof.//
    Proof of what?

    Quote Originally Posted by devapriya
    //Dravidian Artificial name given for a Linguistic Group, and no Race are people are connected with this.//
    The term "Dravida" is found in Sans texts; you either do not know or pretend not to know. Tamil had been known as "Dravida Basha" and this usage is alive up to now. when priests formally introduce Tamil devotional or thirumuRai songs. A term found in Sans is branded as "artificial" by you; this is a clear admission on your part that Sans forges and uses artificial terms such as "Dravida". The Tamils are not responsible for the artificiality of this term. The term is also found in other languages besides Tamil. I have not claimed that Dravida is a single race; I have told you time and again that I am using it only in relation to a group of languages. The Indian govt has set up several Dravidian linguistic research institutions and is understood to be funding them, If you dislike the term, you are free make representations to them to remove it; you can also talk to the politicians of Tamil Nadu and get them to give the term up. This is not something in which I can help you in any manner.
    B.I. Sivamaalaa (Ms)

  11. #270
    Senior Member Seasoned Hubber
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    My
    Posts
    1,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by devapriya
    Roots as you assume is meaningless.
    Why meaningless? Then what is meaningful?
    Why can't we look at roots?
    When the Oxford English Dictionary authors suggest roots for the words, where do get them from? From Jesus or Jehova? Do they perform lab tests on the words and come up with roots?
    When the Sanskrit Lexicon writers came up with roots, where did they get their roots from? Did they get the roots from Lord Brahman?

    Every dog licks to drink.....No dog has found a better way.
    Every human assumes roots; whatever her/his profession. She/He may have certain methods and rules to help her/him. That is all about it!!

    WHEN YOU ARE GIVEN A WORD, YOU LOOK UP THE SANS DICTIONARY AND IF YOU FIND IT THERE. YOU SAY IT IS SANS WORD. THE NEXT DAY YOU FIND THE SAME WORD IN THE ESKIMO DICTIONARY. WOULD YOU SAY IT IS ESKIMO WORD? IF NOT WHY NOT?

    TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE, WE LOOK AT THE ROOT WORDS.
    B.I. Sivamaalaa (Ms)

Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 1725262728 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. all Truth summarised abt Tamil n sanskrit
    By Oldposts in forum Tamil Literature
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 15th November 2008, 11:59 AM
  2. Tamil and Sanskrit
    By maduraithamizhmanikandan in forum Indian History & Culture
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30th May 2006, 01:49 PM
  3. TAMIL is much ELDER to SANSKRIT !
    By vasabhar88 in forum Indian History & Culture
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 24th October 2005, 09:59 PM
  4. Tamil Vs Sanskrit
    By Oldposts in forum Tamil Literature
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12th December 2004, 08:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •