Page 26 of 28 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 280

Thread: Is tamil derived from Sanskrit

  1. #251
    Senior Member Veteran Hubber thamizhvaanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    chennai
    Posts
    2,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    Devapriya,

    Saraswathi mahal's manuscripts are not the only definitive evidences of tamil script. Most of those manuscripts are "urai"'s of ancient tamil literature, and clearly they are'nt the first written versions of the literature.

    Usage of olai chuvadi, seems to be common during sangam era. And talks of books lost during aazhi, implies that written transcripts existed. Even if one argues that aazhi is fictional or passed on through folklore, the fact that many more texts existed cannot be contended.

    Even in urai's of sangam literature, verses from other books are quoted here and there. Most of the tholkappiayam's verses suggests that the work is not the first grammar text, but rather restating old known rules. All these shows that Tamil had a written script even during sangam era, and it infact predates sanskrit's written script (I remember reading somewhere that sanskrit's first written script is no older than 300 A.D and it is an inscription).

    There are several other points in ur post to contend, but only if time and my laziness permits .
    A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere.

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

  3. #252
    Senior Member Veteran Hubber
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,099
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by thamizhvaanan
    oh nice point, i wasnt contemplating on that though! I assume u made a mistake in saying Tamil didn have a dialect, I assume u meant script there. That was my point.

    U did mention that sanskrit was christend as such because it was a refinement of an earlier language. A somewat similar reasoning was made to naming of tamil by pavanar. He said, Tamils didn bother to have a name for their language in the beginning, bcoz they werent aware of the existence of any other language. But as they came into contact with outsiders, they felt the necessity for a name, and named their country Tham + Il - thamil. the name of the country was later shared by the language and people also. This was his pt. of view on the origin of the name "Tamil".

    Anyway, which of these works came first? panini's grammar text or tholkappiyam? I heard both are similar in their structure!
    ...Name of TAMIL.

    The argument on the Sense of the Word Tamil...as Tham+Il.. is QUITE FUNNY...

    ...and UNCONVINCING to any Logical perception or Wisdom... whoever mught have meant or said so.

    Tham+ Il = Ones Own House... may be relevant to a HOUSE OR A PLACE OR COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE..

    How can it be attributed to a Language?... which has NO RELATION with .."IL"...!

    On this factor.. it was put forth by a Scholar in one of the Tamil- Conferences as below.

    Original Name of Tamil was... "AMIZHDHU"... meaning SWEET....

    ...which in course of time got the Spoken-form as THAMIZH...

    While we repeatedly say fast Amizhdhu, Amizhdhu, Amizhdhu... it sounds as ...THAMIZH..

    Similar to the case of repeated chanting ... MARA MARA MARA.... becomes... RAMA, RAMA, RAMA.,

    This pure Tamil word THAMIZH ..OR... AMIZHDU... is far different from the Sanskrit word... AMRITHA...meaning NECTAR.

    MRITHA = Death, Destroyal, End.... AMRITHA means the opposite sense.

    It is said that the Nectar was SWEET in taste. So, for all the Sweet substances, people started calling that... as sweet as Amritha.

    But by meaning of the Sanskrit word... Amritha has no logical grammar to mean as Sweet.

    Whereas the Tamil Word...THAMIZH... has no relation with NECTAR... by its sense as Amritha..
    .
    Such justifications were accepted by the Linguistic-Experts assembly overall.

    So Tamil / THAMIZH.... is... AMIZHDHU... Sweet to Speak and Hear.

  4. #253
    Member Junior Hubber
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like
    Tamil is an artificial language created by Max Mueller in 1947 AD and taught to the savage people in tamiz nadu.

    Sanskrit was created by god. Once god created sanskrit, he/she wanted to create some people to speak it. This in turn lead to creation of earth, so that those people can stay.

    Solomon/Devapriya/etc. etc. has all proofs for these. These proofs will soon be released once all experts accept their failure.




    காணாமல் வேணதெல்லாம் கத்தலாம்.

  5. #254
    Senior Member Veteran Hubber thamizhvaanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    chennai
    Posts
    2,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sudhaama
    Quote Originally Posted by thamizhvaanan
    oh nice point, i wasnt contemplating on that though! I assume u made a mistake in saying Tamil didn have a dialect, I assume u meant script there. That was my point.

    U did mention that sanskrit was christend as such because it was a refinement of an earlier language. A somewat similar reasoning was made to naming of tamil by pavanar. He said, Tamils didn bother to have a name for their language in the beginning, bcoz they werent aware of the existence of any other language. But as they came into contact with outsiders, they felt the necessity for a name, and named their country Tham + Il - thamil. the name of the country was later shared by the language and people also. This was his pt. of view on the origin of the name "Tamil".

    Anyway, which of these works came first? panini's grammar text or tholkappiyam? I heard both are similar in their structure!
    ...Name of TAMIL.

    The argument on the Sense of the Word Tamil...as Tham+Il.. is QUITE FUNNY...

    ...and UNCONVINCING to any Logical perception or Wisdom... whoever mught have meant or said so.

    Tham+ Il = Ones Own House... may be relevant to a HOUSE OR A PLACE OR COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE..

    How can it be attributed to a Language?... which has NO RELATION with .."IL"...!

    On this factor.. it was put forth by a Scholar in one of the Tamil- Conferences as below.

    Original Name of Tamil was... "AMIZHDHU"... meaning SWEET....

    ...which in course of time got the Spoken-form as THAMIZH...

    While we repeatedly say fast Amizhdhu, Amizhdhu, Amizhdhu... it sounds as ...THAMIZH..

    Similar to the case of repeated chanting ... MARA MARA MARA.... becomes... RAMA, RAMA, RAMA.,

    This pure Tamil word THAMIZH ..OR... AMIZHDU... is far different from the Sanskrit word... AMRITHA...meaning NECTAR.

    MRITHA = Death, Destroyal, End.... AMRITHA means the opposite sense.

    It is said that the Nectar was SWEET in taste. So, for all the Sweet substances, people started calling that... as sweet as Amritha.

    But by meaning of the Sanskrit word... Amritha has no logical grammar to mean as Sweet.

    Whereas the Tamil Word...THAMIZH... has no relation with NECTAR... by its sense as Amritha..
    .
    Such justifications were accepted by the Linguistic-Experts assembly overall.

    So Tamil / THAMIZH.... is... AMIZHDHU... Sweet to Speak and Hear.
    I have bolded a portion of my reply. I clearly said that it was initially used to refer the country but later went on to represent the country. There had been other instances in history, where the name of the place went on to represent various facets of the community living there including language. Anyway, I am not suggesting that this explanation is definitive, but just wanted to make a point about its existence. Sudhama, even ur point cannot be fully justified, only because of the sheer lack of ways to counter-check it. You did mention that it was accepted by Linguistic Experts, but there never has been any consensus to my knowledge.
    A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere.

  6. #255
    Junior Member Admin HubberNewbie HubberTeam HubberModerator HubberPro Hubber
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like

    Few participants claim that sanskrit is 5000 years old

    This is an article by some renowned historians. This is especially for those who claim Sanskrit is 5000 old or Tamil was derived from Sanskrit or Indus is Aryan.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Different views are expressed in the world of research on Indus Valley Civilization. Some say it is of the Aryans while others opine that it is of the Dravidians.

    On the basis of the four Vedas, the theory that the Indus Valley Civilization is of the Aryans was built up. Hence, the analysation of the Vedas throws much light on this line.

    If Indus Valley Civilzation is of the Aryans, mother goddess worship that plays an important role in the Indus Valley Civilization should be described in the Vedas. But in the Vedas only minor female deities are mentioned. The Indus Valley deities normally have horns, whereas the deities of the Vedas are not portrayed with horns.1 Sivalinkas which are found in the Indus Valley Civilization is later on degraded in the Vedas.

    The Vedas describe the wheels of the Chariots with spokes, but the wheels that are seen on the seals and vehicles of clay in Indus valley do not have wheels with spokes.2

    Following analysation of Sir John Marshall on the Indus Valley Civilization here are given some clues.

    1. "The picture of Indo-Aryan society portrayed in the Vedas is that of a partly pastoral, partly agricultural people, who have not yet emerged from the village state, who have no knowledge of life in cities or of the complex economic organization which such life implies, and whose houses are nondescript affairs constructed largely of bamboo.

    At Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, on the other hand, we have densely populated cities with solid, commodious houses of brick equipped with a adequate sanitation, bathrooms, wells, and other amenities.

    2. The metals which the Indo-Aryans used in the time of the Rigveda are gold and copper or bronze; but a little late, in the time of the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda, these metals are supplemented by silver and iron.

    Among the Indus people silver is commoner than gold, and utensils and vessels are sometimes made of stone - a relic of the Neolithic Age - as well as of copper and bronze. Of iron there is no vestige.

    3. For offensive weapons the Vedic-Aryans have the bow and arrow, spear, dagger, and axe, and for defensive armour the helmet and coat of mail.

    The Indus people also have the bow and arrow, spear, dagger and axe, but, like the Mesopotamians and Egyptians, they have the mace as well, sometimes of stone, sometimes of metal; while on the other hand, defensive armour is quite unknown to them - a fact which must have told against them in any contest with mailed and helmeted foes.

    4. The Vedic-Aryans are a nation of meat-eaters, who appear to have had a general aversion to fish, since ther is no direct mention of fishing in the Vedas.

    With the Indus people fish is a common article of diet, and so, too, are molluscs, turtles, and other aquatic creatures.

    5. In the lives of the Vedic-Aryans the horse plays an important part, as it did in the lives of many nations from the northern grasslands.

    To the people of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa the horse seems to have been unknown

    6. By the Vedic Aryans the cow is prized above all other animals and regarded with special veneration.

    Among the Indus people the cow is of no particular account, its place with them being taken by the bull, the popularity of whose cult is attested by the numerous figurines and other representations of this animal.

    7. Of the tiger there is no mention in theVedas, and of the elephant but little.

    Both these animals are familiar to the Indus people.

    8. In the Vedic pantheon the female element is almost wholly subordinate to the male.......

    Among the Indus cults...........the female elements appear to be co-equal with, if not to predominate over the male.

    As times goes on, doubtless many other salient points of difference will be revealed, but for the moment the above will suffice to demonstrate how wide is the gulf between the Indus and Vedic Civilizations. Now it may, perhaps, be argued that the difference between them is a difference of time only; that the Vedic civilization was either the progenitor or the lineal descendant of the Indus civilization........ Let us assume, in the first place, that the Vedic civilization preceded an led up to the Indus civilization. On this hypothesis the progress from the village to the city state and from the nondescript houses of the Vedic period to the massive brick architecture of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa would find a logical explanation, though we should have to postulate a long interval of time in order to account for the evolution. But what about other cultural features?

    If the Vedic culture antedated the Indus, how comes it that iron and defensive armour and the horse, which are characteristic of the former, are unknown to the latter? Or how comes it that the bull replaces the cow as an object of worship in the Indus period, only to be displaced agains by the cow in succeeding ages? Or, again, how comes it that the Indus culture betrays so many survivals of the Neolitihic Age - in the shape of stone implements and vessels - if the coper or bronze and iron culture of the Indo-Aryans intervened between the two? Clearly these considerations put out of court any solution of the problem which postulates an earlier date for the Vedic than for the Indus Civilization. But if it was not earlier, are there any grounds for supposing that it was evolved out of the latter? In other words, could the Indo-Aryans have been the authors of the Indus as well as of the Vedic Civilization?

    Here, again, we are faced with a like dilemma. For, though on this assumption we could account for such phenomena as the introduction of iron, of the horse, and of body armour, all of which might have signalized merely a later phase of the same culture, we are wholly at a loss to explain how the Indo-Aryans came to relapse from the city to the village state, or how, having once evolved excellent houses of brick, they afterwards conteneted themselves with inferior sturctures of bamboo; or how, having once worshipped the linga and the Mother Goddess, they ceased to do so in the Vedic Period, but returned to their worship later; or how, having once occupied Sind, they subsequently lost all memory of that country of the Lower Indus".3

    Opinions of Asco Parpolo regarding Indus civilization and the review of Mahadevan on Asco Parpolo's view are given as follows.

    The Survival of Brahui; a Dravidian language, spoken even today by large numbers of people in Baluchistan and the adjoining areas in Afghanistan and Iran, is an important factor in the identification of the Indus Civilization as Dravidian. Brahui belongs linguistically to the North Dravidian group with several shared innovations with Kurukh and Malto; no dialectal features connect it with the South or Central Dravidian languages. Hence Parpola cocludes that Brahui represents the remnants of the Dravidian language spoken in the area by the descendants of the Harappan population.4

    Survival of place-names is generally a good indicator of the linguistic pre-history of a region. Parpola points out several place-names in the north western region like nagara. Palli, Pattana and Kotta with good Dravidian etymologies.5

    Parpolo also points out that syntactical analysis of the Indus inscriptions has revealed Dravidian like typological characteristics, especially the attribute preceding the headword.6

    It has often been pointed out that the complete absence of the horse among the animals so prominently featured on the Indus seals is good evidence for the non-Aryan character of the Indus Civilization.7

    Recently an article titled 'Looking beyond Indus Valley' published in 'The Week' magazine dated July 26, 1998 was written on the basis of the Vedas and trying to prove that it was of the Aryan civilization.

    The Vedas, which were nomadic worsip songs were compiled, classified and written in sanskrit as the four Vedas only in the post-Christian era by Veda Vyasa, a Dravidian. History of epigraphy reveals that Sanskrit was not prevalent in the pre-Christian era. Since the Vedas were written by a Dravidian, non-Aryan elements and ideologies occur in the Vedas.

    The following statement of Parpolo on the Vedas is to be keenly observed.

    "......some Dravidian loan words can be recognized in the Rgveda.......

    The number of Dravidian loan words increases dramatically in post-Rgvedic literature. The Rgveda is assumed to contain not only Dravidian loan words but also phonological and syntactic Dravidisms, in particular the development of

    1) retroflex phonemes
    2) the gerund and
    3) the quotative and
    4) onomatopoeic constructions,

    all of which are absent from the closely related Iranian branch of the Aryan languages.......

    We must bear in mind that the Rgveda was largely composed in the plains of the Punjab relatively late and redacted even later. The language as well as the contents of the Yajur Veda reflects an entirely different tradition, which probably evolved in the Punjab and was incorporated in the Veda only during the acculturation that may be assumed to have taken place after the descent of the Rgvedic tradition from the Swat Valley.8

    The response given by Dr. Alexander Harris on the above article titled 'Looking beyond Indus Valley' was published in the same (week) magazine under the title 'Holes in Vedic Valley theory' and it is given as follows.

    The focus and motive of the article 'Looking beyond Indus valley' (July 26) seem to be to elevate the Vedas and the people associated with them rather than to edify and bring to light the truth of our past. Archaeologist Ravindra Singh Bisht, described as a Sanskrit scholar calls the Rig Veda "the world's oldest literary record". If what he says is true then how is it that the first epigraphic evidence of Sanskrit occurs only in AD150?

    The earliest epigraphic evidence on languages employed in India comes from the inscriptions of Ashka inscribed in third century BC. Asoka took care that his messages were intelligible to all and he used a particular kind of Prakrit. Even more remarkable is the fact, which has been recently discovered, that for those people who at the time lived in Afghanistan his message was given in Greek as well as Aramaic. One of the Greek inscriptions is a translation of the Kalinga Edict, and the Greek of the inscriptions is not inferior in style to classical Greek. In such circumstances neglect of Sanskrit by Asoka, if the language were in use, would be contrary to all his practice. So, the absence of Sanskrit in his inscriptions indicates that it did not exist at that time.

    An inscription dating around AD 150 in the Brahmi script attests to the first evidence of classical Sanskrit. It records the repair of a dam originally built by chandragupta Maurya and contains a panegyric in verse, which can be regarded as the first literary composition in classical Sanskrit. It is at Girnar in Kathiawar and was inscribed by Rudradamana, the Saka satrap of Ujjaini, on the same rock on which the Fourteen Rock Edicts of Asoka were also found. It is significant that Rudradamana employed classical Sanskrit in a region where about 400 years before him Asoka had used only Prakrit. This definitely proves that in the second century AD Sanskrit was replacing the dialects. Even so the language did not replace Prakrit anywhere, but it continued to be used in inscriptions for another hundred years or even more. However, from the fifth century AD classical Sanskrit is seen to be the dominant language in the inscriptions.

    From the bibliographical evidences we find that the Vedas were written rather late and, thus, the entire correlation in the article lacks credibility. Also, as renowned historian A.L. Basham puts it. "The Harappan religion seem to show many similarities with those elements of Hidnuism which are specially popular in the Dravidian country". He further states, "Some Indian historians have tried to prove that they were the Aryans, the people who composed the Rig Veda, but this is quite impossible."9

    Hence, the historical analysation on Indus Valley Civilization implies the historical fact that it is of the Dravidians and this truth is hidden through the ages.

    Mr. I. Mahadevan, Indian Express, Madras-5, August 1994.
    Ibid.
    Sir John Marshall, Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization, Vol.I, Indological Book House, 1973, Pp.109-112.
    Dr.Alexander Harris, 'Holes in Vedic Valley Theory', The Week, August 9, 1998
    Mr. I. Mahadevan, ‘Review - An Encyclopaedia of the Indus Script’ by Asco Parpola, International Journal of Dravidian linguistics, Vol.xxvi number1, January 1997, P.110

    Ibid.

    Ibid.

    Ibid., P.109.

    Asko Parpolo, Deciphering the Indus Scripts, Cambridge University Press, F.P.1994, Pp.168,169.


  7. #256
    Senior Member Veteran Hubber thamizhvaanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    chennai
    Posts
    2,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    nice post
    A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere.

  8. #257
    Junior Member Admin HubberNewbie HubberTeam HubberModerator HubberPro Hubber
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like

    Tolkappiyam according to T.R. Shesha Iyengar

    Tolkappiyam according to T.R. Shesha Iyengar in his work Dravidian India, 1925

    Tolkappiyam
    The Tolkappiyam takes up a substantial part of Iyengar's work. For instance, he notes, "As for the third period, commonly known as the Augustan Period in Tamil literature, otherwise called the epoch of the Third Sangam, its historicity has gained the almost unanimous assent of scholars." (Iyengar 1925, p.153) Furthermore,
    "Nachchinarkiniyar, the celebrated commentator of the Tolkappiyam, holds that it {p.155} was composed, before even Vedavyasa, who lived probably between 1500 and 1000 BC, arranged the Vedas into Rig, Yajur, Saman, and Atharvana [ftn. vide Pandit Savariroyan's article, p.42 S. Dipika Vol.III ]. This view is also shared by Pandit A. Mootootambi Pillai, [ftn. vide History of Tenmoli ] who however considers the 5th Millenium BC as the probably age of this ancient grammar. Pandit R.S.Vedachalam in his work entitled Ancient Tamilian and Aryan regards 1250 BC as the probably date of the Tolkappiyam, and he believes that it might be given even a higher antiquity, and placed about 2400 BC." (Iyengar 1925, p.154-155)
    Now,
    "The Tolkappiyam, according to tradition, is a work of the Second Madura Academy. Scholars are now almost agreed, that the Third Madura Academy flourished during the early centuries of th Christian era. Therefore, the Tolkappiyam, a Second Sangam work, should have been composed before the commencement of the Christian era. The late lamented Kanakasabhai {p.157} Pillai lends his weighty support to the view that it is a work of th first or second century BC." (Iyengar 1925, p.156)
    Moreover, "The fact that fewer Sanskrit words are to be found in the Tolkappiyam than even in the so-called Third Sangam works is another circumstance which testifies to its great antiquity." (Iyengar 1925, p.167) Now, "The pastoral tribes worshipped Vishnu; the hill tribes worshipped the god Muruga; the fishing tribes worshipped the god Varuna; the agricultural tribes worshipped the god Indra, while the nomads worshiped the goddess Kali." (Iyengar 1925, p.177)
    The existence of caste is further attested: "Besides, the Tolkappiyam refers to four professional castes such as Arasar (Kshatriyas or Rulers), Anthanar or Parpar (Brahmans), Vanikar (Merchants), and Vellalar (Agriculturists)." (Iyengar 1925, p.178) Now,

    "The distinction of the four castes Brahma, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra observed by the Aryas did not exist among the Tamils. The expression `twice-born', applied by the Aryans to those who were sanctified by the investiture of the sacred thread, was always used in ancient Tamil literature to denote only the Brahmans, and it is evident therefore that the Kshatriya and the Vaisya, who wore the sacred thread, were not known in Tamilakam." (Iyengar 1925, p.193)

  9. #258
    Junior Member Admin HubberNewbie HubberTeam HubberModerator HubberPro Hubber
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like

    Shiva according to T.R. Sesha Iyengar in his work

    Shiva according to T.R. Sesha Iyengar in his work Dravidian India, 1925

    Dravidian Shiva
    The now well-accepted Dravidian origin of Shiva has been further elucidated by Iyengar:
    "Ragozin [ftn. Vedic India, p.328 ] holds that the worship of Siva was originally Dravidian. Fergusson in his Tree and Serpent worship maintains that Saivism is certainly a local, not an Aryan, form of faith, and belongs rather to the South than to the North of India. Dr. Stevenson holds that Siva was the Tamilian God, and was worshipped in two forms, one as a spiritual object of meditation, and the other as a material symbol or linga to represent the invisible to the visible eyes. Adoring God with flower and incense was an ancient practice prevalent among the Tamils. (Iyengar 1925, p.99)
    Further,
    "Agastya is said to have learnt Tamil, the language of the South, from Siva. From this it may be inferred that Siva was a Dravidian deity. [ftn. The Dravidian Element in Indian Culture,' by Dr. Glibert Slater, see p.108 ] Dr. Gilbert Slater {p.101} says that the fact that the Rig Veda refers to phallic worship with disapproval, seems to point to the establishment of the worship of Siva among the Dravidians before the Vedic period. To the Tamil every hill-top is sacred to the gods. Siva, the lord of the Dravidians, was Malai-Arasan (Mountain Chief) according to Dr. Oppert. Siva came to be known in later times as Dakshinamurthy, ie the God of the South." (Iyengar 1925, p.100-101)
    Now, "Siva is said to have been one of the members of the First Madura Academy." (Iyengar 1925, p.101) Moreover,
    "Regarding the conception of Siva and its growth from Vedic times among the Aryan peoples, scholars tell us that Rudra was nowhere called Siva in the Rigveda, and that he merely represented the storm god, with his thunder, lightning, and the rains, rushing down under the snow-capped hills. (Iyengar 1925, p.104)
    Another important evidence is noted: "Dr. Stevenson [2.Siddhanta Dipika, Vol.IV, p.108 ] was the first to point out that Siva is not named at all in the ancient hymns of the Vedas." (Iyengar 1925, p.105)

  10. #259
    Member Regular Hubber Chappani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks for the informative posts Arul..

    Dear Sudhama,

    The reasoning as explained by TamilVaanan sounds logical, the derivative of the name Tamil from word Amizdu eventhough sounds great seems like a name given from an outsider. You should be knowing the word Telugu is derived from Tenugu which in turn from Trilinga Desa, which litrelly means the land composed of three-Shiva temples.
    Your way of finding the root to Language names might suit the modern computer Languages like Java, COBOL etc not for the ancient languages.

  11. #260
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber devapriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sanskrit and Tamil

    Friends,

    I really welcome ARul Sathish and thamizhvaanan, if anybody can look at, quotes books of 1925, We have quiet of Developments which has helped to look things much more Objectively.
    As for as NachinarKiniyar’s Comment – Tholkappiyam written before Vedas were compiled and there was earlier Tamil Vedas called îˆîKò‹, ªð÷®è‹, îôõè£ó‹, ú£ñ‹ (Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam).

    Now Scholars such as Pavanar have analysed what are these- Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam- and the Clear Conclusion is that They are parts of Rig Group of Vedas, and NachinarKiniyar’s Comment was made to show Tholkappiyar as Older, on a biased note.

    Now on Tholkappiyam’s 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.

    As per SAngam Literature, at the Oldest of times- Korkai was ruled by Ahuthai trube (Puram 347) and a Smaller King Nediyon captured them as per Aham-296. Puthap Pandian whose Wife Committed Sathi(Puram 147), and his son was Nediyon. As per Aham 116 this Nediyon was called “Nilantharu Thiruvin Nediyon”.

    Over the Next 150 years Pandiyas developed these region and named it as Madurai.
    Tamilnad had many rulers, mainly with 4 Large Kingdoms- Chera, Chola,Pandia and Athiyaman. The Athiaman’s lost their Kingdoms and were smaller kings later from end of Ist Cen.BCE, only from then on referring of MuVenthar starts and Tholkaapiyar says that once.

    Ezuththaikaram of Thol- has been analysed and Brahmi Inscriptions has been analysed in Depth, by Iravatham Mahadevan, Natana Kasinathan, R.Nagasamy and other Decipherers whose name those deciphering goes.
    Brahmi has 3 stages
    1. Late 3rd Cen. – 100 BCE, BT brahmi Tamil Inscriptions with Pragrithic Endings and more of Pragrithic words.
    2. 100 BCE To around 100CE, BT with less of Prakrit words and still Pragrithic endings.
    3. 100CE to 300CE, BT-Pulli, Use of Dots have come to differentiate letters and more of Tamil words.
    Tholkppiyam Ezuththathikaram rules match with this BT-Pulli
    So 50-100CE, must be the earliest of the dating for Tholkappiyam.

    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. 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.
    In his recent edition of Survey of Hinduism (Sunny, State University of New York Press 1994), Professor Klaus Klostermaier has noted important objections to theAryan Coming theory. 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.
    He states (pg.34): "Both the spatial and the temporal extent of the Indus civilization has expanded dramatically on the basis of new excavations and the dating of the Vedic age as well as the theory of an Aryan invasion of India has been shaken. We are required to completely reconsider not only certain aspects of Vedic India, but the entire relationship between Indus civilization and Vedic culture." Later he adds (pg.3: "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."

    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. SivaLinga worship is never seen in any of Tamil Lit. of Sangam to Manimekhalai. Using Stones for building only started from Pallavas in 6th or 7th Centuries, as Tamil has aversion to Stone which is used to refer Dead man by NAdukal. Nadukal Worship has nothing to do with Linga Worship. Where as we see Stone buildings from Asoka days itself in North.

    Linguistics, is a very Broad Science, and All Grammar Rules must be checked. Tholkappiyam says – “Ya” Will come only as “yaa” and for sa- sai.sow and sa cannot be start of words and Tiruvalluvar has followed this to major extant.
    After Burrows in his Lexicon classified many words as Dravidian, more than 5000 words, in later research from other side was proved that they are Indo-European.

    And all without going through these Grammar and saying this is root and that is root – Hence Tamil are waste of time and effort.

    I love my Mother Tongue Tamil as every One of you and read Older Literature, in more research view.
    From Bishop Caldwell to Burrows Liguistic Proofs are clear that Dravidians are Outsiders of India and Marched to India who came in around 3000BCE or later.
    As for as Aryans the dating of arrival is now put in from 7000- 2000BCE. I DO not
    Accept both, India has One tradition that is Indic.

    If Wishful Thinking was most of the work of PTS And TRS present day Political Dravidian is a Fraud Politics by motivated persons.

    Tholkappiyam and Sangam Literature refers Vedas and uses them.

    As for the myths of Tamil Sangam and role of Agasthia does not have support of Historic Researchers, with availability of More and more Datas. And Tholkappiyam Payiram says it is sung in presence of Panddyas, any dating earlier than 100BCE is ruled out for argument purpose itself.

    Actually when Tamil was announced as Classical Language, a fraud by making it as Classical of 1000 years back ground. The Mysore Linguistical Society to whom the Classical Language announcement duty was given by earlier NDA Govt, made it as 1500 old, so that No other Indian Language Literature could pass through that. That time Former Vice-Chancellor and Tamil Classical Language Movement Committee chairman announced clearly that for “Many Millenniums both Tamil and Sanskrit has Co-existed and let us not now fight” .

    I Request the same, we do not have any Literuature to say that this is Dravidian,and this is Aryan. No Tamil or Sanskrit Or Prakrit even Pali acknowledge visit of Foreign elements as Aryans. These are Missionary motivated for Conversion Business, used by Partial Political Benefits who all wants their Sons ONLY(Varnasrama Dharma) to Occupy their Positions for self Gains.

    Please go by UP-To date Datas please.

    Devapriya.

Page 26 of 28 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 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, 12:49 PM
  3. TAMIL is much ELDER to SANSKRIT !
    By vasabhar88 in forum Indian History & Culture
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 24th October 2005, 08:59 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
  •