NAAN MARAI

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Friends,

I am happy enough to meet you again after a gap.

Historical research shows ‘Naanmarai’ never specify four ‘marais’.

Pavanar says that Since Yasur & Sama Vedha hymns almost repeat the Rig Vedha hymns, Vedhic ‘marais’ would have to be only two as Rig & Atharvana Vedhas.(1)

Atharvana vedha contains only ‘manthras’. But Rig Vedha condemns ‘Manthras’. Rig Vedha praises Inthira. But other Vedhas condemns Inthira. Rig Vedha praises pithir / Thenpulaththar. Other Vedhas condemns Yaman and pithirs. Pavanar further says that after learning manthras from tamil traditions Atharvana vedha had been made. 1/6 th of Atharvana vedha is repetition of Rig Vedha. The contradiction between Vedhas is due the insertions made later years and plagiarism of Vedhics from tamil traditions.(2)

Yasur Vedha contains ritual hymns which have to be murmured / rendered & Sama vedha contains songs which have to be sung during rituals and all of them are repetition of Rig Vedhic hymns.(3) Pavanar conforms that vedhas were only two.

Latest research & comparative analysis shows that Rig Vedha is nothing but Tamil ‘Iynthiram’ which I may write in detail in some other thread.

Professor Ragav Iyengar conforms that during Alwar period in tamil land, Rig & Yasur Vedhas were called as Povuzhiyam and Thaithiriyam respectively.(4) He shows the following Thirumangai alwar’s wordings in support of his view.

“Santhokan POVUZHIYANAI Thazhalompu
TAITHIRIYAN sama vedhi” (5)

“Santhoka POVUZHIYA THAI THIRIYA
Sama Vedhiyanae !, Nedumalae !”. (6)

Pinkala Nigandu also says that Vedhas were two.

“ POWDIKA IRUKKU muthal Vedham Aakum”
“ Erandam Vedham YASU THAITHIRIUM”(7)

Thiru Ragava Iyengar further conforms through rock inscriptions of 8th & 9th Century ACE that the above two Vedha names are only available.

“POVUZHIYA Suththiram”(8), POVUZHIYA saranam , Thaithiriya saranam (9)

The above shows as I said earlier that without understanding the organized pattern of tamil marais, Vaduku Poosaris hurriedly divided and named their collections of Vedhas as four that too after 12th century ACE. The introductory poetry of ‘Sri Villipuththurar Bharatham’ written in tamil (14th century ACE) says that that Bharatham is FIFTH Vedha .

A renowned scholar Makaral Karthikeya Muthaliyar conforms that ‘NaanMarai’ only means ‘Moolamarai’ and explains as follows.(10)

Nan marai = Nal + marai
Nal – Mulai – base or beginning
Nal + thu = Naaru = Mulai – Young crop
Naru – Natru – Natrankal – A young paddy crop field.
Naral – mulaiththal – beginning of growth
Naru – manam – a smell – to specify the nature of good.
Nal- growing
Nal- Ver (root), mulai, Valarchi,Koormai (sharp), Nunmai (acute)

Scholar Poosai Subbiah Pillai further one step goes and says Vedhas are not marais (unwritten) but only murais (written) .(11)

Nachinarkiniyar’s commentary note for Tholkappiam payiram also conforms Tholakappiar timeline is much earlier than Vedha Viyasar.(12).

Tholkappiam Payiram says, “Mayanka Marabin Ezhuththu murai Kaatti” – which means tamil has definite & undoubtful (for each sound) script during Tholkappiar times (1250 BCE) when no other Indian language has script.(13)

Dr. Kannaiyan (Chennai Emporium Chairman) in his book clearly has explained that Asokan Brahmi inscriptions were evolved from tamil Perumi / Thamizhi script. Scholar Barnel also conforms this. Former Madras University Hindi language Dept. Head Dr. Shankar Raj also conforms this.(14)

A Buddhist monk ‘Vachrabothi’ (600 ACE) who traveled from Kanchipuram to Japan created & re-organised Japanese script based on tamil script even though he knew very well about paly, Prakritham & Sanskrit script. North Indian Rajya sabha MP, Scholar.Lokesh Chandra’s research paper conclusion says this. (15)

Hence, World’s foremost available grammar with foremost script never refer four Vedhas and only refers the ‘Moolamarai’ and details the meanings of ‘Moolamarai’ in its chapter ‘Porulathikaram’.

Tholkappiam specifies Tholkappiar as “Iynthiram Niraintha Tholkappiar” in Tholkappiam Payiram. This also shows “Iynthiram” was ‘Moolamarai.’

Let us see about ‘Iynthiram’ in relevant thread.



References :

1. Oppiun Mozhi Nool – page 128, Thevaneya Pavanar.
2. Same as 1.
3. Same as 1.
4. Alwarkal Kaala nilai, page 230-31, Mu. Ragava Iyengar.
5 & 6. Naalayira Thivya Pirapantham, Periya Thirumozhi, 5:5:9:5-6,7:7:2 :5-6
7. Pinkala Nigandu 2060-61.
8. South Indian inscriptions Vol ii, page 328, Vol iii, page 370
9. Encyclopedia ,Rep. No ii, 1906 and 76 of 1914.
10. Mozhinool – Payiraviyal – page 76-77, Makaral Karthikeya Muthaliyar
11. Tamizhil Nanmarai (Essay), Chentamizh chelvi, April 1992, page 304 – Poosai.
Subbiah Pillai.
12. Tholkappiam, Sirappu payiram, page 47, A. Sivalinganar.
13,14,15. Tamil & Tamil Culture in Indian history, page 5-6, Dr. Ka. Nedunchezhian,
Tamil University.

f.s.gandhi