View Poll Results: TAMIL or SANSKRIT which is the most ancient language ?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • TAMIL

    8 88.89%
  • SANSKRIT

    1 11.11%
Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 179

Thread: TAMIL is much ELDER to SANSKRIT !

  1. #91
    Senior Member Regular Hubber
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    202
    Post Thanks / Like
    HyderbadIf you don't believe me, go ask any Pakistan who has studied in Pakistan and ask him/her what he/she thinks about the Aryan/Dravidian thing.
    Hi Hyderbadi,
    I browsed throu' all your links, but these all old arguments that has been going on for sometime.My point is: IN the light of these latest developments which were published only early this year after more than ten years of DNA testing all over the world, the whole history may have to be revised. Not only about Vedic views but also the European view of the world if man origianted from Africa.I have not come across anything to suggest they have been discredited.
    So, instead of looking for clues in ancient literature both in tamil and sanskrit, we have much more direct evidence in the form of latest medical technology.So why not pursue this line?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #92
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    jeddah, saudi Arabia
    Posts
    399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thank you Thiru. A. P. Masilamani,

    Indra is also a Northern Dravidian word. It can be related to Tamil in+ thiRan (= inba viLayaattil thiRamudayavan ).
    Inthran is pure tamil word used in Tholkappiam and prevailed in ancient tamil worship.

    "Im' is the root as 'suttu oli' which means 'Kulir'(cool) and was used to specify substances of cool nature.

    Intham - puli , Inthuli - Perumkayam, Inthul - nelli, Inthu - Mathi / Chanthiran , Inthanam - Kaadu , Inthalam - a Yazh instrument used in Marutham land. Maarutham is cool air and hence the land was named Marutham. Inthalam is also a raham from this Yazh.

    'Im' turned 'Sam'- 'sim' produced santhanam, Santhu, sinthakam-pulia maram, Sinthu - a river , sinthooram- a tilak powder, sunthu- water and all specify cool nature.

    Inthiran is the god of Marutham land specified in tholkappiam. 'Inthira vizha' was celebrated in kaveri river is silapapathikaram message.

    Inthiran is the god of water land because water is cool in nature. Inthiran is also called Venthan. Varunan is god of sea land. 'Vari'
    means kadal.

    'Sinthu' river also might have been named from the word sunthu / sinthu. The word Inthiran turned 'Indra' in north India.

    Inthran and Uruthran(ruthran) worship is prevailing in vedhas and is noted in Egypt civilization makes the vedhics claim so. Inthran along with Kanthu (kanthan) / pillar worship in Egypt only shows tamils culture and not Vedhic culture. Vedhic culture was influenced by tamil culture.

    f.s.gandhi
    "Kal thonri man thontra kalathay mun thonri mootha kudi"- a second century literature- means when before stone became sand in earth the tamil tribes were formulated

  4. #93
    Senior Member Regular Hubber
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like

    SANSKRIT AND TAMIL

    Friends,
    I thank Idiappam on his clarifications on his older claim, but Idiyappam has not given which word in Sangam Literature means Jews, to much knowledge,there is none.

    What is the word for Greeks- referred? Mostly it is Yavanarkal- It does not mean Greeks, but mostly to Foriegners, but also a section of Our Tamils were also Yavanas- and I Give, Dictoionary meaning of Yavanas- with respect to the use in SAngam Period,as below:
    YAVANAM- Viraivu, Varipanam
    Yavanar- Kammalar , Oviyak karar, Sonakar, Yavana Thesathar, Kannalar, Thorkaruvi
    Vasippavar.
    Now -Kammmalar means Akka Saalaiyar, Arivar, Arputhar, Ovar, Pulavar, Kannalar,
    Viththakar, Thatchar, Thattar.
    Unless, we split each of reference in Sangam Literature- Generalising it would be a problem, and this is what was exploited by Dravida Samaiya Theivanayagam.
    Dear Shri.APM,
    I loved you intelligent questions, however most of it had already been covered,and on Devaneyan Quotes and refered books in my posting dated 7.6.2005, and I request you to kindly go through complete, and also Tirukural and Tamil roots words for Sanskrit
    words forum. I have given them.

    On Assumptions and Speculations of Panamparanars name and Origin, I do not understand as to serves what Purpose, but I understand You have Problems with Tholkappiyam dating and let us look at them with your further questions.

    We donot follow ethics of Literature, if we say Passages which are not to the liking of our assumptions as Interpolations- without any support, based on biased Opinions and this would bring us into Vaiapuripillai and Sivarajpillai Datings as Releavant.

    Most Commentator (Uraiasiriyarkal) of Tholkappiyam have referred to Panamparanar's sayings on the referred verses. Hence that is not required here.

    Why can't be this? why can't be that? Why not Aram-Porul-Inbam-Veedu? Sir -? Why we need to speculate? The Problem is you Put the Clock back by 50 years and the Jambavans of Tamil and renowened Authorieties have concluded with Proper Research. 50 Years back all this questions have been raised and answers have been found. Firstly You have so much problems in accepting, that Sckepticism is root of Problem.

    Sangam Literature has many references to Marai-NanMarai- Vetham, NalVetham , Arangam- Agamam etc., and some of them was listed by me. Now analyse each time and then what was derived from them was arrived, and that is Vedas, The Wild Speculation "Aram-Porul-Inbam-Veedu was dropped by those tendentious Schloars, and another Speculation was started by Ka.Su.Pillai, a different Four Tamil Vedas- named them " Thaithiriyam, Powdkam, Thalavakaram and Atarvanam" in
    his book ThiruNanmarai Vilakkam.

    These named were available in Chola Mannan KOKKARUN Thadankan's - ParthivaSekarapuram Copper Plates, and these names were also said by Nachinarkiniyar-Kappiyam Payira Voorail.

    So Tamil Scholars made research on this and found "ALL NAMED WERE PART OF FOUR Vedas only". Sir, you must be aware of the Communist Thinking Scholars Group- AIYVU VATTAM- Participants include Prof. Vanamamalai, Archealogist & Prof.R.V.RAMAN, Etymoligical Depts- Mr.Aldurai, Mr.P.Nallakannu, V.Krishnamurhty etc., who meet annually and analyse and submit annual reviews and Shri.V.Krishnamurthy presented -"TAMIL VETHAM- OR AIYVU" and I have quoted its contents and you can see them in my postings.

    And Pavanar had to respond then and Confirmed that All the references of Vedas, Nanmarai, Arangam, Marai- in Tholkappiyam and all references to Parpanar. Anthanar all refers to Brahmins, (ofcourse Pavanar gave exception to Tirukural- which ofcourse is not acceptable to many objective Scholars, which we might see in Tirukural forum, ) similarly Tholkappiyar was from KAppiyar Kudi- an Anthanar background is confirmed by every Uraiasiriyar and Pavanar.

    The word PARPANAN- in Tholkappiyam to Sangam Literature as per Scholars comes from-
    Noolkalai Padithu Araiyum, Naaligai Kannakai, KalamKanithal, Paruva Nilai and Nimithkam,
    Panchangam munne Parppavar- Forseer- or SEER. Why should we need to speculate them-
    differently?

    Now I quote Manimekhalai on Palsamiya Vooraiyadal-

    " Vetha Viyathanum Kirutha Kodium
    Ethamil Saimini enumiv Asiriyar ...... Manimekhalai 27: 5-8.
    Sangam Literature itself gives us the answer to all your Speculations Tendentiously put, and Concretely Tamil Scholars have held them Clearly as Sanskrit Vedas. Only thing is Our Friends, do not read Sangam Literature or Research Opinions, but do speculations.

    Now Ka.Su.Pillai's Speculative Tendentious research work was Exploited by Church, and One Dr.M.Deianayagam went on to use this and Got PHD, saying Tiruvalluvar wrote from Learning Bible, even went onto say Valluvar Copied, Saivam Developed from Bible. Pavanar- Maraimalai Adigal are his most sources of research. Church continues and His Daughter and disciple have got Research Phds, and M.phil saying Tamil Bakthi Movement, Vaisnavism and Muruga Worship on Sangam Literature are also inspired by Bible.

    Breaking words, and assuming what is not in Original Text has been exploited in this "THOMASIN INDIA-BIBLES" . A 3rd Century book called Acts of THOMAS- Written mostly in Syriac, was shown as example. The Oriinal refers to Twin brother by birth of Jesus- visited Mountainous Desert Country ruled by Gudnofor, Gudnophor, Gundophorous etc., and was killed in Neighbouring cuntry ruled by Mazdai or Masiduis in a place called Qualimiya or Calamina for witching. This book was rejected in New Testament in Late 4th Century.

    Church- made Gundophor as Kandappar, Mazdai as MachchaDevan or Mahadevan etc., Qualimaya became KaliManai. Later Coins from Afganistan Area- with the Name Gondophorus was received, and Church started Hiding Kandappar- Mahadevan now. The Problem is Gondphorus is dated to late Ist Century BCE to First Decades of CE, which is hidden to Common Public.

    Thomas Bible Scholars have Exploited, Maraimalai Adigal's Controversial Manickavasagar dating book.

    The Author of the book referred " ACTS of Thomas" was speculated as One Syrian Bardaisan- now how to link him to Kerala- Come Speculations from Our Dravidian Tamil Scholars- and I quote from Retd. Professor of English- JOSEPH Kolangaden, of St.Josephs College TRrichy,
    " Bardaisan Might be Madurai Koolavaniagan Chattanar, the Trade Commisioner- P31,The Histricity of Apostle Thomas. and again
    the Learned Professor who has also Authored Tamil books wrote, I quote-
    " Anyway Manimekhalai Gathai 27- Isanuvadigal of Vanchimanagar with Strict Monotheism most likely a reference to the Nascent Christian Community" Page32, Ibid.

    Learned Professor refers to the Sayings of Saivavathi and I leave it to you, Speculating on Sanskrit book meaninglessly by Our Scholars got its repo,and none of our friends respond to it and I want your Comments.

    Whatever Speculations and Questions you have put can be put on Every Old Illakiyam, as we have to be honest we accept that Tiruvalluvar wrote Kural and Kappiyar wrote ETC., and why should we accept them? How do you reconcile? Tholkappiyar's rules have been flouted by Sangam Literature itself?Why was it Translated from Some other Language
    and those original was Scraped, or Was Tholkappiyam Not for Tamil at all? Which is earlier? Which is later? We do not have single book from Legends of Sangams-? FSG has reduced Tamil Sngams of nearly 10,000 to around one fourth of that, from what is said in Iraiyanar Agaporul-why? What evidence he has for it.
    If we do not use same Scales to every Literature-Saman Seithu Seer Thookum Kol Pol...UNnecessary doubts are raised not out of Genuine reasons, but due to the False Probaganda of Missionaries and False reading of Indus-Saravathi River Valley Archealogy, Tendentious Scholars and the Selfish Politcal forces that dominating TN. Distrust came by false Probaganda,and not from any Historical or Linguistic Evidence. My Questions are as Arrgant to that of that put on other side.

    I have given quiet a lot of material on this subject. The Words Aryan and Dravidians are the frauds and Nobody has the right to call any section of Indians that way and I have quoted upto Ambedkar on this.

    Every Language in the world, till 15th Cen CE had more of Poetry and very little of Prose, because Literature are mostly thought Orally and Passed on Orally, Writing is done, but to handle them from them is very Difficult. No language was verbal, or no Language was written.

    Tamil's first inscriptions comes mostly from the STone Inscriptions made in Pazhis or Gugais where Vadamozhi SAmana Munivarkal, wrote, the newly learnt language, from the Script of their Language- Prakrit Scripts and Tamil Words- Mostly names etc.,

    Tamil's First Scripts have come from VadaMozhi Samanars, and Now COMES the Dating of TholKappiyam. N.Sanjeevi, M.RaasaManickanar Tho.Po.Mi and most of the Academic and Objective Scholars dated it to 350 BCE, and We need to look at Eluthuilakkanam- and Archealogists and Decipherers and Historian Natanakasinathan and others have found the Brahmi after 200BCE suits to Eluthuilakanam of Tholkappiyar, after The Vadamozhi Samanars had adjusted Script for Additional tamil letters as Zha etc., So We have to go Scientific dating and Word Split Speculations do not help.

    I do not like any Chavunistic groups- Jihadi-Converting Church- Hardcore Hindutvadis or Anti-Indic Tamil Chavunism- and Casteism all use same Techniques and I believe Kural :
    Palkuzhuvum Palseium Vutpagaium Venthu Alaikum
    Kol Kurumbum Illathu Nadu- 735, and I Believe all said and others are the same and Drag India backwards.

    We are in 21st Century and I am as much a Learner of Linguistics and History,but I look from the Past to Present and Please feel free to advice if I am Wrong, but look at evidences and not feelings, which confuses.

    I can give more from Sangam Literatrue if you need and Research opinions about them. Speculating with words and breadking it not Linguistic History or scientific but just bluffs.
    MosesMohammedSolomon

  5. #94
    Member Junior Hubber Uthappam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Solomon wrote:
    I am as much a Learner of Linguistics and History,but I look from the Past to Present and Please feel free to advice if I am Wrong, but look at evidences and not feelings, which confuses.
    Ah see! YOu intention is right, mr solomon. This Hub is the best place to practice writing your thesis, get your Masters! Yes!

    But you should have told us that earlier, we would not have paid much attention to your blabber!

    Never mind!
    Araitha Maavai Araithal, Iditha Maavai Idithal,
    Avitha Maavai Avithal, Kindal, Kilaral, Mudithal!

  6. #95
    Member Junior Hubber
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Singapore /Malaysia
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    the ground rules for ease of discussion

    Thiru Solomon.

    You have so much problems in accepting, that Skepticism is root of Problem.


    We can of course accuse each other of being skeptical Thiru Solomon! You refuse to accept that the "naanmaRai" referred in Panampaaranaar's stanza is aRam, poruL, onpam, viidu. We are talking about a treatise of grammar of the Tamil Language, which is Tolkaappiyam. First of all, there must be compelling reason for me to conclude or to be convinced that the poet was not referring to Tamils' own naan maRai and that he was referring to some other naan maRai across the border. What compelling reason or reasons are there?

    Let me give you an example. If I tell you that the tuition expenditure of 4 children comes to ONE THOUSAND, without telling you at the same time whether I am referring to my own 4 children or the 4 children in my neighbour's house, as my listener you have to naturally conclude that I am speaking of my own 4 children and not my neighbours' children. But if you insist that I referred to my neighbour's children, then a number of evidential problems arise.
    Firstly you have to convince me or yourself that the neighbour had 4 children and not 6 or 7! Secondly why I speak or have to speak of my neighbour's children and not my own when I have my own!!
    If you insist that I spoke of my neighbour's, you have two burdens to discharge: (1) that I am referring to my neighbour's children; (affirmation) (2) that I am not at all referring to my own children.(this is known as rebuttal). Both items of burden must be proved and proved conclusively. There must be some preponderance of evidence or proof before one is entitled to conclude one way or the other.

    In addition you also need to consider other factors: the causative factor: why I am speaking of my four children? The other is the sine qua non: the setting in which the basic facts operated.

    Looking at the naan maRai in the stanza, is the phrase relevant to the factual setting given in the stanza? Is there any consistency between naan maRai and the other things mentioned in the stanza? What is its significance vis a vis the facts, circumstances and consequences if any as obtained from the stanza? Is it contrary to common sense and experience to accept or reject a proposition or item of evidence? If a matter is open to double or multiple interpretations after going through all the above criteria, then you can reject all and believe none of it!!

    Mr. Solomon, let all the jambavans decide whatever they want to decide. If as a result of a jambavan's decision, you are going to lose half your estate, you would not let it stand. You will of course challenge it in Supreme Court WHETHER HE IS A JAMBAVAN OR NOT. If it does not affect you in that manner and it is purely of academic or other minor interest, you let him survive or go on his way. don't you? So, I am not worried about jambavans. For all I know, you can be a jambavan, but not declared to be one so far just because you were not "in the scene" - so to speak. This is not to say we slight everyone around but we do not lose our right and privilege as fellow human beings with some brains to examine what they are saying and to conclude for ourselves what we can believe and what we should not.

    Firstly, let me hear from you whether the 4 vedas have already come into existence at the time of Athangodu Aasan. I read the Vedas and understand that they were all composed [verbally] by different persons and at different times. The various hymns in each of the Vedas too were composed at different times. For a long time they were in oral form just being recited on religious occasions in North India before they were finally reduced to writing.

    Also note that "aRam karai naavin..." aRam is already mentioned.
    [ not urukku karai naavin ] (Rig Veda is not mentioned ). So the other three are: poRul, inpam, viidu. There is internal evidence available for my conclusion. How this is displaced by the arya vedas, pl also tell me. A book on ethics can be a maRai. ThirukkuRaL is a maRai. The Tamils had their own maRai. The aryans had their own at some point of time of course.

    You have also to prove that the phrase naan maRai was not a later insertion into what was already composed. [ If the original is "aRam karai naavin naaRporuL muRRiya," I can easily change it to "aRam karai naavin naanmaRai muRRiya" and no one would be the wiser! ] Please itemise in point form your proof for greater clarity not only for me but for the world that watching us via the internet. Thank you.
    APMASILA

  7. #96
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    jeddah, saudi Arabia
    Posts
    399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thiru A.P. Masilamani,

    North Indian scholars including Sanskrit pandits call vedhas as "Mahanubavam" as I earlier quoted Rajwade in this thread.

    You have given new dimension to Marais. Infact Vedham the word itself has tamil root "Vei" which means hide / marai since no synonyms / kilavikal in sanskrit based on this root. You have also noted this earlier in this thread.

    When we do the research the Field of perspective ( Kalam) is essential. Tamil is such a old language and present proofs are enough to make "Kalam" of any research to be adapted tamil as base. Maxmuller , Galduwell did mistake of not defining this "Kalam" and that led to unconclusive conclusions. Presently the christian missions also do research based on that that from Rome civilisation flow came to tamil Nadu etc. which is also wrong.

    In defining ariyar, Pavanar and Maraimalaiadikal also went in different path is what I feel. In this P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar. T.R.Sesha Iyengar and V.R. Ramachandra Dikshitar perfectly led tamil history. After 1960s due to the influence of dravidian movement and Aryan Invasion theory, research turned into different perspective and all researches were based on Sanskrit either in refute or in acceptance. "Kalam" was changed.

    In this context Tamil should be taken as "Kalam" to conclude everything. Language archeology is best proof intiated by Maxmuller should be accepted and in this way tamil should be given priority to conclude root words.

    Tamil evolved naturally as linguistics put forth, with suttu olikal, verbial expressions, Oru porut kilavikal and organised progress.

    In this tamil pandits should observe one thing. They are making colloquial words alien to tamil. For example instead of Nagai -siripu is used colloquially. Instead of 'Unnuthal' - saappiduthal is used. These are the words which never comes in literature. Tamil pandits consider this kind of words are alien to tamil and come to conclusion that they are from other languages namely sanskrit etc.

    In this case they have to look into the colloquial roots also .

    Tamil was before 3000 years. And sea farring tamil people went all over the world. They gave words to many languages. The same roots might have come after several thousand years to tamilNadu.

    Hence we have to explore the roots of words in this basis also.

    In some places of tamil literature Nanmarai turned Arumarai (six) and this has to be explained. Nanmarai is observed only in "payiram" not in "Tholkappiam". Tholkappiam also had insertions is most of the scholars's conclusion. And later part of sankam literature has this Nanmarai.

    We need not talk about 'Bakthi' literature. Most of the North Indian scholars view is Vedhas were influenced by tamil culture. Eventhough Manusmiruthi consolidated the occupational difference into caste difference, Upanishads and some agamas were influenced by tamil morals.

    f.s.gandhi
    "Kal thonri man thontra kalathay mun thonri mootha kudi"- a second century literature- means when before stone became sand in earth the tamil tribes were formulated

  8. #97
    Member Junior Hubber
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Singapore /Malaysia
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    t.y.

    Thank you thiruvaaLar Gandhi, and also Mr Uthappam.

    Good. Keep up the discussion.
    APMASILA

  9. #98
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    jeddah, saudi Arabia
    Posts
    399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Solomon wrote :

    What is the word for Greeks- referred? Mostly it is Yavanarkal- It does not mean Greeks, but mostly to Foriegners, but also a section of Our Tamils were also Yavanas- and I Give, Dictoionary meaning of Yavanas- with respect to the use in SAngam Period,as below:
    YAVANAM- Viraivu, Varipanam
    Yavanar- Kammalar , Oviyak karar, Sonakar, Yavana Thesathar, Kannalar, Thorkaruvi
    Vasippavar.
    Now -Kammmalar means Akka Saalaiyar, Arivar, Arputhar, Ovar, Pulavar, Kannalar,
    Viththakar, Thatchar, Thattar.

    First of all, we have to note that urns containing tamil has been found in Greece alongwith coins containing tamil. There should be some trade connection between tamils and Greek country. The flow is from tamilNadu to Greece and not Greece to Tamilnadu. Hence the initiators were tamils and civilizational flow is from tamilNadu to Greek.

    Greeks came here and they were noted as 'Yavanar' in tamil literature. And tamils were referred as 'Thiriyar' (Thiraiyar) and tamil as 'therimili" in Greek literature. These 'thiriyar' gave civilization to Greece. They went to Turky also and called by the same name. Eminent historien H.R. Hall's words are this.

    Yavanar are also meant thurukkiar, Milacher in some tamil dictionaries.

    Let us examine the root of this word.

    Yavanar should be started with vowel. Eyavanar = Eyavu +an+ ar since any word should have vowel starting at the beginning of evoluation.

    Eyavu in turn Eyam + U. 'Eyam' means oli, Vaththiyam ( it creates oli).chol (while talking sound is created). Root is 'Ei' which forms the word 'Eyambu" which means also 'cholluthal'.

    And those who operates this 'Eyam' was called Eyavan-Yavanan. Eyam also means 'Tholkaruvi' because it is made up of animal skin.
    Kammalar also creates sound while doing work. The rest of the meanings fit further.

    At the sametime 'Eyavu' means 'Vazhi undakku' , Vazhi ,chelavu(means roaming which specifies foreingners) - Eyaivu, Eyaintha Vazhi are comparative words. Here yavanar means foreigners.

    Here we find both of the words eventhough seems to be having different meaning at first instance but have root having same meaning. This is because tamil is natural language.

    Hence Yavanar clearly specifies foreigners than other meaning in the verses of literature.

    f.s.gandhi
    "Kal thonri man thontra kalathay mun thonri mootha kudi"- a second century literature- means when before stone became sand in earth the tamil tribes were formulated

  10. #99
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    jeddah, saudi Arabia
    Posts
    399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Solomon wrote,

    FSG has reduced Tamil Sngams of nearly 10,000 to around one fourth of that, from what is said in Iraiyanar Agaporul-why? What evidence he has for it.
    My posting was based on eminent scholar Dr. Sothi parakasam's book 'Thiravidar varalaru' in which he compares the flood stories of Anchor Dictionary with tamil sankam literature message. Anchor Dictionary perfectly recorded the timings of flood stories and relevant 'Kadalkol ' in tamil literature is compared and conclusion is made : Not like Nadana Kasinathan's speculative work.

    Adichanallure urn containing tamil Brahmi is dated to 500 BCE is the earliest one in India. Still solomon spread message around "sa manar Kukai"
    "Kal thonri man thontra kalathay mun thonri mootha kudi"- a second century literature- means when before stone became sand in earth the tamil tribes were formulated

  11. #100
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    jeddah, saudi Arabia
    Posts
    399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Let us take up "Erayanar Akapporul" which was written in 2nd century CE and had lot of insertions till Eighth century CE to explain about Marai,Anthanar,pulavan & Munaivan.

    "Anbin Iyinthinak Kalavenap paduvathu
    Anthanar Arumarai Mantral Ettanul,
    Kantharuva Vazhakkam Enmanaar pulavar"

    Let us take up the words Iynthinai, Kalavu, Anthanar, Arumarai, Mantral Ettanul & Pulavar.

    Iynthinai clearly specifies five lands and no north indian literature has this classification of lands. Inthran & Varunan are gods of Marutham and Neithal lands respectively.

    Anthanar Arumarai Mantral Ettanul - clearly conforms of what Tholkappiar says about Iyer i.e., the head of family marriage rituals and not Vedha Brahmanar.

    Arumarai Mantral Ettanul- clearly shows that Eight marriage types were described in six marais. Where is 'nan marai' ? In Valluvar's Pothu marai The kural starting "eyatralum....." expalins about pulavar duties. Where do Anthanar duties come ?

    When Nanmarai is not refered in Tholkappiam "Maraiyor Theyam" is told. It definitely won't necessarily specify the Theyam of Vedhas but a land within Tamil speaking people.

    "Ethu Munaivanal Seyyappatta Nool Akalaan" - Here Munaivan is identified as new inventor and not usual pulavar since the formula for Kalavu marriage was created first time.

    "Innool Seithaar Yaaro?" ........Avisothi Arumaraik kadavul"

    Sothi is generally referred to Lord Siva and he is not the god of four Sanskrit vedhas. Infact Inthran is talked in verses of Vedhas. Ruthran is talked in lesser verses. Even if we take Ruthran is Siva, Siva cannot be taken as god of four vedhas. Arumarai never specify four Vedhas.

    Siva can be taken as God of Arumarais and what Arumarai means has not been proved so far.

    Hence,Pulavar,Munaivan & Anthanar never be the same as I said earlier referring Tholkappiam.

    Maraimozhi-Manthiram also prevailed in tamil land and this is not necessarily be manthiram of four vedhas.

    Nanmarai might be the reference to the four Vedhas but Thiru A.P. Masilamani's query is very much fittable to deny this claim. Because we don't know What are Arumarais and What are nan marais.

    I want to just explain how maraimozhi - occulstic knowledge / language prevailed in tamil land by giving one word's root archeology.

    We have already seen Inthu specifies chandran / Mathi. We know because of its cool nature it is called Inthu. Then why is it called 'Mathi'?

    In occulstic studies moon is associated with man's imaginative pursuits. If imagination is in higher level he will become mad. And due to that all madmen are never exposed to fullmoon day. On full moon day moon's gravitational force increases and it affects earth also. Lot of tidal waves are created in oceans during full moon days. From this We come to know that moon's attractive force is associated with man's mind. Hence moon / Inthu is called 'Mathi'.

    As I have already explained in the previous pages of this thread before samanam religion this sort of sankiam religion prevailed in tamil land.

    f.s.gandhi
    "Kal thonri man thontra kalathay mun thonri mootha kudi"- a second century literature- means when before stone became sand in earth the tamil tribes were formulated

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is tamil derived from Sanskrit
    By Oldposts in forum Tamil Literature
    Replies: 279
    Last Post: 8th June 2018, 03:36 PM
  2. all Truth summarised abt Tamil n sanskrit
    By Oldposts in forum Tamil Literature
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 15th November 2008, 11:59 AM
  3. Tamil and Sanskrit
    By maduraithamizhmanikandan in forum Indian History & Culture
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30th May 2006, 12:49 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
  •