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 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 179

Thread: TAMIL is much ELDER to SANSKRIT !

  1. #121
    Senior Member Regular Hubber
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like

    TAMILAR MARRIAGES AND TRUTHS.

    Mr.FSG talked about Ancient Tamil Marriages and saying no Presence of Vehics there. FSG does not take any of the Concluded Opinions of more than 500 Research P.hd. Thesies, and Speculates with Rejected Separatist Sayings, and His Handling of Arumarai- and his Complete Innocence of Original Literature is completely exposed.

    Now On Old Tamil Marriages-
    Now Let us Understand Velvi:

    Nan Pala Kelvi Murriya Velvi Anthanarukku - Puram 361.

    Anthi Anthanar Arunkaden Irukkum
    Muththie Vilakirru Injum Puram -2

    Now Velvi and Marai are always One Every where for the world, and We have to now Clearly Live by Concluded Datings of the Literature- Sangam to Kural to Silaptahikaram- 300BCE to 100 CE,
    and Tholkappiyam very clearly 150BCE TO 200BCE, any thing beyond this are mere Speculations.

    Now In Silapathikaram on Kannagi Wedding:

    Malai Thal Chenni Vairamani Thoonagathu
    NilaVithanathu NithilapPum Panthar Kil
    Vanur Mathiyan sgadanaya Vanthu
    Chali orumean thakaiyalai Kovalan
    MAMUTHU PARPPAN MARAIVAZHI KATITA
    Thii Valandh Seithu.....
    and again


    we see the song continues :

    Vilakinar Kalathinar Virintha Paligai
    Mulaikuta Niraiyinar
    Friends Detailed Marriage function is mentioned and most of what is mentioned is followed even today By Orthodax Tamils even today.

    Now Let us TholKappiyam We See PolyGamy is Openly Practised by Society-
    PinMurai akkiya PerumPorul Vathuvai
    Thonmurai Manaivi Ethirpadayinum - Karpiyal 31

    Kamak Kilathi Manaiol Enrivar
    Emuru Kilavi Solliye ethirum and

    In every House Girls are grown for additional Wifes(?)

    KadarParathai Ellarkum Vurithe So POLYGAMY was certainly Present.

    SATHI was also Prevalent, Mentioned in PuraNanuru- Wife of Puthapandian Jumping in to fire is mentioned.

    Tholkappiyam is Clear on Castelism:

    MELOR Moovarkum Punarntha Karanam
    Kilorku Akiya Kalamum VUnde Karpi3

    Pirape Kudimai Anmai Andodu..... Thol. Mei -25

    and on Love Marriages:

    Kamak Koottam Kanum Kalai
    MARAIOR TheEthu Mandral Ettanul
    Thuraiamai Nal Yal Thunaimayor iyalbe- Kalbi 1
    Here when Lovers meet and mind meets they Unite, and THOLKAPPIYAR says Like- Maraiyor- i.e., In Vedas Kandarva Manam is allowed, like this it is.

    Now further when this Lovers meet and Mental Marrages, cheating happened, then came -

    Poiyum Valuvum Thondriya Pinnar
    IYER Yathanar KARANAM enba- Karp -4,

    Marraiges became a big function and Iyers- Brahmins doing Velvi, and with God's Presence this functions were conducted.

    So This is what is Tamil Marriages about.

    Mr.Anchaneya, Thank You, I Wanted FSG to keep on Bluffing as many times before exposing it and At right time You did it. Be careful You would be attacked On any way if you stand on Research Truths and not on there falsehoods.

    FSG corrected my meaning of Kural , on "Akal Visumbular Koman", and thank you for the same- I Pointed out that Akal Visumbular Koman is a Single Phrase- Meaning Head of Thevarkal- nothing to do with Ramayan Agalikai Story, and that is it, and I Quote Shear Nonsense saID by Mr.Neduncheliyan:

    Inthiran and how he was defeated by this 'munivar' who controlled his five senses and mock the manusmrithi belivers with that kuraL

    "aInthaviththAn aAttral akal visumpulOr
    kOman inthiranae saala kati' (i'm sorry if i got the kural wrong)

    then in another kuraL where vaLLuvar says
    "marappinum oOthik koLalAgum pArppanAr
    pirappozhukkang kuntrak kedum" (was it oOthik or oOthuk?)

    In this kuraL ThiruvaLLuvar point out how Brahmins are treated better than the normal people of the North India and how if Brahmins make mistake, then their head is shaved bald or they are abolished from the village. However if someone else does the same crime then they get punished in cruel manner.


    Mr.FSG , This Kural -
    Marappinum Oothukolam Parppan Pirapu
    Olukkam Kundrak Kedum- Kural 144
    For Brahmins where called AruTholizar(ARU-Vallina ra- means 6)
    and Parpanar, as they wrote Panchangam- Forsee Rains, Climate in advance, and told when to SOW, What Crop and also suitable Dates for Travel etc., and Pirappozhukam for Aruthozil Anthanar- Parpanar is Clearly mentioned in Sangam Literature: from

    Pathirupathu

    Kelvi Kettu Padivam Vodiyathu
    Velvi Vettanai Vuyarnthor Vuvamba
    Othal Vettal Avaipirar Seital
    EIthal Erral enru Aaru Purintu olukum
    Arampuri Anthanar Valimolunthu Oluki. - Their Duties are :
    1. Read Great Books and research
    2. Teach those Books
    3. Do Vedhic Yagnas and Poojas for self
    4. Perform Vedhic Yagnas and Poojas for others.
    5. Give Money to Needy and
    6. Receive Money so that you can do 5.

    So Here Valluvar says, even when He Forgets- what is read- i.e., Maraikal- You can relearn, but maintain all other Duties, and where here the Nonsense of Interpretation on Valluvar is against Vedas comes.

    No Objective Historical Scholar in the world feels Saraswathi River-Indus valley Pictorial Symbols are Dechiphered and are clearly Bogus, and Mathiwanan has been one of the worst Forgeries completely rejected.

    He Must take this 10,000/ Dollar price are stop Nonsense.

    rk_k, thank you, If Olas are Original Let Mr.FSG Help and take Million Dollar Bet on Astrology, and stop speculations here.

    Sangam Literature or Vadamozhi Literature belongs to the Period it's written and both had good and other type of that time, and Vedas have been in Tamilnadu by 1000Bce, or earlier and We do not have a single Tamil Literature earlier than 300BCe, TO diferenciate Tamil and Vedic Cultrure, and As Sindu -Saraswathi Archelogy and others Prove Vedhic Worship is Prevalent for more than 5000 years or more.

    If you are dating Vedas to CE, please quote from thAT pERIOD
    Literature and Not Speculation of 20th Century Hypocrites.
    MosesMohammedSolomon

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #122
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    jeddah, saudi Arabia
    Posts
    399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dear friends,

    Solomon cries “marai-marai-marai” and its meaning is “Vedham-Vedham-Vedham” and it is Vedhic tradition . We know Marai & Vedham are synonyms for hidden message. Vedham has root in tamil and not in Sanskrit. (How many times I am repeating this for Vedhics guys )

    Let us see in Tholkappiam What Marai means. Tholkappiam was written during 1250 BCE and Sanskrit Vedhas were written only during 100 CE. It is ridiculous to see Vedhic tradition influenced Tholkappiam as Vedhic Solomon claims.

    Readers if possible can go to the following link for Electronic form of Tholkappiam in tamil to easily examine of what I say here.
    http://www.tamil.net/projectmadurai/pub/pm0100/tolkap.pdf (Thanks for our hubber Mr. Idiappam who mentioned this in old thread ‘History of Tamil’ which I happen to see now)

    Moontram Pakam – Porulathikaaram – 8. Cheyyuliyal- 178

    Kalavu and Karpu are two types of Marriages prevailed in tamil land. Kalavu is called “Marai Vazhkai” (hidden life)

    ‘Kaamap Punarchiyum Idam Thalaipadalum
    Paankodu Thazha alum Thozhiyin Punarvum Entru
    Aanka NAAL Vakaiyinum Adaintha Charpodu
    MARAI ena Mozhithal MARAIYOR Aare.

    Kamam punarichi, Idan thalaipadal, Paankodu Thazha Al & Thozhiyin Punarvu – Four types (Naal Vakai). These are called ‘Marai’ life of “Maraiyor” – here ‘maraiyor’ means the Thalaivan & Thalaivi (Hero & Heroine). ‘Aaru’ here means ‘Vazhi’ and not six as already four is defined in this poetry.

    Here we find no significance of Vedhas but only find that Marai life of Maraiyor (the hero and heroine) and not Vedham / Chathur Vedhas.

    Cheyyulial – 179

    After kalavu, karpu life shall start. This is called ‘Marai Velippaduthal (Hidden kalavu life comes out ) and subsequent things as specified in this poetry to define Karpu life.

    ‘MARAI velippaduthalum Thamarin Peruthalum
    Evai Muthalaakiya Eyal Neri Theriyaathu
    Malivum punarvum Uoodalum Unarvum
    Piruvodu Punarnthathu KARPU enappadume.

    ‘Marai Velippaduthal’ here not Chathur Vedhas Velipapaduthal but Heoine’s kalavua Vazhkai velipaduthal.

    Praththinaiyiyal – Cheyul 17

    “Manai pattu kalankich Chithaintha Vazhith thozhiku
    Ninaiththal Chantra ARU MARAI Uyirththalum”

    Here the Thozhi reminds her ‘kalavu Vazhkai’ – its pleasure to the Heroine who suffers with the Karpu (manaip pattu) Vazhkai. ‘Ninaiththal Charntha” specifies this. 'Aru marai' here not Chur Vedhas but Heroine’s Kalavu Vazhkai.

    Karpiyal – Cheyyul -10

    MARAYIN vantha Manaiyol Cheivinai- Here the heroine(Manaiyol who is now in karpu Vazhkai)who came from Kalavu Vazhkai is specified.

    Thus all along Thokappiam We have so far derived the meaning for the Marai as Kalavu Vazhkai and it is nothing to do with Chathur Vedhas.

    Next We go in for “Theyam” meaning. Theyam has root in ‘Thei’(kuril The) which means Kolai (murder) / Theivam as per tamil dictionaries. From ‘Thei’ – Thei (nedil The) – Thee (neruppu-fire) evolved out which is meant for perishing. Theivam is also considered as frightening object by tamils. Sivan is called perishing God. ‘Theeyai valamvaruthal’ is tamil culture since ‘thee’ is also considered as Theivam / God. Those who were dead also were considered as God and they were buried in land and this lands were called ‘Theyam’. Why I here elaborate this meaning is due to by virue of its meaning used in Tholkappiam.

    Akaththinaiyiyal – Cheyyul - 39

    “Thozhi THEYETHUM” kandore Paankinum – Here Thozhi theyam means the birth place of heroine’s friend. It will not be a farrer / distance land.

    Cheyyul- 43
    ‘Uoorathu Charpum sellum THEYAMUM’- here the birth place of Hero to which Heroine will go after marriage is specified. It will not be also a land of distance / farrer in nature since love could be happened between nearer villages.

    Now we go into Kalaviyal Cheyyul - No. 1

    “INPAMUM PORULUM ARANUM entranku
    Anpodu Punarntha EINTHINAI (five thinais) marunkin
    Kamak Koottam Kaanum Kalai
    MARAIYOR THEYATHTHU Mantral Ettanul
    Thuraiyamai Nal YAZHTH Thunaimaiyor Eyalpae.

    The Marriage here talked is Kalavu marriage and not Karpu marriage. I have already expressed “Arumarai Mantral Ettanul” in Erayanar Kalaviyal urai in this thread Earlier. Both phrases matches each other.

    The word Maraiyor in the last line means the Hero & heroine who are engaged in Kalavu Vazhkai as I meant at the beginning Cheyyul. ‘Maraiyor theyam’ here means the place of Hero & Heorine at which their Marai Vazhkai and subsequent Eight marriages happen.

    As I earlier expressed no chathur vedhas contains this Eight marriage types in ‘kalavu Vazhkai’.But Tholkappiar shows this eight type of marriages if not marriages the eight types of Kalavu Vazhkai. Kindly readers see to it as the following.

    Kalaviyal Cheyyul – 9

    Vetkai Oruthalai Ulluthal Melithal
    Aakkam Cheppal Naanu Varai Eruththal
    Nokkuva Ellam Avayae Poral
    Maraththal Mayakkam Sakkadu entru Ech
    Sirappudai marabinavai KALAVU ena Mozhipa.

    Eight types of Kalvu Vazhkai is clearly mentioned.

    1.Vetkai,2.Oruthalai Ulluthal,3.Melithal,4.Aakkam Cheppal, 5.Nanu varai Iruththal, 6.Nokkuva ellam avaye poral,7.Maraththal 8.Mayakkam Chakkadu are eight types of Hero & Heroines thoughts who mingle in kalavu Vazhkai as they mingle in Karpu marriage (eru varum ontru Aakuthal- Iru manam ontranaal thirumanam).

    The same is specified in 5. Poruliyal as

    “Kaman Unniya Marabidai theriya
    ETTAN Pakuthiyum Vilanka Ottiya”

    Real Lovers of Marai Vazhkai will have all the above. The highest pleasure and pain happen in this situation. Any lovers in our hub . They can understand easily this.

    Hence Maraiyor theyaththu Mantrl Ettanul / Arumarain mantral enttanul – both have same meaning of “Kalavu Vazhkai”.

    Maraiyor theyam never specify North India / Vedhic land since the ‘KARUPPORUL’ talked in tholkappiam is about ‘KALAVU VAZHKAI’.

    Next we go into the meaning of Paarpan and Pakkam. Paarpan / Iyer as I specified earlier are not present Brahmins because two reasons 1. Primarily Valluvar Castes were priests and Valluvar who are now as Scheduled Tribes have Iyer surname and Kallar Castes who were considered as Cholas have also Iyer surname. The valluvar caste might have mixed with incoming north Indian priest(Vedhics) castes to become ‘Parpaan’ of present days or replaced by the incoming tradition .2. Brahmins first were called as ‘paramanars’ (as note specified by Dr.Sothi prakasam which I have already expressed in this thread) and all those who followed reformed ‘Vaishnavism’ were also called as Brahmins and here Brahmins are not indentified as Caste but indentified as religion. Perhaps later period due to the spread of Vedhic religion all over India and the caste system established all priests might have been put into one fold of Brahmins.

    Certainly ‘Paarpaan’ was there in Tholkappiam as the head of both Kalavu marriage and Karpu marriage. In KARPIYAL of Tholkappiam lot of other insertions were made and this is scholars view. Kindly see the following Poetries having participants of Kalavu and Karpu marriages.

    Porulathikaaram – Cheyyul – 181

    ‘Paarpaan Pankan Thozhi Chevili
    Cheerthu sirappin Kizhavan Kizhaththiyodu
    Alavu Eyal Marabin ARU Vakaiyodum
    KALAVIN Kilavikku Uriyar Enba’

    Pariticipants / Inducers in kalavu Vazhkai- 1. Paarpan 2. Pankan 3. Thozhi 4. Chevili 5.Kizhavan(hero),6. Kizhaththi (heroine) – Aru Vakai - 6 types.

    Cheyyuliyal – 182

    Paanar Kooththan Viraliyar Paraththai
    Aanam Chantra Arivar Kandor
    Penuthaku Sirappin Paarpan Muthala
    Munnurak kilantha ARU varodu Thokaie
    Tholneri Marbin KARPIRKU uriyar.

    Participants / Inducers in Karpu Vazhkai – 1. Paanar 2. Kooththan. 3. Viraliyar 4. Paraththai 5.Aanam Chantra Arivar 6. Paarpan – Aruvarodu – 6 persons(6 Vakai)

    Here you see the word “Aanam” which later turned into “Thyanam” in Sanskrit and this was mentioned by me in the thread “Thinamum oru Chol” column. And Certainly the CHANTROR were different group as ANTHANAR and they don’t specify PAARPAN who is head of marriage ritual.

    Now we go into the meaning of ‘Pakkam’ in Tholkappiam which means ‘Enai’(Parrallel)

    Puraththinaiyiyal – Cheyyul 17

    “Pulla Vazhkai Vallan PAKKAMUM”
    ‘Thukal thapu Sirappin Chantror PAKKAMUM”
    Kalaviyal- Cheyyul 16
    ‘Eivakai Marabin Arasan PAKKAMUM
    Erumoontru marabin Eenaiyor PAKKAMUM

    In the above Vallan and Chantror are single, Arasan’s depending upon five lands 5 and Enaiyor here ‘others’ are 6 varieties is as specified. Pakkam here means like / Associated / Avarai pontra’.

    Now we take it –‘ARU vakaip patta ‘PAARPANAR’ pakkamum – in which Pakkam clearly specifies the persons associated with Paarpaan in Kalavu and Karpu Marriages as I told above in two poetries.

    Hence Vedhic solomons will always misinterpret the meaning and any scientific analysis will prove that is wrong. Readers shall surely observe this.

    I would talk about other issues raised by Solomon about gods,Castes and other rituals quoting tamil literature shortly.

    THOLKAPPIAM THE WORLD FOREMOST AND OLDEST SURVIVING TAMIL GRAMMAR NEVER CONTAINS VEDHIC TRADITIONS.

    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. #123
    Junior Member Admin HubberNewbie HubberTeam HubberModerator HubberPro Hubber
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like

    VADAMOZHI AND TAMIL

    Friends,

    Great Hypocrisy is CONTINUOUSLY been done, F.S.Candhi dates Tholkappiyam on his own Accord without any proofs and I Give Universal concluded opinion.

    April 11, 2000
    Statement on the Status of Tamil as a Classical Language
    Professor Maraimalai has asked me to write regarding the position of Tamil as a classical language, and I am delighted to respond to his request.

    I have been a Professor of Tamil at the University of California, Berkeley, since 1975 and am currently holder of the Tamil Chair at that institution. My degree, which I received in 1970, is in Sanskrit, from Harvard, and my first employment was as a Sanskrit professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1969. Besides Tamil and Sanskrit, I know the classical languages of Latin and Greek and have read extensively in their literatures in the original. I am also well-acquainted with comparative linguistics and the literatures of modern Europe (I know Russian, German, and French and have read extensively in those languages) as well as the literatures of modern India, which, with the exception of Tamil and some Malayalam, I have read in translation. I have spent much time discussing Telugu literature and its tradition with V. Narayanarao, one of the greatest living Telugu scholars, and so I know that tradition especially well. As a long-standing member of a South Asian Studies department, I have also been exposed to the richness of both Hindi literature, and I have read in detail about Mahadevi Varma, Tulsi, and Kabir.

    I have spent many years -- most of my life (since 1963) -- studying Sanskrit. I have read in the original all of Kalidasa, Magha, and parts of Bharavi and Sri Harsa. I have also read in the original the fifth book of the Rig Veda as well as many other sections, many of the Upanisads, most of the Mahabharata, the Kathasaritsagara, Adi Sankara’s works, and many other works in Sanskrit.

    I say this not because I wish to show my erudition, but rather to establish my fitness for judging whether a literature is classical. Let me state unequivocally that, by any criteria one may choose, Tamil is one of the great classical literatures and traditions of the world.

    The reasons for this are many; let me consider them one by one.

    First, Tamil is of considerable antiquity. It predates the literatures of other modern Indian languages by more than a thousand years. Its oldest work, the Tolkappiyam,, contains parts that, judging from the earliest Tamil inscriptions, date back to about 200 BCE. The greatest works of ancient Tamil, the Sangam anthologies and the Pattuppattu, date to the first two centuries of the current era. They are the first great secular body of poetry written in India, predating Kalidasa's works by two hundred years.

    Second, Tamil constitutes the only literary tradition indigenous to India that is not derived from Sanskrit. Indeed, its literature arose before the influence of Sanskrit in the South became strong and so is qualitatively different from anything we have in Sanskrit or other Indian languages. It has its own poetic theory, its own grammatical tradition, its own esthetics, and, above all, a large body of literature that is quite unique. It shows a sort of Indian sensibility that is quite different from anything in Sanskrit or other Indian languages, and it contains its own extremely rich and vast intellectual tradition.

    Third, the quality of classical Tamil literature is such that it is fit to stand beside the great literatures of Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Chinese, Persian and Arabic. The subtlety and profundity of its works, their varied scope (Tamil is the only premodern Indian literature to treat the subaltern extensively), and their universality qualify Tamil to stand as one of the great classical traditions and literatures of the world. Everyone knows the Tirukkural, one of the world's greatest works on ethics; but this is merely one of a myriad of major and extremely varied works that comprise the Tamil classical tradition. There is not a facet of human existence that is not explored and illuminated by this great literature.

    Finally, Tamil is one of the primary independent sources of modern Indian culture and tradition. I have written extensively on the influence of a Southern tradition on the Sanskrit poetic tradition. But equally important, the great sacred works of Tamil Hinduism, beginning with the Sangam Anthologies, have undergirded the development of modern Hinduism. Their ideas were taken into the Bhagavata Purana and other texts (in Telugu and Kannada as well as Sanskrit), whence they spread all over India. Tamil has its own works that are considered to be as sacred as the Vedas and that are recited alongside Vedic mantras in the great Vaisnava temples of South India (such as Tirupati). And just as Sanskrit is the source of the modern Indo-Aryan languages, classical Tamil is the source language of modern Tamil and Malayalam. As Sanskrit is the most conservative and least changed of the Indo-Aryan languages, Tamil is the most conservative of the Dravidian languages, the touchstone that linguists must consult to understand the nature and development of Dravidian.

    In trying to discern why Tamil has not been recognized as a classical language, I can see only a political reason: there is a fear that if Tamil is selected as a classical language, other Indian languages may claim similar status. This is an unnecessary worry. I am well aware of the richness of the modern Indian languages -- I know that they are among the most fecund and productive languages on earth, each having begotten a modern (and often medieval) literature that can stand with any of the major literatures of the world. Yet none of them is a classical language. Like English and the other modern languages of Europe (with the exception of Greek), they rose on preexisting traditions rather late and developed in the second millennium. The fact that Greek is universally recognized as a classical language in Europe does not lead the French or the English to claim classical status for their languages.

    To qualify as a classical tradition, a language must fit several criteria: it should be ancient, it should be an independent tradition that arose mostly on its own not as an offshoot of another tradition, and it must have a large and extremely rich body of ancient literature. Unlike the other modern languages of India, Tamil meets each of these requirements. It is extremely old (as old as Latin and older than Arabic); it arose as an entirely independent tradition, with almost no influence from Sanskrit or other languages; and its ancient literature is indescribably vast and rich.

    It seems strange to me that I should have to write an essay such as this claiming that Tamil is a classical literature -- it is akin to claiming that India is a great country or Hinduism is one of the world's great religions. The status of Tamil as one of the great classical languages of the world is something that is patently obvious to anyone who knows the subject. To deny that Tamil is a classical language is to deny a vital and central part of the greatness and richness of Indian culture.


    (Signed
    George L. Hart
    Professor of Tamil
    Chair in Tamil Studies,
    and friends, hence all his theories are wrong- Which Sangam Lit or Post Sangam Lit or Ist Millenium Lit says, his dating of Vedic compostion.

    Friends- Let us thank RAMRAGHAV for his posting:

    Hi..............ancheneya has said that 'arumarai' is actually idaiyina 'ru', is this correct? If it is, it invalidates much of the discussion on the arumarai, right?
    and Candhi ignored till this repeat query, not a Gentle man's way and his reply:

    We can find some treachery works in deciphering out the meaning of the words NaalVedham,Naanmarai & arumarai. Tholkappiam does not have these words. It tells about 'Maraimozhi'.

    Aruvi & Aaru has same root as 'Aru': No number in this.

    I put my query that Aaru marai because if number is there in Naanmarai, the possibility of 'Aaru' number is also there. There is no necessity to call arumarai anywhere and if we look into poetry atleast for the purpose of Ethukai & Monai also this arumarai is not used.

    If we read Naalmarai as Nalmarai and Naanmarai as Nanmarai it will have same meaning of Arumarai.
    ......
    Tamils (Phd.s holders) should examine this aspect by once again going through the original manuscripts.

    f.s.gandhi
    _________________

    Solomon was always insisting on not to go toomuch on Roots and Candhi saying that Aruvi- has same root Proves it correct, and Mr.Candhi wants Research Opinion, which was given by Solomon earlier which is repeated:
    As for Dubious methods by Maraimalai Adigal and KasuPillai- etc., , I Quote from the book Aivu Vatta Veliyedu- run by Communist Scholars- Prof Vanamamalai and others- and this Article was Authored by Ve.Krishnamurthi.
    " Veru Vithamaga solvathanal Rig,Yajur, Samam, Atharvanam agiya Nangu Vethangalum Ariyarkalin Padaipukale enra Vunmaium, Bramanrgale Kappalargal nra Yathartha Nilayun Avargalathu Nokirku Idaiyuraga Vaiththu.
    Intha Idayurai Kadakka Munby Eppothum Illatha Puthu Kolgaikalai NeethiKatchiyin Karuthukavalrgalakiya Inth Arignarkal (KA.Su.Pillai, MaraimalaiAdigal and SivarasaPillai) Uruvakkinar. ATavathu Vethangal endrum Marai Noolgal endrum, Saiva kuravargalal Kurippidappadubavai Vadamolzi Vethangal Alla endrum, Vadamolzi Vethangal Thondri vittana endrum avarrai kanda Vadamozhiyar, thelivaga Solvadanal Branmanargal avarrai Vadamolziyil peyarthuk kondargal endrum Koorath Thalaip pattanar.
    Avvarayin atthamil VETHANGAL INDRU Vullanava endra Vinavirku avai Kadalkolal Azinthupoyina endrum avargal Koorinar. Ikkurugal mutrilum Varalarru Virothmanavai; Vignapoorvamarravai ena Arignargalal Thallappattana, endralum, avarrin Thakkam IndruVarai Tamilagh Makkalidaiye Needithu Irukkirathu enin Migaiyagathu."
    - Further the article goes on to analyse Ka.Su.Pillai- giving names Thaithriyem, Bowdigam, Thalvagaram, Atharvanam Agum, entrthil, the Prof analysed and proved that all this names four named refers to some parts of the Indian Vedas.
    Prof- also mentions of his article- "kA.SU.Pillayin Aiyvumurai" about the dubious research methods.
    Finally Concludes- Ellavatrirkum Melaka Tamilil Nangu Vethangal,, Vadamozhi Vethangalukhu munnare Irunthana endrum avai Muraiye Bavudiyam, Thalavagharam Thaithreyam endrum KA.SU.Pillai pondra Tamil Vetha Arvalargal KOorru Atharamarrathu enavum Thuniyalam." THIS ARTICLE COMES IN Page 51-65.
    So Mr.FS.Candhi would not accept any Truth REsearches and would stand firm MuyalukuMoonukal, and Has to give Proofs of respective Periods.

  5. #124
    Senior Member Senior Hubber Idiappam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    675
    Post Thanks / Like
    Let's get back to the subject! There is no evidence at all that the Rig Veda was written 600BCE or earlier. There are just off-the-cuff claims by fanatics that it was written then or earlier. No evidence at all!

    And Sanskrit is not the langauge of the Vedas. They were written in a the language, the Chandasa, of the Tribal Aryans!

    So, Tamil is older than Sanskrit. And stop all this beating around the bush - Ancheneya and Solomon.

  6. #125
    Senior Member Veteran Hubber
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,099
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: VADAMOZHI AND TAMIL

    Quote Originally Posted by "Anchaneya"

    Friends,

    Great Hypocrisy is CONTINUOUSLY been done, F.S.Candhi dates Tholkappiyam on his own Accord without any proofs and I Give Universal concluded opinion.

    .......... First, Tamil is of considerable antiquity. It predates the literatures of other modern Indian languages by more than a thousand years. Its oldest work, the Tolkappiyam,, contains parts that, judging from the earliest Tamil inscriptions, date back to about 200 BCE. The greatest works of ancient Tamil, the Sangam anthologies and the Pattuppattu, date to the first two centuries of the current era. They are the first great secular body of poetry written in India, predating Kalidasa's works by two hundred years.

    Second, Tamil constitutes the only literary tradition indigenous to India that is not derived from Sanskrit. Indeed, its literature arose before the influence of Sanskrit in the South became strong and so is qualitatively different from anything we have in Sanskrit or other Indian languages. It has its own poetic theory, its own grammatical tradition, its own esthetics, and, above all, a large body of literature that is quite unique. It shows a sort of Indian sensibility that is quite different from anything in Sanskrit or other Indian languages, and it contains its own extremely rich and vast intellectual tradition.

    Third, the quality of classical Tamil literature is such that it is fit to stand beside the great literatures of Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Chinese, Persian and Arabic. The subtlety and profundity of its works, their varied scope (Tamil is the only premodern Indian literature to treat the subaltern extensively), and their universality qualify Tamil to stand as one of the great classical traditions and literatures of the world. Everyone knows the Tirukkural, one of the world's greatest works on ethics; but this is merely one of a myriad of major and extremely varied works that comprise the Tamil classical tradition. There is not a facet of human existence that is not explored and illuminated by this great literature.

    Finally, Tamil is one of the primary independent sources of modern Indian culture and tradition. I have written extensively on the influence of a Southern tradition on the Sanskrit poetic tradition. But equally important, the great sacred works of Tamil Hinduism, beginning with the Sangam Anthologies, have undergirded the development of modern Hinduism. Their ideas were taken into the Bhagavata Purana and other texts (in Telugu and Kannada as well as Sanskrit), whence they spread all over India. Tamil has its own works that are considered to be as sacred as the Vedas and that are recited alongside Vedic mantras in the great Vaisnava temples of South India (such as Tirupati). And just as Sanskrit is the source of the modern Indo-Aryan languages, classical Tamil is the source language of modern Tamil and Malayalam. As Sanskrit is the most conservative and least changed of the Indo-Aryan languages, Tamil is the most conservative of the Dravidian languages, the touchstone that linguists must consult to understand the nature and development of Dravidian.

    In trying to discern why Tamil has not been recognized as a classical language, I can see only a political reason: there is a fear that if Tamil is selected as a classical language, other Indian languages may claim similar status. This is an unnecessary worry. I am well aware of the richness of the modern Indian languages -- I know that they are among the most fecund and productive languages on earth, each having begotten a modern (and often medieval) literature that can stand with any of the major literatures of the world. Yet none of them is a classical language. Like English and the other modern languages of Europe (with the exception of Greek), they rose on preexisting traditions rather late and developed in the second millennium. The fact that Greek is universally recognized as a classical language in Europe does not lead the French or the English to claim classical status for their languages.

    To qualify as a classical tradition, a language must fit several criteria: it should be ancient, it should be an independent tradition that arose mostly on its own not as an offshoot of another tradition, and it must have a large and extremely rich body of ancient literature. Unlike the other modern languages of India, Tamil meets each of these requirements. It is extremely old (as old as Latin and older than Arabic); it arose as an entirely independent tradition, with almost no influence from Sanskrit or other languages; and its ancient literature is indescribably vast and rich.

    It seems strange to me that I should have to write an essay such as this claiming that Tamil is a classical literature -- it is akin to claiming that India is a great country or Hinduism is one of the world's great religions. The status of Tamil as one of the great classical languages of the world is something that is patently obvious to anyone who knows the subject. To deny that Tamil is a classical language is to deny a vital and central part of the greatness and richness of Indian culture.

    (Signed
    George L. Hart
    Professor of Tamil
    Chair in Tamil Studies,

    and friends, hence all his theories are wrong- Which Sangam Lit or Post Sangam Lit or Ist Millenium Lit says, his dating of Vedic compostion.

    ......... So Mr.FS.Candhi would not accept any Truth REsearches and would stand firm MuyalukuMoonukal, and Has to give Proofs of respective Periods.
    Well-said Mr. Anchaneya. Thanks a lot .

  7. #126
    Senior Member Senior Hubber Idiappam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    675
    Post Thanks / Like
    Uncle Sudhaama said:
    Well-said Mr. Anchaneya. Thanks a lot .
    What is it that you read in FSG's post, that you come around giving one-liners like that one above??

    This is a common ploy amoungst you Vedic-Stooges -- patting each other butt in support.

    Keep it up, Uncle Sudhaama!

  8. #127
    Senior Member Regular Hubber
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like

    TAMIL AND VADAMOZHI

    Friends,

    I Want to give the Opinion of KAMIL Zevelible on Dating Of TAMIL Literature and Tholkappiyam :
    Most ancient Texts in Tamil
    The following is an extract from the book "The Smile of Murugan" by Prof. Kamil Zvelebil on the most ancient texts in the Tamil language (Kamil Zvelebil, The Smile of Murugan - On Tamil literature of South India, E.J.Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1973).

    The earliest poems contained in these texts belong roughly to 100 B.C.- 250 A.D. The upper limit for these anthologies is the 5th-6th Cent. A.D. Linguistically, this period is usually described as Early Old Tamil. At the beginning of this period, we have the Urtext of the Tolkappiyam. At the end of this period, we have the earliest poetics of Tamil, the Akapporul of Iraiyanar.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Text Details Approx. date
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Early Tamil Brahmi The two rock-inscriptions of 3rd -1st
    Inscriptions. Netunceliyan at Mangulam. Cent. B.C.
    Asoka's Brahmi introduced
    around ca. 250 B.C. into the
    Tamil country. Adapted between
    250-220 to Tamil.
    Ur-Tolkappiyum: First standardization of the 2nd-1st .
    Eluttatikaram and Tamil language; the first Cent. B.C
    Collatikaram minus literary norm of Maturai
    later interpolations. between ca. 200-50 B.C.,
    based on oral bardic liter-
    ature, pre-literary tradi-
    tions and "pre-Sangam" lit-
    erature of ca 250-150 B.C.
    The earliest strata of Earliest "Sangam" poets: 1st Cent. B.C.
    extant Tamil literature Ammuvan (Ak. 10, 35, 140 etc. - 2nd A.D.
    in the Anthologies: Aink. 101-102, Kur. 49,125,
    early poems of 163 etc.; Nar. 4, 35 etc.)
    Ainkurunuru,Kuruntokai, Otalantai (Aink. 301-400,
    and Narrinai,prob.also Kur. 12, 21, 329), Orampoki
    purananuru and (Ak. 286, 316, Aink. 1-100
    Akananuru Kur. 10, 70, 122 etc.,Nar.
    20, 360, Pur. 284), Kapilar
    the Elder (Aink. 201-300 etc.
    Peyan (Aink. 401-500 etc.).

    Arikamedu graffiti and 1st-2nd Cent.
    the related group of Tamil A.D.
    Brahmi Inscriptions at
    Anaimalai etc.
    The Satavahana bilingual Ca. 150-200.
    coin. A.D
    The earliest strata in Kapilar the Elder, Mutat- 2nd-3rd Cent.
    the Pattuppattu tamakkanni, Katiyalur A.D.
    anthology: Uruttiran Kannan.
    Porunararruppatai,
    Perumpanarruppatai,
    Pattinappalai,
    Kurincippattu.
    The middle strata of the e.g.Paranar (150-230 A.D.), 2nd-4th Cent.
    Anthologies: Ainkuru- Nakkirar the First, A.D.
    nuru, Kuruntokai, Nar- Mankutimarutan.
    rinai, Patirruppattu,
    Akananuru, Purananuru,
    Malaipatukatam, Matu-
    raikkanci, Netunalvatai.
    Late Tamil Brahmi Later inscriptions from 3rd-4th Cent.
    Inscriptions:the Ceral Araccalur, Mamantur etc. A.D.
    inscriptions at Pukalur
    etc.
    Later strata of the e.g. Nagpputanar, 3rd-5th Cent.
    Anthologies: Nallur Nattattanar. A.D.
    Patirruppattu,
    Akananuru, Purananuru,
    Mullaippattu, Cirupan-
    arruppatai.
    Transitional Tamil Brahmi 5th-6th Cent.
    (Proto-vatteluttu) Inscrip- A.D.
    tions at Pillaiyarpatti
    and Tirunatarkunram.
    Latest strata of the 4th-6th Cent.
    Anthologies: e.g. A.D.
    Cirupanarruppatai (?).
    Iraiyanar's Akapporul.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------


    So artificially dating Tamil without proofs and Backdating Vadamozhi again rejecting all Proofs is not Science, but Clear Hypocrisy and Double Cheating.

    Your way now to interpret Tholkappiyam perfectly is a repeat of Dr.M.Theivanayagam and I HAVe Huge Many Quotes in Sangam Literature- to say Vedas in Vadamozhi translated, and Vedas are Marai, Let me give you IN MY LAter postings.

    Dear Idiyappam,
    What is it that you read in FSG's post, that you come around giving one-liners like that one above??

    This is a common ploy amoungst you Vedic-Stooges -- patting each other butt in support.
    This is what you have done so many times and are repeating it.
    Friend, You have called by all names and have not Given Where Jew is named in Sangam Literature.
    Idiaappam You quoted PAVANAR and Put Articles in Praise in Him,
    How and When did you lost the Opinion on him- Please Clarify and Till date- FSG or You have not told me as to Where did this FICTION of Ist Cent Dating of Vedas have come- which Sangam or Post Sangam Literature says it.
    Idiyappamji,
    You have said like this:
    Early Tamil literature, talk about naanmarai, yes! But why the assumption that it refers to the Rig, Sama, Yajur and the Arthanvan vedas???

    The Names of the above 4 vedas occur in Tamil literature after the 13th centure - the Sivagnana botham
    Name SIVAN or even any of his other names does not come in THOLKAPPIYAM, The Names Siva and Vishnu does not appear in Sangam Literature- but you accept them- why?
    Tiruvalluvar has not mentioned the word- in 133o Kurals? Is it not ours.

    When I had Two S.Ganesh - in my Schooling day- One was added with M, as M.S.GAnesh, with BirthCity's name, Marai-Vetham which gets More than 100 times in Tholkappiyam and Sangam Lit have been Scanned - Xrayed and results are given, and I Have quoted for PAVANAR- Now if you oppose- Your Statement means PAVANAR did not Understand Tamil - Please Clarify.

    KUMARI KANDAM MYTHS
    Friends,
    Recently PAVANAR School Scholars have started Disowning Kumarikandams as Clear Legend without any basis, Why then spread it here? Tell Concluded Truths.

    Friends, My detailed Posting with more from SangaM Lit, AND as Requested by Idiyappam mostly in Tamil would follow.

    MosesMohammedSolomon.

  9. #128
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    jeddah, saudi Arabia
    Posts
    399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Great Hypocrisy is CONTINUOUSLY been done, F.S.Candhi dates Tholkappiyam on his own Accord without any proofs and I Give Universal concluded opinion.

    Mr.F.S.Gandhi would not accept any Truth REsearches and would stand firm MuyalukuMoonukal, and Has to give Proofs of respective Periods.
    "Thakkar Thakavilar Avaravar Echaththal Kanappadum"- Valluvam (means one's fittability to any branch of knowledge depends upon his delivery and not any other thing what he has as input)

    I quoted from concluded views of P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar, T.R.Sesha Iyengar, V.R.Ramanchandra Deekshitar, Dr.Sothi Prakasam,Dr.Mathivanan, Dr.Susumu Olmo, Dr.Rajwade,Dr.Oldham,Dr.K.M.Panikar,Dr.Nair,Dr.Cly de Ahmed Winters,Dr.Kalduwell & Dr. Maxmuller and many others which supports tamil antiquity. They are not scholars as per Solomons & Vedhics view

    How many times I have to repeat my postings Anyway one of my old postings here under for Tholkappiam dating.

    First Sankam (talai sankam)

    Sea disaster story was prevalent in sumeria Before 2000 B.C. –The anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) Vol II, Page 798 – 99.

    This is registered in silappathikaram as past event , ‘ Pagruli Atrudan Panmalai Adukkaththu Kumarikkodum Kodunkadal Kolla – Vadathisai Kangaiyum Imayamum Kondu Thenthisai Aanda Thennavan Vazhi’.

    The king during such period was specified as “Munneer Vizhavin Nediyon” –in Pranaanuru (9 : 10) His land “Nanneerp pagruli” (Puram 9 : 11). In madurai Kanchi he was referred as “Punar Koottu unda pukazh sal Nediyon”.

    The timeline is fixed as 2500 B.C. to 2000 B.C.

    Second sankam ( Idai sankam)

    Second sankam was in kavadapuram (korkai) – History of tamils ,page 242 by P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar. “Tholkappiam sirappu payiram” talks about Nilantharuvil pandian who was not refered in Third sankam literature. He belongs to Second sankam where “Tholkappiam” represented. During this period kavadapuram was perished due to one more sea disaster (kadalkol). ‘Erayanar kalaviyal urai’ specifies this.

    Solomon king's time is during (966 B.C). Before 300 years sea disaster happened. Hence its time is (1250 B.C) – Refer The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) Vol II page 702.

    Comparing both of them Tholkappian time is fixed as 1250 B.C. Timline is (1500 to 1200 BCE)

    Third sankam is fixed as (1200 B.C. to 200 A.D). To fulfill the desire of Thokaipandian Unkkiravazhuthi Uruththira sanmar collected Akanaanuru and All Thokai during this period.

    Refer. Dr.Sothi Prakaasam,Thiravidar Varalaaru (he identifies tamils as thiruvidars)Page 212.

    The following also has evidance to the above claim.

    The Adichanaallur urns containing tamil Brahmi inscription dates back to 1000 – 500 BCE.(Universally Accepted) Wikipedia also accepts this.

    Dr. Mathivanan have discovered some clinching evidence
    validating his decipherment in Indus Script. The most important among them is the metal
    seal from Jaffna described by him as the 'Rosetta Stone' for his
    decipherment. An archaeological team led by K.Indrapala of the University
    of Jaffna excavated a megalithic burial complex at Anaikoddai in Jaffna
    District, SriLanka. In one of the burials, a metal seal was found
    assigned by the excavators to ca.1600 B.C.E. (Universally accepted) There are two lines of
    writing on the seal; the upper line depicts three megalithic symbols (one
    of them repeated twice) resembling the signs of the INDUS script; the
    lower line has three characters in the BRAHMI script read as ko ve ta.
    This is a bilingual
    inscription in the Indus and Brahmi scripts.

    Dr. Mathivanan reads the 'biscript' inscription as tivu ko 'king of
    the island'. According to him, the writing on the seal belongs to a period
    of transition when both Indus and 'Proto-Tamil' scripts existed side by
    side, until the Second Sankam (ca. 1800-1700 B.C.) reformed the Indus.

    Refer: “Sinthuveli Ezhuthin Thiravukol” page 45. By Dr. Mathivaanan.

    We cannot avoid Tamil culture presence in all Ancient civilizations including the later evolved Vedhic culture.

    Indus Civilisation

    The Tamils are an ancient people. Their history had its beginnings in the rich alluvial plains near the southern extremity of peninsular India which included the land mass known as the island of Sri Lanka today. The island's plant and animal life (including the presence of elephants) evidence the earlier land connection with the Indian sub continent. So too do satellite photographs which show the submerged 'land bridge' between Dhanuskodi on the south east of the Indian sub-continent and Mannar in the north west of the island.

    Some researchers have concluded that it was during the period 6000 B.C. to 3000 B.C. that the island separated from the Indian sub continent and the narrow strip of shallow water known today as the Palk Straits came into existence. Many Tamils trace their origins to the people of Mohenjodaro in the Indus Valley around 3000 years before the birth of Christ. There is, further systematic study of the history of the early Tamils and proto Tamils proved.

    "Dravidians, whose descendents still live in Southern India, established the first city communities, in the Indus valley, introduced irrigation schemes, developed pottery and evolved a well ordered system of government." (Reader's Digest Great World Atlas, 2000)

    Dr. CLYDE AHMAD WINTERS, who has written extensively on Dravidian origins commented:

    "Archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Dravidians(Tamils) were the founders of the Harappan culture which extended from the Indus Valley through northeastern Afghanistan, on into Turkestan. The Harappan civilization existed from 2600-1700 BC. The Harappan civilization was twice the size the Old Kingdom of Egypt. In addition to trade relations with Mesopotamia and Iran, the Harappan city states also had active trade relations with the Central Asian peoples."

    He has also explored the question whether the Dravidians were of African origin. (Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Are Dravidians of African Origin", P.Second ISAS,1980 - Hong Kong:Asian Research Service, 1981 - pages 789- 807)

    The Tamil language (Dravidian) is still spoken by millions in India. The oldest form of the word Tamil was Dramila, Dramiza (Dravida). Lahovary also notes that the Lycians of Asia Minor called themselves Trmmili, and the pre-Hellenic Asiatic people of Crete were called Termilai, further possible links to Dravidians ad Basques. Perhaps the trail of these peoples will one day be further clarified (Lahovary, 1963, p. 33-35).

    FSG or You have not told me as to Where did this FICTION of Ist Cent Dating of Vedas have come- which Sangam or Post Sangam Literature says it.
    Go through my post in this thread dated Saturday.July 09, 2005.

    In the last post I have proved that "Marai" does not mean Sanskrit Vedhas. "Arumarai" also does not mean Sanskrit Vedhas.

    About Tamil Gods,castes,Nanmarais etc. I will write shortly. Kindly readers give me sometime since I have engaged my duty here in Saudi Arabia. But It won't take more than two days.

    I have earlier talked about the word "Yaazh" in "Is tamil derived from Sanskrit" thread. The continuation : Yaah is spoken in Tholkappiam as " Thuraiyamai Nal YAZHTH Thunaimaiyor Eyalpae".

    In this 'Yazh' specifies The Kalavu / marai Vazhkai of Kizhavan and Kizhathi (hero & heroine). Yazh here means which is "Aazh" or Amizhnthulla / marainthulla. Yazh manam is Marai manam.

    Yazh in course of time was called "kanthuru" in Erayanar kalaviyal urai which was written during 1st and 2nd century. Kanthu means pillar. Yazh is having "esai" as hidden. Marai also means hidden. Hence Yazh was called as Marai marriage during Tholkappian days. It turned 'kanthuru' because it seems like Kanthu. This word was coined during 100-200 CE. Erayanar Akapporul shows this.

    Eventhough the eight type of Kalavu marriages have not been talked in Manusmirithi which was written during 300-400 CE when third "kadal kol" happened and subsequently the pandyan king whose northern border was present Palaaru (this is specified in Sanskrit Satha patha puranam) went north India to produce Mansumirthi, "Gandarva manam" is talked. The datings are exactly concluded by scholars from the poetrical forms and Sanskrit rock inscriptions. (Refer : Manusmirithi 3rd Athikaaram, 21 st Sooththiram)

    Hence based on the parallel sanskrit inscriptions and its literature course the timing is fixed.

    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. #129
    Senior Member Senior Hubber Idiappam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    675
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mr Gandhi said:
    I quoted from concluded views of P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar, T.R.Sesha Iyengar, V.R.Ramanchandra Deekshitar, Dr.Sothi Prakasam,Dr.Mathivanan, Dr.Susumu Olmo, Dr.Rajwade,Dr.Oldham,Dr.K.M.Panikar,Dr.Nair,Dr.Cly de Ahmed Winters,Dr.Kalduwell & Dr. Maxmuller and many others which supports tamil antiquity. They are not scholars as per Solomons & Vedhics view

    How many times I have to repeat my postings Anyway one of my old postings here under for Tholkappiam dating.
    YOu have to do that many times. Anti-Tamil vedic stooges like solomon would just post their nonsense repeatedly even knowing that what you say is logical and truthful. They would go around looking for 'western' qoutes from remote sources and copy and dump tonnes of text, expecting you to go throught them.

    Stooges like Sudhamaa would then come around patting their butt with words like 'well said!'.

    The only thing these stooges have to proof now is just that the sanskrit language is elder to Tamil, which they can't.

    The bare fact the Tholkappiar mentions 'Then Tamil' in his text shows proof that Tamils existed well before he wrote his tholkappiam.

    Panini, on the other hand, failed to mention 'Sanskrit' or 'Samskrut' or any other names refering to Sanskrit in his work. Sanskrit did not exist then, during his time. That's a clear proof enough.

    Solomon can should through his ...., till it goes dry. But he can't get anywhere. Therefore keeps repeating the same old story again and again.

    Good try, Solomon.

  11. #130
    Senior Member Senior Hubber Idiappam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    675
    Post Thanks / Like
    Solomon Said:
    Dear Idiyappam,
    This is what you have done so many times and are repeating it.
    Friend, You have called by all names and have not Given Where Jew is named in Sangam Literature.
    Jews, I mentioned alongside others, Greeks etc.. Why do you you zoom in on 'Jews'... Go and find it yourself in the Sangam Literature. It is not relavant on its own.

    Idiaappam You quoted PAVANAR and Put Articles in Praise in Him, How and When did you lost the Opinion on him-
    What are your talking??

    Idiyappamji,
    You have said like this:
    Early Tamil literature, talk about naanmarai, yes! But why the assumption that it refers to the Rig, Sama, Yajur and the Arthanvan vedas???

    The Names of the above 4 vedas occur in Tamil literature after the 13th centure - the Sivagnana botham
    Name SIVAN or even any of his other names does not come in THOLKAPPIYAM, The Names Siva and Vishnu does not appear in Sangam Literature- but you accept them- why?
    Tiruvalluvar has not mentioned the word- in 133o Kurals? Is it not ours.
    You are terribly mistaken there my boy.. Sivan and Mal (Vishnu)exists in the Tholkappiam, as well as Various sangam literature - puranooru and the paripadal especially. Do you need quotes. I can!

    And please note, my boy Solomon. The 'Vadasol, thisaisol, thirisol, etc" does not refer to sanskrit at all.

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •