-
29th May 2005, 10:42 AM
#31
Senior Member
Senior Hubber
Thank you Solomon, for your lies!
-
29th May 2005 10:42 AM
# ADS
Circuit advertisement
-
29th May 2005, 11:05 AM
#32
Senior Member
Senior Hubber
Re: Tamil & Sanskrit
Solomon lied:
Every one of us would love Our Mother Tongue to be the best in the world and Tamil to be the Oldest.
Lie no !: That Tamil is his mother tongue!
While the Earliest of Tamil Literaure Tholkappiyam is dated to 350 CE,
That's lie no 2.
we have Sanskrit Literature Like Valmiki Ramayan aound 1000BCE,
That's lie no 3.
And we have complete manuscript with Carbon14 dated to 1st Century CE.
That's lie no 4.
Vedas- which is in unrefined SANSKRIT is dated now 2000-600 BCE
That's lie no 5. First written Rig veda 600BCE
but many Tamil Scholars in eagerness to lift Tamil try to date Sanskrit to later date, without proper basis.
That's lie no 6. Tamil Scholars don't care a cent for sanskritic tales.
As friends shows, the earliest Brahmi- Stone inscrptions have Telugu and Kannada words dated 300 BCE, though we donot have any literature from this languages for another 1000 years atleast.
So?? Good! Looks like Teluge and Kannada are also older that that Sanskrit mongrel.
We should accept that Sanskrit and Tamil as Two Eyes of India.
What the hell sanskrit for?? To read the Kamasutra of Vatsayana - which has a chapter on seducing your neighbours wife too. Devabhasa eh? Eyes of India eh??
European Scholars, seeing that Sanskrit Literature- has somuch, said Indians cannot have such Knowledge and Identified SAnskrit is from them and called Aryans- for which there is no basis.
The 'Europeans' are right - agreed by many Indian sanskritics too.
Anybody trying to call a section of Indians, as Aryan or Dravidian accept that Indians are not knowlegable.
They are divided! Aryans are there and Dravidians were there long before!
What the hell for?? So that you and your likes can make more mess, coming around later telling 'Sanskrit is the Gospel etc'..
From you name - I know you are a menace!
-
29th May 2005, 01:30 PM
#33
Senior Member
Devoted Hubber
-
6th June 2005, 09:49 AM
#34
Senior Member
Regular Hubber
TAMIL & SAMSKRIT
The tone of your Replies by Idiayppam does not look like defending a truth , but to hurt an oppenant, so that Truth need not be analysed.
I Need not have to get a Certificate to Prove my mother Tounge is.
Dating of Literature is not done by me, but by Scholars especially without any internal motives. Tholkappiayam Dating with any Previuous needs appropriate proofs.
Tamil Literature is generally written in OLA and they cannot be preserved morethan 300 years, where as Bible was written on Leather and Papyrus. Similarly Ramayan Manuscript of 100 CE is dated to Ist Cen is in BARODA Museum, you can verify. Dating of RAamayan I gave is accepted by DevanayaPavanar and ALL International Universities, see www.wikhipedia.com
Dating of Rig Veda, was back dated by Maxmuller to 1300 to 400 BCE, that is to back Bible OT which Moses is dated to 13th Cen.
But evidence from Archealogy at Babylon and other places dates Vedas to 2000 BCE to 600 BCE, whereas Books of Moses to later than 350 BCE. See Cambridege, Oxford or any reputed Universities, researches.
India- properly Hindustan derives from the name -The Land mass between Himalayas to Indumaha Samudram, the previleaged place of God, and people here are Hindus, and Bible book of Esther-200BCE, names Hindu country.
Moreover Indian Culture extended up to Babylon, i.e., Iran and Iraq, the Khandara of Mahabharat is in Afganistan-Ghandahar of Highjack fame etc.,
Tholkappiar was Brahmin, who new Sanskrit and refers to Sanskrit Thrice for accepting Sanskrit words to Tamil and Sanskritized Letters (Vadamozhi), Tiruvalluvar uses Adi in Kural no 1 and other places, whereas Present Dravidian Govts changed the name Agaradhi- to AgaraMudali?
Sangam Literature names Nanmarai many a times and hiding this is foolish.
I donot wear My Special Dresses daily and till Writing was Perfected Sanskrit was not used in Stone Inscriptions and that doesnot mean it does not exisit earlier.
Pali is clearly a Collequial Sanskrit and Nobody can backdate it.
Another Big myth, Sanskrit was never spoken, Friends these Popular Foolish statements may get Applause in meetings, but any Serious and Sincere Linguistic Scholar would not put such Statement, every one knows it takes Centuries for the formation to take place. Moreover Literary evidences tells much, Ramayan and Mahabarat are in more sppech toungue, where as Kalidas etc., goes to highly Gramerised Yappu, and that was the reason for slow moving of Sanskrit fom common person, where as Veda Vyasa had Non-Brahimin Disciples.
We Cannot understand Tamil if Pure Senthamilz is spoken, we need Explanations for Even Tirukural. Which is in Simple Tamil. By insisting Purity of Language, Sanskrit grew, but without being a commoner Speaking it. We can explain this To LATIN, inspite of Raman Govt Language, insistance of Grammer Purity it lost itself. Hebrew which was just used in worship became common language of Israel is now widely used now by Jews, whereas Foolishly we adopted Hindi-English in the name of Secularism and now these flasehood researchers spread false preachings.
If anybody accept Tamil and Sanskrit, he is not a Anti-Tamil but accepts Truths.
FSG: Because Christianity(Xty) wanted to spread itself, spoiled the natives , today America, Australia, Philipines –the natives are minorities to less than 10%, by the time Xty came to India, Civilisation has grown and Killing was not possible and They used Dividie and rule. The Earliest visitor to Madurai-Robert-Denobili had to learn Telugu/Tamil and Sanskrit to Probagate, and made A Forgery Veda and Caught and left and died a lonely death in Chennai.
Hating Sanskrit and spreading Falsehood does not help, where as Tamil has much better Grammer and much widely spoken is a Truth.
None of the Tamil Literaure Olaichuvadis are older than 16th Cen, and saying Carbon dated are clear Lies.
DevanaeyaPavanar a Christian started Falsehood, and he uses theBible Genesis story of Noah flood, by dating the book to 5000BCE, which is actually 300 BCE, and that the Cosmic flood dated by Bible in 2200BCE, is now rejected as a Pure Legend, as Mummies and Indus-Saraswathy Archealogy proves.
Dividing of all roots is possible, but they are not Linguistically correct and any body can interpret on their convenience.
Sanskrit and Tamil was created from common say Proto-Indian Language and hence similarites always is there, and religious beliefs say that way only.
-edited-
MosesMohammedSolomon
-
6th June 2005, 04:13 PM
#35
Senior Member
Senior Hubber
Re: TAMIL & SAMSKRIT
solomon said:
I Need not have to get a Certificate to Prove my mother Tounge is.
Do you have any to proof your mother-in-law tongue?? Appears like it is Sanskrit!
Dating of Literature is not done by me, but by Scholars especially without any internal motives. Tholkappiayam Dating with any Previuous needs appropriate proofs.
Tamil Literature is generally written in OLA and they cannot be preserved morethan 300 years, where as Bible was written on Leather and Papyrus. Similarly Ramayan Manuscript of 100 CE is dated to Ist Cen is in BARODA Museum, you can verify. Dating of RAamayan I gave is accepted by DevanayaPavanar and ALL International Universities, see
www.wikhipedia.com
Who are Scholars you are taking of?? YOu said, you said that the Tholkappiam was written 350CE, which scholars said that. You also said that the Ramayana was written 1000 BCE -- which scholars said that??
YOu pointed to one 'wikipedia' where nothing is stated about the Ramayana manuscript. The Baroda Museum has just got some recent paintings of Ramayana scences - nothing there that we can safely call a 'ramayana manuscript'.
Devaneya Pavanar stated nothing about the Ramayana date - his book 'Vadamozhi Varalaaru' - refered. He just mentions that the Mahabaratha 'occured about 1000 BCE'. Nothing he said about the date of the Ramayana scripting by Mr. Valmiki! He did not even give a date for Mr Vyasa! So stop your lies!
But evidence from Archealogy at Babylon and other places dates Vedas to 2000 BCE to 600 BCE, whereas Books of Moses to later than 350 BCE. See Cambridege, Oxford or any reputed Universities, researches.
What 'evidence'?? you Talking?? Don't pull a fast one!
India- properly Hindustan derives from the name -The Land mass between
Himalayas to
Indumaha Samudram, the previleaged place of God, and people here are Hindus, and Bible book of Esther-200BCE, names Hindu country.
Watch it! There as some Vedics here who hates that name = Hindu - the persian given name to the people there!
Moreover Indian Culture extended up to Babylon, i.e., Iran and Iraq, the Khandara of Mahabharat is in Afganistan-Ghandahar of Highjack fame etc.,
Or is it the other way round. Vedic Indian culture came from the West!
Tholkappiar was Brahmin, who new Sanskrit and refers to Sanskrit Thrice for accepting Sanskrit words to Tamil and Sanskritized Letters (Vadamozhi), Tiruvalluvar uses Adi in Kural no 1 and other places, whereas Present Dravidian Govts changed the name Agaradhi- to AgaraMudali?
Who told you Tholkappiar was a Brahmin?? Must be Mr UV Swaminatha Iyer! He talks about 'Vadamozhi' not Sanskrit!
Sangam Literature names Nanmarai many a times and hiding this is foolish.
So? What is Nanmarai? What do they refer to when the Sanga pulavars say 'Nanmarai'? Give some examples from Sanga pulavars on the 'nanmarai'. Anyway, what is wrong in mentioning the nanmarais in Sangam Literature when they even talked about the Jews and Greeks in Sangam Literature?
I do not wear My Special Dresses daily and till Writing was Perfected Sanskrit was not used in Stone Inscriptions and that doesnot mean it does not exisit earlier.
Why was the first Sanskrit inscription dated around 200CE in Brahmi script and not in any earlier Script? What is the earlier script (if any) of the Sanskrit people??
Pali is clearly a Collequial Sanskrit and Nobody can backdate it.
It is not 'clearly' a colloquial Sanskrit! Can you clear it for me please!
Another Big myth, Sanskrit was never spoken, Friends these Popular Foolish statements may get Applause in meetings, but any Serious and Sincere Linguistic Scholar would not put such Statement, every one knows it takes Centuries for the formation to take place.
Who spoke Sanskrit?? How many spoke that throughout the ages, and where did they live??
Moreover Literary evidences tells much, Ramayan and Mahabarat are in more sppech toungue, where as Kalidas etc., goes to highly Gramerised Yappu, and that was the reason for slow moving of Sanskrit fom common person, where as Veda Vyasa had Non-Brahimin Disciples.
Which came first - Kalidas or Ramayan/Mahabarat?? Get your order clear. And since when did Mr. Veda Vyasa become a Brahmin - that now you can brag that he had some non-brahmins with him?
We Cannot understand Tamil if Pure Senthamilz is spoken, we need Explanations for Even Tirukural. Which is in Simple Tamil.
Why? YOu can't understand modern English if you vocabulary is limited. That coupled with similies and idiomatic expressions - you will be lost when you read modern english. Why can't it be the same for Tamil - when all that was written were mostly poetical! You just need a dictionary - English or Tamil or any other language - to go around!
What do you understand of this english words - commonly used now - permissive, inventive, impulsive, compulsive, evasive, exhaustive, expensive, constructive, impressive .... ? Go, run for a dictionary!
If anybody accept Tamil and Sanskrit, he is not a Anti-Tamil but accepts Truths.
Nobody bothers about Sanskrit! But, those Sanskritic lies these vedic stooges keep telling is irritating!
DevanaeyaPavanar a Christian started Falsehood, and he uses theBible Genesis story of Noah flood, by dating the book to 5000BCE, which is actually 300 BCE, and that the Cosmic flood dated by Bible in 2200BCE, is now rejected as a Pure Legend, as Mummies and Indus-Saraswathy Archealogy proves.
Where did Pavanar talk about Noah Flood?? Name it, solomon where?? I have seen his books all of them! Stop your tales!
Sanskrit and Tamil was created from common say Proto-Indian Language and hence similarites always is there, and religious beliefs say that way only.
"say Common Proto-Indian"... What you started guessing? Dream on, my brother!
-
7th June 2005, 10:30 AM
#36
Senior Member
Regular Hubber
TAMIL & SAMSKRIT
Dear Idiyappam,
you have not given a single evidence to back you, see dating of Vedas and Other Sanskrit literature in Wikipedia for yourself.
Devaneyan, very clearly accepted, Tholkappiyar as BRahmin, and I shall gives his various book references tomorrow. Kappiyakudi means a family which makes Kathakalarshebams and thats clear of his back ground.
Tholkappiyar talks about Vadasol many a times and if you want references all can be given tomorrow, and You can mail me by priate mail and I can reply you.
I am putting my article presented in another forum for your reading.
DRAVIDIAN MOVEMENT- WHAT IS IT?
The Europeans seeing that India has the mother of all their Languages- Sanskrit and Tamil, and Much Superior Divine contacts than the much confused Hebrews.
Portughese, first under Loyala and later by Fransis Xavier, broke each and every temple in Goa, then Inquisition was brought. "Anybody who has ANy God idols are helping Brahmins can be killed", this was Xavier wanted law. Robert DENObili, tried deception, he staying in Madurai, during Naicker Period, was required to read Tamil and Telugu but also required SANSKRIT, made a fraud Veda, called Yesur Veda, but failed miserably, and caught for fraud, left Madurai and died lonely in Chennai, and his converts remained less than 300 by all deception means.
One Colonel.Boden, who served in India for morethan 2 decades, felt bad on failure of Conversion Business, Pledged Huge Amount to OXford University for Sanskrit Scholarship, to help Missonaries.
Came RajaRamMohanrai, wel versant in Sanskrit and Persian, other than Bengali and English, Learned HEBREW, GREEK AND LATIN and found Brahmo SAmaj,
British who felt his ideals are closer to Christians and a Conversion of A Prominant Brahmin, would fetch huge returns, appointed a Learned Bishop to shaddow Rai, and convert him. RESULT, Rev. Fr. Adams was converted from Xty to Brahmos.
This created huge problems, then using the Boden's Trust, a Non-British, Non-Anglican church member Young Maxmuller was picked to translate Vedas, and ALL Indian Libraries were forced to buy his books. Monier Williams etc., are the product of this Boden Trust.
Wrong Fradulant translation by Muller, etc., was used for Aryan race theory.
By this they say Hinduism is not Indian and also the Europeans are the Aryans, who then becomes the cradle of Sanskritetc.,
Any body who calls a section of Hindus as Aryans and others as Dravidians are accepting the Missionaries fraud that Indian are not brained to make Sanskrit and Tamil and they are European imports.
Dr. Ambedkar, who was never a Hinduism supporter, wrote:
1.THe Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race.
2.There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to be the natives of India.
3.There is no evidience to show that the distinction between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction.
4. THe Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryas were different in colour from the Dasas and Dayus .....
" If anthropometry is a science which can be depended upon to determine the race of a people ..... then its measurements extablish that the Brahmins and the Untouchables belong to the same race. From this it follows that if the Brahmins are Aryans the Untouchables are also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the Untouchables are also Dravidians....
WRITINGS AND SPEECHES - EDUCATION Dept. Govt. of Mahrashtra vol -7 page 85 and 302-303.
The Casteism is increased due to the Dravidian rule.
The Dravidian Fathers want their Posting and Party Leadership to their Sons. Eg.Karunanidhi, Ramdoss etc., practicsing Varnasram dharma.
Unless We Indians understand the Mission of Church- to divide and Convert, of which Hate - Brahimins means hate Hinduism, Church comes in; Indian Civilisation and Culture would have grave problems.
Further I BRING another posting in hub itself which was locked here so that every body can reply.
pirayaaniNewbie HubberJoined: 31 Mar 2005Posts: 7 Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:55 pm Post subject: Vedic Roots of Early Tamil Culture?
I had hoped to post this in the history section, but apparently it is only for moderators. Anway I just wanted some opinion on this claim: In recent years attempts have been made to cast a new look at ancient India. For too long the picture has been distorted by myopic colonial readings of India’s prehistory and early history, and more recently by ill-suited Marxist models. One such distortion was the Aryan invasion theory, now definitively on its way out, although its watered-down avatars are still struggling to survive. It will no doubt take some more time—and much more effort on the archaeological front—for a new perspective of the earliest civilization in the North of the subcontinent to take firm shape, but a beginning has been made. We have a peculiar situation too as regards Southern India, and particularly Tamil Nadu. Take any classic account of Indian history and you will see how little space the South gets in comparison with the North. While rightly complaining that “Hitherto most historians of ancient India have written as if the south did not exist,”[ 1]Vincent Smith in his Oxford History of India hardly devotes a few pages to civilization in the South, that too with the usual stereotypes to which I will return shortly. R. C. Majumdar’s Advanced History of India,[2] or A. L. Basham’s The Wonder That Was India[3] are hardly better in that respect. The first serious History of South India,[4] that of K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, appeared only in 1947. Even recent surveys of Indian archaeology generally give the South a rather cursory treatment. The Context It is a fact that archaeology in the South has so far unearthed little that can compare to findings in the North in terms of ancientness, massiveness or sophistication : the emergence of urban civilization in Tamil Nadu is now fixed at the second or third century BC, about two and a half millennia after the appearance of Indus cities. Moreover, we do not have any fully or largely excavated city or even medium-sized town : Madurai, the ancient capital of the Pandya kingdom, has hardly been explored at all ; Uraiyur, that of the early Cholas, saw a dozen trenches ;[5] Kanchipuram, the Pallavas’ capital, had seventeen, and Karur, that of the Cheras, hardly more ; Kaveripattinam,[6] part of the famous ancient city of Puhar (the first setting of the Shilappadikaram epic), saw more widespread excavations, yet limited with regard to the potential the site offers. The same may be said of Arikamedu (just south of Pondicherry), despite excavations by Jouveau-Dubreuil, Wheeler, and several other teams right up to the 1990s.[7] All in all, the archaeological record scarcely measures up to what emerges from the Indo-Gangetic plains—which is one reason why awareness of these excavations has hardly reached the general public, even in Tamil Nadu ; it has heard more about the still superficial exploration of submerged Poompuhar than about the painstaking work done in recent decades at dozens of sites. (See a map of Tamil Nadu’s important archaeological sites below.) But there is a second reason for this poor awareness : scholars and politicians drawing inspiration from the Dravidian movement launched by E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker (“Periyar”) have very rigid ideas about the ancient history of Tamil Nadu. First, despite all evidence to the contrary, they still insist on the Aryan invasion theory in its most violent version, turning most North Indians and upper-caste Indians into descendants of the invading Aryans who overran the indigenous Dravidians, and Sanskrit into a deadly rival of Tamil. Consequently, they assert that Tamil is more ancient than Sanskrit, and civilization in the South older than in the North. Thus recently, Tamil Nadu’s Education minister decried in the State Assembly those who go “to the extent of saying that Dravidian civilization is part of Hinduism” and declared, “The Dravidian civilization is older than the Aryan.”[8] It is not uncommon to hear even good Tamil scholars utter such claims. Now, it so happens that archaeological findings in Tamil Nadu, though scanty, are nevertheless decisive. Indeed, we now have a broad convergence between literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence.[9] Thus names of cities, kings and chieftains mentioned in Sangam literature have often been confirmed by inscriptions and coins dating back to the second and third centuries BC. Kautilya speaks in his Arthashastra (c. fourth century BC) of the “easily travelled southern land route,” with diamonds, precious stones and pearls from the Pandya country ;[10] two Ashokan rock edicts (II and XIII[11]) respectfully refer to Chola, Pandya and Chera kingdoms as “neighbours,” therefore placing them firmly in the third century BC ; we also have Kharavela’s cave inscription near Bhubaneswar in which the Kalinga king (c. 150 BC) boasts of having broken up a “confederacy of the Dravida countries which had lasted for 113 years.”[12] From all these, it appears that the earliest Tamil kingdoms must have been established around the fourth century BC ; again, archaeological findings date urban developments a century or two later, but this small gap will likely be filled by more extensive excavations. But there’s the rub : beyond the fourth century BC and back to 700 or 1000 BC, all we find is a megalithic period, and going still further back, a neolithic period starting from about the third millennium BC. While those two prehistoric periods are as important as they are enigmatic, they show little sign of a complex culture,[*] and no clear connection with the dawn of urban civilization in the South. Therefore the good minister’s assertion as to the greater ancientness of the “Dravidian civilization” finds no support on the ground. In order to test his second assertion that that civilization is outside Hinduism, or the common claim that so-called “Dravidian culture” is wholly separate from so-called “Aryan” culture, let us take an unbiased look at the cultural backdrop of early Tamil society and try to make out some of its mainstays. That is what I propose to do briefly, using not only literary evidence, but first, material evidence from archaeological and numismatic sources as regards the dawn of the Sangam age. I may add that I have left out the Buddhist and Jain elements, already sufficiently well known, to concentrate on the Vedic and Puranic ones, which are usually underemphasized. Also, I will not deal here with the origin of South Indian people and languages, or with the nature of the process often called “Aryanization of the South” (I prefer the word “Indianization,” used in this context by an archaeologist[13]). Those complex questions have been debated for decades, and will only reach firm conclusions, I believe, with ampler archaeological evidence. Vedic & Puranic Culture—Material Evidence Culturally, the megalithic people of the South shared many beliefs and practices with megalithic builders elsewhere in the subcontinent and beyond. Yet certain practices and artefacts were at least compatible with the Vedic world and may well have prepared for a ready acceptance of Vedic concepts—a natural assimilative process still observable in what has been called the “Hinduization” of tribals. Thus several cists surrounded by stone-circles have four vertical slabs arranged in the shape of a swastika.[14] The famous 3.5 metre-high figure of Mottur (in North Arcot district), carved out of a granite slab, is “perhaps the first anthropomorphic representation of a god in stone in Tamil Nadu.”[15] Some megalithic burials have yielded iron or bronze objects such as mother goddess, horned masks, the trishul etc. As the archaeologist I. K. Sarma observes, such objects are intimately connected with the worship of brahmanical Gods of the historical period, such as Siva, Kartikeya and later Amba. The diadems of Adichanallur burials are like the mouth-pieces used by the devotees of Murugan.[ 16] The archaeologist K. V. Raman also notes : Some form of Mother-Goddess worship was prevalent in the Megalithic period ... as suggested by the discovery of a small copper image of a Goddess in the urn-burials of Adichchanallur. More recently, in Megalithic burials the headstone, shaped like the seated Mother, has been located at two places in Tamil Nadu.[17] Megalithic culture attached great importance to the cult of the dead and ancestors, which parallels that in Vedic culture. It is also likely that certain gods later absorbed into the Hindu pantheon, such as Aiyanar (or Sastha), Murugan (the later Kartik), Korravai (Durga), Naga deities, etc., were originally tribal gods of that period. Though probably of later date, certain megalithic sites in the Nilgiris were actually dolmen shrines, some of them holding Ganesh-like images, others lingams.[ 18] Megalithic practices evocative of later Hinduism are thus summarized by the British archaeologists Bridget and Raymond Allchin : The orientation of port-holes and entrances on the cist graves is frequently towards the south. ... This demands comparison with later Indian tradition where south is the quarter of Yama. Among the grave goods, iron is almost universal, and the occasional iron spears and tridents (trisulas) suggest an association with the god Siva. The discovery in one grave of a trident with a wrought-iron buffalo fixed to the shaft is likewise suggestive, for the buffalo is also associated with Yama, and the buffalo demon was slain by the goddess Durga, consort of Siva, with a trident. ... The picture which we obtain from this evidence, slight as it is, is suggestive of some form of worship of Siva.[ 19] About the third century BC, cities and towns appear owing to yet little understood factors ; exchanges with the Mauryan and Roman empires seem to have played an important catalytic role, as also the advent of iron. From the very beginning, Buddhist, Jain and Hindu[*] streaks are all clear. Among the earliest evidences, a stratigraphic dig by I. K. Sarma within the garbagriha of the Parasuramesvara temple at Gudimallam,[*] brought to light the foundation of a remarkable Shivalingam of the Mauryan period (possibly third century BC) : it was fixed within two circular pithas at the centre of a square vastu-mandala. “The deity on the frontal face of the tall linga reveals himself as a proto-puranic Agni-Rudra”[20] standing on a kneeling devayana. If this early date, which Sarma established on stratigraphic grounds and from pottery sherds, is correct, this fearsome image could well be the earliest such representation in the South. Then we find “terracotta figures like Mother Goddess, Naga-linga etc., from Tirukkampuliyur ; a seated Ganesa from Alagarai ; Vriskshadevata and Mother Goddess from Kaveripakkam and Kanchipuram, in almost certainly a pre-Pallava sequence.”[21] Cult of a Mother goddess is also noticed in the early levels at Uraiyur,[22] and at Kaveripattinam, Kanchipuram and Arikamedu.[ 23] Excavations at Kaveripattinam have brought to light many Buddhist artefacts, but also, though of later date, a few figurines of Yakshas, of Garuda and Ganesh.[24] Evidence of the Yaksha cult also comes from pottery inscriptions at Arikamedu.[25] The same site also yielded one square copper coin of the early Cholas, depicting on the obverse an elephant, a ritual umbrella, the Srivatsa symbol, and the front portion of a horse.[ 26] This is in fact an important theme which recurs on many coins of the Sangam age[27] recovered mostly from river beds near Karur, Madurai etc. Besides the Srivatsa (also found among artefacts at Kanchipuram[28]), many coins depict a swastika, a trishul, a conch, a shadarachakra, a damaru, a crescent moon, and a sun with four, eight or twelve rays. Quite a few coins clearly show a yagnakunda. That is mostly the case with the Pandyas’ coins, some of which also portray a yubastambha to which a horse is tied as part of the ashvamedha sacrifice. As the numismatist R. Krishnamurthy puts it, “The importance of Pandya coins of Vedic sacrifice series lies in the fact that these coins corroborate what we know from Sangam literature about the performance of Vedic sacrifices by a Pandya king of this age.”[29] Finally, it is remarkable how a single coin often depicts symbols normally associated with Lord Vishnu (the conch, the srivatsa, the chakra) together with symbols normally associated with Lord Shiva (the trishul, the crescent moon, the damaru).[30] Clearly, the two “sects”—a very clumsy word—got along well enough. Interestingly, other symbols depicted on these coins, such as the three- or six-arched hill, the tree-in-railing, and the ritual stand in front of a horse, are frequently found in Mauryan iconography.[31] All in all, the material evidence, though still meagre, makes it clear that Hindu concepts and cults were already integrated in the society of the early historic period of Tamil Nadu side by side with Buddhist and Jain elements. More excavations, for which there is great scope, are certain to confirm this, especially if they concentrate on ancient places of worship, as at Gudimallam. Let us now see the picture we get from Sangam literature. Vedic & Puranic Culture—Literary Evidence It is unfortunate that the most ancient Sangam compositions are probably lost for ever ; we only know of them through brief quotations in later works. An early text, the Tamil grammar Tolkappiyam, dated by most scholars to the first or second century AD,[*] is “said to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school.”[32] Its content, says N. Raghunathan, shows that “the great literature of Sanskrit and the work of its grammarians and rhetoricians were well known and provided stimulus to creative writers in Tamil.... The Tolkappiyam adopts the entire Rasa theory as worked out in the Natya Sastra of Bharata.”[33] It also refers to rituals and customs coming from the “Aryans,” a word which in Sangam literature simply means North Indians of Vedic culture ; for instance, the Tolkappiyam “states definitely that marriage as a sacrament attended with ritual was established in the Tamil country by the Aryas,”[ 34] and it uses the same eight forms of marriage found in the Dharmashastras. Moreover, it mentions the caste system or “fourfold jathis” in the form of “Brahmins, Kings, Vaishyas and Vellalas,”[35] and calls Vedic mantras “the exalted expression of great sages.”[36] The Tolkappiyam also formulates the captivating division of the Tamil land into five regions (tinai ), each associated with one particular aspect of love, one poetical expression, and also one deity : thus the hills (kuriñji ) with union and with Cheyon (Murugan) ; the desert (palai ) with separation and Korravai (Durga) ; the forests (mullai ) with awaiting and Mayon (Vishnu-Krishna) ; the seashore (neytal ) with wailing and Varuna ; and the cultivated lands (marutam) with quarrel and Ventan (Indra). Thus from the beginning we have a fusion of non-Vedic deities (Murugan or Korravai), Vedic gods (Indra, Varuna) and later Puranic deities such as Vishnu (Mal or Tirumal). Such a synthesis is quite typical of the Hindu temperament and cannot be the result of an overnight or superficial influence ; it is also as remote as possible from the separateness we are told is at the root of so-called “Dravidian culture.” Expectedly, this fusion grows by leaps and bounds in classical Sangam poetry whose composers were Brahmins, princes, merchants, farmers, including a number of women. The “Eight Anthologies” of poetry (or ettuttokai ) abound in references to many gods : Shiva, Uma, Murugan, Vishnu, Lakshmi (named Tiru, which corresponds to Sri) and several other Saktis.[37] The Paripadal, one of those anthologies, consists almost entirely of devotional poetry to Vishnu. One poem[38] begins with a homage to him and Lakshmi, and goes on to praise Garuda, Shiva on his “majestic bull,” the four-faced Brahma, the twelve Adityas, the Ashwins, the Rudras, the Saptarishis, Indra with his “dreaded thunderbolt,” the devas and asuras, etc., and makes glowing references to the Vedas and Vedic scholars.[39] So does the Purananuru,[40] another of the eight anthologies, which in addition sees Lord Shiva as the source of the four Vedas (166) and describes Lord Vishnu as “blue-hued” (174) and “Garuda-bannered” (56).[41] Similarly, a poem (360) of a third anthology, the Akananuru, declares that Shiva and Vishnu are the greatest of gods[42] Not only deities or scriptures, landmarks sacred in the North, such as the Himalayas or Ganga, also become objects of great veneration in Tamil poetry. North Indian cities are referred to, such as Ujjain, or Mathura after which Madurai was named. Court poets proudly claim that the Chera kings conquered North Indian kingdoms and carved their emblem onto the Himalayas. They clearly saw the subcontinent as one entity ; thus the Purananuru says they ruled over “the whole land / With regions of hills, mountains, / Forests and inhabited lands / Having the Southern Kumari / And the great Northern Mount / And the Eastern and Western seas / As their borders....”[43] The Kural (second to seventh century AD), authored by the celebrated Tiruvalluvar, is often described as an “atheistic” text, a hasty misconception. True, Valluvar’s 1,330 pithy aphorisms mostly deal with ethics (aram), polity (porul) and love (inbam), following the traditional Sanskritic pattern of the four objects of human life : dharma, artha, kama, and moksha—the last implied rather than explicit. Still, the very first decade is an invocation to Bhagavan : “The ocean of births can be crossed by those who clasp God’s feet, and none else”[44] (10) ; the same idea recurs later, for instance in this profound thought : “Cling to the One who clings to nothing ; and so clinging, cease to cling” (350). The Kural also refers to Indra (25), to Vishnu’s avatar of Vamana (610), and to Lakshmi (e.g. 167), asserting that she will shower her grace only on those who follow the path of dharma (179, 920). There is nothing very atheistic in all this, and in reality the values of the Kural are perfectly in tune with those found in several shastras or in the Gita.[45] Let us briefly turn to the famous Tamil epic Shilappadikaram (second to sixth century ad), which relates the beautiful and tragic story of Kannagi and Kovalan ; it opens with invocations to Chandra, Surya, and Indra, all of them Vedic Gods, and frequently praises Agni, Varuna, Shiva, Subrahmanya, Vishnu-Krishna, Uma, Kali, Yama and so forth. There are mentions of the four Vedas and of “Vedic sacrifices being faultlessly performed.” “In more than one place,” writes V. Ramachandra Dikshitar, the first translator of the epic into English, “there are references to Vedic Brahmans, their fire rites, and their chanting of the Vedic hymns. The Brahman received much respect from the king and was often given gifts of wealth and cattle.”[46] When Kovalan and Kannagi are married, they “walk around the holy fire,” a typically Vedic rite still at the centre of the Hindu wedding. Welcomed by a tribe of fierce hunters on their way to Madurai, they witness a striking apparition of Durga, who is addressed equally as Lakshmi and Sarasvati—the three Shaktis of the Hindu trinity. There are numerous references to legends from the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and the Puranas. After worshipping at two temples, one of Vishnu and the other of Shiva, the Chera king Shenguttuvan goes to the Himalayas in search of a stone for Kannagi’s idol, and bathes it in the Ganges—in fact, the waters of Ganga and those of Cauvery were said to be equally sacred. Similar examples could be given from the Manimekhalai : even though it is a predominantly Buddhist work, it also mentions many Vedic and Puranic gods, and attributes the submergence of Puhar to the neglect of a festival to Indra. As the archaeologist and epigraphist R. Nagaswamy remarks, “The fact that the literature of the Sangam age refers more to Vedic sacrifices than to temples is a pointer to the popularity of the Vedic cults among the Sangam Tamils.”[47] I should also make a mention of the tradition that regards Agastya, the great Vedic Rishi, as the originator of the Tamil language. He is said to have written a Tamil grammar, Agattiyam, to have presided over the first two Sangams, and is even now honoured in many temples of Tamil Nadu and worshipped in many homes. One of his traditional names is “Tamil muni.” The Shilappadikaram refers to him as “the great sage of the Podiyil hill,” and a hill is still today named after him at the southernmost tip of the Western Ghats. It would be tempting to continue with this enumeration, which could easily fill a whole anthology. As a matter of fact, P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri showed with a wealth of examples how “a knowledge of Sanskrit literature from the Vedic period to the Classical period is essential to understand and appreciate a large number of passages scattered among the poems of Tamil literature.”[48] Others have added to the long list of such examples.[ 49] In other words, Vedic and Puranic themes are inextricably woven into Sangam literature and therefore into the most ancient culture of the Tamil land known to us. Historical Period The historical period naturally takes us to the great Pallava, Chola and Pandya temples and to an overflowing of devotional literature by the Alwars, the Nayanmars and other seekers of the Divine who wandered over the length and breadth of the Tamil land, filling it with bhakti. But here let us just take a look at the rulers. An inscription records that a Pandya king led the elephant force in the Mahabharata War on behalf of the Pandavas, and that early Pandyas translated the epic into Tamil.[50] The first named Chera king, Udiyanjeral, is said to have sumptuously fed the armies on both sides during the War at Kurukshetra ; Chola and Pandya kings also voiced such claims—of course they may be devoid of historical basis, but they show how those kings sought to enhance their glory by connecting their lineage to heroes of the Mahabharata. So too, Chola and Chera kings proudly claimed descent from Lord Rama or from kings of the Lunar dynasty—in other words, an “Aryan” descent. As regards religious practices, the greatest Chola king, Karikala, was a patron of both the Vedic religion and Tamil literature, while the Pandya king Nedunjelyan performed many Vedic sacrifices, and the dynasty of the Pallavas made their capital Kanchi into a great centre of Sanskrit learning and culture. K. V. Raman summarizes the “religious inheritance of the Pandyas” in these words : The Pandyan kings were great champions of the Vedic religion from very early times.... According to the Sinnamanur plates, one of the early Pandyan kings performed a thousand velvi or yagas Vedic sacrifices.... Though the majority of the Pandyan kings were Saivites, they extended equal patronage to the other faiths ... and included invocatory verses to the Hindu Trinity uniformly in all their copper-plate grants. The Pandyas patronised all the six systems or schools of Hinduism.... Their religion was not one of narrow sectarian nature but broad-based with Vedic roots. They were free from linguistic or regional bias and took pride in saying that they considered Tamil and Sanskritic studies as complementary and equally valuable.[51] This pluralism can already be seen in the two epics Shilappadikaram and Manimekhalai, which amply testify that what we call today Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism coexisted harmoniously. “The sectarian spirit was totally absent,”[52] writes Ramachandra Dikshitar. “Either the people did not look upon religious distinctions seriously, or there were no fundamental differences between one sect and another.”[53] That is also a reason why I have not stressed Buddhism and Jainism here. Those two faiths were no doubt significant in the early stages of Tamil society, but not as dominant as certain scholars insist upon in an attempt to eclipse the Vedic and Puranic elements. Buddhism and Jainism did contribute greatly in terms of religious thought, art and science, but faded centuries later under the flood of Hindu bhakti ; their insistence on world-shunning monasticism also did not agree very well with the Tamil temperament, its cult of heroism and its zest for life. In any case, this superficial glance at Sangam literature makes it clear at the very least that, in the words of John R. Marr, “these poems show that the synthesis between Tamil culture and what may loosely be termed Aryan culture was already far advanced.[ 54] Nilakanta Sastri goes a step further and opines, “There does not exist a single line of Tamil literature written before the Tamils came into contact with, and let us add accepted with genuine appreciation, the Indo-Aryan culture of North Indian origin.”[55] The Myth of Dravidian Culture And yet, such statements do not go deep enough, as they still imply a North-South contrast and an unknown Dravidian substratum over which the layer of “Aryan” culture was deposited. This view is only milder than that of the proponents of a “separate” and “secular” Dravidian culture, who insist on a physical and cultural Aryan-Dravidian clash as a result of which the pure “Dravidian” culture got swamped. As we have seen, archaeology, literature and Tamil tradition all fail to come up with the slightest hint of such a conflict. Rather, as far as the eye can see into the past there is every sign of a deep cultural interaction between North and South, which blossomed not through any “imposition” but in a natural and peaceful manner, as everywhere else in the subcontinent and beyond. As regards an imaginary Dravidian “secularism” (another quite inept word to use in the Indian context), it has been posited by many scholars : Marr,[56] Zvelebil[57] and others characterize Sangam poetry as “secular” and “pre-Aryan”[58] after severing its heroic or love themes from its strong spiritual undercurrents, in a feat typical of Western scholarship whose scrutiny always depends more on the magnifying glass than on the wide-angle lens. A far more insightful view comes from the historian M. G. S. Narayanan, who finds in Sangam literature “no trace of another, indigenous, culture other than what may be designated as tribal and primitive.”[ 59] He concludes : The Aryan-Dravidian or Aryan-Tamil dichotomy envisaged by some scholars may have to be given up since we are unable to come across anything which could be designated as purely Aryan or purely Dravidian in the character of South India of the Sangam Age. In view of this, the Sangam culture has to be looked upon as expressing in a local idiom all the essential features of classical “Hindu” culture.[ 60] However, it is not as if the Tamil land passively received this culture : in exchange it generously gave elements from its own rich temperament and spirit. In fact, all four Southern States massively added to every genre of Sanskrit literature, not to speak of the signal contributions of a Shankara, a Ramanuja or a Madhwa. Cultural kinship does not mean that there is nothing distinctive about South Indian tradition ; the Tamil land can justly be proud of its ancient language, culture and genius, which have a strong stamp and character of their own, as anyone who browses through Sangam texts can immediately see : for all the mentions of gods, more often than not they just provide a backdrop ; what occupies the mind of the poets is the human side, its heroism or delicate emotions, its bouncy vitality, refined sensualism or its sweet love of Nature. “Vivid pictures of full-blooded life exhibiting itself in all its varied moods,” as Raghunathan puts it. “One cannot but be impressed by the extraordinary vitality, variety and richness of the poetic achievement of the old Tamil.”[61] Ganapathy Subbiah adds, “The aesthetic quality of many of the poems is breathtakingly refined.”[62] It is true also that the Tamil language developed its own literature along certain independent lines ; conventions of poetry, for instance, are strikingly original and more often than not different from those of Sanskrit literature. More importantly, many scholars suggest that “the bhakti movement began in the Tamil country and later spread to North India.”[63] Subbiah, in a profound study, not only challenges the misconceived “secular” portrayal of the Sangam texts, but also the attribution of the Tamil bhakti to a northern origin ; rather, he suggests, it was distinctly a creation of Tamil culture, and Sangam literature “a reflection of the religious culture of the Tamils.”[64] As regards the fundamental contributions of the South to temple architecture, music, dance and to the spread of Hindu culture to other South Asian countries, they are too well known to be repeated here. Besides, the region played a crucial role in preserving many important Sanskrit texts (a few Vedic recensions, Bhasa’s dramas, the Arthashastra for instance) better than the North was able to do, and even today some of India’s best Vedic scholars are found in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.[*] As Swami Vivekananda put it, “The South had been the repository of Vedic learning.”[65] In other words, what is loosely called Hinduism would not be what it is without the South. To use the proverbial but apt image, the outflow from the Tamil land was a major tributary to the great river of Indian culture. Conclusion It should now be crystal clear that anyone claiming a “separate,” “pre-Aryan” or “secular” Dravidian culture has no evidence to show for it, except his own ignorance of archaeology, numismatics and ancient Tamil literature. Not only was there never such a culture, there is in fact no meaning in the word “Dravidian” except either in the old geographical sense or in the modern linguistic sense ; racial and cultural meanings are as unscientific as they are irrational, although some scholars in India remain obstinately rooted in a colonial mindset. The simple reality is that every region of India has developed according to its own genius, creating in its own bent, but while remaining faithful to the central Indian spirit. The Tamil land was certainly one of the most creative, and we must hope to see more of its generosity once warped notions about its ancient culture are out of the way. http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/tamilculture.html
-pirayaani
I USE Net from Netpark and hence my research notes are not availble, I standby everyword mentioned and reply can be given.
MosesMohammedSolomon
-
7th June 2005, 12:03 PM
#37
Senior Member
Devoted Hubber
Dear Thiru idiappam, 
You have revealed good queries before soloman. He has not mentioned truthful evidences in support his views. Thank you.
Dear Thiru soloman,
I pose you some questions since we have already discussed all the issues in varrious topics in this forum which you make front stage now.
You are boastfully trying to make sanskrit history equal to tamil. 
Let me pose some questions to you which may induce you to give some answers.
1. Don't you think that so far evacuvated inscriptions of tamil Brahmi script all over india proves the antiquity of tamil( 500 BC) than sanskrit ?
2. Don't you think so far evacuvated pali Brahmi script of King Ashokas period (300 BC) never contains sanskrit and sanskrit devanagiri script so far evacuated in india is belonging to (800 AD) ?
3. Don't you think tamil has roots not only for sanskrit language but for old languages like sumerian,Arabian,Akkadian and semiththian whereas sanskrit never has resemblance with them ?
4. Don't you think tamil gods,worshiping habits & customs followed not only in world ancient civilizations but also in vedhic sanskrit?
5.Aryan theory is wrong and dravidian theory is also wrong. But Don't you think Sindhu valley civilisation never contains so called vedhic tradition?
6.Don't you think The east linguistics scholars accepted tamil's antiquity that it must be the language of man when he evolved? Don't you think 'Troskin'- a chinean revealed this ?
7. Don' t you think structurewise -Grammaticalwise all east world languages resemble tamil and not Sanskrit ?
8. Don't you think all tribal people of earth's southern hemisphere resemble tamil ?
9. Don't you think all west languages words have roots in tamil ?
10. Don't you think western linguistics accepted tamils antiquity ?
11. Instead of searching vedhic elements in tamil sankam literature Don't you think searching out tamil culture elements in vedhic literature ?
12. Don't you think tamil version and sanskrit version caste system are somewhat same in nature but different in meaning after tamil king 'manu' went north and formulated 'manusmirithi' and subsequently 'Bhagavatgita' ?
13. Don't you think tamil god inthra and siva used in all four vedhas ? And Manusmirthi and Bhagavatigita were formulated when saiva and vaishnava (vinnava) fighting was going ?
14. Don't you think all north indian tribal languages including the 'Pragui' which is now in palusistan are much resemble tamil and no way to connected to sanskrit ?
15. And at last why don't you discuss issue by issue here ? You seem to be lambasting dravidian at one hand and boasting sanskrit on another - why this hurry / dilemma ? Cool down solomon.
Let us go one by one . You start give sanskrit history with all your proofs. We give tamil history with all proofs. We still more extend this with analysing the structure and formation of language. Okay 8)
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
-
8th June 2005, 12:04 PM
#38
Junior Member
Admin HubberNewbie HubberTeam HubberModerator HubberPro Hubber
A Reply to daninos article
Let me first clarify something, the article of Daninos was something I stumbled upon on the net and posted it here because I thought it would be interesting to find out what other people thought about this.
pirayaani
Here is a counterreply:
"let us take an unbiased look at the cultural backdrop of early Tamil
society and try to make out some of its mainstays... Also, I will not
deal here with the origin of South Indian people and languages, or
with the nature of the process often called "Aryanization of the
South" (I prefer the word "Indianization," used in this context by an
archaeologist"
That sentence tells you how unbiased he is. "Indianization" indeed.
Meaning, of course, that he thinks Tamil culture was not Indian before
the northern influences started. Why can't vedicists accept that
"vedic" and "Indian" are not synonymous?
Actually, that article is full of distortions and mistakes. Here are
a few examples:
<<Court poets proudly claim that the Chera kings conquered North
Indian kingdoms and carved their emblem onto the Himalayas.>>
Yes, and the very next line says "imizhkadal vEli THAMIZHAKAM
viLanka". This is a very clear indication that Tamizhakam was
considered different from the conquered lands, and yet the author
completely suppresses this line.
<<They clearly saw the subcontinent as one entity ; thus the
Purananuru says they ruled over 'the whole land / With regions of
hills, mountains, / Forests and inhabited lands / Having the Southern
Kumari / And the great Northern Mount / And the Eastern and Western
seas / As their borders....'>>
This is totally incorrect. The "great northern mountains" are the
tirumalai hills which have for aeons been accepted as the borders of
Tamilakam. To try and represent them as the Himalayas (which are
always mentioned by name as "amaiya" in the sangam texts) either
displays utter ignorance or is deliberate falsification.
<<Let us briefly turn to the famous Tamil epic Shilappadikaram>>
Yes, let us. Especially the conclusion of the Maduraikkandam: "vaDa
Ariyar paDaikaDanthu then thamizhnADorungukANa puraithIr kaRpin
thEvi". Note especially how Ilangovadikal contrasts "vada Ariyar"
with "then thamizh naadu". And yet this man still insists that "they
clearly saw the subcontinent as one entity"!!
He also totally misrepresents the Dravidianist viewpoint.
Dravidianists *actually* say that the sangam literature clearly shows
vedic culture to have been a "foreign" element that was starting to
make inroads into the ancient Dravidian culture. This man, however,
misleadingly pretends that we are arguing that sangam literature was
uninfluenced by vedic culture. He totally ignores the masses of
evidence that the lower castes revered nadukkals (hero-stones),
ancestors and conducted Amman rituals that were totally alien to vedic
culture!
If this paper was actually accepted at a Vedic workshop, I can only
marvel at how poor standards of scholarship have become amongst
vedicists. A paper this poorly researched would have been laughed out
at any Dravidian session. Vedicists should learn some Dravidian
rationalism!
Ponna
-
12th June 2005, 11:59 AM
#39
Senior Member
Devoted Hubber
Dear pirayaani,
1. <<They clearly saw the subcontinent as one entity ; thus the
Purananuru says they ruled over 'the whole land / With regions of
hills, mountains, / Forests and inhabited lands / Having the Southern
Kumari / And the great Northern Mount / And the Eastern and Western
seas / As their borders....'>>
2.This is totally incorrect. The "great northern mountains" are the
tirumalai hills which have for aeons been accepted as the borders of
Tamilakam. To try and represent them as the Himalayas (which are
always mentioned by name as "amaiya" in the sangam texts) either
displays utter ignorance or is deliberate falsification.
No.1 fits for prehistoric period.
No.2 fits for sankam period.
'Ariyar' reference was not only for north. It was there in karikal chola period.
Karikal chola had four armies namely Ariyappadai , Manappadai, puduppadai and Pampappadai. Ariyam here specifies the 'first '.
'Atruppadai' literature tells this. 'Ariyapapadai kadantha Neduncheliyan' in sankam literature doesn't mean north ariyan but cholan army.
'Ayya, Ayira' roots formed ariya in paly language to specify hothas first and kings later.
Ayya - ariya - 'Araiyar' - Arasar was the tamil formation.
What Mr. Solomon quoted from Ambetkar's words is the correct interpretation of Aryans.
Daerius a king in Persia called himself as 'Ariyan' in the sense of Topper / king.
There was no Aryan race either in north or in South.
Periyar used 'Dravidia' word for cultural difference and not for race difference since it is specified in MahaBharata.
Orissa (old Kalinga) Poori Ranganathar temple has inscriptions about chola kings as dravida kings who were tamils.
Rai cholas were called Dravida kings who were tamils.
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
-
17th June 2005, 04:42 PM
#40
Senior Member
Regular Hubber
SANSKRIT AND TAMIL DATING
Quiet lot of lies are put across.
I give quotes from Devaneyar- called Pavanar:
"The best of SANSKRIT Grammer book, in Panini of 4th Cen BCE, In Sanskrit grammer books are called Vyakarnam and claims even before Panini there were grammer for Numerals etc., and the oldest was IYenthiram of Vedic Period - Page 56-57, Tamilar Varalaru.
"Iyenthiram Niranthe Tholkappiyar " says Panamparanar;
Thol- 880, Thol1570, Kappiyar refers Ariyam, hence we can conclude that Sanskrit has established considerably in Tholkappiyar' period. Page 40 same book.
Four Vedas or Nanmarai, arangam, agamametc., means Sanskrit works and the word Anthanar in Tholkappiyam and all Tamil Sagnam and later books except refers to Aryan Brahmins only- Page 101, Tamilar Matham.
Devaneyan further in his book Oppiyan Mozhinool says- "s Panamparanar refers him knowing FourVedas, Iyenthiram and Kappiyar differenciates Vadasol Grammer with Tamil and that TholKappiyar made Arangetram before AthangottuAsan, all confirm that Tholkappiyar is A Brahmin."
Tholkappiyar is dubiously dated to 700BCE by Devaneyan, with no reason given, but objective scholoars who look at Tholkappiyar- giving Grammer for Wrting, means advanced stage of North Indian brought Brammi letters i.e., 200-150B.C.E.
I request all to maintain dignity on commenting on Scholars, One is talking so uglyly of UU.VE.SA and other on Iravatham Mahadevan.
The pains taken by Uvesa got us Tholkappiyam and Sangam Literature, which otherwise could have lost, and his honest serch of Originals are fully appreciated. Iravatham Mahadevan was the first to decipher Tamil from BArahmi scripts and has also deciphered Indus-Saraswathi scripts.
Tamil is such a wonderful Language, whose highllights can be said for pages and nobody needs to FaLsely belittle other Indian language and India' equal pride Sanskrit.
Most of the European Universities have intited Closing Tamil Departments and these myths of splitting words only Paint that we are Frauds.
Any Literature dating can be referred from www.wikhipedia.com and that is the opinion of All MAjor Universities of the World, any falsehood spread by few are spreading Hatered meaninglessly.
We do not have a single Tamil Literature before Sanskrit has taken route as I showed.
Please give truths and when you say Your assumed Dates please mention that you assume, when you say cARBON DATED , please gives proper reference, otherwise Wikhipedia is the ideal.
If anybody says my views are wrong give with proofs and not blindly sat wrong or Lie, it looks childish.
MosesMohammedSolomon
Bookmarks