TAMIL is much ELDER to SANSKRIT !

[solomon]

INDIAN HERITAGE AND TAMIL ANCIENT LITERATURE.

Tamil Ancient Literature, popularly called Sangam collections, dates from 200BCE to 100 CE, The collection has Thokappiyam, a Grammer book, the earlist one.

Next comes are two Epics of Tamil, Silapadhikaram and Manimekhalai, dated to 100-200CE, and Tirukural though comes under later collection is dated to around 100BCE.
Then between 200-550CE, the dark period, only Jainistic and Buddhistic books where allowed, then comes Bakthi Period to Epic Period f Kamba Ramayan dated to around 900CE.

Tamil during all these period called SANSKRIT as VADASOL or VADAMOZHI or ARIYAM.
VEDAS, where referred as NANMARAI, MARAI, ARANGAM, VEDAS, ARUMARAI, VEDHANERI etc.,
Brahmins, of Vedic Heritage are called ANTHANAR, PARPANAR, ARUTOZHILAR etc., and I have collected some of them mentioned, Over a 1000 years.

1. Ariyamum Tamilodu isaianavan- Appar Devaram 132:3

2. Tamilsollum VADASOLLUM Thanzarsera GNASAm Dev77:4

3. Vadmolium Then Tamilum MARAIGAL Nankum Anavan- Appar 301:1

4. Marium Kodaium Varpani Tunganindru
Erium Nindrangu Elaikindra Kalathu
ARIAYMUM MUTAMILU Udane Solik
Karigaiyarku Karunai Seithane- ThirumularThirumantiram 65

5. Avilkindra varum athukattumarum
Simittalai Pattuir Pogindra Varum
Tamilchsol Vadasol Enumivvirandum
Unarthun Avanai Unaralame. ThirumularThirumantiram 66

6. ......
Manthipol thirinthu ARIYATODU
Sentamil payan Arikila
Anthakarku Eliyan alen Tiru
Alvaiyan Nirkave Thirugnasampanthar.

7. Talaiana NAAL VETHATHAR Valunth Thalai sangali
Nilayarntha Koile Koyilaka Nindrire - Thirugnasampanthar.

8. Sentamilum Vadakalaiyum Nikalnta Navar Nalayira DivyaPrabantham 1624.

9. ThennanTamilai Vadamolai

10. Vadasorku Sentamilkum Varambaki
Nanmaarain Kambaramayan Kishkantam 778


This is in line with THOLKAPPIYAM, which says,

a. Iyarsol Tirisol Thisaisol VADASOL endru
Anaithe Cheul Ittach sol.
b. VADASOL Kilavi VadaELuthu VORIE...
Here he differenciates Vadamozhi grammer and Tamil
On Brahmins Tholkappiyar says

C. ARUVAGAI patta Parppana pakkamum - Thol-Porul-Pura 74.
d. Ayumkalai Anthanarkuriya Thol-Po-Mar-80
e. Penutagu Sirappin Parppan Porul- 502
f. Maraiyor Theyathu Mandral Porul-Ka-1
g. Poium Valuvam Tonriya pinnar
Iyer Yatanar Karanam enba Po- Ka-1
h. NooleKaragam Mukkol Manaiye Por-Ma 66.
Aruvagaipatta or ARUTHOZIL Anthanar- is from shadakarma Nishadar of Vedic Heritage and is confirmed by SAngam song as follows:
PathirruPathu-24

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.

Now Let us See Sangam Literuature:

1. Aruari Anthanarku Arumarai pala Pagarnthu
Neruneer kadai karanthu Thiripuram Theemaduthu
Kooramar Kurithathan mel seu kadunga vuli
Marappor Manimidarren kaiyai kelani Kalithogai 1:1

2. Arumarai Navin Anthanar - Sirupanarrupadai- 204

3. Kelvi Anthanar Arunkadanirutha
Velvi Thunathu Perumpanarrupadai- 315:6

4. Anthi Anthanar Ethirkola Ayarnthu
Senni Sevvazhal Thodanga Kalithogai 119-121.

5. ...... Arutholiar Nool Marappar- Thirukural

6. Arutolil Anthanar Aram Purinthu Edutu Puram 397

7. Nan pala Kelvi murriya Velvi Anthanarku Puram 361

8. Pulan Alukku Arra Anthanalalan Puram

9. MARAI Navil Anthanar Nuvalvum padume Puram 1:5,6

Vedas are Referred as Vethas, Chathur Marai, Arumarai.


The Tamil Word, Marai- an excellent word, highly technical, an equivalent never
is available in Sanskrit in which Vedas where written, MARAI, Means Unwritten,
Vedas being not as per PANINI'S Grammer of 5th CenBCE, anybody trying to
read without proper Guidance is likely to miss the original meaning and
misinterpret the Vedas of its Theological context, so for long theVedas were
not put in writing, another reason is Indian writing was done on Palm Leaves,
which does not have long life, any corruption in leaf could change meaning,
and to write the total Four Vedas and Upanishads in Palm Leaves would occupy
the size of a Big Modern Library.

AND Vedas- Authors are Unknown, the Tradition says that the Rishis with huge
Meiditation, from the sound of Wind and waves etc., compiled the Vedas, This is
the Tradition.

THOLKAPPIYAM SAYS:
1. NIRAI MOZHI MANTAR Aanaiyer Kilantha
Marai Mozhi thane MANTIRAM enba and in another place

2. Vinayin Neengi Vilangiya Arivin
Munaivan Kandathu MuthaNoolakume Thol-Po
Here he confirms the tradition that Rishis received the Vedas.

SEKILAR- who compiled the history of 63 Siva Divotees "Nayanmars" tells:
ELUTHATHA MARAI alitha Eluthuarium Perumane.

Now let us see on Vedas in Sangam and Other Literautre.

Tholkappiyam was first permoremed in presence of :

" Arangarai Navin NANMARAI Murriya Athangottu Asan--- "


1. Andra Kelvi adanghiya Kolgai
NANMARAI Muthalvan Surram aga Purananooru 26:12,13

2. NAN MARAI MUTHUNOOL Mukkan Selvan AagaNanooru 181:16

3. Nandraintha NeenimirSADDAI
Muthumuthalvan VaiPoga
Thondru Purintha Veer Irandin
Arunarnth Oru Muthunool Puram 166 :1-4

4. Aaruari Anthanarku Arumarai Pala Pagarnthu Kalithogai 1:1

5. Marai Navil Anthanar Noovalavum padume Puram 1:5,6

6. Aaru Neriya Marai Valla Muniyagan

7. Chathuram Marai than Thuthi Seithu Vangum -Sampanthar

8. Thalaiana NAAL VETHAnthrithar Vazum... SAMPANTAR

9. Aathianthanar aarinthu Parikoluva
VethaMaPuun Vaiyater Vurnthu

10: Amarar Penium Avuthi Arunthium
Nalaanodu Pakadu Ombium
NAANMARAION Pugal Padium Pattinapalai.

11. Velpor Raman AARUMARAI kavitha
Palveel Aalam Pol Agananooru 71

12. Na al VethaNeri Paripadal 2

13: .....................Yuba Nedunthun
VethaVelvi Thozil Muththathuvum Puram 224

I have compiled to an extent, still there are many left out, and kindly excuse me if any of my reference is mixed up or any mistakes are there.

Now, Are this refers to the SANSKRIT or VadaMozhi or Vadasol or Ariya Vedas or any other, whar does the Renowned Tamil Scholar known for his Anti Brahmin and Anti- Sanskrit views Devaneyan-known as PAVANAR, after nerly 40 years of research says:

" Nalvetham or Nanmarai, Arangam Agamam enbana ellam Arya Noolkale enbathum, Thirukural thavira ippothulla Pandai Noolkalellam Anthanar enbathum Brahmararie Kurikkum Enpathu Sariye."
Page- 102 Tamilar Matham.

"Samaskrithtil Thalai sirantha illakana Noolakia Paniniyam, Paniniyal BCE4m Noorandile eyarrpattathu. Ilakkana Noolai Viyakaranam enbar vadanoolar.Annoolirku mun ENN Ilakkana Noolkal Iyarrpattathuakach chollap padukindrthu. Avarrul Muthalathu Vetha Kalthathu enpadum Iyendiram"
- Tamilar Varalaru Page 56,57.

PAVANAR also in his book, Oppiyan Moli Nool, First Edition 1940, gives that as per Tholkappiyar, was as per Tamil Traditions Son of ThuraGakini Munivar, and in all his reference to Vada Sol and Being first played before Vedhic Scholar, and all of it confirms us that THOLKAPPIYAR WAS a Brahmin of Aryan Origin and in most of his books mentions this on Passing reference.

MosesMohammedSolomon.

[Idiappam]

Thank you Aravindhan for posting this. I envy your patience in going through all this at the Hindu wedsite. I have visited many hindu websites and these are some of the typical lies they would like to use.

1. That the great Sanskrit books are god given - not written by man. Example, the Gita, the Vedas.

2. That anything written as late as the 13th century is said to have 'originated from the Vedas' For example the Ayurveda, Indian Classical Music, Yoga. But it you look at the Vedas there is nothing about medicine or music or yoga there!

3. Many Sanskrit works do not have an author. Some are said to be written by someone celestial etc.

4. And because of their anomity and available only to those very few literate in Sanskrit, these lies are carried on and on by those 'innocent' belivers of the lies.

These are just some of the Sanskritic tactic, there are many more. But you can see that the are Tamil works, older and much more organised and down to earth.

1.Tamil writings all of them are written by Man - that what the Tamils declare. All Tamil Scriptures are written by Man - even the Saints admit that themselves when writing - eg, mUlan uraiseitha mUvAyiram ...

2. Siddha medicine - starting from say Bogar, Theraiyar to Korakkar were written earlier than the Asthanga Hrdayam, Charuka Samhita of Ayurveda. Danavanthiri, who is said to be the 'Father of Ayurveda' is a deciple in the Thirumoolar lineage of Siddhars.

3. The earlierst books on Indian music exist only in Tamil - Example Silapathigaram gives the Grammer for the Major Scales of Indian music and goes on to the derivation of other scales using the Palai methods. The first book on Music in Sanskrit is Sangeetha Ratnagara of SarangaDeva - 13 Century CE.

4. The very much recent Yoga works in Sanskrit by Patanjali contains only 165 lines - what yoga can you learn from 165 lines??? Thirumoolar went lengths to explain Yoga. And Patanjali is again said to a contemporary of Thirumoolar. That's another lie.

We can show similar examples of Sanskritic lies, in every field, Dance, Architecture, Language, etc etc etc.

But there is nothing to worry! In this era of Information Technology it is easier to spread the truth. Lies are stamped out quiet easily.

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Friends,

Let us see the Root of Ariyan.

When F. Maxmuller, Father of (wrong) indentification of Indo-European Group languages could not find root in Sanskrit for ‘Ariyan’ and he shows the root as ‘ar’ as Indo-European root which means ‘plough’. Refer – Biographies of Words And the home of the Aryas – page 150.
But ‘Aer’ or ‘ar’ is tamil root for ‘plough’. Refer- A comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian family of Languages – by Robert Caldwell – page 592.

Since Aryas are identified as ‘Hothas’(Oothuvar) They cannot be identified as Maxmuller claims because ‘plougher’ or ‘Ulzavar’ is entirely different.

Mr. Monier Williams who is also authoritative person in Sanskrit literature shows ‘Ri’ as root and says French word ‘Ariya’(Sanskrit pronounciation is ‘Aariya’) which means Top / reaching top / face. Refer – Sanskrit English Dictionary by M. Monier Williams.

T.W.Rhys Davids and William Stede in their Pali- English Dictionary show ‘ariya’-a paly word which is equivalent to Sanskrit ‘Aariya’ and also says this could not be conformed through literature but the equivalent words of paly to ‘Aariya’ are ‘Ayya’ / Ayira.

We find the both paly words Ayya / Ayira are direct tamil words. And since the above foreigners except Calduwell did not get into tamil they came to that conclusion.

When we refer ‘Chentamil Chorpirappiyal Perakara Muthali’- We find ‘Aru’ the root for Ariyan and the meaning is Melone,Kuru,Arivudaiyavan,Maruththuvan,Aasiriyan, Thalaivan,Sivan,Buddhan etc.

In that, Aridar is specified as ‘Samanar’. Tamil samana Munivars were called as Ariyar. It shows further ‘Ayyarithanar’ as ‘Ayyan + Aarithan + Ar.

In ‘Purap porul Venba Malai’ The person with the above name ‘Ayyarithanar’ wrote “Kal thontri Man thontra Kalaththey Mun thontri Mootha Kudi”. He must have been interrupted by some outsiders to undermine tamil culture and tamil people. It clearly shows during 2nd century A.D. some north sponsored culture took root in tamils land.

Hence irrespective of religions The ‘hothas’ were called as Ariyans in tamil. And the same word went to Sanskrit.

Let us see some Tamil sankam books and authors and their timeline which was given in earlier pages of this thread comparing Anchor dictionary.

First Sankam – muthal sankam : (2500 BC -2000 B.C) From First Kadukone lot of Panya kings ruled. Erayanar, Murakavel, Akaththiyar, Muranchiyur Mudi Naagarayar, Nithiyil Kilavan were some of the Authors. MuthuNaarai,Muthukuruku,Kalariyavirai are some of the books.

Second Sankam – Idaichankam : (1250 to 500 B.C) Thokappiyanar, Irunthaiyur KurunKozhi, Mosi, Vellur kappiar,Siru Pantarankan, Thiraiyan Maran, Thuvaraikoman, Keeranthai are some of the Authors. Pandyas with capital ‘Kavadapuram’ ruled the country and they were from Ventharchelzhian to Mudaththiru maran. Kali, Kuruku, Vendaali were the books.

Refer “Irayanar Akapporul Urai Moolamum Nakkirar Urayum” Bavananthar Kazhakam.

Third Sankam – Kadaichangam- present sankam literature.

First and Second sankam literature totally perished due to ‘Kadalkol’. ‘Thokaapiam’ the only grammar belonging to (1250 B.C) is now available.

Tholkappiar talks about various sections of society In ‘Thol’- Porul-Akath-22-26 as

‘Peyarum Vinayum Aayiru vakaya
Thinaithorum Mareeiya Thinai nilaip peyarae,
Aayar Vettuvar Aaduvuth Thinai peyar,
Aavayin Varooum Kilzhavarum ularae,
Aanore Marunkinum Ennum kalai,
Aana vakaya Thinai nilai peyarae,
Adiyar Pankinum vinaivalar pankinum,
Kadivarai elapuraththu enmanar pulavar,
Aaval marabin Aanaiyorum uriyar,
Akiya nilaimai avarum annar”

When he talks about Gods – Theivam –

‘Maayon Meya Kadurai ulakamum,
Seyone Meya Maivarai ulakamum,
Venthan meya Theempunal ulakamum,
Varunan meya perumanals ulakamum,
Mullai, Kurunchi,Marutham Neithalena,
Solliya muraiyal chollavum padume. Thol- Porul-Agath - 5

Kottravai,Murugan,Mayavan,Inthiran and Varunan were Gods of tamil lands.

‘Akiya’ In ‘thol’ specifies all sections of people. All sections of people were addressed including the ‘pulavar’ present in those times.

When he talks about ‘rituals’,

“NiraiMozhi Maanthar Aanayil Kilantha
Maraimozhi thane Manthiram Enba.

“Vinayin Neengi vilankiya Arivin
Munaivan Kandathu Muthanoolakume”

“Ayumkalai Anthanrkuriya” – Compare Valluvam “Anthanar enbore Aravore”

“Poium Valuvum Thonriya Pinnar Iyer yatanar karanam enba”- Here ‘Iyer’is specified as ‘ritual’ creater and Head. Now also we find ‘Iyer’ surname in some tamil castes who performs these rituals in tribal culture of tamilnadu.

In this ‘Anthanar’ is specified as materialist. King also was a material person. ‘Munaivan’ is Theologist. Materialist always rule Theologists is the world order. Refer : Karl Marx. – The German ideology. Page 67. Kings ruled. They gave food and support to these Munaivans and Anthanaars.

All types of arts, occultics studies, spiritual studies were there in tamil land which was specified by ‘Manthiram’.

In the first verse that I showed “Akiya” finishes all sections people. And these people can become Anthanar / Munaivan as according to their capability. Occupation difference existed in Second sankam society but not caste formation. The same is the condition of four vedhas of northern origin which was influenced by tamil culture. Inthran, Ruthran were the gods of vedhas which were earlier (Inthran and Siva) Gods of tamils.

We can summarily reject the verses after No. 70 of “Tholkappiam” which were identified by many scholars as latest insertions which in no way connected with the poetry structure of tholkappiam days. These kind of insertions were made all through the later part of sankam literature and perhaps U.Ve.Sa knew this. He was also criticized for this treachery works. Panmozhip pulavar Ka.Appaththuraiyar , Maraimalaiyadigal, Thiru.Vi.Ka., Ki.Aa.Pe. Viswanatham are some of them questioned the lines antiquity because the same lines were taken in Pavananthy Munivar (4rth century A.D) Nannol grammar. It includes aruvakaipatta Tholil,Paarpaan, Maraiyor etc.

There is a mention of ‘Akaththiyam’ and reference of akaththiyam in Tholkappiam. But no single mention of Sanskrit Grammar / Astaththayi.

“Vadasol kilavi Vadaveluththu Oorie” means north Indian synonyms when comes to align with tamil words its north alphabet will be neglected. For example ‘Sparisam’ which will turn “pariyam” in tamil. ‘S’ is neglected. 'Oorie' means avoid (Neekku)

Vedhic verses were collected during 1st century A.D. By Vedha Viyasar and Panini’s time is around 4rth century A.D. and during the period Nannol grammar was written in which Asthathayi is referred. The period was conformed by Appaththuraiyar and Ayothidasa pandithar who was authoritative in Sanskrit literature and Mr.Maxmuller himself.

Later period around 2nd century A.D. lot of north origin religions like Manusmirthi, Bhagavatham, Athvaitham, Thuvaitham,Vishitathuvaitham which gave pro vedhic culture and Buddham,samanam and other materialstic religions like visatigam,sankiam which gave contradictory culture to vedhic culture and south origin sivam and vaishnam which took up the mixture of all types made the Indian society more spiritual and imaginative than any other land in world. 18 Puranas and Agamams and Upanishads were very much influenced by all people of India. Out of them Upanishads contain all moral values laid down in sankam literature.

Brahman,Brahmin were defined by vaishnavas when they introduced Brahma.

Nanmarai, Arrumarai(Six marai) and the proportions added to Anthanar are of later origin.

I want to show how tamil Anthanar Arutholizh is entirely different from its north Indian version.

‘Siva puranam’ is an Agama written during Aathisankarar days. The 35th Sloka ‘Sarva vidya samanvayam specifies the duties of Brahminas.

“1. Sarvajnataa (knowing knowledge),2. Thirupthi (contentment),3.Ranaathi Bodhaga(eternal knowledge deliverer),4.Swatantrataa- Independence 5. Nithyamalupta Sakthi-power / energy. 6. Ananta Saktisha –unlimited power Vibho Ravidhijnaahar Shadaa hurangaani Meheswarasya” –Compare this with tamil Arutholizh.

Buddhists who were against vedhas and (later Buddha included in one avatar of Vaishnavaitees) used the term ‘Brahmana’ as persons of spiritual attainment in most of the verses of “Dharmmapada”, a Buddhist work of Mahayaana period (3rd century A.D.).

Hence Aryan, Anthanar & Brahmin were used in different meaning in different times and this should not be put under Brahmin fold.

All the tamil and Sanskrit interchangeabilities, competitiveness occurred only after 2nd Century A.D. and Tholkappiam never has the significance of Vedhas whereas Vedhas followed tamil culture and swallowed the materialistic and occultistic balance of tamil culture.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

Friends,
Idiayppam wanted me to give where NanMarai is mentioned and I have compiled a major list for all to see.
Idiyappam said that Sangam Literature- refers to JEWS in his posting Dated 6/06/2005, I need not be good enough to him, but I have never come across any word for Jews in Sangam Literature, can you please kindly give it for us.
Idiyappam dates RigVedas to 600BCE,in his posting dated 29.5.2005. Can you please give proors for those datings.

I quote renowned Tamil Scholar- Dr.M.Rasamanickanar- Ki.Pi. 300-575 kalam Tamilagathu IrundaKalam endru Koorap padukirathu. Ivvirunda Kalathil Ganka Nattu Samanarkal Mikuthiyaka Pugunthu Samana samayap Pracharam Seithanar.
AcSamana Munivarkal Vathath Thiramai Mikkavar. Arasin Selvakkum Ondrupadave Samanaratu Athikkam Tamilakathil Mikuntathu. Itanal Buththam, Saivam, Vainavam ennum Samayangak Peralavil Selvakkai Ilanthana.
Page-67, Tamilaka Varalaru.
Vadavar Varugain Kooturaval Tholkappiyarukku Murpatta Sangha Kalaththileye Tamil Moliyi Vada Sorkal Kalakkath Thodangina.- Page 6, Ibid.
FSG- Saying BAgavatgeetha and Manusmrithi has Caste, Manusmrithi as per Indian Traditions is like the Constitution, which can be Amended then and there as per the needs of the day. But Tholkappiyam and More batantly we can see it Silapathikaram. Thiruvalluvar at many places uses Kudipirappu, which means he accepts CAsteeism by Birth, Casteism was maintained and was mostly Benefitial mainly to the Ruling and Rich Elite.
And many Scholars clearly affirm that Casteism went from Tamil to Sanskrit.

Another Thing, All this Literature we talk belong to a period when educated was less than 5-10%, and to criticise based on today' knowledge them is meaningless. We have to see the conditions of the day.
Bishop Caldwell is forthright-" Sinthu Nathikku Appal valangum Oru Mozhiyil (Barhui) Dravia Mulangal Kanap paduvathu - Ariyar, Grekar Sithiar Thurukiar Mangoliar Polave Dravidarkalum VadaMerku Vazhiyaka vanthu Kudiyeriyavarkale enpathai Katta Thunai Purium- Part-1, Comparitive Grammer..., and he also gave
that the word is derived as follos:
Dravidam- Dravidi- Dramizhi- Tramizhi- Tamil.

Tamilnadu Government approved naming Scheduled Caste and Tribes as Aathi Dravidarkal- i.e., Original Inhabitants and All others are Later arrivals.

We are all fooled by misreading of 19th/20t Cent Scolars and Over reaching of meagre evidences i.e., Aryan Invasion Theory etc.,
MosesMohammedSolomon

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Europeans including Calduwell who knew more about tamil and its heritage say Aryans and Dravidans came from out. This is wrong.

In 1960's eminent historiens questioned this Europeans' interpretation and told that from south to north and south to north west people culture migration was.

Present archeological proofs show this.

In the form of Occupational difference and no discrimination type caste system went from tamil to north. In fact Manu is a tamil king who formulated Manusmirithi during 3rd century CE. And Manu made "Birth difference" and by birth castes / four varnas were defined in Mansumirithi and this the worst formation in Indian history which made India divided enabling foreingners easily to capture India.

Now also Indian Government and Hindu civil law follows Manusmirithi. No amendments have so far made to include all castes to become Archakas of Hindu temples. If this is done all castes become one and the cast system will perish in course of time.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Mr.Solomon wrote,

Idiayppam wanted me to give where NanMarai is mentioned and I have compiled a major list for all to see.

Idiyappam dates RigVedas to 600BCE,in his posting dated 29.5.2005. Can you please give proors for those datings.

Solomon showed nanmarai in later 2nd century CE sankam works and 6th century CE 'Bakthi' works. What about Arumari (six marais) ? Any idea in that ?

Tholkappiam never contain Vedhic reference.

I don't know whether Idiappam said RigVedhas dated to 600BCE. He might have refered any false Hindu websites.

And north indians say Buddham is against vedhas and Buddhists works dates 300BCE and so Vedhas dates is 600 BCE. No fruitfull archeological evidances are so far.

Buddham has Henayana and Mahayana. Henayana was followed in Asoka's period. In Henayana there is no mention of Vedhas. Henayana was against all the rituals. It must be against occulstic and subsequent rituals performed in north India which was influenced by tamil culture.

But in Mahayana there is mention of Vedhas / Shanmarkaa and its rituals which was belonging to 3rd century CE.

Vedhas time once again here is proved as After 1st Century CE.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Friends,

Here I give the abstract from the book "DEAD SANSKRIT WERE ALWAYS DEAD" written by eminent historien Mr.Shyam Rao regarding the dating and literature of Sanskirt.

"The prime fact which has been suppressed by the elite is that Sanskrit did not exist prior to the 1 st century AD. This circumstance is evident from the following points :

• Vedas - The word `Sanskrit' does not occur anywhere in the Vedas. Not a single verse mentions this word as denoting a language.

• Chandasa - The Vedic language was referred to as Chandasa even by Panini himself [ Chatt., p.63 ], and not as `Sanskrit'.

• Buddha - The Buddha was advised to translate his teachings into the learned man's tongue - the `Chandasa' standard [ Chatt., p.64 ], there is no mention of any `Sanskrit'. The Buddha refused, preferring the Prakrits. There is not even a single reference in any contemporary Buddhist texts to the word `Sanskrit'. This shows that Sanskrit did not even exist at the time of the Buddha and that the people at that period, they referred to their language as `Chandasa'.

• Ramayana - The word `Sanskrit' occurs for the first time as referring to a language in the Ramayana :
"In the latter [Ramayana] the term `samskrta' "formal, polished", is encountered, probably for the first time with reference to the language"
-- [ EB 22 `Langs', p.616 ]

It is to be noted that extant versions of the Ramayana date only to the centuries AD.

• Asokan Script - The first inscriptions in Indian history are in Prakrit and not in Sanskrit. These are by the Mauryan King Ashoka (c.273 BC - 232 BC ), and number over 30. They date to the 4th century BC. The script utilised is not `sacred' Devanagari, and the language is not `Mother' Sanskrit. They are mostly in the Brahmi script, while 2 inscriptions are in Kharoshtri. They are in various Prakrits and some in Afghanistan are in Greek and Aramaic [ Bas,. p.390-1 ]. In fact all inscriptions in India were in Prakrit till the early centuries AD :

• "[T]he earlier inscriptions up to the 1st century AD, were all in Prakrit"
-- [ Up., p.164 ]

• Satavahana Inscriptions - The Satavahanas, the first historical dynasty of the Deccan, also used a Prakrit language. There is no usage of Sanskrit. The Nagarjunikonda insrciptions are by the Satvahana king Vijaya Satakarni in the early 3rd cetnruy AD & end with the Ikshvaku Rudrapurusadatta who ruled for 11 years in the second quarter of the 4th century. Most of the large number of inscriptions are in Prakrit and only a few belonging to Ehuvulu Santamula are in Sanskrit (he ruled during the last 24 years of the 3rd to the early 4th century AD ) but even most of his inscriptions are in Prakrit and those which are in Sanskrit are heavily influenced by Prakrit [ Bhatt., p.408 ftn.46 ].

The Nanaghat cave inscriptions in Poona distt. are in Prakrit and are the work of the Satavahana Satakarni I. They have been dated to the first half of the 1st century A.D. The contemporary relgion of this region was Vedic. Indra and Vasudev are mentioned as the Vedic gods then worshipped [ Bas, p.395 ]. The later cave inscriptions of Nasik in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD are in the local Prakrit [ Bas, p.395 ]. Thus, although the Vedic religion was followed in the Satavahana regions, Sanksrit was not in use.

• Gandhari - Even Gandhari existed prior to Sanskrit. The Pali Dhammapada in Gandhari was discovered at Khotan in Kharoshtri script. It dates to the 1st or 2nd century AD. A Gandhari insrcription was discovered on a copper casket containing relics of the Lord Sakyamuni [ Bas, p.393 ].

• Kharavela's Kalinga Inscription - Kharavela's Kalingan inscription of the 1st century BC were in a Prakrit of the east indian type. Interseting is the first mention of the word Bharatavarsha in an inscription. Kharavela is described as invading Bharatavarsha, which then evidently denoted only North India [ Bas, p.393 ].

IMPORTANT :
• First Sanskrit Inscription : 150 AD - The earliest inscription in Sanskrit is by the Saka Mahakshatrapa Rudradaman at Junagarh in Gujarat dated to AD 150. However, even here several of the words are wrong according to Sanskrit grammatical rules, some words show Prakrit influence and a few are un-Paninian [ Bas 397-8 ]. This inscription is several centuries later than the earliest Prakrit inscriptions, and are the creation of Sakas, not Arya kings.

Lahovery writes that the vocabulary of Sanskrit "is largely formed of Dravidian and other loanwords" [ Lah., p.407 on Wool ].

The archaic nature of Sanskrit is evident in its vocabulary, which is highly synonymic, homonymic and hermaphroditic and its compounding nature. All these features render the language highly unsuited to communication and unfit for usage as a vernacular or language of science.

Sanskrit did not have any script, and Devanagari was only invented in the 10th century AD, Sanskrit came to be written in the local scripts. Thus, Sanskrit in Bengal is written in Bengali script, in Orissa it is written in Oriya letters, in Tamil Nadu it is written in Dravidian letters. In each of the local museums in these states one finds Sanskrit manuscripts written in the local scripts; Devanagari is virtually absent, and where present, is of a very late age.
the fallacious claims that the Gujarati, Bengali, Oriya and other scripts are derived from Devnagari are wholly false propaganda; all scripts are derived from Aramaic via Brahmi.

Tamil - The Dravidians have consistently opposed Sanskrit and Sanskritisation of Dravidian languages. Even translations from Sanskrit were abhorred. Tamil was able to preserve almost fully its ancient purity. The fraction of Sanskrit words rose to 25 % during 16th century A.D.but by the mid-20th century these had completely removed and Tamil had been fully purified of any Sanskrit corruptions.

Telugu - Telugu is a Dravidian language, as is evident from the etymology of `Telugu' itself, derived from `Trilinga' or `Trikalinga' or `Teling' (a Dravidian people). However, forcible imposition of Vaishnavite Orthodoxy (ie. Brahmanism & its 6 astika schools) and Sanskritisation was followed. This led to the fragmentation of the ancient Telingana nation into 2 separate regions: the Vaishnavite Andhra region comprising the northern tracts and the Godavari-Krishna deltas, and the Dravidian Shaivite Telengana region comprising the southern regions. Acca Telugu, pure Telugu free from Sanskrit contamination, is spoken in Telengana, while Andhri, the hybrid of Sanskrit & Telugu (also known as Mishra-bhasa, `mixed language' [ Red., p.630 ]) is spoken in Andhra.

Hindustani Laduka should note the following :

The Sanskritic tradition was introduced by Nannaya (AD 1030 ) who translated the Mahabharat [ Red., p.625 ]. In the pre-Nannaya days the Carvaka and Kappalika schools were dominant while Kumarila Bhatta (7 Century AD) and Sankaracharya (788-820) preached agianst these and tried to revive Vedic dharma or Brahmanism [ Red., p.625 ]. Nannaya and his patron-king Narendra ( 1022-63 ) accordingly tried to revive the varnashram-dharma but this recieved a setback due to the Virashaiva revival of Shaivism.

Maxmuller declared :
" I do not claim for the ancient Indian [ Sanskrit ] literature any more that I should willingly concede to the fables and traditions and songs of savage nations. I simply say that in the Veda we have a nearer approach to a beginning, and an intelligent beginning, than in the wild invocations of the Hottentotes and Bushmen "
-- [ Walk ]

The commentary put by Mr.Solomon on Dr.Theiva Nayakam clearly specifies his association's view which is fittable to the KURAL he notified.

Any scholar should be viewed as information source based on keeping the KURAL message "Epporul......" and all the views of individual person may not be correct and we should not take it as "VEDHA VAKKU". May be vedhics like Solomon may consider Vedham of certain scholars as according to his wish and no interpretaion / question.

This in any way will not affect the view of tamil antiquity. A true historien or history reader should be unbiased and not based on religion and other sects.

f.s.gandhi

[A P MASILAMANI]

Well done, keep it up. Mr Gandhi.

[Idiappam]

I don't know whether Idiappam said RigVedhas dated to 600BCE. He might have refered any false Hindu websites.

And north indians say Buddham is against vedhas and Buddhists works dates 300BCE and so Vedhas dates is 600 BCE. No fruitfull archeological evidances are so far.

f.s.gandhi

I quoted that from Devaneya Pavanar's Vadamozhi Varalaru! Not form 'false' hindu site - most of the 'false' HIndu sites date the Rig as 6000BCE or earlier - a bunch of lies they carry!

I thought that Solomon Vedic boy, would accept Pavanar's dating as he is keen to quote 'half sentences' form Pavanar's works to support his anti-Tamil propaganda!

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Thiru A.P.Masilamani Iyaa, Where have you gone for nearly 3 months ? I am very glad to see you here anyway.

Kindly continue your postings.

f.s.gandhi