TAMIL is much ELDER to SANSKRIT !

[solomon]

FSG, gives different dating in the morning and another next day nd another the other day and even different datings same day in various Postings.
TholKappiyam Payiram by PanamParanar says:

.... Nilamtharu Thiruvin Pandiyan Avaiyathu
Arangarai Navin NANMARAI Murriya
Athankottu Asarku Ariltaba Therindu
Manka Marabin Eluthumurai katti
Malkunir Varaippin IYINTHIRAM Niraintha
THOLKAPPIYAN Enath than peyar Thorrip
Palpugal Niruththa Padimaiyone

and Tholkappiyar refers Maraiyor, Parpanar, AruvagaiPatta Parpanar etc., and all these have been analysed in depth by various Scholars and finally it was confirmed that Tholkappiyar' reference to "MARAI" and Anthanar etc., refers to Indian +Vedic Tradition i.e., Indic Tradition. Tholkappiyar being from Kappiar Kudi- a family giving Hari-katha Kalatshebams are the Tamil Tradtions for last 2 Millenium.

FSG plays with Dating of Literature, either for Sanskrit or Tamil- now entire Sangam is put as belonging to 200 CE, why because of his Bluff Vedas were written in Ist Century, All viewers must be sick of is Postings, where in FSG said Ist cen and later 2nd Century and later 400CE, and now to Ist Century CE. I donot normally use these harsh words- Rubbish.

When Dravidian Bluff Anti-SANSKRIT Scholars had made a Cartel of Tamil Literary Gruoups and interpreting Sangam Literature and others falsely, Universities went on to properly research the Scripture with other materials and brought the truths, and thus
PAVANAR Had to agree- Tholkappiyam to all Tamil Literature reference are Sanskrit Vedas and Brahmins means the same.
AND After 40 years still these Lies restarts whether due to ignorance of researches are another attempt of fraud.

Whereas Use of Sanskrit words are common in Paripadal, Thirumurugarrupadai, Silapatikaram, Manimekhalai, Tirukural etc., And Even while Aryan belief was at top, Renowned Tamil Scholar L.Rasamanickanar wrote- " VadaMozhivanar Siru Siru
Thogaiyinaraka TAmilagathil Kudiyerinar. Avargal Panpatta Mozhiyudanum Vetham Muthalia Noolkaludanum Sirantha Arivudanum Innattil Pugunthamaiyal, Innattu Makkal Avargalai Mathikkalayinar....... IkKootooraval THOLKAPPiyarukku MURPATTA Sangha Kalathileye Vadasorkal Kalakkath Thodangina. Page-6 Tamilaga VAralaru.

A Literature to spread in its own Language it takes several Generations even in 2nd, Millenium and the Sanskrit Vedas to get into Tamil Sangam extensively means itself- Vedas are Older by 1000 Years before that, i.e., 1000BCE.

For General Viewers I EXPLAIN- with example Muslim Rulers from North came to South in early 13th Century, and we find many Urdu & Hindustani words such as Kajana, Sokkai, Mamul, Salam etc., in ArunagiriNadar and Kumaragurubarar, i.e., 300 years after they came, few words started coming in.For Bible Translation Church took again more than 250 yearswith its vast resources and Government Supports.

FSG, first Used Aryan-Brahmin-Anthanar are different frauds, and when I Quoted Ambedkar and other Authorities he changed Track, to Priests-Archakas must be from Non-Brahmins and that would solve all Problems. His, rather Tamil Scholars with a Particular Bias, spreading Lies have the main Bias, that Brahmins made new
Language, Can they show a single Literary example from our Indian/Tamil Literature, All these were Dubious Speculations spread after Fradulant reading of Indus-Saraswathi Archealogy by Western Scholars of repute as clearly proving ARYAN-Invasion, and quiet a long list of books appeared, most of which forms the Bible
for FSG. Can History prove such a claim? Jainistic Rulers were in control from 200-500 Period, and if these Fables by FSG had happened, all would have come.

Existance of Various Languages in India is confirmed by PATHIRRUPATTU-SONG
Kadavul Nilai iya Kallongu Neduvarai
VadaThisai Ellai Himayamaga
Thennang Kumariyodayidai Arasar
Murasudai Perun SAmaiyathathiya Var Pela
SOL Pala Nattai Tholkavin Azhitha
Poradu thanai Polanthar Kuttuvan- Pathiru 43:6-11
Pulavar Paranar , that there were many languages in between is confirmed.


STONE Inscriptions of 150BCE, contains Telugu and Kannada words, but the earliest Literature comes from 1000years later. No Language in the world got its Literature atleast 1000 years of its Spoken Use in Day to Day activities, But when Grammatical correctness is insisted the Language looses to its Branches(You can speak in Prakrit/Pali -Marati etc., as you like but if Sanskrit means Perfect Grammatically correct, or else PRison type of Punishments were there) and best example is Latin, inspite of being the Language of Romans it was Lost and its branches lives.

No Linguist in the World accept that any Language can be artificially made, and if These are repeated by Tamil Scholars, they would be looked as Kidding with Childish Blabberings.

Your method of Splitting words is not Linguistic Science and You confirmed it,when I as You did to the English Word- Computer as KANITHAL+ Puguthal+ Tharavu= COMPUTER Perfect Tamil word, and You correctly confirmed that the method is wrong, and you do the same with Sanskrit words.


One of the Earliest Evidence for Vedas is from Persian Cuniform Tablet found in Egypt, EL-Amarna, which tells names of God Mithra, Varuna, Indra etc of Vedic origin correctly, now dated around 1700 BCE, Oxford Dictionary of World Religions dated Vedas to 1800 BCE, but on more rational approach giving atleast 300 years for spreading 2000 TO 600BCE is given for Vedas, by Entire Western Universities, which for common man can be verified from Wikipedia.com. Indic Culture existence is proved by Archealogy and Literature from Kumari- to Kashmir, Assam to Goa, but neglecting and coming in self inflicted False circles by few Tamil Groups is giving Lot of Bad name to Tamil.

Stone Inscrptions- Sanskrit is hardly used and this is Exploited by Tamil Scholars, But Stone Inscriptions, except for very few MeiKeerthis of Kings which refers to his winning mentioning neighbouring Kings Etc., has any Historical worth, mostly mentioning some small Donations to Temple etc., and it is normal that the Person giving writes in Popular Dialect.

As for as MANUSCRIPTS- All Tamil Stone Inscriptions are in Asoka Brahmi- mostly brought by Jain Muni's. who were using it for their North Indian Language -Prakrit a corrupt spoken form of Sanskrit, and used it for their newly learned Tamil. Asoka Brahmi is the next edition After GUPTA Brahmi, which both are developments from Karoshti,and SANSKRIT MANUSCRIPTS-Known as BOWER Manuscript, Gilgit Manuscript dated to Pre-Common Era-(BCE) have been found and are preserved in European Universities after Perfect Carbon-14 Dating. They are clear Sanskrit MAnuscripts.

Contacts Between Indic Tradition and Greek are well attested , GREEK Philosophy and Mathematics starts with PITHOGORUS- And Historically he has spent 8 full years in India, Alexander after his war with Purushotham took many- Astronomers and Mathematician and Philosophers are all attested by History. Megastanis writings and others confirm the Gramatician Panini's dating to 5th Cen BCE.

FSG was Bluffing, that Tamil Sangam AND Tirukural Manuscripts of BCE period Carbon Tested are available and on my Quarries, he said that they are in SARASWATHI Mahal Library-Tanjavore, and FSG Further Bluffed that Sanskrit manuscripts are also Carbon Dated to 2nd Century CE.

Friends, SARASWATHI MAHal Library has More Sanskrit Manuscripts than any other Language- Oldest being 16th Century, and Tamil are from 18th Century only,To my Quarry FSG maintained that Carbon dating done in 19th Century, Only in middile of 20th Century, Reliable Carbon14 dating started. And SARASWATHI Mahal Website doesnot know any of FSG Bluffs.

• www.saraswathimahallibary.tn.nic.in/library/department/body-manuscripts.htm

Idiyappam, to my putting Vedas to 2000to600BCE,- wrote Rig Vedas was written in 600 BCE, FSG tells New FABLES every time.
Idiyappam, now then changed Rig to 400CE, at the instance of FSG, Shaving nearly 1000 years within 45 days time, now confirms
his dating 600BCE.

FSG Dates Tholkappiyam to 1500 earlier and now to 1250BCE, how and where he got this dating, No body Knows. Many Researches have been done on Tholkappiyam and PAVANAR who dated it to 2000BCE, brought it down to 700BCE, for both no proof is given.
The Book "Tamil Ilakkiya Varalaru"-By Professors S.Somasundaram and V.T.Gopala Krishnan- gives information and quotes from the book written by Former ViceChancellor of Madurai University-THO.PA.Minakshisundaranar's book-Samanat Tamil Varalaru-" Panamparanar Kappiyarai "Palpugal niruta Padimaiyon enbathalum Viyirkalai Arivu Nilai Patri Avar Aru aga VAAGUTHU IRUPATHALUM, Tami Nedunkanakinai Agara Mudalaka Na-kara Iraka Amaithu Iruppathalum, Mathirain Ilakanathai SamayaNool Muraipad Vilakuvathalum, Tamarai, Vellam, Ambal endra Per Engalai SAMANAR Muraipadiye Eduthu Ilakkanam Vithithu Iruppathala Karuthuvathalum, Veru Pala Karanangalalum
TholKappiyarai Samanar endru Kooruvar Annar. -Page 47.

We have EluthuAthikaram in Tholkappiyar and Archeologists and Historians have found it perfectly suiting the Asoka Brahmi brought in by North Samana Muni's that too after some development- i.e., 150-200BCE. I know certain Hardline groups spreading Kumari Kandam Legends even today dates Tholkappiyar to 5000 BCE.

FSG, said You have given from SANGAM LITERATURE-i.e, from 2OOCE, friends Sangam Literature, is has many references to Mauryan wars of 4th-3rd Cen BCE, and Sangam Tamil King going for Mahabaratha War- now Archeologically Dated to 1,500 BCE is referred. KaveriPoompattinam Port remains are Carbon14 dated to 250BCE to 150 CE, now Because FSG Bluffing needs substantiated, FSG BAckstabs Sangam Literature Dating. History is not one to change 4th Century CE yesterday, Ist Cen-CE today, again 400CE and again 10OCE, like that, these do not make any good to Tamil.

Then Other Bluffs, Panini is not For Sanskrit, Buddism and Samanam is not Reformation against Vedas,but against Rituals, Every Rituals are Traced back to Vedas. 2oth Century Scholars of Particular School, wrote anything and never bothered about facts.

All these are analysed and Proved as Meanless Utterances, and this method is continued
by Church for Claiming Thomas Visits- Acta Indica by P.V.Matthew, which in its original Malayalam awarded best Historical Book by Kerala Historical ASsociation- Quotes " There were NO- Hindus in Kerala in Ist Cen CE, only Buddhists and Jains. He Quotes Manimekhalai verse from Malayalam Translation as Jews WAandering in Puhar Streets, and I do not find them in Tamil verses. Matthew takes the SaivaVathi's saying Isan en Theivam as Essenes from Israel, by manupulating Words, by Ignoring SAivavathi- probably thinking the word was Inserted by Malayalam Translators. However Professor Joseph Kolangaden of St.JosephCollege Trichy, repeats eventhough He has published Tamil Books. P.V.Matthew and Joseph Kolangaden goes on to say-MADURAI KOOLAVANIGAN SATANAR is BARDAISAN,from Syria- Page-82. P.V.Matthew says Koolavanigan Sattanar and Seethalai Sattanar are different, and This Seethalai attanar,author of Manimekalai is Manes- the founder of Manichean Religion- a Cross Between Zorashtirsm, Buddhism and Christianity. Page144., and Matthew even says this Syrian as Aryabatta.

Anti-truth Tamil Scholars doing it to Sanskrit and Church using these same quotes and doing this to Tamil.

Malayalam Ramban Pattu of Thomas Legends dated to 16th Century, tells Thomas Left Kerala and came to Land of Tamils, meaning Kerala had non-tamils in 50CE, God Save US.

Pavanar was reknowned for his Knowledge on Tamil and Sanskrit as Encyclopedia on this Subject, and recently when a Megazine on a Book Review- said Tholkappiyar as Brahmin from the book,
immediately Kalaignar Karunanidhi resented in Murosoli, But when the Author wrote back saying Pavanar Consistently mentioned this, no Protest and ACcepted, But FSG said Pavanar is not a
Historian but Grammatician, When Pavanar interprets Vadasol and other sayings in Tolkappiyam he is not a Historian, but as Tamil Scholar cum Grammatician.

I Was put under an Un-enviable position, to talk Truths, but against the Falses spread by Motivated Tendentious Groups, that too against Tamil- and I had to go to Historical reasons for the Anti-Sanskrit and Anti-Tamil Natives The Brahmins, the Missionary Probaganda. Missionaries followed by most of the Scholars quoted by You , Uses Used such an Contempt Language, Animosity and Hatred of the worst Order. I could trace these Un-parliamentory statements in your and Idiyappam Postings. None of these are backed by any Literary supports, from Sangam to 19th Cen writings. They are Exaggerated statements Untrue in Historical details witha view to Painting the Brahmins, the earliest Tamils, in Blackest Possible Picture.

If Brahmins claim that they are only authors of Vedas, it is wrong, certainly every section of Indians has role in it. But Bakdating it, are Painting it Black are not based on Facts. Maxmuller was appointed to do it, and he could not prove Polytheism in Vedas, but coined new theory "Hynotheism", but could not back date Vedas to later than 1300BCE, which at that time was given the date for Moses of Christian Old Testament. Now Old Testament Law is dated to 350-250BCE, whereas more and more Evidence have taken Vedas to 2000BCE.

Aryan Theory started with LAtin and Greek becoming Sub-ordinate to Sanskrit, which had much superior Grammer and Literature, claiming such cannot be by Indians.

So Please Do not Back date Tamil SAngam Literature, because you want your False assumptions require it.

Interpreting of Tamil Literature by FSG And Idiyappam itself is wrong- ThenPulathar, is changed to Political Mourning for Legendary KumariKandam, Friends Thiruvalluvar did not use Tamil or for Tamilar any where and it is for Humanity and hence he used ThenPulathar refers to Pithrukal and I have also given Puram and Silapathikaram references.

So to make Your Hypothesis, do not change 2000 year old Literature with false Interpretations.

Archakas- The Social situation in Tamilnadu, Caste system in Tamilnadu has gone worse in last century than ever before. CM
C.N.AnnaDurai Mudaliar in 1967 first formed ministry with just 8 ministers, with 40% from his own caste, without representing any of the Mukkulators, Now no CM can think of leaving any subcastes.
90% Of the Temples are small Mariyamman and Pillayar Temples and they have non-Brahmins as Priest and all visit them.

The ewquirement is the Mindset against the Truths, fradulanat AntiBrahmin-AntiSanskrit fealings without any literary support
need to go first, certainly I Support reforms, but it has to be total, within the Constitutional limits.

Let us be Proud of Our India, as Thirumular said, its God who teached both Ariyam and Tamil and Vaishnavites tell the same.

False Assumptions are to thrown.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[solomon]

FSG, gives different dating in the morning and another next day nd another the other day and even different datings same day in various Postings.
TholKappiyam Payiram by PanamParanar says:

.... Nilamtharu Thiruvin Pandiyan Avaiyathu
Arangarai Navin NANMARAI Murriya
Athankottu Asarku Ariltaba Therindu
Manka Marabin Eluthumurai katti
Malkunir Varaippin IYINTHIRAM Niraintha
THOLKAPPIYAN Enath than peyar Thorrip
Palpugal Niruththa Padimaiyone

and Tholkappiyar refers Maraiyor, Parpanar, AruvagaiPatta Parpanar etc., and all these have been analysed in depth by various Scholars and finally it was confirmed that Tholkappiyar' reference to "MARAI" and Anthanar etc., refers to Indian +Vedic Tradition i.e., Indic Tradition. Tholkappiyar being from Kappiar Kudi- a family giving Hari-katha Kalatshebams are the Tamil Tradtions for last 2 Millenium.

FSG plays with Dating of Literature, either for Sanskrit or Tamil- now entire Sangam is put as belonging to 200 CE, why because of his Bluff Vedas were written in Ist Century, All viewers must be sick of is Postings, where in FSG said Ist cen and later 2nd Century and later 400CE, and now to Ist Century CE. I donot normally use these harsh words- Rubbish.

When Dravidian Bluff Anti-SANSKRIT Scholars had made a Cartel of Tamil Literary Gruoups and interpreting Sangam Literature and others falsely, Universities went on to properly research the Scripture with other materials and brought the truths, and thus
PAVANAR Had to agree- Tholkappiyam to all Tamil Literature reference are Sanskrit Vedas and Brahmins means the same.
AND After 40 years still these Lies restarts whether due to ignorance of researches are another attempt of fraud.

Whereas Use of Sanskrit words are common in Paripadal, Thirumurugarrupadai, Silapatikaram, Manimekhalai, Tirukural etc., And Even while Aryan belief was at top, Renowned Tamil Scholar L.Rasamanickanar wrote- " VadaMozhivanar Siru Siru
Thogaiyinaraka TAmilagathil Kudiyerinar. Avargal Panpatta Mozhiyudanum Vetham Muthalia Noolkaludanum Sirantha Arivudanum Innattil Pugunthamaiyal, Innattu Makkal Avargalai Mathikkalayinar....... IkKootooraval THOLKAPPiyarukku MURPATTA Sangha Kalathileye Vadasorkal Kalakkath Thodangina. Page-6 Tamilaga VAralaru.

A Literature to spread in its own Language it takes several Generations even in 2nd, Millenium and the Sanskrit Vedas to get into Tamil Sangam extensively means itself- Vedas are Older by 1000 Years before that, i.e., 1000BCE.

For General Viewers I EXPLAIN- with example Muslim Rulers from North came to South in early 13th Century, and we find many Urdu & Hindustani words such as Kajana, Sokkai, Mamul, Salam etc., in ArunagiriNadar and Kumaragurubarar, i.e., 300 years after they came, few words started coming in.For Bible Translation Church took again more than 250 yearswith its vast resources and Government Supports.

FSG, first Used Aryan-Brahmin-Anthanar are different frauds, and when I Quoted Ambedkar and other Authorities he changed Track, to Priests-Archakas must be from Non-Brahmins and that would solve all Problems. His, rather Tamil Scholars with a Particular Bias, spreading Lies have the main Bias, that Brahmins made new
Language, Can they show a single Literary example from our Indian/Tamil Literature, All these were Dubious Speculations spread after Fradulant reading of Indus-Saraswathi Archealogy by Western Scholars of repute as clearly proving ARYAN-Invasion, and quiet a long list of books appeared, most of which forms the Bible
for FSG. Can History prove such a claim? Jainistic Rulers were in control from 200-500 Period, and if these Fables by FSG had happened, all would have come.

Existance of Various Languages in India is confirmed by PATHIRRUPATTU-SONG
Kadavul Nilai iya Kallongu Neduvarai
VadaThisai Ellai Himayamaga
Thennang Kumariyodayidai Arasar
Murasudai Perun SAmaiyathathiya Var Pela
SOL Pala Nattai Tholkavin Azhitha
Poradu thanai Polanthar Kuttuvan- Pathiru 43:6-11
Pulavar Paranar , that there were many languages in between is confirmed.


STONE Inscriptions of 150BCE, contains Telugu and Kannada words, but the earliest Literature comes from 1000years later. No Language in the world got its Literature atleast 1000 years of its Spoken Use in Day to Day activities, But when Grammatical correctness is insisted the Language looses to its Branches(You can speak in Prakrit/Pali -Marati etc., as you like but if Sanskrit means Perfect Grammatically correct, or else PRison type of Punishments were there) and best example is Latin, inspite of being the Language of Romans it was Lost and its branches lives.

No Linguist in the World accept that any Language can be artificially made, and if These are repeated by Tamil Scholars, they would be looked as Kidding with Childish Blabberings.

Your method of Splitting words is not Linguistic Science and You confirmed it,when I as You did to the English Word- Computer as KANITHAL+ Puguthal+ Tharavu= COMPUTER Perfect Tamil word, and You correctly confirmed that the method is wrong, and you do the same with Sanskrit words.


One of the Earliest Evidence for Vedas is from Persian Cuniform Tablet found in Egypt, EL-Amarna, which tells names of God Mithra, Varuna, Indra etc of Vedic origin correctly, now dated around 1700 BCE, Oxford Dictionary of World Religions dated Vedas to 1800 BCE, but on more rational approach giving atleast 300 years for spreading 2000 TO 600BCE is given for Vedas, by Entire Western Universities, which for common man can be verified from Wikipedia.com. Indic Culture existence is proved by Archealogy and Literature from Kumari- to Kashmir, Assam to Goa, but neglecting and coming in self inflicted False circles by few Tamil Groups is giving Lot of Bad name to Tamil.

Stone Inscrptions- Sanskrit is hardly used and this is Exploited by Tamil Scholars, But Stone Inscriptions, except for very few MeiKeerthis of Kings which refers to his winning mentioning neighbouring Kings Etc., has any Historical worth, mostly mentioning some small Donations to Temple etc., and it is normal that the Person giving writes in Popular Dialect.

As for as MANUSCRIPTS- All Tamil Stone Inscriptions are in Asoka Brahmi- mostly brought by Jain Muni's. who were using it for their North Indian Language -Prakrit a corrupt spoken form of Sanskrit, and used it for their newly learned Tamil. Asoka Brahmi is the next edition After GUPTA Brahmi, which both are developments from Karoshti,and SANSKRIT MANUSCRIPTS-Known as BOWER Manuscript, Gilgit Manuscript dated to Pre-Common Era-(BCE) have been found and are preserved in European Universities after Perfect Carbon-14 Dating. They are clear Sanskrit MAnuscripts.

Contacts Between Indic Tradition and Greek are well attested , GREEK Philosophy and Mathematics starts with PITHOGORUS- And Historically he has spent 8 full years in India, Alexander after his war with Purushotham took many- Astronomers and Mathematician and Philosophers are all attested by History. Megastanis writings and others confirm the Gramatician Panini's dating to 5th Cen BCE.

FSG was Bluffing, that Tamil Sangam AND Tirukural Manuscripts of BCE period Carbon Tested are available and on my Quarries, he said that they are in SARASWATHI Mahal Library-Tanjavore, and FSG Further Bluffed that Sanskrit manuscripts are also Carbon Dated to 2nd Century CE.

Friends, SARASWATHI MAHal Library has More Sanskrit Manuscripts than any other Language- Oldest being 16th Century, and Tamil are from 18th Century only,To my Quarry FSG maintained that Carbon dating done in 19th Century, Only in middile of 20th Century, Reliable Carbon14 dating started. And SARASWATHI Mahal Website doesnot know any of FSG Bluffs.

• www.saraswathimahallibary.tn.nic.in/library/department/body-manuscripts.htm

Idiyappam, to my putting Vedas to 2000to600BCE,- wrote Rig Vedas was written in 600 BCE, FSG tells New FABLES every time.
Idiyappam, now then changed Rig to 400CE, at the instance of FSG, Shaving nearly 1000 years within 45 days time, now confirms
his dating 600BCE.

FSG Dates Tholkappiyam to 1500 earlier and now to 1250BCE, how and where he got this dating, No body Knows. Many Researches have been done on Tholkappiyam and PAVANAR who dated it to 2000BCE, brought it down to 700BCE, for both no proof is given.
The Book "Tamil Ilakkiya Varalaru"-By Professors S.Somasundaram and V.T.Gopala Krishnan- gives information and quotes from the book written by Former ViceChancellor of Madurai University-THO.PA.Minakshisundaranar's book-Samanat Tamil Varalaru-" Panamparanar Kappiyarai "Palpugal niruta Padimaiyon enbathalum Viyirkalai Arivu Nilai Patri Avar Aru aga VAAGUTHU IRUPATHALUM, Tami Nedunkanakinai Agara Mudalaka Na-kara Iraka Amaithu Iruppathalum, Mathirain Ilakanathai SamayaNool Muraipad Vilakuvathalum, Tamarai, Vellam, Ambal endra Per Engalai SAMANAR Muraipadiye Eduthu Ilakkanam Vithithu Iruppathala Karuthuvathalum, Veru Pala Karanangalalum
TholKappiyarai Samanar endru Kooruvar Annar. -Page 47.

We have EluthuAthikaram in Tholkappiyar and Archeologists and Historians have found it perfectly suiting the Asoka Brahmi brought in by North Samana Muni's that too after some development- i.e., 150-200BCE. I know certain Hardline groups spreading Kumari Kandam Legends even today dates Tholkappiyar to 5000 BCE.

FSG, said You have given from SANGAM LITERATURE-i.e, from 2OOCE, friends Sangam Literature, is has many references to Mauryan wars of 4th-3rd Cen BCE, and Sangam Tamil King going for Mahabaratha War- now Archeologically Dated to 1,500 BCE is referred. KaveriPoompattinam Port remains are Carbon14 dated to 250BCE to 150 CE, now Because FSG Bluffing needs substantiated, FSG BAckstabs Sangam Literature Dating. History is not one to change 4th Century CE yesterday, Ist Cen-CE today, again 400CE and again 10OCE, like that, these do not make any good to Tamil.

Then Other Bluffs, Panini is not For Sanskrit, Buddism and Samanam is not Reformation against Vedas,but against Rituals, Every Rituals are Traced back to Vedas. 2oth Century Scholars of Particular School, wrote anything and never bothered about facts.

All these are analysed and Proved as Meanless Utterances, and this method is continued
by Church for Claiming Thomas Visits- Acta Indica by P.V.Matthew, which in its original Malayalam awarded best Historical Book by Kerala Historical ASsociation- Quotes " There were NO- Hindus in Kerala in Ist Cen CE, only Buddhists and Jains. He Quotes Manimekhalai verse from Malayalam Translation as Jews WAandering in Puhar Streets, and I do not find them in Tamil verses. Matthew takes the SaivaVathi's saying Isan en Theivam as Essenes from Israel, by manupulating Words, by Ignoring SAivavathi- probably thinking the word was Inserted by Malayalam Translators. However Professor Joseph Kolangaden of St.JosephCollege Trichy, repeats eventhough He has published Tamil Books. P.V.Matthew and Joseph Kolangaden goes on to say-MADURAI KOOLAVANIGAN SATANAR is BARDAISAN,from Syria- Page-82. P.V.Matthew says Koolavanigan Sattanar and Seethalai Sattanar are different, and This Seethalai attanar,author of Manimekalai is Manes- the founder of Manichean Religion- a Cross Between Zorashtirsm, Buddhism and Christianity. Page144., and Matthew even says this Syrian as Aryabatta.

Anti-truth Tamil Scholars doing it to Sanskrit and Church using these same quotes and doing this to Tamil.

Malayalam Ramban Pattu of Thomas Legends dated to 16th Century, tells Thomas Left Kerala and came to Land of Tamils, meaning Kerala had non-tamils in 50CE, God Save US.

Pavanar was reknowned for his Knowledge on Tamil and Sanskrit as Encyclopedia on this Subject, and recently when a Megazine on a Book Review- said Tholkappiyar as Brahmin from the book,
immediately Kalaignar Karunanidhi resented in Murosoli, But when the Author wrote back saying Pavanar Consistently mentioned this, no Protest and ACcepted, But FSG said Pavanar is not a
Historian but Grammatician, When Pavanar interprets Vadasol and other sayings in Tolkappiyam he is not a Historian, but as Tamil Scholar cum Grammatician.

I Was put under an Un-enviable position, to talk Truths, but against the Falses spread by Motivated Tendentious Groups, that too against Tamil- and I had to go to Historical reasons for the Anti-Sanskrit and Anti-Tamil Natives The Brahmins, the Missionary Probaganda. Missionaries followed by most of the Scholars quoted by You , Uses Used such an Contempt Language, Animosity and Hatred of the worst Order. I could trace these Un-parliamentory statements in your and Idiyappam Postings. None of these are backed by any Literary supports, from Sangam to 19th Cen writings. They are Exaggerated statements Untrue in Historical details witha view to Painting the Brahmins, the earliest Tamils, in Blackest Possible Picture.

If Brahmins claim that they are only authors of Vedas, it is wrong, certainly every section of Indians has role in it. But Bakdating it, are Painting it Black are not based on Facts. Maxmuller was appointed to do it, and he could not prove Polytheism in Vedas, but coined new theory "Hynotheism", but could not back date Vedas to later than 1300BCE, which at that time was given the date for Moses of Christian Old Testament. Now Old Testament Law is dated to 350-250BCE, whereas more and more Evidence have taken Vedas to 2000BCE.

Aryan Theory started with LAtin and Greek becoming Sub-ordinate to Sanskrit, which had much superior Grammer and Literature, claiming such cannot be by Indians.

So Please Do not Back date Tamil SAngam Literature, because you want your False assumptions require it.

Interpreting of Tamil Literature by FSG And Idiyappam itself is wrong- ThenPulathar, is changed to Political Mourning for Legendary KumariKandam, Friends Thiruvalluvar did not use Tamil or for Tamilar any where and it is for Humanity and hence he used ThenPulathar refers to Pithrukal and I have also given Puram and Silapathikaram references.

So to make Your Hypothesis, do not change 2000 year old Literature with false Interpretations.

Archakas- The Social situation in Tamilnadu, Caste system in Tamilnadu has gone worse in last century than ever before. CM
C.N.AnnaDurai Mudaliar in 1967 first formed ministry with just 8 ministers, with 40% from his own caste, without representing any of the Mukkulators, Now no CM can think of leaving any subcastes.
90% Of the Temples are small Mariyamman and Pillayar Temples and they have non-Brahmins as Priest and all visit them.

The ewquirement is the Mindset against the Truths, fradulanat AntiBrahmin-AntiSanskrit fealings without any literary support
need to go first, certainly I Support reforms, but it has to be total, within the Constitutional limits.

Let us be Proud of Our India, as Thirumular said, its God who teached both Ariyam and Tamil and Vaishnavites tell the same.

False Assumptions are to thrown.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[Uthappam]

Tholkappiyar being from Kappiar Kudi- a family giving Hari-katha Kalatshebams are the Tamil Tradtions for last 2 Millenium.

Yes, that's right! He was the man behind the 'Narayana Namo Narayana' sambradaya bhajan!

Tholkappiar wrote:
"Thirupathikku poyi vanthen - Narayana
naan thirumottai adichu vanthen - Narayana"
Listen here:
http://www.musicindiaonline.com/l/8/...60/language.8/

No Linguist in the World accept that any Language can be artificially made, and if These are repeated by Tamil Scholars, they would be looked as Kidding with Childish Blabberings.

No they can't Language made artificially - according to Panini, Sanskrit rolled out from Shiva's udrukkai drum.... . All Indian Languages came from Shiava's various drums - Dolki, Dhol, Danda, Chenda, Kanjeera, Katam, Thambattai.. etc.

The vedas say that Tamil came from His Jalra - ching chak ching chak.... became Tamil.

Oxford Dictionary of World Religions dated Vedas to 1800 BCE, but on more rational approach giving atleast 300 years for spreading 2000 TO 600BCE is given for Vedas, by Entire Western Universities,

Yes, the Entire Western People are good - the say that Sanskrit is very very old! But we don't like ones like MaxMueller, and Billy Jones - for translating the Vedas and Manu Smriti respectively. They let everyone see the amount of social filth we had in them. Nasty ones!

Stone Inscrptions- Sanskrit is hardly used and this is Exploited by Tamil Scholars,

Yes, stones were better uses for building Homa pits!

and are preserved in European Universities after Perfect Carbon-14 Dating. They are clear Sanskrit MAnuscripts.

that Tamil Sangam AND Tirukural Manuscripts of BCE period Carbon Tested are available and on my Quarries,

The main difference between Tamil and Sanskrit Manuscripts is that the Tamil palmleaves lasts no more than 300 years. But Sanskrit palmleaves lasts for-ever - that you can date them Carbonly!

Idiyappam, to my putting Vedas to 2000to600BCE,- wrote Rig Vedas was written in 600 BCE, FSG tells New FABLES every time.Idiyappam, now then changed Rig to 400CE,

You sure they said that?? I read differently their posts!

We have EluthuAthikaram in Tholkappiyar and Archeologists and Historians have found it perfectly suiting the Asoka Brahmi brought in by North Samana Muni's that too after some development- i.e., 150-200BCE.

The North Samana Muni brought script yes! And the North Saakiya Muni helped him!

Then Other Bluffs, Panini is not For Sanskrit, Buddism and Samanam is not Reformation against Vedas,but against Rituals, Every Rituals are Traced back to Vedas.

Spot on! Buddhism and Samanam are just that. They rever the Vedic Gods - all 32 of them, Indra - Ashwin, Soma, Agni ......! Thanks for pointing that out, Solomon!

I Was put under an Un-enviable position, to talk Truths, but against the Falses spread by Motivated Tendentious Groups, that too against Tamil- and I had to go to Historical reasons for the Anti-Sanskrit and Anti-Tamil Natives

Yes, I support you. As we can see! YOu talk truths. YES!

Let us be Proud of Our India, as Thirumular said, its God who teached both Ariyam and Tamil and Vaishnavites tell the same.

And remain forever the Jaalraas of the Great Sanskritic Truth Talkers!

So much for Dating Tamil and Dating Sanskrit.

[A P MASILAMANI]

Mr Solomon wrote:

PAVANAR Had to agree

I will be grateful if the full text of the relevant paragraph can be given, the title of the book or article of Pavanar and the date of publication.

Panampaaranar must be from Jaffna area. Panam (Panai) refers to panai maRam or panam pazam. Paar means as a noun, world, country or even a place. Breaking up the word:

panai + paar + an (masculine gender suffix) + aar (suffix to show respect ). A pulavar who comes from area full of panai maram!! A ref to area now known as Jaffna.

At the time of "kadalkOL" that area now known as "Jaffna" probably had suffered heavily. Paandiyan conquered lands North and when he had settled down, wanted Tamil grammar to be reformulated and refreshed. Hence Tolkaappiyam.

Hence Panampaaranaar's introductory stanza to Tolkaapiyam could have been written some time later. This is one problem.

Even in Sanskrit literature, there have been subsequent insertions. From time to time, researchers have pointed to them.
Similarly in Tamil too.

Prof Ka.Su. Pillai in his Tolkappiya Mukavurai says some parts of Tolkappiyam could have been affected by insertions.

The dates of the Vedas themselves are subject to quite a lot of controversy.

MaRai need not necessarily refer to the Vedas. There might have been other codes of ethics. These codes might have referred or pertained to aRam, poRul, inbam and viidu. (4 divisions). Athangodu Aasan might have had wide knowledge concerning these four. [ Knowledge concerning the Arya Vedas were irrelevant to grammarians who were concerned with language which was foreign to Skrt. ]

In the earliest period of history, "paarpaan" might have referred to people who were charged with the duty of looking after worship procedures. There could have been people of different groups or walks of life ordained as paarppaans!! "brahmaNan" might have referred to a holy man who realised God. Evidence is required to say that it referred to a caste then as it does now. The rigidity of caste lines was a subsequent event in Indian history!!

Indologists say that quite a lot of asuraas were ordained brahmins. Hence there are 2000 castes among the present day Brahmins.

We have the Vedas in Skrt now. About 3000 years ago were they in Skrt or Prakrit or some other dialect or language.... evidence is also required, even if they were in existence. You have also to exclude the possibility that they were not subsequently translated into Skrt.

Different Vedas came into existence at different periods of history.
The authors of some are unknown!! If known, not much is known.

Thus the other problem is how do I reconcile......?

The paayiram also referred to Ainthiram, which some claimed to refer to a Skrt grammar but no grammar by that name has been found so far!!

NB. Skrt is a language of oral tradition. Nearly for a thousand years, the Vedas were just being recited and not written down. There was widespread opposition to writing them down. Some researchers say that there were many Vedas, not just four. Much of them fell into disuse and Brahmanas were forgetting them. Hence the need to reduce them to writing. The fear was that pronunciation and tone could not/ cannot even now be induced into something that is written. (Musical notes?) Then some authors collected them and wrote them down. The compilers were different from the original authors. At the time, all kind of inaccuracies and insertions could have taken place. Skrt also did not have its own writing. By contrast, Tamil was always written and had its own writing. The first volume in Tolkaappiyam is Ezuththathikaaram. But of course, insertions could also have taken place. Like this one one Muslim shopkeeper was giving to me:

tie katti vaazvaarE vaazvaar maRRellaam
kai kattip pinsel pavar!!

How nicely inserted, but of course too obvious to us. According to yaapilakkaNam, there is error.

Sanskrit is not a language of any particular race or region.

[abbydoss1969]

Acc to the latest research on evolution, using DNA markers scientists have found out that man originated in Africa and from there migrated southward to south india and from south india to australia via indonesia(those days australia was much nearer).It has been proved that people in south india near Madurai have those DNA markers.
Then there were a second migration when people via Iran to India and other Western countries.These people must have brought with them various mythologies.
Ever since the research has been publishe I expected a lot of research on this because it upturns the entire theory that vedas were the original people etc.But the entire media has been silent.I wonder why ? May be now they can't dispute DNA records.

[A P MASILAMANI]

But the entire media has been silent.I wonder why ? May be now they can't dispute DNA records.

It may be that a group is waiting for things to return to normal. Let the people forget these findings. Then the group will start again that they emerged from the mouth of ....... and therefore they are the first in the world.

I wrote:

In the earliest period of history, "paarpaan" might have referred to people who were charged with the duty of looking after worship procedures

I must add that I remember reading M. Seenivasa Aiyangaar's Tamil Studies in which he said that when the Aryans came down south, they saw vaLLuvans and parayans holding high posts under their kings and also doing pujas as well as reading horoscopes. [ They were the "paarppaans" ] The Aryans replaced them and took over those posts. [ and started doing pujas for the deities which were non-Vedic., i.e., Dravidian ]. Now they became the paarppans. They became the anthaNars. Thus the Tamil proverb: "Paarppanukku munthiyavan paRaiyan, kEdpaarinRik kiizchchaathi aanaan". This religious takeover of posts and deities has also been mentioned by Western authors.

They did the same thing in the North before. Much of the vEdas were by Northern Dravidians. Valmiki was not a Brahmin. [ val (valimai) + miku (= kuudiya) + i (suffix)., a hunter and thus strong person. vEda viyaasan was not Brahmin (fisherman ancestry). Brahmins by reciting them became the "arya" and "brahmana".
Let's say a Skrt book says the author is the Sun. You know that he was not a Brahmin. Sun and Moon do not write books. They say the Sun wrote it to hide the fact that the Dravidian wrote it!!

Indra is also a Northern Dravidian word. It can be related to Tamil in+ thiRan (= inba viLayaattil thiRamudayavan ).

AnthaNar, paarppan, maRai and such other terms found in old Tamil lit have nothing to do with the Aryan.

Skrt is made up of 60% South Dravidian roots and words. Then Munda, Avestan. Lahovery would say 30% Dr and 30% unknown.

Aryan is a convenient term here. DNA may prove some to have SEAsian blood. others to have Iranian traces, yet others from Russian lands -- wherever from!! Some of the asuras ordained Brahmins may quite clearly lay claim to the old paarppaan title but it is not possible for them to come with the evidence. The parayans were relegated to do some pujas for the skeletal remains in crematoria and burial grounds!!

vEda is a Tamil word : vEithal = to pave, to formulate.
vEi> vE> vEtham. (MaRaimalai AdigaL)

vEtham (veda) is not from vid.

I have said before: Samaskritham. sama < samai (amaiththal).
katha (from root kaththu, oliththal) > krutha.
amaiththu olikkappattathu.

[Hyderbadi]

Acc to the latest research on evolution, using DNA markers scientists have found out that man originated in Africa and from there migrated southward to south india and from south india to australia via indonesia(those days australia was much nearer).It has been proved that people in south india near Madurai have those DNA markers.
Then there were a second migration when people via Iran to India and other Western countries.These people must have brought with them various mythologies.
Ever since the research has been publishe I expected a lot of research on this because it upturns the entire theory that vedas were the original people etc.But the entire media has been silent.I wonder why ? May be now they can't dispute DNA records.

That all has been proved false. The british spread that hteory in a more malicious away to divide India and sadly, it is still around.
Read the following article:

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_histor...n_agrawal.html

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/16_01.htm

http://www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html



Don't take this offensively, but by supporting any idea that people in Southern India are a different race than people in Northern India..you are indirectly supporting Pakistan. The Pakistani governemnt spreads propaganda around its schools saying that Pakistanis are all "Aryans" who are suppsoed to be tall and fair and that most Indians are "Dravidians", who are supposed to be short and dark. This is false, but Pakistani govt. has used this theory to spread hatred agaisnt India and to support its claims to its people that Indians are inferior. If you don't believe me, go ask any Pakistan who has studied in Pakistan and ask him/her what he/she thinks about the Aryan/Dravidian thing.

[Uthappam]

Hydrabadi, you brother Hindustani Ladka always point to these sides, they are just Hindu/Aryan/Brahminical propagada site. You don't do the same! Try something new! Good luck!

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Sorry Friends, I am somtime quite busy my project work here and so I could not visualize the discussion going on.

Thank you, Uthappam for clearly stating the panini’s drum.

Thank you, A.P.Masilamani for your scintilating postings here.

I think Solomon is in confusion state, bewildering his old messages and repeatedly going back his tuning old gramophone record or BACK TO SQUARE approach.

For clarity, I give description of discussion so far carried out and furthermore supportives for my views regarding tamil antiquity as under.

1. Four Vedhas were collected & written in 100 CE by Vedha viyasar. Vedha agamas ,18 puranas, Mahabharatha and Ramayana were written during 300 CE. Manusmirithi / Bagavatgita were written around 400 CE. I have given adequate supportives clearly to this through archeological and linguistic ways in all my postings.

Out of the above Vedhas were influenced by tamil culture containing Inthra / varuna worship. Tamil sankam timeline – First 2500 BCE to 2000 BCE – Second 1500 to 1200 BCE – Third 1200 BCE to 200 CE. Tholkappiam timeline is around 1250 BCE.

‘Nanmarai’ might have refered by tamil sankam literature written after 100 CE not the entire Third sankam ranging from 1200 BCE. Nanmarai sometimes called Arumarai and there is a controversy as pointed out by A.P. Masilomani. Iyer, Anthanar and Munaivar in Tholkapiam were not castes / occupational difference but social representations.

I clearly stated that “Akiya” word completed the various occupational differences existed as adiyar,Vinaivalar etc. during Tholkappiar time. ‘Payiram’ is of later origin and we need not take it seriously.

I have completely rejected Aryan race and Aryan Invasion theory from the beginning. It is wrong concept of Maxmuller like scholars. I take Dravidian as Austro-Africa South Indian tamil and their civilization prevailed all over India and West Asia till Egypt and Greece.

I give here further supportives that tamil prevailed all over India before Vedhic language formation.

ANCIENT LANGUAGE OF WHOLE OF INDIA WAS TAMIL

Eminent historian Rajwade acknowledges that the original indigenous residents of India were the Naagas. They were expert in drawing pictures, they later turned Naaga vamsha into the Vedhic fold. He also acknowledges the presence of non-Sanskirt languages like Asur bhasha, Dravida bhasha, Chinese and Red Indian and African languages. [Rajwade V. K., bharatiya vivah sansthe cha itihas, marathi, p. 100]

‘Paishachi’ language was Tamil is the experts' view. Having made it clear that Paishachi language was a very rich language, and very widely spoken, let us see the experts' views on what was this language.

Before Sanskrit could influence things here, the language of India was "Paishachi", which meant Tamil, and it was spoken from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.

Nair observes: "According to Mr. Oldham there are ample evidences to show that the so-called "Paisachi" language was spoken throughout India.

He says "It is evident that the Sanskrit Grammarians considered the language of the Dravidian countries to be connected with the vernaculars of Northern India; and that in their opinion it was especially related to the speech of those who as we have seen, were apparently descended from the Asura tribes. Thus in the Shahasha Chandrika Lakshmidhara says that the ‘Paisachi’ language is spoken in the ‘Paisachi’ countries of Pandya, Kekaya Vahlika, Sahya, Nepala, Kuntala, Sudarsha, Bota, Gandhara, Haiva and Kangana and there are Paisachi countries. Of all the vernaculars the Paisachi is said to have contained the smallest infusion of Sanskrit". [Nair B. N., "The Dynamic Brahmin", p.70]

Dr. K. M. Panikar has something equally interesting to say; "The distribution of the indigenous races even today in the uplands of South Bihar and in the eastern areas of Madhya Pradesh and the persistence of the Bhils in the Aravalli and Vindhya ranges show that as a population momentum ceased to have any momentum after it reached the Gangetic valley. The gradual spread of Hinduism all over India and with the Vedhic speech should not blind us to the fact that even in North India outside the Punjab Tamil was there. In Gujrat and in Maharashtra the neo-Vedhic were able to improve their language but in the Deccan and in the South the Dravidian speech not only held its own but was able to drive out the Austric and other linguistic elements. The spread of Sanskrit, originally associated with Agastiyas' crossing of the Vindhyas became, an accomplished fact only in the first centuries of the Christian era as may be seen from the earlier Paisachi tamil tradition of the Satavahana Emperors of Pratishtan" [K. M. Panikker, Geographical Factors in Indian History, 1955, quoted by Nair B. N., "The Dynamic Brahmin", p.70]

IMPORTANT

Paisachi was Tamil- Nair confirms that Paishachi was Tamil. Not only the inscriptions, but even the classical Tamil literature of second or third century AD was not Sanskrit, but Tamil. The same author observes: "If we now consider the ancient Tamil works, we find in almost all some allusion to vedic rites and the use of some north words though very few. When Indo Aryan words are adopted in Tamil in Sangam literature they are more frequently borrowed form Prakrit forms or with Prakritic features. Surely Sanskrit and Prakrit cultures were known to some extent in Tamilanad but rather through Prakrit than through Sanskrit. Massive influence of Sanskrit in Tamil literature took place much later". [Dr. J. Filliozat on Tamil and Sanskrit in South India, in Tamil Culture, vol. IV, No. 4, Oct. 1955 quoted by Nair B. N., "The Dynamic Brahmin", p.71]

ABOUT SCRIPTS

Only two scripts were in vogue at the time of Ashoka, Brahmi and Kharoshti. On the basis of available Brahmi inscriptions, the time of Brahmi script is considered to be from 500 B.C. to 350 A.D. [Mishra, p.454] and the languages found so far is tamil earlier than Prakirit

PANINI WAS INGNORANT ABOUT HISTORY : RAJWADE

Panini ( Paanar) is said to have been come from Persia. Panini belonged to West Kanthara and is citizen of present Eran. (Refer B.S.Upadhyaya –Feeders of Indian Culture, p 37)

Based on his “Astaththayi” some West Asian words and some Indian words put together to form Sanskrit. The literature of Sanskrit was formed in Kanchipuram. Kashmir, Varanasi and Thiruvandanthapuram pandits also helped this. (Refer Thenmozhi – page 142 – 44 )

Itihasacharya Rajwade had done a lot of work not only in history but also in linguistic field. He explained the code language of ‘Mahanubhavas’ as well as he explained origin of Sanskrit. He declared that Panini had no knowledge of amalgamation and mixture of primitive societies. He explained how the use of neuter gender in Sanskrit originated from the mixture of two societies, one having a nasal twang and other without it. While explaining grammar, Rajwade scientifically uses the sociological concepts, and clarifies what Panini could not. He declares boldly that Panini had no historical perspective and that Panini's belief, that Sanskrit is the language of the devas and hence anaadi, (having no beginning), as "eccentric".

IMPORTANT

He avers that there is not a single word or a phrase in whole of ashtadhyai of Panini, which could suggest that Sanskrit originated from Vedic language. Panini could not ever think that Sanskrit is the corrupt or hybrid form of Vedic language. Because of this disregard of history, Panini thought there was no world before Vedas, and no time before it. His thoughts are thus opposed to progress and because of his ignorance, the society became dejected about the future. There were many pre-vedic languages, then Vedic, then Panini's Sanskrit, then Prakrit, and regional languages like Marathi etc. is the progressive evolution, but because of Panini's thoughts this was considered as degeneration. Panini's ashtadhyai is the well known example of how the unhistorical attitude causes the gross damage, he observes. [Rajwade V. K., bharatiya vivah 0sansthe cha itihas, marathi, introduction by S.A.Dange p. 21] . From this we come to know that the timeline is of Panini is around somewhat before Vedhas time and not certainly around 400 BCE as Indo-Aryans and Brahmin believers think.

2. I summarily rejected Aryan Invasion theory since there is no Aryan race in India. That was my opinion before I got into the this discussion and this has been revealed by me in many topics of the forum. Indo-Europeans had tamil elements wrongly understood by Maxmuller and others as Sanskrit elements and as Solomon claims about Egypt proofs. Egypt civilization was completely influenced by tamils and not by vedhics. I will show this in separate thread. Saraswathi culture / Gangai culture are of later origin after Vedhas which was influenced by tamils. Tamil culture prevailed all over India,West Asia and till Egypt and Greece. In some other threads I will prove this historic and linguistic ample evidences.

3. Was Sanskrit a spoken language?

Contrary to the recent propaganda, it is a well established fact that Sanskrit was never a spoken language: "Let us remember that Sanskrit as its meaning indicates was never a spoken language and that it was only a purified version of the language that was in popular usage such as Prakrit, and that its refinement and the codification of grammar in an unalterable form was the work of grammarians like Panini." [Nair B. N., "The Dynamic Brahmin", p.67]

But Tholkappiam says,” Pazhayana Kzhithalum Puthiyana Pukuthalum Vazhuvala Kaala Vakaiyinanae”

Even strong protagonists like Pandit Mishra avers that it was a spoken language but the "spoken" means, it was spoken by "shishtas" i.e. elite alone in the form of manthras. Rest of the masses were speaking Prakrit. [Mishra, p.376] Even in late Sanskrit drammas, as is well known, the charactors spoke Prakrit.

4. I have already revealed about the language roots words research fundamentals of Maxmuller and other Western scholars including Pavanar and Aruli. Solomon is ignorant about root word research and his comment is simply rubbish and contains bluffs.

5. Saraswathi Mahal Libruary contains manuscripts of 2000 years old. Some of them were having mutilated part. They won’t be given for library visitors. The advertised manuscripts in the website are only exhibited items of palm leaves which were written during 16 th century and were placed for visitors. Library was started at 16th century. Still nadi readers are permitted to get 2000 year old palm leafs through renting. Thirukkural is preserved there. Anti tamil –protector Solomon stopped his quarry at website for his selective quoting bluffs.

“Aadu (Goat) nanainthathu Entru Oonaai (Wild Dog) Azhuthatham”-

The librarians were mostly manuvadhis including NIC employees and they advertise only Bagavatham type literature palm leaves as exhibited in the library..

6. I ask readers after viewing the passage whether vedhic culture of manuvadis will help people of India ?

Who suffered in ‘Kalivarjya’ vedhic culture

In Kalivarjya, main law was against sea voyage. That is how the sea worthy races of Pallava and Chola countries suffered. All the trade that was being conducted through the sea stopped. Who suffered? It will be clear, if we take a look at the products of export. Most of the products of export were based on the agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest economy. Even the textile industry which had reached a high acclaim in foreign lands, was based on cotton, silk and wool. All these occupations were in the hands of working classes, who were all doomed to be shudras. All these industries suffered. All these castes in the village economy suffered. All these occupational groups, which were prosperous earlier were degraded into castes, due to rigid caste rules imposed.

Here I show the difference of Jains with Vedhic version and both Jains and Vedhic were influenced by tamils culture.

The story of Ramayana as stated in the Jain Puranas is substantially similar to the account of Valmiki. But the way in which the Jain version differs from the Valmiki Ramayana throws a very significant light on the position of Jainism. According to the Jain version, Ravana and Raksas were highly cultured people belonging to the race of the ‘Vidyadharas’ and were great devotees of Jina.

But the Vedhic tradition depicted them as evil natured and irreligious demons because they were antagonistic to the sacrificial cult of the Vedic sages. At the same time, they were defeated, therefore, they become the demons in the hands of the poets. Considering these two accounts together, it seems that the Vedic people denounced the Rakshas because they were the followers of Jainism.

F. E. Pargiter also asserts the Jains were treated as Asuras and Daityas by the Vedhic people. Rama, his brother Laksamana and their enemy Ravana were 63 prominent personages (the trisastisalaka purushas) of the Jain traditions where in the Raksas and Vanaras of the Ramayana have been described not as semihuman or demons but as highly civilized and cultured human beings of the ‘Vidyadhara’ race who were mostly devotees of the Jina.

Jainism as a Dravidan Religion :-

Dr. Zimmer considers Jainism to be an older religion even than Vedic religion and called it the dravidan religion. Both are simple, unsophisticated, clear cut and direct manifestation of the pessimistic dualism. Jainism believes in pessimism, a conviction that human life is full of misery, no trace of which is to be found in the optimistic attitude of the Vedic People. The doctrine of transmigration of the Dravidans unknown to the early Brahmanas suddenly emerges in the Upanishads and forms an essential element in the Jain religion. What is more important, is the fact that the doctrine assumes it peculiarly Indian form by its association with the doctrine of KARMAN and we know that the most primitive ideas of Karman are found in Jain Metaphysics. An atheistic attitude and a kind of dualism between soul and matter characterize both Dravidian religion and Jainism. From this religion also arose the heterodox sects namely Sankhya, Yoga and Buddhism.

Dr. Zimmer further observes that Jainism and Zoorastrian religions seem to be the forms of the Dravidan religion Both arose as a protest and as parallels against the Vedic religion and the religion of Avasta respectively for the revival of the older religion which we may call the Dravidan religion. There are elements of similarity in both the religions. Parsvanatha and Zooraster were contemporary in time and they were against the sacrificial ceremony and polytheism of the gods.

The enemy of Parsva was Kamatha, while of Zoorastra is Dahaka. Both gave troubles to Parsva and Zoorastra respectively for a long time but at the end, they were overcome by love. The serpents springing from the shoulders of both the images are well known. It seems that the snake played an important part in the lives of both.
Dr. Zimmer’s arguments are held plausible but our main difficulty in accepting them is that our knowledge of the Dravidan faith is very meagre and perfunctory.

From the above we come to the conclusion that tamils were the foremost civilizational perpetuaters of the world and vedhic antiquity is simply nothing.

f.s.gandhi

[A P MASILAMANI]

Thiru F.S.Gandhi vandayar , you have done extensive work. Once again, well done and keep the discussion going.
Indeed you are a devoted hubber.
Also thanks to thiru Idiappam for having scrutinized the postings of Solomon and revealing inaccuracies therein.
Best regards to all.