THE ARIYAN QUESTION [Archive]

F.S.Gandhi vandayar

24th March 2006, 11:40 PM

THE ARIYAN QUESTION

I have slightly touched about Ariyan meaning in my earlier postings in ‘Tamil is elder than Sanskrit thread’.

The word Ariyan plays major role in Indian history and has been misunderstood by many people as separate race invaded through Kyber –Bolan passages of Afkhanistan to India, thrashed out the inhabitant dravidians from north of india and produced Vedhic hymns & Vedhic culture and often is refered as Brahmanas of modern India.

The purpose of this topic is to prove the above is wrong concept with adequate historical evidances.

Nowhere in ancient cultures – Greece,Turky, Asiria, Egypt, Sumeria, Babylonia. Meditaranean – The word Aryan race Exist /their cultures exists. No single proof at all.

In Persia, The Persian Emperor Taurius I (522 BCE) called himself “I am the son of persian and the son of Ariyan” (1). He was born North western India in Trading community and was considered by the people of Persia as foreigner but elevated himself to kingship when indigenious wars and confusion were going on in Persia and to defend this he called himself as that he was belonging to the son of ruler dynasty. Here the word Ariyan was used to specify ‘King’.Kantharam, Sinthu, &Punjab were also under his rule. (2) This is only reference of Ariyan ,that too not as a race, out of India.

And almost all the references of ‘Ariyan’ were only in India. In Rig Vedha 33 times the word ‘Arya’ is found.(3) In tamil Third Sankam literature 9 times ‘Ariyan’ is refered. In Bakthi literature 12 times the word is refered.

Western minds about India :
1.Oriental Depotism and Anarchy : This theory was created between 1750 to 1810 CE. Alexandar Dow,Robert Orm, John Scott Waring, James Grant, Mark Wilks & John Bruce researched Mughals rule and formulated this theory. According to that Indian subcontinent had lot of temporary empires and human violations were the order. Ariyan invasions also had taken place to further contribute this temporariness. (4)

2. Panchayats and Castes : This theory was created between 1810 to 1857 CE. Charles Metcalf was the initiator. According to that Hindostan was a country of village panchayats and the people never participated with General country events. Lot of invasions happened. But Panchayats remained same uninterrupted. These panchayats were slaves of whoever came & ruled India.(5)

3. Jamindarism :

This theory was created between 1860 to 1910 CE. According to that India was land of ‘Jameens’ and Kings were being temporary.(6)

4.Ariyan – Dravidian Ideology :

This theory came into being during 1910 CE. Ruling Britishers neglected mistakenly the real history of India. They red and researched indian history on religious basis as Hindu, Muslim, Buddhists, Jains, Persian, & Christian. At last they taught Hindu religion is Brahminism. During this time Ariyan forefathers like Maxmuller & Will durant created Aryan Invasion theory. According to that Ariyans invaded India, demolished dravidians,made four varna system and turned as Brahmins of modern India.(7)

I mention the above theories of Western minds because these theories are based on the concept that Indian culture was fully effected by foreign invasions which is fundamentally wrong.

Who are dravidians ?

It is clearly identified that Pahrare Chempian and Azhagu Nanthan (Chola dynasty) ruled all over India during pre-historic period. Sinthu Valley civilization was their creation. Historic messages in puranas show this. Pahrare Chempian- Pageerathan- Bharathan- Bharat ( India) named after him.(8)

Tamils were called as Thermili & thermilai in Egypt,Greece & Turky.(9) During Maurian Empire they were called Thramila. This thramila turned Thravida-Dravida.

Kalinga Karavelan Haathikumba Inscriptions (155 BCE) specifies that Karavelan put an end to the secret treaty among dravida nation (Dravida desa sankavattam). I.e. Chera,Chola & pandiya nations.(10) Dravida is refered in Sanskrit literature like Mahabharata after christian Era.(10A) Ray cholas who ruled Royalseema were called themselves as ‘thravidas’ migrated from Thiruchi Uraiyur.(11) Chola Kangar who ruled Orissa and constructed Puri temple were called Thravida kings(12). For the purpose of identity Dr.Calduwell calls all South Indian languages as Dravida languages eventhough dravida is directly implies Tamil.(13)

Modern research in Geneology done by Dr. Mayyappan of Madurai Kamarajar University proves that Virumandi Thevar of Usilampatti Geneology directly relates to South African tribes.(14)

Hence, Dravida/ Tamils means an Austro African Indian inhabitants / Race which constitutes 80 percent of present people all over India.

Who are Ariyans ?

The tamil word ‘Arayar’ turned as Ariyar (15).The same word turned ‘Rayar’ in vaduka –kannada & Telugu. In Bengal it is as ‘Rai’. Ariyan was used in the meaning of king. Arai+ar- Arai means part / pakuthi. Thus the ruling class which ruled that part was called Arayar. Arasar / Arasu are also from this root.

In indian history the Mahathan kings (600 BCE) firstly called themselves as Ariyans. Chandra Gupta Maurian who won Mahathan army and created Maurian dynasty and then all Maurians called themselves as Ariyans. Here, King Ashoka, the son in law of Chandra Gupta was the follower of Jain religion. After Kalinga war he turned into fanatic Buddha. Asokan Governors were called as ‘Kumarar’ & Ariya puththirar.

Since Buddha was also a king Sanskrit literature refers him as Ariyar & Ariya puththirar. In Anthra Allur, Amaravathi, Naagarchuna konda parts Buddha sankam members were called as Ayira / Arya.(16). Following this traditions Vedhic Hothas also called themselves as Ariyas. Kings were specified as Thassuys in Rig Vedha. Other three Vedhas do not contain the word Arya.

When Chera, Chola , Pandiyan Empires were in tamilnadu and Kerala, Maurian empire extended till Kalinga. During this time Vaduka kannadigas were Buffer stock in between these empires. While they were battlers of tamil kingdoms in 22 passages of tamils northern border, they were also battlers of Maurian Army. When Asoka turned buddhist monk his stronghold in south deteriorated. During this time,Near Bellari Vaduka kanndigas created Anthra Empire. They also called themselves as Ariyar.(17)

Dr. K . Appathurai says, “Eventhough Kangai & Anthra Empires called themselves as ‘Ariyans’ this word was not based on the race. During third Sankam period King Asoka, Buddhists & Jains were the main cause for references of Ariyan in tamil literature” (18)

A battle between Tamil Chola and Vadukas in ‘Vallam’ and the victory of chola is mentioned Pavai Kottilar’s Marutham Poetry of Akanaanuru 336: 19-22.

…….. Venvel
Maari Yambin Mazhithol CHOLAR
Villeendu Kurumbin Vallaththu Puramilai
ARIYAR padayin udaika…….

In Nattrinai 170 : 6-8 the battle in Mullur where malayaman Thirumudik kaari won Aryar.Here also the opponents were vadukaas.

ARIYAR Thuvantriya Perisai MULLURP

Oruverku Odi Yanku…

But In Akanaanuru 396 : 16-19 & 398 : 18-19,

ARIYAR Alarath thakkip Per isai
Thontru muthir VADAVARAI Vankuvil Poriththu’

ARIYAR Ponpadu NEDUVARAI puraiyum’

Where Vadavarai and Neduvarai specify the Himalayan and so both Ariyars refered are Mahathan army.

To differentiate Vaduka Ariyans from Mathan ariyans Silappathikaram specifically says, ‘VADA ARIYAR’.

“VADA ARIYAR padai kadanthu
Then thamilnadu Orungu Kana”- Silappathikaram 23-24 : 13-15

Anthra, Kalinga & Mahatham were called ‘Mukkalingam’. These Three empires were from Vaduka dynasty. They all called themselves as Ariyans.

Kabilar’s Kurinchippattu in Paththuppattu was written to inform the goodwill of tamil to Ariyan king Prahathathan who was a Vaduka king.

Vaduku dance artists (kazhi Kooththu Aadi) – Thombar – called themselves as Ariyars.

In Kurunthokai this is specified.

ARIYAR Kayiradu Parayil” –Kurunthokai 7 : 3-4.

Hence, The above and the messages like above conforms that Ariyar never came through Kyber & Bolan passages, they were forumlated within India & they were called so as kings / ruling class. ARIYAR means only ruling class

Mahathan was dravidian/tamilian empire. Maurians used Prakritham. The beauty is both called themselves as Ariyans. Hence, Dravidar is Ariyar / Ariyar is a branch of Dravidians. They belong to same race.

Who are Brahmins ?

Unlike in present preached history, Brahminism travelled from South India to North India. Tamil Thokappiam’s Occupational divisions made into archestrated birth wise divisions in Sanskrit. Manu,the creater of Birth divisions was a dravidian(Tamil) king. This is mentioned in ‘Sathpatha Brahmanam’ & Viyasar’s Mahabharatham. Brahminical life and Big temple worship started its journey in South Kerala. The creater was Parasuraman. He was a Vaduka Kannadiga born in the banks of Narmatha river and reached southern kerala.(20)

Manu Nool (600 CE) was written & published in Chalukkiya king Pulikesi II ‘s court and was imported into Tamil Nadu by medieval Cholas. Occupational castes were transformed into Birthwise castes in tamil Nadu. (20 A)

The another version of Tamil Poosariyam is Brahminism. Since Vaduka ruling class created this culture, this can be called Vaduka Poosariyam / Brahminism.

Parasuraman announced that he was always enemy of shatriyas.

A story in Manimekalai 22 : 25-39 :

Parasuraman vowed to kill 24 king dynasties. He travelled to Puhar (Kaveri poompattinam) to kill chola king Kanthan. But Kanthan gave the throne to sukantha and instructed him that till Tamil Priest Akaththiyan tells him to return, to look after the throne and then escaped.

Like Parasuraman, Anthran empire kings (Vaduka kannadikas) also showed much hatred towards ‘Shaththiriyas’ –they meaned to say this word- and these shaththiriyas were Tamil kings. This further proves that Vaduka Kanndigas created ‘Brahminism’ in India.

Telugu Scheduled Caste ‘Madikans’ call themselves as sons of god Maathanki. The story of Maathanki : Maathanki gave shelter to Ellamma( Renuga) who was the mother of Parasuraman when Parasuraman roamed to kill her. Parasuraman cut Maathanki’s nose. But Renuga gave her nose.

Another story : Parasuraman’s father Samathkkini munivan cut Renuga and Mathanki’s Heads. Parasuraman requested him to give back heads. Munivan brought back Renuga’s head to Mathanki and vice versa.

Present Vaduka madikars are different from tamil pulayar and kannada olayar.

The above stories further proves parasuraman is a Vaduka.

Dr. Ambetkar ascertained that Out of four varnas in Brahminical system other varnas got diluted due to social development except Brahmins. Even Shatthriyas could not sustain with their varnas because if they got defeat they were put into sudras. Hence there was a competition between Brahmins and Shatriyas to capture the first order. Sometimes The shatriyas called themselves as Prama-shattriyar.(21)

In support of Dr.Ambetkar’s view history gives proofs.

Pallava’s (East Vadukas- Telukus) called themselves as belonging to ‘Bharathuvasak Koththiram’. Simmavarman II (435 – 65) CE, Pallankoil ‘Cheppdukal’ (Cu) specifies that pallavas were Bramha Shaththiriyar. Thaala kunda inscriptions shows that pallavas were called as pallava Shaththiriyar.

Present Pelgam,thaaravadu districts of karnataka were ruled by Kadambas and they called themselves as ‘Maanaviya Koththiram-Brahmins’

Medievial Tamil cholas mixed with Kannada Chalukkiyas and this Brahminism came into being in Tamil Nadu.

In Rig Vedha(100 CE), in last para (10 th division 90 : 12),an insertion made regarding four Varnas, later period the word Brahmin was included and the meaning never coincides with existing passages of Rig Vedha. (22)
Indian central India particularly Thungapathira river valley (North Karnataka) was the place where Brahminical system got its growth.(23)

Ariyan verses Brahminism :

Ariyan is not a life / social system and it refered only the ruling class. Brahminism is a social system archestrated.

Ariyan kings transformation occurred North to South. Brahminism transformed South to North.

Mahathans who called themselves as Ariyans were condemned by Brahmin Puranas. They were also called ‘Vratyas’ & Sudras.

“Sarva ksattrantakonrpah tatah prabhrti rajano bhavisyah SUDRA yonayah ckarat sa mahapadma ekacchatrah” (24)

Maurians – Ariyans followed Jains & Buddha for whom ‘Thramila’ (Tamilan) Chanakkiyan, a tamil paarpan was chief Minister. King Asoka hated Brahminism.(25)

SANSKRIT ORIGIN:

Indian literary languages(Min. 1000 Years) origin shall be as follows :

Tamil – Paichachi – Paly - Prakrid

Tamil – Koduntamil – Koduntamil + Pragrid=vaduku

Vaduku – West Vaduku – Kannada, East Vaduku-Telugu

East Vaduku+ paly – Oriya, Oriya + Paly + prakrid = Bengali

Prakrit – Sanskrit

Tamil+ Prakrit= Malayalam

West Vaduku + Prakrid = Marathi, Gujarathi

Sanskrit originated in Southern Kerala. Its literature collected and organised in Kanchipuram.,Tamil Nadu(26). Kasi, Kashmir and Thiruvanthapuram Prakrid / Sanskrit pandits also helped to do this.

Tamil Krantha(means kattuthal / Parththal in tamil) script originated in Tamil Nadu. ‘Karanthai’ which means ‘clear appearance’ turned Krantha in Sanskrit. Preliminary Sanskrit literature were written only on Krantha Script. All Sanskrit Akamas were written in tamil Krantha script during early Pallavas (300 CE)(27)

Nagari script originated in North India. During 800 CE Sanskrit literature was written in Nagari.

Hence, Tamil culture and literature certainly influenced the whole Sanskrit literature much and I may write about this in someother relevant thread.

Conclusion :

1.Indian Ancient history and the subsequent ramifications rely only on Tamil.
2.Ariyans were Northern kings with respect to Tamil Nadu irrespective of they followed Brahminism / not followed Brahminism
3.Ariyans are not Brahmins. Brahminical system originated in south India.
4.Sanskrit originated in South.
5.If anyform of renaisance in indian culture i.e., between goodwill and bad is tamil culture & Sanskrit Vedhic culture respectively.

References :

(1) The Story of Civlilization – Will Durant
(2) The feeders of Indian Culture- B. S. Upaththiyaya- page 35-36.
(3) Life in Ancient India- P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar-Page 12
(4) A Dissertation of the Origin and Nature of Despotism in Hindostan – Alexandar Dow
(5) ,(6),(7) African Models and Indian Histories in Realm and Region in Traditional India- Bernard S. Cohen
(8) Valluvaththin Veezhchi – Thiru. Guna,Tamil research centre, Bangalore
(9) The Ancient History of near East- H.R. Hall , page 520
(10)A History of South India- K.A. Neelakanda Sastri, Page 88
(10A)Turnour, Mahawanso. Page 21,quoted by P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar- History of Tamils, page 325mi.
(11),(20 A)Valangai Chantrorum Cholarum Page 44
(12) Puri temple inscriptions.
(13) A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian family of Languages, Foreword.-Rt.Rev.Robert Caldwell
(14) The Hindu Column dated 30.03.2002
(15)Tamilar Varalaru –Page 204, Kna.Thevaneyan,
(16)Early History of the Andhra Country, University of Madras, Page 124, Dr. K. Gopalachar.
(17) Pre historic Ancient Hindu India- R.D.Banerji Page 117
(18)Thennatup Porkalangal – Ka.Appaththurai , page 43
(19) Tamil Nattu Varalatril Ilakkiya Aatharangal- P. Suriya Narayanan, page 49
(20) Vedhic India – Ragozine page 341-346
(20 A) See (11)
(21) Annihilation of Caste – Dr. Ambetkar
(22)Tamilar Matham – Maraimalai Adikal Page 38
(23)History of Sanskrit Literature – A.A. Macdonell page 160
(24) Dynasties of Kali Age, Pargiter, Quoted by P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar. History of Tamils
(25)Prehistoric Ancient and Hindu India, page 92
(26) Thenmozhi Essays, by Ka. Appaththuraiyar. (1956) page 142-44
(27)Koyilkalil Chentamil, Samaskritham (Katturai) , Thinamani , 28.11.1998.

f.s.gandhi

Lambretta

25th March 2006, 01:32 PM

Hmm......interesting.....but hope this is not goin2 divulge into the old AI theory wich is out of bounds here!

NEHA1222

26th March 2006, 09:41 AM

most of the time these americans/ nonindianas like to trace something similar notice i say similar and in other places and they give them the credit. that is stupid because it does not prove the origin it just shows similarity. for example now americans are saying that the samosa did not orignate from india it orginated from persia because somthing similar was made there, yes it might be similar but the samosa is truly indian, just pie is american!

bis_mala

26th March 2006, 09:52 PM

FSG, you have done an excellent write-up.

Keep up the good work.

a.ratchasi

27th March 2006, 11:17 AM

It has been a while since I read a good piece of work with proper credentials given.

Thanks, FSG!

dsath

27th March 2006, 06:23 PM

[tscii:1fc39cfb7a]THE ARIYAN QUESTION

Modern research in Geneology done by Dr. Mayyappan of Madurai Kamarajar University proves that Virumandi Thevar of Usilampatti Geneology directly relates to South African tribes.(14)

[/tscii:1fc39cfb7a]

Hi FSG,
One aspect of your write up linking the people living in Madurai with South African tribes is intriguing.
I saw a documentary some time back in BBC called Tribes done by Bruce Parry. In that program he travels across the world in search of some unique and remote tribes and lives with them for a couple of weeks. One series was about the Suri tribe in Ethiopia (In Sudan border).

What interested me was that the tribal people had their ear elongated and wore earrings in a style similar to the women in Madurai and Triunelveli districts (no one does it now of course). Even the ornament they wore was remarkably similar.
Another one was a stick fight called Donga. It is a central feature of the tribe and one tribesman said “Donga is what makes us Suri”. This Donga is similar to Silambatam (I am not sure if I have got the word right…..it was similar to the stick fight in TamilNadu).

Its too much of a similarity to call it coincidence.

Do you know which of the Tribes in South Africa are related to Virumandi Thevar?

Also I certainly agree with Australian aboriginal link to TamilNadu. They happen to practice the system of Intermarriage within cousins (which for me is one of the unique feature of South India). The Kamilaroi tribe in Australia is seen as a possible link.

Thanks
DSath.

dsath

29th March 2006, 03:29 PM

[tscii:4b5122a959]THE ARIYAN QUESTION
Modern research in Geneology done by Dr. Mayyappan of Madurai Kamarajar University proves that Virumandi Thevar of Usilampatti Geneology directly relates to South African tribes.(14)

(14) The Hindu Column dated 30.03.2002
[/tscii:4b5122a959]

Hi FSG,
I searched the Hindu archives on the date you mentioned and couldn't find any column with the stated research by Dr Mayyappan.
Could you please specify the link please?
Thanks
DSath

dsath

30th March 2006, 07:42 PM

[tscii:0eed470077]THE ARIYAN QUESTION

Nowhere in ancient cultures – Greece,Turky, Asiria, Egypt, Sumeria, Babylonia. Meditaranean – The word Aryan race Exist /their cultures exists. No single proof at all.

In Persia, The Persian Emperor Taurius I (522 BCE) called himself “I am the son of persian and the son of Ariyan” (1). He was born North western India in Trading community and was considered by the people of Persia as foreigner but elevated himself to kingship when indigenious wars and confusion were going on in Persia and to defend this he called himself as that he was belonging to the son of ruler dynasty. Here the word Ariyan was used to specify ‘King’.Kantharam, Sinthu, &Punjab were also under his rule. (2) This is only reference of Ariyan ,that too not as a race, out of India.
[/tscii:0eed470077]

It is popularly believed in the history circles that the word Iran is derived from Aryan and that the Iranians called themselves Aryans (meaning nobel i think).
I am not sure if Rig Veda is dated before or after Darius I, but surely reference to the word Aryan can be found in Persia, in fact the script that Darius I proposed in his times was called Aryan script and Old Persian language is generally termed as Aryan language.

F.S.Gandhi vandayar

31st March 2006, 12:41 AM

[tscii:624812344b]THE ARIYAN QUESTION
Modern research in Geneology done by Dr. Mayyappan of Madurai Kamarajar University proves that Virumandi Thevar of Usilampatti Geneology directly relates to South African tribes.(14)

(14) The Hindu Column dated 30.03.2002
[/tscii:624812344b]

Hi FSG,
I searched the Hindu archives on the date you mentioned and couldn't find any column with the stated research by Dr Mayyappan.
Could you please specify the link please?
Thanks
DSath

You cannot find it in The hindu Website. I quoted it from Newspaper.

However, Kindly Check the following link to get that message. Only correction is Dr. Pitchappan and not Dr. Mayyappan.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/archeological_discoveries_of_2003.htm

Under the heading 'Archeological Discoveries of 2003' you can find in the second message of the following.

1. Ancient Cities in Tamil Nadu May Be Over 7,000 Years Old.
2. The Ancient Gene Pool of Tamil Nadu.

Here, I reproduce that message.

2. The Ancient Gene Pool of Tamil Nadu.
CHENNAI, INDIA, January 5, 2003: India's East Coast, especially along Tamil Nadu, is increasingly drawing the attention of archaeologists and anthropologists from across the world for its evolutionary and historical secrets. The focus has sharpened after genetic scientist Spencer Wells found strains of genes in some communities of Tamil Nadu that were present in the early man of Africa. In the "Journey of Man" aired by the National Geographic channel, Wells says the first wave of migration of early man from Africa took place 60,000 years ago along the continent's east coast to India. Genetic mapping of local populations provided the evidence. R.M. Pitchappan, a professor of Madurai Kamaraj University in Tamil Nadu, helped Wells collect the gene evidence from Tamil Nadu's Piramalai Kallar people, inhabiting the Madurai and Usilampatti areas 500 km south of Chennai. The community was once quite strong and independent. Their genes have the amino acid bands found in the gene map of the original man from Africa, and similar to bands in the Australian aborigines. Says Pitchappan, "The ancestors of the Kallar community may have come into India from the Middle East." Wells believes there were three waves of migration that early man undertook. According to Mr. Wells and his Indian collaborator, early man went from Africa to the Middle East, on to Kutch on India's west coast, all around to the peninsula's east coast and then on to Australia. "These gene pools are unique and very accurately map the path a population has taken, leaving behind original communities to grow into independent groups but with a common ancestor," explains Pitchappan. More information is found at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_132193,000900020001.htm

I think the hindu Website removed that message. The above is from hindustan times. In Hindustan times also it is removed.

The only thing here we have to note that The above researchers don't know about Kumari Kandam.

Thanks for your informations & supportives.

f.s.gandhi

dsath

31st March 2006, 07:03 PM

[tscii:301ffa8485]Spencer’s Wells research has triggered some interest in the archeological community. I recently saw the documentary in which he proposes the Human immigration theory of 60,000 before now.

But I think the whole problem of anyone wanting to do some sort of research in Indian archeology cannot look beyond the Aryan-Dravidian divide. The whole Aryan-Dravidian thing is a very Euro centric approach. I think we should start clean and fresh, if we want to find out about our real history. The major difference between other early civilizations and Indian is that we have continuity and hence political implications are a by product. For example no one follows Egyptian culture as it was practiced ages ago and so it was relatively easier to find the truth(of course the wealth buried with the mummies was a motivator), compared to India.
Just take the case of Indus civilization. The saffron brigade wants to see it as predecessor of Vedic culture, while the Dravidian brigade wants to claim it as a proto-Dravidian culture. It’s really hard under the present circumstances to find out what really happened to the Indus civilization. :( Even realties will be masked by disputes. It’s a sad fact. I think the Aryan thing also suffers a similar fate.

Sad but true. :oops:
[/tscii:301ffa8485]

Eelavar

6th April 2006, 04:07 PM

Kumari Kandam existed really !!

Listen my theory.

In a very ancient time, a continent in South of India , connected from East-Africa to Australia had existed !

If you analyse the ground in Australia, East-Africa, South India and Sri lanka, it will reveal that it is composed with the same minerals in equals quantities, it's so the same ground !!!

It's another proof that there existed a continent which joined Africa to Australia.

And so it too can explain why East Africans , South Indians and aborigines of Autralia have very close DNA !!!

I think at the start there existed only one family, but with the rise of the ocean's level, this family began to be separate and so the differenciation began...

FSG,

Aryans are dravidians, and dravidians are aryans.... So there is no need of this stupid division.

Another fact, Nordic languages like Celtic have a very close relation with the 'Dravidian' languages......

How is possible ???

My theory is that after the flood that touched Kumari Kandam, many conquered the Europe between -12'000 to -10000 B.C...

And so in fact Europeans are in reality South Indians...
There is less difference between the form of the face of a south Indian and an European than between by example a Chinese and an European or an African and an European...

In fact, South Indians 'dark' color is due uniquey to the climate.
But if these Indians go in the North, in few generations they will come more 'white', it's certain and provable. Look how many Tamil children in Europe or USA are more 'white' than their parents.

The color is uniquely due to the climate.

European's root can be in Kumari Kandam after my long reflexion...

http://www.datanumeric.com/dravidian/index.html

Visit this web site please.

srivatsan

6th April 2006, 06:06 PM

Kumari Kandam existed really !!

Listen my theory.

In a very ancient time, a continent in South of India , connected from East-Africa to Australia had existed !

If you analyse the ground in Australia, East-Africa, South India and Sri lanka, it will reveal that it is composed with the same minerals in equals quantities, it's so the same ground !!!

It's another proof that there existed a continent which joined Africa to Australia.

And so it too can explain why East Africans , South Indians and aborigines of Autralia have very close DNA !!!

I think at the start they existed only one family, but with the rise of the ocean's level, this family began to be separate and so the differenciation began...

FSG,

Aryans are dravidians, and dravidians are aryans.... So there is no need of this stupid division.

Another fact, Nordic languages like Celtic have a very close relation with the 'Dravidian' languages......

How is possible ???

My theory is that after the flood that touched Kumari Kandam, many conquered the Europe between -12'000 to -10000 B.C...

And so in fact Europeans are in reality South Indians...
There is less difference between the form of the face of a south Indian and an European than between by example a Chinese and an European or an African and an European...

In fact, South Indians 'dark' color is due uniquey to the climate.
But if these Indians go in the North, in few generations they will come more 'white', it's certain and provable. Look how many Tamil children in Europe or USA are more 'white' than their parents.

The color is uniquely due to the climate.

European's root can be in Kumari Kandam after my long reflexion...

http://www.datanumeric.com/dravidian/index.html

Visit this web site please.

I have strong reason to belive this words of Elavar....if you see East Africans (whom I am seeing Daily), most pf them will resemble like the faces we can easily see in Thuticorin or Madurai....

dsath

6th April 2006, 06:33 PM

Which country excatly in East Africa are you talking about?

Eelavar

6th April 2006, 07:12 PM

Ethiopians by example.

Anciant Greeks said that they confused Ethiopians with South-Indians because they have the same face !

It's very true.

Even if you look aborigines of Australia, they look like South-Indians !

How is it possible if Kumari Kandam never existed ??

dsath

6th April 2006, 07:38 PM

I accept that Ethiopians,South Indian and Austrialian Aboriginals all are related. As dicussed alreay in various threads, its been proved by Specner Wells's genetic research. You could also include some Middle Eastern tribes and also some tribes in the Indonesian archipelago to the list.
I am more inclined in accepting that the ancients had sea faring techniques rather than the Kumari Kandam hypothesis.
The Indus civilization people had trade links with the Mesopotatians which is impossible with some kind of advanced sea faring strenghts. Also there must be some sort of link between the people of Easter Island and Harrapans as there are some symbols shared by both the scripts.
I think it would be too rash to conclude that Gujarat and Easter Island were once connected. But a more appropriate conclusion would be that they were able to travel distance thru land and water by both parties.
When animals and birds are able to migrate huge distances why can't Humans?

Eelavar

6th April 2006, 07:46 PM

[tscii:e049aac64e]dsath,

South-Indians were good sailors, and they built the strongest and biggest boats in the antiquity and the medival times.

Do you want to know a secret ??

Why do you think that british won Waterloo war against French and Spanish ?

Their ships were built in South-India !!!

http://indiannavy.nic.in/history.htm

Quotation:
"Despite the eclipse of Indian kingdoms with the advent of western domination, Indian shipbuilders continued to hold their own well into the nineteenth century. Ships displacing 800 to 1000 tons were built of teak at Daman and were superior to their British counterparts both in design and durability. This so agitated British shipbuilders on the River Thames that they protested against the use of Indian-built ships to carry trade from England. Consequently active measures were adopted to cripple the Indian industry. Nevertheless, many Indian ships were inducted into the Royal Navy, such as HMS Hindostan in 1795, the frigate Cornwallis in 1800, HMS Camel in 1806 and HMS Ceylon in 1808. HMS Asia carried the flag of Admiral Codrington at the Battle of Navarino in 1827 — the last major sea battle to be fought entirely under sail.

Two Indian-built ships witnessed history in the making: the Treaty of Nanking, ceding Hong Kong to the British, was signed on board HMS Cornwallis in 1842, whilst the national anthem of the United States of America, "The Star Spangled Banner," was composed by Francis Key on board HMS Minden when the British ships were at war and attempting to reduce Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland.

Numerous other ships were also constructed, the most famous being HMS Trincomalee, which was launched on 19 October 1817, carrying 46 guns and displacing 1065 tons. This ship was later renamed Foudroyant, and is reputed to be the oldest ship afloat built in India.

The Bombay Dock was completed in July 1735 and is in use even today. The period of 4000 years between Lothal and Bombay Dock, therefore, offers tangible evidence of the seafaring skills the nation possessed in the days of sail. Thus, in the early seventeenth century, when British naval ships came to India, they discovered the existence of considerable shipbuilding and repair skills, and a seafaring people—an ideal combination for supporting a fighting force."

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Seafaring_in_Ancient_India.htm
ANOTHER WELL DOCUMENTED PAGE.
[/tscii:e049aac64e]

srivatsan

6th April 2006, 08:15 PM

Which country excatly in East Africa are you talking about?
Ethiopiam Uganda Tanzania, Jamiaca, Chad and some part of southern Egyptians too.....
You can see the same similarity in native people from Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Domincan Republic and Coloumbia.... :D

dsath

6th April 2006, 09:37 PM

[tscii:ea6ff1f6c1]dsath,

South-Indians were good sailors, and they built the strongest and biggest boats in the antiquity and the medival times.

[/tscii:ea6ff1f6c1]

Excatly my point. I have read that the New Zealand natives have a helmet with Tamil script dating back to 1110 AD. I think it was a Chola ship that went to New Zealand.

And this is the reason that i do not subscribe to the Kumari Kandam myth. May be a sizeable portion of land was lost, but India extending all the way to Australia in times of human civilization is a bit far fletched. May be it did when there was only bacteria around, but then there was only one big continent back then.

Eelavar

6th April 2006, 09:47 PM

dsath,

Even in South America, they found that Indians had maritime connection with Mayas.

There is a theory which say that Indians of India conquered South America many times ago...

pradheep

6th April 2006, 09:53 PM

I think the hindu Website removed that message. The above is from hindustan times. In Hindustan times also it is removed.

http://www.microbiol.unimelb.edu.au/14ihiws/projects/GenDivUpdate1.doc

another site

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/archeological_discoveries_of_2003.htm

dsath

6th April 2006, 09:58 PM

I am a bit sceptical about that one. I meant the south Indian connection with South America.
This page talks about the helmet
http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htm

pradheep

6th April 2006, 10:07 PM

It is likely that M173 arose initially in Central Asia, and that M173-carrying subpopulations migrated westward into Europe soon thereafter. The extremely high frequency of this haplotype in Western Europe is probably the result of drift, consistent with an inferred population bottleneck during the Last Glacial Maximum (4, 17).

The American descendant of M45, defined by the marker M3, may be as little as 2,000 years old (10); this finding, as well as the fact that it is not found in Central Asia or Siberia, suggests that the expansion of this haplotype occurred entirely within the Americas. An assessment of the upper limit to the date of entry of humans into the Americas therefore awaits the identification of further markers on the M45 lineage that are ancestral to M3 and are found in both Central Asia and America. What seems clear, though, is that an ancient M45-containing population living in Central Asia was the source of much modern European and Native American Y-chromosome diversity.

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11526236

dsath

7th April 2006, 08:45 PM

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11526236
A good link.

devapriya

8th April 2006, 02:52 PM

Friends,

Many theories about mythological Atalantis are in Web, and none satisies Science.

No major Land mass is found below- Indian Ocean to Pacific.

Sangam Lit. or any other Tamil Lit has nothing about Kumarikandam even indirectly, Unless you Misinterpret.

Dev

mahadevan

8th April 2006, 07:58 PM

Oh Maaeeeeeen look who is talking about science, for kumari kandam he needs objective scientific evidence, while for sanskrit crap the earliest of which is around 200 AD he does not need nothing. Solomon do you have multiple personality problem ? Even a hard core fanatic (if he is not a moron) can some times see the wrong in his self beliefs, you do not do that, so am I correct in guessing about your multiple personality problem ?

mahadevan

8th April 2006, 08:40 PM

Somebody please tell why is this difference in the cultural traits of north and south indians

i) Wheat is the staple food in north like that of europe while rice is the staple food in south

ii)the concept of cheese is non existant in south even today, in the north cheese (panneer or its derivatives) is a part of the regular diet just like the europeans

iii)Baking is totally absent in the southern cuisine, it is the most widely used in the northeren cuisine (Naan, Roti) like the bread of the europeans.

iv) Northern musical instruments are strikingly different from their Southern counterparts. For instance the southern percussion instrument miruthangam has the leather on the sides while the northern table has the leather on the top more like the western drums.

v)Northen languages are spoken more from inside the mouth and less tongue twisting, more like the european languages, whereas the southern languages emphasize more on the tongue twisting.

vi)Another noticible difference is the speed with which the language is spoken, north Indian language speakers talk relatively very slowly like the europeans, while the southerners talk very fast more like the africans. Just listen to a northerener and southerner talking in English.

vii)Among the non veg people, fish is very common in southern diet while it is very much not a part of northern plate, with the exception of Bengalis.

hey the list can on and on

happyindian

9th April 2006, 06:26 PM

Mahadevan,

i) Wheat is the staple food in north like that of europe while rice is the staple food in south Its obvious. Ask any farmer to grow rice in kashmir and wheat in kerala he'll think u r an alien from mars. Climate, soil type, water availability, wind direction & the rains they bring....there r many reasons.

ii)the concept of cheese is non existant in south even today, in the north cheese (panneer or its derivatives) is a part of the regular diet just like the europeans The whites christened paneer as "cottage cheese" (dunno why?? coz its a milk derivative?) Am wondering then perhaps Khoya / Khova shd also be called one form of cheese (what's khoya called in english anyone?). Milk derivatives are more common in the north coz fewer types of vegetables grow there due to harsh winters.

iii)Baking is totally absent in the southern cuisine, it is the most widely used in the northeren cuisine (Naan, Roti) like the bread of the europeans. Chilly gusty winds put out fires in winters. In villages you can still see women digging a pit and putting fire into it to prevent it from going out for cooking / baking. Such hearths ensured food in winter. Necessity is the mother of invention. It isn't necessary to find a diff way of cooking in the south.

iv) Northern musical instruments are strikingly different from their Southern counterparts. For instance the southern percussion instrument miruthangam has the leather on the sides while the northern table has the leather on the top more like the western drums. Waaa :roll: Look at it this way: both use leather - hw does it matter if its on the side or on top?

v. Northen languages are spoken more from inside the mouth and less tongue twisting, more like the european languages, whereas the southern languages emphasize more on the tongue twisting. Language development depends mainly on neuro-cognitive function. Tongue twisting may not be necessary to get the message across. Syllables and accent in Hindi (& allied grps like Punjabi, Gujrati, Bengali, Bhojpuri, etc) is rather diff from common european languages like english or spanish. I don't exactly understand "inside of the mouth" -- maybe there are more number of sounds in northern derivatives due to presence of syllables generally absent in Tamil, so when these syllables are spoken without the tongue touching the teeth they sound like they come from within (like stress syllables Kha, Gha, Fa, Ksha, Bha, high sounding Na that sounds like aNa with the tongue folding backwards, etc, which are not there in Tamil). Passing note: I sometimes feel most northerners perhaps devote less time to language development and channelize their energies else-where.

vi)Another noticible difference is the speed with which the language is spoken, north Indian language speakers talk relatively very slowly like the europeans, while the southerners talk very fast more like the africans. Just listen to a northerener and southerner talking in English. :shock: Do ppl bcome diff if they speak fast or slow?

vii)Among the non veg people, fish is very common in southern diet while it is very much not a part of northern plate, with the exception of Bengalis. N.India is either plains or mountaineous not costal. Coast is only in Gujrat and bengal. So ppl eat fish there (though not much in Gujrat due to strong advocacy of vegetarianism). Perhaps you shd travel those places b4 coming to conclusions. Note: A Bengali friend felt insulted being called "North Indian" (the Bengali spirit is too strong to be clubbed with any other identity) and a good Gujrati friend felt funny being 'classified' as one. These ppl apparently like to be called West Indiands and East Indians. Sigh! . :?

hey the list can on and onWhat else? If you lived in the north or if a present-day northener lived in the south, for both of you, your ways wud change. You wud end up eating high-calorie baked food to withstand the cold. Am told marwadis in the south eat more rice and vegetables than their northern counterparts to prevent constipation due to moisture loss in humid climes.

dsath

10th April 2006, 04:40 PM

[tscii:6727c6d565]Consider the following story,
Some 1000 years back some foreigners lets say from country X with superior technology came to Europe . They saw that the Europeans were divided into groups like German, English, French,Spanish and so on. They also noticed that they were fighting with each other a lot. Since the X had advanced technology decided to exploit the situation and by sheer cunning took over all of Europe. Now came the problem, X found it hard to rule over a huge territory. They ruled over Europe as one country, simultaneously increased the rift between the states by exploiting their existing enmity. The X found it hard to learn all the European languages and hence promoted their language XL. The Spanish did not want to learn German and the French sure did not want to learn English. Everyone accepted that using XL as a mean of common language was better, remember the European thought that X were much superior to them.
Finally the Europeans decided enough was enough and fought back, under a single umbrella of Europe. The fact that they were different countries was long forgotten. They did succeed in the end and were granted self rule by X as 2 different countries one Europe and the other England. The reason being that rest of Europe is Catholic while England is Protestant.
How will Europe be after independence? They are all speaking language X and debating if Greek or Latin is older and if Greek is derived form Latin or vice versa. They are trying hard to erase the recent past of occupation by resorting to how rich European culture was before X came.
Isn’t this story relevant to what we are experiencing now in India.
Bengalis and Punjabis are as different as Polish and Spanish. The common thread is that they are both Hindus in the former case and Catholic in the latter.

I think we should appreciate our differences and look at the better aspects in each other cultures.
[/tscii:6727c6d565]

indian224080

10th April 2006, 11:40 PM

Hinduism and Sanskrit are the entities that have kept us together.

bis_mala

11th April 2006, 01:38 AM

Hinduism and Sanskrit are the entities that have kept us together.

It's Hindi that has kept the political entity known as India together.
Not Sanskrit.

indian224080

11th April 2006, 01:54 AM

Hinduism and Sanskrit are the entities that have kept us together.

It's Hindi that has kept the political entity known as India together.
Not Sanskrit.
I dont think so Hindi is virtually non existant in 1 state in the south 2 states in the west, 8 states in the East.
Its only Sanskrit and Hinduism and our tolerant culture thats keeping us together.

stranger

11th April 2006, 01:57 AM

indian224080

11th April 2006, 02:02 AM

Its only Sanskrit and Hinduism and our tolerant culture thats keeping us together.
:rotfl:

Today, it is easy to build a Hindu temple in Chritian-dominated United states than building Church or a mosque in India! :twisted:

Who is tolerant???

YOU???!!! :rotfl:
Whatcha u talkin man? No. of temples in Your Christian Dominated USA(!?!!) is a miniscule when compared to number of churches and mosques in India.

mahadevan

11th April 2006, 02:11 AM

I dont think so Hindi is virtually non existant in 1 state in the south 2 states in the west, 8 states in the East.
Its only Sanskrit and Hinduism and our tolerant culture thats keeping us together.

Agreed, but sanskrit is absolutely(noy just virtually) non existant in all the states in India :roll:

Nothing ever kept us togather before the advent or rather the exit of british. What we all in India have in common is less that what the different countries in europe have in common.

dsath

11th April 2006, 02:16 AM

Agreed, but sanskrit is absolutely(noy just virtually) non existant in all the states in India :roll:

Nothing ever kept us togather before the advent or rather the exit of british. What we all in India have in common is less that what the different countries in europe have in common.
Very true. The fact that we are one entity is purely political and a marriage of convenience.

indian224080

11th April 2006, 03:05 AM

Even for a marriage of convenience there must be something common. Hinduism and Sanskrit serves the purpose.

Why was Pakistan not a part of this marriage?

As far as Sanskrit being non existant its hard to be trusted as its in Psyche of Hinduism in all the corners of our country. Right from Himalaya to Sri Lanka.

dsath

11th April 2006, 03:16 AM

Why was Pakistan not a part of this marriage?

Pure politics. The congress couldn't reach a consensus with Jinnah on power sharing.Hence the politics of religion evolved and it is the plauge that is rotting both India and Pakistan from within.

Why did Bangladesh happen. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim countries? The Bangla identity is much stronger than the Muslim identity i guess.

The sepeartion of Indian soubcontinent into 3 countries is manipulative politics and has nothing to do with our cultural or religious past.

bis_mala

11th April 2006, 08:12 PM

indian224080

11th April 2006, 09:23 PM

Even for a marriage of convenience there must be something common. Hinduism and Sanskrit serves the purpose.

Well. "Hinduism" and "Sanskrit" have been there for many centuries even before the British came; yet, these factors (if they can be ranked as "factors") failed to induce the various rulers there to form themselves into single political entity.

Hence, they cannot be counted now as "factors" holding India together!!

If they can be the uniting factors, they would have achieved that outcome long before the British came.

If Sans is a uniting factor , then Sinhalese (claimed as Sans-derived) people should have also been in the Indian Union. They did not even want to claim or preserve affinity with India even though India was the birthplace of Buddha.

Sans - Hindus but they do not even want to share river waters. Why?

India was united in spiritual and Religious Sphere thousands of years before the advent of British. Thats why Adi Shankara was able to establish Mutt in remote north India to remotest South India.
Sharing of rivers has nothing to do with Hinduism. Its political opportunism. Why did Dravid Philosophies of having a Separate Dravida Naadu evoked a Poop reply from other States of South India. Thats because of Immense faith in Hinduism and India and Sanskrit.
How was Hinduism regenuvated in minds of people from the clutches of Budhism,Jainishm and Islam. Its because of Hinduism, Sanskrit and Great Vedic Culture. Its a "Hindu Thing" which you will never understand.

Eelavar

11th April 2006, 11:26 PM

What keep us together is our diversity !!
No one in this world can talk about superiority !

If a man ask you what was the first language ?
You must answer it was the language of God, nothing more.

mahadevan

11th April 2006, 11:30 PM

mahadevan

11th April 2006, 11:33 PM

Hey Indianxxx I do agree that Hinduism is a binding factor, though different versions of it praticed across the country. But how can a 'had been dead language' play that role ? wake up buddy

bis_mala

12th April 2006, 05:13 AM

indian224080

12th April 2006, 07:39 PM

Its a "Hindu Thing" which you will never understand.

We fully appreciate that you understand these innermost things very well. Otherwise why should we discuss with you.....?

On the Hindu thing, can you also explain why India is a declared secular country?
So what holds India together? Your secularism or your religious affinity?

Why DMK is also a part-ruling party in the centre? Because of Hinduism?

I am not against Hinduism but I am trying to "understand" your theory!!

India is secular because Hinduism is secular and tolerant. Why Pakistan and Bangladesh were not Secular? Why Malaysia though secural has Shariat binding? India is declared Secular because Secularism is the core of Sanatama Dharma.
DMK is a part of ruling party haa haa to coffer their funds thats it. They have no interest in Development of India nor TamilNadu.
If DMK is so pragmatic and Rational why are they so confused in choosing their allies. Congress once, CPI(M) next time, BJP the third time and now back again to Congress. They are confused souls who are not sure what wud happen to their party after the demise of their leader.
I dont know whether u dont understand the theory or pretend that u dont understand the theory.

indian224080

12th April 2006, 07:40 PM

Hey Indianxxx I do agree that Hinduism is a binding factor, though different versions of it praticed across the country. But how can a 'had been dead language' play that role ? wake up buddy

Sanskrit is not a Dead language. It has its several forms still being spoken not only in our country but also other countries. Apart from being revered by Billions. So a bunch of Rational Geekos cannot do a hoot on the Glory of such a language.

indian224080

12th April 2006, 07:43 PM

indianxxx wrote "India was united in spiritual and Religious Sphere thousands of years before the advent of British. Thats why Adi Shankara was able to establish Mutt in remote north India to remotest South India."

Christian Missionareis were able to establish churches across the globe does that mean that the entire world is united in christian spiritual and Religious Sphere ?

indianxxx wrote "Why did Dravid Philosophies of having a Separate Dravida Naadu evoked a Poop reply from other States of South India."

The movement did not spread much beyond the borders of TN

indianxxx wrote "How was Hinduism regenuvated in minds of people from the clutches of Budhism,Jainishm and Islam"

By Bakthi movement, that did not contain much from vedas. Its a "Hindu Thing" which you will never understand, all you know is vedic crap which is nothing but a blot on hinduism.

You are comparing Christian missionaries to Adi Sankara. Now i understand the depth of ur Rational brain. Why the so called intellectual thoughts of the so called great man did not even exceed the borders of TN thats because no one gave a hoot to Non Hindu thoughts. Remember TN was not even formed then. They were all united as Madras Presidency. Bhakti movement not to do with Vedas. U got to be smoking pot. I call tamil supremacists are the greatest blot in India.

stranger

12th April 2006, 08:28 PM

India is secular because Hinduism is secular and tolerant. .

:rotfl:

Why is america secular, then?

Let me guess, Is that because "highly tolerant" Hindus like you emigrated there ?! :lol:

bis_mala

12th April 2006, 10:29 PM

Thats because of Immense faith in Hinduism and India and Sanskrit

No leading politician from any of the other Southern states declared that his state would not join the Dravidian Fed. because of the reason that you are giving - Hinduism and Sans.....................................!! I cannot find it in any books I looked through. You are the first political scientist to make this discovery.

All religions are about the next world. There are no secular religions as you are claiming.

You formulated a theory but you have not proved it Mr Indian!!

Mahatma was saying: " I am the Hindu, I am the Muslim, I am the Christian, I am the Jew " and so on!! But Jinnah called him "a good Hindu."
He(J) would not "stand-by to see the British Rule replaced by the Hindu Rule." Nehru and Gandhi were vehemently denying that they were forming a Hindu state!!
That "India holds together because of Hinduism" is in fact a Pakistani theory. US Govt personalities (not presently) like H.K. and others have always referred to India as a Hindu state or Hindu majority state. You are in fact propagating the Pakistani theory....!!

I call tamil supremacists are the greatest blot in India.

Where are they? I do not see any in the hub!!

devapriya

22nd April 2006, 10:58 AM

Friends,

Please Read Sangam Lit, later Tholkappiyam, Tirukural, Silapathikaram and Mankmekhalai, all are dependant on Vedas and Sanskrit Puranas and Acknoledge them so.

Tamil writing was derived from SAnskrit's Branch, Pragrit and its development is explained in other posts.

Sanskrit words, like Sangam etc., to an extant of 33% and half that from Pali and Pragrit of Tamil Vocablory, which I have explained with Prof. Hart' words.

There is no Aryan or Artificial Dravidian, all creations of Missionaries method of Divide and Rule.

Tamil's Antiquity beyond 300 BCE is yet to be Proved, to the acceptance of Reputed Scholars.

Taking sANSKRIT names and Forgering to Tamil is the Techinique of Thani-Tamil Movement, and FSG does it with Bagiratha. Please quote literature of the releavant Lit of that Period and NOnSensical interpretaions of few biased scholars.

Devapriya

FloraiPuyal

22nd April 2006, 11:34 AM

devapriya

22nd April 2006, 11:52 AM

Dear Friends,

We have big problem due to the false probaganda by Missionaries and ThaniTamil movement and later Dravidian party Politicaians.

Asoka Inscriptions are in Pragrit as per Scholars, but those Scholars who Dechiphered and tranlated, first Transialarated to Sanskrit and only then they could achieve it. i,e., they were composed in Sanskrit and then written in Prakrit, clearly giving the antiquity of Sanskrit. Writings of Megasthanis confirms that Panini was in Existance atleast 100 years prior to him(BCE4th CEn) i.e., Panini can be 500BCE or earlier.

Every Sangam Lit refers to Vedas and Sanskrit Purana and also Tholkappiyam dated to 50-100CE, Tirukural, Manimekhalai and Silapathikaram tells much about Vedas. So please be open to truths.

Devapriya

mahadevan

23rd April 2006, 03:46 AM

Friends,

Please Read Rig veda later yajur, sama and atharvana veda and the vedanta all are dependant on Tamil lit and Tamil Puranas and do not Acknoledge them so, because of inferiority complex, that of an lowly artifical never existed language towards a beautiful natural language that has the longest continuim in the history of mankind .

sanskrit writing was derived from Tamil's Branch, Pragrit and its development is explained in other posts.

Sanskrit words, like Sangam etc., to an extant of 33% and half that from Pali and Pragrit of Tamil Vocablory, which I have explained with Prof. Hart' words.

There is Aryan and Dravidian, as higlighted by the vedic lit.

Sanskrit's Antiquity beyond 200 AD is yet to be Proved, to the acceptance of Reputed Scholars.

Taking Tamil names and Forgering to Sanskrit is the Techinique of vedic fanatic Movement, and solomon/devapriya does it with Bagiratha. Please quote literature of the releavant Lit of that Period and NOnSensical interpretaions of few biased scholars. (I really do not know what he meant by the last statement, solomon please do not expose your your total absence of knowledge this blatantly, please read your statements before posting.)

Devathidevapriya

Surya

23rd April 2006, 05:08 AM

Why is america secular, then?

Stranger Aunty,
America is an Xtian Nation, not a secular nation, it might become so because we hindus immigrated here. :poke: :tongueout: :oops: :lol2:

bis_mala

24th April 2006, 07:49 PM

Eelavar

25th April 2006, 03:45 AM

Sad to see how my beloved Tamil friends think. :cry:

Sanskrit and Tamil have the same root. And there is is no Aryan/Dravidian. :wink:

bis_mala

25th April 2006, 01:05 PM

Every Sangam Lit refers to ......... Sanskrit Purana

U can get the puranas even in English. But English is not the original.
Similarly..........!!

those Scholars who Dechiphered and tranlated, first Transialarated to Sanskrit and only then they could achieve it.

They knew only Sanskrit, so how else could they decipher? They looked for corresponding Sans word for each Prakrit word and then they could understand it. It clearly shows that Sans was refined or manufactured from the Prakrits.

dsath

25th April 2006, 03:36 PM

Sanskrit and Tamil have the same root.
Tamil and Sanskrit belongs to different family of languages.
Sanskrit is Indo-European while Tamil is not.

And there is is no Aryan/Dravidian. :wink:
I don't agree with the Aryan/Dravidian divide, because its blurred. May be its true, may be not. The evidence provided by both sides are hardly valid.
But that we Indians are made up of different groups of people from different parts of the world (Africa, Middle East, Europe and Central Asia) migrated over a period of time is undeniable.

bis_mala

29th April 2006, 04:55 AM

// Tamil and Sanskrit belongs to different family of languages.
Sanskrit is Indo-European while Tamil is not.//

This is right! Insofar as classification is concerned which was done in the 18/19 c. ACE. Since then much research has been done in linguistics. What is really Indo-European in Sanskrit is just one residual element of the language, the remainder being Dravidian, Munda and other elements. Sans may therefore be re-labelled as hybrid!

mahadevan

29th April 2006, 07:25 PM

bismala wrote: Sans may therefore be re-labelled as hybrid

That is an understatement, the artificial sanskrit is a perfect mongrel

chaipau

3rd May 2006, 12:13 PM

How can the great similiarity in faces between the less Dravidian looking Indians and the Europeans be explained? These groups look more similar to each other than any other ethnic groups.

Even medium dark skinned Indians often have the same basic face as the European.

Indian children will often have more of this European similiarity and then loose some of it as they become adults.

Did Europeans emerge from Indians, or did some proto-europeans living north of the Himalayas migrate both south into India where they mixed blood, and West to Europe?

It could possibly be that a set of Dravidians with what we call the more European looks, (less Indonesian looks) were segregated or self-segregated themselves. By interbreeding with themselves the "look" was amplified and became more distinct. Then at some point a group of these prototypes whose lower face protruded less forwards and whose noses were not so wide went north of the Himalayas, which then further differentiated their looks.

A part of this northern, lighter group could then have come back into India and with or without war made love to the beautiful medium and dark skinned Indians.

Thus, it could be all Dravidian in origin. And the Europeans could be former Dravidians.

If European historians misused the word Aryan, then so be it, but what they meant was people of a distinct population group north of the Himalayas came south into the Indus valley area and made love, and possibly war. Then this group likely set up or co-opted the caste system for their benefit.

With the first major wave of European trade with India it was noticed that there was a definate caste system, and a lot of those in the upper castes and in postions of power, especially in the north half of India, had either lighter skin or more European-like features. And still today we notice this trend, even in the popularity of Bollywood actors and actresses and music stars.

Or did the Mogul invasions cause the lighter skin and european like features? Are there any good records of what pure bred Moguls looked like? And do the Moguls have blue and green eyes?

But if Europeans were bred from Dravidians, where did their blue and green eyes come from?

Did ancient Dravidians perhaps chase off the rare child with blue or green eyes, and these outcastes all somehow found each other and made segregated population groups of blue and green eyed light skinned Dravidians?

The change in eye color seems hard to explain. Did it come about only in the group north of the Himalayas?

But so much of this must have happened in pre-history that it really doesn't matter, because a definitive answer will not be known. To be obsessed with these ideas one must have a motive. And what motive is that?

May I have another samosa please?

Cheers

Eelavar

3rd May 2006, 07:22 PM

dsath

3rd May 2006, 08:55 PM

Eelavar,
I don't want to discuss about the languages as it might stir of another controversy.
But regarding people, there is no one division but numerous. I would again like to reiterate that Indians as as diverse as the Europeans. Before the British came there was no one India, but different kingdoms.
What does Kerala have in common with Orrisa or Nagaland or Bihar or Rajasthan.

I think we should appreciate our differences and learn to live together as we are doing now. Glossing over the differences will have a roll back effect as it did in the erstwhile USSR.

chaipau

4th May 2006, 05:30 AM

As an American, I am curious to hear opinions on how many Indians recognize that they have a very similar genetic relationship to Europeans and Persians? Do Indians generally accept that they are Caucasian?

What about Indians with little schooling? Do they also understand they are caucasian, or closely related to Europeans?

The name Caucasian is of course a misnomer based on a mistaken assumption that arose in the early study of human population movements. It was thought Europeans originated in the Caucasus mountains area, due to some bones found there.

Later, more accurate studies of skeletal shape, head shape and other genetic markers placed Europeans in the same lineage as most Indians. I understand taxonomists are not concerned about skin color differences within the caucasion group. It's more about bones and teeth and bio-molecular markers.

What a strange twist of fate that the German Nazis were one of the first European groups to recognize this? And of course there was a movement in India pre-WW2 to align with Germany.

All Americans stereotype Indians as being either highly intelligent in math and science, or smart in business. This is largely true of Indians in America.

So it very well may be that there are some traits in the common Indian-European bloodlines that allow for greater abilities of abstract thought. And not only abstract thought, but also competitiveness. This seems true when one looks at cricket and sees that the Indians began as students of the British, and now regularly teach the British lessons.

So again, my question: Do most Indians understand and accept that they are caucasian?

Should the word "caucasian" be retired and replaced with Indo-European?

Cheers

Eelavar

5th May 2006, 01:45 AM

chaipau,

Happy to see an american here. :D

May i ask you if you are an indian-american or an european-american ?
:oops:

What a strange twist of fate that the German Nazis were one of the first European groups to recognize this? And of course there was a movement in India pre-WW2 to align with Germany.

Very true, even the Nazis adopted badly the Hindu symbol Swatiska...
Nazis were too passionated by Indian precious manuscripts..
Without beeing ethnocentric, i have some proofs that that Rocket science and so the spacial program (which was first restarted by Germans trough the Nazi regime !!) rebegan with the discoveries of precious and valuable Vedic books in India and Tibet, it is well know fact that germans 'travellers' were sent to find ola leaves manuscripts ..
Nazis tried to build the famous 'Vimana'...

After the deafeat of Nazism majority of those germans scientists went in America, founding the base of the NASA..

So again, my question: Do most Indians understand and accept that they are caucasian?

Should the word "caucasian" be retired and replaced with Indo-European?

Sir i cannot agree with this statement...
Why ?

Our root is not in the Caucas but in Kumari Kandam...
After the legend, the 3rd Great Deluge sunken this vast continent.
My theory is that Indians are Lemurians and not Caucasians, but if we accept that caucasians are too really lemurians so i accept that i'm a caucasian. :roll: :wink:

kannannn

5th May 2006, 05:35 AM

Without beeing ethnocentric, i have some proofs that that Rocket science and so the spacial program (which was first restarted by Germans trough the Nazi regime !!) rebegan with the discoveries of precious and valuable Vedic books in India and Tibet, it is well know fact that germans 'travellers' were sent to find ola leaves manuscripts ..
Nazis tried to build the famous 'Vimana'...
Eelavar, could you present those proofs? I am particularly interested about the 'Vimana'. Perhaps some sources to show that the so-called vedic people were well versed in aerodynamics..

chaipau

5th May 2006, 08:35 AM

Eelavar:

I am European American.

1) OK, let me phrase my question a different way. Do most Indians understand that Caucasian is a misnomer, and that actually Persians and Europeans likely branched off of the people in the area now called India? As opposed to being a branch off of African or Semite?

2) Do Indians generally think themselves more closely related to Europeans than Africans or East Asians?

3) Or do Indians think themselves in the middle between Africans, East Asians and Persian/Europeans?

Assuming the answer to 1, 2 or 3 is "yes", then do Indians also generally make the next step in the logic to see that the Aryans who came to India at some point and either made love, or make love and war, were originally from the area called India many generations earlier?

Am I uneducated about India to preface a question with "Do Indians think...." because of major differences in thought between the various ethnic groups and regions?

In America, most Americans think the same "stuff", with some major differences only in the religious ideas and to some degree there are differences amoungst economic groups and left/right political ideologies.

For instance, most Americans accept evolution and most Americans understand their ancestors originated in Africa, but most Americans do not think they are more closely related to Indians than Africans, because, for reasons of eductional neglect, this idea is not widely taught in the schools.

It is common in the USA to teach about the Aryan invasion, without giving information about who the Aryans were and where they originally came from. This information is given rather briefly - perhaps 3-4 pages of a textbook for the children in grade 9 or 10 is devoted to India.

This leaves most Americans inaccurately thinking they (the Europeans and European Americans) are a direct branch off Africans.

Lemurian? OK, so if Tamils think they descended from Lemuria, then do they think all the poeple of India are Lemurians?

Cheers

kannannn

5th May 2006, 09:25 PM

For instance, most Americans accept evolution
Wrong!!! 55% of the Americans believe in 'Intelligent Design', a fancy word for creationism. In fact, the more you go into the 'Bible Belt', the more immersed in conservative thoughts you find them to be.

Eelavar

5th May 2006, 11:12 PM

Chaipau,

Europeans are related to Indians there is not doubt for me...
If we analyse Nordic European languages there are clearly a common link with the so-called Dravidian language..
http://www.datanumeric.com/dravidian/index.html

For instance, most Americans accept evolution

There are many Americans who still don't understand , accept Darwin's theory..
Will you deny this fact ?

Kannan, i will post that, don't you want to open a new thread about Vimanas and vedic science ?

Because this subject have nothing to do here...

kannannn

8th May 2006, 03:08 AM

Kannan, i will post that, don't you want to open a new thread about Vimanas and vedic science ?

Because this subject have nothing to do here...
Thank you. Please post here:
http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=3215
I have also made a correction to your post there.

jenraj

8th May 2006, 09:03 AM

Dear Kannann,

In regards to aerodynamic, you may want to look thru this website. http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Vimanas.htm

You will discover interesting facts.

Jenraj

devapriya

8th May 2006, 03:54 PM

Friends,

Sanskrit was the mother of Greek and Latin and thereby to almost all Major Euopean Languages, and Vedas have much of superior Science than Bible, Hence Indologists felt that Native Indians cannot be that Brilliant, now Genetic speculations put those arriving date at 10,000BCE or earlier, again rubbish.

Other Theroy is that Africans were One Race and Indians were another, Indians who moved to Europe became more white and are the IndoEuropean race. Both African and IndoEuropeans came to India and mix gave us mixed groups.

The name Dravidian does not come earlier than 600CE.

The Brahmi Scripts are the source of Tholkappiyam i.e. the Tamil Grammer Book dated 50-100CE, and Brahmi Scripts are based on Sanskrit though the earliest versions are in Prakrit, details in my next post
Devapriya

dsath

8th May 2006, 04:00 PM

The name Dravidian does not come earlier than 600CE.

Do you date Mahabharatam to be in 600CE ? Because i think there are references to the Pandya and chola kings as Dravida in it (i think).

devapriya

8th May 2006, 04:13 PM

Friends,

Aryan in Puranic Lits and Sangam refers as Noble or Northeners.

For South, it started as 6th Cen. Tiramiza SANGAM in Madurai, and AdiSAnkara refers Gnanasambandhanar as Dravida Sisu, refering Southern region, these are the earliest reference.
Devapriya

srivatsan

8th May 2006, 06:11 PM

The name Dravidian does not come earlier than 600CE.

Do you date Mahabharatam to be in 600CE ? Because i think there are references to the Pandya and chola kings as Dravida in it (i think).

Can Some one tell me what is this Common Era or CE....I know Mahabharatha Happened in the end of Dwapara Yuga. The present year since the beginning of Kali Yuga is around 5100 years. Yes there is a mention about Pandya King and also Chola king... Even IN Ramayanam Pandya kingdom is spoken....

srivatsan

8th May 2006, 06:13 PM

chaipau

9th May 2006, 05:25 AM

To Eelavar and Kannann:

Virtually all Americans (USA) and I think I can speak for Europeans accept the basic theory of evolution, namely that life forms evolved from simpler to more complex creatures, and that humans have in the ape a recent ancestor.

Intelligent Design or Creationism is a way that some Christian sects try to explain some of the many holes or missing data in the history of evolution.

This is simply spillover from the spiritual feeling into the realm of the empirical. It is a common and normal brain function.

As the missing data in the history of evolution is filled in, this tendency to filling in the blanks with spirituality or religion will go away. If the blanks are not filled in, then the tendency may remain for a very long time.

The Catholics have officially abandoned Creationism and Intelligent Design, though some Catholic individuals may still entertain the idea.

But, my point was only that by my experience, most Americans (USA) think European stock is a branch off African, as opposed to what the geneticists claim, that the Europeans are a branch off Indian, or (H)Indu.

Regarding Kannannn's tag line :Religion has a way of making people abandon logic"

Thank God and Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva for that abandonment!

Yet, the statement is self accusatory, as "faith" in logic is also a religion, known as rationalism or positivism. Like a religion, the faith in logic requires a "leap of faith" as it can't be grounded on anything, since the identity equation 1=1, upon which logic is based, is now generally understood to be a fantasy and likely just an economic tool. The merely human invention of logic only makes it a human invention, not something that would still exist if there were no humans.

Logic and empirical observation/validation are not the same thing.

That by way of observation and recordation extrapolations can be made to predict future positions of matter or changes in energy is a brain feature that in the animal world we call "cunning". There is nothing inherantly "noble" in logic, unless of course one calls the mongoose or angler fish "noble". Yet that is what we do with the phrase "the noble lion" : we refer to it's hunting strategy, it's cunning, it's culling of the weak members of the herd, and the way it kills without passion or bad conscience.

Darwinian (for children and sheep) version of Evolution: change in form of a creature due to mutation, adaptation and natural selection.

Yet the words "mutation", "adaptation" and "natural selection"are linguistic constructs which of course need further elaboration and in fact they are deceptive constructs in that they attempt to explain with a word that which still so far has not been explained. All explanations are only accepted due to the process of stopping at some point the asking of the question "why".

A sure way to get a poor grade in school is to expose the limits of the professor's knowledge in front of other students by continually asking the question "why" to whatever answer is given. This process will run anyone into the walls of their linguistically constructed cage of consciousness. The professor then feels embarassed, his/her pride is damaged, rumination is set up and thoughts of revenge against the student appear in the mind out of thin air. These thoughts come and go for a period of a couple days, gradually attenuating, but then later when grades are to be handed out the submerged thoughts of revenge will consciously or even unconsciously negatively impact the inquisitive (Socratic) student.

"Selection" implies judgement, a purely conscious attribute. So then, is Nature conscious?

"Mutation" seeks to hide the fact of the basically chaotic fundamental of matter and energy. This use of the word 'mutation" is a metaphor for the phrase "I don't know".

"Adaptation" sounds nice, doesn't it? It's a hopeful word. How wonderful that they adapt! Shall we throw a party? The malicious cruelty of nature is disguised with this word, to disguise the way in which "logic" would lead one to conclude by extension that humans are essentially malicious at their core.

Nietzschean (for adults and shepherds (leaders)) version of Evolution: change in form of a creature due to chaotic changes in molecules, predation and evironmental stressing.

That which does not kill, strengthens.

There is no attempt at obfuscation with this explanation. Life is defined as molecular assemblies that selfishly and blindly seek their own advantage in a hostile environment, and because of a hostile environment. How wonderful!
.
Thus evolution is of necessity cruel. Every strong stable species is one that has endured a long history of cruelty and trauma. Like the Jews, for instance, and the Indus, two groups that still believe in God, and whose survival and stability depend on this belief.

It is often hard for people to accept that by the process of world domination and eugenics the Nazi's were attempting to strengthen the human race. They were positivists. They saw themselves as modern extensions of Brahmins, and the first ubermensch, or Super Humans. The Nazi's were cunning, culled the herd, and killed without passion or bad conscience, like the Lion, thus by extension they were Noble (Aryan).

In the cold world of logical positivism, the ends justify the means.

I would rather live next door to any religious person than a positivist, assuming they were not grouchy. Here in the USA, many positivists are corrupt business titans and politicians, and amoung those without power, they tend towards nihilism, intoxication, distraction (entertainment) and petty materialisms.

The USA was made a superpower by Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Emperor Hirohito, with some later help by Mao.

So much for logic.

So I hope Kannannn's tag line is meant facetiously.

Cheers

PS: Women tend to be bored by logic, again, Thank You God, Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva ! They prefer to dance.

PS again: logic can neither create music or art. The horribly boring and depressing Soviet housing projects of the 50's and 60's were an example of what logic can do for architecture.

See this link to "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense" for a deconstruction of logic and "truth".

http://www.msu.org/intro/content_intro/texts/nietzsche/nietzsche2.html

devapriya

17th May 2006, 01:36 PM

[tscii:15e6046aca]Friends,

I have explained that this Aryan and Dravidian myth started with knowing Sanskrit' s Depth. I QUOTE Bloomfield here -
//. 267-276): ‘The descriptive Grammar of Sanskrit, which Panini, brought to its highest perfection, is one of the greatest monument of human intelligence and (what concerns us more) an indispensable model for description of languages. The only achievement in our field, which can take rank with it is the historical linguistics of the nineteenth century and this indeed owed its origin largely to Europe’s acquaintance with the Indian Grammar. One forgot that the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European languages got its start only when the Paninian analysis of an Indo-European language became known in Europe…If the accentuation of Sanskrit and Greek, for instance had been unknown, Verner could not have discovered the Pre-Germanic sound change, that goes by his name. Indo-European Comparative Grammar had (and has) at its service, only one complete description of a language, the grammar of Panini. For all other Indo-European languages it had only the traditional grammars of Greek and Latin woefully incomplete and unsystematic.’…//

Devapriya[/tscii:15e6046aca]

bis_mala

17th May 2006, 02:34 PM

Bloomfield somewhat anachronistically applied the term Sanskrit here. Panini did not write his grammar for Sans, for this artificial language was not coined as yet by then.

PaNiNi is a Tamil word, forged from the word: paaN > paaNan > paaNini.
Quite clearly, the north got its grammar from the South.

I have explained that this Aryan and Dravidian myth started with

Aryan --- myth!!
Dravidian --- not a myth!!

Eelavar

17th May 2006, 09:38 PM

Bismala,

Aryan --- myth!!
Dravidian --- not a myth!!

I guess that it means that the ancestor of all indians came from the southern part of India ?
Personnaly i too think that..

My explanation is linked to the existence of Kumari (Lemuria) continent between East Africa and Australia....

bis_mala

18th May 2006, 07:52 AM

I guess that it means that the ancestor of all indians came from the southern part of India ?
Personnaly i too think that..

:clap: Exactly so!!

Eelavar

18th May 2006, 10:04 PM

The USA was made a superpower by Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Emperor Hirohito, with some later help by Mao.

Hum hum.. :roll:

How USA became an economical and military superpower ?

This response is in the history of USA since his beginning...
Europeans found America and made it their home negleting the natives who were massacred and were put in limited camps called 'Reserves'... Like the jews by Nazi some years later.

This is a sad history of colonisation. After the founding of western coast with the help of the Natives, the real colonisation began, colonies rised along the western coast of the actual USA. :(

Personnaly i'm not against the mixing in the condition that each peope respect the other, unfortunately it was not the case in South and North America. Unfortunate but true.. :cry:

The great finding announced the birth of a nation...
Natives population felt down while millions of American dreamers began to do their luggages for America..
Many Europeans left the 'Old Europa' for the new one..
It is at this time that USA's economy rised a lot. Industry needed many labors. At this time it was not very hard to find a little job.

Now why USA is militarely a superpower ?

The answer is in the 1st World War.
USA was made a superpower by Britishes and Frenchs, not Hitler and Stalin...

It was G.B and FR who asked USA's help and , so in the same occasion aided the developpment of a real military industry in USA....

It's simple as that.. USA's intervention made them a superpower...

chaipau

19th May 2006, 03:15 AM

Eelavar:

At the time of WW1, the USA still had a significan rural population and was very much secondary to Europe as an industrial power.

After WW1 the USA demilitarized, and maintained little additional military presence outside of the 50 states than it had before WW2.

The USA after WW1 was isolationist.

After WW2 the USA maintained significant military presence outside the 50 states. Since WW2 the USA has increased it's military strength year after year due to the cold war and other global tensions.

Every superpower is made by other powers contending with it and losing. This is the law of the jungle, which is also operative in India.

Ever since India ejected some people to it's north, possibly because they looked different, those people have been moving North, West and East. If one did not arbitrarily set a breakpoint in history, but saw all history as continuous cause and effect, then the emergence of the USA could be blamed on the ancient people of India, and Africa before that. We could go back further and blame some apes.

Every person or group of persons choses a breakpoint in history that suits it's aims and motivations. Everyone wants to wear a halo and be considered pious.

Now the situation comes full circle as many US companies outsource customer service to India, and the USA moves towards nuclear cooperation with India, the place of it's ancient ancestry. A large number of Indians are educated in Europe and USA, and are benevolently allowed to seek employement there, holding down wages for the natives. Some of India's excess of children are sent to Europe and the USA for adoption.

It has also largely been the West, as well as some Buddhists and Moslems who have been nagging India to do something about it's very humanly concocted caste system that maintains a dysfuntional underclass(caste) for the benefit of the upper class(caste).

So really the world is one big dirty Ganges river with some people trying to have some dignity and trying to show others the way, while some continue to try to submerge others and stand on their heads so they don't have to swim or tread water.

And who knows, perhaps oneday the USA will attack India and lose, and India will become a Superpower. And then all the lesser powers will blame everything that's wrong with the world on India. First in line to blame India will be Pakistan, second in line will be Sri Lanka.

That's how it goes. Round and round and round. Where it stops, nobody knows.

By the way, one has to note that the Europeans came to the Americas as did the West Indians, but from different directions. Yet both groups came out of India! North and South American Indian tribes warred amongst each other, committed really obscene atrocities on each other and kept slaves and superstitions. All this they brought with them from India by way of Asia. When the other Indians, by way of Europe, arrived in the Americas, they too wanted to fight. Everyobody was in a fighting mood. As humans have been throughout human history. Take a look at Indian history!

Yes, Indians (Indus) can take credit for a lot of math and some developement of civilization, but they should also be credited as being one of the primary groups to invent evil and disseminate it to other parts of the world.

Africans, though they also invented evil and most likely taught those who became the Indus, actually did far less to disseminate it than did the Indus.

Unless of course you just choose to move the breakpoint of analysis back to the early African civilizations, in which case we can blame them for everything that has happened since.

I'm sorry I have no recipes to offer as I am a beginner at cooking.

Cheers

devapriya

21st May 2006, 02:23 PM

Friends,

Panini does use the Word Sanskrit- So what? What stops that from His great work.

Thiruvalluvar has not used the word Tamil anywhere.

On north India and its earlier Heritage-going upto BCE1500, more in next posts

Devapriya

Eelavar

21st May 2006, 03:26 PM

devapriya,

Thiruvalluvar has not used the word Tamil anywhere.

AND ???

DeVa, TN's heritage go back to 6000BC.

bis_mala

21st May 2006, 06:48 PM

Panini does use the Word Sanskrit- So what? What stops that from His great work.

You mean "does not use".

Thiruvalluvar has not used the word Tamil anywhere.

ThiruvaLLuvar was not writing grammar verses for any language. Defective comparison!!

On north India and its earlier Heritage-going upto BCE1500, more in next posts

It's high time we have some solid evidence. Does north India mean Sans here? North (place) existed for long time before Sans ever saw the daylight!! .

chaipau

23rd May 2006, 03:17 AM

The debate as to the origins of Sanskrit and higher civilization in India only serves to make my larger point about the historical continuum.

Genetic anthropologists think by their evidence that people from Africa first settled the West and South of India. This may be due to coastal travel by canoe.

Language is thought to have already developed to some degree by the time of the first humans in India.

If people migrated to the Northern parts of India from the south, then of course the north linguistically built upon what it already had unless language skills were lost by those who moved north and them re-invented from scratch which seems ludicrous.

So it may be technically interesting in an historical or anthropological sense to try to figure out exactly what contribution to the language should be attributed to which groups in what periods.

This means one not only traces the changes over time, but the magnitude of the changes. Most scholars seem to think that Northern India contributed a greater magnitude of change in the language than did the south.

However, as Sanskrit died out more or less, then what can we really say of it? It went the way of Latin.

When something is really, really useful, like the wheel, or the lightbulb (in any of it's incarnations) it does not disappear from human usage. Then to argue over which group gave rise to Sanskrit, or contributed the greater part of Sanskrit, may not be an argument over something great, but something discarded.

The real importance to the study of Sanskrit and Latin is to see how people thought in ancient times. The organization of a language tells about the organization of the speakers world view.

And typically when one surveys the entire planet, it becomes obvious that the hotter the climate, the less invention has come from that region. This may be explained simply by noting how difficult it is to think when it is hot and/or humid. In fact, all you can think about is how to get some relief.

Of course there are exceptions, like North American Indians who invented almost nothing at all. But that may be attributable to the plentitude of the land they inhabited, which well provided for basic needs. In fact, when some North American Indians first encountered the way Europeans could communicate by written word they attributed that ability to magic. It simply baffled these Indians that language could be reduced to symbols that could be written and then deciphered by another person. This phenomenon can be seen portrayed in the film "Dances with Wolves".

And so the question, "what is meaningful about the origins of Sanskrit?"

Also, assuming language was verbal before written, if we are to assume Sanskrit was in use first in the south of India, might it not have begun in Africa, long before it was ever written?

What if it began in Sri Lanka, and then came back to the mainland, and there's no way to know?

And what does it mean to suggest that Sanskrit began in the South of India, but was then developed to it's full bloom in the North? Does this suggest something relatively deficient in the southerners (TN)?

Or did the southerns just lose interest due to the heat and humidity?

Or did the language bloom in the south, but due to the inaccuracy and spottiness of the historical record, it only appears to have bloomed in the north? What if Panini only recorded rules of grammar that had been developed elsewhere?

Note the climate where Panini lived. Long cold winters. Plenty of time to sit around and write.

Cheers

FloraiPuyal

23rd May 2006, 05:19 AM

chaipau, you are freaking me out with your long posts. Its gonna take me a couple of weekends to read all of them. :)

happyindian

23rd May 2006, 08:44 AM

Also, assuming language was verbal before written, if we are to assume Sanskrit was in use first in the south of India, might it not have begun in Africa, long before it was ever written?

Chaipau,

The debate by Tamil speakers is for some reason restricted to comparisons b/w Tamil and Sanskrit.

No one spends time or energy comparing Tamil with languages (spoken / written) that originated in Egypt, Sudan or Ethiopia. Neither do the Tamil protagonists here want to understand the neuro-cognitive basis for language development skills in humans.

From wikipedia:

Moreover, all languages are subject to processes of language change. Languages change inevitably in their vocabulary and phonology as old speakers die and are replaced by younger ones. Some linguists have hypothesized that this process is inevitable; linguistic drift, like genetic drift, could be used to set up a time framework. If linguistic change is inevitable, some have put forth the theory that there might exist a curtain in time behind which the relationships between languages, even if valid, are irrecoverable.

Most thinkers and philosopers of India like Aurobindo, Adi Shakaracharya, etc, were of belief that both Sanskrit and Tamil originated from a common proto-type language. But we do not know on what basis they came to that conclusion; though we certainly know that they were well-read and must have had some basis for coming to that conclusion.

The hatered for Sanskrit comes bcoz of Tamil political ideology which in a more or less way has nothing to do with factual language development skills in humans.

I have yet to see Cantonese fighting with the Hakka on whose language is the oldest :roll:

Of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_language

bis_mala

23rd May 2006, 01:09 PM

Most thinkers and philosopers of India like Aurobindo, Adi Shakaracharya, etc, were of belief that both Sanskrit and Tamil originated from a common proto-type language.

You may wish to read Swami Njanapragasam's research. He provides grounds.
But thereupon the Sanskritists start claiming that Tamil was derived from Sanskrit and tried to obliterate the question of any proto-language.

The hatered for Sanskrit comes bcoz of Tamil political ideology

There is no hatred for any language, be it Sans or any other.

What ideology? I'm not aware of any. I do not think any other here has adverted to any such ideology. Interest - pure and simple in linguistics.
That's all.
Sans people may have some political or other ideology. To somehow make Sans the national language of India in place of Hindi. I wish them well.

Eelavar

23rd May 2006, 06:02 PM

Genetic anthropologists think by their evidence that people from Africa first settled the West and South of India. This may be due to coastal travel by canoe.

Canoe ?? :roll:

I prefer the theory of Lemuria.. Which too can explain why the lemurian monkeys are only present in East Africa, Indian Ocean's Islands , India, and other South East Asia countries..
This theory explain too why East Africa India Sri lanka and the other countries have physically and chemistrely the same ground...

A big continent joined India to East Africa...
I think it's the missing link betweem Africans and Indians...

Our ancestors should have be born in the actual Indian ocean and not East Africa as known... When this continent began to sunk, human were separated in two groups which gave birth to the Africans and the Indians...

It's my theory...

If something is not very logic please tell me. :wink:

happyindian

23rd May 2006, 06:27 PM

You may wish to read Swami Njanapragasam's research. He provides grounds.
But thereupon the Sanskritists start claiming that Tamil was derived from Sanskrit and tried to obliterate the question of any proto-language.
That's news to me. Haven't heard of such a theory b4. True there have bn (and are) Sanskrit supremists....and its a shame. If only language cud simply bn what it is -- merely a communication tool and nothing more or less.

There is no hatred for any language, be it Sans or any other.

What ideology? I'm not aware of any. I do not think any other here has adverted to any such ideology. Interest - pure and simple in linguistics.
That's all.
Sans people may have some political or other ideology. To somehow make Sans the national language of India in place of Hindi. I wish them well.

:lol: Really Mala????? That is news to me too. This forum is littered with this thing :wink:

Anyways, for starters: the question is not whether any language is derived from the other but that SOME
a) Tamils want a seperate nation based on many things (below) of which language politics is a mere extension. Hence, the concentrated anger towards Sanskrit ie.,against northern aryans.
b) Tamils reject Hindi as the official Indian national language.
c) Tamils consider themselves different from northern "aryans".
d) Tamils consider themselves the oldest / earliest 'single' (pure?) race on Earth.
And as a passing note, perhaps SOME
e) Tamils consider themselves as the best & infallible race from which all inventions and discoveries on earth came to exist.

PS: Sanskrit was never in the pic as a national language candidate simply coz classical languages cannot be taught to entire masses. So that again that is a Tamil theory.

kannannn

23rd May 2006, 06:59 PM

Anyways, for starters: the question is not whether any language is derived from the other but that SOME
a) Tamils want a seperate nation based on many things (below) of which language politics is a mere extension. Hence, the concentrated anger towards Sanskrit ie.,against northern aryans.
Please quote the posts to support your view.

b) Tamils reject Hindi as the official Indian national language.
It is the blatantly forceful implementation of Hindi that Tamils are against.

c) Tamils consider themselves different from northern "aryans".
Even if Tamils considered themselves to be different, what is the problem? Real unity comes out of acknowledging our differences and still staying together. That's what Tamils want. Forced and artificial unity will lead us the USSR way.

d) Tamils consider themselves the oldest / earliest 'single' (pure?) race on Earth.
And as a passing note, perhaps SOME
e) Tamils consider themselves as the best & infallible race from which all inventions and discoveries on earth came to exist.
You might actually want to direct this observation at our fellow hubbers, who have made it a mission to prove the superiority of the so called 'vedic people'. What you get then is an instinctive reaction for which Tamils can't be blamed.

happyindian

23rd May 2006, 07:19 PM

supersonic

23rd May 2006, 10:36 PM

I am totally surpriced that this baseless thread has successfully passed 7 pages....I'm a Tamilian but I dont know why some people hav so much hatred towards Sans. May be you tamil protogonists wants to survive by calling names about other languages?

I have moved with several sans scholars and I have seen almost all of them hav great reverence towards Tamil. They think, themselves to be complete only if they know good tamil while they are scholars in sanskrit...

My dear fellow tamilians, stop hating others , only then you will be loved by others...

bis_mala

24th May 2006, 01:30 AM

kannannn

24th May 2006, 03:54 AM

Kannan wrote:
Even if Tamils considered themselves to be different, what is the problem? Real unity comes out of acknowledging our differences and still staying together. That's what Tamils want. Forced and artificial unity will lead us the USSR way.
That's a nice view for a change from a Tamil. No more Dr.No Brain Neduns / LTTE cadets baying for innocent blood on such forums I guess.
I am deeply offended by this observation. Do you want to imply that all Tamils are 'No Brains'? You are still to quote the posts that led you to believe Tamils want a seperate nation.

True that forced unity will lead us the USSR way. But you forgot USSR was a communist country like China is 2day and India is a democracy raising the bottom-way up. There is simply no place for force, if there is, the govt. does not come back to power.
It is democracy that has allowed us to voice our protests against supremacist attitude of certain section of people and still remain united. It is anyone's guess as to what would have happened if the central government had it's way in 1950's and 60's through force.

The truth is that the evil treatment from SLA has gotten LTTE to intice Indian Tamils into joining hands with them to fight anything to do with the 'aryans' or an unified India. Its merely a result of the need for survival, for a seperate home country. And that need is played upon as inspiration for the masses using the ideology of Dravidian Supremacy. Do correct me if I am wrong. Thx.

You are wrong and very wrong at that! :banghead: Our government sees it right to warn Fuji when a person of Indian descent is overthrown in military coup. OTOH, when we support another legitimate struggle, we are called traitors. :( :(

Anyway, what has the Eelam struggle got to do with the discussion on Tamil roots of words?!

Eelavar

24th May 2006, 04:11 AM

happyindian,

please don't talk nosense.,

supersonic

24th May 2006, 04:48 AM

This is how judgments are passed here:

If you say that a certain word is Tamil and has Tamil root words then you must be acting under hatred for Sanskrit.

If you say that a certain word is Sanskrit and has Sans root words, then you are a very balanced person full of love for Tamil and also Sans.

If you are saying that Tamil is older than Sans, you are acting under hatred for Sanskrit.

If you are saying that Sans is older than Tamil, then you are full of love for Tamil and also for Sanskrit. Very balanced person.

In any event, all those who are saying that a certain word is Tamil or Tamil is older have some political agenda. TO SPLIT UP EXISTING LEGALLY CONSTITUTED NATIONS ON EARTH. LTTE CADRES AND ANTI INDIC.

These are the rules of jurisprudence strictly followed by our intellectuals here!! Well, keep it up guys!!

Well...if you are good in Thamizh ilkkanam, you have all rights to think and claim that a particular word is from Thamizh. But I see in many of your threads, you are calling Sanskrit, an artificial languge, a dead langauge and what not....This I dont think is very good....If U want to say, some word has a Thamizh root, state is obsolutely and not in reference with Sanskrit....

happyindian

24th May 2006, 11:45 AM

Mala wrote:
This is how judgments are passed here:

If you say that a certain word is Tamil and has Tamil root words then you must be acting under hatred for Sanskrit.

If you say that a certain word is Sanskrit and has Sans root words, then you are a very balanced person full of love for Tamil and also Sans.

If you are saying that Tamil is older than Sans, you are acting under hatred for Sanskrit.

If you are saying that Sans is older than Tamil, then you are full of love for Tamil and also for Sanskrit. Very balanced person.

In any event, all those who are saying that a certain word is Tamil or Tamil is older have some political agenda. TO SPLIT UP EXISTING LEGALLY CONSTITUTED NATIONS ON EARTH. LTTE CADRES AND ANTI INDIC.

These are the rules of jurisprudence strictly followed by our intellectuals here!! Well, keep it up guys!!

You said it all Mala, no one else did. Perhaps you cud substitute Tamil for Sanskrit and vice-versa in your post above and read it-- it may appear as something from a Sankrit adherent's point of view just as your post sounds typical of a Tamil adherent's point of view.

Your second last para is only for me ofcourse. No no one is saying a certain word in Tamil is older or Sanskrit is older. Let them be. Am glad that you do not believe in splitting up legally constituted nations due to something as silly as politics, much less language politics.

Kannan Wrote:

I am deeply offended by this observation. Do you want to imply that all Tamils are 'No Brains'? You are still to quote the posts that led you to believe Tamils want a seperate nation. Am sorry you jumped the gun Kannan. I certainly think I have some brain :P due to the fact that am a semi-tamilian of sorts :D . But again I apologise that I perhaps did not write clearly. No I have never said Tamils are No-Brains. It was another matter from another time there was a guy called Nedunchezian on this hub who kept justifying LTTE's position of killing innocent Indians to further their cause of a seperate home-land (the guy wanted a seperate Tamil-Nadu as a seperate country together with an independent Lanka as a homeland for Tamils & yeah he has many supporters - there are too many threads on this - read them if u r interested). Actually there is nothing wrong when someone wants their own homeland. After all SLA has been v.evil (wht with all those murderous monks controlling things). But then there is also nothing wrong when someone wants a united India. Both views are justified and right -- its like two good people in one bad marriage.

It is democracy that has allowed us to voice our protests against supremacist attitude of certain section of people and still remain united. It is anyone's guess as to what would have happened if the central government had it's way in 1950's and 60's through force. Agree with u.

You are wrong and very wrong at that! Our government sees it right to warn Fuji when a person of Indian descent is overthrown in military coup. OTOH, when we support another legitimate struggle, we are called traitors. I do not understand the Fuji connection. What is it?

Anyway, what has the Eelam struggle got to do with the discussion on Tamil roots of words?! Absolutely nothing. I hope.

Posted my view to see what kind of responses it wud elicit. Nice to see ppl hv behaved in a mature and cultured manner. :D

dsath

24th May 2006, 02:27 PM

[tscii:5d8fe247db]As of being proud of one's identity and differentiating from all others, not only Tamilians almost all states in India have this attitude. Ask a Bengali what is the best cuisine in India and without batting an eyelid he/she would say its Bengali and will be proud of their language and culture as well and consider it the best in India. After all our National Anthem is Bengali.
The same would be the case with any other state in India.
So as a Tamilian myself i don't have to defend being proud of my language, culture and what not. Why should I?
I am not a linguist and don’t know how to read roots words and such stuff. So I don’t know which language came from which and honestly don’t care. At the end of the day we have millions of people speaking Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu …etc, but not one speaking Sanskrit. For me Sanskrit is like Latin of the Western World, which is meant for the elite and has lost its significance in recent times.

This thread has gone from A to Z all the way. Started as a thread to find out if there is any such thing as an Aryan or is it all cooked up?
Now the debate seems more like Tamil Vs Sanskrit.
Why do we have to disintegrate all threads like this? :(
I am very interested in knowing what the origins of Aryan (if it exists or existed). If there is no such thing as Aryan, then who invented it and for what purpose? :roll:
Any takers!!!!!!![/tscii:5d8fe247db]

bis_mala

24th May 2006, 08:34 PM

a) Tamils want a seperate nation based on many things (below) of which language politics is a mere extension. Hence, the concentrated anger towards Sanskrit ie.,against northern aryans.

Where did you get all this from? If you are talking about Tamiz Ezam, then Sanskrit is not relevant at all. I have never said in any of my posts that Tamils want a separate nation or that I am in support of such an agenda. How could wrestling with Sanskrit a language no longer in use except for liturgical purpose be a factor in any group's effort for separate homeland? You need to elaborate on this: how does Sanskrit become involved in the quest for (the imagined) separate nation ? So how do you conceive "language politics" as an extension?

b) Tamils reject Hindi as the official Indian national language.

I have not written anything about Hindi anywhere. I am not an Indian. I understand that those who reject Hindi are ministers in the Central Govt of India. So why bring it up here?

c) Tamils consider themselves different from northern "aryans".

Who are the northern aryans you are referring to? Do these northern aryans consider themselves ethnically same as the Tamils. Can you point out to me passages from their writings or speeches on record? This will be very interesting to know.

d) Tamils consider themselves the oldest / earliest 'single' (pure?) race on Earth.

One of the oldest in the world - from Lemuria. They have considered themselves so for the past 2 or 3 thousands or more years. This "consideration" was not developed as against the Indian polity or against any other language such as Sanskrit or Avestan or Hebrew - whatever And if I am not mistaken, the one who "documented" this in his treatise was not from what would be the present day TN. I do not understand your objection or aversion to it!! Would you care to enlighten me?

And as a passing note, perhaps SOME
e) Tamils consider themselves as the best & infallible race from which all inventions and discoveries on earth came to exist.

I have never said these ridiculous things anywhere. Please let me know how you arrived at this statement.

FloraiPuyal

25th May 2006, 01:12 AM

For dsath's questions:

European experts like Max Mueller were baffled by the similarities between european languages and indian languages. So they needed an explanation for this similarity. Generally Asia was considered to be under-developed and Europeans were of the idea that Europe was much advanced than Asia.

When linguists tried to analyze the similarities between Indian and European languages, they found that one Indian language, sanskrit, could actually explain word formation and relation between similar sounding words. So they came to the conclusion that all Indo-European languages originated from sanskrit.

Now, with the discovery of the harappan civilization, which , to the then scholars, did not show any signs of advancement, Europeans were again troubled to find the roots. There seems to be a discontinuity between these. To add more confusion, some languages that are still spoken in that area, resembled the south indian languages. Also, the south indian languages looked entirely different to them. Also, many Indian scholars believed that any word that is similar in south indian languages and sanskrit should have been borrowed from sanskrit.

...to be continued.

FloraiPuyal

25th May 2006, 01:13 AM

This made them decide that "The first civilization of India was harappan, then a bunch of nomads from central asia attacked these people and drove them south. They were aryans and they brought sanskrit with them. " This is mostly due to misinterpretaion of vedas by Europeans, who can never understand any of the Indian languages fully.

This theory was immediately accepted by the Europeans since, they could not think outside the bible and any civilization that could have existed before that period is impossible for them. ( this can be seen from the activities of Christian missionaries - they say they are teaching us to be civilized. The same thing happened in China, where millions were converted to Christianity to become civilized. ) Indian scholars were at the mercy of the British at that time and so they had to accept this theory as well. It is a sad fact that some politicians (better to avoid names) supported this theory, so that India can be in better relationships with Europeans.

... to be continued.

FloraiPuyal

25th May 2006, 01:22 AM

Now to find the truth, we have to concentrate on various aspects - language, culture, faiths, myths, legends and fears.

To begin with, we will consider only the languages sanskrit and tamil ( and languages that could have existed before that, if any). We know that sanskrit and tamil are not so different as the Europeans thought. Sanskrit is much similar to tamil than the European languages and both sanskrit and tami have millions of words in common. Now the problem before us is which was the first. This question, though seemingly irrelevant, is the very basis to trace the past accurately. We also have to find the origin and direction of migration of the Indo European civilization. This should also explain the relation between the harappans, the so called aryans and dravidians. It could also lead us to sumerians, akkadians and the like. But for now, our interest is only in aryans and dravidians.

... to be continued.
(PS: I will continue later as I have lots of work now. sorry. :) )

happyindian

25th May 2006, 07:35 AM

Simple, FloraiPuyal, lemme make it concise 4 u (the way i c it frm many points of view):

1) There was no Aryan / Dravidian ever.
2) The Indian nobility were called Aaryaas meaning "the noble ones" / 'the wise ones'.
3) Most of India (v.highly likey) spoke a proto-type language.
4) The nobility being more educated and well-travelled married more often with non-Indians (? perhaps they did not see ppl as 'non-indians' as we do 2day). Many were also marriages of convenience for the purpose of peace.
5) That the nobility married outsiders was not restricted to one region alone. Everyone did the same from E to W, N to S. This diversity is ancient in the south as it was less prone to attacks in more recent history. Eg: Weddings with Arabs, Chinese, Autraloid (Malay) races, etc.
6) No one can define any lingustic group as 'a pure race' (unless like Bis_Mala you want to say all present Tamils from Lemuria survived centuries of maintaining 'purity' - esp when u talk abt this land extending from Africa to Australia as the home to earliest humans of all races. Wonder what's so important abt purity anyways - if it did happen, we have to call it a (great ;) ?)miracle in population genetics. We have all descended from a common mother & unfortunately SOME tamilians do not like to accept it. Wonder why? Purely a rigid mindset?)

So you have the so-called upper-caste ones that come in all sizes, colours, shapes, whatever. Whereas the lower-caste ones are more homogenous groups and tend to typically share some common physical appearances. This applies to any part of India. Slave dynastys became kings; and kings bcame paupers; so inter-mixing was inevitable.

Sanskrit was used as 'refined / respectful speech' by the nobility. It was too classical & complex a language to survive. It took many years to perfect it. Now our 'Dravidian' friends will jump the gun and say it came from Tamil. The truth is that Tamil as we know 2day did not exist in the past. May I say that ancient Tamil sounds too much like Sanskrit. If audacity is permitted (and am sure it shd, coz the same rules apply to everyone ;) ), I cud even go to the extent of saying that a) Old-day tamil died a natural death due to its complexity just as Sanskrit did b) Present-day tamil is a derivative of a proto-type tamil-sanskrit mixed language. So, in many ways Sanskrit scholars cud derive some happiness (if they want to, that is) in the fact that Sanskrit still exists in the form of Old-day Tamil (like Ceylonese tamil). But ofcourse the idea wud get thrown outta the window if they listened to some of our movie / street type versions.

happyindian

25th May 2006, 07:38 AM

My dear Bis-Mala,

Cool it, you are taking things personally. I said SOME Tamils believe...I did not say not YOU believe...You need a calm mind to think rationally....

Peace.

FloraiPuyal

25th May 2006, 08:01 AM

Happy Indian, I dont understand if you are agreeing or mocking, but this is exactly my point. We are looking at two sides of the same coin. Early prakrit and tamil should have been dialects of the same language. From this, the scholars should have tried to refine into a pure language and this should have lead to development of sanskrit and hence it became the language of the learned. Since it was not spoken by common people, it died away.

happyindian

25th May 2006, 08:16 AM

Florai,

I have absolutely no intention to mock, but like to take a small dig at some v.certain ppl. If they take it offensively, I apologise ofcourse (so far hv not bn criticized 4 my wry sense of humor, but guess its time to change it lest it b misunderstood by ppl to whom it was not directed (like Kannan)). I beleive that simply bcoz we haven't seen each other does not mean we take ppl 4 granted.

What u hv written is wht I feel so too (but my opinions change faster than the singapore weather - wud like 2 think am 'flexible' though some hv called that 'unstable'). Lets wait for others' opinions. Wish non-indians posted here. Am curious abt semitic & nilo-saharan languages.

mahadevan

25th May 2006, 11:38 PM

h.indian wrote: "I cud even go to the extent of saying that a) Old-day tamil died a natural death due to its complexity just as Sanskrit did ."

This clearly shows a complete lack of understanding of Tamil, sorry no offence intented. The relative immutability of tamil both in vocabulary and structure for 1000's of years is what has earned Tamil the nick name 'Kanni Tamil', the one that hardly ever changes !

Agreed that the present day Tamil does have some sanskrit(or prakrit more correctly) words, that is more like the words bus/auto in the tamil vocabularly from english, this does not warrant to say that modern Tamil a mix of Tamil/english, by the same yardstick your statement "b) Present-day tamil is a derivative of a proto-type tamil-sanskrit mixed language" is totally unwarranted.

devapriya

29th May 2006, 10:44 AM

Freiends,

I give swami Vivekananda on this subject.
From a speech given in Madras,
The Myth of Aryans and Non-Aryans
By Swami Vivekananda
"The mind jumps back several thousand years, and fancies that the same things happened here, and our archaeologist dreams of India being full of dark eyed aborigines, and the bright Aryan came from - the Lord knows where. According to some, they came from Central Tibet, others will have it that they came from Central Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think that they were all black haired. If the writer happens to be a black haired man, then the Aryans were all black haired.
Of late there have been attempts to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes. I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations. As for as the truth in these theories, there is not one word in our
scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afganistan. There it ends. All the theory that the Shudras caste were all non-Aryans and they were a multitude, is equally illogical and equally irrational. It could not have been possible in those days that a few hundred Aryans settled and lived there with a few hundred thousand slaves at their command. These slaves would have eaten them up, made "chutney" of them in five minutes.
The only explanation can be found in the Mahabharatha, which says, that in the beginning of Satya Yuga there was only one caste, the Brahmanas, and then by difference of occupation they went on dividing themselves into castes, and that is the only true and rational explanation that has been given. And in the coming of the Satya Yuga all the other castes will have to go back to the same condition. The solution to the caste problem in India, therefore, assumes this form, not to degrade the higher castes, not to crush out the Brahmana."

Devapriya

bis_mala

29th May 2006, 09:00 PM

The only explanation can be found in the Mahabharatha, which says, that in the beginning of Satya Yuga there was only one caste, the Brahmanas, and then by difference of occupation they went on dividing themselves into castes, and that is the only true and rational explanation that has been given.

According to this theory, in the beginning all were Brahmanas, which means everyone had realised the Brahman. All had issued from the mouth of Brahman and then after coming out, divided themselves into various professions later.

That means no one came from the chest, stomach and feet of the Brahman since all had come out from the mouth.

Then books which say that others came from the chest, stomach, feet etc must be bluffing. Can you please elaborate.

The full version of the relevant Geetha-sloka.... from the thread on Ramaanuja:
"Chaathur Varnyam maya srushtam, Guna Karma vibhaagasaha
Thasya karthaaramapi maam vidhyadhyakarthaaram avyayam"

... which means... "Four Classifications (of Humanity) by birth, is my creation... on the basis of their VARIED QUALITIES. Although I am the creator of such divisions by birth, ..........

]
Your preferred theory that in the beginning there were only Brahmanas and they later divided themselves into 4 divisions contradicts with this verse which says God himself created the Divisions. Furthermore Sudhaama has asserted that the Divisions were created by God by birth.

What a mess you have created. devapriya. Can you review all and put them in order.

Little wonder that missionary and westeners attack all these theories, which you have been complaining about in the other threads. Please buck up.

Eelavar

29th May 2006, 11:13 PM

The caste a misunderstood, corrupted, fake system.

Caste in anciant time was not hereditary..
Caste was like your class in the society, but nothing more. Everyone had the same right.. What the brahmans had more than other is the possibility to know the secret and secular knowledge..

What is not forcebily bad !!!

But with the time and the succesive invasion this system was corrupted and perverted !!

At the actual time this system is the worst social system of the world !!

The day when caste system will rebecome what it was, India will shine his splendor.. :roll:

F.S.Gandhi vandayar

16th June 2006, 12:28 AM

[tscii:aab03103c7]INDO- EUROPEAN HUMBUG

Thanks for every hubber who put their views here ! It is welcoming sign that Most of you have given the views that Aryan never exist !

But one more side effect from this view that has been put forward is the same sort of perception equating Aryan to Indo-European. The credibility the scholars show is language group similarities though the differences among them are much more than the resemblances which are very few that they show. Moreover the root words of similarities is of wrong perception while the pattern of language entirely / squarely different among each other in indo-european group of languages.

This means Scholars deny purposefully the other causes for the similarities as well as the differences among this group though they had chance of knowing the truth through scholars like Burrow and Robert Calduwell.

How far Aryan / Aryan race is imaginable and wrong and to that extent, in the same way The word Indo – European / race is equally wrong and imaginable.

In 1583-1588 ACE Flarantine Businessman ‘Philiposasati’ who resided in Gova firstly announced that European languages had similarities with Sanskrit.(1)

In 1786 ACE Sir William Jones in Bangal Asian congress firstly declared that Greek, Latin, Kothian, Chelthian, Samskritham, Persian came from same root and this could be Aryan. (2) Then the people who spoke the above languages were grouped as Indo- Ariyan / Indo –European.

In 1859 ACE Maxmuller conformed that Aryan is not a human race but It is a language group. He further conformed that the homeland of Aryan is too difficult to be defined. It must be somewhere in Central Asia (3)

But, Indian Scholars like K.M.Munshi & Professor Srikandar say that Aryans homeland is present Punjab since some geological references of Vedhic hyms signify this.(4)

Both Maxmuller & Indian Scholars search homeland of Aryans never existed. While North Indian / North indianised scholars say Sanskrit is the mother of Indo-European group the West Scholars are pointing towards either Greek / Latin.

Maxmuller proved similarities in the languages of Indo-European group. The rules and phonetical base that he explains are scientific. The mistake done by Maxmuller is that he did research in artificial language Sanskrit and did not have the chance / time to do research in natural language like tamil though cotemporary scholar Galduwell wrote several letters to Maxmuller.

Maxmuller, after 30 years of research in Sanskrit, came to know his unsolved problems in root words research solved by tamil roots and molecules.(5)

Prof. Wincent Smith who wrote his book ‘Indian Ancient History’ came to know the truth that Ancient Indian history should be started from south of India and not from north while only during writing his foreword for his book ! All his research guided by north based views became futile !(6)

In his book ‘ Dravidian Grammar’- Page 66, Dr. Galduwell showed that peacock feathers- Thokai-tamil is the root for Thuki in Bible old Testament. He also showed Sankrit ‘Sikkin’ never be the root. Prof. Gundard did research in Dravidian languages several years and he also conformed this.

Quoting the above two (in his later years) father of Sanskrit-Maxmuller says,” if this is true this could be the conformation of Antiquity of Tamil before Aryans entered India”. (7)

Here, We can see simple samples out of lot of root words researched by Maxmuller, remained unsolvable and unexplainable by himself.

I.‘Imna’- Greek, ‘Mina’-Latin, Akkadian- ‘Mana’, Babylonian ‘Minas’, Hebrew ‘Mana’, Egyptian ‘Mina’& Vedhic Sanskrit ‘Mana’ shares common meaning for mind. But Jent ‘Minu’, Greek ‘Mannos’ & Latin ‘Monil’ means ‘necklace’ -do not share the root with Sanskrit.

II.Latin ‘Marae’ Kothik ‘Mari’ Lithuvanian ‘Marae’, Irish ‘Miyur’ and Greek Ambi-maris which means ‘sea’ do not share common root with Sanskrit. The same is in the case of ‘Meen’- fish.

III.All domestic animals like cow,Goat,Dog,Horse do not have common root in Indo-European group.

IV.All Forest Animals like Lion, Elephant, Monkey, Tiger, Camel(desert) do not have common roots in Indo-European group.

I have given the above to specify the basical ancient situations of one language group that used to have same roots formation. If the indo-european group do not share common elements in these basical aspects how can they be one group? How can they be grouped as one family of languages with other negligible similarities?

Maxmuller could not find the solutions. If he would have chances to know the tamil roots he could have been solved this.

The similarities as well as the root of differences among indo-european group can be comfortably explained by tamil roots. Tamil ‘Manam’ for mind (Tholkappiam word) and ‘Mani’ for necklace and ‘Vari’ or ‘Vaari’ for sea are the roots for indo-european group. Similarly the roots for domestic as well as forest animals of indo-european group have roots in tamil. This conforms tamil is the root language for all indo-european group.(8)

Present North Indian languages including Hindustani / Hindi did not evolve from Sanskrit. Because the words & sentence pattern of North Indian languages resembles only tamil.(9)

The concept of Aryan / Indo European is not well-conceived one but based on haste conclusions(10)

Prof. Elliot Smith & Prof. W.J.Beri say that Egypt and Akkadian had direct relationship with tamil(11)

How self-styled scholars guiding foreign scholars to 100 ACE – artificial language Sanskrit to do research on ancient indian history has now turned Its worst proportion and unsolved problems continue in their research. Whereas tamil based studies give conforming results.

Panini was tamil influenced Grammarian. His timeline is 50 BCE. He/She wrote Grammar neither in Sanskrit nor for Sanskrit.(12) He/She wrote for how a language should be. Because so many unorganized languages were there in North India and West Asia. In order to make them organized he copied from Tholkappiam to do a Grammar for a language.

Based on that, after 150 years Prahritham was organized as Sanskrit. This was done in TamilNadu Kanchipuram.

Ku. Meenatchi who wrote research work on topic “ Tholkappiam And Astadhyayi” clearly specifies that Tholkappiam was written for Tamil but Astadhyayi was neither written for Sanskrit nor in Sanskrit. It was written for a unspecified language.(13) For Prahritham,Panini rules were applied. Even Aramaic (Jesus Christ spoke this language only not Hebrew) mother of present Arabic was also organized based on this. Ultimately, name of the rules were copied from Tholkappiam as it is. Pakuthi and Vikuthi of Tamil is as Pahruthi and Vikruthi and so on in Astadhyayi.

Maxmuller shows the root of Ariyan as Greek root ‘Ar’ which means ‘Ploughing tool’. He did not know about tamil root ‘Aer’ which means the same ploughing tool.(14).But Ploughing cannot be the root for Ariyan. Ariyan / Indo-European forefathers how badly created this meager history !

‘PRAHUI’ PROBLEM

Indo-european forefathers could not explain why the tamilian language ‘Prahui’ prevails presently in Paluchistan of present Pakistan. They could only wonder how could it happen. Present flash news is this Paluchistan (Dravidian tribes) people are fighting against Pakistan central government. This ‘ Parama Kukan (sivan)’ language is one of the remains of ‘Sinthu Valley’ which was created by tamil chola ‘Pahrare Chempian’(Bharathan) of Porunai Valley Civlilization. We must note that language of demon ‘paichasi’ (pichasu) also prevailed all over India.

World language group should be regrouped based on tamil roots. It shall be the real history of ancient world.

References :

(1) ,(2) The History and Culture of the Indina People, The Vedhic Age , page 205, R.G. Majumdar
(3) Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryans (AES, 1987) Page 80-127
(4) Same as (1) Page 220
(5) quoted by Dr.Robert Caldwell, A comparative Grammar of the Dravidian / South Indian Family of languages. PP. 90-91.
(6) Oppian Mozhi Nool, Page 1-2, Kna. Thevaneyan (Pavanar)
(7) Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol. I Page 233- foot note.
(8) Ariyan Varalaru, Part I by Sothi Prahasam, quoting several examples.
(9)History of Tamil page 2 P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar.
(10)Dravidian India-T.R.Sesha Iyengar Preface.
(11)ibid, page 25-32
(12) Thenmozhi, page 142, K. Appaththuraiyar.
(13) Tolkappiam And Astadhyayi, Ku. Meenatchi, page 7 & 257.
(14)Biographies of Words and The Home of The Aryans, F. Maxmuller – page 150

f.s.gandhi
[/tscii:aab03103c7]

Eelavar

16th June 2006, 02:29 AM

At my own view all this mess is due to Europeans.

They invented Indo-Aryan and Dravidian for us..They separated Sanskrit and Tamil.... A great mistake..

Don't continue to support this brainwashing AIT...

rocketboy

19th June 2006, 12:49 AM

Eelavar

19th June 2006, 08:55 AM

rocketboy

19th June 2006, 01:57 PM

Rocketboy

Because of strict rules forbidding marriage between men and women of different castes, these four classes remained distinct for thousands of years.

It is false !! Two persons of two different castes could be married !!
Caste was not hereditary !! You choiced the caste in function of your proper capacities.

Have you ever lived in India ? What is the basis for your meaningless statements.

Its worthless arguing with you anymore. You are a fanatic and I don't have any truck with fanatics.

Eelavar

19th June 2006, 05:03 PM

rocketoy,

I'm not talking about the actual system...

It is your web who talk about anciant time..

Ok let you to say tha i'm a fanatic only me know really what i am...

But accusing someone of beeing a fanatic without reason is not right..

pizzalot

24th June 2006, 09:29 AM

Why are people messing-up the Aryan invasion theory now ? Isn't it well established and proven by Geneological studies ?

And see below, how nasty the fanatics can go to "prove" Harappan culture is Vedic culture.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/horseplay.html

devapriya

27th June 2006, 10:37 AM

[tscii:8b2b06df80]Dear Friends,

We live in frauds,

Vedas cannot be dated later than 1900BCE, by which time entire Saraswathi River has Dried up. John Marshall remarked in 1931, -
“THE HARAPPAN] RELIGION IS SO CHARACTERISTICALLY INDIAN AS HARDLY TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM STILL LIVING HINDUISM.”

Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Cambridge University Press, 1988,
“IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHAT IS PARTICULARLY NON-ARYAN ABOUT THE INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION.”

Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization (Karachi & Islamabad : Oxford University Press & American Institute of Pakistan Studies, 1998) -“MANY SCHOLARS HAVE TRIED TO CORRECT THIS ABSURD THEORY [OF AN ARYAN INVASION], BY POINTING OUT MISINTERPRETED BASIC FACTS, INAPPROPRIATE MODELS AND AN UNCRITICAL READING OF VEDIC TEXTS. HOWEVER, UNTIL RECENTLY, THESE SCIENTIFIC AND WELL-REASONED ARGUMENTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN ROOTING OUT THE MISINTERPRETATIONS ENTRENCHED IN THE POPULAR LITERATURE.”

I give-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.” And 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. M. G. S. Narayanan, “The Vedic-Puranic-Shastraic Element in Tamil Sangam Society and Culture,” in Essays in Indian Art, Religion and Society, p. 128.

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.”

Why Bring the Artificial Aryan Nonsense Here- and I have to bring VIVEKANANDA’S VIEW HERE - //In India we have fallen during the last few centuries into a fixed habit of unquestioning deference to Authority. .. We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Henotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainty with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.
So Great is the force of Generalisation and widely popularised errors that all the world goes on Perpetuating the blunder talking of the Indo-European Races claiming or disclaiming Aryan Kinship and building on that basis of falsehood the most far-reaching Political, social or Pseudo Scientific Conclusion.’// -Swami Vivekananda
The Missionary minded Indologists who found that Sanskrit was Mother of Greek and Latin- which in turn were the Eldest of Most European Languages, and the amount of Depth and Knowledge in it brought the “Aryan” Invasion Myths- i.e., Indians are not capable of such a Wealth Language and Civilisation. It is a continual attack to run down India's great accomplishments and Civilisation...
Proper Study of Harappah and Mohanjadero now confirms that most of its Contents are Aryan, And the Speculation of the Seals being Proto Dravidian is weakening. Even the Die-hard Aryan Incoming Supporters put that from BCE7000- 1500. Linguists who worked with Tamil, popularly Identified as Dravidianists from Caldwell, Burrows etc., – All say Dravidians came around 3000 BCE and later to India from Outside.
SWAMI VIVEKANANDA : “There is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans ever came from anywhere outside India.... The whole of India is Aryan, nothing else.”
U.S. archaeologist Jim Shaffer puts it : “Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from prehistoric to historic periods”
Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, biological anthropologist at Cornell University, U.S.A., who has worked extensively on Harappan sites to study human skeletal remains, concludes unambiguously : “Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity.... What the biological data demonstrate is that no exotic races are apparent from laboratory studies of human remains excavated from any archaeological sites, including those accorded Aryan status [by the old school]. All prehistoric human remains recovered thus far from the Indian subcontinent are phenotypically identifiable as ancient South Asians.... In short, there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture.”
J. M. Kenoyer, who is still pursuing excavations at Harappa, is even more categorical :There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC.

DevaPriya
[/tscii:8b2b06df80]

chaipau

29th June 2006, 04:08 AM

It is genetic science that can best unravel the movement of people in ancient times. Prior to genetic science, analysis of language was the best tool available, but far from perfect.

Do the research (sorry I can't provide references at this time) and you will see that Africans begat Indians and Arabs, and Indians begat the rest of the world, including Caucasions, Asians and aboriginal Americans and Australians.

This is why both Africans and Arabs have kinky hair. It is the Indian striaght or slightly curly hair stock which is the root for the hair type of all other peoples.

Look at this article from Deccan Herald. Perhaps this is how Caucasions were formed from Indians. Then they were driven out of India by ancient Indians who were more superstitious than the Indian of today. The proto caucasions were probably considered devils.

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/Aug312004/spt5.asp

The only question of course is: how long did the former Indians stay outside India before coming back as Aryans? How long must a people remain separate before they are considered another people? How much genetic change must there be to decalre a new "race"?

Are the albinos in the Deccan Herald article still Indians, that is, Indus, or are they caucasions?

If a Spaniard crosses with a native American from the Aztec or Mayan civilizations of North America, and then his great-great-great grandson mates with a Spanish-American Indian-Chinese mix, is the result returned once again to a Indu? I have a friend who after marrying his girl will produce just such an offspring. The two of them could already pass for Indu.

There can be no denying the prevalence of lighter skinned persons in Indian upper society, and amoung movie, television and music stars, as well as many cricket stars. This same phenomenon exists in Mexican and other Latin American cultures, where the Spanish are the equivalent of the Aryans.

While this issued mattered much to Europeans in the 1800's, I think it is of little interest to the West now. There is of course some interest amoung geneticists who are curious as to wether intelligence or dominance or will can be increased with selective breeding. That was of course the German perspective leading up to WW2.

And I am aware that upper caste Indus claim their high performance levels in Western schools, in math and science is due to their interbreeding for thousands of years.

So, if one does not accept Aryan invasion theory, whether it was an armed invasion or a passionate one, then one still has to explain the coming of light skinned Indus, and why the upper class of India created itself and constrained it's gene pool.

In the case of Aryan Invasion theory, the Indians were either physcially or sexually weak before the Aryans from the north. In the case of a homegrown light skinned upper society, the Indians are guilty of mendacity. Either way, Idus loose the moral high ground, though in the second scenario at least they maintain the high ground of mendacity.

Could it be that Indus created, invented mendacity, which then spread to the rest of the world from India? Might this be India's great contribution to the world?

Or did mendacity come to India from Africa? If so, then at least the Indians can take credit for perfecting it.

Cheers

dsath

29th June 2006, 08:44 PM

[tscii:bdece205a2]

Look at this article from Deccan Herald. Perhaps this is how Caucasions were formed from Indians. Then they were driven out of India by ancient Indians who were more superstitious than the Indian of today. The proto caucasions were probably considered devils.

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/Aug312004/spt5.asp

Vain argument. Albinos equivalent to Caucasians!!!!!
One has to look at Indian TV advts for fairness cream and Matrimonial sections in newspapers to understand the Indian obsession with fairer lighter skin. So the possibilities that ancient people inhabiting the sub continent chasing away lighter skinned people are 0. This theory does not hold water.

Are the albinos in the Deccan Herald article still Indians, that is, Indus, or are they caucasions?

They are a group of people with a medical condition. They are not any ethnic group. Not only the Albinos, other unfortunate souls who don’t happen to be ‘ordinary’ also receive the same treatment in the sub continent.

In the case of Aryan Invasion theory, the Indians were either physcially or sexually weak before the Aryans from the north. In the case of a homegrown light skinned upper society, the Indians are guilty of mendacity. Either way, Idus loose the moral high ground, though in the second scenario at least they maintain the high ground of mendacity.

Could it be that Indus created, invented mendacity, which then spread to the rest of the world from India? Might this be India's great contribution to the world?

Or did mendacity come to India from Africa? If so, then at least the Indians can take credit for perfecting it.

Cheers
:shock:
'Mendacity' - Indians inventing it. If you blame Indians with inventing mendacity then i think you should credit/blame everything to Indians as well. Going by your (absurd) logic that some Indians were chucked out in a bloc by their fellow Indians, i can't see why they should be blamed. Until they came back again as Europeans/Caucasians we had peace and prosperity in the subcontinent.[/tscii:bdece205a2]

Eelavar

29th June 2006, 09:36 PM

Who is an Aryan ??

For Indians it is a noble person so a person with high moral qualities.

For Western it is the ancestor of the White people.

For us it a person and for them a people...

So look how it created the mess !!!

Badri

30th June 2006, 06:35 AM

Hmm, for good or bad, the policies of this Forum state that discussions on the Aryan Invasion theory as well as Dravidanism are not allowed.

However, this discussion was allowed for a since FSG's initial post gave it a whole new twist. However, since then, it has gone the usual AIT and arguments for and against that.

Hence will be locking this thread, in keeping with Forum policies.