TAMIL is much ELDER to SANSKRIT !

[vasabhar88]

I have read the previous discussion forums comparing Tamil and
sanskrit. Its true that Tamil and sanskrit have complimented each
other i.e Sanskrit has borrowed many words from Tamil and Vice
versa. But it completely saddens me to see that some of them
have concluded saying Tamil has been derived from sanskrit. I
have made a year long research on this area and I have written a
article based on all my findings. I have also published my article as
blogs in various sites. Plz check the URL
http://testoftime.blogspot.com/ or mail to
vasanthan.b@rediffmail.com to get the article as PDF file.

Vasanthan B

[Sudhaama]

Dear Thiru Vasanthan,

I am glad to note your enthusiastic efforts and lively Research presentation.

Before I seek your clarifications on several points on your Report, I have to put forth here one RUDIMENTARY TRUTH here, based on authentic Research studies by many of the Non-British Historians.

(1) The FIRST CLASSICAL LANGUAGE of Humanity?

The FIRST LANGUAGE ever spoken by Mankind anywhere in the whole world is.... undoubtedly.... TAMIL only originated from North India, on the banks of Saraswathi River while the rest of the country was only Forests. Even during the Ramayana period we find that the South India as also the Nasik region of Western India was so. In the regions of the present Turkey, Burma, and Middle-East the Humans were only Savages. The rest of the world mostly were capped up with Ice.

(2) Who the ARYANS?

British dictators purposively made the false histories written just with a malefic intention of DIVIDE AND RULE Policy over the huge mass of enslaved but wise Indians on the whole.

Dr Ambedkar used to call himselves as the True Aryan.

Mahakavi Bharathi says...

"Aariya" naattinar aanhmaiyoadu iyatrum seeriya muyarchigalh.

"Aariyarum" nara veeriyarum...... Vandhae maatharam

Whom does the Tamil-poet Bharathi mean as ARYANS and which country does he call as ARIYANAADU ?

It is totally wrong to say that the so called ARYANS entered into India as Domiciles from the Middle-East and that the most Ancient people of India were called as DRAVIDIANS. In fact there were no separate Races as Aryans and Dravidians. The so called Aryans were the Indian nationals BY BIRTH and NOT BY DOMICILE. There were ONLY ONE RACE initially all over India, then confined to only the Northern part and that Race was the Aryans. the descrption of their complexion height and look are all the False stories, Myth and Imaginary creations made by the British rulers who invaded on the Indian Culture too.

There were only one mass of people in North India, in the days of Linguistic origination, who were subsequently named as ARYANS in Sanskrit, which means ... Uthaman... Great-Man. In Sanskrit Literature and stories we can find the wife addressing the Husband as ARYA. Even Seetha-Dhevi addressed so as per Valmiki Ramayana.

(3) Who the DRAVIDA?

First of all we have to think over, from which Language this Word DRAVIDA has emanated? Is it a Tamil word?. No Not at all. Because the Tamil Language does not have the cluster of letters like Dra, Pla, Kru etc., whereas Sanskrit and all other Indian Languages have so.

In fact the word DRAVIDA is a Sanskrit term, the Sanskrit DHAATHU for which is ... "DRU".... meaning ..."MOVE".

From the same Dhaathu, the word "Dravyam" meaning Money / Wealth since it always passes from hand to hand and does not remain at one place.

And why the so called Dravidians were named so?

The Sanskrit word DRAVID means WAGABOND ("Naadoadi" in Tamil)

Why should they be called so ?

One section of the people were highly intelligent, enterprising and ADVENTUROUS enough (similar to British) to boldly venture into new areas of the forests and make an advanced life there. This sections of people were mockingly called as WAGABONDS (Dravid in Sanskrit) by their own brethren who were contented to be static in the specific regions already well-developed. Whereas the moving Indians advanced more ahead by means of wisdom, sincerety and hard toil.... as the History speaks of the Tamilians of Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore and elsewhere, well-known for such exemply Human potentialities coupled with with high human calibre.

The proverbs .... YAADHUM OORAE YAAVARUM KAELHIR.... and ....

.... THIRAI KADAL OADIYUM DHIRAVIYAM THAEDU....

.... are only in Tamil, and in no ther Languages anywhere in the world.

(4) Origin of the new Language SANSKRIT?

The first Group of Mankind speaking Tamil had no Religions of their own but were worshipping the Sun as the Super-power. They were mostly eating Pond-Fish and Agro-products.. Later the Rishis came to these regions, who called themselves as the messengers of God.

The local people believed it because they had some Super-human powers and declared that they had seen God with naked eyes. New skilss like Manthra-sathram, Dhanur-Sasthram (Bow & Arrow), Ayur-Vedam, Jothisham, Vaana Sasthram etc. added honour to that subsequent classical language. That is how the Hinduism originated in India., through which the Language Sanskrit were taught by the Rishis, along with the Vedas as Gospels, naming it as the VOICE OF GOD. That is how Sanskrit is called as Deva-Bhasha for Hindus, (similar to Arabic for Muslims and Hebrew for Christians, since their Gospels are written in those Languages).

Kings encouraged that Deva-basha, spread it amongst the Linguistic scholars but considered Tamil as a cheap Tribal Language and inferior to Sanskrit., which alone were suited for the Intellectuals.

So the Kings and the Scholars were conversing in Sanskrit while the people were speaking Tamil. In course of time both the languages got mixed up in different forms at different regions and got named as various initial Offshoot Languages like Pali and Prakrit.

We can note in Sakunthalam original text written by the Sanskrit poet Kalidasa,....

King Dushyantha speaks to Sakunthalai ( Tribal-girl) in SANSKRIT .... !!!

.... while Sakunthalai as also the Fishermen speak in PRAKRIT ???

Since Sanskrit was attributed as the Godly Language it was given high honour by the Kings, without whose adequate support, Tamilians could not comparatively flourish well. So they had to move down far south towards the dense forests leaving off their original settlements in North India.

(5) How different Languages within ONE COUNTRY of ONE RACE?

After several centuries of origination of Tamil, these various groups of people migrated to different regions of North India, speaking the admixed forms of Tamil and Sanskrit with further additions of foreign languages like Arab, Persian, Portugese, Latin and Greek in different modes., named them as separate languages. .... If the Tamilians of Kanyakumari, Thirunelveli, Coimbatore, Madurai,Chennai and SriLanka do not mutually meet for more than a century, the various forms of Tamil they are using now would have been named as different Languages other than Tamil.

(6) TAMIL ... not a Deva-basha (DIVINE LANGUAGE) ?

Subsequently... rather very late after several centuries... the Tamil-speaking section of people of one and the same race came to know that TAMIL ALSO IS A DEVA-BASHA (Divine-Language) since they found that even an ordinary man, an illiterate Hunter, innocent Farm-labour, and an ignorant Pot-maker could speak with Gods in Tamil as well as see Him in different forms of their choice as Lord Vishnu, Vinayaka, Siva, Muruha, Kali and so on ... the Deities of the same Religion, so called SANATHANA-DHARMA or Hinduism. and the

... Gods themselves declared TAMIL ALSO IS THE DEVA-BASHA (Divine-Language)

Any Comment .... or... Criticism?

[Nedunchezhiyan]

Thiru Srinivasan avargaLae!

//TAMIL only originated from North India, on the banks of Saraswathi River while the rest of the country was only Forests. Even during the Ramayana period we find that the South India as also the Nasik region of Western India was so. //

So they said Sanskirit was older than Thamizh first, then they said Mohenjadaro and Harappa belonged to Sanskirit speaking "Aryans." Then they said the oldest civilization is from the bank of "KalaimakaL" river and now they accept Thamizh as the Oldest language but say the origin of Thamizh is in the north? How far will these people go to say that what they say is RIGHT?!

//DIVIDE AND RULE Policy //

I didn't think there was a necessity for such thing. I wonder how English is well spoken throughout India, after all it was of the 'Slave Master' language...shouldn't it be ignored? Divide and Rule eh? If something the British should be blamed for then it is for uniting different nations and handing it to the Hindis!


//Aariya" naattinar aanhmaiyoadu iyatrum seeriya muyarchigalh.

"Aariyarum" nara veeriyarum...... Vandhae maatharam//

What we see here is a mis-interpretation of Bharathi. He may have thought that all people under the so called Indian Union which was created by British to be of the same root and thought everyone was from same nationality? [I am not talking about "Human" nationality].

//in the days of Linguistic origination, who were subsequently named as ARYANS in Sanskrit, which means ... Uthaman... Great-Man.//

Like Thiru A P Masilmani said once the word Aryan rooted from the Thamizh word 'arivu' and which changed form in Arabic and similarly in Sanskirit. These people called themselves as Aryans. Aryan means Intellectual and no one called them that, they called themselves and Thiru A P MASILMANI gave the relationship between the word 'Ariyan' and with the names like "Eur"ope and "Ir"aq and "Ir"eland.

//In fact the word DRAVIDA is a Sanskrit term, the Sanskrit DHAATHU for which is ... "DRU".... meaning ..."MOVE".//
There are two accepted roots of the word Dravidan.
First one is the word "Thamizh"

Since these aryans couldn't pronounce Thamizh rightfully, they called Thamizhars as, "Dramilars" and eventually it became as "Dravidars."

Hence; Thamizh ---> Dramil ---> Dravid

Thamizhars ---> Dramilars ---> Dravidars


The second definition which I first heard from Thiru A P MASILMANI...as followed

Dravida(m) rooted from the word Thiruvidam and thats how the Kazha AkarAthi explains it etc. The Aryans called the now day South India as "Thiruvidam" referring to the Temples in the Southern Countries...(consult Thiru A P MASILMANI regarding that).


//From the same Dhaathu, the word "Dravyam" meaning Money / Wealth since it always passes from hand to hand and does not remain at one place.//
If I understood what you said rightfully, above you said the word Dru comes from Dhaathu and Dhaathu means 'move' and I believe you have related that with 'nAdodikaL.'
If so then how would the quote below which you gave would sound...

//THIRAI KADAL OADIYUM DHIRAVIYAM THAEDU//

Go over sea and search and gather "move?"

I believe the word Dhiraviyam is Thamizh or to have a reasonable Thamizh root. I look forward to Thiru A P MASILMANI explanation on this Word.

//That is how the Hinduism originated in India., //
Vedas could have been Thamizhar works. If Mahabharatham was created by Thamizh Hunter to spread Thamizh religions in the similar way Ramayanam was created (where Thiru A P MASILMANI agreed that Valmiki may not have been the original writer of Ramayanam and thats what many scholars believe but lack of evidence to prove the theory), I don't know where the so called "Hinduism" believe to have originated from.

Thiru A P MASILMANI explained the root of the word 'Indhu' which is the root of the word 'Hindu' and I believe he said "Indhu" means peaceful. Thus the coined word 'Hindu' should mean peaceful religion.

I am sure that you are aware of the fact that there was no term 'Hindu' and this is a term that probably have originated during European Times or perhaps during the late British Years. Thamizhars believe originated inside Thamizhars and these beliefs which were followed as religions were fully Thamizhars ideas and although there wasn't any religious form in Sangath Thamizh Literature time, the main Thamizh religions appear to be Sivaniyam and Maaliyam from Pallavar Times. However the deities like Murugan and someone similar to nowday Sivan was prayed during Sangath Thamizh Literature Time. The Aryans had similar Gods like Thamizhars or they may have copied Thamizh God.

One example of confusion is that of Thamizh God Murugan and Aryans God Subramaniyan. Vividly Murugan seem to have one wife and that is 'vaLLi' in Thamizh. However the Aryan Murugan had a wife called 'TheivANai' which then formulated into the union of Thamizh Murugan Deity and Aryan's Subramaniyan and hence now you have two wifes for the God Murugan. The similar problem arise in the situation of Thamizh God 'KaNNan' and Aryan God similar to Thamizh God 'KaNNan.' It is perhaps that this God was adopted by Aryans from Thamizhars.

The term "Hinduism" denotes to all religions that formed in nowday so called Indian Union and the one that came from nowday Afghanistan. Remember that the religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Sivaniyam, Maaliyam, Vaithikam, Sikkhism falls under the term "Hindu."

//That is how Sanskrit is called as Deva-Bhasha for Hindus, (similar to Arabic for Muslims and Hebrew for Christians, since their Gospels are written in those Languages).//

Thats a dumb believe! Just because the religions like Christianity and Islam have such languages doesn't mean the "Hinduism" has Sanskirit. Sanskirit wasn't the root of HINDUISM! Would you ask why that Thamizh alphabets don't have capitals and English does? Obviously it doesn't say in any rules to 'must' have a capital alphabet and Thamizh doesn't need one either, 247 letters enough for many things. Similarly however you should understand that Islam has Arabic as the main language because people who spoke Arabic formed the first 'Islamic' group. Not only that but there are some things that I read which points out that Islam religion to have originated from the Pagan Religion which once was there in nowday Middle East, again I am not fully sure regarding that info but you should be aware of the religion that was followed in nowday Iran and Iraq before the Islam became popular there. Christianity base it self in Latin and Greek because one of the "ancient" part of Bible to have been written first in Greek and then later on Roman Empire accepted Christianity If I am correct and you know that Latin and Greek forms the Important bone for many European Languages. If Thamizh is the World first language and evidently so called Hinduism rooted from Thamizh Then Thamizh should be accepted as THE DIVINE LANGUAGE! MOST OF ALL THE "POOSAI" [NOT POOJA!] should be conducted in SenThamizh (pure Thamizh).

Thiruganasambanthar explain in his thevarams about how 'poosai' was done during his days (which was during Pallavar rules after the "time after Sangam" in Thamizh Literature). The way we describe the real poosai as 'vAikattip poosai' seithal which is still done in KathirgAmam ('Thetku Eezham') and in Sannathi Temple in Thamizheezham. There is no need to say manthiram and manthiram really doesn't do anything! If one were to convert everything that a brahmin say in the so called Manthiram then it would either look and sound like a Thevaram or perhaps more like "long live God."

nanRi, paNivu THIRU SRINIVASAN avargaLae, I also look forward to Thiru A P MASILMANI's comment on this topic.

mEendum SanthippOm, nanRi.

[Nedunchezhiyan]

I forgot to tell about the pathetic thing that the Sanskirit and Aryan fanatic did, which was trying to erect a horse on one of the seal found in Mohenjadaro and Harappa Archealogical dig to make things look like they belonged to Aryan Civilizations.

[Nedunchezhiyan]

//SenThamizh (pure Thamizh). //

mannikka vaendum

I shouldn't have said 'pure Thamizh,' there is only 'Thamizh.'

[min]

Thanks for the good researched reply Mr. Nedunchezhlian. Do make a record of all you have observed (visually,etc..) and that that exists now, for after sometime they might cease to exist and later generation may have nothing to say to these denials.

[geno]

[tscii:3df091d18e]Nedunchezhiyan avargaLE!

arumaiyAna urai :)

¿ñÀ÷ Á¡º¢Ä¡Á½¢ «Å÷¸¨Çô ÀýÉ¡ð¸Ç¡¸ì ¸¡§½¡§Á?

¿ñÀ÷ þÊ¡ôÀõ, ¿£í¸û, Á¡º¢Ä¡Á½¢ §À¡ý§È¡÷ «ùÅô§À¡Ð þíÌ ±Ø¾¢ì¦¸¡ñÊÕó¾¡ø ±ý §À¡ýÈ Å¡º¸ÕìÌ «Ð
Á¸¢ú¨Åò ¾Õõ :D

[/tscii:3df091d18e]

[Sudhaama]

Dear Mr. Geno,

If they are able to continue participation here, they would have done it, without our invitation or Reminder... We have to guess .. they are busy due to some reasons... personal.

So we should not distrurb them... but be satisfied with the postings they have already made here.

... with the same spirit... like we have applied in Kambaramayanam thread....

... where, by the abrupt discontinuation.. the characters as well as we the Readers... were left in the mid Jungle !!. .

I think.... for this healthy Thread....Nobody is INDISPENSABLE... including You and Me..

Why Not you PICK UP the Thread here and continue... you being rich enough with wealthy Knowledge... especially in History.

If any particulars for posting here... is readily Not available... You are capable of Elliciting and Gathering the necessary particulars and post here....

.. on which I will join with the discussions...... whatever I can.

[Idiappam]

When would Mr Sudhamaa stop telling the hubbers what to do and what not to do!

Mr Geno, Lets get on with this thread!

[Sudhaama]

"Idiappam"

//When would Mr Sudhamaa stop telling the hubbers what to do and what not to do!//

Dear Mr Idiappam... Have I said anything malice to anyone or hurting anybody?... It seems you have neither understood my intentions nor the healthy sense of my words hereabove. Please go through once again and tell me... what you found wrong in it.

Being a Senior citizen in the last chapter of life... I am a well-wisher
to one and all . including YOU...or even a Stranger...

... and whatever I say are only SUGGESTIONS... towards the Unified Happiness of one and all here.

Especially .. I feel it my duty to point out... (where others may hesitate.).
in the ANGLE OF THE VIEWERS...

... as well as in the interest of the Person whom I ADDRESS or comment on.

I am the well-wisher of Mr. Geno too ...and I know how much regard he reposes on me... whom I have praised and invited to continue in this by his personally initiated postings too... (please see...my remarks hereabove)...

So I have addressed him and conveyed my views consoling on his disapointment ...It is between Him and me... since addressed in his name...

At the same time.. I wanted to invite any Reader to continue the postings here... so I invited all my Friends' kind attention too indirectly.

//Mr Geno, Lets get on with this thread!//

Yes...I too had said the same.

Welcome Mr. Idiappam... I am anxious to hear you... since you are well-knowledged in certain areas... especially on Tamil... So I will be happy to read your postings.

So my request to Mr. Geno... is repeated to you too. Please gather the due particulars ... and post here...

... which both of you are capable of.

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Thiru shudaama,

I complement something to your passage.

The indiran worship and indu religion was evolved out from tamil culture.

In the sameway tamil produced paly(vada pali) language. Paly turned into Pragrid. Then Sanskirit was formed in archesstrated way. Again sanskrit mixed with tamil formulating other dravidian languages.

Tamil was not originated in north but in deep south kondwana kingdom- lemuria kingdom,kumari river,kamari mountain ,pagruli river background.

We can now prove that through archeology,anthropology and geology enviromental science.

All 32 dielects of tamil are now spoken by tribes in southern hemisphere of earth namely south america,south africa and australia.

Hence languages/ men migrated from south to north. south to north west and so on.

If all world historieans find more evidences in this perspective it will help to make a globalised version of history.

The other way of finding out history will be creating lot of confusions and we have to again and again switch over to new theories like aryan theory, meditaranean theory and Central asian theory which are now proved to be wrong.

There are lot of evidences proved that like americans today tamilieans overrule the world through their businesses and culture before 3000 years back.

Tamils contribute to eriteria,kaltheya,babylonea,Greece,Egypt and other meditaranean civilizations.

Tamil neel/neer is now nile. Puramedugal now Pyramids. 'Erithirai' now Red sea/eriteria. 'Aram' now Arabia. Thilmunai now pagrain(old name of partain in thilmun). Hundreds of words of tamil origin in Indo european language(a wrong classification made by maxmuller).

Go through a book called 'dravidar varalaru' if any objection you can call it tamil varalaru- written by sothi prakasam.

The same person has written 'Aryan varalaru'.

Hence tamils hereafter should not depend on sanskrit.

They should have a vision that sanskrit root words are with tamil.

All sanskrit words are one or combination of tamil words phonetically changed/shrinked.

In this way if the perception is formulated a new breakthrough would be produced in history.

[senthilkumaras]

good work MR.vANDAIYAR,
//They should have a vision that sanskrit root words are with tamil.

All sanskrit words are one or combination of tamil words phonetically changed/shrinked//
THAMIZH IS obviously elder to sanskrit, because Thamizh has no complicated phonetics like g/h/f/kh/ss/sh/z/ksh/kr/dh/dhh/dhr/bh/...

This is the simplest most obvious PROOF for the glaring truth that Thamizh was more earlier in the evolutionary path of human languages than all other classical languages!

[geno]

Sudhaama!

Thanks for "inviting" me to post here! :) anyways, i wud "jump in" the thread where i feel i need to post! :)

But you haven't answered the elaborate post that Nedunchezhiyan has given for your post on dec 18, 2004!!!

He has made that post on dec. 21, 2004, and you haven't responded to his post!

Please do so - so that we know where you stand on this issue!

And dont worry, if im not able to respond to you immediately, then - great hubbers like thiru. Nedunchezhiya,. thiru. Idiapam, and thiru. Masillamani would be kind enuf to come here and post - so that you can have constant engagement! :)

[geno]

* deleted *

[Sudhaama]

Dear Mr. Geno,

Your wordings... are HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE... being aimed at a particular community... IRRELEVANT... either to the Topic... nor the Context...

I feel HURT by your such Mockery... which is PROVOCATIVE.

Anybody can mock at others way of life... if he wishes to STOOP DOWN... by Calibre... becoming CHEAP.... But is it fair?

My principle too... fall in line with that of Mahakavi Bharathi and Dr. Ambedkar ... Let us both follow the HIGH CALIBRE of Dr. Ambedkar... as Gentlemen of Mutual-Respect..

I am having high REGARD for you as a Gentleman... and I will not be happy to hear any criticism on you from others... on which if I am not able to DEFEND your Calibre.

Please DON'T DISAPPOINT ME...

Affectionately,
Sudhaama.

[geno]

* deleted *

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear geno & sudhaama,

I need not tell,"Let us not have personal attack in discussion" to you. Because, you are all,I detect from you discussions, the persons of good calibre and knowledge.

Afterall nobody wins over another in debate. At the sametime debate can bring forth some realities of topic. Let us concentrate on issues and their supportives.

While talking about crucial issues there is a chance of our wordings move in different path. We all should try to avoid at the maximum such happenings.

Due to personal attack the flow of informations and discussions stopped abruptly and those who follow your discussions get disappointment.

When sudhaama could not answer Mr. Nedunchezhiyan's queries Mr. Geno would have concluded with his remarks in support of Mr.Nedunchezhiyans views.

Then everybody would have the satisfaction of eating the full meal of discussion.

Every ideology turns negative(atleast one or two -ve side effects) in its extreme level is true in world history. Atheism/culture revolutionary is not ruled out to this.

In an urgent haste move to revive social emancipation(which was required also) The god inththran/varunan heritage was thrashed out which happen to be a proof of culture that led the north Indians stick to sarasvathi culture of india and claim this was the prime culture of India than sinthu valley.

The secular character of tamil sangam literature also attacked by such groups telling tamils dont have any history.

We need not blame separately any social group and all the society is responsible for that worst nature of caste system in India.

I expect best concluding remarks from geno to complete the discussion.

f.s.gandhi

[geno]

Mr Gandhi!

If you go back and see - you can notice that i have not initiated any discussion addressed towards Mr. Sudhaama, i merely replied to his posts addressed to me.

regards

geno :)

[geno]

Mr. Gandhi,

Iravatham Mahadevan says that "thamizh vattezuthu"(sometimes als ocalled as thamizh brahmi) - containing potsherds have been found during many archealogical excavations, both in Tn and also some in andhra.

These date back to atleast 3rd century BCE according to I.Mahadevan. He also speculates that some could be as early as 5th century BCE.

But any "written" stone inscriptions for "Sanskrit" is NOT known to be found any earlier than 2nd Century CE - that is atleast 5-6 centuries AFTER thamizh vattezuththu evidences have been found!

This should comprehensively prove that - Sanskrit has borrowed heavily from the Prakrit & Pali for words (which are theorised as ancient kodunthamizh) - and also that "thamizh" ezuththu is far ancient than the Sanskrit script!

How come such a huge evidence be NOT accepted by those who seek to give Sanskrit more ancinetness than thamizh?!!

It is suspiscious to say the least!

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Mr.Geno,

You are correct. :D

After first century A.D. only Vedhas in sanskrit were written. The element of Inthiran worship in vedhas had derived from tamil culture.

Maxmuller says in his book,' A history of Ancient Sanskrit literature,page 264' that eventhough script was written in later half of first century all literature in sanskrit were mouth pieces from time immemorial.

Maxmuller words led historians who want to boastfully eulosize vedic culture,tell that vedic culture is prevailing from time immemorial. That is from 5000 B.C to 10000 B.C. They can even tell 15000 years from now or add up without proof more than that.

PANINI wrote his sanskrit grammar 'Ashtaththayi' in prakrid not in sanskrit that too in second century A.D. This proves sanskrit is a artificial/created language.

Iravadham Mahadevan also has some ambiguity in telling the truth because he follows vedhic culture and sanskrit notion (He is also a sanskrit scholar).

Dr. Mathivanan deciphered the sindhu script and found the tamil words.

Nobody can hide the truth for ever.

Culturally and languagewise tamils are the forefathers of world civilizations. :!:

f.s.gandhi

[geno]

[tscii:3c7d674c4b]¸¡ó¾¢ «Å÷¸§Ç!

¾í¸û ¸ÕòÐ ¯ñ¨Á¢Ûõ ¯ñ¨Á! :D

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"¦ºýÈ¢ÎÅ£÷ ±ðÎò¾¢ìÌõ - ¸¨Äî
¦ºøÅí¸û ¡×õ ¦¸¡½÷ó¾¢íÌî §º÷ôÀ£÷!"


"§¾ÁÐÃò ¾Á¢§Æ¡¨º ¯Ä¸¦ÁÄ¡õ
ÀÃ× Å¨¸ ¦ºö¾ø §ÅñÎõ"

"§ºÁÓÈ §ÅñΦÁÉ¢ý ¦¾Õ¦ÅøÄ¡õ
¾Á¢úÓÆì¸õ ¦ºÆ¢ì¸î ¦ºöÅ£÷!

À¢È¿¡ðÎ ¿øÄÈ¢»÷ º¡ò¾¢Ãí¸û
¾Á¢ú ¦Á¡Æ¢Â¢ü ¦ÀÂ÷ò¾ø §ÅñÎõ"

"¦º¡øÒ¾¢Ð ¦À¡Õû Ò¾¢Ð
±ó¿¡Ùõ «Æ¢Â¡¾ ¿Å ¸Å¢¨¾ ÔÅ ¸Å¢¨¾"

- À¡Ã¾¢Â¡÷ :)

- ±ý¦ÈøÄ¡õ ÀÄÅ¡Ú ¾Á¢ú ÅÇ÷ìÌò ¾¼í¸¨Çì ¸¡ðÊ ¦ÀÕ¨Á À¡Ã¾¢Â¡ÕìÌñÎ.

Ţξ¨Ä ¯½÷¨Å àñÎŨ¾§Â Ó¾üÀ½¢Â¡¸ì ¦¸¡ñÎ ¸Å¢¨¾¸û ±Ø¾¢Ôõ þ¾ú ¿¼ò¾¢Ôõ - Åð¼¡Ã ¦Á¡Æ¢¦ÂÉ «ì¸¡Äò¾¢ø (ÒÈ츽¢ì¸ôÀð¼) ¾Á¢¨Æ ÅÇ÷ò¾ ¦ÀÕ¨ÁÔõ þÅÕìÌñÎ.

À¡Ã¾¢Â¡÷ ¿øÄ ¦Á¡Æ¢¦ÀÂ÷ôÀ¡Çá¸×õ þÕó¾Å÷. ¬í¸¢Äî ¦º¡ü¸ÙìÌ þ¨½Â¡¸ - ¾Á¢ú¡ü¸û Àø¸¢ô ¦ÀÕ¸ §ÅñÎõ ±É «Å¡Å¢ÂÅ÷.

"À¡Ã¾¢Â¡÷ ¸ðΨøû" ±Ûõ áÄ¢ø - ´Õ À̾¢Â¢ø : [/tscii:3c7d674c4b]

[tscii:3c7d674c4b]"¦ÁõÀ÷" ±ýÀ¾üÌ ºÃ¢Â¡É ¾Á¢ú¡ø ±ÉìÌ «¸ôÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä. þÐ ¬îºÃ¢Âò¾¢Öõ ¬îºÃ¢Âõ. "«ÅÂÅ¢" ºÃ¢Â¡É Å¡÷ò¨¾Â¢ø¨Ä.

"«í¸ò¾¡ý" ¸ðÊÅáÐ; "ºÀ¢¸ý" ºÃ¢Â¡É À¾ó¾¡ý. ¬É¡ø ¦À¡Ð Áì¸ÙìÌò ¦¾Ã¢Â¡Ð.

¡§ÃÛõ Àñʾ÷¸û ¿øÄ À¾í¸û(¦º¡ü¸û) ¸ñÎÀ¢ÊòÐì ¦¸¡Îò¾¡ø Òñ½¢ÂÓñÎ!

«¨ÃÁ½¢ §¿Ãõ §Â¡º¢òÐô À¡÷ò§¾ý. "¯ÚôÀ¡Ç¢" ²¦¾øÄ¡§Á¡
¿¢¨Éò§¾ý. ´ýÚõ Áɾ¢üÌô ¦À¡Õó¾Å¢ø¨Ä. ±ýÉ ¦ºö§Åý? ¸¨¼º¢Â¡¸ "¦ÁõÀ÷" ±ýÚ ±Ø¾¢Å¢ð§¼ý!

þýÛõ ¬È «Áà §Â¡º¢òÐô À¡÷òÐî ºÃ¢Â¡É À¾í¸û ¸ñÎÀ¢ÊòÐ Áü¦È¡ÕÓ¨È ¦º¡ø¸¢§Èý " [/tscii:3c7d674c4b]

[tscii:3c7d674c4b]
±Éì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷ À¡Ã¾¢!

þìÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Ä¢ÕóÐ - ¾Á¢Æ¢ø ÒÐ¡ü¸û ÀÄÅ¡¸¢ ¬í¸¢Äî ¦º¡ü¸¨Ç «¸üÚõ ¿¢¨Ä ÅçÅñÎõ ±ýÈ §Å𨸠«Åâ¼õ þÕ󾨾 «È¢ÂÓʸ¢ÈÐ!

À¡Ã¾¢Â¡÷ «ô§À¡Ð ¬ì¸¢Â - "¯ÚôÀ¡Ç¢" ±Ûõ ¦º¡ø¾¡ý þýÚ "¯ÚôÀ¢É÷" ¬¸¢ ÅÆì¸ò¾¢ø ¯ûÇÐ!


º¡ýÚ : "¬ðº¢ò¾Á¢ú" áø (1999 ¬õ ¬ñÎ ¦ÅǢ£Î), ¾Á¢ú ÅÇ÷òШÈ, ¾Á¢ú¿¡Î «ÃÍ - Àì¸õ 23[/tscii:3c7d674c4b]

[RSSKaran]

Both the languages are equally good. Tamil language is our mother tongue. Sanskrit is our rashtra basha. we should learn sanskrit to read our religious literature.

[Idiappam]

Sanskrit is our rashtra basha. we should learn sanskrit to read our religious literature.

And know all the ills that came along with it!

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Mr.RSSkaran,

// Sanskrit is our rashtra basha. we should learn sanskrit to read our religious literature.//

Can you explain more what rashtra basha means ?


And Dear Mr. geno,

I am not able to read your column here because I don' t have tamil font installed into my computer.

Can anybody give information to download and install such font
from web ? What is the way ?

f.s.gandhi

[Roshan]

FSG Vandayar,

Go to the following site and download TSC_AvarangaL fonts to read Tamil scripts.

http://www.tamil.net/tscii/tools.html

And download the key board tool called e-kalappai to type Tamil scripts. But when you download and intstall e-kalappai , TSC Avarangal fonts get automatically installed.

So I would suggest you download e-kalappai once and for all . Good luck !!

Happy Tamil typing and viewing !! :)

[senthilkumaras]

dear fsgandhi vandaiyar,

could you kindly enlighten us on what mr.mathivanan have

deciphered in the

indus valley civilisaton script,seal,s?

what do they pronounce like in sweet tamil ?

-thankyou.

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Thiru senthilkumaras,

Kindly refer my postings in threads, 'Sanskrit - tamil myth' dated April 17,2005 and 'Is tamil is derived from sanskrit' dated April 25, 2005 regarding Dr.Mathivanan's findings.

He used mesopatomian and Brahmi script to dechipher out sindhu valley script.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Mr.Roshan,

Thank you for your information. I have downloaded 'tamil fonts' and am able to read Mr. geno's passage in this column.

Dear Mr.geno,

'Angadi', 'Angaththinar' are old words and why did Bharathiyar delete this word 'angaththinar ? The word 'Uruppu' might be getting sound when added with 'Aali'- like 'Ulzhaipali'.

But there are some tamils like R.C.Sakthi , a director in tamil cinema once wrote that he could not get equivalent best word for 'Sparisam'- . He did not know the word 'silirpu' :)

A great story writer like Geyakkanthan could not find the equivalent word for 'pravakam' which he considered the best word to reveal the situation of uncontrollable 'Unarchi'.

No tamil knows 'Pravakam'. He added 'Unarchi pravakam' which was the correct word to specify what he means to say as a situation in his story. 'Unarchi'-karaipuralthal, unarchi kattukadangathathu were not in his interest.

The equivalent word for 'Ragasiam' is 'kamukkam' which is old but used now only in colloquial language may not get attraction in the mind of modern story tellers / killers.

I have not had the chances of reading stories / novels of present day writers and I have escaped from these killers. I don't know How tamil is killed. :D

My point here is true devoters like Bharathiyar can only reemancipate tamil. :lol:

f.s.gandhi

[gaddeswarup]

While googling for Telugu online dictionaries, I noticed the following:
http://www.boloji.com/history/025.htm
I do not know how authorative the article is but it seems to suggest that some words went from old Tamil to Samskrit.
Swarup

[solomon]

Every one of us would love Our Mother Tongue to be the best in the world and Tamil to be the Oldest.

Historical Linguistics is a Secular Science without preferences.

While the Earliest of Tamil Literaure Tholkappiyam is dated to 350 CE, we have Sanskrit Literature Like Valmiki Ramayan aound 1000BCE, And we have complete manuscript with Carbon14 dated to 1st Century CE. Vedas- which is in unrefined SANSKRIT is dated now 2000-600 BCE( see wikipedia), but many Tamil Scholars in eagerness to lift Tamil try to date Sanskrit to later date, without proper basis.

As friends shows, the earliest Brahmi- Stone inscrptions have Telugu and Kannada words dated 300 BCE, though we donot have any literature from this languages for another 1000 years atleast.

We should accept that Sanskrit and Tamil as Two Eyes of India.

European Scholars, seeing that Sanskrit Literature- has somuch, said Indians cannot have such Knowledge and Identified SAnskrit is from them and called Aryans- for which there is no basis.

Anybody trying to call a section of Indians, as Aryan or Dravidian accept that Indians are not knowlegable.

Let us be proud of both.
MosesMohammedSolomon

[Idiappam]

Thank you Solomon, for your lies!

[Idiappam]

Solomon lied:

Every one of us would love Our Mother Tongue to be the best in the world and Tamil to be the Oldest.
Lie no !: That Tamil is his mother tongue!


While the Earliest of Tamil Literaure Tholkappiyam is dated to 350 CE,
That's lie no 2.


we have Sanskrit Literature Like Valmiki Ramayan aound 1000BCE,
That's lie no 3.


And we have complete manuscript with Carbon14 dated to 1st Century CE.
That's lie no 4.


Vedas- which is in unrefined SANSKRIT is dated now 2000-600 BCE
That's lie no 5. First written Rig veda 600BCE


but many Tamil Scholars in eagerness to lift Tamil try to date Sanskrit to later date, without proper basis.
That's lie no 6. Tamil Scholars don't care a cent for sanskritic tales.


As friends shows, the earliest Brahmi- Stone inscrptions have Telugu and Kannada words dated 300 BCE, though we donot have any literature from this languages for another 1000 years atleast.
So?? Good! Looks like Teluge and Kannada are also older that that Sanskrit mongrel.


We should accept that Sanskrit and Tamil as Two Eyes of India.
What the hell sanskrit for?? To read the Kamasutra of Vatsayana - which has a chapter on seducing your neighbours wife too. Devabhasa eh? Eyes of India eh??


European Scholars, seeing that Sanskrit Literature- has somuch, said Indians cannot have such Knowledge and Identified SAnskrit is from them and called Aryans- for which there is no basis.
The 'Europeans' are right - agreed by many Indian sanskritics too.


Anybody trying to call a section of Indians, as Aryan or Dravidian accept that Indians are not knowlegable.
They are divided! Aryans are there and Dravidians were there long before!


Let us be proud of both.
What the hell for?? So that you and your likes can make more mess, coming around later telling 'Sanskrit is the Gospel etc'..


MosesMohammedSolomon
From you name - I know you are a menace!

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Thiru Soloman, :)

History telling is based on scientifical facts and not that compromising like ‘two eyes’ and such kind of integrity / unity making. :o

You think that there are three major religions. But there are lot of religions in world which induced this three religions. That spoke history. These three religions have made world divided. Unification of these / the trying to do this will make another religion.
Hence Kindly do not make history interpretation based on commonness but make through facts.

Tamil is the eldest. The results got from the following interpretations proved this. :)

1. All Indo-European root words are available in tamil. :!:

2. Most of the Indo-European root words are not available in Sanskrit.

3. Roots of all Sanskrit words are available in tamil whereas most of the Sanskrit roots are not available with Sanskrit. :!:

4. Sanskrit literature were made collectively during 2nd and 3rd centuries. Carbon dating proof is there.

5.The astrological calculations mentioned in the Sanskrit literature do not mean the historical incidents of prehistoric period happened while people talked Sanskrit language. This is like someother history telling in someother language. :)

6. Sanskrit literature belongs to certain religion which was induced by cultural habits of old tamils.

7. Tamil literature are secular in nature because lot of religions formulated in tamil land / / Indian land whereas Sanskrit literature belongs to latest evolved religion.

8. Sanskrit was never spoken anywhere in India. It was ‘othuvar’ language / God language / Deva Basha.

9. Pragrid was evolved from tamil and the archestrated form of Pragrid is Sanskrit. Sanskrit Grammar was not written in Sanskrit.


If you analyse history in this perspective you will find lot of evidences / proofs. :!:

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

The tone of your Replies by Idiayppam does not look like defending a truth , but to hurt an oppenant, so that Truth need not be analysed.

I Need not have to get a Certificate to Prove my mother Tounge is.

Dating of Literature is not done by me, but by Scholars especially without any internal motives. Tholkappiayam Dating with any Previuous needs appropriate proofs.

Tamil Literature is generally written in OLA and they cannot be preserved morethan 300 years, where as Bible was written on Leather and Papyrus. Similarly Ramayan Manuscript of 100 CE is dated to Ist Cen is in BARODA Museum, you can verify. Dating of RAamayan I gave is accepted by DevanayaPavanar and ALL International Universities, see www.wikhipedia.com

Dating of Rig Veda, was back dated by Maxmuller to 1300 to 400 BCE, that is to back Bible OT which Moses is dated to 13th Cen.
But evidence from Archealogy at Babylon and other places dates Vedas to 2000 BCE to 600 BCE, whereas Books of Moses to later than 350 BCE. See Cambridege, Oxford or any reputed Universities, researches.
India- properly Hindustan derives from the name -The Land mass between Himalayas to Indumaha Samudram, the previleaged place of God, and people here are Hindus, and Bible book of Esther-200BCE, names Hindu country.
Moreover Indian Culture extended up to Babylon, i.e., Iran and Iraq, the Khandara of Mahabharat is in Afganistan-Ghandahar of Highjack fame etc.,

Tholkappiar was Brahmin, who new Sanskrit and refers to Sanskrit Thrice for accepting Sanskrit words to Tamil and Sanskritized Letters (Vadamozhi), Tiruvalluvar uses Adi in Kural no 1 and other places, whereas Present Dravidian Govts changed the name Agaradhi- to AgaraMudali?

Sangam Literature names Nanmarai many a times and hiding this is foolish.
I donot wear My Special Dresses daily and till Writing was Perfected Sanskrit was not used in Stone Inscriptions and that doesnot mean it does not exisit earlier.
Pali is clearly a Collequial Sanskrit and Nobody can backdate it.

Another Big myth, Sanskrit was never spoken, Friends these Popular Foolish statements may get Applause in meetings, but any Serious and Sincere Linguistic Scholar would not put such Statement, every one knows it takes Centuries for the formation to take place. Moreover Literary evidences tells much, Ramayan and Mahabarat are in more sppech toungue, where as Kalidas etc., goes to highly Gramerised Yappu, and that was the reason for slow moving of Sanskrit fom common person, where as Veda Vyasa had Non-Brahimin Disciples.
We Cannot understand Tamil if Pure Senthamilz is spoken, we need Explanations for Even Tirukural. Which is in Simple Tamil. By insisting Purity of Language, Sanskrit grew, but without being a commoner Speaking it. We can explain this To LATIN, inspite of Raman Govt Language, insistance of Grammer Purity it lost itself. Hebrew which was just used in worship became common language of Israel is now widely used now by Jews, whereas Foolishly we adopted Hindi-English in the name of Secularism and now these flasehood researchers spread false preachings.

If anybody accept Tamil and Sanskrit, he is not a Anti-Tamil but accepts Truths.

FSG: Because Christianity(Xty) wanted to spread itself, spoiled the natives , today America, Australia, Philipines –the natives are minorities to less than 10%, by the time Xty came to India, Civilisation has grown and Killing was not possible and They used Dividie and rule. The Earliest visitor to Madurai-Robert-Denobili had to learn Telugu/Tamil and Sanskrit to Probagate, and made A Forgery Veda and Caught and left and died a lonely death in Chennai.

Hating Sanskrit and spreading Falsehood does not help, where as Tamil has much better Grammer and much widely spoken is a Truth.

None of the Tamil Literaure Olaichuvadis are older than 16th Cen, and saying Carbon dated are clear Lies.

DevanaeyaPavanar a Christian started Falsehood, and he uses theBible Genesis story of Noah flood, by dating the book to 5000BCE, which is actually 300 BCE, and that the Cosmic flood dated by Bible in 2200BCE, is now rejected as a Pure Legend, as Mummies and Indus-Saraswathy Archealogy proves.

Dividing of all roots is possible, but they are not Linguistically correct and any body can interpret on their convenience.

Sanskrit and Tamil was created from common say Proto-Indian Language and hence similarites always is there, and religious beliefs say that way only.

-edited-

MosesMohammedSolomon

[Idiappam]

solomon said:


I Need not have to get a Certificate to Prove my mother Tounge is.
Do you have any to proof your mother-in-law tongue?? Appears like it is Sanskrit!


Dating of Literature is not done by me, but by Scholars especially without any internal motives. Tholkappiayam Dating with any Previuous needs appropriate proofs.

Tamil Literature is generally written in OLA and they cannot be preserved morethan 300 years, where as Bible was written on Leather and Papyrus. Similarly Ramayan Manuscript of 100 CE is dated to Ist Cen is in BARODA Museum, you can verify. Dating of RAamayan I gave is accepted by DevanayaPavanar and ALL International Universities, see www.wikhipedia.com

Who are Scholars you are taking of?? YOu said, you said that the Tholkappiam was written 350CE, which scholars said that. You also said that the Ramayana was written 1000 BCE -- which scholars said that??

YOu pointed to one 'wikipedia' where nothing is stated about the Ramayana manuscript. The Baroda Museum has just got some recent paintings of Ramayana scences - nothing there that we can safely call a 'ramayana manuscript'.

Devaneya Pavanar stated nothing about the Ramayana date - his book 'Vadamozhi Varalaaru' - refered. He just mentions that the Mahabaratha 'occured about 1000 BCE'. Nothing he said about the date of the Ramayana scripting by Mr. Valmiki! He did not even give a date for Mr Vyasa! So stop your lies!


But evidence from Archealogy at Babylon and other places dates Vedas to 2000 BCE to 600 BCE, whereas Books of Moses to later than 350 BCE. See Cambridege, Oxford or any reputed Universities, researches.
What 'evidence'?? you Talking?? Don't pull a fast one!


India- properly Hindustan derives from the name -The Land mass between Himalayas to Indumaha Samudram, the previleaged place of God, and people here are Hindus, and Bible book of Esther-200BCE, names Hindu country.
Watch it! There as some Vedics here who hates that name = Hindu - the persian given name to the people there!


Moreover Indian Culture extended up to Babylon, i.e., Iran and Iraq, the Khandara of Mahabharat is in Afganistan-Ghandahar of Highjack fame etc.,
Or is it the other way round. Vedic Indian culture came from the West!


Tholkappiar was Brahmin, who new Sanskrit and refers to Sanskrit Thrice for accepting Sanskrit words to Tamil and Sanskritized Letters (Vadamozhi), Tiruvalluvar uses Adi in Kural no 1 and other places, whereas Present Dravidian Govts changed the name Agaradhi- to AgaraMudali?
Who told you Tholkappiar was a Brahmin?? Must be Mr UV Swaminatha Iyer! He talks about 'Vadamozhi' not Sanskrit!


Sangam Literature names Nanmarai many a times and hiding this is foolish.
So? What is Nanmarai? What do they refer to when the Sanga pulavars say 'Nanmarai'? Give some examples from Sanga pulavars on the 'nanmarai'. Anyway, what is wrong in mentioning the nanmarais in Sangam Literature when they even talked about the Jews and Greeks in Sangam Literature?


I do not wear My Special Dresses daily and till Writing was Perfected Sanskrit was not used in Stone Inscriptions and that doesnot mean it does not exisit earlier.
Why was the first Sanskrit inscription dated around 200CE in Brahmi script and not in any earlier Script? What is the earlier script (if any) of the Sanskrit people??


Pali is clearly a Collequial Sanskrit and Nobody can backdate it.
It is not 'clearly' a colloquial Sanskrit! Can you clear it for me please!


Another Big myth, Sanskrit was never spoken, Friends these Popular Foolish statements may get Applause in meetings, but any Serious and Sincere Linguistic Scholar would not put such Statement, every one knows it takes Centuries for the formation to take place.
Who spoke Sanskrit?? How many spoke that throughout the ages, and where did they live??


Moreover Literary evidences tells much, Ramayan and Mahabarat are in more sppech toungue, where as Kalidas etc., goes to highly Gramerised Yappu, and that was the reason for slow moving of Sanskrit fom common person, where as Veda Vyasa had Non-Brahimin Disciples.
Which came first - Kalidas or Ramayan/Mahabarat?? Get your order clear. And since when did Mr. Veda Vyasa become a Brahmin - that now you can brag that he had some non-brahmins with him?


We Cannot understand Tamil if Pure Senthamilz is spoken, we need Explanations for Even Tirukural. Which is in Simple Tamil.
Why? YOu can't understand modern English if you vocabulary is limited. That coupled with similies and idiomatic expressions - you will be lost when you read modern english. Why can't it be the same for Tamil - when all that was written were mostly poetical! You just need a dictionary - English or Tamil or any other language - to go around!

What do you understand of this english words - commonly used now - permissive, inventive, impulsive, compulsive, evasive, exhaustive, expensive, constructive, impressive .... ? Go, run for a dictionary!


If anybody accept Tamil and Sanskrit, he is not a Anti-Tamil but accepts Truths.
Nobody bothers about Sanskrit! But, those Sanskritic lies these vedic stooges keep telling is irritating!



DevanaeyaPavanar a Christian started Falsehood, and he uses theBible Genesis story of Noah flood, by dating the book to 5000BCE, which is actually 300 BCE, and that the Cosmic flood dated by Bible in 2200BCE, is now rejected as a Pure Legend, as Mummies and Indus-Saraswathy Archealogy proves.
Where did Pavanar talk about Noah Flood?? Name it, solomon where?? I have seen his books all of them! Stop your tales!


Sanskrit and Tamil was created from common say Proto-Indian Language and hence similarites always is there, and religious beliefs say that way only.
"say Common Proto-Indian"... What you started guessing? Dream on, my brother!

[solomon]

Dear Idiyappam,
you have not given a single evidence to back you, see dating of Vedas and Other Sanskrit literature in Wikipedia for yourself.
Devaneyan, very clearly accepted, Tholkappiyar as BRahmin, and I shall gives his various book references tomorrow. Kappiyakudi means a family which makes Kathakalarshebams and thats clear of his back ground.

Tholkappiyar talks about Vadasol many a times and if you want references all can be given tomorrow, and You can mail me by priate mail and I can reply you.

I am putting my article presented in another forum for your reading.

DRAVIDIAN MOVEMENT- WHAT IS IT?

The Europeans seeing that India has the mother of all their Languages- Sanskrit and Tamil, and Much Superior Divine contacts than the much confused Hebrews.

Portughese, first under Loyala and later by Fransis Xavier, broke each and every temple in Goa, then Inquisition was brought. "Anybody who has ANy God idols are helping Brahmins can be killed", this was Xavier wanted law. Robert DENObili, tried deception, he staying in Madurai, during Naicker Period, was required to read Tamil and Telugu but also required SANSKRIT, made a fraud Veda, called Yesur Veda, but failed miserably, and caught for fraud, left Madurai and died lonely in Chennai, and his converts remained less than 300 by all deception means.

One Colonel.Boden, who served in India for morethan 2 decades, felt bad on failure of Conversion Business, Pledged Huge Amount to OXford University for Sanskrit Scholarship, to help Missonaries.

Came RajaRamMohanrai, wel versant in Sanskrit and Persian, other than Bengali and English, Learned HEBREW, GREEK AND LATIN and found Brahmo SAmaj,
British who felt his ideals are closer to Christians and a Conversion of A Prominant Brahmin, would fetch huge returns, appointed a Learned Bishop to shaddow Rai, and convert him. RESULT, Rev. Fr. Adams was converted from Xty to Brahmos.

This created huge problems, then using the Boden's Trust, a Non-British, Non-Anglican church member Young Maxmuller was picked to translate Vedas, and ALL Indian Libraries were forced to buy his books. Monier Williams etc., are the product of this Boden Trust.

Wrong Fradulant translation by Muller, etc., was used for Aryan race theory.
By this they say Hinduism is not Indian and also the Europeans are the Aryans, who then becomes the cradle of Sanskritetc.,

Any body who calls a section of Hindus as Aryans and others as Dravidians are accepting the Missionaries fraud that Indian are not brained to make Sanskrit and Tamil and they are European imports.

Dr. Ambedkar, who was never a Hinduism supporter, wrote:

1.THe Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race.
2.There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to be the natives of India.
3.There is no evidience to show that the distinction between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction.
4. THe Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryas were different in colour from the Dasas and Dayus .....

" If anthropometry is a science which can be depended upon to determine the race of a people ..... then its measurements extablish that the Brahmins and the Untouchables belong to the same race. From this it follows that if the Brahmins are Aryans the Untouchables are also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the Untouchables are also Dravidians....

WRITINGS AND SPEECHES - EDUCATION Dept. Govt. of Mahrashtra vol -7 page 85 and 302-303.

The Casteism is increased due to the Dravidian rule.

The Dravidian Fathers want their Posting and Party Leadership to their Sons. Eg.Karunanidhi, Ramdoss etc., practicsing Varnasram dharma.

Unless We Indians understand the Mission of Church- to divide and Convert, of which Hate - Brahimins means hate Hinduism, Church comes in; Indian Civilisation and Culture would have grave problems.
Further I BRING another posting in hub itself which was locked here so that every body can reply.

pirayaaniNewbie HubberJoined: 31 Mar 2005Posts: 7 Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:55 pm Post subject: Vedic Roots of Early Tamil Culture?

I had hoped to post this in the history section, but apparently it is only for moderators. Anway I just wanted some opinion on this claim: In recent years attempts have been made to cast a new look at ancient India. For too long the picture has been distorted by myopic colonial readings of India’s prehistory and early history, and more recently by ill-suited Marxist models. One such distortion was the Aryan invasion theory, now definitively on its way out, although its watered-down avatars are still struggling to survive. It will no doubt take some more time—and much more effort on the archaeological front—for a new perspective of the earliest civilization in the North of the subcontinent to take firm shape, but a beginning has been made. We have a peculiar situation too as regards Southern India, and particularly Tamil Nadu. Take any classic account of Indian history and you will see how little space the South gets in comparison with the North. While rightly complaining that “Hitherto most historians of ancient India have written as if the south did not exist,”[ 1]Vincent Smith in his Oxford History of India hardly devotes a few pages to civilization in the South, that too with the usual stereotypes to which I will return shortly. R. C. Majumdar’s Advanced History of India,[2] or A. L. Basham’s The Wonder That Was India[3] are hardly better in that respect. The first serious History of South India,[4] that of K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, appeared only in 1947. Even recent surveys of Indian archaeology generally give the South a rather cursory treatment. The Context It is a fact that archaeology in the South has so far unearthed little that can compare to findings in the North in terms of ancientness, massiveness or sophistication : the emergence of urban civilization in Tamil Nadu is now fixed at the second or third century BC, about two and a half millennia after the appearance of Indus cities. Moreover, we do not have any fully or largely excavated city or even medium-sized town : Madurai, the ancient capital of the Pandya kingdom, has hardly been explored at all ; Uraiyur, that of the early Cholas, saw a dozen trenches ;[5] Kanchipuram, the Pallavas’ capital, had seventeen, and Karur, that of the Cheras, hardly more ; Kaveripattinam,[6] part of the famous ancient city of Puhar (the first setting of the Shilappadikaram epic), saw more widespread excavations, yet limited with regard to the potential the site offers. The same may be said of Arikamedu (just south of Pondicherry), despite excavations by Jouveau-Dubreuil, Wheeler, and several other teams right up to the 1990s.[7] All in all, the archaeological record scarcely measures up to what emerges from the Indo-Gangetic plains—which is one reason why awareness of these excavations has hardly reached the general public, even in Tamil Nadu ; it has heard more about the still superficial exploration of submerged Poompuhar than about the painstaking work done in recent decades at dozens of sites. (See a map of Tamil Nadu’s important archaeological sites below.) But there is a second reason for this poor awareness : scholars and politicians drawing inspiration from the Dravidian movement launched by E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker (“Periyar”) have very rigid ideas about the ancient history of Tamil Nadu. First, despite all evidence to the contrary, they still insist on the Aryan invasion theory in its most violent version, turning most North Indians and upper-caste Indians into descendants of the invading Aryans who overran the indigenous Dravidians, and Sanskrit into a deadly rival of Tamil. Consequently, they assert that Tamil is more ancient than Sanskrit, and civilization in the South older than in the North. Thus recently, Tamil Nadu’s Education minister decried in the State Assembly those who go “to the extent of saying that Dravidian civilization is part of Hinduism” and declared, “The Dravidian civilization is older than the Aryan.”[8] It is not uncommon to hear even good Tamil scholars utter such claims. Now, it so happens that archaeological findings in Tamil Nadu, though scanty, are nevertheless decisive. Indeed, we now have a broad convergence between literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence.[9] Thus names of cities, kings and chieftains mentioned in Sangam literature have often been confirmed by inscriptions and coins dating back to the second and third centuries BC. Kautilya speaks in his Arthashastra (c. fourth century BC) of the “easily travelled southern land route,” with diamonds, precious stones and pearls from the Pandya country ;[10] two Ashokan rock edicts (II and XIII[11]) respectfully refer to Chola, Pandya and Chera kingdoms as “neighbours,” therefore placing them firmly in the third century BC ; we also have Kharavela’s cave inscription near Bhubaneswar in which the Kalinga king (c. 150 BC) boasts of having broken up a “confederacy of the Dravida countries which had lasted for 113 years.”[12] From all these, it appears that the earliest Tamil kingdoms must have been established around the fourth century BC ; again, archaeological findings date urban developments a century or two later, but this small gap will likely be filled by more extensive excavations. But there’s the rub : beyond the fourth century BC and back to 700 or 1000 BC, all we find is a megalithic period, and going still further back, a neolithic period starting from about the third millennium BC. While those two prehistoric periods are as important as they are enigmatic, they show little sign of a complex culture, and no clear connection with the dawn of urban civilization in the South. Therefore the good minister’s assertion as to the greater ancientness of the “Dravidian civilization” finds no support on the ground. In order to test his second assertion that that civilization is outside Hinduism, or the common claim that so-called “Dravidian culture” is wholly separate from so-called “Aryan” culture, let us take an unbiased look at the cultural backdrop of early Tamil society and try to make out some of its mainstays. That is what I propose to do briefly, using not only literary evidence, but first, material evidence from archaeological and numismatic sources as regards the dawn of the Sangam age. I may add that I have left out the Buddhist and Jain elements, already sufficiently well known, to concentrate on the Vedic and Puranic ones, which are usually underemphasized. Also, I will not deal here with the origin of South Indian people and languages, or with the nature of the process often called “Aryanization of the South” (I prefer the word “Indianization,” used in this context by an archaeologist[13]). Those complex questions have been debated for decades, and will only reach firm conclusions, I believe, with ampler archaeological evidence. Vedic & Puranic Culture—Material Evidence Culturally, the megalithic people of the South shared many beliefs and practices with megalithic builders elsewhere in the subcontinent and beyond. Yet certain practices and artefacts were at least compatible with the Vedic world and may well have prepared for a ready acceptance of Vedic concepts—a natural assimilative process still observable in what has been called the “Hinduization” of tribals. Thus several cists surrounded by stone-circles have four vertical slabs arranged in the shape of a swastika.[14] The famous 3.5 metre-high figure of Mottur (in North Arcot district), carved out of a granite slab, is “perhaps the first anthropomorphic representation of a god in stone in Tamil Nadu.”[15] Some megalithic burials have yielded iron or bronze objects such as mother goddess, horned masks, the trishul etc. As the archaeologist I. K. Sarma observes, such objects are intimately connected with the worship of brahmanical Gods of the historical period, such as Siva, Kartikeya and later Amba. The diadems of Adichanallur burials are like the mouth-pieces used by the devotees of Murugan.[ 16] The archaeologist K. V. Raman also notes : Some form of Mother-Goddess worship was prevalent in the Megalithic period ... as suggested by the discovery of a small copper image of a Goddess in the urn-burials of Adichchanallur. More recently, in Megalithic burials the headstone, shaped like the seated Mother, has been located at two places in Tamil Nadu.[17] Megalithic culture attached great importance to the cult of the dead and ancestors, which parallels that in Vedic culture. It is also likely that certain gods later absorbed into the Hindu pantheon, such as Aiyanar (or Sastha), Murugan (the later Kartik), Korravai (Durga), Naga deities, etc., were originally tribal gods of that period. Though probably of later date, certain megalithic sites in the Nilgiris were actually dolmen shrines, some of them holding Ganesh-like images, others lingams.[ 18] Megalithic practices evocative of later Hinduism are thus summarized by the British archaeologists Bridget and Raymond Allchin : The orientation of port-holes and entrances on the cist graves is frequently towards the south. ... This demands comparison with later Indian tradition where south is the quarter of Yama. Among the grave goods, iron is almost universal, and the occasional iron spears and tridents (trisulas) suggest an association with the god Siva. The discovery in one grave of a trident with a wrought-iron buffalo fixed to the shaft is likewise suggestive, for the buffalo is also associated with Yama, and the buffalo demon was slain by the goddess Durga, consort of Siva, with a trident. ... The picture which we obtain from this evidence, slight as it is, is suggestive of some form of worship of Siva.[ 19] About the third century BC, cities and towns appear owing to yet little understood factors ; exchanges with the Mauryan and Roman empires seem to have played an important catalytic role, as also the advent of iron. From the very beginning, Buddhist, Jain and Hindu streaks are all clear. Among the earliest evidences, a stratigraphic dig by I. K. Sarma within the garbagriha of the Parasuramesvara temple at Gudimallam, brought to light the foundation of a remarkable Shivalingam of the Mauryan period (possibly third century BC) : it was fixed within two circular pithas at the centre of a square vastu-mandala. “The deity on the frontal face of the tall linga reveals himself as a proto-puranic Agni-Rudra”[20] standing on a kneeling devayana. If this early date, which Sarma established on stratigraphic grounds and from pottery sherds, is correct, this fearsome image could well be the earliest such representation in the South. Then we find “terracotta figures like Mother Goddess, Naga-linga etc., from Tirukkampuliyur ; a seated Ganesa from Alagarai ; Vriskshadevata and Mother Goddess from Kaveripakkam and Kanchipuram, in almost certainly a pre-Pallava sequence.”[21] Cult of a Mother goddess is also noticed in the early levels at Uraiyur,[22] and at Kaveripattinam, Kanchipuram and Arikamedu.[ 23] Excavations at Kaveripattinam have brought to light many Buddhist artefacts, but also, though of later date, a few figurines of Yakshas, of Garuda and Ganesh.[24] Evidence of the Yaksha cult also comes from pottery inscriptions at Arikamedu.[25] The same site also yielded one square copper coin of the early Cholas, depicting on the obverse an elephant, a ritual umbrella, the Srivatsa symbol, and the front portion of a horse.[ 26] This is in fact an important theme which recurs on many coins of the Sangam age[27] recovered mostly from river beds near Karur, Madurai etc. Besides the Srivatsa (also found among artefacts at Kanchipuram[28]), many coins depict a swastika, a trishul, a conch, a shadarachakra, a damaru, a crescent moon, and a sun with four, eight or twelve rays. Quite a few coins clearly show a yagnakunda. That is mostly the case with the Pandyas’ coins, some of which also portray a yubastambha to which a horse is tied as part of the ashvamedha sacrifice. As the numismatist R. Krishnamurthy puts it, “The importance of Pandya coins of Vedic sacrifice series lies in the fact that these coins corroborate what we know from Sangam literature about the performance of Vedic sacrifices by a Pandya king of this age.”[29] Finally, it is remarkable how a single coin often depicts symbols normally associated with Lord Vishnu (the conch, the srivatsa, the chakra) together with symbols normally associated with Lord Shiva (the trishul, the crescent moon, the damaru).[30] Clearly, the two “sects”—a very clumsy word—got along well enough. Interestingly, other symbols depicted on these coins, such as the three- or six-arched hill, the tree-in-railing, and the ritual stand in front of a horse, are frequently found in Mauryan iconography.[31] All in all, the material evidence, though still meagre, makes it clear that Hindu concepts and cults were already integrated in the society of the early historic period of Tamil Nadu side by side with Buddhist and Jain elements. More excavations, for which there is great scope, are certain to confirm this, especially if they concentrate on ancient places of worship, as at Gudimallam. Let us now see the picture we get from Sangam literature. Vedic & Puranic Culture—Literary Evidence It is unfortunate that the most ancient Sangam compositions are probably lost for ever ; we only know of them through brief quotations in later works. An early text, the Tamil grammar Tolkappiyam, dated by most scholars to the first or second century AD, is “said to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school.”[32] Its content, says N. Raghunathan, shows that “the great literature of Sanskrit and the work of its grammarians and rhetoricians were well known and provided stimulus to creative writers in Tamil.... The Tolkappiyam adopts the entire Rasa theory as worked out in the Natya Sastra of Bharata.”[33] It also refers to rituals and customs coming from the “Aryans,” a word which in Sangam literature simply means North Indians of Vedic culture ; for instance, the Tolkappiyam “states definitely that marriage as a sacrament attended with ritual was established in the Tamil country by the Aryas,”[ 34] and it uses the same eight forms of marriage found in the Dharmashastras. Moreover, it mentions the caste system or “fourfold jathis” in the form of “Brahmins, Kings, Vaishyas and Vellalas,”[35] and calls Vedic mantras “the exalted expression of great sages.”[36] The Tolkappiyam also formulates the captivating division of the Tamil land into five regions (tinai ), each associated with one particular aspect of love, one poetical expression, and also one deity : thus the hills (kuriñji ) with union and with Cheyon (Murugan) ; the desert (palai ) with separation and Korravai (Durga) ; the forests (mullai ) with awaiting and Mayon (Vishnu-Krishna) ; the seashore (neytal ) with wailing and Varuna ; and the cultivated lands (marutam) with quarrel and Ventan (Indra). Thus from the beginning we have a fusion of non-Vedic deities (Murugan or Korravai), Vedic gods (Indra, Varuna) and later Puranic deities such as Vishnu (Mal or Tirumal). Such a synthesis is quite typical of the Hindu temperament and cannot be the result of an overnight or superficial influence ; it is also as remote as possible from the separateness we are told is at the root of so-called “Dravidian culture.” Expectedly, this fusion grows by leaps and bounds in classical Sangam poetry whose composers were Brahmins, princes, merchants, farmers, including a number of women. The “Eight Anthologies” of poetry (or ettuttokai ) abound in references to many gods : Shiva, Uma, Murugan, Vishnu, Lakshmi (named Tiru, which corresponds to Sri) and several other Saktis.[37] The Paripadal, one of those anthologies, consists almost entirely of devotional poetry to Vishnu. One poem[38] begins with a homage to him and Lakshmi, and goes on to praise Garuda, Shiva on his “majestic bull,” the four-faced Brahma, the twelve Adityas, the Ashwins, the Rudras, the Saptarishis, Indra with his “dreaded thunderbolt,” the devas and asuras, etc., and makes glowing references to the Vedas and Vedic scholars.[39] So does the Purananuru,[40] another of the eight anthologies, which in addition sees Lord Shiva as the source of the four Vedas (166) and describes Lord Vishnu as “blue-hued” (174) and “Garuda-bannered” (56).[41] Similarly, a poem (360) of a third anthology, the Akananuru, declares that Shiva and Vishnu are the greatest of gods[42] Not only deities or scriptures, landmarks sacred in the North, such as the Himalayas or Ganga, also become objects of great veneration in Tamil poetry. North Indian cities are referred to, such as Ujjain, or Mathura after which Madurai was named. Court poets proudly claim that the Chera kings conquered North Indian kingdoms and carved their emblem onto the Himalayas. They clearly saw the subcontinent as one entity ; thus the Purananuru says they ruled over “the whole land / With regions of hills, mountains, / Forests and inhabited lands / Having the Southern Kumari / And the great Northern Mount / And the Eastern and Western seas / As their borders....”[43] The Kural (second to seventh century AD), authored by the celebrated Tiruvalluvar, is often described as an “atheistic” text, a hasty misconception. True, Valluvar’s 1,330 pithy aphorisms mostly deal with ethics (aram), polity (porul) and love (inbam), following the traditional Sanskritic pattern of the four objects of human life : dharma, artha, kama, and moksha—the last implied rather than explicit. Still, the very first decade is an invocation to Bhagavan : “The ocean of births can be crossed by those who clasp God’s feet, and none else”[44] (10) ; the same idea recurs later, for instance in this profound thought : “Cling to the One who clings to nothing ; and so clinging, cease to cling” (350). The Kural also refers to Indra (25), to Vishnu’s avatar of Vamana (610), and to Lakshmi (e.g. 167), asserting that she will shower her grace only on those who follow the path of dharma (179, 920). There is nothing very atheistic in all this, and in reality the values of the Kural are perfectly in tune with those found in several shastras or in the Gita.[45] Let us briefly turn to the famous Tamil epic Shilappadikaram (second to sixth century ad), which relates the beautiful and tragic story of Kannagi and Kovalan ; it opens with invocations to Chandra, Surya, and Indra, all of them Vedic Gods, and frequently praises Agni, Varuna, Shiva, Subrahmanya, Vishnu-Krishna, Uma, Kali, Yama and so forth. There are mentions of the four Vedas and of “Vedic sacrifices being faultlessly performed.” “In more than one place,” writes V. Ramachandra Dikshitar, the first translator of the epic into English, “there are references to Vedic Brahmans, their fire rites, and their chanting of the Vedic hymns. The Brahman received much respect from the king and was often given gifts of wealth and cattle.”[46] When Kovalan and Kannagi are married, they “walk around the holy fire,” a typically Vedic rite still at the centre of the Hindu wedding. Welcomed by a tribe of fierce hunters on their way to Madurai, they witness a striking apparition of Durga, who is addressed equally as Lakshmi and Sarasvati—the three Shaktis of the Hindu trinity. There are numerous references to legends from the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and the Puranas. After worshipping at two temples, one of Vishnu and the other of Shiva, the Chera king Shenguttuvan goes to the Himalayas in search of a stone for Kannagi’s idol, and bathes it in the Ganges—in fact, the waters of Ganga and those of Cauvery were said to be equally sacred. Similar examples could be given from the Manimekhalai : even though it is a predominantly Buddhist work, it also mentions many Vedic and Puranic gods, and attributes the submergence of Puhar to the neglect of a festival to Indra. As the archaeologist and epigraphist R. Nagaswamy remarks, “The fact that the literature of the Sangam age refers more to Vedic sacrifices than to temples is a pointer to the popularity of the Vedic cults among the Sangam Tamils.”[47] I should also make a mention of the tradition that regards Agastya, the great Vedic Rishi, as the originator of the Tamil language. He is said to have written a Tamil grammar, Agattiyam, to have presided over the first two Sangams, and is even now honoured in many temples of Tamil Nadu and worshipped in many homes. One of his traditional names is “Tamil muni.” The Shilappadikaram refers to him as “the great sage of the Podiyil hill,” and a hill is still today named after him at the southernmost tip of the Western Ghats. It would be tempting to continue with this enumeration, which could easily fill a whole anthology. As a matter of fact, P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri showed with a wealth of examples how “a knowledge of Sanskrit literature from the Vedic period to the Classical period is essential to understand and appreciate a large number of passages scattered among the poems of Tamil literature.”[48] Others have added to the long list of such examples.[ 49] In other words, Vedic and Puranic themes are inextricably woven into Sangam literature and therefore into the most ancient culture of the Tamil land known to us. Historical Period The historical period naturally takes us to the great Pallava, Chola and Pandya temples and to an overflowing of devotional literature by the Alwars, the Nayanmars and other seekers of the Divine who wandered over the length and breadth of the Tamil land, filling it with bhakti. But here let us just take a look at the rulers. An inscription records that a Pandya king led the elephant force in the Mahabharata War on behalf of the Pandavas, and that early Pandyas translated the epic into Tamil.[50] The first named Chera king, Udiyanjeral, is said to have sumptuously fed the armies on both sides during the War at Kurukshetra ; Chola and Pandya kings also voiced such claims—of course they may be devoid of historical basis, but they show how those kings sought to enhance their glory by connecting their lineage to heroes of the Mahabharata. So too, Chola and Chera kings proudly claimed descent from Lord Rama or from kings of the Lunar dynasty—in other words, an “Aryan” descent. As regards religious practices, the greatest Chola king, Karikala, was a patron of both the Vedic religion and Tamil literature, while the Pandya king Nedunjelyan performed many Vedic sacrifices, and the dynasty of the Pallavas made their capital Kanchi into a great centre of Sanskrit learning and culture. K. V. Raman summarizes the “religious inheritance of the Pandyas” in these words : The Pandyan kings were great champions of the Vedic religion from very early times.... According to the Sinnamanur plates, one of the early Pandyan kings performed a thousand velvi or yagas Vedic sacrifices.... Though the majority of the Pandyan kings were Saivites, they extended equal patronage to the other faiths ... and included invocatory verses to the Hindu Trinity uniformly in all their copper-plate grants. The Pandyas patronised all the six systems or schools of Hinduism.... Their religion was not one of narrow sectarian nature but broad-based with Vedic roots. They were free from linguistic or regional bias and took pride in saying that they considered Tamil and Sanskritic studies as complementary and equally valuable.[51] This pluralism can already be seen in the two epics Shilappadikaram and Manimekhalai, which amply testify that what we call today Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism coexisted harmoniously. “The sectarian spirit was totally absent,”[52] writes Ramachandra Dikshitar. “Either the people did not look upon religious distinctions seriously, or there were no fundamental differences between one sect and another.”[53] That is also a reason why I have not stressed Buddhism and Jainism here. Those two faiths were no doubt significant in the early stages of Tamil society, but not as dominant as certain scholars insist upon in an attempt to eclipse the Vedic and Puranic elements. Buddhism and Jainism did contribute greatly in terms of religious thought, art and science, but faded centuries later under the flood of Hindu bhakti ; their insistence on world-shunning monasticism also did not agree very well with the Tamil temperament, its cult of heroism and its zest for life. In any case, this superficial glance at Sangam literature makes it clear at the very least that, in the words of John R. Marr, “these poems show that the synthesis between Tamil culture and what may loosely be termed Aryan culture was already far advanced.[ 54] Nilakanta Sastri goes a step further and opines, “There does not exist a single line of Tamil literature written before the Tamils came into contact with, and let us add accepted with genuine appreciation, the Indo-Aryan culture of North Indian origin.”[55] The Myth of Dravidian Culture And yet, such statements do not go deep enough, as they still imply a North-South contrast and an unknown Dravidian substratum over which the layer of “Aryan” culture was deposited. This view is only milder than that of the proponents of a “separate” and “secular” Dravidian culture, who insist on a physical and cultural Aryan-Dravidian clash as a result of which the pure “Dravidian” culture got swamped. As we have seen, archaeology, literature and Tamil tradition all fail to come up with the slightest hint of such a conflict. Rather, as far as the eye can see into the past there is every sign of a deep cultural interaction between North and South, which blossomed not through any “imposition” but in a natural and peaceful manner, as everywhere else in the subcontinent and beyond. As regards an imaginary Dravidian “secularism” (another quite inept word to use in the Indian context), it has been posited by many scholars : Marr,[56] Zvelebil[57] and others characterize Sangam poetry as “secular” and “pre-Aryan”[58] after severing its heroic or love themes from its strong spiritual undercurrents, in a feat typical of Western scholarship whose scrutiny always depends more on the magnifying glass than on the wide-angle lens. A far more insightful view comes from the historian M. G. S. Narayanan, who finds in Sangam literature “no trace of another, indigenous, culture other than what may be designated as tribal and primitive.”[ 59] He concludes : The Aryan-Dravidian or Aryan-Tamil dichotomy envisaged by some scholars may have to be given up since we are unable to come across anything which could be designated as purely Aryan or purely Dravidian in the character of South India of the Sangam Age. In view of this, the Sangam culture has to be looked upon as expressing in a local idiom all the essential features of classical “Hindu” culture.[ 60] However, it is not as if the Tamil land passively received this culture : in exchange it generously gave elements from its own rich temperament and spirit. In fact, all four Southern States massively added to every genre of Sanskrit literature, not to speak of the signal contributions of a Shankara, a Ramanuja or a Madhwa. Cultural kinship does not mean that there is nothing distinctive about South Indian tradition ; the Tamil land can justly be proud of its ancient language, culture and genius, which have a strong stamp and character of their own, as anyone who browses through Sangam texts can immediately see : for all the mentions of gods, more often than not they just provide a backdrop ; what occupies the mind of the poets is the human side, its heroism or delicate emotions, its bouncy vitality, refined sensualism or its sweet love of Nature. “Vivid pictures of full-blooded life exhibiting itself in all its varied moods,” as Raghunathan puts it. “One cannot but be impressed by the extraordinary vitality, variety and richness of the poetic achievement of the old Tamil.”[61] Ganapathy Subbiah adds, “The aesthetic quality of many of the poems is breathtakingly refined.”[62] It is true also that the Tamil language developed its own literature along certain independent lines ; conventions of poetry, for instance, are strikingly original and more often than not different from those of Sanskrit literature. More importantly, many scholars suggest that “the bhakti movement began in the Tamil country and later spread to North India.”[63] Subbiah, in a profound study, not only challenges the misconceived “secular” portrayal of the Sangam texts, but also the attribution of the Tamil bhakti to a northern origin ; rather, he suggests, it was distinctly a creation of Tamil culture, and Sangam literature “a reflection of the religious culture of the Tamils.”[64] As regards the fundamental contributions of the South to temple architecture, music, dance and to the spread of Hindu culture to other South Asian countries, they are too well known to be repeated here. Besides, the region played a crucial role in preserving many important Sanskrit texts (a few Vedic recensions, Bhasa’s dramas, the Arthashastra for instance) better than the North was able to do, and even today some of India’s best Vedic scholars are found in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. As Swami Vivekananda put it, “The South had been the repository of Vedic learning.”[65] In other words, what is loosely called Hinduism would not be what it is without the South. To use the proverbial but apt image, the outflow from the Tamil land was a major tributary to the great river of Indian culture. Conclusion It should now be crystal clear that anyone claiming a “separate,” “pre-Aryan” or “secular” Dravidian culture has no evidence to show for it, except his own ignorance of archaeology, numismatics and ancient Tamil literature. Not only was there never such a culture, there is in fact no meaning in the word “Dravidian” except either in the old geographical sense or in the modern linguistic sense ; racial and cultural meanings are as unscientific as they are irrational, although some scholars in India remain obstinately rooted in a colonial mindset. The simple reality is that every region of India has developed according to its own genius, creating in its own bent, but while remaining faithful to the central Indian spirit. The Tamil land was certainly one of the most creative, and we must hope to see more of its generosity once warped notions about its ancient culture are out of the way. http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/tamilculture.html
-pirayaani
I USE Net from Netpark and hence my research notes are not availble, I standby everyword mentioned and reply can be given.
MosesMohammedSolomon

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Thiru idiappam, :)

You have revealed good queries before soloman. He has not mentioned truthful evidences in support his views. Thank you.

Dear Thiru soloman,

I pose you some questions since we have already discussed all the issues in varrious topics in this forum which you make front stage now.

You are boastfully trying to make sanskrit history equal to tamil. :o

Let me pose some questions to you which may induce you to give some answers.

1. Don't you think that so far evacuvated inscriptions of tamil Brahmi script all over india proves the antiquity of tamil( 500 BC) than sanskrit ?

2. Don't you think so far evacuvated pali Brahmi script of King Ashokas period (300 BC) never contains sanskrit and sanskrit devanagiri script so far evacuated in india is belonging to (800 AD) ?

3. Don't you think tamil has roots not only for sanskrit language but for old languages like sumerian,Arabian,Akkadian and semiththian whereas sanskrit never has resemblance with them ?

4. Don't you think tamil gods,worshiping habits & customs followed not only in world ancient civilizations but also in vedhic sanskrit?

5.Aryan theory is wrong and dravidian theory is also wrong. But Don't you think Sindhu valley civilisation never contains so called vedhic tradition?

6.Don't you think The east linguistics scholars accepted tamil's antiquity that it must be the language of man when he evolved? Don't you think 'Troskin'- a chinean revealed this ?

7. Don' t you think structurewise -Grammaticalwise all east world languages resemble tamil and not Sanskrit ?

8. Don't you think all tribal people of earth's southern hemisphere resemble tamil ?

9. Don't you think all west languages words have roots in tamil ?

10. Don't you think western linguistics accepted tamils antiquity ?

11. Instead of searching vedhic elements in tamil sankam literature Don't you think searching out tamil culture elements in vedhic literature ?

12. Don't you think tamil version and sanskrit version caste system are somewhat same in nature but different in meaning after tamil king 'manu' went north and formulated 'manusmirithi' and subsequently 'Bhagavatgita' ?

13. Don't you think tamil god inthra and siva used in all four vedhas ? And Manusmirthi and Bhagavatigita were formulated when saiva and vaishnava (vinnava) fighting was going ?

14. Don't you think all north indian tribal languages including the 'Pragui' which is now in palusistan are much resemble tamil and no way to connected to sanskrit ?

15. And at last why don't you discuss issue by issue here ? You seem to be lambasting dravidian at one hand and boasting sanskrit on another - why this hurry / dilemma ? Cool down solomon.

Let us go one by one . You start give sanskrit history with all your proofs. We give tamil history with all proofs. We still more extend this with analysing the structure and formation of language. Okay 8)


f.s.gandhi

[pirayaani]

Let me first clarify something, the article of Daninos was something I stumbled upon on the net and posted it here because I thought it would be interesting to find out what other people thought about this.

pirayaani

Here is a counterreply:

"let us take an unbiased look at the cultural backdrop of early Tamil
society and try to make out some of its mainstays... Also, I will not
deal here with the origin of South Indian people and languages, or
with the nature of the process often called "Aryanization of the
South" (I prefer the word "Indianization," used in this context by an
archaeologist"

That sentence tells you how unbiased he is. "Indianization" indeed.
Meaning, of course, that he thinks Tamil culture was not Indian before
the northern influences started. Why can't vedicists accept that
"vedic" and "Indian" are not synonymous?

Actually, that article is full of distortions and mistakes. Here are
a few examples:

<<Court poets proudly claim that the Chera kings conquered North
Indian kingdoms and carved their emblem onto the Himalayas.>>

Yes, and the very next line says "imizhkadal vEli THAMIZHAKAM
viLanka". This is a very clear indication that Tamizhakam was
considered different from the conquered lands, and yet the author
completely suppresses this line.

<<They clearly saw the subcontinent as one entity ; thus the
Purananuru says they ruled over 'the whole land / With regions of
hills, mountains, / Forests and inhabited lands / Having the Southern
Kumari / And the great Northern Mount / And the Eastern and Western
seas / As their borders....'>>

This is totally incorrect. The "great northern mountains" are the
tirumalai hills which have for aeons been accepted as the borders of
Tamilakam. To try and represent them as the Himalayas (which are
always mentioned by name as "amaiya" in the sangam texts) either
displays utter ignorance or is deliberate falsification.

<<Let us briefly turn to the famous Tamil epic Shilappadikaram>>

Yes, let us. Especially the conclusion of the Maduraikkandam: "vaDa
Ariyar paDaikaDanthu then thamizhnADorungukANa puraithIr kaRpin
thEvi". Note especially how Ilangovadikal contrasts "vada Ariyar"
with "then thamizh naadu". And yet this man still insists that "they
clearly saw the subcontinent as one entity"!!

He also totally misrepresents the Dravidianist viewpoint.
Dravidianists *actually* say that the sangam literature clearly shows
vedic culture to have been a "foreign" element that was starting to
make inroads into the ancient Dravidian culture. This man, however,
misleadingly pretends that we are arguing that sangam literature was
uninfluenced by vedic culture. He totally ignores the masses of
evidence that the lower castes revered nadukkals (hero-stones),
ancestors and conducted Amman rituals that were totally alien to vedic
culture!

If this paper was actually accepted at a Vedic workshop, I can only
marvel at how poor standards of scholarship have become amongst
vedicists. A paper this poorly researched would have been laughed out
at any Dravidian session. Vedicists should learn some Dravidian
rationalism!

Ponna

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear pirayaani, :)

1. <<They clearly saw the subcontinent as one entity ; thus the
Purananuru says they ruled over 'the whole land / With regions of
hills, mountains, / Forests and inhabited lands / Having the Southern
Kumari / And the great Northern Mount / And the Eastern and Western
seas / As their borders....'>>

2.This is totally incorrect. The "great northern mountains" are the
tirumalai hills which have for aeons been accepted as the borders of
Tamilakam. To try and represent them as the Himalayas (which are
always mentioned by name as "amaiya" in the sangam texts) either
displays utter ignorance or is deliberate falsification.


No.1 fits for prehistoric period.

No.2 fits for sankam period.

'Ariyar' reference was not only for north. It was there in karikal chola period.

Karikal chola had four armies namely Ariyappadai , Manappadai, puduppadai and Pampappadai. Ariyam here specifies the 'first '.

'Atruppadai' literature tells this. 'Ariyapapadai kadantha Neduncheliyan' in sankam literature doesn't mean north ariyan but cholan army.

'Ayya, Ayira' roots formed ariya in paly language to specify hothas first and kings later.

Ayya - ariya - 'Araiyar' - Arasar was the tamil formation.

What Mr. Solomon quoted from Ambetkar's words is the correct interpretation of Aryans.

Daerius a king in Persia called himself as 'Ariyan' in the sense of Topper / king.

There was no Aryan race either in north or in South.

Periyar used 'Dravidia' word for cultural difference and not for race difference since it is specified in MahaBharata.

Orissa (old Kalinga) Poori Ranganathar temple has inscriptions about chola kings as dravida kings who were tamils.

Rai cholas were called Dravida kings who were tamils.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

Quiet lot of lies are put across.
I give quotes from Devaneyar- called Pavanar:
"The best of SANSKRIT Grammer book, in Panini of 4th Cen BCE, In Sanskrit grammer books are called Vyakarnam and claims even before Panini there were grammer for Numerals etc., and the oldest was IYenthiram of Vedic Period - Page 56-57, Tamilar Varalaru.

"Iyenthiram Niranthe Tholkappiyar " says Panamparanar;
Thol- 880, Thol1570, Kappiyar refers Ariyam, hence we can conclude that Sanskrit has established considerably in Tholkappiyar' period. Page 40 same book.

Four Vedas or Nanmarai, arangam, agamametc., means Sanskrit works and the word Anthanar in Tholkappiyam and all Tamil Sagnam and later books except refers to Aryan Brahmins only- Page 101, Tamilar Matham.

Devaneyan further in his book Oppiyan Mozhinool says- "s Panamparanar refers him knowing FourVedas, Iyenthiram and Kappiyar differenciates Vadasol Grammer with Tamil and that TholKappiyar made Arangetram before AthangottuAsan, all confirm that Tholkappiyar is A Brahmin."

Tholkappiyar is dubiously dated to 700BCE by Devaneyan, with no reason given, but objective scholoars who look at Tholkappiyar- giving Grammer for Wrting, means advanced stage of North Indian brought Brammi letters i.e., 200-150B.C.E.

I request all to maintain dignity on commenting on Scholars, One is talking so uglyly of UU.VE.SA and other on Iravatham Mahadevan.
The pains taken by Uvesa got us Tholkappiyam and Sangam Literature, which otherwise could have lost, and his honest serch of Originals are fully appreciated. Iravatham Mahadevan was the first to decipher Tamil from BArahmi scripts and has also deciphered Indus-Saraswathi scripts.

Tamil is such a wonderful Language, whose highllights can be said for pages and nobody needs to FaLsely belittle other Indian language and India' equal pride Sanskrit.

Most of the European Universities have intited Closing Tamil Departments and these myths of splitting words only Paint that we are Frauds.
Any Literature dating can be referred from www.wikhipedia.com and that is the opinion of All MAjor Universities of the World, any falsehood spread by few are spreading Hatered meaninglessly.

We do not have a single Tamil Literature before Sanskrit has taken route as I showed.

Please give truths and when you say Your assumed Dates please mention that you assume, when you say cARBON DATED , please gives proper reference, otherwise Wikhipedia is the ideal.

If anybody says my views are wrong give with proofs and not blindly sat wrong or Lie, it looks childish.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[Idiappam]

Solomon fradulently edited and deliberately misinterpretated the words of Pavanar to suit his anti-Tamil propaganda: - He posted:

I give quotes from Devaneyar- called Pavanar:
"The best of SANSKRIT Grammer book, in Panini of 4th Cen BCE, In Sanskrit grammer books are called Vyakarnam and claims even before Panini there were grammer for Numerals etc., and the oldest was IYenthiram of Vedic Period - Page 56-57, Tamilar Varalaru.

I give below the whole text of Devaneya Pavanars passage that he 'quoted above'. Readers can now understand what this menace Solomon is upto.

[tscii:d12c5d09b5]À¡½¢É£Âõ
ºÁü¸¢Õ¾ò¾¢ý ¾¨Äº¢Èó¾ þÄ츽 áÄ¡¸¢Â À¡½¢É£Âõ À¡½¢É¢Â¡ø ¸¢.Ó. 4¬õ áüÈ¡ñÊø þÂüÈôÀððÐ. þÄ츽 á¨Ä Ţ¡¸Ã½õ ±ýÀ÷ żáÄ¡÷. «Ð ÜÚÀÎôÒ (Analysis) ±ýÛõ ¦À¡ÕÇÐ. ¿ó¿¡ýÌ þÂø¸û (À¡¾í¸û) ¯ûÇ ±ñ½¾¢¸¡Ãí¸û («ò¾¢Â¡Âí¸û) À¡½¢É¢ Ţ¡¸÷½õ. «¾É¡ø «Ð «ð¼¡ò¾¢Â¡Â£ («‰¼¡ò¾Â¡Â£) ±Éô ¦ÀÂ÷ ¦ÀüÈÐ. «¾ý áüÀ¡ì¸û (Ýò¾¢÷í¸û) ²üò¾¡Æ 3980. «óáüÌÓý ±ñ½¢Ä츽 áø¸û þÂüÈôÀ𼾡¸î ¦º¡øÄôÀθ¢ÈÐ. «ÅüÚû §Å¾¸¡Äò¾ ¦¾ÉôÀÎõ ³ó¾¢Ãõ.

¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âõ À¡½¢É£Âò¾¢üÌ ÓóáüÈ¡ñÎ Óó¾¢ÂÐ. «¾É¡§Ä§Â, "³ó¾¢Ãõ ¿¢¨Èó¾ ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âý" ±ýÚ ÁðÎõ ÜȢɡ÷ ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Ââý ¯¼ýÁ¡½Åáý ÀÉõÀ¡ÃÉ¡÷. ºÁü¸¢Ú¾ þÄ츽 áø¸¦ÇøÄ¡õ ÀÅ½ó¾¢ ¿ýëø§À¡ø ±ØòÐï ¦º¡øÖ¦Á ÜÚÅɦÅýÚõ, ¾Á¢Æ¢ü§À¡ø ´Õ ÅÆíÌ ¦Á¡Æ¢¨Â Å¢Ç측Р§Å¾Óõ þ¾¢¸¡º Òá½í¸ÙÁ¡¸¢Â þÄ츢Âò¾¢ÖûÇ «¨Ãî ¦ºÂü¨¸Â¡É ¿¨¼ ¦Á¡Æ¢¨Â§Â (Semi-artificial literary dialect) Å¢ÇìÌÅɦÅýÚõ «È¢¾ø §ÅñÎõ.

¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âõ ±ØòÐõ ¦º¡øÖõ ¦À¡ÕÙÁ¡¸¢Â 㞢¸¡Ãí¦¸¡ñ¼Ð. ¦À¡ÕǾ¢¸¡Ãò¾¢ø, ¾Á¢Ø째 º¢ÈôÀ¡É ¦À¡ÕÇ¢Ä츽òмý ¦ºöÔǢ¨ÄÔõ «½¢Â¢ÂÄ¡É ¯Å¨ÁިÄÔõ ¯ð¦¸¡ñ¼Ð. ¬¾Ä¡ø, À¡½¢É£Âò¾¢Ä¢ýÚ ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âõ §¾¡ýȢ¾¡¸î º¢Ä÷ ÜÚÅÐ, §ÀÃý À¡ð¼¨É ¦ÀüÈ ¸¨¾Ôõ, ¸Ç¡î¦ºÊ¢ø ÀÄ¡ôÀÆõ ÀÈ¢ò¾ ¸¨¾Ô§Á ¡Ìõ.

À¡½¢É¢, "« þ ¯ñ", "Õ Ö ì", "² µí", "³ ´Çî", "†  ŠÃð", "øñ", » Á ¹ ½ ¾ õ" ӾĢ 14 ÌÚí¸½ìÌ áüÀ¡ì¸¨Ç, º¢Å¦ÀÕÁ¡É¢ý ¯Î쨸¢ɢýÚ §¾¡ýȢ ´Ä¢¸Ç¡¸ì ÜÈ¢, «ÅüÈ¢üÌ 'Á§¸ÍÅà Ýò¾¢Ãí¸û' ±Éô ¦ÀÂâð¼Ð. þó¾¢Â ÀÆíÌÊšɨà ²Á¡üÈò н¢îºÖ¼ý ¦ºö¾ ÀΧÁ¡ºî Ýú¡Ìõ.

"Òñ½¢Â ºÃŽõ ¦À¡ÕóÐÅ¢ á¢ý
Å¢ñ½Å÷ §¸¡Á¡ý Å¢Øá ¦ÄöÐÅ¢÷"
- (º¢Äô. 11.98-9)

±ýÛõ º¢ÄôÀ¾¢¸¡Ã «Ê¸¨Ç §¿¡ì¸¢ý, À¡½¢É¢Â¢ý ²Á¡ü¨È Áì¸û ¿õÀ¢ «ÅâÄ츽ò¨¾§Â §À¡üÈ¢ô À¢ÖÁ¡Ú, ¾Á¢úò ¦¾¡¼÷Ò ¸¡ðÎõ ³ó¾¢÷ Ţ¡¸Ã½ô Àʸ¨Ç¦ÂøÄ¡õ ¦¾¡ÌòÐ, «Æ¸÷ Á¨ÄÂÎòÐõ Áì¸û ÅÆí¸¡¾Ðõ ¬Æõ Á¢ì¸ÐÁ¡ý ´Õ ¦À¡ö¨¸ìÌû ±È¢óÐŢ𼾡¸ì ¸Õ¾ þ¼Óñ¼¡ÌÈÐ. ¾Á¢Æ¸òÐò §¾¡ýȢ ³ó¾¢Ãõ ¾Á¢Æ¸ò¾¢§Ä§Â «Æ¢ÔñðÐ §À¡Öõ![/tscii:d12c5d09b5]
- DevaneyaPavanar - Tamilar varalaaru Book 2 page 56-57 - on Paniniiyam.

Solomon has also posted the other 'quotes' from Pavanar that he corruputedly twisted to suit himself. Don't believe him.

[Idiappam]

Solomon ranted:


"Iyenthiram Niranthe Tholkappiyar " says Panamparanar;
Thol- 880, Thol1570, Kappiyar refers Ariyam, hence we can conclude that Sanskrit has established considerably in Tholkappiyar' period. Page 40 same book.

What made you think that 'Ariyam' of Tholkappiyar means 'Sanskrit'?? You are desperately wrong there!


Four Vedas or Nanmarai, arangam, agamametc., means Sanskrit works and the word Anthanar in Tholkappiyam and all Tamil Sagnam and later books except refers to Aryan Brahmins only- Page 101, Tamilar Matham.

Devaneyan further in his book Oppiyan Mozhinool says- "s Panamparanar refers him knowing FourVedas, Iyenthiram and Kappiyar differenciates Vadasol Grammer with Tamil and that TholKappiyar made Arangetram before AthangottuAsan, all confirm that Tholkappiyar is A Brahmin."

That is another of your fraudulent twist of Pavanars words. Post the original words of Pavanar in Tamil - for hubbers to see! YOu won't dare, would you, Solomon.


Tholkappiyar is dubiously dated to 700BCE by Devaneyan, with no reason given, but objective scholoars who look at Tholkappiyar- giving Grammer for Wrting, means advanced stage of North Indian brought Brammi letters i.e., 200-150B.C.E.
Who are the 'objective scholoars' you talking about? And why does it make you so happy to date Tholkappiam after Panini?? YOur anti-Tamil sentiments? Take care, my dear Solomon!


I request all to maintain dignity on commenting on Scholars, One is talking so uglyly of UU.VE.SA and other on Iravatham Mahadevan.
The pains taken by Uvesa got us Tholkappiyam and Sangam Literature, which otherwise could have lost, and his honest serch of Originals are fully appreciated. Iravatham Mahadevan was the first to decipher Tamil from BArahmi scripts and has also deciphered Indus-Saraswathi scripts.

Lets leave Mahadevan aside now, afterall his mentor was Pavanar - who taught him etymology of Tamil words. etc. But U.V.SA Iyer????????

UVSa did take some pains at the same time, as all brahmins do, did some intentional corruption to the Sangam works and Tholkappiam to give Sanskrit and Brahmins a bit of 'glory' down there. This was pointed out by Dr. Veeramani (Dravida Kazaga Chief) in his book 'veRukkathakkathE bramanIyam'.


Tamil is such a wonderful Language, whose highllights can be said for pages and nobody needs to FaLsely belittle other Indian language and India' equal pride Sanskrit.

YOu just leave Tamils alone! They are happy with their language and heritage - even it was borne as late as last night. Just don't come around singing the 'greatness' of Sanskrit to us! We can't bear the stench! We know too much of your Sanskritic lies too!


Most of the European Universities have intited Closing Tamil Departments and these myths of splitting words only Paint that we are Frauds.
Which are the 'most of the Eurupean UNiversities'?? And what is the read reason. There are dating frauds in Sanskritic History more than any history. eg, the Vedas are 8000 years old. Ramayana being 1.75 million years old. (The dinosaurs did not even know that)


Any Literature dating can be referred from www.wikhipedia.com and that is the opinion of All MAjor Universities of the World, any falsehood spread by few are spreading Hatered meaninglessly.
We do not have a single Tamil Literature before Sanskrit has taken route as I showed.

Major Universities, wow! So we don't have Tamil LIterature before Sanskrit. So what is the big deal.

Tamils have Thirukkural - they love it - the world best book on Humanism

Sanskrit have ManuSmriti - the worlds greatest book on racisim and castism.

Tamils have 'Anbe Sivam' - Thirumanthiram
Sanskrits have - The vedas - books on robbery, treachery and plunder on the natives.

I can go on, Solomon! yes on and on and on!

[solomon]

Bible Old Testament has Three names for God among others and they are
1. EL
2.EL SHADDAI
3. ELOHIM
As per Bible Lexicons first two are not of Semitic origin, and are proper nouns and meanings are assumed as for 1.Power 2. God Almighty 3. God, And this is how the Translations come, and in Tamil as 1. THEVAN 2. SARVAVALLAMAI MIKKA THEVAN and 3. Thevan, though they are Proper Nouns.
El, is a proper Tamil word, Used for Surian and God as Ellai Illathavan is El or Elumputhal Illathavan, used in Thol Kappiyam Period, onwards.
Sadai- a known name for SivaPeruman used manytimes in Sangam Period, and he is belived to live in Mount Kailash, and many attributes of Saddai takes to Siva, God Siva with Sun and Moon in His Jadai, gives light to the world and Ganges comes through his Jadai- hence Sadai. Jewish Kabalah confirms all this, but church hides all this. El is written as EEl in Nedil and EELSHHADDAI, So that common readers donot understand it.
Ellohim, is a Plural, with Hi, a femnine-as Indo European nature is a corrupt of Ammaiappan and Elohim beomes Allahudum in Arab and this again is Ammaippan.
Devaneyan and Caldwell both Christians know this fraud and didnot tell it and continued to help it.Devaneyan was interested only to cheat Tamils to hate fellow Aborgins of Tamilnadu and India.
MosesMohammedSolomon

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Question 1 : Did Aryan race exist anywhere in India ?

Aryan is not a race. We can call them as language group. If you ask Where are the ancestors,where did they live- I can't answer. I can tell that they were from somewhere in central Asia.
(confusion :? )
-Maxmuller, Biographies of words and the home of Aryans,Page 80.

Inthu religion's Idol worship & other rituals came from tamil roots
-R.C. Majumdar, Ancient India,Page 18.

South Indian people might have scattered in north India. Their language might be existing before sanskrit.
-Jawaharlal Nehru, Glimpses of world History, Page 11.

Aryan race is a story. They dont have religion, language and God.
- M. Theivanayakam,Dravidar samayam Magazines (1997-98)

Ancient world civilization was effected by tamils
- V.R. Ramachandra Dikshidar, Origin and spread of tamils - 1947, Page 53.

Inthra was the god of 'Marutham' land before aryans
- P. T . Srinivasa Iyengar, Pre Aryan tamil culture, page 27.

Out of 1,53,972 words in vedhic verses 33 times the word 'Arya' comes. Das & Dasyus comes 50 & 70 times respectively. Dasyus were kings.Aryas were hothaas. Aryan never being a race.
-P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar, Life in Ancient India, page 13.

Hothaas of Buddham, samanam, Jesuradusthiriyam and south sivam were also called Aryas
- Sothi prakasam, Ariyar varalaru, Pagam 2 , Page 233

CONCLUSION : Aryans are not a race. They dont belong to single religion. They dont belong to single language. Aryans are hothaas of all religions during vedhic period (Othuvar).

Question 2: Are aryans being Brahmins ?

Vaishnava(Vinnavam) though got radical change in south during 4- 6th century A.D formulated Bhagavat gita caste system with 'Paramanar'(Brahmins) and holy thread introduction.

Nowhere in vedhas 'Brahmin' is refered. At the sametime nowhere in Manusmiruthi / Bagavath gita 'Arya' is refered.

It seems to differentiate from other religion hothas Brahmin were named.
-Sothi Prakasam - Ariyar varalaru, pagam 2, page 220.

CONCLUSION: Brahmins are not Aryans.

Question 3 : What about sanskrit antiquity ?

Vedhas were arranged by Viyasa munivar after 1st century A.D. The language used in vedhas seems to be sanskrit but somewhat different in nature- K.Ayothidaasa Pandithar, Sinthanikal, Part 1, Page 69.

How can we analyse pre historic period with sanskrit literature written after 1st century A.D.?
-Sothi prakasam, Ariyar varalaru, pagam 2, page 233

Panini's grammar 'Astaththayi' was neither written in sanskrit nor for sanskrit.
- Panmozhip pulavar K. Appaththuraiyar, Thenmozhi page 142.

Though 'Astathtthayi' fits for sanskrit we cannot definitely tell for which language and in which language 'Astaththayi' is written
- K. Meenakshi sundaram , Tholkappiam and Astaththayi. Page 7 & 257.

CONCLUSION : A grammar book perceived to be grammar book of sanskrit itself not written in sanskrit language. Think about its antiquity. Sanskrit is an offshoot of tamil.

Question 4 : What about language research for history ?

If we want to know the ancient history and if not in language research where can we do research? Words have exact significance of history.
- Maxmuller. The science of thought, page 6.

There is no root in sanskrit for Krishna,Inthira,vishnu and varuna.
- P.T. Srinivas Iyengar, Pre Aryan tamil culture, page 29

Sindhuvalley alphabets are tamil
- Dr. R. Mathivanan, Epigraphist,Sindhu veli Ezhuthin thiravu, Page 17

Unorganised pragrid / paly / sanskrit were organised with the influence of tamil.
- T.N. Sesha Iyengar,Dravidian India, page 47.

When vincent smith wrote the foreword for his book Ancient India he came to know Indian history should be written from south and not from North.
- Thevaneyan, Oppian Mozhi nool, Page 1-2.

Maxmuller who spent more years for sanskrit found during his last days that world languages root must be in tamil
- Rt. Rev. Robert Calduwell, A comparative Grammar of Dravidian languages, page -90-91

CONCLUSION : Language research (as per Alexandar Gondarav) is the best solution for exact history.

Question 5 : So what do we do ? Is there any evidance proved tamil language antiquity recently through words ?

We continue our search for history through language first and archeological proof next.

Tamilai marakkalama ? - Pa. Aruli and

Greek words of tamil origin & Latin words of tamil origin-two books written by Professor K.C.A Knana kiri Nadar are another milestone in tamil language history.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Mr. Soloman wrote

// Devaneyan and Caldwell both Christians know this fraud and didnot tell it and continued to help //

How do you know it that they know it ?

Please dont blame, that too based on religion without evidances.

I have also difference of opinion with Thevaneyan only in subject like he used to say sangam is not tamil word where sangu is a tamil word from the same root of sangam and his followers also accpeted that. We have to see our forefather's intiation only.

Readymade acceptance will not make growth but stanstill.

Kindly dont think other languages except sanskrit are not for the religion you want to specify and support.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

I quote Professor, Dr.Meiappan , in his book " Deivika Geethiel Tiruvalluvam- " Thiya Ennam Kondor, Nallennam Konda Anthanrkalai ParamaEtirikalai Karuthial, avarkalai Makkal Purakkanikka vendum enra Nokkil, Sathiyai oru Verupattu kurakath Thirithu, Veruppai Valarthakal. Eneve Padaippasiriarkal, Or ARIYAN ENAK Karuthi, Thavarana Arthathaik Karpiththuk Kondu Padaippin tharththai kuraivaka mathipedu seivathum, Padaippai egalvathum Arivudaimaiyagathu. -Page 31.
I donot agree that Brahmins are only Authors of Sanskrit, it has roots from every Aborgins of India. It was Missionary plan to call Indians to be split as Aryans and Dravdians. Jewish and Arabs are called From Persian or Parasigam, and The founder of Thesophical Society- Madam Blavatsky in her Monumental -The Secret Doctrine- tells " They were simply emigrants on their wat to Asia Minor from India, the cradle of humanity, and thier sacredotal adepts tarried to civilise and intiate a barbarian people. Halevy proved the fallacy of the Turanian mania in regard to Akkadian peopl... and other Scientists have proved that the Babylonian Civilisation was neither born nor developed in that country. It was imported from India, and the importers were Brahmanical Hindus."
Agains to me Brahmins, means only educated Hindus, and as I Previously said name Hindu is of Indian origin from Himalayas and Indusamudram and was Pre- Common Era, and most of the Scholars you quoted have ignored all these.
Tirukural is great, still it has lot of kurals, which talks of Piranthe Kudi- which more speaks something like acepting and speading Castesm, though he also says- Pirappokkum ella uerkum.
Now Vedas and Upanishads were having such a wonderful Literauture that Europeans wanted to call themselves as its Authors. They belong to 4000 years old and naturally will have that periods things and similarly Sangam Literature. Eurpean Scholars research further goes on to say that Manusmruthi, 100 CE- is more influenced by TAmil or Dravidians, as Caste is not in Vedas, where as 2nd Cen BCE, Tholkappiyam has it.
Both Sanskrit and Tamil has good and Trash materials, which is of no value to common man, but tells a lot about their day for Scholars;
Brahmins, have given their Life and Soul for this country for Milleniums and spreading Hatred against them without any Scritural basis, and interpreting Krual falsely are Thevaneyans Technique, Kural at noplace talks anti-Vedas or Anti-Brahmins.
When Latin and Greek didnot have any Grammer till 16th CenBCE, we have Tholkappiyam200BCE, and Panini450BCE, thats a pride, we need not have be childish to talk non-sense like this is older, that is later unless- we can prove it to the satisfaction of Eurpean Scholars, they are not keeping quiet and watching all, an Harward Scholars came to fight with NSR, on Indus SEALs.
Reading of Indus seals is another falsehood, when majority of Scholars say it is written from Right to left(Iravatham Mahadevan, Heras etc.,), NSR and Mathivanan read it from Left to right and these are wishful thinkings than any worthy attempts. Indus seals has morethan 4000 symbols, more Pictorial than Scriptural. Now many Foreign Scholars, identify objects of Indus as Aryan and earlier falsehood that it Proves Aryan Invasion THeory are discarded.

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Solomon, :)

One way you are attacking foreigners and another way you seek their help.

None of them like europeans or Aryan concept or Dravidian concept though they can not be classifed as race divide our country people as you claim.

It is manuvadhis divide the people. They prevent the lower caste people to become 'Archakas' and Now also in hindu law this is followed and so no one other than the so called Brahmins can become Archakas. Can you deny this ? You are talking about foreigners evil design :o

Your quoting has been proved wrong by Idiappam in one aspect.

You are quoting from another source Dr.Meyyappan :o How many twist and false propogation it may contain. We dont know.

You support Brahmins openly. And dont take it from pre historic period / sanskrit language to solve your purpose.

Without sanskrit tamil ideology and its literature shall make people equal and happy.

With sanskrit it cannot be achieved.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

FSG,
I have given all your claims are bogus and false. Devaneyan's words as appeared I QUOTE, as I could not read Tamil Fonts:
" Nalvetham or Nanmarai, Arangam Agamam enbana ellam Arya Noolkale enbathum, Thirukural thavira ippothulla Pandai Noolkalellam Anthanar enbathum Brahmararie Kurikkum Enpathu Sariye. Page- 102 Tamilar Matham.
Samaskrithtil Thalai sirantha illakana Noolakia Paniniyam, Paniniyal BCE4m Noorandile eyarrpattathu. Ilakkana Noolai Viyakaranam enbar vadanoolar. Annoolirku mun ENN Ilakkana Noolkal Iyarrpattathuakach chollap padukindrthu. Avarrul Muthalathu Vetha Kalthathu enpadum Iyendiram"
- Tamilar Varalaru Page 56,57.
Now as per Scholars - " If an Author changes his stance to the needs of his situations then all his researchers can be Unreliable.
Devaneyan - wrote this when a much more Dubious and Controversial book written by KA.SU.Pillai- who started a dubious arguement of some unknown Tamil Vedas. Quiet a big Controversy started and Devaneyan wrote this article and that too in a magazine with wide scholar viewers. Let Idiyappam confirm by reading fully and telling us fact.

Now when his Fanatics Anti-Tamil Aborgines wanted he wrote another article, telling some other view against this, and that Devaneyan in the views of the Man from Galilee- the Mythological Hero of Christianity -Jesus said- If sombody is dishonest in little matters He cannot be trusted for any Big matter- Luk16;10.

As for Dubious methods by Maraimalai Adigal and KasuPillai- etc., , I Quote from the book Aivu Vatta Veliyedu- run by Communist Scholars- Prof Vanamamalai and others- and this Article was Authored by Ve.Krishnamurthi.
" Veru Vithamaga solvathanal Rig,Yajur, Samam, Atharvanam agiya Nangu Vethangalum Ariyarkalin Padaipukale enra Vunmaium, Bramanrgale Kappalargal nra Yathartha Nilayun Avargalathu Nokirku Idaiyuraga Vaiththu.
Intha Idayurai Kadakka Munby Eppothum Illatha Puthu Kolgaikalai NeethiKatchiyin Karuthukavalrgalakiya Inth Arignarkal (KA.Su.Pillai, MaraimalaiAdigal and SivarasaPillai) Uruvakkinar. ATavathu Vethangal endrum Marai Noolgal endrum, Saiva kuravargalal Kurippidappadubavai Vadamolzi Vethangal Alla endrum, Vadamolzi Vethangal Thondri vittana endrum avarrai kanda Vadamozhiyar, thelivaga Solvadanal Branmanargal avarrai Vadamolziyil peyarthuk kondargal endrum Koorath Thalaip pattanar.
Avvarayin atthamil VETHANGAL INDRU Vullanava endra Vinavirku avai Kadalkolal Azinthupoyina endrum avargal Koorinar. Ikkurugal mutrilum Varalarru Virothmanavai; Vignapoorvamarravai ena Arignargalal Thallappattana, endralum, avarrin Thakkam IndruVarai Tamilagh Makkalidaiye Needithu Irukkirathu enin Migaiyagathu."
- Further the article goes on to analyse Ka.Su.Pillai- giving names Thaithriyem, Bowdigam, Thalvagaram, Atharvanam Agum, entrthil, the Prof analysed and proved that all this names four named refers to some parts of the Indian Vedas.
Prof- also mentions of his article- "kA.SU.Pillayin Aiyvumurai" about the dubious research methods.
Finally Concludes- Ellavatrirkum Melaka Tamilil Nangu Vethangal,, Vadamozhi Vethangalukhu munnare Irunthana endrum avai Muraiye Bavudiyam, Thalavagharam Thaithreyam endrum KA.SU.Pillai pondra Tamil Vetha Arvalargal KOorru Atharamarrathu enavum Thuniyalam." THIS ARTICLE COMES IN Page 51-65.
I STANDby every word I HAVE placed and I HAVE given Devaneyans words. Let reader Decide, much detailed reply on other items follows.

Actually as I said Devaneyan wrote that article I referred to refute Ka.Su.pillai.
Devaneyan when says different statements on different places stand rejected rightlly in Tamil REsearchers
MosesMohammedSolomon

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Mr. Solomon, :)

You have to look into the social transformation occured during 20th century A.D. in tamil Nadu. It influenced much the scholars and the Aryan theory also prevailed. That led everyone writing about these things in spite of some historical evidances contained in their passages.

In that context they wrote about aryans equating Brahmins.

I have revealed about the latest reseach papers of 'Sothi Prakasam' about Brahmins and Aryans Brahmins are set up of Vaishnava religion and all belonging to vaishna religion were called paramanar / Brahmin. In no way they are connected with Aryans.

Aryan race is proved wrong now. Due to four fold system 'Brahmins' now lives as caste. We cannot define them as race. They live as a caste just other castes live.

Brahmin thirst to identify as sanskrit followers is not due to notion that sanskrit is their mother tongue. They have got accredition as 'Archakas' that's all. If any other caste people accredition by 'Archakas' they will also support sanskrit. That' all.

Think before 20th century A.D. All Brahmins supported tamil and infact 'Paruthimal kalaignar' coined the word 'Chemozhi' intiated and fought for it. That was the case of Brahmins in thosed days.

And since 'Archakas' are their main job they all along the past 1500 years supported sanskrit and its ideology.

My view is Sanskrit is offshoot of tamil as language and ideology.

When 'Asthathayi' is not in sanskrit think about iyenthiram.

We have to pick up truths lying in the invention of authours and carryout our research continuously.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

Entire work of Europeans have been keep the entire world as colonies and used Christianity as the tool, as it gave them the title- "Chosen People"- to rule any land and because Bible is such a horrible work, they took Sanskrit with its richness as their own, and called themselves Aryans and I Quote GeorgeBernardShaw- on this
- .. Bible is hopelessly Pre-evolutionary; its description of the origin of life and morals are obviouly fairy tales; its astronomy is terracentric; its notions of the starry universe are childish; its history is epical and legendery; in short, people whose education in these departments derived from the Bible are absolutely misinformed as to be unfit for public employment, parental responsbility , or the Franchise" in his Black Girl in Search of God- Preface.
Lord Macaulay on whose name our educational system is called, in his letter to his father wrote- “The effect of this education on the Hindoos is prodigious. No Hindoo, who has received an English Education even remains sincerly attached to his religion. Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy; but many profers themselves pure Deists, and some embrace Christianity.
It is my firm belief that if, our plans of education are followed up, there will not be single Idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal 30 years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to prostytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty; but by the natural operation of knowledge and reflection … “ I have given the background of BODEN Trust in Oxford University- A Bristish Soldier who amased huge wealth from his Indian Service, made a trust to Uproot Hinduism and to enable missionaries to learn Indian Scriptures and also Translation of Bible to Sanskrit etc., Prof H.H.Wilson was the first to occupy, and Monier Williams was the next and Sir.Monier Williams, the editor of Sanskrit-English Dictionary wrote in his other book “Moderb India and the Indians, Page 62- “When the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahminism are encircled, undermined and finally stormed by the soldiers of the Cross, the victory of the Christianity must be Signal and complete.”
The foolish missionaries underestimated the Indian, but achieved in making a small section of Hindus to hate its root- Vedas and Sanskrit Literature.
My quotes of these Europeans are those words hidden from General, where as they wrote them in Abroad, brought out by Researchers, and sometimes the rivalry among missionaries also helped.

Indologist W.W.Hunter has commented on Bishop Caledwell- “ … but in his Comparative Grammar.. as in every branch of Caldwell’s untiring Labout, he was inspired with the belief that he was doing true missionary services”; and as per Caldwell the word Tamil came from Darvidi-Dramizhi-Tamil; and all Dravidians are not local people, but Alien Settlers from abroad, and he maintained this consistently;.
When EV.Ramsamy Naicker- who was a Kannadar by birth for his New Political Party, which fought Congress and enjoyed Political patronage as Stooges and lot of financial benfits from British called it As Dravidar Kalagam; and surprisingly- the word Kalagam is used In SaNgam Literature as association of Kudikedargal and Suthadigal etc; I quote for the benefit of all , EVR Naicker’ views on Tholkappiyam and Thirukural as below:
1. “Tholkappiyan Ariyakooli, Ariya Dharmathiye Tamil Ilakkanamaga seithuvitta Maperum thuroghi.
2. Thiruvalluvan akkalathirku etrra vagaiyil Ariyar karutthukku Atharavu kodukkum alavil pagutharivaip patrri kavalaipadamal Neethi koorum muraiyil thanathu Matha unarchiyodu etho Koorich chendrar.” The words Aryans and Dravidians do not call any race or people; and today it stands Dravidian as Language group of South Indian Languages and Aryan- as Indi European language group. As for the earlist natives of this land from Tholkappiyam to all Literature stands in favour of Anthanars or Brahmins as Devaneyan agreed. Now to call the earliest Aborgins as aliens and was The Biblic Techinque of Divide and Rule, and spreading hate against Sanskrit and Vedas are part of it. FSG need to specify his research supports for his Blind Beliefs.
On Sanskrit and its kids Latin and Greek- I QUOTE :- Sir William Jones in 18th Cen wrote- The Sanskrit Language.... whatever be its antiquity, more perfect than the Greek, more copius than Latin and more exquisitly refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a Stronger affinity both in the roots and in the form of Grammer, than could possibly have been produced by accident, so strong indeed, that no Philologist could examine all Thre, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which perhaps no longer exists. “

I have proved beyond doubt, that the Biggest Anti-Tamilar but BIG hYpocrite Tamil Apologist Devaneyan had to agree that Tholkappiyam, to entire Tamil Literature clearly refers Vedas and Sanskrit Literature, and we do not have any Tamil Literature, without the backup of Vedas and Maxmuller took the duty to try to Backdate Vedas and to stop the Idea, Sanskrit as mother of Latin and Greek , which he changed as Elder SIster and this I QUOTE
Blavatsky the founder of Thesophical Society- "Inflectional Spech: the root of the Sanskrit, very erroneously called the "elder sister" of the Greek, instead of its mother- was the first language, now the mystery tongue of the Intiates, othe Fifth Race. The "Semitic " languages are the ******* descendants of the First Phonetic corruption of the eldest children of the early Sanskrit"- Secret Doctrine. Vol-3 PG 205.

Maxmuller who showed himself as a secular scholar, in his letter to his wife wrote - “ I Hope I Shall finish that work, and I FEEL CONVINCED THOUGH I shall not live to see it, that this edition of mine and the translation of Vedas will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India… Vedas are the root of their religion, and to show them what that root is, I FEEL SURE IS THE ONLY WAY OF UPROOTING ALL THAT HAS Sparang up from it during the last 3000 years……..”
Sometime Before his death wrote, I quote- “ Even, their religion is not as bad as it looks, as I hoe to show in a book just finished, I have not much faith in missionaries – medical or otherwise. If we get such men again in India as RammohunRoy or Kesub Cahandrasen and if we get an Archbishop of Calcutta who knows what Christianity is, India will be Christianized in all that is essential in the Twinking of an eye, and on this too we must be hopeful” What I Quote are from sincere researches, not known to commonly, and I Quote from the book
The Arsenal of Christian Soldiers in India – Rev.J.Fr.Stacker- “ I am of special obligation to the volumes of Monier Williams, Mitchel, Hopkins, Wilson…. Caldwell, Maxmuller and others , too numerous to mention.”
In a response to an RSS groups book as late as 1985,Indian church maintains that Dravidians, Aryans, and Tribals are all Aliens of Indian Land and I quote-
“ There is ample evidence that Hinduism is not the religion of India, even if it s older than Christianity in India. There is no reason either Ariyanism or Dravidianism or other religion in India to call the other Foreign. –Page34, Christianity in India- Unique and Universal Mission released by CSI and the same book says- “ Due to Aryan Invasion of 1500BC, the Adivasis fled to the hills and forest and did not integrate with other Indians, ofcourse the Dravidians were more docile and less militant and migrated to South India and Some were absorbed in the Aryan Acculturalisation” page-225. further , I quote
” The most outstanding fact that we need to understand is that we must know that the Tribals People of the NorthEast Hills are not Hindus by any stretch of imagination, they are the people who Continued to come from parts of Asia at different stages of History. Page 236.
The most of the Indians have been misinformed and like you all and Dravidian movement leaders became a tool on the hands of Church, which in the long run, on Converting they can make Indians as Collanies of Europe as and when Political situation changes Internationally.

TAMIL SANGAM SONG says- a Maduraite Proudly saying, You Chola Capital and Chera capital people wakeup at Cheval Kooval, where as we in Madurai, wakeup at the Divine Vedic Prayers everyday.

I have put with detailed Research opinions of various Scholars on this Vedas and what it refers without any doubt and for every readers benefit I Quote DEVANEYAN again- “ Nal Vetham allathu NanMarai, Arangam, Agamam enpathu ellam Ariya Noolgale enpathum, Thirukural Thavira Ippothulla Pandaiya Tamil Noolgal ellam Anthanar enpathum Brahmanargaliye kurikkum enpathum Sariye. Page- 102 Tamilar Matham
“Samaskrithathil thalai sirantha Ilakkana Noolakiay Paniniyam, Paniniyal KI.MU.4m. Noorandil Iyarrappattathu. Ilakkananoolgalai Viyakaranam enbar Vadanoolar. Annoorkumun Enn Ilakkana Noolgal Iyarappattathach Sollap padugindrathu. Avarrul muthalathu Vetha Kalaththathu enappadum Iyendiram” Page 56, 57, Tamilar Varalaru.

The first Quote was written by Devaneyan in a highly Controversial situation, to Reply a Dubious research book by Ka.Su.Pillai, saying the Vedas are not Sanskrit Vedas and that Anthanar are not the Brahmins, In a Illakiya Megazine- and cannot carry his frauds he was otherwise doing.

IF Idiyappam or others give other quotation from Pavanar that would disqualify Devaneyan worthy as a Scholar, as I Quote; JOHN W MONTGOMERY- : ”One must listen to the claims of the documents of the documents under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the Author Disqualified Himself by Contradictions or known factual inaccuracies”

I Feel you are all gone by the deception of missionaries and having a closed mindset to truths and hence, such a detailed missionary details were to be given.

Truth always is going to help, not false beliefs even if they are close to our hearts. And for the benefit of readers I QUOTE the views of more than 100s of Scholars from America, from Catholic University- in its NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA- "The Beginning of Sanskrit Literature go back to almost 2500BCE, Not only is the antiquity of Sanskrit Literature truly remarkable, but its fecudits, veracity and continuity or no less so” Page445, Vol 7 . and Maxmuller AGAIN- “ To the Scholars, no doubt the Vedas remained and always remain the oldest real book that has been preserved to us in an almost miraculous way.” – My Autobiagraphy- a fragment Page 188 & 189.

Please reply with reason and not Prejudices,
MosesMohammedSolomon.

[Villan]

I would like to enter and appreciate the lively discussions going on and the matter discussed are serious.

MosesMohammedSolomon, views sometimes are somuch against Christianity; but he gives solid quotes and when Idiyappam said his quotes where wrong, he proved he was correct and Solomon's views are really shockingm to us who have all been cheated by Missionaries.

Idiayappam and Gandhi (Jathi sirnames even how), need to give proofs of which University researches on Tamil etc., Most of the normal writers have been thrown by bashing and Solomon was called RSS exactly that wayand his handling of that gave more truths on RSS; and that Rss is defending Tamil also.

All viwes should be given and with proofs

Solomon, keep it up and give us more.

Villan

[Idiappam]

Villain, have you read the books that Solomon quoted. I have pointed out Solomon's mischief by selective qouteing of paragraphs of Scholars like Pavanar - that when read in context on the whole meant the Exact opposite of what That Solomon implies.

I have left solomon and long, difficult to dicpher langauge, to just wither and rot here!

Same to you buddy!

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Friday is a long holiday here in Saudi Arabia. Good sleep.

And we have to awaken the sleeping guys who forgets about tamils history.

Dear Solomon, :)

It seems you are deviating from the primary thing contains in our discussion. I want to remind you the following and continue our discussions regarding that. You are deviating from the main core of the discussion.

1. Do you believe that sanskrit is older than Tamil ? Give proofs of your dubious scholars views. Then we will give our views.

2. Do you believe that Brahmins are Aryans ? Give proof.

The above are the two main issues that have to be cleared out.

Other things we will discuss it later. Give your views accordingly.

I have given indian scholars' views and their books name in support of my views that tamil is elder than sanskrit : And sanskrit Vedhas were written by the influence of tamil culture.

I have also showed that Aryans are not Brahmins. You want to refute it show the aryan in Bhagavat gita / Manusmirthi or show Brahman in vedha.

I feel whatever authors I refered to support my views are enough.

Unnecessarily You are talking about Christian Missions and Aryan - Dravidian Theories.

Do confine you discussions based on the above and give your final conclusions on that.

Unnecessarily do not waste your time on Christian missions / Aryan Dravidian concepts. If you want to discuss it open separate threads on this topics and we will participate in that.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

Idiayappam, I have given on which context Devaneyan wrote that article, where DEVANEYAN perfectly agreed that Vedas, Nanmarai, Arangam, Agamam all refers to Sanskrit VEDAS from Tholkappiyam to all Old Tamil Literature. I HAVE given the Tamil words of Devaneyan as it is. If I am wrong show me, please do not say Lies after Lies, because you have wrongly understood History and that they have all been explained. I HAVE no good Opinion on Devaneyan due to the following Explanation. FSG- asked me Do You know Whether Caldwel and Devaneyan knew about ELSHADAI AND Maraimalai Adigal has written it.

Bethel is a common name given to Churches, every body has seen it every where. Hebrew word Beth means house, and El is name of the Deity, but Bible Translators changed noun to generalise to God- House of God- Like Kovil of Tamil. KO-refers God and Il is house.

El, the name comes is all Semitic Languages, like il,ilu, and al in arabi.
As per Bible Lexicons, Seimitics donot have root and the meaning is assumed as Power.
El is a Pure Tamil word, used to refer Sun and God, even today in Chennai and other places Temples are called Ellamman and Ellappan temples. Some places wrongly written as Elliamman.
El - is from Ellai Illathavan or Elumbhutal Illathavan, No boundaries for God, no births or deaths for him.
Bible also uses other names as ElShaddai, Ellohim, Jehovah-YHVH etc.,
ElShaddai is translated as God Almighty- and agains Lexicons say its not based on any base, but assumed and they infer from indirect references a God of Mountains.
Agains Shaddai-to be pronounced SAddai- a Pure Tamil word, comes in Sangam Literatures to till date, refers to God SIVA.
Shaddai refers to His Jadai, head and he has Sun and Moon on right and left side of Jadai. Kabalah of Esoteric Judaism tells all this. And Maraimalai Adigal refered in research this. Secret Doctrines refers it.
Inspite of Maraimalai Adigal referring it, the Hypocrite Devaneyan did not acknoledge it or tried to bring the original word reinstated.

Ellohim, Hebrew follows IndoEurpean Standards and "him" is a plural with Femine term referring to an equivalent of Ammaiyappan of Tamil, and Ellohim -goes as Allahudum in Arabi, shortened as Allah, all refers to God Siva. In Bible Old Testament, Jacob worships ElShaddai as Lingam, Performs Abishekam and he was blessed.

Muslims visit huj evey year, to come round Kabha- Kabha Means Black Lingam(Stone)- Hug is comin round -dOING Prathakshan.

God- incidentley looks similar to Kadavul in tamil, which expands to Ellavarriayum Kadanthavar, and Ellavarilum Ullavar. G- 6th Alphabet, O-d and count it you get 26, that is God is all.

TholKappiyar says:
"Niraimozhi Manthar Anaiyir Kilantha
MARAIMOZHI thane Manthiram enba"-
When ever Tholkappiyar refers to Brahimins, i.e., Anthanar and Vadasol, VadaEluthu etc., Kappiyar also mostly tells of Difference they have in Grammer, i.e., Clearly Sanskrit is said.
SEKKIZHAR- Tells us ELUTHATHA MARAI ALITHA..., I jave refered earlier also The word MARAI- is an excellent Tamil word for Vedas, even Sanskrit does not have it, Unwriten.

Brahimins are refered as Aruthozilar in Sangam Literature and Pathrupattu song says- Kelvi Kettu Padivam Odiathu Velvi VEttanai Vuyarthor Uvamba Othal Vettal Avai Pirar Seital, Ithal Erral endru Aru Purinthu Olugum Arampuri Anthanar Vazhimozhinthu Olughi...
Aruthozilar, is an excellent translation of Shadakarma Nishdar of Sanskrit.
Sanskrit was refered as the Mother of Greek and Latin by 18th and early 19thCen, Philologists, which Maxmuller changed by argueing that- a Langauge with Thousands of Words are not made in few years or Centuries bUT Milleniums, hence to call mother is too much and let us call Sanskrit as ELder Sister, is the now majority of view of Linguists all over the world.

Anthanar along with all other people lived together for 5000 years more in this country, but Missionaries in their Tendentious motive, to Divide and Rule-Probagated false Theories and we need to know the truths and accept them and leave false opinions spread by Motivated groups.

Idiayappam and FSG, YOUR views and replies have given me an encouragement to dig my 15 years of research and put it across.
I have met most of the Tamilnadu Government AgaraMoodali (not Agarathi) Scholars working then below R.Mathivanan, the dubious Indus Reader, though not much contact with him, but with most of his colleagues( now moved out) and discussed them on above subjects. I Met them for my doubts in Greek/Latin/Hebrew/Sanskrit and most of them could not read any other languages, but were using the Dictionaries and calling all words as Tamil, and most of tthem do not really believe it, and helped me with books to be refered etc. Even took doubts to Iravatham Mahadevan etc.,

No Tamil Scholar will use any unregardful words on U.VE.SA, as you did, even VaiyapuriPillai was regarded well for Publishing all Sangam Literature. I Want Seniors to correct me when I am wrong, but please do not oppose because your false beliefs are broken.
SathyemevaJeyathe. Vaimaiye Vellum and Not VAI (Sound ) Over Mei(TRuths)
MosesMohammedSolomon

[Villan]

Friends,
Discussions has to go on by facts.

India is the only country where the heritage of Millenium is saved, thanks to fact that Christianity came here in very Late, and we were much more civilised.

America, Australia, Philipines- the natives were killed and the Europeans are the majority, as natives were killed for not accepting Church and leave God. Even Egypt show little to preserve its Historic sites, which do not confirm to Muslim Ethos.

Sanskrit and Tamil were pride of India and the People Living together for 5,000 years together were split by false preachings and unless they are explained no-one can understand the Truth,
Just showing Enemity is really bad.

FSG has not named a single source to reply Solomon, but changed most of his earlier comments, but still start hatemail.
Please allow good discussion. If Solomon quotes authors, you say, not fully given and later say too long.

Truths must be valued, reply with Proper Truths and authors and references.
Villan

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Solomon. :)

Again you are equating Anthanar and Ariyar to Brahmin which is wrong concept.

Also you are equating Vadamozhi to sanskrit which is also wrong and sankrit Grammar is entirely different from Tamil. In fact No Grammar book so far in Sanskrit.

My conclusion is that Brahmins are Vinnava Paramanar (Vaishna Brahmins).

Your examples clearly show that vedhas were influenced by Tamil culture prevailing during Tholkappiar time.

I say that all the meditaranian and west languages have roots in tamil. Their ancient culture was influenced by tamil culture.

I will show various historian views in some other threads.

Now lets us confine our discussion with tamil- sanskrit antiquity and which influenced which one.

Give your answers directly.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Villain, :)

See my old posts in this threads for proof / sources.

The primary thing in discussion is- We say sanskrit was evolved during 4rh Century A.D.

With the influence of tamil, north indian languages ( vadapal languages which were earlier got birth from tamil) Paly, pragrit made as an arrangement of Sanskrit. I have quoted some books regarding that.

The four vedhas were influenced by tamil. Bagavath gita / Manusmirithi arrangement does not have single theory of Vedhas.

Let solomon give refuting my views quoting the books that I have mentioned.

Most of his views about sanskrit is based on foreigners and at the same time He refused some of his foreign sources . His double nature showed in this.

My view is shortcomings of the yesteryear scholars should not be taken as a proof or rather we have to make an interpretation with latest findings.

My views about Aryan / Dravida resembles the same that they no longer existed as a race.

The views that Brhamans created vedhas and it is the sole culture of india is wrong.

Whereas we can take it as tamil culture influenced India and translated part of tamil culture followed in vedhas except Bagavatgita and Manusmirithi.

Bagavatgita,Manusmirithi / Christian propogations are different topics which influenced Indian society is latest one and this is no way connected to ancient tamil / Indian history.

If readers understand this, nothing is harm.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Friends, :)

Porunai Valley civilization will show tamil’s antiquity and its elderliness to world civilization and languages.

Two sea disasters happened during porunai valley civilizations.Porunai valley civilization reached its Iron age directly unlike other portions of world reached one by one as old stone age, new stone age , tin age , copper age and Iron age.

I quote eminent historian R.D.Banerji from his observations in Dravidian Monthly Review , 1927 , Page 308 – “ During 7000 B.C. Starting from Thirunelveli without any stagnation this civilization went to sindhu valley, East Persia and West Greece”.

This is again confirmed by Santhankulam A. Raghavan in his book “Adhichanallurum and porunai valley nakarikamum”- “ Stone age (7000 B.C) mud vessels, Iron weapons, tin things and gold ornaments have been evacuated in Adichanallur”

This has been further confirmed in the book of “The stone age in India –page 43 by P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar. “ Mud vessels found in Pallavaram tamil Nadu resembles in all aspects with mud vessels of Bagdath city & Etrasken area belonging to new stone age(8000 B.C)

Antiquity of Tamil language is another aspect that I want to specify.

First, Second and Third Sankam are known by tamils . Their time is concluded now By comparing the time of sea diasters specified in Meditaranniean countries with the sea disasters mentioned in sankam literature. ‘Erayanar kalavial urai’ is taken as information source about sankams and Silapathikaram, Tholkappiam & kaliththokai were taken as a proof of sea diasters happened and the time is fixed with the timeline proved and recorded in ‘The Anchor Bible Dictionary’ accepted by most of the world scholars.

First Sankam (talai sankam)

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

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

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

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

Second sankam ( Idai sankam)

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

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

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

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

Ancient tamil culture works out in Archeology and literature from 7000 B.C. to 200 A.D.

Apart from other sources I have quoted earlier in this thread I quote Maxmuller about the vedhas and subsequent Sanskrit literature.

“Even the alphabets started earlier Sanskrit literature were only written during first century A.D (100 A.D) and before that Sanskrit literature was protected through oral tradition”.
- A history of Ancient Literature 1993 page 264.

Mr. Soloman dated Panini to 450 BC without any single evidence wishfully. Readers should observe this.

Vedhas were written during Third tamil sankam period.

Vedham has root as ‘Vei’ which means hide. ‘Nanmarai’ was refered in sankam literature during this period. Tholkappiar never talks about Nanmarai. He talks about ‘vadasol’ which probably paly language and he never talks about paly grammar / any north Indian Grammar. He specifies the ‘Punarchi’ rules (junction) for north words which were shrinked form of tamil. Mr. Solomon twisted this. Manthiram & Madurai taken for his support were of latest origin.

After tholkappiam and till 100 B.C happenings in history and culture of tamils effected this vedhas. Inthran is the only god specified in vedhas. This was mentioned in my earlier passage in this thread quoting Srinivasan Iyengar.

Mr.Soloman quoted Sanskrit – Akkadian – Babylonian connection which was not concluded.

I quote from “Ancient Languages of Asia Minor” of eminent historian I.C. Taiknov ‘ So far Thurasian languages & Ellam language(5000 B.C)so far not deciphered out are read through comparing dravidian and grammatically they resemble with Dravidian / tamil. The Indo- European group is alien to this ancient languages and since Pragui stands resembles with Dravidian group sindhu valley also will resemble with Dravidian group and research should be made based on Dravidian language”.

Indian Archeologist T.P.Nair also says, “ Mesopotomian, Afkanistan,Eran & kakkasian languages also resemble with Dravidian / Tamil”.

Following the above with latest instruments and technology and with the help of western scholars Dr.Mathivanan deciphered out sindhu valley script (Bogus left and right philosophy noted by Solomon) and found out of 4000 words nearly 80 % of words matches tamil and some ancient tamil which was not in sankam literature.

Example, Kannakan (kannaki) Nangan(nangai) Avvan(Avvai) etc. –Refer Sindhy veli Ezhuthin thiravu (1991) page 16 – 18.

At last Mr Solomon who made funny about root words of tamil Accepted ‘El’ is the root of Hebrew version. We have to welcome this.

I think this is enough to prove tamil antiquity. After sometime I reveal how tamil and tamil culture followed in ancient civilization in separate threads.

I want Mr.Solomon go into the history of Latin and Greece countries written by eminent Indian historian and archeologist Mr.H.R.Hall to know their antiquity.

Rome civilization is belonging to 850 B.C. Sisiro is famous writer in Latin of Roman history. All will know about Julius Jeser (100 B.C.). And Jesus Christ was against this Jesers is history.

Greece (800 B.C) had Ellan religion,Surya worship, Mayan story,thorian dynasty (Thirayar) and tamil connection. Tamil Musiri coins were found in Greece and the language is specified as ‘thermila’ in Greece epics. Homer songs are world famous.

Other intensions expressed by Mr.Solomon is propogation oriented and it does not in any way related to history or otherwise he is deviating the relevant aspect of this discussion.

In parrellel with Christian mission sananthana sabha also had hidden agenda.

Thevaneyap pavanar is not a historian and he followed the footsteps of history that preached during his time .His root words research is excellent and this is followed by P.Aruli. We can take pavanar as eminent linguistic than historian.

Periyar is a social reformer and he attacked all the old versions of knowledge not only Sanskrit but also tamil due to its caste content.

How soloman take their views in his history telling is ridiculous even being their strong critique.

‘Vaimai Vellum’ is not only for Soloman : others also. Further research in Kumari kandam will certainly revert all beliefs in old history.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Friends, :)

“Thakkar, Takavilar Avaravar Ecchaththar Kaanappadum” , “Epporul Yar yar Vaik Kethpinum Apporul Meyporul Kanpathu Arivu”- Are the two kurals that Encourage tamil / Indian people to interpret their own history irrespective of world scholar’s views. All tamils irrespective of their position as doctors, Engineers & Professors should devote time to tamil history and break barrior made by self styled / wishful tamil pandits / Indian Sanskrit oriented pandits.

We should reject the scholar views who say Tamil / Indian heritage and language come from out of India. Dr. Galduvell is not ruled out in this. But his knowledge about tamil roots is excellent. He amazed with the lot of different words available in tamil to specify one thing keeping many aspects of things.

Tamil gave some of the words of one thing to other languages forming tamil dialects-other languages of India-and later period used to get some words in shrinked form eventhough words exist earlier in tamil. This is quite natural. Tamil pandits take it as loan words and making tamil as debted person.

I quote again from P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar (The Stone age of India) for tamils and tamils language antiquity since He was the first person who challenged west scholars and North Indian self styled scholars with this historical and archeological proofs. He said people transformations occurred south to northern west, south to north and south to northern east with his proofs. Nowadays furthermore supportives derived based on his proofs.

Tamils not only were being foremost tribes of world but also had foremost civilization in the world.

From his findings,

‘Er’ is the root of ‘Irul’ (night) formed the word ‘Erumpu’ and it is called the same way in every ancient world language of stone age.

Since tamils grew uninterrupted from stone age they reached Iron age without going into tin / copper ages. Iron was exported to all civilization people from tamils.

‘Siva’ is a god of ‘Vettuvar’. From stone age siva was there not only in tamilnadu but all over India. This specifies tamil prevailed all over India. All over India tamil and tamil oriented languages were spoken during new stone age. There is no root for siva in Sanskrit.

Sanskrit could not be a spoken language. It could not be mother of North Indian languages. Hindi is also basically structure wise resemble tamil and not Sanskrit.

The word ‘Vishnu’ is from tamil ‘Vin’ resembling the sun which travels from east to west in sky.

I quote also from T.R.Sesha Iyengar from his book ‘Dravidian India’.

The world’s first grammar book is ‘Tholkkappiam’. No where in world we can find Venba grammar, Purananooru musical lines except tamil. This was supported by Barnel , a famous linguistics.

There are enough evidences and all this evidences conform that Adhichanallur findings have resemblance with Harappa & Mohenjatharo findings.

The outcome of Researcher Mr.Shatterji confirms tamils,elamian,Sumerian and lisian languages have resemblance: Egyian islands, Asia minor & sindhu valley had one culture.

Mr. Solomon tries to write ‘Paramanar history’(Brahmin history). It is his liberty. Let him start from Vaishna period that is from 4th century A.D. Because we could not see single surname of castes before that period. ‘Iyer’ surname is now also available in Tamil valluvar and kallar caste. Valluvar are now fortune tellers and ‘nadi sothidars’ in southern part of tamil Nadu. Refer eminent tamil pandit Mr.Venkitasamy Nattar’s (A kallar) “Kallar varalaaru”.

Anthanar, Arutholil,Manthiram,Ariyar never specifies today’s Brahminars. The set up started during ‘Vaishnava Marumalarchi’. North Indian Brahmins never have Iyer surname. And caste is taboo in this column and here we stop.

Mr. Solomon can write ‘paramanar history’ with all his academian proofs in separate thread. And all readers will participate in that.

We speak here tamils antiquity irrespective of castes,religion language affinity.

[Villan]

[tscii:a23d977d7b]Dear Friends,
MosesMohammedSolomon, invited me by mail and showed me proofs for most of his postings, and also showed other books written by Eminent Historians on Tamilar Varalaru etc.,

I have no doubt about his quotes are Genuine, and unbiased. When he commented on Dubious interpretation of Mathivanan, he said same on N.S.Rajaram also on neglecting the truth that the scripts were written from right to left and Both read them from Left to right.

Indian Languages and Heritages come from India and Greek and Latin, been felt as juniors of Sanskrit, inspired the Europeans to bring in falsehood of Racial Theory, and expanded to Brahmins who were the Clergy of Indian Religious Heritage for Over 5000 years as Aliens.

Most of the Big Temples of Tamilnadu, belong to the Adinams, i.e, Velalar Community, Who received huge grants from Rulers Over Centuries and to claim superiority of Velalars, Maraimalai Adigal and KasuPillai took Anti Brahmin and went to extent of Dubious Research articles, which were discussed and accepted by the forum.

Devaneyan, who was one who took Tamil, as a tool to Paint Brahmins at the Darkest Colour, without any Scriptural evidence. Pavanar, as being affectionately called, wrote his Opian Mozhi Nool, in 1940 and in this he Dated Tholkappiyam to 2000 BCE, and confirmed that Tholkappiyar was Son of Thuragkani Munivar and a Brahmin, Aryan.
Devaneyan was supporting the Researches in correctely Dating Sangam Literature, by SeeniVenkatasamy, then reversed Tholkappiar Date to 700 BCE. Devaneyan has used many Historical details and held Dating of Many Literature of Tamil. Devanayan, who was more Grammer researcher earlier, went on to be on Historical Dating later.

Devaneyan was analyzing the Tamil Literature, going into full, and to backdate without support, boughtin Kumarikandam Myth, etc., all this remains as Speculative Hypothesis.
As Devaneyan, shifted to Historical, then appeared the Kasupillai’s Bogus article, Devaneyan has to Cut out all his mask and write, that too after 40 years of extensive research.
Devaneyan's words as appeared I QUOTE, as I could not read Tamil Fonts:
" Nalvetham or Nanmarai, Arangam Agamam enbana ellam Arya Noolkale enbathum, Thirukural thavira ippothulla Pandai Noolkalellam Anthanar enbathum Brahmararie Kurikkum Enpathu Sariye. Page- 102 Tamilar Matham.
Samaskrithtil Thalai sirantha illakana Noolakia Paniniyam, Paniniyal BCE4m Noorandile eyarrpattathu. Ilakkana Noolai Viyakaranam enbar vadanoolar. Annoolirku mun ENN Ilakkana Noolkal Iyarrpattathuakach chollap padukindrthu. Avarrul Muthalathu Vetha Kalthathu enpadum Iyendiram"
- Tamilar Varalaru Page 56,57.

TAMIL Ilakkiya varalaru- by Prof s.somasundaram-H.O.D,TAMIL Dept and Prof V.T.Gopala Krishnan, with the foreward of Tho.pa.Mee. Clearly dates Tholkappiyam to 300 BCE, and similar is Tamilga Varalaru- by Ma.Rasamanickanar . Archealogist and Historican NatanaKasinathan- who wrote a book for Reading of Stone Inscriptions-Kalelthukalai, completely verifies Tholkappiam Eluthu and Development of Stone Inscriptions and dates Tholkappiyar to 200-150BCE.

Mohanjadara, Harapppa and all other later Archealogy doesnot support, any separate Aryan or Dravidian culture and Indian Root remained Vedic for 5,000 years.

IFWe Need to ignore all Evidences and falsely claim foolishly, we would be laughed upon the same way as the Scholars, whose knowledge are not small, but put on Tendentious views, to split Indians and Divide and Rule policy was followed.
Wikipedia takes upto date information, including latest finding of 500BCE, inscriptions, and it is the online Encyclopeidia, informing the Views of Various Universities Internationally. Most of Its dating on Indian Scriptures go on with the Latest Archealogical findings and the Unanimity of Academic Scholars, and that should be the referemce fpr nonapecialists like us and anything else would be absurd.

Intensions expressed by Mr.FSG is Pride oriented on false premises and it does not in any way related to history or otherwise he is deviating the relevant aspect of this discussion.

In parrellel with Christian mission, Tamil Hypocritic Scholars also have hidden agenda, and ignore all evidence and even Manupulated Tirukural,from What Valluvar said.

We need to go by evidence, and Now FSG, quotes books of Pre1950, which has no accesses to Evidences unearthed by Archealogy.

If we have to put articles, telling Pavanar was not Historian, amount to Mean, Pavanar does not know Tamil to interpret Ancient Tamil Literature, so that the meaningless positions taken by you can be justified, tells your double standards.

Villan
[/tscii:a23d977d7b]

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Mr. villain justice, :)

I want to praise you.


I have no doubt about his quotes are Genuine, and unbiased. When he commented on Dubious interpretation of Mathivanan, he said same on N.S.Rajaram also on neglecting the truth that the scripts were written from right to left and Both read them from Left to right.

'POE CHOLLUM PERUNTHAKAYAE POTRI ' :!:


Indian Languages and Heritages come from India and Greek and Latin, been felt as juniors of Sanskrit, inspired the Europeans to bring in falsehood of Racial Theory, and expanded to Brahmins who were the Clergy of Indian Religious Heritage for Over 5000 years as Aliens.

Dear Archkas can you allow all the masses to become Archakas ? Don't you find division you made affect Indian concept and integrity ?

'KODUMAI KUNALA POTRI' :!:


Tholkappiyar was Son of Thuragkani Munivar and a Brahmin, Aryan.

'PERASAI PERUNTHAKAYAE POTRI' :!:


TAMIL Ilakkiya varalaru- by Prof s.somasundaram-H.O.D,TAMIL Dept and Prof V.T.Gopala Krishnan, with the foreward of Tho.pa.Mee. Clearly dates Tholkappiyam to 300 BCE, and similar is Tamilga Varalaru- by Ma.Rasamanickanar . Archealogist and Historican NatanaKasinathan- who wrote a book for Reading of Stone Inscriptions-Kalelthukalai, completely verifies Tholkappiam Eluthu and Development of Stone Inscriptions and dates Tholkappiyar to 200-150BCE.

'SINDU MUDINTHIDUVAI POTRI' :!:


Mohanjadara, Harapppa and all other later Archealogy doesnot support, any separate Aryan or Dravidian culture and Indian Root remained Vedic for 5,000 years.

'PESA NA IRANDUDAIYAR POTRI' :!:


Intensions expressed by Mr.FSG is Pride oriented on false premises and it does not in any way related to history or otherwise he is deviating the relevant aspect of this discussion.

'THANTHIRA MOORITHIYAE POTRI' :!:


In parrellel with Christian mission, Tamil Hypocritic Scholars also have hidden agenda, and ignore all evidence and even Manupulated Tirukural,from What Valluvar said.

What about 'sanathana sabha' ? Did they not change the history ?

'PADU MOSAM PURIVAI POTRI' :!:

On seeing the post of Mr. Villain I did some 'Akaval Pa'-

I will come out with my latest supportives in favour of Antiquity of tamils and their language tommorrow.

f.s.gandhi





]

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Mr. Solomon and Mr. Villain Justice ,You both deviated from the topic. I remind you that Tamil antiquity and Tamil culture verses Sanskrit Antiquity and Sanskrit culture. You have not given single fruitful evidence for Sanskrit Antiquity.

Since in your all postings half of them contain ‘Divide and Rule’ parak :!: parak :!: parak :!: - policy I want to refute that ideology. I heard from a friend of mine in Madurai , now there is one false propaganda going on regarding Thirukkural having contents about vedhic proportions. This is further propogated by Mr.Solomon / Villain. They have one point agenda.

This is due to because world historians now come towards tamil. Mr.Maxmuller and Mr.Durant who were misguided earlier by Manusmirithi Archakas came towards tamil conclusion before their death and this was revealed by me in previous pages of this thread. Nedunchezian in this thread clearly expressed how Archakas define themselves time to time. Present world scholars also come to this. And Archakas now turned to claim Thirukkural is belonging to them. These kind of treachery has been done for the past 1500 years.

Who really did divide the society of India ? It is fourth century A.D. Manusmirithi / Bhagavatgita. Sankam literature including thirukkual deals with the Anthanar,Uyarkudi and arasar as occupational difference and not cultural and caste difference. Anyman can
become Anthanar / arasar. A barbarian can become Uyarkudi by changing his behaviours. The same is followed in all four vedhas as Ariyars,dasyus and dasas. They are not culturally different.

But in Bagavathgita / Manusmirithi the four varnas were defined and the caste is defined
By Birth is the main aspect to divide the society. Later sankam literature conveys this culture alienated to the society is clearly shown by pirayanni in this thread.

I quote from Sakula Sankirthiyaya a noted history writer in his “Medivial India”- This divide in society made the real working class alienated from administration of kings caused Muslim invasion easy to capture India. Who did divide the society ?

Christians tend to propogate their religion here – found this division – used it into their favour. Present Kerala and Kanyakumari district are 100% literate due to Christian Missions. No body can deny that. Macaulay system gave equality in education where old system prevented the downtrodden people’s education. Mr. Solomon no one need to teach / brain wash Indian people to remain divide and they are not fools no more. For your selfish wishful thinking you and your forefathers divide people with your single point agenda.

Right from Buddha who was against rituals All tamil chidhars,Kabilar,Thirumoolar, Mahatma Pulae in Maharastra, Narayana Guru in Kerala, Vemana – poet in Anthra, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia in Bihar and UP, Dr. Ambetkar, Swami Vivekananthar, Thanthai Periyar,Bharathiyar, Bharathithasan and list continues against this dividing discrimination.

Out of them Thanthai Periyar demolished socially the pattern followed and it is a great revolution to reckon with. He completely washed out this double standard technique of Archakas and Cleaned the atmosphere with vociferous force.

Next pure tamil tradition started by Maraimalai Adikal followed by Pavanar showed other proportion of tamil that tamil can withstand individually. This also annoyed these archakas and got angry with him.

A true science / research person should be receptive to new ideas and find new conclusion and make that displayed among people. That was done by Mr. Pavanar and in no way he is inferior. These people are talking about his words rigidly. Mr.Idiappam revealed clearly what Pavanar said about ‘Iyendram’ as ‘Chollappadukirathu’. Pavanar never said Iyendram was there. We have revealed ‘Astaththayi’ itself not Sanskrit Grammar which is latest in origin. Iyendram is mere imaginative myth.

Former Pondicherry University Vice Chancillor Mr.K.P.Aravanan found some proofs about Kumari Kandam which was analysed and conformed by Alexandar Gondarave earlier and you call it as myth. If that is myth without single evidence you shout about vedhic and what does it mean ?

After 1950’s There was no significant breakthrough in tamil research because the Indian Government misguided by Archakas. In fact tamils are original inhabitants of Ancient India. They can not hide this. We tamils have made tamil as ‘chemmozhi’. We continue our research and prove that we are real Indian aborigines.

Mr.Solomon makes wrong propaganda about Dr.Mathinvan who was recognized by world historians. No single world historian has accepted vedhic presence in Sindhu valley. It is pure tamil civilization. You can not hide truth for long.

You are trying to come under tamil umberla. Come but without your sinister design and single point agenda.

I will continue my views regarding tamils antiquity in the forthcoming pages.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

We have given all the research findings of stone age and tamil presense all over India and tamil influence in all over tribal languages and tamil influence in Vedhas and tamil influence in Sanskrit language.

Mr. Solomon and Mr. villain reject these means they reject the truths.

Ariyar - Brahmin equation is questioned by us quoting eminent history writer Mr.Sothi pirakasam.No singly answer from Mr.Solomon and Mr.Villain. We strongly tell paramanar system came into being during Vaishna period around 4 the century A.D.

You have not shown any objective evidences of sanskrit dating and vedhic dating.

You always talk about europeans 'divide and rule' but you relied on the misguided research scholars for your claiming. You can date vedhas 10000 years and 15000 years and whatever you like without any proof.

In the forthcoming pages I will show to the readers how archeological proofs of Ancient sumeria,Arabia and Meditaranean countries matches tamil history and tamils influence.

f.s.gandhi

[Ilavenil]

[tscii:9591de80f8]Dear Friends,
MosesMohammedSolomon, invited me by mail and showed me proofs for most of his postings, and also showed other books written by Eminent Historians on Tamilar Varalaru etc.,

I have no doubt about his quotes are Genuine, and unbiased.

Villan
[/tscii:9591de80f8]

Really. Then ask him to post it here so that we all can see it by ourselves and learn the truth.

Kanaal kaanbathu poi. Kaathal ketpathu poi. Theeravesaarippathey mei.

[HindustaniLadka]

We have given all the research findings of stone age and tamil presense all over India and tamil influence in all over tribal languages and tamil influence in Vedhas and tamil influence in Sanskrit language.

Mr. Solomon and Mr. villain reject these means they reject the truths.

Ariyar - Brahmin equation is questioned by us quoting eminent history writer Mr.Sothi pirakasam.No singly answer from Mr.Solomon and Mr.Villain. We strongly tell paramanar system came into being during Vaishna period around 4 the century A.D.

You have not shown any objective evidences of sanskrit dating and vedhic dating.

You always talk about europeans 'divide and rule' but you relied on the misguided research scholars for your claiming. You can date vedhas 10000 years and 15000 years and whatever you like without any proof.

In the forthcoming pages I will show to the readers how archeological proofs of Ancient sumeria,Arabia and Meditaranean countries matches tamil history and tamils influence.

f.s.gandhi

FSG, why don't you stop blabbering and post some actual proof that Tamil is older than Sanskrit before claiming it to be so. I challenge you to post atleast ONE non-extremist link that directly proves that Tamil is older than Sanskrit. I have plenty of proof that Sanskrit is the oldest of all languages...and here it is:


http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Sanskrit.htm

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Hindustaniladuka,

Check out the links below :

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0702/24.htmland

http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/smithMike_poompuhur.php

Before going into that have our vision also as follows:

1. Tamil culture influenced four vedhas (Inthran worship)

2. Bagavatgita and Manusmiruthi should be taken as present saraswathi culture not four vedhas.

3. The language used in Indus valley is earlier than sanskrit and it is tamil.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Hindustaniladka,

I visited the site you mentioned. It is a summary of sanskrit literature.

The claim panini's Grammar for Sankskrit and dated in that site never was accepted by most of the scholars.

We have already revealed Scholars views that panini's grammar is not for sanskrit and not in sanskrit.

Not only sanskrit Telugu is also eulogised by some western scholars as 'South Asian Greek'.

Nothing mentioned in that site about sanskrit origination timeline.

Tamils in Indian setup have to undergo lot of hurdles to prove their antiquity.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Hindustaniladukka,

Checkout the following link of "Underwater" findings.

http://www.grahamhancock/underworld/underworld5.php

We have proved with adequate findings that kumari kandam existed which your mentors called myth. If underwater exploration made tamil heritage will be certainly proved like the above link message of Mamallapuram.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Hindustaniladuka,

Check out this link,

http://www.grahamhamcock.com/underworld/review2.php

In the last paragrahph it is clearly mentioned that the so called Vedhi / saraswathi civilization is belonging to the end of ice age and tamilian civilization is belonging to pre ice age.

Now you convinced?

f.s.gandhi

[aravindhan]

[tscii:652a277bfa]
FSG, why don't you stop blabbering and post some actual proof that Tamil is older than Sanskrit before claiming it to be so. I challenge you to post atleast ONE non-extremist link that directly proves that Tamil is older than Sanskrit. I have plenty of proof that Sanskrit is the oldest of all languages...and here it is:

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Sanskrit.htm

The first quote which caught my eye on that page was:


Sir Monier-Williams (1819-1899) Orientalist, professor of Sanskrit at Oxford in 1860. He made a lengthy and learned introduction to his monumental work: Sanskrit-English Dictionary. In his book Hinduism, on page 13, he says:

"India though it has more than five hundred spoken dialects, has only one sacred language and only one sacred literature, accepted and revered by all adherence of Hinduism alike, however diverse in race, dialect, rank and creed. That language is Sanskrit and Sanskrit literature, the only repository of the Veda or knowledge in its widest sense, the only vehicle of Hindu mythology, philosophy, law, the mirror in which all the creeds, opinions, and customs and usages of the Hindus are faithfully reflected and the only quarry whence the requisite materials may be obtained for improving the vernaculars or for expressing important religious and scientific ideas."

Balderdash. Monier-Williams was much prone to exaggeration. This was acceptable - and even expected - in his time, but is no longer tolerable today. Let's look at some of these claims.

the only repository of the Veda or knowledge in its widest sense
So what about the many commentaries written in the mother tongues? The Dnyaneshwari, the works of the Nath Panthis, the poems of Surdas, Kabir, Mirabai - all these have absolutely no knowledge to contribute to Hinduism? The freshness of the emotion expressed by some of these is unique to their works in their vernaculars, and if you confine yourself to Sanskrit, you simply cannot understand or appreciate the Bhakti movement (no, the Geeta Govinda and the Bhagavatam are not enough, not by far).

the only vehicle of Hindu mythology
Hindu mythology exists in every vernacular - some myths and versions of legends exist only in the vernaculars and not in Sanskrit as we discussed in the Ramayana thread some time ago.

philosophy
The philosophies of Veerasaivism and Tamil Murugan worship - to name two from the top of my head - have only ever been expressed in Kannada and Tamil respectively.

the mirror in which all the creeds, opinions, and customs and usages of the Hindus are faithfully reflected
For the North in the period before 1000 AD, quite possibly. Elsewhere and at other times, clearly not. I posted about folk beliefs in mediaeval India in the Ramayana thread which one sees nothing about in Sanskrit texts. Essentially, one can sum it up by saying that Sanskrit texts will tell you how intellectuals and the Powers That Be in that particular period decided people should think and behave, whereas vernacular texts from the same period will tell you how they actually thought and behaved.

and the only quarry whence the requisite materials may be obtained for improving the vernaculars or for expressing important religious and scientific ideas.
Tamil is managing to coin religious and scientific words without having to resort to Sanskrit. Other languages could as well, if they chose to. Monier-Williams' statement reflects a typical upper class Victorian English bias, analogous to the manner in which the knowledge of Latin and classical Greek, and liberally drawing on them to construct new words, were seen as being "nobler" than doing the same with Old English.

Part of the European Orientalist project was to try and construct a vision of a monolithic, uniform Hindu religion and way of life which according to them was Hinduism in its "purest" form. Once one accepted this, the vast diversity of actual practice amongst Hindus would necessarily have to be seen as being "debased". Their motives in doing this are readily evidenced by a study of the correspondence of leading lights of this movement (Max Müller and Macaulay, for example). I find it extremely amusing that people who claim to be Indian nationalists today have chosen to follow in these noble footsteps.[/tscii:652a277bfa]

[solomon]

INDIAN HERITAGE AND TAMIL ANCIENT LITERATURE.

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

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

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

1. Ariyamum Tamilodu isaianavan- Appar Devaram 132:3

2. Tamilsollum VADASOLLUM Thanzarsera GNASAm Dev77:4

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

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

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

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

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

8. Sentamilum Vadakalaiyum Nikalnta Navar Nalayira DivyaPrabantham 1624.

9. ThennanTamilai Vadamolai

10. Vadasorku Sentamilkum Varambaki
Nanmaarain Kambaramayan Kishkantam 778


This is in line with THOLKAPPIYAM, which says,

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

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

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

Now Let us See Sangam Literuature:

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

2. Arumarai Navin Anthanar - Sirupanarrupadai- 204

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

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

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

6. Arutolil Anthanar Aram Purinthu Edutu Puram 397

7. Nan pala Kelvi murriya Velvi Anthanarku Puram 361

8. Pulan Alukku Arra Anthanalalan Puram

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

Vedas are Referred as Vethas, Chathur Marai, Arumarai.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Tholkappiyam was first permoremed in presence of :

" Arangarai Navin NANMARAI Murriya Athangottu Asan--- "


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

2. NAN MARAI MUTHUNOOL Mukkan Selvan AagaNanooru 181:16

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

4. Aaruari Anthanarku Arumarai Pala Pagarnthu Kalithogai 1:1

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

6. Aaru Neriya Marai Valla Muniyagan

7. Chathuram Marai than Thuthi Seithu Vangum -Sampanthar

8. Thalaiana NAAL VETHAnthrithar Vazum... SAMPANTAR

9. Aathianthanar aarinthu Parikoluva
VethaMaPuun Vaiyater Vurnthu

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

11. Velpor Raman AARUMARAI kavitha
Palveel Aalam Pol Agananooru 71

12. Na al VethaNeri Paripadal 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

MosesMohammedSolomon.

[Idiappam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Friends, :)

Let us see the Root of Ariyan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Sankam – Kadaichangam- present sankam literature.

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

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

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

When he talks about Gods – Theivam –

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

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

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

When he talks about ‘rituals’,

“NiraiMozhi Maanthar Aanayil Kilantha
Maraimozhi thane Manthiram Enba.

“Vinayin Neengi vilankiya Arivin
Munaivan Kandathu Muthanoolakume”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

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

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

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

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

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

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

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

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

Present archeological proofs show this.

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

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

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Mr.Solomon wrote,

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

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

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

Tholkappiam never contain Vedhic reference.

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

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

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

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

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

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear Friends, :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hindustani Laduka should note the following :

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

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

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

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

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

f.s.gandhi

[A P MASILAMANI]

Well done, keep it up. Mr Gandhi.

[Idiappam]

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

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

f.s.gandhi

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

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

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

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

Kindly continue your postings.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Friends, SARASWATHI MAHal Library has More Sanskrit Manuscripts than any other Language- Oldest being 16th Century, and Tamil are from 18th Century only,To my Quarry FSG maintained that Carbon dating done in 19th Century, Only in middile of 20th Century, Reliable Carbon14 dating started. And SARASWATHI Mahal Website doesnot know any of FSG Bluffs.
www.saraswathimahallibary.tn.nic.in/library/department/body-manuscripts.htm
Idiyappam, to my putting Vedas to 2000to600BCE,- wrote Rig Vedas was written in 600 BCE, FSG tells New FABLES every time.
Idiyappam, now then changed Rig to 400CE, at the instance of FSG, Shaving nearly 1000 years within 45 days time, now confirms
his dating 600BCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False Assumptions are to thrown.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[solomon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Friends, SARASWATHI MAHal Library has More Sanskrit Manuscripts than any other Language- Oldest being 16th Century, and Tamil are from 18th Century only,To my Quarry FSG maintained that Carbon dating done in 19th Century, Only in middile of 20th Century, Reliable Carbon14 dating started. And SARASWATHI Mahal Website doesnot know any of FSG Bluffs.
www.saraswathimahallibary.tn.nic.in/library/department/body-manuscripts.htm
Idiyappam, to my putting Vedas to 2000to600BCE,- wrote Rig Vedas was written in 600 BCE, FSG tells New FABLES every time.
Idiyappam, now then changed Rig to 400CE, at the instance of FSG, Shaving nearly 1000 years within 45 days time, now confirms
his dating 600BCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False Assumptions are to thrown.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[Uthappam]

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

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

Tholkappiar wrote:
"Thirupathikku poyi vanthen - Narayana
naan thirumottai adichu vanthen - Narayana"
Listen here:
http://www.musicindiaonline.com/l/8/s/album.560/language.8/


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

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

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


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

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


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

Yes, stones were better uses for building Homa pits!


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

So much for Dating Tamil and Dating Sanskrit.

[A P MASILAMANI]

Mr Solomon wrote:

PAVANAR Had to agree


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tie katti vaazvaarE vaazvaar maRRellaam
kai kattip pinsel pavar!!

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

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

[abbydoss1969]

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

[A P MASILAMANI]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vEtham (veda) is not from vid.

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

[Hyderbadi]

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

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

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_agrawal.html

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

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

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



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

[Uthappam]

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

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANCIENT LANGUAGE OF WHOLE OF INDIA WAS TAMIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMPORTANT

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

ABOUT SCRIPTS

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

PANINI WAS INGNORANT ABOUT HISTORY : RAJWADE

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

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

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

IMPORTANT

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

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

3. Was Sanskrit a spoken language?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who suffered in ‘Kalivarjya’ vedhic culture

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

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

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

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

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

Jainism as a Dravidan Religion :-

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

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

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

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

f.s.gandhi

[A P MASILAMANI]

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

[abbydoss1969]

HyderbadIf you don't believe me, go ask any Pakistan who has studied in Pakistan and ask him/her what he/she thinks about the Aryan/Dravidian thing.
Hi Hyderbadi,
I browsed throu' all your links, but these all old arguments that has been going on for sometime.My point is: IN the light of these latest developments which were published only early this year after more than ten years of DNA testing all over the world, the whole history may have to be revised. Not only about Vedic views but also the European view of the world if man origianted from Africa.I have not come across anything to suggest they have been discredited.
So, instead of looking for clues in ancient literature both in tamil and sanskrit, we have much more direct evidence in the form of latest medical technology.So why not pursue this line?

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Thank you Thiru. A. P. Masilamani, :)


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

Inthran is pure tamil word used in Tholkappiam and prevailed in ancient tamil worship.

"Im' is the root as 'suttu oli' which means 'Kulir'(cool) and was used to specify substances of cool nature.

Intham - puli , Inthuli - Perumkayam, Inthul - nelli, Inthu - Mathi / Chanthiran , Inthanam - Kaadu , Inthalam - a Yazh instrument used in Marutham land. Maarutham is cool air and hence the land was named Marutham. Inthalam is also a raham from this Yazh.

'Im' turned 'Sam'- 'sim' produced santhanam, Santhu, sinthakam-pulia maram, Sinthu - a river , sinthooram- a tilak powder, sunthu- water and all specify cool nature.

Inthiran is the god of Marutham land specified in tholkappiam. 'Inthira vizha' was celebrated in kaveri river is silapapathikaram message.

Inthiran is the god of water land because water is cool in nature. Inthiran is also called Venthan. Varunan is god of sea land. 'Vari'
means kadal.

'Sinthu' river also might have been named from the word sunthu / sinthu. The word Inthiran turned 'Indra' in north India.

Inthran and Uruthran(ruthran) worship is prevailing in vedhas and is noted in Egypt civilization makes the vedhics claim so. Inthran along with Kanthu (kanthan) / pillar worship in Egypt only shows tamils culture and not Vedhic culture. Vedhic culture was influenced by tamil culture.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

Friends,
I thank Idiappam on his clarifications on his older claim, but Idiyappam has not given which word in Sangam Literature means Jews, to much knowledge,there is none.

What is the word for Greeks- referred? Mostly it is Yavanarkal- It does not mean Greeks, but mostly to Foriegners, but also a section of Our Tamils were also Yavanas- and I Give, Dictoionary meaning of Yavanas- with respect to the use in SAngam Period,as below:
YAVANAM- Viraivu, Varipanam
Yavanar- Kammalar , Oviyak karar, Sonakar, Yavana Thesathar, Kannalar, Thorkaruvi
Vasippavar.
Now -Kammmalar means Akka Saalaiyar, Arivar, Arputhar, Ovar, Pulavar, Kannalar,
Viththakar, Thatchar, Thattar.
Unless, we split each of reference in Sangam Literature- Generalising it would be a problem, and this is what was exploited by Dravida Samaiya Theivanayagam.
Dear Shri.APM,
I loved you intelligent questions, however most of it had already been covered,and on Devaneyan Quotes and refered books in my posting dated 7.6.2005, and I request you to kindly go through complete, and also Tirukural and Tamil roots words for Sanskrit
words forum. I have given them.

On Assumptions and Speculations of Panamparanars name and Origin, I do not understand as to serves what Purpose, but I understand You have Problems with Tholkappiyam dating and let us look at them with your further questions.

We donot follow ethics of Literature, if we say Passages which are not to the liking of our assumptions as Interpolations- without any support, based on biased Opinions and this would bring us into Vaiapuripillai and Sivarajpillai Datings as Releavant.

Most Commentator (Uraiasiriyarkal) of Tholkappiyam have referred to Panamparanar's sayings on the referred verses. Hence that is not required here.

Why can't be this? why can't be that? Why not Aram-Porul-Inbam-Veedu? Sir -? Why we need to speculate? The Problem is you Put the Clock back by 50 years and the Jambavans of Tamil and renowened Authorieties have concluded with Proper Research. 50 Years back all this questions have been raised and answers have been found. Firstly You have so much problems in accepting, that Sckepticism is root of Problem.

Sangam Literature has many references to Marai-NanMarai- Vetham, NalVetham , Arangam- Agamam etc., and some of them was listed by me. Now analyse each time and then what was derived from them was arrived, and that is Vedas, The Wild Speculation "Aram-Porul-Inbam-Veedu was dropped by those tendentious Schloars, and another Speculation was started by Ka.Su.Pillai, a different Four Tamil Vedas- named them " Thaithiriyam, Powdkam, Thalavakaram and Atarvanam" in
his book ThiruNanmarai Vilakkam.

These named were available in Chola Mannan KOKKARUN Thadankan's - ParthivaSekarapuram Copper Plates, and these names were also said by Nachinarkiniyar-Kappiyam Payira Voorail.

So Tamil Scholars made research on this and found "ALL NAMED WERE PART OF FOUR Vedas only". Sir, you must be aware of the Communist Thinking Scholars Group- AIYVU VATTAM- Participants include Prof. Vanamamalai, Archealogist & Prof.R.V.RAMAN, Etymoligical Depts- Mr.Aldurai, Mr.P.Nallakannu, V.Krishnamurhty etc., who meet annually and analyse and submit annual reviews and Shri.V.Krishnamurthy presented -"TAMIL VETHAM- OR AIYVU" and I have quoted its contents and you can see them in my postings.

And Pavanar had to respond then and Confirmed that All the references of Vedas, Nanmarai, Arangam, Marai- in Tholkappiyam and all references to Parpanar. Anthanar all refers to Brahmins, (ofcourse Pavanar gave exception to Tirukural- which ofcourse is not acceptable to many objective Scholars, which we might see in Tirukural forum, ) similarly Tholkappiyar was from KAppiyar Kudi- an Anthanar background is confirmed by every Uraiasiriyar and Pavanar.

The word PARPANAN- in Tholkappiyam to Sangam Literature as per Scholars comes from-
Noolkalai Padithu Araiyum, Naaligai Kannakai, KalamKanithal, Paruva Nilai and Nimithkam,
Panchangam munne Parppavar- Forseer- or SEER. Why should we need to speculate them-
differently?

Now I quote Manimekhalai on Palsamiya Vooraiyadal-

" Vetha Viyathanum Kirutha Kodium
Ethamil Saimini enumiv Asiriyar ...... Manimekhalai 27: 5-8.Sangam Literature itself gives us the answer to all your Speculations Tendentiously put, and Concretely Tamil Scholars have held them Clearly as Sanskrit Vedas. Only thing is Our Friends, do not read Sangam Literature or Research Opinions, but do speculations.

Now Ka.Su.Pillai's Speculative Tendentious research work was Exploited by Church, and One Dr.M.Deianayagam went on to use this and Got PHD, saying Tiruvalluvar wrote from Learning Bible, even went onto say Valluvar Copied, Saivam Developed from Bible. Pavanar- Maraimalai Adigal are his most sources of research. Church continues and His Daughter and disciple have got Research Phds, and M.phil saying Tamil Bakthi Movement, Vaisnavism and Muruga Worship on Sangam Literature are also inspired by Bible.

Breaking words, and assuming what is not in Original Text has been exploited in this "THOMASIN INDIA-BIBLES" . A 3rd Century book called Acts of THOMAS- Written mostly in Syriac, was shown as example. The Oriinal refers to Twin brother by birth of Jesus- visited Mountainous Desert Country ruled by Gudnofor, Gudnophor, Gundophorous etc., and was killed in Neighbouring cuntry ruled by Mazdai or Masiduis in a place called Qualimiya or Calamina for witching. This book was rejected in New Testament in Late 4th Century.

Church- made Gundophor as Kandappar, Mazdai as MachchaDevan or Mahadevan etc., Qualimaya became KaliManai. Later Coins from Afganistan Area- with the Name Gondophorus was received, and Church started Hiding Kandappar- Mahadevan now. The Problem is Gondphorus is dated to late Ist Century BCE to First Decades of CE, which is hidden to Common Public.

Thomas Bible Scholars have Exploited, Maraimalai Adigal's Controversial Manickavasagar dating book.

The Author of the book referred " ACTS of Thomas" was speculated as One Syrian Bardaisan- now how to link him to Kerala- Come Speculations from Our Dravidian Tamil Scholars- and I quote from Retd. Professor of English- JOSEPH Kolangaden, of St.Josephs College TRrichy,
" Bardaisan Might be Madurai Koolavaniagan Chattanar, the Trade Commisioner- P31,The Histricity of Apostle Thomas. and again
the Learned Professor who has also Authored Tamil books wrote, I quote-
" Anyway Manimekhalai Gathai 27- Isanuvadigal of Vanchimanagar with Strict Monotheism most likely a reference to the Nascent Christian Community" Page32, Ibid.

Learned Professor refers to the Sayings of Saivavathi and I leave it to you, Speculating on Sanskrit book meaninglessly by Our Scholars got its repo,and none of our friends respond to it and I want your Comments.

Whatever Speculations and Questions you have put can be put on Every Old Illakiyam, as we have to be honest we accept that Tiruvalluvar wrote Kural and Kappiyar wrote ETC., and why should we accept them? How do you reconcile? Tholkappiyar's rules have been flouted by Sangam Literature itself?Why was it Translated from Some other Language
and those original was Scraped, or Was Tholkappiyam Not for Tamil at all? Which is earlier? Which is later? We do not have single book from Legends of Sangams-? FSG has reduced Tamil Sngams of nearly 10,000 to around one fourth of that, from what is said in Iraiyanar Agaporul-why? What evidence he has for it.
If we do not use same Scales to every Literature-Saman Seithu Seer Thookum Kol Pol...UNnecessary doubts are raised not out of Genuine reasons, but due to the False Probaganda of Missionaries and False reading of Indus-Saravathi River Valley Archealogy, Tendentious Scholars and the Selfish Politcal forces that dominating TN. Distrust came by false Probaganda,and not from any Historical or Linguistic Evidence. My Questions are as Arrgant to that of that put on other side.

I have given quiet a lot of material on this subject. The Words Aryan and Dravidians are the frauds and Nobody has the right to call any section of Indians that way and I have quoted upto Ambedkar on this.

Every Language in the world, till 15th Cen CE had more of Poetry and very little of Prose, because Literature are mostly thought Orally and Passed on Orally, Writing is done, but to handle them from them is very Difficult. No language was verbal, or no Language was written.

Tamil's first inscriptions comes mostly from the STone Inscriptions made in Pazhis or Gugais where Vadamozhi SAmana Munivarkal, wrote, the newly learnt language, from the Script of their Language- Prakrit Scripts and Tamil Words- Mostly names etc.,

Tamil's First Scripts have come from VadaMozhi Samanars, and Now COMES the Dating of TholKappiyam. N.Sanjeevi, M.RaasaManickanar Tho.Po.Mi and most of the Academic and Objective Scholars dated it to 350 BCE, and We need to look at Eluthuilakkanam- and Archealogists and Decipherers and Historian Natanakasinathan and others have found the Brahmi after 200BCE suits to Eluthuilakanam of Tholkappiyar, after The Vadamozhi Samanars had adjusted Script for Additional tamil letters as Zha etc., So We have to go Scientific dating and Word Split Speculations do not help.

I do not like any Chavunistic groups- Jihadi-Converting Church- Hardcore Hindutvadis or Anti-Indic Tamil Chavunism- and Casteism all use same Techniques and I believe Kural :
Palkuzhuvum Palseium Vutpagaium Venthu Alaikum
Kol Kurumbum Illathu Nadu- 735, and I Believe all said and others are the same and Drag India backwards.

We are in 21st Century and I am as much a Learner of Linguistics and History,but I look from the Past to Present and Please feel free to advice if I am Wrong, but look at evidences and not feelings, which confuses.

I can give more from Sangam Literatrue if you need and Research opinions about them. Speculating with words and breadking it not Linguistic History or scientific but just bluffs.
MosesMohammedSolomon

[Uthappam]

Solomon wrote:

I am as much a Learner of Linguistics and History,but I look from the Past to Present and Please feel free to advice if I am Wrong, but look at evidences and not feelings, which confuses.

Ah see! YOu intention is right, mr solomon. This Hub is the best place to practice writing your thesis, get your Masters! Yes!

But you should have told us that earlier, we would not have paid much attention to your blabber!

Never mind!

[A P MASILAMANI]

Thiru Solomon.


You have so much problems in accepting, that Skepticism is root of Problem.

We can of course accuse each other of being skeptical Thiru Solomon! You refuse to accept that the "naanmaRai" referred in Panampaaranaar's stanza is aRam, poruL, onpam, viidu. We are talking about a treatise of grammar of the Tamil Language, which is Tolkaappiyam. First of all, there must be compelling reason for me to conclude or to be convinced that the poet was not referring to Tamils' own naan maRai and that he was referring to some other naan maRai across the border. What compelling reason or reasons are there?

Let me give you an example. If I tell you that the tuition expenditure of 4 children comes to ONE THOUSAND, without telling you at the same time whether I am referring to my own 4 children or the 4 children in my neighbour's house, as my listener you have to naturally conclude that I am speaking of my own 4 children and not my neighbours' children. But if you insist that I referred to my neighbour's children, then a number of evidential problems arise.
Firstly you have to convince me or yourself that the neighbour had 4 children and not 6 or 7! Secondly why I speak or have to speak of my neighbour's children and not my own when I have my own!!
If you insist that I spoke of my neighbour's, you have two burdens to discharge: (1) that I am referring to my neighbour's children; (affirmation) (2) that I am not at all referring to my own children.(this is known as rebuttal). Both items of burden must be proved and proved conclusively. There must be some preponderance of evidence or proof before one is entitled to conclude one way or the other.

In addition you also need to consider other factors: the causative factor: why I am speaking of my four children? The other is the sine qua non: the setting in which the basic facts operated.

Looking at the naan maRai in the stanza, is the phrase relevant to the factual setting given in the stanza? Is there any consistency between naan maRai and the other things mentioned in the stanza? What is its significance vis a vis the facts, circumstances and consequences if any as obtained from the stanza? Is it contrary to common sense and experience to accept or reject a proposition or item of evidence? If a matter is open to double or multiple interpretations after going through all the above criteria, then you can reject all and believe none of it!!

Mr. Solomon, let all the jambavans decide whatever they want to decide. If as a result of a jambavan's decision, you are going to lose half your estate, you would not let it stand. You will of course challenge it in Supreme Court WHETHER HE IS A JAMBAVAN OR NOT. If it does not affect you in that manner and it is purely of academic or other minor interest, you let him survive or go on his way. don't you? So, I am not worried about jambavans. For all I know, you can be a jambavan, but not declared to be one so far just because you were not "in the scene" - so to speak. This is not to say we slight everyone around but we do not lose our right and privilege as fellow human beings with some brains to examine what they are saying and to conclude for ourselves what we can believe and what we should not.

Firstly, let me hear from you whether the 4 vedas have already come into existence at the time of Athangodu Aasan. I read the Vedas and understand that they were all composed [verbally] by different persons and at different times. The various hymns in each of the Vedas too were composed at different times. For a long time they were in oral form just being recited on religious occasions in North India before they were finally reduced to writing.

Also note that "aRam karai naavin..." aRam is already mentioned.
[ not urukku karai naavin ] (Rig Veda is not mentioned ). So the other three are: poRul, inpam, viidu. There is internal evidence available for my conclusion. How this is displaced by the arya vedas, pl also tell me. A book on ethics can be a maRai. ThirukkuRaL is a maRai. The Tamils had their own maRai. The aryans had their own at some point of time of course.

You have also to prove that the phrase naan maRai was not a later insertion into what was already composed. [ If the original is "aRam karai naavin naaRporuL muRRiya," I can easily change it to "aRam karai naavin naanmaRai muRRiya" and no one would be the wiser! ] Please itemise in point form your proof for greater clarity not only for me but for the world that watching us via the internet. Thank you.

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Thiru A.P. Masilamani, :)

North Indian scholars including Sanskrit pandits call vedhas as "Mahanubavam" as I earlier quoted Rajwade in this thread.

You have given new dimension to Marais. Infact Vedham the word itself has tamil root "Vei" which means hide / marai since no synonyms / kilavikal in sanskrit based on this root. You have also noted this earlier in this thread.

When we do the research the Field of perspective ( Kalam) is essential. Tamil is such a old language and present proofs are enough to make "Kalam" of any research to be adapted tamil as base. Maxmuller , Galduwell did mistake of not defining this "Kalam" and that led to unconclusive conclusions. Presently the christian missions also do research based on that that from Rome civilisation flow came to tamil Nadu etc. which is also wrong.

In defining ariyar, Pavanar and Maraimalaiadikal also went in different path is what I feel. In this P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar. T.R.Sesha Iyengar and V.R. Ramachandra Dikshitar perfectly led tamil history. After 1960s due to the influence of dravidian movement and Aryan Invasion theory, research turned into different perspective and all researches were based on Sanskrit either in refute or in acceptance. "Kalam" was changed.

In this context Tamil should be taken as "Kalam" to conclude everything. Language archeology is best proof intiated by Maxmuller should be accepted and in this way tamil should be given priority to conclude root words.

Tamil evolved naturally as linguistics put forth, with suttu olikal, verbial expressions, Oru porut kilavikal and organised progress.

In this tamil pandits should observe one thing. They are making colloquial words alien to tamil. For example instead of Nagai -siripu is used colloquially. Instead of 'Unnuthal' - saappiduthal is used. These are the words which never comes in literature. Tamil pandits consider this kind of words are alien to tamil and come to conclusion that they are from other languages namely sanskrit etc.

In this case they have to look into the colloquial roots also .

Tamil was before 3000 years. And sea farring tamil people went all over the world. They gave words to many languages. The same roots might have come after several thousand years to tamilNadu.

Hence we have to explore the roots of words in this basis also.

In some places of tamil literature Nanmarai turned Arumarai (six) and this has to be explained. Nanmarai is observed only in "payiram" not in "Tholkappiam". Tholkappiam also had insertions is most of the scholars's conclusion. And later part of sankam literature has this Nanmarai.

We need not talk about 'Bakthi' literature. Most of the North Indian scholars view is Vedhas were influenced by tamil culture. Eventhough Manusmiruthi consolidated the occupational difference into caste difference, Upanishads and some agamas were influenced by tamil morals.

f.s.gandhi

[A P MASILAMANI]

Thank you thiruvaaLar Gandhi, and also Mr Uthappam.

Good. Keep up the discussion. :)

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Solomon wrote :


What is the word for Greeks- referred? Mostly it is Yavanarkal- It does not mean Greeks, but mostly to Foriegners, but also a section of Our Tamils were also Yavanas- and I Give, Dictoionary meaning of Yavanas- with respect to the use in SAngam Period,as below:
YAVANAM- Viraivu, Varipanam
Yavanar- Kammalar , Oviyak karar, Sonakar, Yavana Thesathar, Kannalar, Thorkaruvi
Vasippavar.
Now -Kammmalar means Akka Saalaiyar, Arivar, Arputhar, Ovar, Pulavar, Kannalar,
Viththakar, Thatchar, Thattar.


First of all, we have to note that urns containing tamil has been found in Greece alongwith coins containing tamil. There should be some trade connection between tamils and Greek country. The flow is from tamilNadu to Greece and not Greece to Tamilnadu. Hence the initiators were tamils and civilizational flow is from tamilNadu to Greek.

Greeks came here and they were noted as 'Yavanar' in tamil literature. And tamils were referred as 'Thiriyar' (Thiraiyar) and tamil as 'therimili" in Greek literature. These 'thiriyar' gave civilization to Greece. They went to Turky also and called by the same name. Eminent historien H.R. Hall's words are this.

Yavanar are also meant thurukkiar, Milacher in some tamil dictionaries.

Let us examine the root of this word.

Yavanar should be started with vowel. Eyavanar = Eyavu +an+ ar since any word should have vowel starting at the beginning of evoluation.

Eyavu in turn Eyam + U. 'Eyam' means oli, Vaththiyam ( it creates oli).chol (while talking sound is created). Root is 'Ei' which forms the word 'Eyambu" which means also 'cholluthal'.

And those who operates this 'Eyam' was called Eyavan-Yavanan. Eyam also means 'Tholkaruvi' because it is made up of animal skin.
Kammalar also creates sound while doing work. The rest of the meanings fit further.

At the sametime 'Eyavu' means 'Vazhi undakku' , Vazhi ,chelavu(means roaming which specifies foreingners) - Eyaivu, Eyaintha Vazhi are comparative words. Here yavanar means foreigners.

Here we find both of the words eventhough seems to be having different meaning at first instance but have root having same meaning. This is because tamil is natural language.

Hence Yavanar clearly specifies foreigners than other meaning in the verses of literature.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Solomon wrote,


FSG has reduced Tamil Sngams of nearly 10,000 to around one fourth of that, from what is said in Iraiyanar Agaporul-why? What evidence he has for it.

My posting was based on eminent scholar Dr. Sothi parakasam's book 'Thiravidar varalaru' in which he compares the flood stories of Anchor Dictionary with tamil sankam literature message. Anchor Dictionary perfectly recorded the timings of flood stories and relevant 'Kadalkol ' in tamil literature is compared and conclusion is made : Not like Nadana Kasinathan's speculative work.

Adichanallure urn containing tamil Brahmi is dated to 500 BCE is the earliest one in India. Still solomon spread message around "sa manar Kukai" :?:

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Let us take up "Erayanar Akapporul" which was written in 2nd century CE and had lot of insertions till Eighth century CE to explain about Marai,Anthanar,pulavan & Munaivan.

"Anbin Iyinthinak Kalavenap paduvathu
Anthanar Arumarai Mantral Ettanul,
Kantharuva Vazhakkam Enmanaar pulavar"

Let us take up the words Iynthinai, Kalavu, Anthanar, Arumarai, Mantral Ettanul & Pulavar.

Iynthinai clearly specifies five lands and no north indian literature has this classification of lands. Inthran & Varunan are gods of Marutham and Neithal lands respectively.

Anthanar Arumarai Mantral Ettanul - clearly conforms of what Tholkappiar says about Iyer i.e., the head of family marriage rituals and not Vedha Brahmanar.

Arumarai Mantral Ettanul- clearly shows that Eight marriage types were described in six marais. Where is 'nan marai' ? In Valluvar's Pothu marai The kural starting "eyatralum....." expalins about pulavar duties. Where do Anthanar duties come ?

When Nanmarai is not refered in Tholkappiam "Maraiyor Theyam" is told. It definitely won't necessarily specify the Theyam of Vedhas but a land within Tamil speaking people.

"Ethu Munaivanal Seyyappatta Nool Akalaan" - Here Munaivan is identified as new inventor and not usual pulavar since the formula for Kalavu marriage was created first time.

"Innool Seithaar Yaaro?" ........Avisothi Arumaraik kadavul"

Sothi is generally referred to Lord Siva and he is not the god of four Sanskrit vedhas. Infact Inthran is talked in verses of Vedhas. Ruthran is talked in lesser verses. Even if we take Ruthran is Siva, Siva cannot be taken as god of four vedhas. Arumarai never specify four Vedhas.

Siva can be taken as God of Arumarais and what Arumarai means has not been proved so far.

Hence,Pulavar,Munaivan & Anthanar never be the same as I said earlier referring Tholkappiam.

Maraimozhi-Manthiram also prevailed in tamil land and this is not necessarily be manthiram of four vedhas.

Nanmarai might be the reference to the four Vedhas but Thiru A.P. Masilamani's query is very much fittable to deny this claim. Because we don't know What are Arumarais and What are nan marais.

I want to just explain how maraimozhi - occulstic knowledge / language prevailed in tamil land by giving one word's root archeology.

We have already seen Inthu specifies chandran / Mathi. We know because of its cool nature it is called Inthu. Then why is it called 'Mathi'?

In occulstic studies moon is associated with man's imaginative pursuits. If imagination is in higher level he will become mad. And due to that all madmen are never exposed to fullmoon day. On full moon day moon's gravitational force increases and it affects earth also. Lot of tidal waves are created in oceans during full moon days. From this We come to know that moon's attractive force is associated with man's mind. Hence moon / Inthu is called 'Mathi'.

As I have already explained in the previous pages of this thread before samanam religion this sort of sankiam religion prevailed in tamil land.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

I GIVE here waht Devaneyan has said:

"Iyarsol Thirisol Thisaisol Vadasolen
anaithe seiul ittach Solle" -Tholkappiyam Solathi1
Merkuriya Iyarsol Thirisol Thisaisol ennum mundruda, Edaikalaga(Sangaha) Kalathil Puthithai Vanthu Valanghiyaoru sila Vada Sorkal Tamilil Kalntha Ayanmozhi endra vakayil vadasorkal endre Koorap pattana. Akkalathil tamilir Kalantha Ayanmozhi Vadamozhi Ondre. Immuraipadiy Ikkalathilum Tamilir Kalntha Angila sol, Portukesia sol, muthaliavarrai Avvam Mozhi peyalral Angilasol, Portukesiyasol enak kural vendume andri Thisai sorkal enak kooruthal koodathu. Page 9,10-Thiravidathai.
Pavanar maintained this in all his books he wrote over 50 years of his research. I AM Confident that his Knowledge to interpret Tamil verses of Tholkappiyar is OK.

I sincerely regret to the level to which friends have gone, like a kid making shit a Public place. Tiruvalluvar says God is all the script from a- in Kural no1, and Nayanmars and Alwars say it is Siva or Vishnu gave Languages-Vadamozhi and Tamil. Now if Uthappam criticises Panini for saying so as per International Cronology in 5th Cent BCE AND Pavanar 4th CenBCE, Valluvar said so 500 years later and Bakthi Literature after 1200 years. So Why say Nonsense. Christianity and Isalam calls thier Scriptures as God's word, even though they Preach Hateread and are anti-science and proven wrong Scientifically and Historically.

Kamaraj University Publication- Kural Kurum Samayam, the Author tells clearly referring Foriegn Indologists- who accept the International Cronology of Literature dating- Vedas, Upanishads and Baghavatgeetha doesnot have Caste by birth as clear motive.

Whereas Tholkappiyam has it, Tirukural talks KudiPiraappu and PirappuOlukkam in more than 50 kurals, and If Pirappokkum kural is shown there are 50 Kurals on the other side and similarly, Manusmrithi has verses against Casteism. Manusmirithi is dated to 2nd Cen CE and Indologists say Casteism is gone from Tamil to Sanskrit. So talking otherwise shows Poor Understanding.
Casteism is practised mostly by Upper Castes-Non brahmins and Elections to certain places in Tamilnadu is not possible for 10 years now, Stoping of Temple visits of Adidravidans is by these groups and Practice of Twin Tumbler system is also done by Upper Caste BCs. The Most Benefitiories of Caste System were Upper Castes.

If Uttappam says meaning less Utterances and if Seniors acknoledge it with Pride, this only shows the Ignorance or improper approach not fit for the Educated. I look for a matured response.

NanMarai and Marai has been here from Tholkappiyar days and as Kavivanars uses it Continuously Century after Century as Mughals and Christian Aggressors came to India, the Marai was never last and it is available. Please clarify then what it is?

Bible Flood of Nova, as perBible Cronology was in 2200BCE, and It was Cosmic Pralayam, attested by Quran also and Science proved this are false, and taking this to Tamil Legends does not carry any weightage.

Is there any proof of submerged vast lands found inIndian Ocean or Pacific Oceans, any details please.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[Nedunchezhiyan]

Thamizh scholars argue that first 40 kurals in ThirukkuraL were inserted in later days. We have talked about this in this forum and there are debates and possibility of errors as they ThirukkuraL was passed on and rewrote on the palymra tree's leaf. The first kuraL for instance could be something like

"Akara muthala ezhuththellam aAthi
pakalan muthattae ulagu"
like the letter 'a' is the origin of all words, the Sun is the origin of our Solar system!

instead of the word 'pakavan' in the current ThirukkuraL book, the word 'pakalan' should be inserted. Two reasons are given for this, one is either 'la' was mistook for 'va' when it was re wrote on the palmyra tree or someone at some time changed the words or inserted new kuraLs. I think, I read on this forum that we call the author of ThirukkuraL as ThiruvaLLuvar and we don't know his real name or something. If thats possible I think people could have inserted new kuraLs to brainwash the Thamizh people or take over the VaLLuvar's book and maybe lot of spelling errors were made when the KuraL was re written on the palmyra leaf, after all Thamizh people got burnt badly from late Thamizh Academy Time till the end of Bakthi Academy and then from Chozha Empire end to present.

ThiruvaLLuvar has been against manusmirithi and most of his kuraLs speak for his disbelief in manusmirithi.

ThiruvaLLuvar kurals like
'kEdil vizhuchchelvam kalvi oruvarkku
mAdalla mattai yavai'

which says that education is the richest of the rich and important for someone's life and all other riches come after. I belief there are 3 or 8 kind of riches that Thamizh people clasiffy.

Then in kurals where he talks about

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

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

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

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

A Thamizh teacher informed me that, atleast 100 kuraLs in ThirukkuraL are against Mansusmirithi and attack Mansumirithi belief one way or another.

Your disucssion regarding the highest caste and things in ThirukkuraL cannot be accepted as a valid argument. The wors like 'uyar kudi' doesn't have to mean Highest Caste and some words in Kural are interpreted improperly or without full knowledge of the kuraL. For instance you take the word 'Theivam' in the ThirukkuraL, I think Nakkerar from Canada discussed this and came up with some reasoning for it on the Thamizh website www.tamilnaatham.com (not sure when it was). Thus words are confused with different meanings. In Thamizh there are words which can mean many things and many words can mean one thing. Hence Kudi, uyar gudi may not mean caste as u think it does. I can assure you that VaLLuvar wouldn't have inserted Caste System in his KuraL. VaLLuvar kuraLs show how he is against Manusmirithi and other beliefs brought in by the brahmins from the north and etc. Even if there is a mis interpretation found in ThirukkuraL then its either an error or someone inserted it in the KuraL with their own intention.

nanRi, paNhivu

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Casteism is practised mostly by Upper Castes-Non brahmins and Elections to certain places in Tamilnadu is not possible for 10 years now, Stoping of Temple visits of Adidravidans is by these groups and Practice of Twin Tumbler system is also done by Upper Caste BCs. The Most Benefitiories of Caste System were Upper Castes.

Dear Solomon Archaka, :)

Can you allow all caste people as Archakas ? That is real social justice. Is manusmirithi not talking about this ?


Christianity and Isalam calls thier Scriptures as God's word, even though they Preach Hateread and are anti-science and proven wrong Scientifically and Historically.

Hence, You also follow their foolish beaten path. Is is Not ? Like unbelievable Panini's creation ? His dating is wrong misguided by Manuvadhis which does not have any scientifical dating. :!:

And all other things you discussed are repeated in nature. Don't do this repeated "Koyabal"s propoganda without any proof.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Here I show how tamils marriage rituals are different from Vedhic marriage. Tholkappiar specifies this marriage only. Solomon wishful selected quoting can be understood by readers.

TAMIL CULTURE

Ancient Tamil Marriage Ceremony by

P.T.Srinivasa Aiyangar

in History of Tamils from the Earliest Times to 600 A.D.
Madras, 1929
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The ancient ceremony of marriage which obtained among the Tamils before it was altered by the Vedhics is described in two odes of the anthology called the Agam. (aka n^AnURu)

Thus it is said:

“There was a huge heap of rice cooked with pulse (even after many guests had been fed). On the floor of a pandal built on long rows of wooden columns was spread freshly brought sand. House lamps were lighted. The bride and the bridegroom were adorned with flower-garlands. In the beautiful morning of the day of the bent, bright moon, when the stars shed no evil influence, some women carrying pots on the head, others bearing new, broad bowls, handed them one after another while fair elderly dames were making much noise. Mothers of sons, with bellies marked with beauty-spots, wearing beautiful ornaments, poured water on the bride, so that her black hair shone bright with cool petals of flowers and rice-grains (which had been mixed with the water), and at the same time they blessed her, saying ‘do not swerve from the path of chastity, be serviceable in various ways to your husband who loves you and live with him as his wife’. On the night after the marriage ceremony was over, the neighbouring ladies assembled, (dressed the bride in new clothes) and sent her to the arms of her lover, to which she went with trepidation.”(1)
It will be noticed that in this ancient Tamil rite of marriage there is absolutely nothing Vedhic no lighting of fire, no circumambulation of fire, and no PRIEST to receive DAKSINA.

Another ode in the same anthology refers also to the wedding-rite.
“White rice, well cooked and with plenty of ghi, was served to the elders with stintless generosity. The omens shown by the birds were propitious. The broad sky shone bright. The moon was in faultless conjunction with the Rohini asterism. The marriage-house was decked. They worshipped God. The big drums resounded with wedding tunes. Excited women were peeping winklessly with their flower-like eyes at the bride who had been bathed (and decorated). The image (to be worshipped) of big flower-petals, clear like a gem that has been well washed, was placed on the soft vãgai flower with the double leaf whose back-side is bright, and the arugai grass which grows in low land when the roaring clouds pour the first rain and which is eaten by calves. It was decked with cool, sweet flower buds and white thread, clothed with holy cloth, so as to look grand. The bride (was seated) under a pandal, on the floor of which sand was strewn, looking as if rain-drops had fallen. She was perspiring with her load of ornaments. (They fanned her) to dry the wet. Then her relatives gave her away”. (2)
________________________________________
1. Agam 86, 1-22
2. Agam 136, 2-8

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

[tscii:343c65cb8b]Friends,

I sincerly regret as to the level of our friends saying on Misinterpreted wrong Hypothesis again and again.

Fradulant faking of Persian proof FOR SANSKRIT in Egypt of 1700 BCE, is the worst order, which I Shall reply in depth shortly.

Nedunchelian says 40 Kurals are inserted, and as I have said earlier any body can say any portion of Good Literature as insertion if they do not want to accept the Truths which they donot like it.

On Indus Valley Script Dubious reading I give an PRIZE available :

Indus-Script PrizeGo to Steve Farmer download page
$10,000 prize announced by Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel in conjunction with the publication of:
The Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis: The Myth of a Literate Harappan Civilization (1.1 Meg pdf)
Prize Announcement
Turn up just one Indus inscription that contains at least 50 symbols distributed in the random-appearing ways typical of true scripts contemporary to the Indus system, and we will (1) declare our model to be falsified and (2) will write a check to the discoverer or discoverers for $10,000.
Ground rules: Due to the many forgeries associated with the 130-year-old Indus-script thesis (see, e.g., Witzel and Farmer 2000; Farmer 2003), before becoming a candidate for the prize the
inscription (1) must be clearly provenanced from a known Indus
archaeological site and (2) must be accepted as genuine by a
consensus of recognized Indus researchers.
The offer, backed by an anonymous donor, is good throughout Farmer's lifetime.

See further "A Note on Falsification" (p. 48 in our paper, reproduced at the end of this page).
For an example of what we mean by 'random-appearing' sign duplications, see the Linear Elamite inscription (which contains roughly 50 signs) compared below with the longest known Indus inscription (which contains 17 non-repeating signs). Similar examples can be provided from other contemporary scripts:
Like inscriptions in all true scripts from the late 3rd millennium BCE, this Linear Elamite inscription contains a great deal of random- appearing sign repetition, which in this case is an apparent 'marker' of high levels of sound coding:

- 1 sign repeats 5 times (circled)
- 2 signs repeat 4 times
- 8 signs repeat 2-3 times each

A total of over 30 sign repetitions in the inscription
The longest Indus inscription on one surface (M-314a) is typical of Indus inscriptions in consisting predominantly of non-repeating high-frequency signs (measured in the corpus as a whole). (Note that no sign repetitions at all occur in this particular inscription, although at least 10 of the highest frequency Indus signs show up in it.) The contrast with Linear Elamite is extreme.
For a full discussion of anomalous sign frequencies in the Indus corpus, see Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004: 26-38).
Actual size of the longest known Indus inscription: a tiny .9 x 1
inches (2.41 x 2.54 cm)!

Extract from p. 48 of Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004):
A Note on Falsifiability It will probably surprise many readers to discover that the standard view that the Indus civilization was literate has been an assumption and not a conclusion of previous studies. While debate over the language of Indus inscriptions has had a long and acrimonious history, not one of the thousands of articles or books written on the topic since the 1870s included any systematic justification for the belief that the inscriptions were in fact linguistic. The claim that historical fields follow methods
different from those of other sciences is still frequently repeated.

Given the political abuses to which history is subject, we consider this to be a dangerous claim, and believe that the same rigor must be demanded in history as in any other scientific field. With this in mind, in closing we would like to acknowledge the heuristic nature of our work and briefly consider some conceivable conditions under which it might be overturned.
Specifically, we would consider that our model of Indus symbols was falsified, or at least subject to serious modification, if any of the following conditions were fulfilled:
1. If remnants were discovered of an Indus inscription on any medium, even if imperfectly preserved, that contained clear evidence that the original contained several hundred signs;

2. If any Indus inscription carrying at least 50 symbols were found that contained unambiguous evidence of the random-looking types of sign duplications typical of ancient scripts;

3. If any bilingual inscription were discovered that carried a minimum of 30 or so Indus symbols juxtaposed with a comparable number of signs in a previously deciphered script;
4. If a clear set of rules were published that allowed any researcher, besides the original proposer of those rules, to decipher a significantly large body of Indus inscriptions using phonetic, syntactic, and semantic principles of no greater number or complexity than those needed to interpret already deciphered scripts;
5. If a ‘lexical list’ were discovered that arranged a ignificantly large number of Indus signs in ways similar to those found in Near Eastern school texts.
Due to the long record of doctored evidence and forgery that is part of the Indus-script story (cf., e.g., Witzel and Farmer 2000, Farmer 2003), any discoveries of this type would have to be accepted by a broad consensus of Indus researchers before we would consider our model to be falsified or subject to major modification. We would like to conclude that while we consider it highly improbable that any of these five discoveries will ever be made, we would welcome them if they were, since when considered alongside the many anomalies in the Indus symbol system, any of those discoveries would necessarily trigger a radical rethinking of current views of early writing systems.
©2004, 2005 Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat, and Michael Witzel

These are Scholars from Oxford & Cambridege Universities.

Now, I even recall One TamiL Scholar even went on to say that Entire Kadavul Valzthu and Payiram 40 Kurals are insertions, But for all our friends- I can Show more than 100 Kurals where in Thiruvalluvar follows Indian Vedic Tradtion, and not a single Kural is against it.

Nedunchelian quotes- Agal Visumbular Koman Indiran Salunkari- as against Vedhics by mistinterpreting- I QUOTE from Kamarajar University' interpretation and also Kavimani'S Valluvar- Used Agal Visumbular Koman- it is a single Frace- Leader of Minnum Devarkal- as per Indic Tradtrion- Inthiran was born as human and by doing repeated Yagnas and Thavam he attained the Inthiran Post- and that is what is referred and not Akalikai story as misinterpreted by many.

As I have dealt earlier almost 80-90% of the Temples in Tamilnadu are Kali/Mariyamman and Vinayagar Temples and Archakas are Non-brahmins and all including Brahmins visit them. Stoppage of Adi Dravidars to Temple, Problem in Ther running in Temple, Local Panchayats Election not conducted for almost 10 years are done not by Brahmins and by Upper Caste Non Brahmins, and they control most of the Temples.

I am for Non-Brtahmins for Archakas, but Government control with HR&CE and The lands held by Leading Politician and Upper Caste Landlords must be first takenover and other reforms must be done first. And This discussion here is meaningless, only to divert the truth of Elderness of Vadamozhi.

FSG's Big Lie Saraswathi Mahal has 2000 Years old Manuscripots and Astrolegers-Nadi Josiars see them- Friends I have major collection of All Stone Inscriptions from 200CE to 200BCE, and even in deciphered form is not in proper Tamil, has Vadamozhi- Telugu-Malayalam and Kannada words, and clearly proving that Tamil sCRIPTS CAME From Vadamozhi-Samana Munivarkal. I shall be posting them here shortly for all of us. The Entire Book collection of Siththarkal- Like Agathiar etc., all belong to 17th and 18th Centruy, and I QUOTE from Kamil Suvelible and P.Hd. Thesis of MCC college Tamil HOD, Mr.MosesMichaelFaraday, and has many words such as Rail vandi-Yeshu-Allah and Muhammed etc., and lot of Interpolation by Church can be seen. Hence It' is upto anybody to believe Nadi but, AGASTiar did not leave any Manuscripts and ALL Agathiar Nadi Jothida Books are from 17th Cent. AND the authors referred says the Sittharkal tradition is not Unique to Tamil, are available entire throughout India in every Indian Language.
No Josiar can read any 2000 year old Olais, and I recall friends, during a visit to TN, President Abdul Kalam wanted to get the Oldest Manuscripts of Tirukural, for which what we have are only 300 years old.

Samanam had been inTamilnadu earlier than 500 Bce, and they and Budhists made a duplicate version of Ramayan and Mahabharat, as said by FSG only Proving that Valmikhi Ramayan is available much earlier than that.

Telugu existed during Tholkappiyar days, as Vengadam varai is clearly said in Payiram, and Sangam Literature confirms it.

Vedas were mistranslated and misinterpreted as Fight between Aryan and Dravidain by Christian and Muslims and also Jains and I QUOTE Dr.B.R.Ambedkar agains for all:

Dr. Ambedkar, who was never a Hinduism supporter, wrote:

1.THe Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race.
2.There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to be the natives of India.
3.There is no evidience to show that the distinction between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction.
4. THe Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryas were different in colour from the Dasas and Dayus .....

" If anthropometry is a science which can be depended upon to determine the race of a people ..... then its measurements extablish that the Brahmins and the Untouchables belong to the same race. From this it follows that if the Brahmins are Aryans the Untouchables are also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the Untouchables are also Dravidians....

WRITINGS AND SPEECHES - EDUCATION Dept. Govt. of Mahrashtra vol -7 page 85 and 302-303.

So When FSG' LIES are brought he will bring this falsehood and Archkas story again, We have to look History impartially, Misinteroreting with Pre-1950 books are useless, Tamil Universites have done morethan 500 researches on SaNgam Literatire, and Tholkappiyam and all this have gone to International Universities and The dates of Tholkappiyam and Sangam Literature in www.answers.com, www.wikipedia.com are in line with all this, any of us saying otherwise would be Lauged as fools.

ASM- wanted Pavanar- references and I GIVE again for all:

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


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

Friends, Every one is proud of our Languge- The Mother Tongue, but it should not blind us from looking at truths, Man does not work to Grammer, and It is Deception to break words and interpret them as Tamil, when we know Other Language has used it earlier.
]
I INTEND giving more from Sangam Literature and Stone Inscriptions, on which FSG shows very weak knowledge, which I WOULD EXpose shortly.

MosesMohammedSolomon
[/tscii:343c65cb8b]

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Solomon continuously repeating his old lies. Atleast he can come with new messages. We can not expect this from "Vedhic liers" . Anyway we have to explain something to the readers.

To support his fradulent hypothesis he wishfully neglect the queries made about marais and insertions. Dear Soloman :!: come out your Egytian sanskrit fraud. we will tell you where you are lacking :!:

Some madmen of wrong hypothesis who constitute not even 1% among Inthu valley researchers ,with their European supremacy who also rejects saraswathi claims by Vedhics announced infamous prize tag selected by solomon. 95 % of historiens of Inthu valley research accept Dravidian/ tamil elements of Inthu script. We can summarily reject solomon's announcement as world historiens reject.

Solomon you prove that the scripts are Vedhics and get the prize. We will be happy in that.

Akal visumbu - Akanta Vaanam - nothing Vedhic in that. Inthiran is marutham God. Any tamil can easily understand this. Stop your wishful thinking and imaginative stories.

The question of Archakas raised by me only after solomon accused others for dividing society. Infact this led me writing this earlier one page exclusively for that. Out of Social ,Educational and Economical backwardness of society the first two caused by caste system and to eradicate caste system I asked to generalise Archaka system there by castes will be eliminated. I was not talking about overruling / power head politics. Solomon you diverted the topic. You tell now I diverted the topic. :!:

Most of the old manuscripts were rewritten in tamil "Vattezhuthu" during King Saraboji in Tanjore which are now showed to visitors and they are lying with saraswathi Mahal. Old manuscript in mutilated forms are available. I expect solomon don't lie further about this manuscript.

Akaththiar wrote for forthcoming generations of various religious followers in their rebirth. Any reader of this column can go and check best nadi readers for their life predictions accurately made. Akathiyar refers muslims as "mugamathu varukkam" and christian as "yesu Varukkam" and even foreigners came here to check this. Apart from tamil copied versions sankrit are available in North India and no other language is having this foretelling material.

Vedhics made the duplicated version of Samanars Ramayana to support their caste system that too during centuries of common era and not vice versa. This is not my view and I have earlier shown scholars proofs regarding this. Don't tilt my view soloman :!:

I have already told my view that Aryans are Hothas. Infact you give proof for that. You neednot repeat Dr.Ambedkar views as "Mudalai Kanneer". We treat Pichachi / tamil culture is foremost in India and the people who followed this are Austro-African-tamil-North indian Tribes.

Pavanar never accept the existance of "Iyenthiram" and it was revealed by Idipakkam quoting pavanar's words. Once again solomon repeats his selective quoting. Pavanar dating of Paniniyam is based on hyphothesis and I vary from this. Show Scientifical proof - Solomon :!:

You please come out with your inscriptions. We will interpret and reveal exact things.

I don't always show vanity about my mother tongue as I expressed all languages are sound. But if solomon like persons make front stages a language of later origin for their selfish purposes nothing is wrong to reveal the truth that tamil is foremost.

Your 'Sathyameva jeYa" came from Valluvar's "Vaaimaiyudaimai" .And we will bring out your "Vedhic lies" with the help of that.

f.s.gandhi










[

[Uthappam]

Thamizh scholars argue that first 40 kurals in ThirukkuraL were inserted in later days.
Which 40 kurals are said to be later insertions?? And what are the reasons given by the Scholars?


Your disucssion regarding the highest caste and things in ThirukkuraL cannot be accepted as a valid argument.
Agreed!

[ramraghav]

I fully agree with FSG when he talks about naadi josiyam. I (and my family) was truly amazed by the accuracy with which he spelt out every detail of my sister's life. And we gave him zero information to begin with. Truly amazing........no other word for it.

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

[tscii:3a5001954a]
I fully agree with FSG when he talks about naadi josiyam. I (and my family) was truly amazed by the accuracy with which he spelt out every detail of my sister's life. And we gave him zero information to begin with. Truly amazing........no other word for it.

Thank you, Thiru Ramraghav :) for sharing your personal experience of Nadi sothidam. Infact I went to see nadi sothidam for myself in order to check whether 7 births as explained by tamil marais are true or not. I got enough evidances that 7 births exists for human being. For Atheist this would be unbelievable. But it is true. Tamil five epics (Kappiam) are based on this 7 birth theory.

I have already showed in "Kumari Kandam" thread about the message of Thiru.Narayanan Iyengar in his book 'Vaanmeekarum Tamizhum" that since Agaththiyar came from Kailayam it is proved tamil existed in kailayam during Agaththiyar days. It must be around 3000-2500 BCE and during that time tamil should have prevailed all over India. The north indian research about 'Paisachi' language shows this.During Tholkappiar days (1250 BCE) 'Vaduku' language(Old telugu and old kannada) evolved out from tamil. Malayalam was not there during that time as Tholkappian says about northern and southern part without telling East and West borders. Nachinarkiniyar explanation shows this.

The same Agaththiyar is called Agastiya in old Quran and Agastin in Old Bible and Agasthiyan in sanskrit works.

Agaththiyar nadis were frequently rewritten at the gap of 500 years and copied in various places of tamilnadu and north India. It seems agaththiyar foretold there would be Mogammathian / Christian followers.

When I visited nadi sothidam in "Vaitheeswaran koil" and I have been told that lot of fakes followed. I selected a scholar nadi reader and asked him to explain exactly what is written in palm leaves and I put condition that I should see the writings. As I have some knowledge about Brahmi and other scripts I could be able to read it. The script varied in various chapters and this shows mutilated parts were removed by copying in new palm leaves with existing script during that time.

I observed various "Erasis" were refered as "Orais" and the name of Erasis were all in tamil like "Thel,Nandu" for Kadakam and Viruchikam.

I would write about tamil occultics after sometime including the calculation of equinoxes.

All vedhas and subsequent agamas and puraanas had copied / taken this occultics values of tamils and used in their tradition and this is the leading historiens' view.

In a haste to make the vedhic tradition again in India and therby making a way to gain / superiority over masses, new avathars like solomon come again and again.

I give an illustration of a person called Mr. Rajaaram who is NRI computer Engineer turned historien tried to make fraud samples in sinthu valley to show that vedhic presence was there.

Interestingly, relatively mediocre NRI engineers are crafting the bulk of these so-called revisionist histories. Two of the main protagonists: Subhash Kak and S.Rajaram are in obscure computer science departments in the US. The other actor is David Frawley, whose claim to historical knowledge stems from a short stint in Varanasi where he “discovered” Hinduism. In the quest for antiquity, not only “creative” exercises in interpretations are being carried out, even outright fraud is being used.

N.S. Rajaram recently co-authored a book with N.Jha (The Deciphered Indus Script: Methodology, readings, interpretation) and claimed to have deciphered the Harappan script as a variant of Brahmi and the Harappan language as late Vedic Sanskrit. While Jha had produced a monograph on this about five years back, it made little impact then amongst scholars as its methodology was too “flexible”; using such methods the Harappan script can be “recognised even as OLD ENGLISH :!:

The peculiar twist that Rajaram imparts is his discovery of HORSE in one of the Harappan seals and a host of “references” to horses in the deciphered Harappan inscriptions. Unfortunately for Rajaram, his “horse seal” was found to be an outright fraud: it was a computer enhanced image of a cracked seal in which the horse head is allegedly visible in the portion of the seal that was cracked and broken in the original seal. Even worse, Rajaram failed to mention where he had found this evidence :!:

It was finally tracked down after a detailed search of various archival materials to a 1937 photograph when it became clear that the image that Rajaram produced in his book was not the same one in the photograph. This led to Rajaram’s admission that he had “enhanced” the image using a computer. He still fails to explain how the computer was able to extract an image from a portion of the seal that is missing in the original. A detailed description of the fraud can be found in the latest edition of Frontline where two scholars -- Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer -- give details of the fraud

Refer (Horseplay in Harappa: the Indus Valley decipherment Hoax, Frontline, October 13,2004).

Vedhic lies can no longer live. For the past 1500 years nearly 90% of people were made as illiterates due to caste system of Vedhics. And it was possible for Vedhics to spread their own theory. Presently many people especially the southern people got elevation in education the Vedhic frauds can no longer be spreaded.

BEWARE OF VEDHIC FRAUDS :!:

f.s.gandhi

[/tscii:3a5001954a]

[r_kk]

Dear FSG/Ram raghav,
You are unnecessarilly calling non-believers/skeptics/atheists in to this discussion. Nadi Joshiyam or any kind of astrology (not early astronomy) are not proven ones and there are hundreds of ways to tells one's back ground. Please don't depend on such unproven things when you talk about history. I can write scientific background behind this kind of mind reading techniques, but it will lead to total deviation from the subject of this thread.

If you feel Nadi Joshiyam can be proven, kindly apply to 1miilion dollar CSICOP challange ( http://www.randi.org/research/ ). If you are not ready for a big challange, I am ready to sponsor a project (I can hand over some finger prints and pay the necessary fees). Can you get the past history (using original script in Brahmi and explantions, authendicity of suvadis using dating process and other scientifically justifiable process) and future for those persons using Agastiyar Naadi of Vaitheeswaran temple?

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear r_kk, :)

We don't take this nadi reading as a source of proof for history telling. We just discussed about the tamils spiritual contents. It is irrelevant to this topic also.

Atheism / Non Atheism is different subject which we may discuss it in some other threads.

I can tell you one thing. These Atheist movement in TamilNadu liberated the socially and educationally backward classes caused by
Vedhic tradition. But it has some side effect in lesser percentage in correctly interpreting history also.

All research scholars followed this concept of Aryan-Dravidian and completely neglected the other aspects of religiosity. The neglected tamil gods Inthiran and Varunan in their research have done much helpful to Vedhics to claim everything in India is Vedhic.

Hence We have to analyse the history in its prevailing situations of yesteryears,of course, scientifically and not on the basis of any belief of mankind including Atheism.

f.s.gandhi

[r_kk]

Dear FSG,
As long as no one call any supernatural proofs, I don't want to interfer in to this subject, since my knowledge in the subjects compared to you and MR. Solomen, are very limited. What ever be yours and Solomen's view, both are seems to be equally knowledgeable but having opponent views. Interesting arguments. Go ahead.... Sorry for the interruption.

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Here I show how Japanese language is resembling tamil with few illustrations. East world languages never suit with middle and west asian languages always.

But We find Tamil only resembles with east languages. Chinean tradition dates back to 3000 BCE. Japanese heritage dates back to 2000 BCE. Both resembles with tamil heritage. No other world heritage suits with Japanese.

Language archeology shall be the primary aspect in detecting the truth alongwith other archeological studies. Root words explanation is the best solution to find out the antiquity of any language. Once again I prove this by this passage.

THE GENEALOGY OF THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE

- Tamil and Japanese - by Dr.SUSUMU OHNO



In search of languages genetically related to Japanese, linguists over the last one hundred years have compared Japanese with almost every other language in the world-not only those of neighbouring peoples such as Ainu, Korean and Indonesian, but even Greek; yet none of these efforts have succeeded in establishing any kind of kinship.

After vexed trying the evidence for a Japanese-Tamil relationship has been found out and this can be further accumulated. The questions that will quickly follow, then, are when and how their connection began. There are three possibilities. One is that language was transmitted (from India) to Japan by land. Another is that it was transmitted by sea. The third possibility is that an intermediary language existed-possibly in what is presently the Chinese province of Yunnan, or further west-and that it was carried southward to India and eastward to Japan. Deciding when and how the Japanese-Tam ii (Tamil) relationship began, however, is a task for the future.

(Note : He examined 600 words.I give here some of them. He in his published book fully analyse the grammar and cultural aspects. Here I give only the words comparison. J- Japanese, T- Tamil)

J Far-u (to swell, expand)
T. Par-u (to swell)
J. Far-ara (to be broken off)
T. par-i (to be sundered
J. Far-uka (to be far off)
T. par-a (to be far, wide)

J. Far-a (the ocean)
T. par-avai (sea)

J. Fat-akë (field for cultivation)
T. pa~-ukar (rice field)

J. Fat-u (to end, perish, die)
T. pat-u (to perish, die)

J. Fir-o (wide, great)
T. per-u (great, large)

J. Fo:k-u (to eulogize, praise)
T. puk-aJ (eulogy)


J. Fot-o (time)
T. pot-u (time)

J. Far-u (to become bulky)
T. par-u (to be bulky)

J. Far-e (to be diffused, as clouds, gas)
T. par-a (to be diffused, as clouds)

J. Far-a (field of sky)
T. par-am (heaven)

J. Far-aFu (to exorcise)
T. Par-avu (to exorcise)

J. Fat-u (first, new of the season)
T. pat-u (to appear for the first time)

J. Fat-u (to stay [ship])
T. pat-u (to stay in a harbour)

J. Fin-a (rustic)
T. pin (rear place)

J. Fuk-asu (to smoke, steam)
T. pok-ai (to smoke, vapor)

J. För-ö (cloth cover)
T. por-vai (covering)

J. For-u (to desire)
T. pur-i (to desire)

J. Fut-a (cover, lid)
T. put-ai (to bury, hide, cover)

J. Fut-o (to be bulky)
T. pu~-ai (bulkiness, protuberance)

J. Fur-c (village)
T. pul-am (village, place)

J. Fun-c (ship)
T. puri-ai (raft, boat)

J. FOr-ö (tumor, abscess)
T. purr-u (scrofulous, scurby one]


J. taF-uru (to die)
T. tap-u (to perish, die)

J. öF-ö (big, to flourish)
T. upp-u (to become big, bloat)

J. aF-u (to meet, be fit)
T. opp-u (to agree, be fit)

J. köF-u (to beg)
T. kupp-u (to join hand as in worship)

J. tuF-a (spittle)
T. tupp-al (saliva)

J. suF-u (to suck)
T. cüpp-u (to suck, sip)

This proves once again tamil's antiquity and sankrit is not par with tamil ever.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

[tscii:01bfacb4cc]Friends,
Most of friends are familar with Dubious CLAIMS of DEchiphering of Indus-Saraswathi CviliSATION as Tamil-by Dr.R.Mathivanan, by Reading it Left to Right, AND I quote from KAMIL ZVELEBIL-from Transtation :--
Valapurathil Irunthu IDapuram Nokiiye Eluthap pattulathu endra mudivukku Atharavaka Virivana Vathangalai JohnMarshal (1931) Gad and Smith(1931) G.R.Hunter (1934) A.C.SRose(1939) G.V.Alexive(1965) akiyorutaya Aivukalalum, Sirappaga B.B.Lal(1966, 1968) and Iravatham Mahadevan (1970,1980) akiyorudaya Aivukalilum Kanalam. and this ARticle is full Review of Deciphering and his final view is :
Iruthiyagavum Vurithiyagavum Koorathakka Or ETHIRMARYAANA mUDIVU ENNAVENIL, Sinduveli Eluthinai Patithu Vilakkam Alithullathakak Koori Veliyidapattula Entha Or Aivume Erkath Thakkathaka Illai.

Now IF FSG who Proudly spreading the Falsehood of Tamil Decipherment, Must take the Challenge Given by OXFORD/Cambridge Scholors are Stop Non-sense spreading further.
I GIVE mr.B.B.Lal' article on Aryan Invasion Myth as follows:
A Fresh Look at Ancient Indian History

B. B. Lal

Director General (Retd.), Archaeological Survey of India

Lecture given at the National Council of Educational
Research and Training (NCERT), New Delhi

For a pretty long time the following four myths have been obscuring our vision of India’s past:

Myth 1: ‘There was an Aryan Invasion of India’

Myth 2: ‘The Harappans were a Dravidian-speaking People’

Myth 3: ‘The Rigvedic Sarasvati was the Helmand of Afghanistan,’ and

Myth 4: ‘The Harappan Culture became Extinct’

And here is how these myths came into being.

In the nineteenth century a German scholar, F. Max Muller, dated the Vedas, on a very ad hoc basis, to 1200 BC. Granting that the Sutra literature may have existed in the sixth-fifth centuries BC, he assigned a duration of two hundred years to each of the preceding literary periods, namely those of the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Vedas and thus arrived at the figure of 1200 BC for the last-named texts. However, when his own colleagues, like Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilson, challenged him, he stated that his dating was ‘merely hypothetical’ and confessed: ‘Whether the Vedic hymns were composed in 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever determine.’ However, the saddest part of the story is that his blind followers, both in India and abroad, even today swear by 1200 BC and do not dare cross this Laksmana rekha.

Be that as it may. The first quarter of the twentieth century witnessed the discovery of an altogether unknown civilization on the Indian subcontinent, datable to the third millennium BC. Called variously the Harappan, Indus or Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, it is characterised, amongst other things, by systematic town-planning, an underground drainage, excellently engraved seals, a monumental script, a refined system of weights and measures and some beautiful statuary. However, recent excavations have thrown new light on various other aspects of this civilization, which call for a fresh look at many issues connected with it. Radiocarbon dates indicate that its roots go back to the 5th millennium BC, while its peak period lay between 2600 and 2000 BC, after which began its decline.

With the discovery of the Harappan Civilization there also started a debate about its authors. Because of Max Muller’s fatwa that the Vedas were not earlier than 1200 BC, it was argued that this civilization could not be associated with the Vedic people. Since the only other major language spoken on the subcontinent was the Dravidian it was but natural at that point of time to assume that the Dravidian-speakers were its authors.

In 1946 Sir Mortimer Wheeler carried out further excavations at Harappa and discovered a fortification wall around one of the mounds. However, his interpretation of it was nothing more than a mere flight of imagination. Since the Rigveda refers to Indra as puramdara (destroyer of forts), he jumped at the idea that there was an ‘Aryan invasion’ which destroyed the Harappan Civilization, and the latter became ‘extinct’. To give a prop to his thesis, he referred to certain skeletal remains found at Mohenjo-*daro, which, he held, provided evidence of a ‘massacre’ by the invaders.

If these skeletons are at all to be associated with a massacre by invaders, one expects that these would have come from the latest level. But the hard fact is that these came from various levels, some from the middle and some from the late, and some were found in deposits which accumulated after the site had been abandoned. Thus, there is no case for a massacre; and Professor George F. Dales of the University of California, Berkeley, has rightly dubbed it as a ‘mythical massacre’. Further, if there at all was an invasion, one expects at the site the weapons of warfare as also some remains of the material culture of the invaders. But there was no such evidence. On the other hand, there is a clear case of cultural continuity, not only at Mohenjo-daro but also at other Harappa Culture sites.

Commenting on this issue, Lord Colin Renfrew (UK) avers: ‘If one checks the dozen references in the Rigveda to the Seven Rivers, there is nothing in any of them that to me implies invasion. … Despite Wheeler’s comments, it is difficult to see what is particularly non-Aryan about the Indus Valley Civilization.’

After a thorough analysis of the skeletal data, Professor Hemphill (of USA) holds: ‘As for the question of biological continuity within the Indus Valley, two discontinuities appear to exist. The first occurs between 6000 and 4500 BC. The second occurs at some point after 800 BC but before 200 BC.’ It is, thus, abundantly clear that no new people entered the Indus Valley between 4500 BC and 800 BC. So, where is any case for an ‘Aryan invasion’ around 1500-1200 BC?

Now to the second myth, viz. the ‘Harappan = Dravidian’ equation. It has been made out that the Aryan invaders drove away the ‘Dravidian-speaking’ Harappans to South India but a small section somehow managed to stay on in Baluchistan, speaking the Brahui language. However, many scholars do not agree that Brahui belongs to the Dravidian group. Some even hold that the Brahui-speaking people migrated to that region from elsewhere during the medieval times. Further, if the so-called Dravidian-speaking Harappans were pushed down to South India, one expects some Harappan sites over there. But the hard fact is that in none of the four Dravidian*-speaking States of South India, viz. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala do we have even a single site of the Harappan Culture !! On the other hand, what we do have in South India about that time is a neolithic culture. Do then the proponents of the ‘Harappan = Dravidian’ equation expect us to believe that the urban Harappans, on being sent away to South India, shed away overnight their urban characteristics and took to a Stone Age way of living?

Again, it has been observed all over the world that even if the original inhabitants are pushed out of an area, some of the rivers, mountains and towns in that area continue to bear the original names. Thus, for example, even after the Europeans overran North America and gave their own names to the towns, such as New York, New Jersey, etc., many of the names of the towns and rivers given by the earlier inhabitants, viz. the Red Indians, may still be noted: for example, Chicago and Massachusett as those of towns and Missouri and Mississippi as of rivers. But in the entire region once occupied by the Harappans there is not even a single name of river, mountain or town which can claim a Dravidian origin. Why ? The obvious answer is that the Harappans were not a Dravidian-speaking people.

Let us deal with the third myth, viz. that the Helmand of Afghanistan was the Rigvedic Sarasvati. This is totally wrong. According to RV 10.75.5, it lay between the Yamuna and Sutlej (imam me Gange Yamune Sarasvati Sutudri stotam sachata Parusnya…). RV 3.23.4 states that the Drishadvati and Apaya were its tributaries (Drishadvatyam manusa Apayam Sarasvatyam revadagne didihi… ). Further, RV 7.95.2 clearly mentions that the Sarasvati flowed all the way from the mountains to the sea (ekachetat Sarasvati nadinam suchir yati giribhya a samudrat… ). In Afghanistan there are no rivers by the name of Yamuna and Sutlej, nor are there Drishadvati and Apaya. Further, there is no sea in Afghanistan. So how can the Rigvedic Sarasvati be placed there? All this evidence ¾ positive in the case of India and negative in the case of Afghanistan ¾ clinches the issue: the present-day Sarasvati-Ghaggar combine, though now dry at places, does represent the Rigvedic Sarasvati (see Figs. 1 and 2); the Helmand of Afghanistan does not.

Earlier we had established that the Harappans were not a Dravidian-speaking people. Were then they the Sanskrit-speaking Vedic people? Against such an equation the following four objections have been raised. First, the Vedic Aryans were ‘nomads’, whereas the Harappan Civilization had a major urban component. Secondly, the Vedas refer to the horse, whereas the Harappan Civilization is thought to be unfamiliar with it. Thirdly, the Vedic carts had spoked wheels, whereas the Harappan vehicles are supposed to be bereft of such wheels. And finally, since according to the dating of Max Muller the Vedas cannot be earlier than 1200 BC and the Harappan Civilization belonged to the third millennium BC, how can the two be equated?




click here to see Fig. 1

Fig. 1. The Saraswati basin in the 3rd millenium BC.




Unlike nomads, the Vedic people lived a settled life and even constructed forts. In RV 10.101.8 the devotee’s prayer is: ‘[O gods] make strong forts as of metal, safe from assailants (purahkrinadhvamayasiradhrista). RV 4.30.20 refers to ‘a hundred fortresses of stone’. Sometimes these had a hundred arms (RV 7.15.14: purbhava satabhujih).

The Vedic people carried on trade, not merely on land but also across the sea. RV 9.33.6 states: ‘From every side, O Soma, for our profit, pour thou forth four seas filled with a thousand-fold riches (rayah samudranchaturo asmabhyam soma visvatah. Apavasva sahasrinah)’. Further, the ships used in sea-trade were not petty ones but could be as large as having a hundred oars (sataritra, RV 1.116.5).






Fig. 2. Landsat imagery of Sindh region, showing the possible
course of the Saraswati beyond Marot through the Nara into
the Rann of Kachchha. The Rann is conspicuous because
of the high reflectance (white tone) of its encrustation




Even on the political and administrative fronts, the Vedic people were highly organised. Not only did they have sabhas and samitis which dealt with legislative and perhaps judiciary matters, but they also had a well-established hierarchy amongst the rulers, viz. samrat, rajan and rajaka. Thus, in RV 6.27.8 Abhyavarti Chayamana is stated to be a Samrat. (Soverign), while RV 8.21.8 states that, dwelling beside the Sarasvati river, Chitra alone is the Rajan (king) while the rest are mere Rajakas (kinglings or petty chieftains). That these gradations were absolutely real is duly confirmed by the Satapatha Brahmana (V.1.1.12-13), which says: ‘By offering the Rajasuya he becomes Raja and by the Vajapeya he becomes Samrat, and the office of the Rajan is lower and that of the Samraj, the higher (raja vai rajasuyenestva bhavati, samrat vajapeyena l avaram hi rajyam param samrajyam).

The horse. In his report on Mohenjo-daro, Mackay states: ‘Perhaps the most interesting of the model animals is one that I personally take to represent the horse.’ Wheeler also confirmed the view of Mackay. A lot more evidence has come to light since then. Lothal has yielded not only a terracotta figure of the horse (Fig. 3) but some faunal remains as well. On the faunal remains from Surkotada, the renowned international authority on horse-bones, Sandor Bokonyi, Hungary, states: ‘The occurrence of true horse (Equus Caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of the incisors and phalanges (toe bones).’ In addition, there are quite a few other Harappan sites, such as Kalibangan and Rupnagar, which have yielded the faunal remains of the horse.






Fig. 3. Lothal: Terracotta horse. Mature Harappan




The spoked wheel. It is absolutely wrong to say that the Harappans did not use the spoked wheel. While it would be too much to expect the remains of wooden wheels from the excavations, because of the hot and humid climate of our country which destroys all organic material in the course of time ¾ the Harappan Civilization is nearly 5,000 years old, the terracotta models, recovered from many Harappan sites, clearly establish that the Harappans were fully familiar with the spoked wheel. On the specimens found at Kalibangan and Rakhigarhi (Fig.4), the spokes of the wheel are shown by painted lines radiating from the central hub to the periphery, whereas in the case of specimens from Banawali these are executed in low relief (Fig.5) ¾ a technique which continued even into the historical times.






Fig. 4. Rakhigarhi: Terracotta wheel. The painted lines radiating from the central hub
and reaching the circumference clearly represent the spokes of the wheel. Mature Harappan.




Now to the chronological horizon of the Vedas. The Harappan settlement at Kalibangan in Rajasthan was abandoned, while it was still in a mature stage, because of the drying up of the adjacent Sarasvati river. This evidence has been thoroughly worked out by Italian and Indian hydrologists, and Raikes, the leader, aptly captions his paper: ‘Kalibangan: Death from Natural Causes.’ According to the radiocarbon dates, this abandonment took place around 2000-1900 BC. Eminent geologists, V. M. K. Puri and B. C. Verma, have demonstrated how the Sarasvati originated from the Himalayan glaciers and how subsequently its channel got blocked because of tectonic movements in the Himalayas, as a result of which the original channel dried up and its water got diverted to the Yamuna.






Fig. 5. Banawali: Terracotta wheels showing the spokes in low relief. The specimen on the left is
worn out but the spokes may still be seen. The specimen on the right, though broken,
shows the spokes very clearly. Mature Harappan.




Putting together the entire archaeological, radiocarbon*-dating, hydrological, geological and literary evidence, the following conclusion becomes inescapable, viz. that since during the Rigvedic times the Sarasvati was a mighty flowing river and according to the archaeological-radiocarbon-dating-cum-hydrological evidence this river dried up around 2000 BC, the Rigveda has got to be earlier than 2000 BC. How much earlier, it would, of course, be anybody’s guess.






Fig. 6. Map showing a correlation between the Rigvedic area
and the spread of the Harappan Civilization, before 2000 BC.




As is absolutely clear from RV 10.75.5-6, the entire area right from the Ganga on the east to the Indus on the west was occupied by the Rigvedic Aryans. Further, since the Rigveda must be dated to a period prior to 2000 BC, a question may straightaway be posed: Which archaeological culture covered the entire region from the Ganga on the east to the Indus on the west during the period prior to 2000 BC? Please think coolly and dispassionately. If you do that, you cannot escape the inevitable conclusion: It was none other than the Harappan Civilization itself (Fig. 6). However, in spite of such strong evidence in support of a Vedic = Harappan equation, it would be prudent, as I have all along advocated, to put this equation on hold until the Harappan script is satisfactorily deciphered. It is needless to add that all the tall claims made so far in this respect are not tenable at all. Sorry !

There is also no truth in the fourth myth, viz. that the Harappa Culture became ‘extinct’. What had really happened was that the curve of the Harappa Culture, which began to shoot up around 2600 BC and reached its peak, in the centuries that followed, began its downward journey around 2000 BC. Several factors seem to have contributed to it. Over-exploitation and consequent wearing out of the landscape must have led to a fall in agricultural production. Added to it was probably a change in the climate towards aridity. And no less significant was a marked fall in trade, both internal as well as external. As a result of all this, there was no longer the affluence that used to characterise this civilization. The cities began to disappear and there was a reversion to a rural scenario. Thus, there was no doubt a set-back in the standards of living but no extinction of the culture itself. In my recent book, The Sarasvati Flows On, I have dealt extensively with this aspect of continuity, giving comparable photographs of the Harappan objects and the present ones. In a nutshell, let it be stated here that whichever walk of life you talk about, you will find in it the reflection of the Harappa Culture: be it agriculture, cooking habits, personal make-up, ornaments, objects of toiletry, games played by children or adults, transport by road or river, folk tales, religious practices and so on. Here we give just a few examples. The excavation at Kalibangan has brought to light an agricultural field dating back to circa 2800 BC. It is characterised by a criss-cross pattern of the furrows (Fig. 7). Exactly the same pattern of ploughing the fields is followed even today in northern Rajasthan (Fig. 8), Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh. Today mustard is grown in the widely-distanced furrows and chickpea in the narrower ones (Fig. 9) and it is most likely that these very crops were grown in a similar manner during the Harappan times; we do have evidence of both these items from the Harappan levels. Kalibangan has also yielded a linga-cum-yoni (Fig. 10) of the same type as is worshipped now (Fig .11).






Fig. 7. Kalibangan : An agricultural field, showing criss-cross pattern of furrows. Circa 2000 BC.








Fig. 8. and Fig. 9. Around Kalibangan village. Left: The present system of ploughing the field,
which also has the criss-cross pattern of furrows. Right: A present field with mustard plants
in the widely-distanced furrows and those of chickpea in the others.








Fig. 10. Kalibangan: Terracotta linga-cum-yoni. Mature Harappan








Fig. 11. Siva linga-cum-yoni in a modern temple. From the
overhead pitcher water-drops keep on dripping on the linga.




This very site, along with Banawali, Rakhigarhi and Lothal, has brought to light ‘fire-altars’, indicating rituals associated with fire. In the illustration given here (Fig. 12) there were originally seven fire*-altars, some of which have been disturbed by a subsequent drain. There is a north-south wall at the back, indicating that the performer of the ritual had to face the east. In the front may be seen the lower half of a jar in which were found ash and charcoal, signifying that fire was kept ready for the ritual. Close to these fire-altars, on the left (not seen in the picture), there were a well and a bathing pavement, suggesting that a ceremonial bath constituted a part of the ritual. (It needs to be clarified that these fire-altars have nothing to do with those of the Parsis.)


Fig. 12. Kalibangan: A row of seven 'fire-altars' discovered on a platform.
(These were, however, disturbed by a subsequent drain.) Mature Harappan


It would appear to be a mere tale if it was stated that yogic asanas, which are now becoming fashionable even with the elites, were being already practised by the Harappans (Fig. 13).


Fig. 13. Terracotta figurines in Yogic asanas: 1-4, from Harappa;
5-6, from Mohenjo-daro. Mature Harappan

A married Hindu woman usually applies sindura (vermilion) to the manga (the line of partition of the hair on the head; Fig.14). Though most surprising, yet it is a fact that Harappan ladies did the same, as evidenced by many female terracotta figurines (Figs.15 and 16). In these terracottas, the ornaments are painted yellow to indicate that these were made of gold, the hair is black, while a red colour has been applied in the manga, indicating the use of vermilion. Even the Hindu way of greeting with a namaste (Fig.17) is rooted in the Harappan Culture, as shown by certain other terracotta figures (Fig.18).

Fig. 14. Bihar Chief Minister Shrimati Rabri Devi and her husband Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav,
in the State capital, Patna. Mark the vermilion in the manga of the lady,
which is an indicator of her marital status.


Fig. 15-16. Nausharo (Pakistan): Terracotta female figures, painted. The yellow colour on
ornaments suggests that these were made of gold; the hair is black, while the red
on the medial partition-line of the hair indicates the use of vermilion. 2800-2600 BC.


Fig. 17. Former President of India, Shri K. R. Narayanan (extreme left), being greeted
with namaste by the Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee (extreme right),
Shri L. K. Advani (middle) and others on the eve of the President's departure on a foreign tour.








Fig. 18. Harappa: A terracotta figure greeting with namaste. Mature Harappan




From the foregoing it must have become abundantly clear that all the four theories, viz. that there was an ‘Aryan Invasion of India’, that the ‘Harappans were a Dravidian-speaking People’, that the ‘Rigvedic Sarasvati is the Helmand of Afghanistan’ and that there was an ‘Extinction of the Harappa Culture’, are nothing more than mere myths which, once created, have subconsciously been perpetuated. Since these have coloured our vision of India’s past, the sooner these are cast away the better would it be. How long must we continue to bury our heads, ostrich-like, into the sand of ignorance ?

In retrospect. One is set wondering as to why and how this great civilization of the Indian subcontinent ¾ called variously the Harappan, Indus or Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and whose roots go as deep as the fifth millennium BC ¾ still lives on, not as a fugitive but as a vital organ of our socio-cultural fabric. The Indian psyche has indeed been pondering over this great cultural phenomenon of ‘livingness’, and the quest has very aptly been echoed by a great Indian poet and thinker, Allama Iqbal, in these words:

Yunan-o-Misra-Ruma sab mit gaye jahan se

Ab tak magar hai baqi namo-nisan hamara

Kuchh bat hai ki hasti mitati nahin hamari

Sadiyon raha hai dusman daur-i-zaman hamara

The poet says that whereas the ancient civilizations of Greece, Egypt and Rome have all disappeared from this world, the basic elements of our civilization still continue. Although world events have been inimical to us for centuries, there is ‘something’ in our civilization which has withstood these onslaughts.

What is that ‘something’, some inherent strength? Doubtless it lies in the liberal character of the Indian civilization, which allows for cross-fertilisation with other cultures, without losing its own identity. One may well recall the words of the greatest man of our times, Mahatma Gandhi: Let me keep my doors and windows wide open so that fresh air may enter from all directions. Nevertheless, he was firmly seated in his room (the soul). The soul of India lives on !!

Why Pepetuate Myths ?

Friends My Posting are Bassed On Concluded Research Truths and Mr.FSG, speculates with Hypothesis- which are Proved wrong.

My detailed article onTamil Marriage during Sangam Period and Casteism in Sangam Period would follow.
MosesMohammed Solomon

[/tscii:01bfacb4cc]

[Anchaneya]

Friends,

I was going through this Thread and found that Mr.Solomon giving the views concluded by Universities and Mr.F.S.Candhi, Separate Tamil Scholars Hypothesises, and when Solomon put his article of
Presence of Vedas in All Tamil Tholkappiyam to till date Continuously as below



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

1. Ariyamum Tamilodu isaianavan- Appar Devaram 132:3

2. Tamilsollum VADASOLLUM Thanzarsera GNASAm Dev77:4

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

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

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

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

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

8. Sentamilum Vadakalaiyum Nikalnta Navar Nalayira DivyaPrabantham 1624.

9. ThennanTamilai Vadamolai

10. Vadasorku Sentamilkum Varambaki
Nanmaarain Kambaramayan Kishkantam 778


This is in line with THOLKAPPIYAM, which says,

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

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

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

Now Let us See Sangam Literuature:

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

2. Arumarai Navin Anthanar - Sirupanarrupadai- 204

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

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

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

6. Arutolil Anthanar Aram Purinthu Edutu Puram 397

7. Nan pala Kelvi murriya Velvi Anthanarku Puram 361

8. Pulan Alukku Arra Anthanalalan Puram

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

Vedas are Referred as Vethas, Chathur Marai, Arumarai.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Tholkappiyam was first permoremed in presence of :

" Arangarai Navin NANMARAI Murriya Athangottu Asan--- "


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

2. NAN MARAI MUTHUNOOL Mukkan Selvan AagaNanooru 181:16

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

4. Aaruari Anthanarku Arumarai Pala Pagarnthu Kalithogai 1:1

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

6. Aaru Neriya Marai Valla Muniyagan

7. Chathuram Marai than Thuthi Seithu Vangum -Sampanthar

8. Thalaiana NAAL VETHAnthrithar Vazum... SAMPANTAR

9. Aathianthanar aarinthu Parikoluva
VethaMaPuun Vaiyater Vurnthu

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

11. Velpor Raman AARUMARAI kavitha
Palveel Aalam Pol Agananooru 71

12. Na al VethaNeri Paripadal 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr.F.S.Candhi first accepted then changed then accepted and kept on changing and then Questioned NanMarai may be Vadamozhi Vedas- but what about Arumarai(6Marai)? ,this Mr.Candhi repeated it several times and others drummed support include Uttappam, Masu, etc., an Mr.Solomon has not reponded also.

Frinds- NanMarai is Four Vedas, but ARUMarai- is misunderstood, due to posting in English, the Tamil Words.

Brahmins being called Aruthozhilar in Kural and Sangam is with "RU"
big ru or Vallina Ru, meaning Six or 6, THE rA is like Aram of Anthanar Noorkum Arathirkum-Kural.

But- AruMArai- Ru is small Ru or Idaiyina Ru, like Ra of Parappanar in Kural and Tholkappiyam, This AruMarai is not 6 Marai but- Special or Unique Marai- Vedas referring God Given as per Thestic Beliefs, of the Tamil Authors.

mr..F.S.Candhi, seems to be completely ignorant of Original Litretaure and interpretting of words with this back ground that too aginst Concluded Historical views looks very odd. Others must also correct.

[Idiappam]

Early Tamil literature, talk about naanmarai, yes! But why the assumption that it refers to the Rig, Sama, Yajur and the Arthanvan vedas???

The Names of the above 4 vedas occur in Tamil literature after the 13th centure - the Sivagnana botham!]


The Tamil 'naanmarai' does not refer the to Sanskritic vedas!

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Thank you Thiru Idiappam. You cannot expect fruitful answer from vedhic hypothesis (fraud) makers.

Almost all the historiens have accepted that sinthu valley culture is Dravidian (Tamil) culture and there is no significance of Vedhic elements and this is registered in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Dr. Mathivanan’s decipherement is based on this. We need not consider Vedhic people fraud propoganda.

Extracted from the Encyclopedia Britannica,2002

Until the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization in 1920, ancient India seemingly had two main scripts in which languages were written, Brahmi and Kharosti. The Brahmi script developed under Semitic influence around 7th c. BC, and was originally written from right to left. The Kharosti script came into being during the 5th c. BC in northwest India which was under Persian rule. Although the origin of the Brahmi script is uncertain, the Kharosti script is commonly accepted as a direct descendant from the Aramaic alphabet. The direction of writing in the Kharosti script is as in Aramaic, from right to left, and there is also a likeness of many signs having similar phonetic value.

In the later centuries of its existence, Brahmi gave rise to eight varieties of scripts. Three of them - the early TAMILS and early Mauryas and the Sunga - became the prototypes of the scripts in northern & sounthern India in the 5th BC and AD. Out of these developed the Gupta writing which was employed from the 4th to the 6th c. AD.

The Siddhamatrka script developed during the 6th c. AD from the western branch of the eastern Gupta character. The Siddhamatrka became the ancestor of the Nagari script which is used for Sanskrit today. The Nagari developed in the 7th to 9th c. AD, and has remained, since the 7th to 9th centuries, essentially unaltered.

The earliest epigraphic evidence of TAMIL is seen in 500 BC of Brahmi script.

The first epigraphic evidence of Sanskrit is seen in 150 AD and this inscription is in the Brahmi script.

However, certain other factors need to be considered to get the complete picture of script development in India. In 1920 archaeologists announced the discovery of extensive urban ruins in the Indus Valley which pre-dated the earliest literary sources and which caused scholars working on ancient texts to re-examine their views on the different phases of Indian culture. These ancient dwellers in India were Dravidian, and in fact, their culture had developed a highly sophisticated way of life which compares favorably with that of contemporary urban civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The extensive excavations carried out at the two principal city sites, Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, both situated in the Indus basin, indicates that this Dravidian culture was well established by about 2500 B.C., and subsequent discoveries have revealed that it covered most of the Lower Indus Valley. What we know of this ancient civilization is derived almost exclusively from archaeological data since every attempt to decipher the script used by these people has failed so far. Recent analyses of the order of the signs on the inscriptions have led several scholars to the view that the language is not of the Indo-European family, nor is it close to the Sumerians, Hurrians, or Elamite, nor can it be related to the structure of the Munda languages of modern India. If it is related to any modern language family it appears to be Dravidian akin to OLD TAMIL presently spoken throughout the southern part of the Indian Peninsula.

What this points to is the existence of a system of writing far more ancient than what was originally considered. The influx of foreign invaders through the northwest over the centuries, forced the Dravidians, the original inhabitants of India, south. Scholars have indicated that the south has been the gateway for religious and cultural developments in India.

The bibliographical evidences indicate that the Vedas are written in the Grantha scripts, and according to tradition Veda Vyasa, a Dravidian, compiled and wrote the Vedas. The Grantha script belongs to the southern group of scripts and Veda Vyasa being a Dravidian would certainly have used it. Since the earliest evidence for Grantha is only in the 5th c. AD, the Vedas were written rather late.

Another important fact is brought out in the account of the religion, philosophy, literature, geography, chronology, astronomy, customs, laws and astrology of India about AD 1030 by Alberuni (edited by Dr. Edward C. Sachau). He states that,
"The Indian scribes are careless, and do not take pains to produce correct and well-collated copies. In consequence, the highest results of the author's mental development are lost by their negligence, and his book becomes already in the first or second copy so full of faults, that the text appears as something entirely new, which neither a scholar nor one familiar with the subject, whether Hindu or Muslim, could any longer understand. It will sufficiently illustrate the matter if we tell the reader that we have sometimes written down a word from the mouth of Hindus, taking the greatest pains to fix its pronunciation, and that afterwards when we repeated it to them, they had great difficulty in recognising it."

This is a clear opposite to Yuan Chwang's time in the 7th c AD, when this young Chinese Buddhist scholar came to India in search of authentic sacred books which he accomplished.

However, scholars indicate that the same is not true with early TAMIL classics like the Sangam literature (3rd c. BC - 3rd c. AD) which are remarkably helpful in the reconstruction of history (K.K.Pillai, Tamil Literature as Source Material for History - Journal of Institute for Asian Studies).

Dr.Calarnence Maloney says that Indians have sufficient proofs to claim Inthu valley civilization based on old tamil culture and there is no need to claim based on fraud vedhic claims. In a discussion in the newspaper ‘THE HINDU’ he expressed this. He also supports indigenous LIVING languages to be used for higher education.

CLARENCE MALONEY

Scholars who have devoted many years to the study of the Indus script mostly agree that all indications are that it was Dravidian-like. This is the conclusion of scholars in Finland, Russia, England, Czech Republic, the U.S., Pakistan and India. Some earlier ones, like Father Heras, and recently Finnish scholars, have spent decades studying the 600 script symbols, their possible grammatical positions, and the cultural associations. It is a minority of people who are themselves speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, who assert that the Indus people must have spoken a language like that of their own!

Linguistic evidence

The evidence that the Indus language was Dravidian-like, primarily tamil, is overwhelming, both circumstantial and linguistic. First, there are the Brahui people, over a million who live in east-central Baluchistan. This writer has looked into the matter himself while in Baluchistan; the language is certainly Dravidian at its core. How did it get there? Nobody has seriously suggested that the Brahuis moved there from peninsular India; rather Brahui language and culture got isolated in those hills while major changes took place in Sindh and Punjab plains.

And we should note the place names of Dravidian origin over Pakistan and western and central India. Many place names have the ending aar (river), or include the words mala (mountain), kandh (hill), kotta (wall or fort), besides of course uur, pura and others. Rajaram would do well to study the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary which compiles the vocabularies of some 20 Dravidian languages, and note the geographic implications.

The word uur (town) almost certainly goes back to the earliest civilisations in Mesopotamia — one of the numerous indications that the basic features of civilisation (i.e. urban life) in the Indus region diffused there from what are now Iraq and Iran. Probably Dravidian languages also had antecedents to some extent in those regions. This is the thesis of a book Dravidians and the West (Lahovery), and though it makes bolder assumptions than would be allowed by the strict procedures of many historical linguists, nevertheless it presents overwhelming suggestions. If it is accepted that the hundreds of native American languages branched off from three main stems (Greenberg), and if similar efforts showing that all the languages of North Asia and Europe could have branched off from a few prototype languages, then the above suggestions about the origin of Dravidian languages should also be accepted.

Rajaram thought it was strange that the Indus people lost their script. There is nothing historically strange in that — the script was already weakened as the Indus Civilisation people established their many settlements in Gujarat about 2000 BC. But several of the symbols, such as swastika, fish and trident, were retained in culture and scratched onto pottery. It is absolutely clear (F. Southworth) that Marathi, though classified now as an Indo-Aryan language, is built on a Dravidian-underlying stratum. This is true to some extent for Gujarati and Sindhi also, and for that matter Punjabi and all western Indo-Aryan languages, which are universally acknowledged by historical linguists to have considerable Dravidian influence in phonetics, vocabulary and syntax.

It is clear also that Dravidian languages diffused over much of Madhya Pradesh — there are the place names, besides many ("tribal") peoples who still speak Dravidian languages and whose historical traditions say they moved from western to central and east-central India. Dravidian languages diffused from Maharashtra through Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, while Telugu had branched off the language tree somewhat earlier.

Language displacement

It is nothing unusual in history that Indo-Aryan speech overwhelmed Dravidian in western South Asia. Such tendencies are everywhere. Semitic languages overwhelmed other language groups over much of the Near East about 2000 BC, but this doesn't mean that the pre-Semitic people were killed off; rather they were often absorbed into different political-economic systems. Semitic speech later overwhelmed Egypt, then most of North Africa, because it was thought to be the vehicle of advancement. This is the usual stuff of history.

In Pakistan, the Burushaski language is related to none other, isolated in the high Hunza valley. It might be a relic of both pre-Dravidian and pre-Indo-Aryan speech in Punjab. The Dardic languages, including Kashmiri, are apparently descended from the first wave of Indo-European speech to enter South Asia, but these then got isolated in the Himalayas during the diffusion of Indo-Aryan. Indo-Aryan itself got overwhelmed in western Pakistan by the later arriving Persian-related languages such as Pashto and Baluchi. These changes may happen by invasion, but also by dribbles of more mobile or more politically powerful people moving in or by their cultures being considered so modernising that the existing inhabitants lose their language.

A different language displacement was going on in eastern India. Underlying Bengali is a Munda-type language, of which Bengali today retains many linguistic and cultural evidences. There is absolutely no evidence that Dravidian speech underlies Bengali, Oriya, or Assamese (Grierson, writing on this a century ago, was wrong). The Munda languages (Mon-Khmer group) reflect diffusion of cultures from Southeast Asia thousands of years BC which had mastered horticulture (rice, bananas, turmeric, taro, etc.) and therefore enabled humans to proliferate and diffuse into eastern and central Ganga plains and east-central India — with all their cultigens — prior to the diffusion there of both Dravidian and Indo-Aryan.

And in Southeast Asia, it was only a thousand or so years ago that Burmese, Thai and Lao languages from South China overwhelmed the Mon-Khmer languages in most of Myanmar, Thailand and Laos, not to speak of Vietnam where it happened in the south only a couple centuries ago. And before diffusion of the Mon-Khmer, the Malay languages had been more widespread. Most Southeast Asian people today accept that various underlying streams have formed their cultures and languages.

So the people of India today should gladly acknowledge, as Witzel says, that Dravidian, Munda and Indo-Aryan if they are put in chronological order, are distinct underlying streams — and the 4th one is the Tibeto-Burmese stream in the north and east. Classical Indian Civilisation had creative achievements, which are remarkable enough, WITHOUT A BOGUS CLAIM that it is exclusively descended from the Indus Civilisation.

The real issue

The real issue now is not rewriting history, but how to reinvigorate Indian civilisational creativity in modern concepts. What is to be done about the fact that six Indian languages have more native speakers than French, but in these languages there is hardly anything produced that makes a worldwide mark in modern concepts and science.

I want to emphasise that practically no people in world history have made a lasting civilisational mark using the language of a minority elite; either the language of the people develops as the vehicle of modernisation (like all of the languages of Europe when they threw off Latin, and like Korean in recent decades) or that language fades as a minority elite and then the bulk of the people adopt an outside language for modernisation.

The people of India should have made the choice 50 years ago. A firm decision then should have been taken that the people's languages are the vehicles of modernisation, and to be used as the medium of modern education at all levels. Then all modern currents of thought, science, and creativity would flow through the whole population — as happens in all the European and East Asian languages today. The genius of civilisation would flow from the whole population, with far less class division.

If the India wants to ensure that modern Indian civilisation is creative and dynamic, it will not be through historical debate. They should call for an immediate halt to English-medium education at all levels and the insidious class division it creates, and promote dynamic modern civilisational creativity in the Indian people's languages.

f.s.gandhi

[ramraghav]

Hi..............ancheneya has said that 'arumarai' is actually idaiyina 'ru', is this correct? If it is, it invalidates much of the discussion on the arumarai, right?

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

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

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

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

If we read Naalmarai as Nalmarai and Naanmarai as Nanmarai it will have same meaning of Arumarai.

I specified the phrase 'arumarai mantral enttanul'- about marriage of eight varieties are not available in Atharvana vedha rituals. At the sametime 'aruthozhil' of tamils are entirely different from six duties of sanskrit tradition and I have earlier showed this.

A.P.Masilomani's query that there is no mentioning of rig,yasur,sama & Atharvana in any one of the tamil sankam literature.

Thirukkural was called as 'Pothu marai'.

The explanations given by "urai Aasiriyars" are doubtful because most of them are belonging to the timeline after 4rth century CE.
Perhaps they take 'kuril' as 'nedil' to suit Vedhic tradition followed during that time.

Tamils (Phd.s holders) should examine this aspect by once again going through the original manuscripts.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Tamil Siddhar tradition dates back to several centuries and all world civilizations took this knowledge. The Chinese connection shows 100 BCE for some siddhars and the knowledge prevailed during Tholkappiam and earlier.

Vedhic tradition nowadays is identified and apprecieated mostly by Yoga and medittation. This was derived from tamil culture and world historiens have revealed this.

Once again solomon has wishful selected quoting from Kamil Zvelbil.The credibility of this is doubtful since Kamil knows very well about tamil culture. The vedhic timeline in his passage is questionable because the language used in the decepherement shall not be sanskrit. B. B. Lal's deniel of tamil / dravidian elements in sinthu valley are meaningless and wrong.

ALCHEMY AND THE TAMIL SIDDHARS by

Dr.Joseph Caezza

In the hungered New Age frenzy where the practice and principles of Ayurveda, traditional Hindu medicine, have become so well known, the West still remains largely ignorant of the South Indian Tamil Siddhar tradition. It represents a wonderful parallel to that of the Rosicrucian Alchemists. Just as the Rosicrucians claim lineage to the high culture of Ancient Egypt, itself only an artifact of "Atlantis", so too do Tamil Siddhars trace their original heritage to an advanced civilization destroyed by a great flood about 10,000 years ago. The lost continent supporting this heritage purportedly stretched from Madagascar to Australia with Sri Lanka constituting its central surviving land mass.

Ancient Egyptian High Culture appears suddenly, even from the earliest times at a very advanced level. Examples of its elegance include high yield strains of grain, a precise calendrical system, refined medicine even featuring neurosurgery, but above all its complete system of hieroglyphic language which seems to serve a higher state of consciousness. These advances emerge suddenly from Neolithic chaos. So too, from earliest recorded history Tamil language appears as one of the most sophisticated literary systems on the face of this planet. This lack of developmental period suggests that both Tamil and Egyptian cultures were surviving artifacts, preserved by the greatest sages of highly advanced civilizations destroyed by geological cataclysm.

The contemporary scholar, KAMIL ZVELEBILl, in THE SMILE OF MURUGAN, explains the necessity of understanding the siddhars, the primordial Tamil sages, before any deeper appreciation of South Indian civilization becomes possible. These spiritual giants composed the foundations of literary and scientific development. Yet because they wrote in obscure style so reminiscent of western alchemy and often ridiculed the orthodox caste system with its over-emphasis on ritual worship, the Siddhars have always moved on the outer perimeter of social acceptability. Their chief artifacts aside from a complete medical system include a vast body of esoteric literature as well as ever popular rustic poems and bardic songs.

Zvelebil outlines the common features of siddhar poetry: "a protest, sometimes expressed in very strong terms, against the formalities of life and religion; rough handling of priests and Vedhics in general ; denial of the religious practices and beliefs of Vedhics and not only that: an opposition against the generally accepted pan Indian social doctrine and religious practice; protest against the abuses of temple rule; emphasis on the purity of character; claims made by the authors of these poems that they have achieved certain psychokinetic powers and other capabilities which belong to the sphere of parapsychological phenomena; use of imaginative and ambiguous language, rather puzzling though strongly colloquial; no systemic doctrinal exposition. Finally, all these poems are ascribed to a body of sages known as the siddhars (1)."

Does this description recall the mood of the Rosicrucian manifestoes and the Alchemical literature of 17th century Europe during the age of Reformation against the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church?

The Siddhars present themselves as the greatest masters of yoga, medicine and alchemy. Unlike their western counterparts who emphasized the transmutation of base metal into gold, the Tamil sages stressed the accomplishment of physical immortality or at least extended longevity as the ultimate token of self-realization Parallels exist in the western concept of the "glorified body". Just as in the west, these sages left a vast number of inscrutable texts accessible only to initiates. Their Hermetic emphasis on knowing reality directly by reading "the signatures of Nature", developing contemplative "seeing" as Castanada uses the term or cultivating, "the intelligence of the heart", as described by Schwaller de Lubicz, goes far beyond conventional understandings of Eastern meditation techniques. Such vision in ancient times served as the basis of a sacred science with bountiful practical applications.

Patanjali, one of the greatest Tamil siddhars who accomplished himself at Rameswaram, explicated the essentials of mystic discipline, in his well known YOGA SUTRAS. Although postures, breath and contemplative techniques play a major role this tradition also includes the practical science of Nature; Cosmology, Astrology, Herbalism, Chemistry Alchemy and Medicine. While Ayurvedic medicine concerns itself generally with herbs and organic treatments the siddhars add strong emphasis on use of inorganic salts, metals and mineral poisons.

Like the romantic notion of the Rosicrucians the siddhars are bound by an oath of secrecy. They wander anonymously practicing their yogic disciplines, doing service to their fellow men especially as dispensers of potent medicines. In the west sages such as Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus and Basil Valantine acquired legendary status as alchemists. So too a rich tradition venerates the exploits of these Tamil mystics. Eighteen of the siddhars are venerated above others for accomplishing themselves to the highest level of perfection. The historic locations in India where they performed their penance today comprise spiritually charged centers of pilgrimage.

The first and foremost of the siddhars, Agastyar, fits the image of his western counterpart, Toth-Hermes. Considered the founder of Tamil language and grammar, he presided over the first two sangams, ancient literary academies located on the now submerged continent south of Sri Lanka. He also appears as the primordial giver of arts and sciences. Innumerable classic works ascribe themselves to his authorship. Contemporary Tamil scholars assert that at least 26 classic authors wrote under this name. Who were they all aspiring to imitate? Folk tales abound in accounts of Agastyar's constant battles with local demons. He pops into the story line of classic epics, the Ramayana and Mahabharata, to bestow blessing and guidance. Tradition has it that Agastyar still lives in the Pothigai Hills below the Western Ghats, occasionally appearing to the sincere aspirant (2).

Thirumoolar, another of the most renowned Tamil masters, accomplished his magnum opus of yogic reintegration at Chidambaram, the sacred spot where Shiva performs his cosmic dance. The chief contribution of Thirmoolar, the THIRMANDIRAM, an esoteric masterpiece of 3000 verses explains man's yogic path to immortal divinity, referring metaphorically to the philosopher's stone that transmutes base metal into gold. Here is the essential classic text of siddhar wisdom. Only in the recent past has this work been made available to the English reading public.
Karuvoorar, an architect as well as a yogin-alchemist, played a major role in the design and construction of the Brihadeshwara Temple at Thanjavur. The feats involved in this task recall not only the emergence of the Gothic cathedrals which occurred at about the same time but also the construction of the pyramids. A popular tour guide describes this as one of India's greatest temples:
"This superb and fascinating monument is one of only a handful in India with World Heritage listing and is worth a couple of visits. On top of the apex of the 63 meter high temple, a dome encloses an enormous Shiva Lingam. Constructed from a single piece of granite weighing an estimated 81 tonnes, the dome was hauled into place along a six-km earth work ramp in a manner similar to that used for the Egyptian Pyramids (3)."

From a western perspective Bogar might be the most intriguing of the siddhars. Born into a family of gold smiths in central South-India, Bogar received initiation from the illustrious Natha Yogi, Kalangi. Contemplative insight allegedly guided Bogar to construct a primitive form of aircraft that he used in a journey to China. He is also credited with inventing a sea-going craft using a stream engine, preparing an indestructible statue of the god, Muruga, using nine poisonous herbs and minerals and making a major contribution to the siddhar medicine system which boasts possession of fabulous remedies that heal presently incurable diseases and make possible an extreme longevity. Bogar achieved the ultimate state of perfection at the hill top shrine of Palani where the statue he fabricated is still in use. Elaborate temple murals here chronicle his wondrous exploits.

These claims seem somewhat reminiscent of the achievements of the contemporary western Hermetic master Schwaller de Lubicz, who in an attempt to free France from imported energy invented an engine fueled by vegetable oil. He designed following principles of number and harmonic proportion imbibed from contemplative vision a ship which possessed innovative properties of speed and balance in the roughest waters. He developed an airplane motor still used in France today. He also prepared Homeopathic medicines from plants and rediscovered the medieval alchemical procedure for producing the brilliant red and blue stained glass found in the windows of the Gothic Cathedrals. Evidence suggests that Scwaller was the original genius behind the Fulcanelli material, perhaps the most significant alchemical literature of the century. (see GNOSIS No. 7)

A popular legend describes how Bogar made several missionary excursions into China. A master of astral projection and soul transmigration, Bogar entered the body of a recently deceased Chinese youth, revived it and grew to become the Chinese sage, Lao Tzu, author of the TAO TE CHING and founder of Taoism. Taoism has a rich alchemical faction devoted to physical longevity that lends credit to this bizarre tale. The TAO TE CHING embodies the same esoteric style that haunts the obscure language of the Tamil siddhars and echoes ideas from western alchemy. Any student of Taoist Yoga is shocked by the similarity of its techniques to those of the Tamil siddhars.

Initially I could not accept the possibility that Bogar was Lao Tzu. During an extensive pilgrimage to the shrines of the siddhars in 1989 I encountered well educated residents of Palani who took it for granted that Bogar was indeed Tao Tzu. Finally, I found a pilgrimage guide book written in English, a rare commodity indeed in this off-the-beaten-track location. It described Palani's Hill temple to Lord Muruga and contained a brief monograph on Bogar identifying him as the Chinese sage, Lao Tzu.

Bogar's monumental work of 7000 verses has recently been edited in Tamil by one of the great living apostles of this tradition, Yogi S.A. Ramaiah of Madras. Since 1954, Yogi Ramaiah has traveled the world, giving lectures, initiating students and building temples. An American center at Yuma, Arizona features a temple containing eighteen granite images dedicated to the greatest siddhars. He does not offer the customary guru-disciple relationship but rather teaches postures, breathing and contemplative techniques geared to give access to what Anthony Rooley described so wonderfully in the third issue of ALEXANDRIA as "The Invisible College", a higher inspired state of mind. Jean Dubuis, the contemporary French alchemist describes a vaguely similar practice as "night school". These concepts might be related to the medieval notion of "the communion of saints" not as blind faith but as actual guiding contemplative experience. Although mantras do play a role the actual advanced techniques taught by Yogi Ramaiah seem more in tune with the methods of western alchemy.

Yogi Ramaiah has so far avoided becoming a personality cult by shifting attention to his own guru, "Babaji", the immortal Yogin made famous in Yogananda's AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI . This shadowy character remains a premier figure among that semi-mythical category of perfected immortal saints which include personages like Harikhan Baba and Bagwan Lakulisa. These beings allegedly inhabit remote regions of the Himalayas, emerging on rare occasion to reveal the more esoteric levels of yogic attainment.

In recent times "Babaji" has become a New Age band wagon that everyone delights to jump on, from Sondra Ray and Leonard Orr, the father of the rebirthing movement to Nina Hagen, the German Rock singer. Babaji's picture even appears on the album jacket of the Beatles, SERGENT PEPPERS LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND. In the vast realm of human imagination, what myth could possibly be more attractive to the ego than that of physical immortality?
Yogi Ramaiah offers the world a unique biography of this immortal saint. Babaji was born in 203 A.D. near the sanctuary of Chidambaram. At an early age he was kidnapped, sold into slavery and then purchased by a wealthy man who freed him. Babaji was thus absolved from the responsibilities of caste and family. He soon fell in with a group of advanced wandering sages who trained him in contemplative methods of self-realization. In his wanderings Babaji studied with Bogar at Katirgama in Sri Lanka and at Courtrallam with Agastyar. He finally achieved the highest yogic realization at Badrinath near the Himalayan boarder. Is there an echo here of the story of Christian Rosenkreutz who sets off as an orphaned youth on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and falls into the company of mysterious adepts who train him in ultimate wisdom?

A most intriguing enigma might arise from consideration of Babaji's yantra, a geometric device used along with mantra for invoking the master's grace and guidance. This yantra consists of a triangle situated in a square in turn circumscribed by a circle. It calls to mind a number of 17th century western alchemical diagrams. Notable examples include the final engraving from Heinrich Khunrath's AMPHITHEATRUM SAPIENTIAE AETERNAE (4), the seventh key of Basil Valantine's TWELVE KEYS and the Rosicrucian seal on the diploma presented to Dr. Bacstrom by a mysterious adept in 1794, published in Manly Hall's, ORDERS OF THE GREAT WORK-ALCHEMY(5). Stanislas Klassowski de Rolla explicates the meaning of Khunrath's emblem:
"Syzygy or conjunction of the macrocosmic Unity with the microcosmic triunity. The entire process of the elaboration of the Philosopher's Stone is symbolized here ...(4)."
The history of the Tamil siddhars has yet to be written. Their writings remain scattered waiting for the scholarly treatment they deserve. The task of separating the complex mythic and actual historic biographies of these sages recalls the difficulty associated with penetrating the wisdom of the western alchemical tradition. Scholars can argue even against the historical Jesus but in the end a good dream is more powerful than any historical reality. The perennial wisdom at the root of Rosicrucian alchemy or the Tamil siddhar tradition transcends time and space. It is an ever present guide leading any sincere aspirant into the immortal realm of imagination and its central diadem of self-luminous Gnosis. In the light of Gnosis all sages from every continent throughout history are forever united.

REFERENCES
1. Kamil Zvelebil, "The Cittar: An Enigma", chapter 14 of THE SMILE OF MURUGAN on TAMIL LITERATURE OF SOUTH INDIA (Leiden, Brill, 1973) p. 218
2. Thiru N Kandaswamy Pillai, HISTORY OF SIDDHAR MEDICINE, (Madras, Manorama Press, Gov. of Tamil Nadu, 1979), p 254
3. Hugh Finlay, editor INDIA, A TRAVEL SURVIVAL KIT (5th edition, Hong Kong, Lonely Planet, 1993), p. 1011
4. Stanislas Klassowski de Rolla, THE GOLDEN GAME: ALCHEMICAL ENGRAVINGS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, (New York, Braziller, 1988), p. 41
5. Manly P. Hall, ORDERS OF THE GREAT WORK- ALCHEMY (Los Angeles, P.R.S., 1940) p. 34.

Tamil were the foremost scientific knowledge creater in earth and their knowledge spread all over the world from civilizational period.
Tamils antiquity stands first in the world.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

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

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

Nan Pala Kelvi Murriya Velvi Anthanarukku - Puram 361.

Anthi Anthanar Arunkaden Irukkum
Muththie Vilakirru Injum Puram -2

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

Now In Silapathikaram on Kannagi Wedding:

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


we see the song continues :

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

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

Kamak Kilathi Manaiol Enrivar
Emuru Kilavi Solliye ethirum and

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

KadarParathai Ellarkum Vurithe So POLYGAMY was certainly Present.

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

Tholkappiyam is Clear on Castelism:

MELOR Moovarkum Punarntha Karanam
Kilorku Akiya Kalamum VUnde Karpi3

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

and on Love Marriages:

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

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

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

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

So This is what is Tamil Marriages about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathirupathu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear friends, :)

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

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

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

Moontram Pakam – Porulathikaaram – 8. Cheyyuliyal- 178

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

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

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

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

Cheyyulial – 179

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

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

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

Praththinaiyiyal – Cheyul 17

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

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

Karpiyal – Cheyyul -10

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

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

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

Akaththinaiyiyal – Cheyyul - 39

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

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

Now we go into Kalaviyal Cheyyul - No. 1

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

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

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

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

Kalaviyal Cheyyul – 9

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

Eight types of Kalvu Vazhkai is clearly mentioned.

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

The same is specified in 5. Poruliyal as

“Kaman Unniya Marabidai theriya
ETTAN Pakuthiyum Vilanka Ottiya”

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

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

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

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

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

Porulathikaaram – Cheyyul – 181

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

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

Cheyyuliyal – 182

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

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

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

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

Puraththinaiyiyal – Cheyyul 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

f.s.gandhi

[Anchaneya]

Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Friends- Let us thank RAMRAGHAV for his posting:


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


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

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

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

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

f.s.gandhi_________________

Solomon was always insisting on not to go toomuch on Roots and Candhi saying that Aruvi- has same root Proves it correct, and Mr.Candhi wants Research Opinion, which was given by Solomon earlier which is repeated:


As for Dubious methods by Maraimalai Adigal and KasuPillai- etc., , I Quote from the book Aivu Vatta Veliyedu- run by Communist Scholars- Prof Vanamamalai and others- and this Article was Authored by Ve.Krishnamurthi.
" Veru Vithamaga solvathanal Rig,Yajur, Samam, Atharvanam agiya Nangu Vethangalum Ariyarkalin Padaipukale enra Vunmaium, Bramanrgale Kappalargal nra Yathartha Nilayun Avargalathu Nokirku Idaiyuraga Vaiththu.
Intha Idayurai Kadakka Munby Eppothum Illatha Puthu Kolgaikalai NeethiKatchiyin Karuthukavalrgalakiya Inth Arignarkal (KA.Su.Pillai, MaraimalaiAdigal and SivarasaPillai) Uruvakkinar. ATavathu Vethangal endrum Marai Noolgal endrum, Saiva kuravargalal Kurippidappadubavai Vadamolzi Vethangal Alla endrum, Vadamolzi Vethangal Thondri vittana endrum avarrai kanda Vadamozhiyar, thelivaga Solvadanal Branmanargal avarrai Vadamolziyil peyarthuk kondargal endrum Koorath Thalaip pattanar.
Avvarayin atthamil VETHANGAL INDRU Vullanava endra Vinavirku avai Kadalkolal Azinthupoyina endrum avargal Koorinar. Ikkurugal mutrilum Varalarru Virothmanavai; Vignapoorvamarravai ena Arignargalal Thallappattana, endralum, avarrin Thakkam IndruVarai Tamilagh Makkalidaiye Needithu Irukkirathu enin Migaiyagathu."
- Further the article goes on to analyse Ka.Su.Pillai- giving names Thaithriyem, Bowdigam, Thalvagaram, Atharvanam Agum, entrthil, the Prof analysed and proved that all this names four named refers to some parts of the Indian Vedas.
Prof- also mentions of his article- "kA.SU.Pillayin Aiyvumurai" about the dubious research methods.
Finally Concludes- Ellavatrirkum Melaka Tamilil Nangu Vethangal,, Vadamozhi Vethangalukhu munnare Irunthana endrum avai Muraiye Bavudiyam, Thalavagharam Thaithreyam endrum KA.SU.Pillai pondra Tamil Vetha Arvalargal KOorru Atharamarrathu enavum Thuniyalam." THIS ARTICLE COMES IN Page 51-65.

So Mr.FS.Candhi would not accept any Truth REsearches and would stand firm MuyalukuMoonukal, and Has to give Proofs of respective Periods.

[Idiappam]

Let's get back to the subject! There is no evidence at all that the Rig Veda was written 600BCE or earlier. There are just off-the-cuff claims by fanatics that it was written then or earlier. No evidence at all!

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

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

[Sudhaama]

Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

......... So Mr.FS.Candhi would not accept any Truth REsearches and would stand firm MuyalukuMoonukal, and Has to give Proofs of respective Periods.

Well-said Mr. Anchaneya. Thanks a lot .

[Idiappam]

Uncle Sudhaama said:

Well-said Mr. Anchaneya. Thanks a lot .

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

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

Keep it up, Uncle Sudhaama!

[solomon]

Friends,

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

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

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

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


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

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

Dear Idiyappam,

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

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

This is what you have done so many times and are repeating it.
Friend, You have called by all names and have not Given Where Jew is named in Sangam Literature.
Idiaappam You quoted PAVANAR and Put Articles in Praise in Him,
How and When did you lost the Opinion on him- Please Clarify and Till date- FSG or You have not told me as to Where did this FICTION of Ist Cent Dating of Vedas have come- which Sangam or Post Sangam Literature says it.
Idiyappamji,
You have said like this:

Early Tamil literature, talk about naanmarai, yes! But why the assumption that it refers to the Rig, Sama, Yajur and the Arthanvan vedas???

The Names of the above 4 vedas occur in Tamil literature after the 13th centure - the Sivagnana botham

Name SIVAN or even any of his other names does not come in THOLKAPPIYAM, The Names Siva and Vishnu does not appear in Sangam Literature- but you accept them- why?
Tiruvalluvar has not mentioned the word- in 133o Kurals? Is it not ours.

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

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

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

MosesMohammedSolomon.

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

[tscii:9bf9e1d4e8]
Great Hypocrisy is CONTINUOUSLY been done, F.S.Candhi dates Tholkappiyam on his own Accord without any proofs and I Give Universal concluded opinion.

Mr.F.S.Gandhi would not accept any Truth REsearches and would stand firm MuyalukuMoonukal, and Has to give Proofs of respective Periods.

"Thakkar Thakavilar Avaravar Echaththal Kanappadum"- Valluvam (means one's fittability to any branch of knowledge depends upon his delivery and not any other thing what he has as input)

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

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

First Sankam (talai sankam)

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

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

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

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

Second sankam ( Idai sankam)

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

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

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

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

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

The following also has evidance to the above claim.

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

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

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

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

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

Indus Civilisation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FSG or You have not told me as to Where did this FICTION of Ist Cent Dating of Vedas have come- which Sangam or Post Sangam Literature says it.

Go through my post in this thread dated Saturday.July 09, 2005.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

f.s.gandhi
[/tscii:9bf9e1d4e8]

[Idiappam]

Mr Gandhi said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good try, Solomon.

[Idiappam]

Solomon Said:

Dear Idiyappam,
This is what you have done so many times and are repeating it.
Friend, You have called by all names and have not Given Where Jew is named in Sangam Literature.
Jews, I mentioned alongside others, Greeks etc.. Why do you you zoom in on 'Jews'... Go and find it yourself in the Sangam Literature. It is not relavant on its own.


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


Idiyappamji,
You have said like this:

Early Tamil literature, talk about naanmarai, yes! But why the assumption that it refers to the Rig, Sama, Yajur and the Arthanvan vedas???

The Names of the above 4 vedas occur in Tamil literature after the 13th centure - the Sivagnana botham

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

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

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Jews, I mentioned alongside others, Greeks etc.. Why do you you zoom in on 'Jews'... Go and find it yourself in the Sangam Literature. It is not relavant on its own.

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

Foreigners are specified in sankam literature as Yavanars. It includes all of them as Greek,Asia Minor and present Balistere and Israel.

I have already proved quoting eminent scholars that Paniniyam(Paanar) is not for Sanskrit and not in Sanskrit. We must here remember that along with paly & Prakrit 'Paichachi' (Tamil) which was the base for Paly and Prakrit also prevailed all over India.This is Scholar's view. North Indian languages shrinked & phonetically changed into new languages from tamil and to differentiate this and geographical ruling, Tamil land after First "KADALKOL" specified with new horizons during Tholkappiar time.

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

[tscii:057673800c]
And please note, my boy Solomon. The 'Vadasol, thisaisol, thirisol, etc" does not refer to sanskrit at all.

Dear Thiru Idiappam, :)

I have already talked about “Vadasol” in Tholkappiam that North phonetical alphabet will be removed if at all north alphabet comes into being in tamil.

As you say we have to repeat so many times the same discussions :!:

The north word's root will be with tamil since tamil prevailed all over India as natural people’s language and eldest language. Tholkappiar talks about Phonetically changed words.

Tholkappiar says,

“Vadasol Kilavi Vadavezhuththu Oree
Ezhuththodu Punarntha Sol Aakumme” - Sollathikaaram – Echchaviyal – 5

In this Kilavi means word 'Oree' means ‘Neekkam” –to be neglected. Remaining will be taken for mingling with tamil. Here Thokaappiar wants to preserve tamil phonetics. He talks about ‘Vadasol’ as word and no significance of and Vada Language. Earlier I have quoted from Dr.Rajwade that tamil has entirely purified its traditional writing and if at all mingling of some words into tamil they are Prakrit form and not Sanskrit form.

Now we look into Thisaichol and Thirisol and they are tamil words withing tamil land and not foreign words.

“Oru Porul kuriththa Veru Chol Aakiyum
Veru porul Kuriththa Oru Chol Aakiyum
Eru Paatru Enba THIRISOL KILAVI” -Chollathikaram – Echaviyal – 3

Certainly this refers to only tamil words.

“Chentamil Cherntha Panniru Nilaththum
Tham Kurippinave THISAI CHCHOL Kilavi” -Choll – Echaviyal – 4

Certainly this refers to only twelve lands of tamil words.

f.s.gandhi

[/tscii:057673800c]

[A P MASILAMANI]

Dear FSGV

As to the date of Tolkaappiyam, you are proceeding in the right direction and your arguments are sound..

Please keep it up.

[solomon]

Friends,

I Thank Mr.fsg for bringing all references to Brahmins - Parpanarkal in Tholkappiyam, and all of them certainly refers to BRAHMINS ONLY.

If you want to live in illusion of dating of THOLKAPPIYAM- Kadalkol. Just few posting Back you had such a high regard for Kamil Zveleble and he dates Tholkappoyam to 200-100BCE, Now if you are insisting he is wrong then I can't help it. A Scholar is one who keeps to the truths of his Research and NOt to spread his Superstitions, and I DO not understand on your Pinning on Anchor Bible Encyclopedia for your Superstitions, and I Quote from a Biblic Scholar on Bible today:he truth is their claims are by frauds and actual position of Bible research is as follows:


"The weight and extent of the strain under which Christian Belief has come can be indicated by listing aspects of Traditional Theology which are, which are in the opinion of many Theologians today [including myself], either untenable ot open to Serious Doubts.
1. There are divinely revealed truths [such as the doctrines of Trinity or the two natures of Christ]
2.God Created the physical Universe out of nothing “n’ years ago.
3. Man was created originally brought into the existence as a finitely perfect being, but rebelled against God, and the human condition has ever since been that of creatures who have fallen from grace.
4. Christ come to rescue man from his fallen plight, buying man’ [or some men’s] restoration to grace by his death on the cross.
5. Jesus was born of a Virgin mother, without human Patenity.
6. He performed miracles in which the regularities of the natural order were suspended by Divine Power.
7. His Dead Body rose from the Grave and Returned to Earthy Life.
8. All men must respond to God through Jesus Christ in order to be saved.
9. AT Death a person’s relationship to God is irrevocably fixed.
10. There are two human destinies, traditionally referred to under the symbols of Heaven and Hell.
“God and the Universe of Faiths”- John Hick, Formerly Professor of Philosophy of Religion, Claremont Graduate School. California Published by Macmillan 1998.
and if you want further you can download and read

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://hamsa.org/
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.
htmhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/
To Justin Against Christianity (600 Page PDF File) from tjac.pdf from www.tojustin.com

So meaninglessly rejecting all Scholarly Opinoion is Childish.

And Nobody doubts the Antiquity of Tamil, but for that you need not meaninglessly backdate Tholkappiyam and make Tamils being Laughed at by the world.

FSG views are absolutely Anti-truths, spoiled by anti-Hinduism- antibrahmin, myths spread by Missionaries, which I HAVE posted a lot earlier and I QUOTE proessor Hart again for viewers:


From a posting by Professor George Hart in 1997 on Tamil, Brahmins, & Sanskrit: " ....here are some facts:

1. Brahmins are only 2% of the population, yet they have contributed much more to Tamil literature than their number would indicate.

2. The purest (i.e. least Sanskritized) Tamil was written by the medieval Saiva Brahmin commentators on Tamil. For example, Parimelazakar translates the yoga asanas into Tamil, and the only way anyone can figure out what he is saying is to read the sub commentary (by Gopalakrishnamachari), who gives the original Sanskrit terms. You will find no Tamil any purer than that of Naccinarkkiniyar et al.

3. Brahmins have contributed to Tamil from Sangam times. Kapilar is one of the greatest Tamil poets.

4. Yes, of course Brahmins have had their own political agenda to push. They have been responsible for many things that I feel are entirely unconscionable. But is this any different from the other high castes? I have heard many many stories of high non-Brahmin castes killing and abusing Dalits. You can't blame the Brahmins for this. In fact, the most pernicious example of the caste system was in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka, where there are virtually no Brahmins and never have been.

5. You cannot blame the Brahmins for Sanskritizing Tamil. Tenkalai Aiyengars often use Tamil words where most non-Brahmins use Sanskrit ones. The Sanskrtization of Tamil is a very old process and cannot be understood except in an all-South-Asian context. The Bengali used in Bangladesh is highly Sanskritized, and the Muslims are quite proud of their language. The fact is, Sanskrit was the lingua franca of South Asia for intellectual purposes, much as Latin was in Europe. Buddhists used it, Jains used it, much as Spinoza, a Jew, wrote his philosophical treatises in Latin. The Tamil of Ramalinga Swamigal, a non-Brahmin, is highly Sanskritized.

6. Sanskrit and Tamil are part of the same intellectual and literary tradition. The fact is, Sanskrit literature owes an enormous amount to Dravidian -- much of its syntax, its literary conventions, vocabulary. When we come to the great kavya of Sanskrit (e.g. Kalidasa), it is definitely part of the same stream as Tamil literature, just as French, English and German belong to a Western European literary tradition. This is even true of Sangam literature -- it is clearly of the same cultural tradition as, say, the Sanskrit Mahabharata.

7. Tamil is richer because it has many styles. It is the only Indian language that has a pure, unsanskritized style (well, there is a pure Telugu, called accu telugu, which was cultivated mainly by Brahmins). This style is very rich, no doubt. But Tamil has innumerable other styles -- many dialects, a highly Sanskritized style, a style with many English words, etc. etc. All of these add to the richness and expressiveness of the language -- why impoverish the language by removing its resources?

8. ... a personal note from an outsider. Tamil culture has not suffered because of one group. It has suffered because of the caste system and because of its treatment of women... Let's promote inter caste marriage, let's get rid of dowry and give women independence and self-respect, and above all, let's avoid a victimization complex which only plays into the hands of those who have a vested interest in continuing the inequities that exist in Tamilnad. If every Brahmin were to disappear from Tamilnad, the Dalits and others who are exploited would benefited not one iota.

9. Please note that I am not pro- or anti-Brahmin. I am acutely aware of the negative role Sanskrit has played in the development of the Indian regional languages. Indeed, A. K. Ramanujan, a Brahmin, once told me that the worst things that ever happened to South India were Sanskrit and English. A slavish devotion to Sanskrit has had a negative effect on Tamil and, even more so, on other South Indian languages. But we cannot change the past. There is nothing inherently good or bad in a word, whatever its origin, so long as it has been adopted for general use in a language. What is bad -- and what I deplore -- is the mindless assumption that Sanskrit is somehow superior. It is not. Indeed, Sanskrit is a very limited language, because it has no spoken substratum. But where Sanskrit words have come into common usage in South India, they have acquired broad connotative powers that enhance the spoken languages that have borrowed them (much like Latin and French words in English). It is insulting to Tamil to claim that the language cannot borrow words without being corrupted. Tamil has a long, powerful tradition, and it is a very rich language. Judicious borrowing can only enhance, not spoil it..."

And on Paarpanar- I QUOTE MARAIMALAI ADIGAL : After referring to various passages from Silapathikaram- Like- "Mamuth Parppan Maraivazhi Kattidath Theevalncheivathu ....
he concludes Eneve Pandaith Tamilar than thirumanach sadankir perumpakuthi Silapathikara kalathum atharkupin inraiya nal varaium Parppanere Asiriyarayirundu nadathn Thiumana sadankil pukunthu atharku Sirappalithu varuthal Iuravindri thunia padum enka - Page 203 Tamilar Matham

and Fsg SAYS no role for Brahmins and Vedas for Kalaviyal and Friends I QUOTE- from Irayanar:
Anbain IINTHINAI KALAVENAPADUM
Anthanar arumarai manral ettaul
Kantharva vazakkam enmanar Pulavar-

Friends my interpretation of Tholkappiyam Marai as Vedam is Proved, beyond doubt, but still I Confirm for friends
TholKappiyam Commentators- Ilampuranar and Nachinarkiniyar both have referred "Iyer Yathanar Karamnam enba" as Vedhic Ritual, so please do not be fooling around people.

FSG, If you are going to reject all Research truths and keep lying All Tamils would be laughed at.

Truth is analysed and accepted long back, and now you want to change, by keep on bloughing. Literature do not support your Lies.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Anchor Bible Dictionary & Britanica Encyclopedia are accepted versions of History timeline in record form. All renowned world historiens register their inventions of history timeline in these two records. I have earlier quoted this for correct dating. Any person having scientific temperament without relying on religious aspects would understand this.

Tamil literatures and its secular nature reveal all historical happenings close to reality and this has been proved with latest archeological findings like ‘Puhar diving”. ‘Kadal kol’ has been accurately recorded in tamil literature differentiating three sankams as I earlier told in this thread and “Kumari Kandam” thread.

‘Kadalkol’ is the main cause for the civilizational transformation occurred in the world. The effect of ‘Kadalkol’ prevailed all over Arabian sea countries. Main Three ‘kadalkols’ have been recorded accurately as floods in Arabian sea countries.This is further strenghthened with the archeological findings and the timeline is recorded in Anchor Bible dictionary accepted by world historiens and all timelines to date other new findings are refered only by this dictionary and Britannica Encyclopedia.Hence nothing wrong in fixing the timeline based on this.

I have so many times told that yesteryear scholars views should be taken as the base for new inventions and they are not concluded one always and any person with scientific temperament would reinvent the old conclusions with new archeological findings and this is the world order.

I have earlier quoted T.R.Shesha Iyengar and Panmozhippulavar Ka.Appaththuraiyar stating the following in this thread:

During 100 CE Cheras overruled the whole India and Sankam literature of these times shows this. Puranaanuru defines cheras area till north Himalayan. And due to this south organized tamil culture’s influence (Life as Aram,Porul,Inbam-Language as Eyal,Esai,Nadakam), North Indian literature was organized with new Artificial Sanskrit with ‘Chandal’ as base. North Indian ‘hothaas’ (Ariyas) came to south first to ‘Cheras’ land. In Kanchipuram with Kashmir,Kasi & Thiruvananthapuram pandits, Vedhas were written. Vedha Viyasar is a Dravidian and his birth is defined in “Neelakesi” one of the tamil poetry. Readers can go through the follwing link for “Viyasar’s birth”.

http://www.jainworld.com/JWTamil/jainworld/neelakesi/urai.asp?num-9

There after Pallavas,Guptas and Later Cholas followed Vedhic Traditions.

Most of the Explanatory notes of Sankam Anthology were written during 9th and 10th Century Scholars and this includes Nachinaarkiniyar & Parimezhalagar. The notes written by sankam period is not available. And since Nachinaarkiniyar and Paremezhalagar supported Vedhic tradition prevailed during that time The scholars like Maraimalai Adigal & Paavanar thought they were Brahmins. This is not true. Adigal & Paavanar both followed ‘Aryan Invasion theory’ and Dravidian movement ideology to derive whoever talks Vedhic tradition are Ariyans and Brahmins and considered all of them in one fold. They did not have the chance of present day findings (1980s) that “Paichachi”(tamil) prevailed all over India before paly & prakrit. We cannot blame them for this. As I earlier have stated we should take their views as base for our further findings.

The topic is somewhat deviated only because of Solomon. However we have to analyse history based on truths. For that I am writing the following.

Anthanar & Paarpaan(Iyer after rituals formed) are different entities as per Tholkappiam and subsequent Sankam Anthology.

Anthanar :

I have earlier stated in this thread about “Aanam Chantra periyor” whose occultisc studies are essential for “Maraimozhi” and they are different entity than “Paarpaan”.

Noolae Karakam MUKKOLE Manaye
Ayumkalai ANTHANARkuriya” – Thokappiam – Marapiyal – 71.

“ANTHANAR Noorkum Araththirkum Aathiyai
Nintrathu MANNAVAN KOLE” - Kural 543

In this we find Anthanar were formulaters of ‘Aram’ after analyzing the happenings in a nation. Depending upon king’s policies they do research(Ayithal) and formulate new “Aram”.

“ANTHANAR Enbore ARAVORE Matrellam
Chenthanmai Poodu Ozukalan” - kural

Am+Thanar means “Aruludaiyor” & Chenthanmai means “Anbu”.

“ARAM AZHI ANTHANAR thaal Cherinthar kellal
Piravazhi Neenthal Arithu” - Kural. Valluvar gives “ur” vikuthi to specify respectfulness.

Here Azhi means sea. Valluvar states here also Aram is belonging to Anthanar.

“NiraiMozhi Maanthar Aanayil Kilantha
Maraimozhi thane Manthiram Enba” - Tholkappiam . In this ‘Aanayil kilantha Maraimozhi” exactly specifies the ‘Aanam charntha Periyor / Chantore who are different from Anthanar.

Valluvar talks about them as in 'Neethar Perumai'

“Niraimozhi Maanthar Perumai Nilaththu
Maraimozhi Katti Vidum” -


In Athikaaram “Neeththaar Perumai” – Valluvar talks about Chantore as adapters of Thuravu and Anthanar as ‘Aravore’. Both are different in the way of research that Chantrore are doing one’s inside (Aanam-Akaththumam-Aakamam) and Anthanar are doing one’s outside world.

The definition of “Nool” is given in Tholkappiam as

“Pattu(1) urai(2) noolae Vaimozhi(3) Pisiyae(4)
Ankatham(5) Muthusol(6) Avezh nilaththum- Cheyyuliyal – 75

In Cheyyuliyal – 158 He conforms this.

Avaithaam,

“Noolinaana(1) uraiyinaana(2)
Nediyodu Punarntha Pisiyinana(3)
Ethu nuthaliya Muthumozhyinana(4)
Maraimozhi kilantha Manthiraththana(5)
Kootrukkidai Vaiththa Kuripinaana(6)

In this Ankatham means ‘Vasaippaatu” & pisi means “Vidukathai” (riddles).Here we find ‘marai’ as ‘manthiram’ one of the “Nool”.

“Vinaiyin neenki Vilankiya Arivin MUNAIVAN
Kandathu muthan Noolakum” - In this Tholkappiar talks about other segment “Munaivan” who are expert in Science.


Here we have to add one more segment of people who are “Aruthozhilore”- Six Thozhil.

Thivakaram – Nikandu says,

“Uzhavu(1) Thozhilae(2) Varaivu(3) Vanikam(4)
Vichchai(5) Chirpam(6) entrith ThirathTHARU(six)
Thozhilkarpa Nadaiyathu Karuma Poomi.

In this varaivu is drawing & Vichchai is Viththai & Thozhilae is Nesaviththolizh(Aakupeyar).

This ‘six Thozhilore’ are specified By Valluvar as,

“Aapayan kuntrum ARUTHOZHILORE Noolmarappar
Kaavalan Kaavan Enin”. - In Kodunkomai Athikaram.

Hence all arts were recorded as the above ‘six types of writing’ in Sankam period the contributor might be either from Chantrore of experts above six occupation and Aravore meant for king’s rule.

About tamil marais (one of the tamil writing forms) silappathikaaram specifies as follows :

“VANDAMIZH MARAIYORKU Vanurai Koduththa
Thindiral Neduvel Cheral Kaan kenak” - 60.

Here no mention of Sanskrit Vedhas and this also specifies there are some tamil marais. In Moovar Thevaram and Thiruvasakam we see songs of rituals based on “Velvees” including marriages rituals. Earlier there could have been separate ‘Marais’ as ‘Thanippaadal Thokuthi’. This could have been copied by Vedhics

Now we go into the meaning of “PAARPAN”.

Tholkappiam specifies ‘Parpaan’ as head of Kalavu & Karpu marriages which was revealed by me in “Thirukkural” thread.

In Tholkappiam the duties of “paarpaan” is talked in Karpiyal -27. In kalavu and karpu marriage he is the ritual head.

“Kaamanilai Uraiththal(1) Thernilai Uraiththal(2)
Kizhavone Kurippinai Eduththuk Kooralum (3)
Aavodu patta Nimiththam Kooralum (4)
Selavu uru kilaviyum (5) Selavu Azhunku kilaviyum (6)
Annavai Piravum (ethaip pontra piravum) PAARPAARKU uriya”.

From the above we get that to make the hero & heroine mingling each other either in kalavu or in karpu PAARPAAN has to work in the above ways. Later “karanam” (rituals) was made to strengthen this activity.

“Poiyym Kalavum Thontriya pinnae
Eyer Yarththa karanam Enba”. –Paarpaan is refered as “Iyer” – Here ‘Un’ vikuthi gets elevated as ‘Ar’ vikuthi to show the respectfulness after ritual formation.

In kural,

“Marappinum Oththuk Kolalaakum Paarpaan
Piruppu Ozhukkam Kuntrak Kedum” -Paarpaan is refered under ‘Ellaraviyal” part which is found fit conforming to Tholkaapiam definition.

Some of misguiding guys uses “Ooththu”(nedil O) to mean “Othuthal” to solve their purpose. But it is not so. Kuril “O’ should be used. Both words has same root but here means different. Kuril “Oththu’/Oththal means ‘Ontrakkuthal’/ Cherthuvaiththal / making one. Compare the word ‘Oththaasai’.

Now,

Paarpan Oththuk kolal marappinum – If Paarpaan forgets his duty of making the hero & heroine joining,
Aakum – He can do it again. But,
Ozhukkam Kuntra – If good conduct goes out,
Pirappu Kedum – anyone’s birth in this world(Pirappu) will go down.

Paarpaan is refered in Silappathikaram with the same meaning and not Anthanar meaning. “Maamuthu Paarpaan marai Vazhi Kattita” clearly specify this.

Hence Anthanar & Paarpaan are not same in Sankam period. We should not view with 10th century CE spectacles to interpret the two.We shall look into Nanmarai,Gods & castes later.

Vedhic Solomons should not only bearing "Epporul ....."Kural in his signature and should follow the meaning of that kural. Otherwise he will become "Mazhiththalum , Neetalum -Vedhic case" specified by Valluvar :!: .

[Anchaneya]

Friends,

F.S.Candhi has left all levels of Dececy to Forge Tirukural and kindly see my postings under Kural.

Friends, Mr.Candhi- ofcourse repeatedly used Mr.Mathivanan another Great Forger to date his Dubious Tholkappiyam dating. Friends- the verysame authors who wrote Horseplay had called Forger Mathivanan by name- and I AM GIVING THE Link-


[PDF] The First Harappan Forgery: Indus Inscriptions in the Nineteenth ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Interestingly, the story of the first Indus forgery did not involve Indian ...
Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer, “Horseplay in Harappa: The Indus Valley ...
www.safarmer.com/firstforgery.pdf - Similar pages

Steve Farmer article download page
3.1-3.4 Additional background materials on the so-called Indus script. 3.1.
The First Harappan Forgery: Indus Inscriptions in the Nineteenth Century (1 meg ...
www.safarmer.com/downloads/ - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.safarmer.com ]

[PDF] The Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis: The Myth of a Literate ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The First Harappan Forgery: Indus Inscriptions in the Nineteenth Century. ...
Decipherment of the Indus Valley Script. A. Zide and K. Zvelebil, ...
users.primushost.com/~india/ ejvs/ejvs1102/ejvs1102article

And Solomon quoted eminent Tamil Historians and also the Methodology of Tholkappiyam as Samanam and cannot be dated earlier than 200-100BCE, as given by KAMIL Zvelebil- whom you regarded as great.

Friends- Mr.Aravindan gave a link to Tirukural Conference Papers in a separate Thread-

http://www.thirukkural2005.org/call_for_papers.htm
and the reply of our master Anti-Truth F.S.Candhi-

Thank you for the information Mr.Aravindhan. Phd aspirants can participate in that. I am an observer.

f.s.gandhi
Friends, I viewed each and every Research article- and None of them Used any of the Scholars refered by F.S.CANDHI- Proving all Dubious and Wishful Speculators. "AIvu Vattak Katturaikal and ITS Predissors Araichy" as quoted by Solomon was used by few, Marai in Sangam and Other Literature are clearly seen by Scholars as Vethams only, and F.S.CAndhi is right He donot need Truths.

Meeaninglessly manupulating of words and corrupting of Tamil is going to give very bad name to Tamils.

Solomon - You posting have been based on Concluded Truths by Objective Scholars- Please continue.

Anchaneya.

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

As I have told earlier in this thread Almost all the researchers & historiens of sinthu valley accepted that sinthu valley contains only Dravidian culture (tamil).

As Idiappam earlier said in this thread some remote sources like Rajaram & B.B.Lal within our country and some foreigners who oppose Indian base in sinthu valley spread infamous stories.

In the website mentioned by vedhic Ancheneya firstly condemns Rajaram's fraud.

Dr.Mathivanan has shown clinching evidence of biscript as I told in earlier post ( Tamil Brahmi & Sindhu Valley) which conforms tamil’s presence in sinthu valley. We need not worry about these Vedhic frauds no matter whatever bluffs they try to propogate.

Dear Ancheneya Nothing is concluded as you claim. All of your dumpings Are stories.

What I have talked here are proved and we need not have your ungraded certificate for that :!:

f.s.gandhi

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Dear friends, :!:

Here I show you other segement "THE POTTERY GRAFFITI" that proves tamil's presence in Sinthu Valley script and this has been accepted universally by Indian and world scholars. We need not worry about Vedhic fraud's false propoganda. B.B.Lal has contributed significant research in this pottery work and we can take that part which also has been universally accepted and not Mr.Lal's Vedhic propoganta.

'Indus Script in Tamilnadu': Pottery Graffiti

Dr. S. Gurumurthy retired as Professor of Ancient History and
Archaeology, University of Madras. His earlier publications include
Ceramic Traditions in South India upto 300 A.D. He has made a special study of the graffiti on ancient Indian pottery. His book Deciphering the Indus Script was published in 1999.

Mr.Gurumurthy begins by calling for a re-examination of the wide gap in the archaeological record between the Neolithic and Iron Age cultures in Tamilnadu. He seeks to bridge the gap between the two periods, partly by pushing back the commencement of the Iron Age in South India and partly by positing the existence of a 'Pre-Iron Age culture' in Tamilnadu, claimed to be coequal with the last phase of the Chalcolithic cultures of Central India towards the close of the second millennium B.C. The occurrence of iron at an earlier date (ca.1000 B.C.) in South India and the recent discoveries of rock paintings and engravings from caves in Tamilnadu are cited as new evidence in this regard.

According to Gurumurthy, the Iron Age population of Tamilnadu was 'mixed', with a large proportion of the descendants of the Neolithic people who are described by him as the 'carriers of the Indus culture and script'.

The Iron Age which originated in South India was Dravidian and, in its last phase, coincided with the Sangam Age, characterised by literary activity,the use of currency and foreign trading contacts.

Mr.Gurumurthy has made an extensive collection of over three thousand pottery graffiti from more than a hundred sites in India. He traces the evolution of pottery graffiti from the Neolithic to the Harappan and from the latter to the Chalcolithic and Iron Age cultures.

His study of the pottery graffiti from Tamilnadu has revealed that many of them have been incised on specially selected potsherds, cut and ground to the required size. He conformed that these are records of 'economic transactions' kept by the owners 'for posterity or remembrance'. They show that in this period, pottery served as the principal medium for writing.

Mr.Gurumurthy employs the term 'ligatured graffiti' in a
sense to refer to groups of graffiti comprising 'more than one symbol'. He also describes the 'ligatured' graffiti found in Tamilnadu as 'inscribed sherds in the Indus script'. He clarifies that they are contemporaneous with the Indus inscriptions at the same time they are survivals in a later period. He claims that their presence in Tamilnadu has extended the southern boundary of the Indus script from Daimabad (in the Godavari basin)to the 'lower Kaveri basin'.

Mr.Gurumuthy's decipherment of the graffiti proceeds in three stages.
In the first stage, he identifies selected graffiti as 'signs of the Indus script' based on similarity with the shapes of the signs.

Next, he assigns phonetic values in Tamil to the graffiti based on the perceived pictorial forms. Finally he reads the graffiti with more than one symbol as texts written in the Indus script.

Based on his readings, Gurumurthy identifies the language of the 'inscribed sherds in the Indus script' found in
Tamilnadu as TAMIL.

Mr.Gurumurthy's procedures for decipherment are generally the same as those of most other would-be decipherers.

Here are a few examples of his identification of the graffiti. A graffito looking like K is identified as 'calling while walking'; a zigzag line denotes 'running'; variously shaped linear curves are identified as 'eye, nose, forehead or lips'; the most
frequent JAR sign is identified as the 'head of a human body', and so on.

Mr.Gurumurthy's Tamil readings include Tamil words from the 'Pre-Sangam', Sangam and medieval periods. For example, Tamil aintu for PDr *cay-ntu 'five'.

Mr.Gurumurthy identifies some of the graffiti symbols with Brahmi
letters. In practice, he compares pottery graffiti from the earlier levels with the Indus script and from the later levels with the Brahmi script.

According to him, the Brahmi script is not directly derived from the Indus, but through the pottery graffiti of later times.

Mr.Gurumurthy's documentation of the pottery graffiti from South India and especially Tamilnadu is the most exhaustive published so far and would no doubt provide important source material for further studies in the field.

As B.B. Lal demonstrated in his seminal paper (1960) with the suggestive title 'From the Megalithic to the Harappa: tracing back the graffiti on pottery', there is a genetic relationship at a deeper level between the signs of the Indus script and the megalithic graffiti. According to Lal, "eighty-nine percent of the megalithic symbols go back to the chalcolithic-Harappan times.
Conversely, eighty-five percent of the Harappan-chalcolithic symbols continue down to the megalithic times".

Recent excavations at 'Kodumanal' have revealed a remarkable association of specific symbols with particular megalithic grave complexes. There can hardly be any doubt that the graffiti are meaningful.

Pottery graffiti are found from Late Neolithic and Pre-Harappan times up to the end of the Megalithic Period. They are also spread across the subcontinent from the North-West to the Peninsula and beyond to SriLanka. It is most likely that throughout this vast expanse of time and space, the graffiti were tied up with one language and they well have the same significance. An important theoretical consideration is that writing is always an adjunct of urban civilisation and is born out of economic necessities of account-keeping and trading.

In this way the first urban civilization existed in South India particularly in tamilNadu.

Tamil's Antiquity and its culture Antiquity once again has been proved.

f.s.gandhi

[solomon]

Friends,

We have to research detail with respective Literature and Research of Archealogy and other details in an Unbiased way.

Iravatham Mahadevan is quoted by FSG, and he is clear that Indus Valley Pictorial Scripts are not TAMIL,but could be Proto Dravidian or some Dead Language, and his interview can be got from following link
www.harappa.com/script/mahadevantext.html - 71k

Friends, Looking things blindly from Only one angle and missing the Truth has been the way of Thani-Tamil Schloars, as I Have shown onTamilar Marriage- where right from Tholkappiyar days-Vedic Marriage was in Practice.
Please read Tirukuralzh post to see FSG'S trick of falsehood interpretations.

Friends,

Sangam Literature and Tirukural are full supporters of Vethams and I intend to put my views shortly.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[solomon]

Friends,

Most of us on our Over Enthusiasm leave the truths of research or the abilities of Various Universities and Our Ancestors.

FSG and others quote various authors to Couch, their Superstitions and One such Mentioned author was -Panmozhi Pulavar-APPADURAI, and I Picked his book and I QUOTE it for you.
"Vetha Mozhi Vunmail Ki.Mu. 1,500 to 800 varai India Ariyar Punjabil Vazthntha Kalathil Pesi vantha Mozhiye akum.
Avarkal Kilakke gurupanchala nattirku (Ki.mu. 800-200) Noolvazhakku Mozhiyilirunthu Pechu mozhi Nedunthuram vilakiru. NOol Vazhakhu Mozhi VETHA Mozhi endrum PechuVazhkku mozhi Basha endrum Vazhankina.

Mozhi Arignanaral ithu, Pirkala Vethamozhi enapadum Upanitathangal Ithihasa Purangal Ithileye Iyayyrap pattana. Ivarrinidaye Vetha Mozhikku Baskararalum Pirkala Vetha Mozhikku Paniniyalum Ilakkanam VaHUKKAP]
pattathu.
...
Vada Mozhi Ilakkiya Kalathirku Murpatta Kalathil Vethankal, Pramanangal Aranyakangal Upanitathangal, ITHIHASA pURAangal, Smiruthikal, Vethankangal Ilakkanangal ahiyavai Iyarrap pattu irnthana. Vetha Kalathil Elethumurai erpatathathal Padalkal Vaimozhiyai Oppuvikkap Pattana. Ithanaleye Vethangal Vaimozhi- Ahamam Enappattana. Ivarrul Pira Vethangal anaithum Rig vethathin thirubu kalum vilakkangalume akum. Rig Vetham Iyarkai padalkalin Thirattu, athalal, VUlakin Nadadi Padal Ilakiyankaludan Oppidaththakka Kalai Sirappu Vdaiyathu. Thavira Pirkala Vethamozhi ilakkiyam pola varai indri Idaicherukalum perukkamum kkurukkamum marramum idil illai, athalal akkala nilaikalai arivippathil ithu Siranthathu ahum.
Vethankalil yajur vedamum Piramanangalum Upanitathangalil Silavum Vurai Nadail vullana. Vulakin Mikap Pazhamziyana Vurainadai endra Srappu Evarrirku Vundu...

Ramayanam ondru than Kittathatta Ore Kalathil Ore Pulavanal Iyarrapatta PIRKALA VETHA MOZHI Noolakum. Pages-149-154, Vulaka Ilakiyangal, Author Panmozhi pulavar APPADUARAI, pUB: Saiva siththantha KAlagam-1951.

Appadurai, is not a lover of Sanskrit, and certainly in between these research opinions, he has made popular meaningless statements also, which are mostly quoted by friends.

Historical Linguistics, is a science which helps to date a Language and clearly Rig Veda is now dated close to 2000 CE, and on similar counts, Tolkappiyam can not be dated more than middle of sangam Literature, i.e 100-150 BCE, I Shall post them shortly.

In Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam we have complete details picked ffrom vedas and even veda name is mentioned once or so.

Please do not take emotions overtake truth and Tamils would be laughed all over.

We can understand FSG and Hyprcritic Techniques, not based on facts.
MosesMohammedSolomon
Solomon

[googolplex]

Only one voter prefered to be against other 7. Is he dreamin or is he in Heaven? :roll:

[Sudhaama]

Only one voter prefered to be against other 7. Is he dreamin or is he in Heaven? :roll:

Are anyone of You able to GUESS who is that Unparallel - Sole- Intellectual !!!...??????

I invite him...Let that GREAT GOODKA- GENTLEMAN come out from the Bush and justify here, in detail...

... on what grounds he is self-convinced to feel contrary to all others.

We are prepared to hear Open-mindedly.

[solomon]

Freinds,

I DO not believe in voting and I HAVE not Voted at all.

We are looking at Historical Truth, Both Tamil and Sanskrit are Oldest Languages of India- and as per Sri.Aurobindo and I Also believe both originated from a same Proto Language.

We have Vedas of 2000 BCE, and the earliest of Tamil Literature freely uses Sanskrit letters and words and dates from 200BCE.

Every author given by FSG Are false is proved.
THe days are Passed when Devaneyan and other Tamil Hypocritical Scholars wrote anything, today International Universities study Sangam Lit. is studying and their views are already put.
Solomon

[Sudhaama]

Freinds,

I DO not believe in voting and I HAVE not Voted at all.

We are looking at Historical Truth, Both Tamil and Sanskrit are Oldest Languages of India- and as per Sri.Aurobindo and I Also believe both originated from a same Proto Language.

We have Vedas of 2000 BCE, and the earliest of Tamil Literature freely uses Sanskrit letters and words and dates from 200BCE.

Every author given by FSG Are false is proved.
THe days are Passed when Devaneyan and other Tamil Hypocritical Scholars wrote anything, today International Universities study Sangam Lit. is studying and their views are already put.
Solomon

Tamil and Sanskrit are the Two Great Linguistic Treasures of India
... No doubt the Pride of the Nation as Immortal Heritage...

But both are far different CLASSICS each of its own. They cannot be said to have originated from one COMMON-LANGUAGE-ROOT...

... Nor can be said that Tamil is the OFFSHOOT FROM SANSKRIT.

I have already analysed the relevant factors in detail, as also put an end to several Opponent views and Criticisms ...

... by the due justifications .. in my below- mentioned thread, under this Forum

... UNIQUE-LANGUAGE TAMIL... HOW? (Tamil- Literature Section)

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=962

Please comment if anyone of you differ with me.. or have something more to say.
.

[Anchaneya]

Friends,

Sudamaji, has put in his link thread, that tamil could have been the Language spoken by first man. These are the Fanatical views by Meaningless Talkers, not supported by any Actual Acceptable Evidences.

Indus Scripts are not definetly in Tamil- is the Conclusion by Scholars. All over India, all the Stone Inscriptions from Asoka' onwards are in VAdamozhi(Collacqial Sanskrit-Prakrit) and even Tamil Burrowed its First Script from Vadamozhi- BRAHMI and Most of the Brahmi Inscriptions Are in Spoken level of Language- containing Vadamozhi, Telugu, Kannada words also with Tamil.

So, When MosesSolomon- says Rig contains 500 Tamil words, we can agree- Tamil and Vedic Sanskrit are the Oldest Language.

Vedic Sanskrit- gave way to Sanskrit- which became Prakrit and by the time Panini- made it highly Gramerical by 500Bce, the Anti-Truth try to Classify Poetical Sanskrit as Sanskrit which is meaningless.

Tamil and Sanskrit are Older Languages, but Vedic Sanskrit's Lit. is saved from 2000BCE.

Anchaneya

[solomon]

Friends,

Most of us love to say waht we Own or Have are the Best-
Sudhama- says Tamil was first spoken by First Man-FSG uses Kaal Thondri Man Thon- All Just Meaningless Verbium.

Stone- Kaal was first made around 500 Billion years back, Man was brought only around ONE Million years back and Till 50,000 years back man was walking on 4 Legs using hands as Legs as any other Animal.

Till BCE10,000-12,000 man was living in small groups eating what he got from nature- raw. After Great Ice melt, Formation of Lands and Continents made men to Live together.

Pre-Mohanajadaoro Archeological findings show the Civilisation growth from 7,000BCE.
Roughly man started to copy Animals and made noises, and slowly Perfected it, it is Language. Everywhere man could have brought different languages, but as Civilised from India moved, Proto -Sanskrit and TAmil went to every Language to the world. I as Aurobindo believe Proto Indian for Tamil ANd Sanskrit are same.
But what was the level of Tamil during Ist Cen.BCE.

Linguistics is a subject, which checks the words, development and changes, Words do not have same meanings and I give some examples,

The Word for University in Tamil is Pal Kalai Kazhagam- PALKALAI is simple Muliple Arts, KAZHAKAM- I Split it to Kalvi-Agam, House of Teaching, looked perfect- BUT friends, In Tirukural and Sangam Literature- it is used for Place of Gamblers, Drunkards etc., (Ref Tirukural Thread). By Kamba Ramayan time it has changed to the present meaning, so the root method is non-sense and Originally from Klah- a Vadmozhi word, meant for Betting in 5th CenBCE-Panini.

Word- Narram- for bad smell nowadays-THis word in Sangam Literature the word NARRAM is Used for Good smell- for Divine food etc., Again by Kamba Ramayan time meaning Changed to Bad smell. Now Naru- could be root for good smell, for the present meaning it does not suit.

Word-Chandror, in Tholkappiyam and Sangam LITreature refers to Brahmins and educated elders, but in 2nd Millenium middle, Chandru meant ARRAck- kALLLu and KUMARAGURUBARAR has used this Chandror for those who bring Arrack down- Kalirrackubavar- Here Chandror- root could be from Charu for arrack, but it is not right earlier.

For - "WHO" - NOW we Use Evan?- In TholKappiyam and Sangam Lit. , EVAR? meant En: Why; What -Enna? and Yathu? and this meaning Who-YAR? came in by Bakthi Lit. Period.

THIS-THAT- WHAT- in tamil "Inda"," Anda" and "ENtha" none of this is in Tholkappiyam to Tirukural.

Me, We- Nan, Nangal- Not in Sangam to Tholkappiyam.

You- Vun, Vungal Not in ThOlkapapiyam to Sangam Lit, to KURAL.
From above we can understand that developement of Tamil was taking shape, and this is for All LANguages.

Scholars who work regularly on LIterature, like those who pointed out, who repeatedly work on same AND Similar Literature, can identify which is earlier and which is later and method of change etc.,

Various Universities working on Sanskrit LIterature, have found Rig Vedic Sanskrit is the earliest, and the changes takes later, and Prakrit is a branch of it, and Classical Sanskrit is another branch more POLISHED. Vlmikhi Ramayan and Mahabarata are Ogininals and copied variations are from Buddists and JANINS.

TholKpappiar freely uses "sha- SA-JHa" all these are Specifics to Sanskrit and not in Prakrit.

Here I give another example, when two words combine Change the meaning of both and adopt new, and this example is a Popular one in GOSPELS according to JOHN- author tells Jesus as MONOGENES son of GOD, The Greek word MONO- refers to One, and Genes means "Kind", Such" two jointly makes "One-Such" literarily it would mean Special- Latin UNIQUE, but 5th Cen, Roman Translations changed it to "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" which is not at all implied by Author at all. Now Biblical Scholoars show this Deception, still most Bible carries this.

Thirumanthiram-66 clearly says:
.....
TamilSol Vadasol enum Ivvirandum
Vunarthum Avanai Vunarulame. and in Tiumantiram 65:
....
Ariyamum Tamilum Vudane Solic
Karigaiyarkkuk Karunai Seithane.

INnumerble references to Vedas, Anthanar- Parpanar- Vadamozhi are in Sangam Liteature. ThiruMurugatruPadai 95-96 says" Manthira Vithin Marabuli Vazhae Anthanar Velvi Orkumme"- this is for ONE OF the Six Faces of Tamil God Murugar.
and Tholkappiyar says " Nirai MOzhi MANTHAR Aanair Eluntha MARAImozhi Thane MANTHIRAM enba- The Vedas as per Tradition are revealed by Rishis, from the sound of wind and not humanly composed(!), and Tholkapapiyar confirms it.

Tholkappiyar also clearly says that Vedas are only for Brahmin-Shatriya- Vysya and not to the Fourth Varna, etc., this is 200 years earlier than Manudharma Sastra.
Friends,
Missionaries of 19th Cent, brought Dravidian and Aryans are from Europe etc., and Christian Scholar like Pavanar carried the Church Agenda, and few ThaniTamil Scholars with another personal Agenda, poisoned the Tamil minds, that what ever is said- Please confirm with Sangam and OTHER that PERIOD Lit.

Anybody who wants to know Iravatham Mahadevan's Opinion can view:

www.harappa.com/script/mahadevantext.html - 71k
and he is very clear and in his other interviews he is clear- Tamil Letters Evolved from Vadamozhi Brahmi, so please do not quote few sentences, which are not total view, and I have already shown View of PanmozhiPulavar- APPADUARAI, who was earlier quoted by FSG for his fables.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[Nedunchezhiyan]

Perhaps you should understand that you haven't analyzed all possibilities.

Man learned to walk in two legs about 50,000 ago? Are you so sure? You think humans didn't exist before 50,000 years ago as humans? Perhaps I should remind you of KumarikkaNhdam (Lemuria) or perhaps the epics like Ramayanam and Mahabaratham. Although these stories are epic, within they hold the truth to the past.

Ideas comes from outside, Yes you can imagine of a portal, wormhole, travelling to other Universe or travelling at the speed of light etc, these ideas can't come into existence without a good amount of output done by people who lived before you and me ecetra.

Mahabharatham Reference: The way 'Dhuriyodanan' and his 99 sibilings ( am I correct?) came alive is described as something like...taking the eggs out of Duhriyodanan mother's womb and then placing them in testubes is somewhat defined complicately in the above epic.

Then there is the story about 'Thiri-Sangu' which of course is passed down to us by 'epics' of such. I forgot whether the 'Thiri-Sangu' Space Shuttle was built for Visuvamidthirar or by Visvuamidthirar, but I have heard that it was built for a King and the purpose was it to go into space with the clothes you wear here in Earth and people estimate that it was launched into space around 50,000 years ago or before and It could have gone into existence, or who know what...

I have also heard that NASA takes these facts from these epics which have Thamizh roots in them also its described as 'Indian Epics,' and NASA does research on these lost facts of the past.

Even Cloning was explained in one of the Thamizh epic which explain something like, neighbouring countries declare war on a country and this leader calls on the scientist and ask help, then that scientist (which could have been described like 'munivar' in the epic) takes blood from animals like bear, tigers etc and then he clones them and send it to neighbouring countries which declared war and then those neighbouring countries retreat.

You can't just say no humans existed before 50,000 years ago, comeon what do you do? Sit in front of the computer and come up with an estimation for...when did humans evolved from ape? Perhaps You should think about the ice ages and how humans adopted themselves to retreat during these ice ages and go back into caves and when the ice retreat the humans come back. Maybe that should help you understand 'kal thOndri maNh thOndrak kAlaththu mun thOndriya mUththa kudi' or that quote...with the knowlege you have in science, I'm sure you can come into an acceptant of the fact that when the Ice age, you first see the rocks not the soil.

nanRi, paNhivu

[Nedunchezhiyan]

typo

"It could have gone into existence"

I meant to say that the space shuttle 'Thiri Sangu' could be out of existion by now.

[Nedunchezhiyan]

typo

"I'm sure you can come into an acceptant of the fact that when the Ice age, you first see the rocks not the soil. "

when the Ice retreat...you first see the rocks then the soil

[aravindhan]

[tscii:a6767547bf]
Stone- Kaal was first made around 500 Billion years back.
Your timeline is a little off. The Universe is estimated to be 12-14 billion years old, and the earth around 4-5. It was too hot for rocks to think of forming until around 3.8 billion years ago, give or take a few hundred million years. Of course, that's a little too early for Tamil tribes to have emerged, but I presume you appreciate the difference between a metaphor and a literal statement.


Man was brought only around ONE Million years back and Till 50,000 years back man was walking on 4 Legs using hands as Legs as any other Animal.
Actually, the first species of genus Homo emerged well over 2 million years ago. And our ancestors were walking upright long before the genus homo emerged. Australopithecus is thought to have lived 3.7 million years ago.


Roughly man started to copy Animals and made noises, and slowly Perfected it, it is Language.
This is one of eight different theories that seek to explain the origins of language, and one of the ones with least support. The most likely theory is that humans are hardwired to deal with symbolic representation, from which evolves a systems of gesticulation, which in turn produces oral equivalents for nonverbal gestures, which evolves into language. This is lent scientific backing by the work of Derek Bickerton with creoles and Vilayanur Ramachandran with sound symbolism.


I as Aurobindo believe Proto Indian for Tamil ANd Sanskrit are same.
However, the bulk of the scientific evidence goes against this position. This issue is often misunderstood. People argue for a common origin of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan based on similarities in word order, phonology, and the lexicon. But these are only typological similarities. The establishment of a genetic relationship between two families of languages requires the demonstration of correspondences in the substantive traits of the languages - because typological traits can be transferred through contact, but not substantive traits. And here, the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan language families are simply too different structurally and grammatically for this to be a possibility.

I should also mention that this view is usually associated with the likes of Dr. Madhusudan Mishra, whose published works describe the Dravidian languages as the "rustic dialects" of merchants, whose works have no place amongst the lofty and philosophical products of the Indo-Aryan languages. It is a viewpoint that is usually espoused for specific political reasons (in the case of Aurobindo and some others today, it is the relatively well-intentioned one of building a common Indian identity; in the case of Dr. Mishra's ilk, it is the promotion of northern Indian culture). It has little scientific support from independent scholars.


The Word for University in Tamil is Pal Kalai Kazhagam- PALKALAI is simple Muliple Arts, KAZHAKAM- I Split it to Kalvi-Agam, House of Teaching, looked perfect- BUT friends, In Tirukural and Sangam Literature- it is used for Place of Gamblers, Drunkards etc., (Ref Tirukural Thread). By Kamba Ramayan time it has changed to the present meaning, so the root method is non-sense and Originally from Klah- a Vadmozhi word, meant for Betting in 5th CenBCE-Panini.
Actually, "kazhakam" is usually considered by linguists to be of Dravidian origin (see, for example, Prof. Burrow's Dravidian Etymological Dictionary). It is believed to have originally meant "assembly" or "gathering", thus lending itself to use in describing a wide variety of places.

I could nitpick with your other examples as well (the distinction between evan and Evan in classical Tamil, Kumaragurubarar uses cAnRANmai, not cAnROr, the former being derived from cANAn and therefore having a different etymology, and so on), but I am trying to understand exactly what point you are trying to make here. That all languages change, and that today's Tamil is different from the Tamil of Kapilar is not really in dispute. So what exactly are you trying to say?


Scholars who work regularly on LIterature, like those who pointed out, who repeatedly work on same AND Similar Literature, can identify which is earlier and which is later and method of change etc.,
Comparative dating is useful within a language, so that it will tell you whether the puranunuru is older than the atticudi. Comparative dating cannot tell you whether Ilankovadikal's work is older than Kalidasa's.

It can also only tell you when a work was put in literary form, not when the story it tells originated. This is an important distinction. The language of the Atharvaveda, for example, is much more recent than that of the Yajurveda; but the traditions it embodies are nevertheless much older. Therefore your next statement:


Vlmikhi Ramayan and Mahabarata are Ogininals and copied variations are from Buddists and JANINS.
...is not entirely correct. Comparative dating only shows that the Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata were written before the Jaina and Buddhist works were. Comparative mythological analysis will tell us more, but the science is still in its infancy as far as Indian legends and folklore are concerned.


TholKpappiar freely uses "sha- SA-JHa" all these are Specifics to Sanskrit and not in Prakrit.
The situation as regards Prakrit is a lot more complicated than it may seem. Academic analyses of scribal errors in copying texts show that aspirates and sibilants survived in many regional variants of the prakrits, particularly outside the gangetic heartland on whose speech the written standards tended to be based.


Here I give another example, when two words combine Change the meaning of both and adopt new, and this example is a Popular one in GOSPELS according to JOHN- author tells Jesus as MONOGENES son of GOD, The Greek word MONO- refers to One, and Genes means "Kind", Such" two jointly makes "One-Such" literarily it would mean Special- Latin UNIQUE, but 5th Cen, Roman Translations changed it to "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" which is not at all implied by Author at all. Now Biblical Scholoars show this Deception, still most Bible carries this.
This is not as clearcut as you make it out to be. The question is whether the second part of the word "monogenes" is derived from the Greek root "gennáo" (to beget) or "genomai" (to become). In the latter case, it would mean "unique", in the former "only begotten". The issue is compunded by the fact that the normal Greek word for 'unique' is "monadikos". And, as far as the so-called "deception" goes, surely it is obvious that the meaning of "unique" is far more in accord with traditional Christian doctrine than "only begotten"?


Indus Scripts are not definetly in Tamil- is the Conclusion by Scholars.
There is no "conclusion" by scholars on this point. Most scholars are divided between believing it to be an old Dravidian language, or something else, or perhaps not a language at all.


All over India, all the Stone Inscriptions from Asoka' onwards are in VAdamozhi(Collacqial Sanskrit-Prakrit) and even Tamil Burrowed its First Script from Vadamozhi- BRAHMI
None of Asoka's inscriptions are in Sanskrit. The first noteworthy inscription in Sanskrit is the Rudradaman inscription, which is from around 150 AD.

As far as the origin of the Tamil script goes, it is fairly clear that the early inscriptions are in a form of Brahmi. But the origin of Brahmi is itself such a confused issue that this doesn't tell us very much. And the question remains as to why the earliest forms of the Tamil Brahmi had so many differences from Asokan Brahmi as to make it nearly illegible to someone who only knew the latter, particularly since the early inscriptions are associated with Jain monks who tended to move around quite a bit. And of course, there's that newly-discovered pottery graffiti, in relation to which we're awaiting a final dating.[/tscii:a6767547bf]

[r_kk]

[tscii:1a9eed7cbf]Aravindan,
Your replies are really fantastic, scientifically sensible and more authentic than many loosely based writings and so-called historical finding twisted based on their own wish.

Keep it up. Your posts make this thread worth visiting.

Recent genetic findings nearly prove later migration people to India and presence of multiple races. It doesn’t mean one race or their language is superior or lesser than another one.
[/tscii:1a9eed7cbf]

[solomon]

Friends,

Welcome Mr.Aravindan, now your arguements are well made, only point that, you are confirming that all that arguements put in by you for TAMIL are fully speculative and rather againstt conclusive positions by Unbiased Scholars.

KUMARI KANDAM MYTHS Do not in any way going to help in Language discussions, and Already it has been shown PAVANAR School has dropped.

Friends, - the very Scholars whom you quote to make Kazlgam as Dravidian also Are very Clear- Dravidian is from RUSSIA or other parts and Native of India.

All we can look at is Literature. Tholkappiyam to Silapathikaram dated to 2OO BCE TO 200CE, and Vedic-Upanishads and RAMAYAN and Mahabaratha which is dated to 2000BCE to 600BCE.

The Problem is Meaninglessly dating Vedic and other Lit to CE, without anyproofs. Very Schloars quoted by FSG- APPADURAI, Pavanar are shown not to share THese Meaningless Deceptions.

Friends- I want the unnecessary enemity to go and muually work.

Now- if you take SANGAM Lit., See the number of words for Vedas- we do not have one for Kuran or Bible- which only proves that, how old are Vedas and what is the earliest influence of them in Sangam Lit.

The Brahmi inscriptions were available all over India- were in VADAMOZHI[Prakrit], and Friends- it was Asoka inscriptions which helped us date our Tamil Li. Asoka Inscriptions tell - Paniya, Chora, KEralaputra and SathyaPutras. First 2 was easy, later Kerala putra became Cheraman, Then Athiaman was Translated to SathyaPutras, and with this Athiaman and Pandiyas were dated.

Friends,

When mr.Aravindan is against my quoting mostly accepted positions of Acadamacia of all Major Universities researching in Tamil and Sanskrit, FSG and Aravindan keeps quoting Speculations of early 1930 Scholars- friends-those days are gone- Sangam Lit. are available in Online- and People must realise to go by actual truths.

Today stands- SaNGAM dates from 200BCE, and Vedas from 2000BCE. So meaningless atttack on this will only put Tamils as unaccepting people of Truths.
Solomon

[aravindhan]

When mr.Aravindan is against my quoting mostly accepted positions of Acadamacia of all Major Universities researching in Tamil and Sanskrit, FSG and Aravindan keeps quoting Speculations of early 1930 Scholars- friends-those days are gone- Sangam Lit. are available in Online- and People must realise to go by actual truths.
It's funny that you say that. I would have said that the views you are citing on the provenance of the Indus script and the "common origins" of Tamil and Sanskrit have marginal acceptance at best outside certain political circles.

I also notice you have avoided replying to any of the points I made. In any event, I'm happy to cite my sources so you can see that they are certainly not "1930s" scholars:

On the origins of language:
Derek Bickerton, "Symbol and structure: a comprehensive framework for language evolution", in M.H. Christiansen and S. Kirby (editors), Language Evolution: The States of the Art (Oxford University Press, 2003).

VS Ramachandran and E. M. Hubbard, "Synaesthesia--a window into perception, thought and language" Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 8, pp. 3-34 (2001).

On Dravidian and Indo-Aryan as separate families:
Anything by Emeneau, or Kamil Zvelebil on the Dravidian languages will give you a good introduction, but here are a few particularly pertinent papers that discuss their relationship.

MB Emeneau, "Dravidian and Indo-Aryan: The Indian Linguistic Area", in A Sjoberg, Symposium on Dravidian Civilization (Center for Asian Studies of the University of Texas at Austin, 1968).

MB Emeneau, "The Indian linguistic area revisited", in International Journal of Dravidian linguistics, Volume 3, pp. 92-134 (1974).

M. S Andronov, "On the Typological Similarity of New Indo-Aryan and Dravidian." Indian Linguistics, Volume 25, pp. 119-26 (1964).

A Parpola, "On the protohistory of the Indian languages in the light of archaeological, linguistic and religious evidence: An attempt at integration" In J.E. van Lohuizen, de Leeuw & J.M.M. Ubaghs (editors), South Asian Archaeology 1973: Papers from the second international conference of South Asian archaeologists held in the University of Amsterdam. (E.J. Brill, 1974).

JJ Gumperz and R Wilson, "Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border in India," in D. Hymes (editor), Pidginization and creolization of languages (Cambridge University Press, 1971).

On 'kazhakam':
T Burrow and MB Emeneau, A Dravidian etymological dictionary (Clarendon Press, 2nd edition, 1984).

On Prakrit sounds:
LA Schwarzchild, "Some 'Unusual' Sound-Changes in Prakrit", Journal of the American Oriental Society, Volume 92, pp. 100-104 (1972).

KR Norman, "Some aspects of the Phonology of the Prakrit Underlying the Asokan Inscriptions", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 132-143 (1970).

On the Indus script:
Ironically, given your post, the theory that the Indus script was the ancestor of Brahmi and, therefore, represented an early form of Sanskrit dates back to the discovery of the script by Cunningham. The theory that it is a Dravidian language is more recent, and the best scholarly case that exists for it is that advanced by Asko Parpola:

A. Parpola, Deciphering the Indus Script (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

A. Parpola, "The Indus Script: a challenging puzzle" in World Archaeology, Volume 17, pp. 399-419 (1986).

You will note that he takes on, and disproves, all other theories of the origin of the Indus script quite convincingly. The only thesis which could possibly refute Asko Parpola's work is the new thesis of Steve Farmer et al that the Indus markings were not a script at all:

Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat, and Michael Witzel, "The Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis: The Myth of a Literate Harappan Civilization", in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, Volume 11 issue 2 (2004) (downloadable from http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf)

Note that all those I cite are academically trained in the fields about which they write - I do not think much store can be set by computer scientists who write on linguistics and archaeology (by way of example). Note also that I have (deliberately) only cited papers published in internationally recognised peer-reviewed journals, or in books published by internationally-recognised academic publishers. Could I now ask you to cite your sources, keeping these criteria in mind?

And please don't respond with the usual defence that the Vedas were composed before the Tolkappiyam or the Purananuru, or that the literature of the Cankam period shows an awareness of northern traditions - that is entirely besides the point, since I am not arguing otherwise.

[solomon]

Friends,

Indus Valley Pictorial Symbols are not Scripts is the position of Many Scholars, and there is a Open Challenge in Internet to Prove them Dravidian is already given in this Forum.

The Majority of Objective Scholars who Speculated Indus Pictorial Suymbols as Dravidian are Clear- not Tamil- but Proto Tamil close to Kannada or Dead Language. All this are confirmed by IRAVatham Mahadevan's Interview, Link given already.

Again, Iravatham Mahadevan also confirms that Brahmi Script is more close to Phonecian origin, and not a development fro Indus Valley symbols.

I will give you the Detailed view of Prof.Kamil Zevilabil on Parabola and other's attempt of Deciphering of Indus Symbols, and certainly not Dechiphered as per Majority Scholars till date.

On Brahmi Scripts Every Objective Scholar is clear they came from Vadamozhi to Tamil, by Samana Munivarkal, and I quote for all- Dr.K.V.RAman, former H.O.D , Dept. of.Archealogy,Madras University-
" Ilankail ithe pondru pala Brahmi Kalvettual Ottu Motthamaka Kidaikindrana. Ithanal Ilankail irunth, Ivvari Vadivam Maduraiku Vudurivi Irukka Kudum endru ennalam. ..
Thonmaiyana Kalvettukal anaithu tamilagathin Then Kodiile Kidaithullana enpathal aruge amaintha Ilankaith Thivin Thodarbaie Ithu Kattukindrathu. Pages-168,169.
Parakiratha mozhi thodarbu Asokarukku murpatta kalaththathu. Athavathu Brahmana Kotpadugal tamilagathai Vanthadaintha Thonmai Kalaththudan Nam thodarbu paduththalam. Palamaiyana IkKalvettukalal Tamilagathil Pragrit mozhi nandraka purinthu kollap pattu erruk kollapattu vittathu enalam. Page 157, Tholiyal Aivukal.

Friends- not just K.V.RAman, Nagasamy, Natana Kasinathan etc., of Archalogical Survey, who Deciphered Brahmi Scripts, all agree its origin from Vadamozhi.


And Scholarly Opinion on Tholkappiyam, again in the words of Prof.K.V.Raman- " Tamil Brahmi Kalvettukalil Kidaitha Cheithikalaium Pandaith Tamil Ilakkana Noolana TholKappiyach Cheiulkalaium Oppittu Nokkuthal Sariyanethe. Ivvagai Oppaivuvinai Pala Asiriyarkal nataththi Sirantha Prachanaikalai patrri Vilakkam Alithulla Padiyal mindum Ipprachanaiyai Araivathu thevaiyarrathu. Ik Kalvettukalil, Thonmaiyanavai Tholkapiyaththirku Murpattavaiyaum, Pirpatta Kalvettukal TholKkapiyathin kalaththodu Porunthuvathu endrum nirnayam cheiya mudium." Page167.

Aravindanji- Caldwell, Burrow,Emino, BishopBrown, Slater,Lavakori, etc., are some of the Scholars still insist that Dravidians of Foriegn Origin to India.

Friends- Aravindanji- for Jesus-Monogenes took reply from worst Church Apologies- Recent Translations such as NIV have removed Only Begotten from the main Text, and this is becaues, Pre-Latin translations do not support that Apology line Aravindan took. Friends- I WOULD like anybody to check Gospels- English Apostles list has Simon the Zealot or Simon the Patriot, but such a huge Translators-the church in tamil write Simon endra Chelotheiu- is there any such tamil word? I really do not understand as to why Aravindanji should defend Church's Frauds.

Another Friend questioned my dating- Friends Rig Veda- stands as the sign of Growth of Human Civilisation, and if it is dated to only 2000BCE, Taming of Horses, Use of Rathas etc., all can be later than that only.

Aravindanji- goes on elaborate speculation on Human Development, but Friends, Churches still hold that Human was Created in BCE400, from Genesis,and few US states has avoided teaching Evolution Theories. Hence My dating of Human living as Groups only later than 10,000BCE is morevalid.

Pavanar has listed morethan 300 words as Sanskrit words to be avoided, and I SHAll give them shortly and this would prove that Tamil and Vadampzhi has common Origins.

On Kalagam- if during Sangam Period meant for Soothattam Playing place, then give me its root, please.

We need to go by Sangam Lit.

MosesMohammed Solomon

[aravindhan]

Indus Valley Pictorial Symbols are not Scripts is the position of Many Scholars, and there is a Open Challenge in Internet to Prove them Dravidian is already given in this Forum.
The challenge posted by Steve Farmer is actually to find a long inscription, not to decipher the script, as you can see for yourself on his site:
http://www.safarmer.com/indus/prize.html


The Majority of Objective Scholars who Speculated Indus Pictorial Suymbols as Dravidian are Clear- not Tamil- but Proto Tamil close to Kannada or Dead Language. All this are confirmed by IRAVatham Mahadevan's Interview, Link given already.
Calling proto-Dravidian "Tamil" is technically speaking about as historically correct as calling the Vedic language "Sanskrit", since in both cases we do not know what they called the language they spoke (although we can be fairly certain in the latter case that they didn't call it "Sanskrit"). For largely historical-political reasons, the latter is accepted usage today while the former isn't.


I will give you the Detailed view of Prof.Kamil Zevilabil on Parabola and other's attempt of Deciphering of Indus Symbols, and certainly not Dechiphered as per Majority Scholars till date.
I've cited a reference to the book, where Asko Parpola himself admits that he has not deciphered the script. The key bits of the book, however, are his demonstration of what the language could not have been. Please make sure you don't skip over that portion!


On Brahmi Scripts Every Objective Scholar is clear they came from Vadamozhi to Tamil, by Samana Munivarkal, and I quote for all- Dr.K.V.RAman, former H.O.D , Dept. of.Archealogy,Madras University-
If by "vadamozhi" you now mean Prakrit (I wish you'd be consistent in your usage), then the general consensus is that the inscriptions in Prakrit we have are older than those in Tamil. Of course, it remains to be seen to what period the newly-discovered Adichannalur inscription is dated.


Caldwell, Burrow,Emino, BishopBrown, Slater,Lavakori, etc., are some of the Scholars still insist that Dravidians of Foriegn Origin to India.
Obviously. Everyone in India is ultimately of foreign origin to India. Humanity evolved in Africa, not in India.


Friends- Aravindanji- for Jesus-Monogenes took reply from worst Church Apologies- Recent Translations such as NIV have removed Only Begotten from the main Text, and this is becaues, Pre-Latin translations do not support that Apology line Aravindan took.
That's clever wording you use. The NIV has footnotes to John 3:16 and 3:18 which say "only-begotten son" is an alternate reading.
http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=John%203.
The NIV only lists alternate readings which they consider valid.

I'm a little chary of getting into a discussion on religion here, but I will say rather briefly that your allegation that this was a fraud perpetrated by the Church to consolidate its position shows an ignorance of Christian doctrine (and perhaps a little prejudice). The meaning "begotten" in point of fact created problems for Christianity, because "begetting" implies an act of creation. In the fourth century, it led to a huge schism in Christianity, with the Arian movement using the meaning "begotten" to argue that Christ, being "begotten" was lesser than the Father, who was "unbegotten". God the Father was therefore stated to be the only true God, with Christ, as a "begotten son" being a lesser figure and not worthy of veneration. This is why the Nicene Creed has the odd wording it does "begotten, not made". The Gnostics and Manichaeans (all of whom, incidentally, mostly used Greek or Syriac, not Latin) also interpreted the word as meaning "begotten" to oppose mainstream Christianity.

Of course, all these problems vanish with the modern NIV translation of the phrase as "one and only son". So the newer translation actually is more in tune with the teachings of the Church on the nature of Christ than the older. Are you seriously saying that the Church deliberately perpertrated a fraud, just so that its teachings would be weakened and its opponents would have their hand strengthened?


Friends- I WOULD like anybody to check Gospels- English Apostles list has Simon the Zealot or Simon the Patriot, but such a huge Translators-the church in tamil write Simon endra Chelotheiu- is there any such tamil word? I really do not understand as to why Aravindanji should defend Church's Frauds.
"Zealot" is not in origin an English word either. The word is Greek, and came to be used in English because of its biblical significance. Do you want to get into a discussion of principles of translation, and how words referring to a specific set of geographically isloated socio-political circumstances (such as "zealot") should be rendered in another language?


Another Friend questioned my dating- Friends Rig Veda- stands as the sign of Growth of Human Civilisation, and if it is dated to only 2000BCE, Taming of Horses, Use of Rathas etc., all can be later than that only.
There is actually no evidence that the Vedic peoples were the ones who wrote. There has been a lot of research on the domestication of the horse and the period and place in which it was done, and it's likely to have been well before the Vedas or their language existed. I am away on work at the moment - I'll try and post some references when I get back home.


Aravindanji- goes on elaborate speculation on Human Development, but Friends, Churches still hold that Human was Created in BCE400, from Genesis,and few US states has avoided teaching Evolution Theories. Hence My dating of Human living as Groups only later than 10,000BCE is morevalid.
This makes very little sense. Are you saying that because some churches ignore scientific results, your ignoring them is also valid?


On Kalagam- if during Sangam Period meant for Soothattam Playing place, then give me its root, please. We need to go by Sangam Lit.
I'm not an etymologist, so I'm afraid I can't give roots. In any case, it is not the identifiability of roots (or lack thereof) that determines the classification of a word - if that were so, all Sanskrit words without an identifiable dhatu would have to be borrowings, which is patently absurd. Burrow and Emeneau are of the opinion that kazhakam is of Dravidian origin. If you disagree, you need to present stronger evidence than just a possible derivation - you will also have to show, for example, that "kazhakam" exhibits the pattern of sound changes generally followed in borrowing words from Sanskrit to Tamil. I don't see how "klah" could have mutated into "kazhakam", but I'm always happy to change my views if presented with a rigorous scientific demonstration. It would also help if you gave your suggested Sanskrit root in a standard transliteration - what on earth is "klah" supposed to mean? Is that a consonantal or vocalic l? Is the h a "hakAra" or a visarga?

Similarly, as I explained in my previous post, you need to show more than a shared vocabulary - or, for that matter, typological similarities - to demonstrate a genetic connection between languages. As Professor Emeneau has quite convincingly demonstrated, the South Asian region is a single linguistic area, which means that the languages here have influenced each other greatly over the past three thousand years. I'm happy to get into discussions of language structure if you would like to, but just discussing vocabulary and phonology is quite pointless as it does not establish anything.

[Anchaneya]

Friends,

Let us thank Mr.Aravindan when he fully agrees that Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam has been influenced by Vedic Lit.

And please don't respond with the usual defence that the Vedas were composed before the Tolkappiyam or the Purananuru, or that the literature of the Cankam period shows an awareness of northern traditions - that is entirely besides the point, since I am not arguing otherwise.- Aravindan

Mr. Aravindan- You have referred to NIV, as it was referred by M.M.Solomon. TEV- by Haward, Cambridge and many Churches do not have even FOOT NOTE- AND in the verses they have jUST "ONLY" - this is certainly a fraud, when "ONE & SUCH" was the original rendering. And None of the early Gospels which were written- like Mark 70-75CE, Matthew80-90 and Luke 85-95CE do not make Jesus of Any Divinity, whereas John in 110-120 tried these NUAnces, which Chruch is manupulating.

Religious Discussions are certainly not for these General Forums, but Blind support for these Deceptions only invite protests.

All these Scholars who refers Dravidians as Outsiders- donot refer to the African Origin, but PROTODravidian Language as of Russian Origin and from there Dravidians came around 3000CE.

Aravindanji, the moment you go to Seafarmer's Site, then you agree Indus Scripts are NOT Dechiphered, then no use to quote any Speculative works which are earlier to it.

Anchaneya

[aravindhan]

Let us thank Mr.Aravindan when he fully agrees that Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam has been influenced by Vedic Lit.
I said "aware of", which is very different from "influenced by", which is very different from "entirely based on". In my opinion, many of the poets of Sangam literature were aware of northern traditions, and they made free use of them when they suited the emotions and sentiments they were trying to convey (Purananuru 2, which Ramraghav posted about a while ago, is a good example). That is hardly a substantive "influence".

Prof. Hart has established quite conclusively that though the Sangam poems use a number of ideas borrowed from northern traditions (and I could include mentions of various deities, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and assorted Vedic / Jain ideas), the culture and outlook they embody is only superficially influenced by northern ideas, if at all.

As Prof. Hart points out, the metres of Sangam literature are entirely unlike the metres of northern poetry - Sanskrit metre is traditionally based purely on syllables, Sangam metre is based on the notion of "asai" which could be up to three syllables long (niraipu asai); as a result, the osais of Sangam literature are quite unique to it. Similarly, the substance of the poetry - the figures of speech, the aintiNai system and the metaphors (uLLuRai) that it comprises, the notion of tuRai - are all entirely different from Sanskrit poetry of that period. Prof. Hart also demonstrates, again quite convincingly, that the similarities that appear in later Prakrit (esp. Maharashtri) and Sanskrit poetry are likely to have been borrowed from the folk tradition that the Sangam literary conventions are based on. See George Hart, The poems of ancient Tamil: their milieu and their Sanskrit counterparts (University of California Press, 1975), especially pages 161 onwards.

I will add that the idea that the more "civilised" aspects of Sangam poetry were derived from Sanskritic traditions - which you appear to adhere to - dates back to the writings of Vaiyapuri Pillai and Nilakanta Shastri. But they wrote in the 50s and the 60s, and we have today a much more sophisticated set of tools to analyse poetry, and the influence of different literary traditions upon each other. Prof. Hart uses these to great effect in his book. You are of course free to disagree with him, but if we are to have an educated discussion, it would be useful if you could start by explaining which bits of his analysis you disagree with, and why.


Mr. Aravindan- You have referred to NIV, as it was referred by M.M.Solomon. TEV- by Haward, Cambridge and many Churches do not have even FOOT NOTE- AND in the verses they have jUST "ONLY" - this is certainly a fraud, when "ONE & SUCH" was the original rendering.
The TEV is a paraphrastic translation based on dynamic equivalence, not a scholarly one as the NIV is, and it has no relationship whatsoever to Cambridge or Harvard. But what baffles me is that you seem to repeatedly say that the Church deliberately manipulated the Bible just so it could produce a translation that was unfavourable to its doctrines. This really makes very little sense to me.

I do not propose to enter into a discussion of your other allegations. This is not really the forum for it.


All these Scholars who refers Dravidians as Outsiders- donot refer to the African Origin, but PROTODravidian Language as of Russian Origin and from there Dravidians came around 3000CE.
I'd like a reference, please, preferably to a peer-reviewed publication. Most linguists (and geneticists) that I have read argue that the Dravidian languages entered India from the northwest (which is just about the only direction you can enter the subcontinent from, anyway). I've read rather vague suggestions (which are self-admittedly highly speculative, since there is absolutely no scientific evidence on this point) that the speakers of the languages may have come from Central Asia (although Asia Minor is more often suggested), but I've never seen anything to suggest they had a Russian origin.


Aravindanji, the moment you go to Seafarmer's Site, then you agree Indus Scripts are NOT Dechiphered, then no use to quote any Speculative works which are earlier to it.
Who is this "Seafarmer" you speak of? And instead of dismissing all of Asko Parpola's work as "speculative", could you please point out exactly which bit of his reasoning you think is wrong? That would provide a good basis for reasoned, intelligent debate, rather than just hurling opinions about.

[spyder_z]

SANSKRIT IS THE OLDEST LANGUAGE IN LAND AND EARTH ND SKY.....

FROM THAT ORGINATE TAMIL, HINDI, ENGLISH AND OTHERS....

THERE IS A PROOF FOR THIS.......

[aravindhan]

SANSKRIT IS THE OLDEST LANGUAGE IN LAND AND EARTH ND SKY.....

FROM THAT ORGINATE TAMIL, HINDI, ENGLISH AND OTHERS....

THERE IS A PROOF FOR THIS.......
Well then, let us have this marvellous proof! Don't keep us in suspense!

[Sudarsan Padmanabhan]

Dear friends,

I am really impressed by the breadth of the discussion about the origins of Tamil and Sanskrit. Scholars such as B.B. Lal and others used technology that was not developed as it has now. It would be prudent to refer to the works of scholars such as Michael Witzel who teaches Sanskrit in Harvard University. I heard that he knows 27 languages. He along with a few scholars recently came up with a paper contesting the existence of any script at all in the Indus Valley. Witzel argues that the script developed much later in India and like China, Indus Valley did not have any script. As far as I have followed, script and language are only incidentally related. They are conventions and they are also arbitrary in their origins. So, I would not be too disturbed if any one told me that Sanskrit is more ancient than Tamil and vice versa. Any way, Sanskrit or Tamil as they are known now could not have been spoken or written 4000 years ago. The supporters of Tamil must argue that either Proto-Dravidian or something like Brahui is more ancient that Indo-Aryan. For that, we do not have much to talk about. I will give you one example about the fickle nature of languages. Indo-Iranian (Avestan) and the Indo-Aryan were very close at one point of time since they came from the same region. In the Rig Veda, Indra is the king of Devas. In the Zend Avesta, Indra is a demon. The concept of a -sura (non-devas) at least to me appears to me to be a harmless semantic distinction which later becomes a class and then a caste. So, if this debate is in any way driven by the Aryan - Dravidian undercurrent, then all of us are on a very shaky ground.

Thanks.

Sudarsan Padmanabhan

[ramvaradan]

All

The relative antiquity of Tamil and Sanskrit is not just irrelavant but a silly question to answer AND/OR a tough question that cannot be answered. But the analysis put forth (esp. by Aravindhan) and the complexity that this discussion has brewed is mind boggling. And, actually quite enriching.

What can be answered is really which language stood the test of times ?

Although it can be argued, that Sanskrit still lives in the form of its so many off-shoot languages like Hindi, Bengali, Arabic (?) -- Tamil has stood its ground from the Sangam time uptil now, almost in its quintessential original form as evolved from Proto-Dravidian. Now I believe a good reason for that long sustenance is its adaptability. When Sanskrit much like Greek & Latin is pretty much out-of-vogue, except among fan(tas)atic few, Tamil is thriving and if we want to count those languages that are OLDEST EXTANT ... I'm sure Tamil will be at the top.

While I do not brag about this -- I learn that when you don't flex a little you're bound to break. English, in its current form, owes it entirely to Germanic branch ... And, I believe English will surpass anyother language in name & fame... because its not borrow-shy !!


Ramanan

[solomon]

Friends,



Aravindanji, has brought a freshness and proper Authors for Discussions, rather than 3rd Rare Forgery of R.Mathiwanan, on Indus Pictorial Symbols Dechiporing. I have already put some of my views in the past on that from the articles of Prof.Kamil Zevilable submitted in Tokyo Conference of Stone Insciptions, I shall produce its excerpts in detail in my next posting.

" The Summary- Indus Pictorial Symbols are UnDeciphered, and has no connection with later Indian Writing Scripts Developed for Vadamozhi Karoshti or Brahmi. Nearly 60 Years of Various attempts to read it as Proto Dravidian has ended up as a failure, and just as a Speculation, and a Bread for Non- Serious Emotional and Political Researchers and Politians, and both Asko Parobola and Iravatham Mahadevan agree thay remain Undechiphered.

My detailed views next time. Aravindanji sometimes make Linguistic Views, but mostly Political Statements.
With Regard to Rig Veda to Ramayan and Mahabaratha are all considered as ONLY Sanskrit by every University researching all over the World, ofcourse Classical and Poetical Sanskrit is its later development, after Panini in early 5th Cen.BCE., and Panini's dating are well Attested by History by Meghastanis and other Foriegn writers. So taking on few Undescriptive Researchers who
for Political Publicity, have said otherwise.
As I have put here, even Devaneyan and Appadurai, has held Vedas are early Sanskrit.
In the Same Way- Aravindanji makes Proto Dravidian means Tamil, Friends this is not held by any Linguistic Objective Scholars and especially who have worked and Dechiphered Brahmi Inscriptions. The Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions which Burrowed Vadamozhi Letters for Tamil, has quiet a few Vadamozhi words along with Telugu and Kannada words, and this are dated close to 100BCE, i.e., Tamil Spoken then had quiet a lot of Proto Dravidian Words or
KodunTamil as Pavanar School's whitewahing calls them. So we can say, Classical Tamil of Sangam Literature was Never Spoken at all.
Linguistic Researchers now put TElugu spoken from 1000BCE, Kannada from 500BCE, and Malayalam from 100CE, and All these Language Scholars do not accept them as Offshoot of Tamil. but its earlier form-Proto Dravidian.

Sangam Literature and Silapathikaram clearly mentions of Vadugu being spoken in beyond Tirupathi. And on Senguttuvan's Expedition Sangam Lit. says- "Mozhi Pala Nadu Kadanthu" i.e., Existance of Other Languages during BCE periods.

Pragrit and Classical Sanskrit as Per Western Universities are considered as Ideological twins developement from Vedic Sanskrit. When we look at Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions, which do not use Classical Tamil, same way all over India, the Stone Inscriptions of the same Period use Calloquial spoken language Pragrit a twin of Sanskrit. No Linguistic Objective research put it with Dravidian Group.

On Tamil Development, I Showed- Words for ThAT-WHAT-This-Antha- Entha- Intha are not there in TholKappiyam to Tirukural, I Only wanted to say that Tamil was Developing and changing.
KAZHAGAM- Aravindanji, Has not been used in Sangam Lit at all. Valluvar used it Kural 935 and 937 as to Gambling Place, without any other word and because it is in Atikaram Suuthu, we can understand its meaning.

Friends, the word- Kazhagam is not used in Sangam Lit at all, and Valluvar used it on for Gambling- KALAH- the Sanskrit word for Gamble money from Atharvan Veda and Aaham, another Sanskrit word for Home,still used by Bramins, so Kalah-Aaham can only give the meaning Valluvar used.

Any Speculation with Linguistics by Burrow or others is certainly of no use. And all this Scholars have been using Language very Cautously, and M.B.Emenow, the aricle I hold in my Hand, specifically uses words as PROTO-Dravidian and Old Tamil differently. And I Summarise from his
conclusion-

" At one Time Speakers of Proto Dravidian lived Beyond North.
Can we take that they had link with Burushaski? We are only in Gussing stage.
At this stage to say that Malayopolynesian-Micronesran and North ASustralian came to Indian Borders is Trouble some. Also We can not leave it aside that all this Linguistic growth has developed Individually and separately, and if we take this position we cannot then find answer to How this Developement thereall took place."

So Linguistics is Too Speculative and The Authors are clear Proto Dravidian and Tamil are Separately viewed.

FSG USEd to say Pashai Language as Dravidian, but HERE this author clearly put it as Indo-Aryan group.

Aravindan's reply on "MONOgenes" was puzzling, and his attitude is more so. For Every Indian- Vedas are Divine Inspired Revealtions, and we have all used to Criticise them to our liking. Calling Vedic Aryans as Outsiders, is highly Blasa[hemy to the Core. And Even to date TholKappiyam, a Grammer Book to its Actual possible date, close to 100BCE, was resented by APS.M, ETC.,

Bible Old Testament's Genesis is presently dated to close to 300-200BCE, and Prophets to 300-50BCE, and Writings to 200BCE to 130CE,ofcouse using Earlier oral materials which more or less coincide with Sangam Lit. They must be looked for its Historical Contents and Linguistical words.

My Guide for Monogenes was NewCatholic Encyclopedia from Catholic Encyclopedia, Interpreters Bible Dictionary, Harpers Bible DIC., Anchors Bible Dic., etc., along with many others. ANCheneya had Put TEV-T0days EngliSH Version as Haward linked it must be NEB- New English Bible and it has no foot notes.
MonoGenes- One Such can at best become SPECIAL and any other Translation as ONLY or Only Begotten are certainly beyond Original Text. This word in Bible is used only Thrice- and let me show a word used morethan 8,500 times and its translation Deceptions, as follows:
" The Great Majority of readers take for Granted that Some Word Equivalent to "LORD" is in the Hebrew Text, but it is not. The Word-"Lod" is a title, not name;and not Name; and Putting it in Capital Letters does nothing to change this fact. But where the Bible Specifically has the personal name, translators should not take it upon themselves to make a substitution. The use of "Lord" instead of "Yahweh" effectively Depersonalises the Deity, turns Him into a kind of Vaugue abstaraction and rejects the repeated Emphasis in the Bible on his Unique personal relationship with Israel. It also disguises the fact tat YAHWEH is a Character in the Biblical Drama, with entrances and exis and a role to play, all
assigned by the Writers."
-Page 313 -Bible As Literature, Oxford University Press,
written by 3 Professors John.A.Gabel, Charles B.Wheelr and Antony.D.York.
Aravindans linking to NIV official translation site, is like linking on Indus Scripts
to Third Rate attempters as N.S.Rajaram or Dr.Mathiwanan, NIV was widely
Criticised for its translation more to keep Churcj spread superstitions rather than from actual Text. The Word- Zealot used as title for One of the Disciples is translated as Patriot by all other Translations, but NIV still hold the original, why? A Church blessed Tamil book on 12 Apostles, called him Simon Endra Thiviravathi-(Terrorist) , why then Tamil Bibles still use Greek word- as
Chellote and not as either Patriot or Terrorist. Also The Earliest Gospel Mark of 70-75CE, as per all important Manuscripts end at 16:8, and 16:9-20 are later interpolations, which all English Bibles mentions, and I HAVE not seen it in Single Tamil Bible, WHY? Tamils do not need truth, is what CHURCH and Aravindan feels.

Bible OT and NT gives lot of link between SAnskrit and Tamil with Hebrew Traditions, and that would come shortly.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[iruthayam]

HERE NEVER GIVE THE EXAMPLES OF WHAT GREAT SCHOLAR TOLD ABOUT ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE
IN THIS DEBATE I WILL PRODUCE MY THAUGTS
I GO FOR SANSKRIT ,SAN SKRIT MEANS WELL DEVELOPED LANGUAGE IS IT?
ONE QUESTION IF BABY BORN IT SHOULD NOT DEVELOPED ITS BRAIN WHILE BORN .IT SHOULD HAVE TAKE SOME MORAL TEACHING ,SOME EXPERIENCE SO THAT BABY WILL BECOME DEVELOPED MAN
FROM THE NAME SANSKRIT WE CAN CLEARLY JUDGE SANSKRIT TOOK WORDS OTHER LANGUAGE AND FORM DEVELOPED LANGUAGE

WHILE TALK ABOUT LANGUAGE DEBATE WE HAVE TO TAKE ABOUT THE GEOGRAPHICAL STRUCTURE, HISTRORICAL WHICH WAS FACT, PSCYCOLIY PARTICULAR LANGUAGE SPEAKING PEOPLE,

MOST OF THEM ARE TELLING SANSKRITS SPOKEN BY ARYANS THEY CAME FROM MIDDLE EAST CONTRIES, IF THIS WAS FACT BEFORE THAT WHAT LANGUAGE WAS SPOKEN BY INDIAN SUB CONTINENT
MOST OF THEM OR TELLING PROTO- DRAVIDAN,THEY ARE TELLING TAMIL IS PUREST FORM OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGE,THEN WHY THEY CALL IT DRAVIDIAN GROUP LANGUAGE .(ENN THAI PERU THAMIZH VERU ORUVAN ENN THAI PERAI SOLLA THERIYAMAL THIRAMIL ENPAAN ATHAI VAITHUKONDU ENN THAIAI TRAMIL ENPEIN ENTRU IRRUKIRARKAL)


[/b]

[aravindhan]

My detailed views next time.
I will wait for those before I respond, then.


Aravindanji sometimes make Linguistic Views, but mostly Political Statements.
Interesting. Which of my statements are "political"? Since "most" of them are, in your reading, political, it shouldn't be any trouble for you to produce a comprehensive. Please do so.


With Regard to Rig Veda to Ramayan and Mahabaratha are all considered as ONLY Sanskrit by every University researching all over the World
My point, to make it again, is that we seem to have no problem calling Old Indo-Aryan "Sanskrit", although we know almost certainly that that is not what its speakers called it. Proto-Dravidian stands in much the same relationship to Old Tamil as Old Indo-Aryan does to Classical Sanskrit. If you disagree, it would be useful if you could explain which part of this is incorrect, so I know what to respond to.

The question here is whether Tamil is older than Sanskrit. To me, the only way to make sense of that question is to ask whether there was a language which its speakers called Tamil before there was a langauge called Sanskrit by its speakers. Otherwise, the question is quite unanswerable. Our discussion now seems to have evolved far beyond that question, to actually investigate the individual histories of, and the relationship between, Sanskrit and Tamil, which is a more interesting discussion as far as I am concerned. But let's keep what we're talking about in mind, OK?


ofcourse Classical and Poetical Sanskrit is its later development, after Panini in early 5th Cen.BCE., and Panini's dating are well Attested by History by Meghastanis and other Foriegn writers.
This is not factually incorrect. Panini is dated to anywhere between the 5th and the 3rd century BC, and some scholars - such as Steve Farmer - have expressed doubt as to whether the Ashthadyayi was in fact the work of one person.


The Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions which Burrowed Vadamozhi Letters for Tamil, has quiet a few Vadamozhi words along with Telugu and Kannada words, and this are dated close to 100BCE
The earliest inscriptions published by Iravatham Mahadevan are early 2nd century BC, not 100 BC. And, as I have said before, all of this is up in the air until the Adichanallur fragments are finally dated.

Could I also request you to please be clearer in your use of words? You have elsewhere alleged that "vadamozhi" meant "Sanskrit", yet here you yourself use it to mean "Prakrit" - the words in the early Tamil inscriptions are borrowed from various (Jain-associated) prakrits, not from Sanskrit, and the "vadamozhi" letters were at that time only used to write Prakrit in the north. Can I take this to mean that you have backed down from your earlier claim that "vadamozhi" in Tol. means "Sanskrit"?


Tamil Spoken then had quiet a lot of Proto Dravidian Words or KodunTamil as Pavanar School's whitewahing calls them. So we can say, Classical Tamil of Sangam Literature was Never Spoken at all.

When we look at Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions, which do not use Classical Tamil, same way all over India, the Stone Inscriptions of the same Period use Calloquial spoken language Pragrit a twin of Sanskrit. No Linguistic Objective research put it with Dravidian Group.
I've juxtaposed two different quotes here because they make more sense if read together. As I understand, you are trying to establish an equivalence between spoken/written Tamil and Prakrit/Sanskrit, correct? If so, you're quite far off. Tamil has always exhibited a diglossia between the spoken and written languages. Most languages do this.

This type of diglossia is not, however, the same as speaking and writing different langauges, which is what the situation was between Sanskrit and Prakrit. Classical Tamil and the Tamil of the inscriptions, for all their differences, were the same language, and had the same grammar and phonological system. Prakrit and Classical Sanskrit, on the other hand, had entirely different grammars and phonological systems. It is largely for this reason that Classical Sanskrit is classified with the Old Indo-Aryan group of the Vedic dialects, whereas the Prakrits are treated as belonging to the Middle Indo-Aryan group. In a sense, Panini was trying to preserve the use of a form of Old Indo-Aryan, which was - even at the time he wrote his grammar - a dead language.

The literary form of Tamil which we today call Classical Tamil, on the other hand, was an attempt to create a literary medium and metaphor based on the common speech and folk traditions. It was, unlike Sanskrit, not an attempt to create a new, classicised literary form based upon the dying speech of a bygone era. Once again, I urge you to read both Prof. Hart's book The Poems of Ancient Tamil: Their Milieu and their Sanskrit Counterparts, along with VS Rajam's A Reference Grammar of Classical Tamil Poetry.


Linguistic Researchers now put TElugu spoken from 1000BCE, Kannada from 500BCE, and Malayalam from 100CE, and All these Language Scholars do not accept them as Offshoot of Tamil. but its earlier form-Proto Dravidian.
The dating of when Proto-Dravidian differentiated is still quite murky, but these dates are not too far off from the dates currently in vogue, give or take a few centuries. As far as Tamil / Proto-dravidian goes, see my comment above.


Sangam Literature and Silapathikaram clearly mentions of Vadugu being spoken in beyond Tirupathi. And on Senguttuvan's Expedition Sangam Lit. says- "Mozhi Pala Nadu Kadanthu" i.e., Existance of Other Languages during BCE periods.
Yes, and the Tol. discusses various categories of non-Tamil languages and the question of how their words are to be written in Tamil. What is the point you are making? No-one is denying that other languages were spoken then, or that they were known to Tamils.


Pragrit and Classical Sanskrit as Per Western Universities are considered as Ideological twins developement from Vedic Sanskrit.
I'm not sure what you mean by "ideological twins". Prakrit was a natural evolution of the different dialects spoken by the authors of the vedas. Sanskrit, as I pointed out above, was not.


On Tamil Development, I Showed- Words for ThAT-WHAT-This-Antha- Entha- Intha are not there in TholKappiyam to Tirukural, I Only wanted to say that Tamil was Developing and changing.
And what conclusion are you drawing from that?


Friends, the word- Kazhagam is not used in Sangam Lit at all, and Valluvar used it on for Gambling- KALAH- the Sanskrit word for Gamble money from Atharvan Veda and Aaham, another Sanskrit word for Home,still used by Bramins, so Kalah-Aaham can only give the meaning Valluvar used.

1. The word in not "Kalah", but "glah", and in that form it is a verb. To form the noun "Gambling den", you would have to use its noun form, which is "glahana" (See Atharvaveda VII:109:5, where it is used as a noun and in that form). Using the roots you provided, therefore, "gambling house" should be "kalahanamagam", or something similar.

2. Quite apart from that, a consonant conjoint with a "l" or "r" is usually separated from it by the insertion of an "i" when a word is taken from Sanskrit to Tamil - hence, Sanskrit "grAma" becomes "kiramam" in Tamil. "glah" would therefore become "gilah". "glah" -> "kazhakam" does not, therefore, display the pattern of sound change one would expect a Tamil borrowing from Sanskrit to have. This makes your theory quite unlikely.

3. "Akam" in the sense of house comes from a Dravidian root meaning "inner", not a Sanskrit one, and is related to other words such as "akal", "akampu", "akavai", and so on. It has counterparts in other Dravidian languages, including Tulu, Toda, Kodava, and so on. You'll find a detailed list on page 3 of Burrow & Emeneau's dictionary.


Any Speculation with Linguistics by Burrow or others is certainly of no use.
Burrow & Emeneau's Comparative Dictionary is one of the most respected works in Dravidian linguistics. You call it "speculation"?
The dismissal of linguistics as "speculation" is characteristic of people with no training in the subject, who find that it gets inconveniently in the way of their pet theories (Kak, Rajaram...). It is also quite incorrect. The modern science of linguistics is based on the application of detailed rules and principles to analyse changes in languages over time.

And tell me - if you do not want to use linguistics to study and discuss languages, what on earth do you want to use? And what does the rest of your post (not to mention nearly every other post you have made) rely on, if not linguistics? If you do not want to discuss this topic in a scientific way, what point is there to the discussion?


And all this Scholars have been using Language very Cautously, and M.B.Emenow, the aricle I hold in my Hand, specifically uses words as PROTO-Dravidian and Old Tamil differently.
See my comment above - you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying.


Aravindan's reply on "MONOgenes" was puzzling, and his attitude is more so.
I am not going to be drawn into a debate on Christianity here, as I really fail to see its relevance to this discussion. If you would like to begin a new thread to discuss issues you have with the bible and its translations into English and Tamil, feel free to do so.

I also wonder if you are seeking to attack Christian doctrine because you think I am Christian. I am, in point of fact, Hindu.

[solomon]

1. fish meen fish 2. star The word meendesignates both fish and star in most Dravidian languages. Suggests the heavenly bodies were conceived of as fish swimming in the ocean of heaven, representing gods.
Intermediate space + fish vel (i) + meen white star Vel-meen and Velli both mean Venus in Tamil.
3 + fish mum (m) + meen three stars The new year asterism Pleiades has this name in Tamil; in myth the wives of the Seven Sages.
6 + FISH (*C) ARU + MEEN SEVEN STARS IN TAMIL, THE NAME OF URSA MAJOR, THE 'SEVEN SAGES' IN INDIA.
FISH ELU + MEEN SEVEN STARS IN TAMIL, THE NAME OF URSA MAJOR, THE 'SEVEN SAGES' IN INDIA.
DOT/DROP + FISH POTTU + MEEN 1. CARP FISH (= ROHITA 'RED' IN SANSKRIT)
2. STAR OR RED DOT/BLOOD DROP (= ROHINI 'RED' in Sanskrit) The red dot painted on the forehead at marriage = the 'third' eye of the Heavenly Bull < alpha Tauri = the ancient star of the new year (marriage of Sun + the heavenly bride rohini, 'menstruating'), represented by the red fish (scales as tilaka mark).
halving + fish pacu + meen green star in Tamil, paccai refers to greeness and the planet Mercury, which represents the green-hued child god Krishna.
roof + fish mey/may + meen black star Saturn's name in Tamil. Saturn rides a turtle, a 'fish' with a 'roof'.
fig tree + fish vata + meen North Star Vata-min is the star 'Alcor,' orig. probably Thuban. 'Banyan fig' is the tree of 'ropes' (vata): starts do not fall because they are fixed to the North Star (in Dravidian also 'fig/rope star) by means of visible ropes.
fig tree + intermediate space vata + vel(i) North Star In Tamil, velli means both (1) 'the planet Venus) and (2) 'star (=meen)
4 + fig tree nal + vata hanging rope Banyan as '(the tree) possessed of hanging ropes': nal/nal/al 'to hang down' seems to be th etymology for al (a-maram) ' banyan tree'. Indus tablets with '4 + fig' have a solitary fig leaf on the reverse.
man al/an man, servant The sign occurs in priestly titles paralleling Mesopotamian titles 'Man/Servant (ofthe god X)'; the most common Dravidian word for man also means servant.
ring(s)/ bangle(s) muruku boy, youth, Muruku (the youthful god of love and war) The sign signifies 'royal ear-rings' in [Tibetan] Lamaism. The sign recurs, sometimes alone, on Indus stone bangles; Indus tree-gods wear bangles; in later folk religion, bangles are offered to sacred trees with prayers for off spring (cf. muruku ' boy').
(head of) cow a (+-tu) possessive suffix The interpretation of this important sign remains open; this is just a suggestion that needs testing.
Jar Priest The most frequent and almost always terminal sign of the Indus script is read as a jar and connected to the legend of 'jar-born' sages and the symbolism of the jar connected to priestly ritual in Indian tradition.
Lance Warrior Also a terminal sign, pr suffix associated with names or titles on seals like the 'jar' sign above.
Man Servant, attendant or lower functionary Simple pictogram, frequently shown with ' jar' (lower order of priestly functionary?) but never with ' lance' sign.
Bearer Officer or functionary Also appears to be a suffixed element, interpreted as officer because of later Indian traditions referring to senior officers of the king referred to as 'yoke bearers.'
Jar + Bearer Officer or functionary with priestly duties Clearly combination of two signs, could be related to later Indian traditions combining the two motifs.
Lance + Bearer Officer or functionary with military duties Also combination, perhaps designating officer with military duties.
Harrow Farmer, tiller, tenant Also characteristically a terminal sign, sometimes in conjunction with ' jar,' ' lance,' or ' bearer' signs, suggesting combination of categories or serving under them.



I give this from a Website, what and how Parabola tried to Decipher, and we
Can see and most cases Scholars have been Highly Speculative, and in spite of
This the result is Parabola and Mahadevan agree that Indus Scripts are not Deciphered. If this is done by any Scholar to make it Sanskrit, I am certainly sure that Whole of this Tamil Scholars- as highly un-acceptable, and also that quite a few cases referred above, takes Vedic Tradition to their assumptions.

Actually it was in early 50s Heras, said Fish could mean Star, and from then on
Another 50 years have gone, end result is NOTHING. Now any serious reader can understand that Taking Symbol Jar- as a Priest for BCE 2,500 Symbols is by applying Vedic Temple Worship culture, and many such can be read.

When One Bronze small Toy was found of a Naked-Girl, Parabola goes on to link Vedic Apsaras- to Chola Period’s DevarAdiyarkal and says Presence of Holy Prostitures in Indus. Just One Statute- need not necessarily be Dancer, and linking Vedas and 3000 year later, culture of Temple worship as calling Holy Prostitution are Upsurd. Here we need to understand that Bible lands had Male and Female Prostitutes in Jewish Temple and nearby, and this has influenced Parabola’s mind.

PAROBOLA has tried to read Rings- more aptly Bangles as Murugu, referring as God Muruga, by saying Bangles fully Twisted means Murukkuthal, but None of this Bangles have any Twisting, at best can be Valaiyal and not Imaginative Murugu,
This Scolars have made out of the way imagination, to try to read, but unless a solution to read all Seals acceptable is found, without exaggerated assumptions None of this would be acceptable to Objective Scholars of World.

11,303 Indus Seals have been Published, containing 419 type of Pictrial Symbols, as given earlier Assumptive and Speculative reading, same Picture is read with One word if comes first and another word if picture comes in middle or end of word. Again, of 419, Identified 113 has been used only once and 47 Twice, 59 less than 5 times.

Leaving Mainly 200 Pictorial Symbols, Out of this Again 35 Pictures look similar to ProtoElamite Seals found in Sout East Persia.

This is the detail, and wide Speculative assumptions, fanciful but not really Scientific have not yielded any Meaningful and acceptable Deciphering, and EVEN This attempt is using MIX of Vedic along with 3000 year later culture.
The OPEN Challenge referred is That Indus Seals are not Decipered, Don’t even give me for entire 11,303 seals, but for one of the Longest 26 Picture seal, as a sample, but Aravindan tries to make it otherway.

Iravatam Mahadevan’s interview-Link given- agrees of “ Unless we get Two-Language Pictorial seals, with known language and repeat in Indus, something like Pallavas writing in Sanskrit and Tamil, Indus Seals Deciphering may not get any Progress.

World Decipers of Old letters have concluded that all attempts of various Scholars have not yielded any worthy result. It is better, anymore to call Indus Pictorials as ProtoDravidian etc., in this Thread.

MosesSolomon.

[mahadevan]

The very topic of this forum sounds ludicrous. In terms of antiquity, it is a well known fact that sanskrit never existed in Indian history before the Birth of christ. The vedas are in vedic and the name sanskrit never appears even once in any of our vedas, Mr.Panini did a magnum opus of a grammatical work for Chandasa, now please do not tell me that Chandasa/vedic were the same as sanskrit . No great grammerian would produce a treatise for a language without naming the language even once. There is no archeological evidence for the existance of sanskrit before 150 AD, yeap that is the oldest sanskrit inscription knowm to us
'Saka Mahakshatrapa Rudradaman at Junagarh in Gujarat date'. We have inscription in prakrit that dates around 1000 BC (Braj Bhasa in Dvaraka) the recent adichinallur inscriptions in Tamil are supposed to be around that time. It is pretty well known scientifically that tamil did exist much Before Christ and sanskrit did not, so a more apt title for this forum would have been 'how old is tamil' for that is only unknown.
curiosity questions, If vedas are the religious text for hindus, how come inspite of millions of temples in India there are hardly any for the vedic gods like indra, bla bla et al ? If vedas are sacred why are we not chopping off the cows in the yagas as advocated in Rig veda?

[aravindhan]

[tscii:3724134e83]
I give this from a Website, what and how Parabola tried to Decipher
His name is "Parpola", not "Parabola". And don't rely on websites, they rarely present good summaries of anything, particularly a topic as complicated as deciphering a script. I really don't think it is scientific to reject something you haven't read, as you're doing.


and we Can see and most cases Scholars have been Highly Speculative, and in spite of This the result is Parabola and Mahadevan agree that Indus Scripts are not Deciphered.
As far as "Highly Speculative" is concerned, Parpola more or less follows standard methodology in going about his decipherment. It's no more speculative than attempts to decipher Liner A, for instance.

I also notice you spend a lot of time refuting the suggested decipherment of the bangle-symbol. Parpola himself does not even suggest that "muruku" is a decipherment of the symbol, just that it may be a starting point. This is clear even on the website you quote. Attacking points which the author does not press strongly is not very ingenous.


Now any serious reader can understand that Taking Symbol Jar- as a Priest for BCE 2,500 Symbols is by applying Vedic Temple Worship culture, and many such can be read.
There is no "temple worship" culture in the vedic samhitas, it is much more of a homa-based culture. But please let this thread not digress into a discussion of "vedic" culture vs. "tamil" culture. Those almost always end up in an angry debate about which was better, which I do not like and do not want to participate in.


The OPEN Challenge referred is That Indus Seals are not Decipered, Don’t even give me for entire 11,303 seals, but for one of the Longest 26 Picture seal, as a sample, but Aravindan tries to make it otherway.

I quote the exact words of the challenge from Steve Farmer's website:

"Turn up just one Indus inscription that contains at least 50 symbols distributed in the random-appearing ways typical of true scripts contemporary to the Indus system, and we will (1) declare our model to be falsified and (2) will write a check to the discoverer or discoverers for $10,000."

http://www.safarmer.com/indus/prize.html

As anyone can see, the challenge is to find a long inscription, not to decipher anything.[/tscii:3724134e83]

[Anchaneya]

Friends,

It is really interesting that MosesSolomon and Aravindan quotes of wide subjects and discuss them with ease.

Aravindan confirming that Kalah is used in Atharvana Veda, and that the word Kalagham is not used in Sangam Lit. cionfirms Solomon's View point is correct. Arguements for arguement sake does not help.

Tamil Sangam Lit, has translation for every name of Vedas- Chandas, Sruthi etc., when we don't even have One for Bible or Quran.

Panini's dating of early 5th Cen- late 6th Cen, is internationally accepted conclusion. Only that meaningless Political Scholars speculate.

Tholkappiyam and Tirukural having been said to have been written by more than One Authors, with interpolations, is the view of many Scholars, we should ignore all this.

The Tamil word for Grammer - Ilakkanam, is from Sanskrit Lakshana and Splitting words, Pakuthi and Vikuthi are from Sanskrit Prakurthi and Vikurthi.

Political Statements here in Liguistic Discussion does not help.

The very names of Tamil Top Politicians incidentally- Karunai, Nithi, Jayam and Lalitham are all Sanskrit.

Ancheneya

[aravindhan]

Aravindan confirming that Kalah is used in Atharvana Veda, and that the word Kalagham is not used in Sangam Lit. cionfirms Solomon's View point is correct.
No, it doesn't. "Kalah" is not found in the Atharvaveda, "glahana" is. "Kalah" does not exist in Sanskrit.


Panini's dating of early 5th Cen- late 6th Cen, is internationally accepted conclusion. Only that meaningless Political Scholars speculate.
No, it isn't. George Cardona, who is considered one of the leading experts in Panini studies, dates Panini to between 300 and 350 BC. Others suggest even later dates.

[mahadevan]

Solomon Wrote : If this is done by any Scholar to make it Sanskrit, I am certainly sure that Whole of this Tamil Scholars- as highly un-acceptable, and also that quite a few cases referred above, takes Vedic Tradition to their assumptions.

Solomon anna, there has been a lot of efforts to link indus symbols to sanskrit, but fortuntanely not even the slightest resemblence was found.

people tried to link the indus scripts to the then exisiting languages and among those attempts the dravidian link is the most probable. We are higly limited by the length of the available scripts. Infact the biggest evidence that it is not sanskrit comes from Rig veda, where it clearly talks about the war and destruction caused by the aryans to the dark skinned people living in walled cities who did not talk the language of aryans, 'sanskrit'.

[mahadevan]

solomon wrote : With Regard to Rig Veda to Ramayan and Mahabaratha are all considered as ONLY Sanskrit by every University researching all over the World.
oh yeah, though the langauge used in these are so different they can be called be same, but proto dravidian and Tamil cannot be same for sure. What kind of logic is this ?

solomon wrote :Tamil Spoken then had quiet a lot of Proto Dravidian Words or KodunTamil as Pavanar School's whitewahing calls them. So we can say, Classical Tamil of Sangam Literature was Never Spoken at all.

Pavanar's school called Tamil Koduntamil because it had proto dravidian words, it is news to me

solomon wrote : Sangam Literature and Silapathikaram clearly mentions of Vadugu being spoken in beyond Tirupathi. And on Senguttuvan's Expedition Sangam Lit. says- "Mozhi Pala Nadu Kadanthu" i.e., Existance of Other Languages during BCE periods.

Nobody denies the presence of other languages in India during the later sangam era

solomon wrote : Pragrit and Classical Sanskrit as Per Western Universities are considered as Ideological twins developement from Vedic Sanskrit. When we look at Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions, which do not use Classical Tamil, same way all over India, the Stone Inscriptions of the same Period use Calloquial spoken language Pragrit a twin of Sanskrit. No Linguistic Objective research put it with Dravidian Group.

You are missing the point here, the stone inscriptions in Tamil, clearly identify them as Tamil. While the inscriptions before 150 AD clearly identify them as prakrits, in the sence they do not follow the grammer of sanskrit or even the vocabulary. If we see a bengali text we would definetly find few words to be hindi like, that does not make them the same language. They are distinct.

solomon wrote : On Tamil Development, I Showed- Words for ThAT-WHAT-This-Antha- Entha- Intha are not there in TholKappiyam to Tirukural.

I do not find shakespear using 90 % of words in the webster dictionary, so I conclude that English during shakespear time was only 10 % complete and has been growing . Sorry I cannot control but laugh at this logic.



solomon wrote : ible Old Testament's Genesis is presently dated to close to 300-200BCE, and Prophets to 300-50BCE, and Writings to 200BCE to 130CE,ofcouse using Earlier oral materials which more or less coincide with Sangam Lit. They must be looked for its Historical Contents and Linguistical words.

Just out of curiosity, the hebrew bible refers words like 'tokai' for peacock feathers and 'ari' for lion. Looks like they are tamil words.

[solomon]

Friends,

Indus Archeology and Dravida or Aryan Contrversy.

As per Linguists and Indologists, Both Aryan And Dravidian Language speakers came to India from Out of India, and Caldwell went on to say

Dravidam- Dramizham-thramizam-Tamilam –Tamil is the Development.

Indus and now other much more Ancient Sites have been found, dating upto BCE7,000. And No Outside visitors help for Civilisation development is found to Indigenous. All sites found as later than Indus- does not show the City type as Harappa or Mohanjadaro; whether Aadhichanallur or others; hence to call a section of people as Aryan or Dravidian is not relay supported by Archeology.

I am reading much more on Dechipherment and my Much Detailed Posting would follow shortly.

Aravindanji- I am awaiting your links on Horse Domestication. Aravindanji can You please enlighten us the Scholarly views on the Alleged Dechiphetrment by the Tamilnadu Govt. Tamil Akaramudali Project Director- R.Mathivanan.

Aravindanji wanted my views on Sankrit Influence on Tamil Sangam Lit. and that my view on Pro.Hart’s books, Friends- Prof. Vaiapuri Pillai’s Research Articles still valued highly, and I will put the views of Communist writers over ThaniTamil Researchers, whose books are completely rejected by Scholars, where as VaiapuriPillai’s are still valued Highly.

Prof.Kamil Zevilabil has dated Tamil Sangam Lit (Pavanar prefers Pandaya instead of Sangam as Sangam is Sanskrit), and the article is already put in this thread, and Zevilabil’s dates go almost close to VaiapuriPillai- such as Tirukural to 575CE, etc.,

It would be ideal for All Tamils to know Sangam Lit., most of them are available in net at

www.chennainetwork.com
www.tamil.net/projectmadurai and can see how much of Vedas and Sanskrit Lit. has influenced them, my earlier posting I have given with reference to Vedas, being referred, I had given only less than 10%, the name SamaVeda is referred by name etc., my detailed postings would follow shortly.

Mahadevan wanted Tamil words in Bible, and Aravindanji was against my use of word Deception by Church; Mahadevan-Please read my all posts in this thread- Tirukural thread, Tamil roots for Sanskrit Thread etc., But again a detailed posting would follow shortly.

Aravindanji’s postings are of very high Scholarly; but still represents the Meaningless Political claims said by Un-objective Scholars, here and there.

Aravindanji I Look for Your Posting on Mathivanan’s Dechipherment.

MosesSolomon

[aravindhan]

[tscii:b16f6c269d]
Caldwell went on to say

Dravidam- Dramizham-thramizam-Tamilam –Tamil is the Development.
People like Caldwell were revolutionary for their day, but there is really little point in clinging on to the views of scholars of centuries past, when we now have so much more linguistic data to work on. Much of what Caldwell said has been superseded by newer research. For example, most scholars now believe that "Dravida" was simply a Sanskritisation of "Tamil".


hence to call a section of people as Aryan or Dravidian is not relay supported by Archeology.
It is pretty clear that the Indo-Aryan languages and the Dravidian languages represent two entirely different language families. It is also pretty clear that there have been several rounds of migration into India, separated by vastly different periods of time. The linguistic evidence points to a lack of contact between speakers of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages before they each entered India. The archaelogical evidence points to a progressively increasing degree of contact and mingling between these peoples after both were established in India. There is, unfortunately, the famous "South Asian archaelogical black hole" - a period of a few centuries in relation to which we have almost no significant archaelogical evidence - which severly limits our ability to use only archaelogy to understand what was going on in India. The literary evidence, however, points to a period when the mutual influence was pretty minimal and the cultures diverged fairly significantly.

There are a range of conclusions one can draw from these individual pieces of evidence as to the contexts in which it makes sense to speak of "Aryan" and "Dravidian" in India. For a range of scholarly writings (and some different opinions) on this point, I recommend Aryan and Non-Aryan in India, edited by M.M. Deshpande and P.E. Hook. The book was published in 1979, but much of the scholarship in it is still fresh and not out-dated.


Aravindanji- I am awaiting your links on Horse Domestication.
I will do so in a while - I have a very demanding full-time job and family commitments, and that doesn't give me as much time to spend here as I would like. Digging through my notes for the Hub is unfortunately fairly low down on my list of priorities.


Aravindanji can You please enlighten us the Scholarly views on the Alleged Dechiphetrment by the Tamilnadu Govt. Tamil Akaramudali Project Director- R.Mathivanan.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up Mathivanan's work, since it's not something I've ever adverted to. As I understand it, linguists have raised two objections to Mathivanan's decipherment. The first is that he reads the script from left to right, although most scholars believe it was written from right to left, on the basis of the the form of the marks on seals showing the direction in which the signs on them were cut. The second is his methodology of assigning phonetic values to signs, which is said to lack rigour - the syllable he chooses to represent the phonetic value of each pictogram is not always obvious, it is said, and the system results in a large number of signs representing identical values, which is said to be counter-intuitive.


Aravindanji wanted my views on Sankrit Influence on Tamil Sangam Lit. and that my view on Pro.Hart’s books, Friends- Prof. Vaiapuri Pillai’s Research Articles still valued highly, and I will put the views of Communist writers over ThaniTamil Researchers, whose books are completely rejected by Scholars, where as VaiapuriPillai’s are still valued Highly.
As Prof. Hart points out, there are a number of problems in Vaiyappuri Pillai's work and particularly his dating, which are largely a consequence of Pillai's rather outdated world-view, assigning priority to Sanskrit. It is also worth noting that Vaiyappuri Pillai did not use scientific methods in dating Tamil literature - it was his student M. Shanmugan who first started trying to see how they could be applied.


Prof.Kamil Zevilabil has dated Tamil Sangam Lit (Pavanar prefers Pandaya instead of Sangam as Sangam is Sanskrit), and the article is already put in this thread, and Zevilabil’s dates go almost close to VaiapuriPillai- such as Tirukural to 575CE, etc.
Prof. Zvelebil's datings are consistently several centuries later than those of other Dravidologists, such as Prof. Hart. There is a reason for this, having to do with their methodologies - Prof. Zvelebil places much weight on the relationship between the themes of Tamil and Prakrit poetry and argues that they must be close in date. Prof. Hart, on the other hand, argues that this need not be so, and quite convincingly that the Prakrit poetry is a later manifestation of the same tradition as the Tamil poetry. Prof. Hart places more weight on early Tamil epigraphy and historical references in later Tamil literature to date Sangam literature. His methodology strikes me as being superior, although it assigns significantly later dates to Sangam works than I would like to believe. As I keep saying, though, the Adichanallur excavations have thrown open the entire question, and until we have a final dating of those, all discussions are hypothetical.


Mahadevan wanted Tamil words in Bible, and Aravindanji was against my use of word Deception by Church;
I am aware of some Hebrew words thought to be of Tamil origin (such as "tukki" for peacock), which is hardly surprising, given that potshards with Tamil inscriptions have been found in sites on the Red Sea. As far as the rest of it goes - in a separate thread, please.


Aravindanji’s postings are of very high Scholarly; but still represents the Meaningless Political claims said by Un-objective Scholars, here and there.
Could you please point to which "meaningless claims" I reiterate? Rejecting the unproven (and in my view, ridiculous) thesis that Sanskrit is the pure, unsullied root of all Indian civilisation, on the basis that it is unproven and contradicts what we know of ancient India, is hardly political.[/tscii:b16f6c269d]

[mahadevan]

solomon wrote:
Mahadevan wanted Tamil words in Bible, and Aravindanji was against my use of word Deception by Church;

I am aware of some Hebrew words thought to be of Tamil origin (such as "tukki" for peacock), which is hardly surprising, given that potshards with Tamil inscriptions have been found in sites on the Red Sea. As far as the rest of it goes - in a separate thread, please.


Hi Aravind, the point I was trying to make was. peacock is pretty unique to tropics, when the Hebrew word for its feathers is derived from Tamil and not sanskrit, it says something.

[mahadevan]

solomon wrote:
hence to call a section of people as Aryan or Dravidian is not relay supported by Archeology.

Solomon Anna please explain the following,

i) wheat is the staple food in North India like most of the west but it is Rice in the South

ii)Baking is the most common food prep (Nan, Roti)method in North India like most of the west, but it is totally absent in the southern cuisine

iii)Cheese (panneer) is very common North India like most of the west, but it is totally absent in the southern cuisine

iv) Traditional dressing of North India is almost similar to that of people from afganisthan to middle east, but strikingly different from that of south.

v) Religious tolerance is very limited in North India like the west, but the south India is very secular. Look at the stats of violence during the aftermath of babri demolition.

vi) More than every thing the language, language, language.

How can Archeology support whether it is Aryan or Dravidian ? what kind of evidence are you looking for ?

[Anchaneya]

[tscii:90551627c6]Friends,
Mr.FSG had given excessive importance to R.Mathivanan’s alleged Deciphering of Indus Pictogram Symobls as Clear Tamil.

I had then explained it was false reading wrongly the script is Originally from Right to Left [like Arabi and Hebrew] by reading it from Left to right, total Upsurd. Let Us Thank Mr.Aravindan for Confirming it.

Friends, FSG also in another post said Mathivanan finding a BiLingual Seal of dated to 1600BCE, having both Indus and Brami inscriptions from Srilanka. THIRD RATE FORGERY and details are as follows.

Srilankan Seal was found by archaeological team led by K.Indrapala of the University of Jaffna excavated a megalithic burial complex at Anaikoddai in Jaffna District, SriLanka. In one of the burials, a metal seal was found assigned by the excavators to ca.3rd century B.C.
The Seal’s Brahmi portion is dechiphered as ko ve ta. Mathivanan, twisted this as tivu-ko, King of Island, again not in the Seal. By dating meaninglessly 300BCE Seal and Misreading to get a meaning are the Techiniques, Mathivanan further forgery continues.

A Metal Coin found near Alur in Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh. The circular thick coin (probably in lead) features a horse on the obverse and some illegible symbols on the reverse. Numismatic experts date it 200CE, Sathavana coin. Mathivanan’s Forgery- Drawing it reads it as Nanda from actually illegible as Nanda, calling it as Pre Mauryan period, i.e. the 300BCE Srilanka Seal as 1600 BCE and 200CE as somewhere close to 700BCE, claiming a Continuity. Third Rate Forgery Continues.

Forgery-3. Indus Script found in a Tribal Santhal village in Bihar

A Legendery claim was made 1993, by One Verma, that in Bihar Santhal Village, Indus Script is still alive and Deciphered words in Sanskrit, Hebrew, Persian-Arabic and English. Mr.Mathivanan took Verma and visited Santhal Village and Met the Temple Priest who was regularly wrinting with Indus Scripts. The Colour Photos in the Book of Mathiwanan were drawn on Recently Whitewashed Walls by learned man and not a Tribal, mostsly by seeing Published Seals. Another Worst Forgery.

Again earlier Verma read- so many Language words; now all are Tamil ofcourse with few IndoEuropean Loan words Tamilised also. MATHIWANAN also read it as LEFT TO RIGHT the Symbols actually written in opposite Direction.

Further Tamil has only 30 Letters; i.e., Vuyir 12 + Mei 18, But Indus has 419 Pictograms- Mathivanan has almost assigned 40 Symbols with single Tamil Letter. FORGERY TO the Core.

Friends- the method of Mathivanan was so sad for the Entire Indian Scholarship, and also as in his earlier book he has expressed all meaningless Linguistic Claims held by Pavanar (KumariKandam Legends & Natural Language), all this made his book as a laughing Stock in International Scholarship.

I shall explain on Potters Graffiti Techniques in my next posting and later Why Indus Deciphering claims of Parpola and I.MAhadevan are all Speculations, and for the present it be looked as Undeciphered and not Dravidian or Sanskrit.

Friends, The Political Cliamate in Tamilnadu helps these forgeries and I am Putting a detailed forgery In HIstorical Distorters Thread.

Friends, I regard Tamil And Sanskrit both have been developed in India, and as Rig Veda has close to 500 Tamil words, both are of equal Antiquity, but Tamil Literature available from 200BCE only whereas Sanskrit Vedas are from 2000BCE.

MosesSolomon.



You have been BANNED..!
[/tscii:90551627c6]

[Idiappam]

ancchaneya wrote:


{lies deleted}........ 2000BCE.

MosesSolomon.

So you are "MosesSolomon" doubling as ancheneya as well.. Good ploy.. Solomon writes and ancheneya tells him 'well said'... Where did you learn this trick ???

[kalnayak]

What are the other avtars of MosesSolomon other than Anjaneya? To be found from the postings - appreciating Moses' or Anjaneya's postings. I was wondering, having a christian name, but abusing christians, praising Sanskrit and its literature just to degrade Tamil. One fortunate thing - Arvindhan was sharing his useful information with us while giving replies to your posts. And Idiappam and Mahadeven etc were giving tit - a - tat to you.I wonder about this too - how it is possible for you to reveal by yourself that Anjaneya and MosesSolomon are the one and the same person(!!!) Any way your Mugathirai Kizhinthathu. I have to be careful - Entha putril entha paambu irukkumo?

[mahadevan]

solomon wrote:Friends, I regard Tamil And Sanskrit both have been developed in India, and as Rig Veda has close to 500 Tamil words, both are of equal Antiquity, but Tamil Literature available from 200BCE only whereas Sanskrit Vedas are from 2000BCE

Hi solomon, is 'contradiction' your middle name. You accept that Rig has 500 words (infact over 30% of Rig is dravidian origin) of Tamil origin, and accept that both Tamil and Sanskrit are ancient. But would assume that Tamil Lit if only from 200BCE while Sanskrit Vedas are from 2000BCE. Is this not contradictory ?
Infact historical event of common man is so well documented in Tamil Lit making it genuinely authentic, infact it is the only Lit in the world that seems to be knowledgeable about the 3 floods after ice age. Sanskrit Lit was not even aware of it. May be coastal regions were too windy for bonfires!



This topic is now locked as it has violated every guideline established for this Forum. Guidelines can be read in the Do's and Dont's post.