Just FYI ,Christians / Muslims never claimed their GOD is for any particular culture ,region ,language ..They beleive GOD is Global.Quote:
Originally Posted by sriranga
Printable View
Just FYI ,Christians / Muslims never claimed their GOD is for any particular culture ,region ,language ..They beleive GOD is Global.Quote:
Originally Posted by sriranga
My impression is, that is the most ancient source of Tamil literature till date. As the question is one of antiquity (whether Rama was worshipped as a God in ancient Tamil country or not) it is expected that one would delve as far back in the available references for mention of Rama.Quote:
Sangam and only Sangam is being quoted repeatedly as uncontaminated base reference of Tamils according to many tamils.
While I don't have know the exact poems being referred to by PAK I am inclined to view that Rama was established rather well in the Tamil country quite early in the first millenium.
They predate Kamban's translation of Valmiki Ramayanam. Rama's story is universal. Valmiki's is a version. The most celebrated version of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
Regarding the exact Tamil references. In the first post in this thread there was quotation from Manimekalai (which I think is dated around 2nd century AD). But there is some debate around that date. Some historians put Silappadhikaram and Manimekalai at around 6th-7th century AD. Either case it was well before Valmiki's Ramayanam was translated by Kamban in the 12th century AD.
The earliest ones like Tholkappiyam- dated around 500 BC (with considerable ambiguity) is , if I understand right, largely concerned with the grammar of Tamil language. There is some understanding of the social circumstances to be gained from the idioms and similies but
I expect little understanding on the worship and practices in the Tamil country from Tholkappiyam. I may be wrong, there may be a PhD thesis out there which does exactly this - it would make good reading
:-)
The first post quotes a blog post by one Aravindhan Neelakantan. There, there is a reference to a poem from the AkananooRu which refers to Rama. I think this may be one of the poems PAK is referring to.
And AkananooRu and PuRanaanooRu are part of the Ettuthogai, which is one of the oldest collections (around 200BC-200AD....!)Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://arvindneela.blogspot.com/2007/09/blog-post.html
I have heard/read about that too. Not able to recall where ? Perhaps hubbers like Badri or Sudhaama may know.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
Anyway I think the one worshipped down South would have been a reflection of the story that is pan-Indian (well 'India' came later - so talk about anachrnosim !)
Just to be clear, I am neither disputing nor confirming any argument about Rama's actions/moral standing etc. I think there has been story upon story upon story that makes it enticing. Period. Heck, there was even a critique in the '50s that placed Lanka somewhere near the Vindhyas ! So much for being an alleged invader of South India.
I am merely contesting the claim that Rama was widely perceived as an invader in the South. IMO the claim is largely driven by wishful thinking.
PR, just a comment on the dates. The traditional dates for Sangam literature is the first two centuries in the AD. None predate them (Wiki's citations on the dates are wrong again!!).
Thank You Kannan.
I tried looking up some 2-3 sites for dates. The 200BC-200AD is a linear combination of all I found. Which is why I had a "....!" at the end. A placeholder for "considerable ambuiguity". :-)
How about Tholkappiyam ? Is 500 BC somewhere in the right place ?
With so much uncertainty about the dates I find many of the conclusive-sounding arguments of the history,flow of Tamil civilization and changes (both here and those peddled widely in the political stage) quite amusing. The least that we can do is to tone our language down to sound more 'tentative' and less 'dead certain'. But hey, that's just me !
Oops ! I meant to say "I just want to confirm that Sangam indeed refered to Valmiki's Rama (not Ramayana per se), Not any other including Kamban's Rama" While I will read Kamban's Ramayana for pleasure, I will rather want to know the man Rama from Valmiki rather than from Kamban for obvious reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
<quote="Prabhu Ram">Valmiki's is a version. The most celebrated version of course.</quote> I thought Valmiki was ONLY ONE who realized the vision of Rama story. All others including Tulsi and Kamban never "realized" but only translated or re-wrote the story according to the region and time they lived. So they cannot be considered as authentic. When we are talking about Sangam, Rig Veda, Valmiki Ramayana etc, Kamban stands as odd man out separated by centruires in time.
Including Valmiki's Ramayana ? If so I feel so stupid searching for references for Rama in Sangam or Rig.Quote:
Originally Posted by kannannn
.
.Scope of Vedas & Upanishads.. different from Puranas / Awatharas.
.
Why unnecessarily drag in Rig Veda or any Veda or Upanishads here.?
They have nothing to say on Puranas and Awatharas.
In fact there is NO MENTION of Awatharas like Rama and Krishna... anywhere in Vedas...
..except one Sarcastic mention as... AJAAYA MAANO BAHUDHA VIJAAYATHAE...
..which means that God is RE- BIRTHLESS so to say...
..."Not committed for Births and Re-births...
...however takes SEVERAL REBIRTHS AND SHAPES.
In Vedas... there is no mention as AWATHAARA
....or on Rama, Krishna and the like AWATHAARA forms of One God Narayana.!!!
.
..
True. I was trying to say that there Rama was very much part of the Tamil cultural scene well before Valmiki's version reached us through Kamban.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
Btw even the Rg. Veda, Valmiki and Sangam are likely to be centuries apart. Again, we don't have clear dates on them.
sriranga, perhaps your only concern is that I used the word "corrupt". Well that is my personal preference and opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by sriranga
I dont believe in advocating anything for anyone, leave alone suggesting that one should do something based just because he is from so and so roots. Nothing can be classified black & white as good/bad, right/wrong. It is either subjective or an illusion.
Regarding the word secular, I find that many people are developing an allergy to it.. it is rather unfortunate :(
PR, I wasnt aware of rama's presence in purananooru and agananooru :)
Regarding Silapathikaram, I've read that there is mention about some ravana (or is it rama :roll: ) festival happening in Lanka.
Regarding stories upon stories on ramayana, very true. Ramayana has several versions and I've read there are atleast 14 versions of it, ranging from valmiki's to Buddhist ramayana. And even in remote countries like Cambodia, Rama's stories are prevalent. However, the versions varies largely among themselves. In one version, Rama is the brother of Seetha :shock:
I guess, Valmiki just built upon existing folklores and wrote Ramayana. Sorry, I cant give solid quotes or links, I am just quotiing stuff out of memory, so let my pts be judged appropriately :P Can't do research :P
Meaning of secular ? Hey this is easy, I think I can do this ! I can explain the meaning of being secular.Quote:
Originally Posted by sriranga
Secular means being unbiased to any religion or belief. It means to accept contemporory ideas and thoughts and not being dogmatic about what was told by your ancestors. It means to have the balls to say that our parents are wrong ! It means to tell our guruji that it is 5PM now, he can go home and rest and not keep talking about THE TRUTH. It is to realize that there is never THE TRUTH. Simply there are different point of views and your guruji's is just one of it, and that could be A TRUTH.
Secularism is what President Musharaf and MM Singh want their friends to commit to. So it is not just on one side of the border thing.
Exact opposite term is unsecular or non-secular (whatever) which means to collect people, go with bricks and demolish monuments belonging to other cultures in the company of the sadhus and rishis. It also means to halt any development project because the sadhus and rishis ask you to do so.
There are regional variations though.In Karnataka you will join this group if you oppose the statue of saint Thiruvalluvar. In Maharashtra you wil join this group if you call UP and Biharis as uneducated. in Gujarat the standards are high. You must be able to do something very serious like looting and other things. In Rajasthan you must be willing to abuse the neighboring country. In WB you must be able to be quiet and watch the fun while someonelse will be doing what you normall do. In TN if you are hi-tech you can join dots and publish on internet saying that NASA confirmed the SethuSamudram was man made structure or argue that RamarSethu will be destroyed (which is already sunken). Even in mildest version of being non-secular, you must atleast be be able to abuse Laloo and the likes or criticise subsidies and loan waivers to farmers while for banning agricultural exports.
See I told ya I can do it ! It was a little hard, but because of my will I did not feel it that hard !
I have had occasion to state this before but will do so again as requested by pizzalot. Like any good poet or author Valimiki uses his own characters to bring out his opinions. And the way he places it makes it absolutely applaudable!Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
Valmiki tells us about Rama through the voice of Mareecha, the uncle of Ravana, the one who assumed the deer form to enable Ravana kidnap Sita.
Ravana goes to Mareecha and says, "Uncle, I need your help. I want you to assume the form of a magical deer as you are a past master in sorcery and illusion. go and dance in front of Sita in such a way that she would absolutely be smitten with the desire to possess you. When Rama and Lakshmana go behind you to get you, I will kidnap her."
Mareecha's initial reaction is shock. He is so shocked by this plan that he even forgets who he is talking to and begins to advise Ravana, telling him to leave of this rashness.
So much for the background. The words of Mareecha are immortal. He says, "Ramo Vigrahavan Dharma" - Rama is the very embodiment of Dharma (righteousness, virtue etc)
Note Valmiki's brilliance! Mareecha is a demon. He was once attacked by this very same Rama who cast him thousands of miles away by a single arrow while still a young lad protecting Vishwamitra's sacrifice. So all in all, Mareecha should have nothing but enmity for Rama. Yet, he admits, "Ramo Vigrahavan Dharma"
This then is Valmiki's exposition of what and who Rama was. I did go through the Wiki link but this was the first time I have encountered such a description, although I have read the Srimad Valimiki Ramayana in its original myself. But the Wiki article also had some funny introduction about Valmiki being the Creator and being born 4 times and such like which too do not have any ratification elsewhere. I will therefore not be inclined to take that article too seriously.
They are the guruji's of secularism, is it? :cry: vazhga secularism.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
The Wiki link I provided was not about telling that Valmiki himself was under-rating his hero. No one doubts that Valmiki hailed his hero throughout his epic poem. But does it also not contrast quite significantly with the high standards and expectations we have on Rama today ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Badri
Sir, in the place I work (which is overseas), there are some Indians also. We sometimes show the Indian pride to others also. For example we celeberated Diwali in the office. But the majority community does not impose their culture on us. Never. May be that is the difference between the advanced or developed countries and ours. I always felt the difference. Not only that. The white man accepts everyone of us more than each of us can accept ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by sriranga
I am just being frank here. If God was there, thank him since he has not let under-developed nations as developed because we will have endangered the whole world with our mentality. On the other hand, if God is not there, assume that it the mentality which is the cause and under-development is the result.
In my view secularism is not just about religion. It is about culture and pride also. Bangalore is in India. Can the tamils watch tamil movies in the movie theaters there ? Forget theaters. Can tamils watch their favorite channels at home ? Why ? What right they have to prevent me from doing so ? Our Constitution does not prohibit me. Then why am I not being allowed to do so ? If there are differences between respective Governments why are they showing it on me ?
Our non-secular nature is just an extension of our nature of being culturally intolerant to "others". Now this "others" might belong to other caste, region,state , religion or culture.
Now tell me, you like being secular or non-secular.
I just happened to be reading the Silappadhikaram (சிலப்பதிகாரம் ஒரு எளிய அறிமுகம் - சுஜாதா).Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
There are numerous references to Vishnu worship. He is worshipped alongside Indra, Murugan and Siva. There are references to Vishnu temples like Thirupathi (ThiruvEngadam) and Thiruvarangam (Srirangam).
I found a couple of places where the Rama story is referred to. And here is a line that indicates that he is very much the rama referred to by Valmiki:
அரும் திறல் பிரிந்த அயோத்தி போலப்
பெரும் பெயர் மூதூர் பெரும்பேது உற்றதும்
This comes when Kosikan tells Kovalan how Poompuhar is wilting after the latter left it - particularly how Kovalan's parents have become distraught. As an analogy he mentions that Poompuhar is now in a state similar to how Ayodhya was when Rama left it.
Okay. This far it only demonstrates that the Rama referred to by Valmiki was known in the Tamil country. Still not clear if he was revered as a God like how Vishnu was worshipped. i.e. whether the theory that Rama was an 'avataram' was acknowledged in the Tamil country or not.
Once Kovalan,KaNNagi and Kavundhi AdigaL reach Madurai, Kovalam laments upon the miseries he has brought upon KaNNagi. Kavundhi AdigaL responds that know one can escape hardships brought upon by fate. And as an example she quotes:
தாதை ஏவலின் மாதுடன் போகிக்
காதலி நீங்கக் கடும் துயர் உழந்தோன்
வேத முதல்வன் பயந்தோன் என்பது
நீ அறிந்திலையோ ?
Do you not know, that even the One who had to leave as per his father's command, and then suffer the separation of his wife - was the creator of Brahma. i.e. even one such as Him could not escape suffering.
That Rama was an avataram of Vishnu - who is worshipped in many places - was clear in the Tamil country even during the times of the Silappadhikaaram.
So the Rama-perceived-as-invader theory is not only grossly historically incorrect but also just received wisdom (!) attributable to political motivation. Politicians can't tell apart what-is and what-ought-to-be. Or atleast they choose not to let truth come in the way of a good story. We shouldn't do the same.
Prabhu Ram thanks for bringing us back to track.
Thanks a lot Badri. You are the man :D!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Badri
Though said to belong to the Second Sangam (from Iraiyanar Agapporul Urai), Tholkappiyam, along with other Sangam literature is roughly datedto the 0-200 AD (Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India, Fourth Edition, 1975). Though there is no scholarly agreement on this, the maturity of the language in the Sangam literature serves as one of the pointers to the relatively later date. Another evidence is the concurrence of trade description with Greeks and Romans with that of Greek writers of the time (for Ex. Periplus of the Erythraean Sea).Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
From memory, there are four references to the story of Rama in the Ettuthokai, two to Rama himself, and two to other incidents associated with the Ramayana. Verse 378 from Purananuru mentions a group of monkeys who found the ornaments scattered by Sita, and wore them incorrectly (bangles on the ears, necklace around the waist). Note that this incident is not described in any known version of the Ramayana.
The second reference is Verse 70 of Akananuru, which speaks of the sound heard by Rama at Kodi.
The third reference is in Kalitthokai, verse 38, which describes how the "arakkar koman" attempted to uproot the Himalayan mountain on which Siva and Uma were resting. This seems very much like a reference to the famous incident involving Ravana, although neither Ravana nor Rama are named.
The fourth reference is in Paripadal 19, which describes a group of pilgrims to the Murugan temple at Thirupparankunram who see a painting depicting Ahalya (Akaligai) and Indra being cursed by Gautama, with Ahalya becoming a stone. Rama isn't directly mentioned, but the story of Ahalya is associated with the Ramayana. Interestingly enough, once again this reference does not follow Valmiki - Valmiki refers to Ahalya becoming invisible. The legend that she became a stone is first found in the Kambaramayanam, and only subsequently in later northern texts, such as the Adhyatma Ramayana.
Actually, Tolkappiyam has been dated as being earlier, contemporaneous, and later than Sangam literature. The main problem is that the Sangam poems cheerfully ignore many of the rules set out in the Tolkappiyam, both in terms of language and poetics (the puratthinais set out in the Tolkappiyam, for example, are quite different from those actually used in Purananuru).Quote:
Originally Posted by kannannn
From what I undertand, modern scholars think that the Tolkappiyam in its present form has many layers from different dates, which were grafted onto the original work. The oldest layers are dated to sometime between the 2nd century BC and the 2nd century AD, and the last layers to the 5th century AD. This means that some of it is older than Sangam literature, some is newer, and some contemporaneous.
As with all other things Tamil, these datings are highly tentative, and could in theory be radically altered by archaeological discoveries. After all, around a century and a half ago, the "scholarly consensus" was that Sangam literature and the Tolkappiyam could not be older than the 8th century AD - and how wrong that was!
A doubt though! Isn't the Tamil (script) used in Tholkapiyam different and more evolved than the script from BC period?Quote:
Originally Posted by podalangai
:exactly:Quote:
Originally Posted by podalangai
Thanks for the info podalangai.
I was used to seeing a statue of Tholkappiyar in an important junction in Madurai (near the old court complex). Later when I came to know that even 'Tholkappiyar' was a poor guess at his name - I was struck with wonder about the sculptor who created the austere look of the man. The impression was so strong that I kind of took it for granted that it was written by one person at a point in time.
8th century AD eh ? And it was still called "thol"kaappiyam :-)
Not necessarily more "evolved", but the Tolkappiyam does associate consonants with the "pulli", used as an orthographic device. Pullis are not found in Tamil inscriptions before the 2nd century AD, and as a result Iravatham Mahadevan argued that the Tolkappiyam could not be older than the 2nd century. Many agree with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by kannannn
V.S. Rajam advanced a slightly different theory in her (unpublished) Ph.D. thesis. She notes that Tolkappiyam actually incorporates two rather different systems of nomenclature in the ezhutthathikaram. The first is simpler and does not include the term "pulli", whereas the second does. As a result, she suggests that the pulli system was in point of fact an innovation which Tolkappiyar tried to introduce, but which never fully caught on until the 18th century (inscriptions and even manuscripts only used it sporadically until the advent of printing, when it became part of the Beschi's reform of the standard script).
Rajam never published her thesis, so her conclusions are not very well known, which is a pity. They form an interesting counterpoint to Mahadevan's dating.
That used to be one of the most debated questions in Tamil literature. Was the book Tolkappiyam named for a man called Tolkappiyan (as Nachinarkkiniyar says), or was the man called that because of the book? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
You think that is bad? You should read some of the modern "scholars" who insist on late dates - such as the botanist and Kannada essayist B.G.L. Swamy, who seemed to think that anything that dated Tamil literature to before the 9th century A.D. is a nationalistic fantasy which Tamils are brainwashed into believing by a Taliban-style regime in Tamil Nadu. His work is regularly trotted out by Kannadigas who argue that Kannada should be a classical language because it is at least as old as Tamil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
And then there is our favourite Dutch professor, Herman Tieken, who thinks that not just the Tolkappiyam, but all of Sangam literature is a 10th century forgery perpetrated by nationalistic elements at the Pandiyan court. They did this only so that Tamil would be seen to have a classical heritage as rich as Sanskrit's.
The psychological hurdle which people face is that a date of the first few centuries AD plonks Sangam literature down right next to what is supposed to be the golden age of Sanskrit - Kalidasa, for example, was probably of the 4th or 5th century. Folks have difficulty accepting that, as it conflicts with accepted theories of the relationship between Sanskrit and the vernacular languages at that time. You can see even a scholar of the stature of Sheldon Pollock visibly struggling with the implications this has - and grasping at straws to avoid having to do so.
Thanks as usual Podalai :).
Sorry for unending questions, but doesn't Rajam also advocate the theory that other Sangam literature belong to 200 BC onwards? Doesn't archeological evidence prove otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by podalangai
I'd be surprised if she did. Rajam's main interest is in the language of Sangam literature (particularly grammar and phonology), and its evolution over the years. As far as I know, she is not really concerned with issues of dating.Quote:
Originally Posted by kannannn
Podalai, I am fairly sure it was in "A Reference Grammar of Classical Tamil Poetry". She doesn't so much argue about the dating as just mention the dates. Hence my interest to know if there was another interpretation from the perspective of language evolution.
As far as I can see, there's a passing reference in there to the fact that the poems are believed to have been written between the 2nd century BC and the fifth century AD. But as I read it, all she's trying to do there is to broadly set out the consensus as to the upper and lower limits for the dates of the poems as discussed in the existing literature (i.e., almost all serious scholars agree that the poems could not be before the 2nd century BC, and almost all serious scholars agree that they were not later than the fifth century A.D.).Quote:
Originally Posted by kannannn
Will read the book again :)
Here's the exact quote:
"The cankam literature, also called the cankam classics or classical Tamil poems, actually refer to two large compilations of numerous individual poems, the ettutokai ('the eight anthologies') and the pattupattu ('the ten songs'). These poems, which originated from an oral bardic tradition, are believed to have been written down on palm-leaf manuscripts between the second century BC and the fourth to fifth century A.D. Attributed to 473 poets, the total number of these poems is 2,318, the shortest of which is 3 lines long (e.g. ainkurunuru 121) and the longest,782 (maturaikkanci)."
There are a number of things there one could take isue with here, in addition to the date. For example, are the pattupattu properly speaking part of the Sangam corpus, or are they post-Sangam? Did the poems "originate" from an oral tradition, or were they written in imitation of an oral tradition? And so on. But she doesn't even refer to any of these debates, because she's merely providing a very brief background to the poems whose grammar she intends to describe, based on the secondary literature, and not trying to advance any theories of her own. At least, that's how it seems to me.
Yup, I agree :). As I said, I only remember her dating the works (perhaps 'argue' was a wrong word). I was mainly interested in the literary basis of dating the works to the BC period (script, language..), because, wasn't there a mix of Prakrit in the inscriptions found at that time?Quote:
Originally Posted by podalangai
Really !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by podalangai
I thought it was as straight as செம்புலப்பெயல்நீரார் :-)
I have read two guesses the etymology of kappiyam.
1) A morphing of the Sanskrit word kaavya
2) A less plausible one: காப்பு + இயம் (மரபைக் காத்து இயம்புவது)
If the former is the case, then there should have been no doubt that his name was a placeholder.
However, that it led to some debate at all leads me to treat seriously the second theory about the etymology of kaappiyam.
Are these off the net somewhere or are you typing from your book ? I ask becaus since your last post I have been trying to read about the names you mentioned - all were new to me . Could get nothing written by them in the net. I used to live near an awesome academic library last year :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by podalangai
I feel like Chow Chow among the intellectual German Shepherds .. can someone explain me what is going on here with the dates ? Will someone finally relate the discussion to the topic ?
The issue of dates is something of a digression - the relevance is that if Sangam literature is much older than Tamil bhakti literature, then the references to Rama in the Sangam works are somewhat more significant than if Sangam literature is closer in date to Tamil bhakti literature. Kannann / PrabhuRam - perhaps it's best to hive the discussion off into another thread? Perhaps PR could do the needful as a moderator?Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
The last post directly relevant to the thread was this one:
I find it interesting that two of the four references are to incidents not found in Valmiki, and that one of those is later found in Kamban. Could this perhaps suggest that there was already a "Tamil" tradition as to Rama in the later period of the Sangam age, which differed from the Sanskrit tradition?Quote:
Originally Posted by podalangai
Thanks Podangai. We are back to track again. PR also gave references. I feel that there was a Rama tradition in South also before Kamban. Even there could have been a similar theme, but the Rama mentioned could not have been the one who is said to have ruled Ayodhya per Valmiki. In any of Pre-Kamban literature , do we have the mention of Rama of Ayodhiya fame ?
Hey Pizzalot. In the last page is a post by me dated May 3 where I had a quoted from Silappadhikaaram - which predates Kamban. There I had pointed out lines that show the Rama referred to was the one of Ayodhya fame and also that he was considered a God.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
Agreed. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
True, PR. But it still seems to me that early Tamil works paint a rather different picture when compared with the Sanskrit works. I'll pull out my favourite example, from the "aychchiyar kuravai" in the Madurai kandam of the Silappadhikaram:Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
மூவுலகும் ஈரடியான் முறைநிரம்பா வகைமுடியத்
தாவியசே வடிசேப்பத் தம்பியொடுங் கான்போந்து...
MS made these verses famous, but when you stop to think about it, the theology behind those two simple lines makes the mind boggle in terms of its subtlety and its implications - a causal link between Vishnu's actions against Mahabali and his exile as Rama? As far as I am aware, the Sanskrit texts simply don't have anything like that.
And we see the same trend in the Kamba Ramayana, for example in the very different colour it gives to episodes such as Sita's fire-ordeal, which was discussed in this forum several months ago.
Hmm, this one example from the Silapadhikaram itself seems to set the seal on the topic!
It is rather sad that people end up trying to separate the two cultures - Tamizh and Sanksrit, and think of one imposing on the other instead of viewing each as enriching the other.
But then, people find a strange perverse delight in dwelling on the negative! They rarely embrace the positive aspect of life!
Actually, what really sets the seal on the topic is when you consider that the "Tamilised" traditions on Rama were then in turn re-exported from the South to the North by Ramananda - and ended up becoming the orthodox viewpoint even in the North. This is all part of the beauty of the amazing melting pot that is Indian culture. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Badri