From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: On Indian Civilization being the oldest ...
Keywords: Sri Adi Sankara, Madhvacharya, Ramanujacharya..
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:36:10 GMT


In article <BxJ50y.GCM@cs.psu.edu>, narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana) writes:
> In article <BxIxMG.8F1@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
> >
> >In article <92314.101858RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
> >> In his `Genes, Peoples and Languages', (Sci. Am. Nov 91) Luigi Cavalli-Sforza
> 
> You have not shown to the contrary any evidence. For you information,
> the Tirukkural you quote is from Pallavan times. 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     ThirukkuRaL is earlier than Silappathikaaram and Manimekalai since
     these works quote ThirukkuRaLs. Silappathikaaram and Manimekalai
     are considered to be pre-pallavan times ( there are no references to
     Pallavans)  and earlier than the
     Saiva Bhakthi movement which started around 7th century A.D.
     ThirukkuRaL is considered to be pre 400 A.D for sure and possibly
     post Sangam age which is (200 B.C. - 200 A.D) . However there are 
     researchers who argue that ThirukkuRaL is pre 200 B.C. 
     Since it is NOT easy to
     fix the date as there are no direct evidences except the language
     and some later references to ThirukkuRaL. It is assumed to be around 
     the beginning of the Current Era by most researchers. The language of 
     ThirukkuRaL seems to indicate a time a few centuries B.C. 
      Also some awareness of jainist religious ideas is present and Jainist
     followers were there in Tamil Nadu in the B.C.
     What is more important about ThirukkuRaL is NOT its
     age but its truly great content and I don't think there is any work
     in the developed languages including Sanskrit which has a match
     in the quality of its content. It would ideally serve as the 
     Indian Aram ( aram = dharma) applicable to all religions ( as a guideline).  
 
> Even the first
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sangam is dated (according to Bhasham) around the turn of the century.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     Bhasham is quite wrong. I.Mahadevan (in 1970s) had discovered Sangam age
     epigraphical evidences and it is now well known the Sangam Age is
     (200 B.C. - 200 A.D) [ you might see the first few pages of 
     Prof. George Hart's book , 'Ancient Tamil Poems' Univ. of Berkely 
     Press Publ. for the exact reference for I.Mahadevan's work]
     and this is the so-called the THIRD Sangam.
     More than 150 poets have sung various hymns on 130 kings and other
     individuals and there is a rich
     collection of songs and literature. Please confer with knowledgeable
     people and you will learn that this Sangam age poetry is UNIQUE in the
     way the subject matter is calssified and discussed and refreshingly 
     free of unbelievable mythologies so characteristic of many other
     cultures including sanskrit, greek etc. Tamil Grammar Tholkaappiyam 
     is supposed to belong to SECOND Sangam and thus older (belonging
     roughly to the same period as PaNini's Ashtadhyayi ). 
     There is no reliable info about
     First Sangam and Bhasham's words don't make any sense except if he 
     had meant there was only one Sangam which is the Third sangam. Then
     he had to explain Tholkaapiyam. Some songs in the anthologies are
     considered to be belonging to second or first sangam based on the
     language and content of the songs. I had indicated a song belonging
     to the time of Mahabharat war. [ please bear in mind that tamil tradition
     is stong in singing hymns based on factual events and essentially free
     of descriptions like 'human impregnating fish and getting a daughter'-type
     commonly found in Skt. - nothing derogatory is meant just interested
     in the difference in the nature of contents]
    


> At that time the prominent rulers of the south were Sathavahanas,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> who were aryanized Nagas. They did every thing in their power
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to extend  the already existent aryan culture in  the south.

       I am not aware of any Sathavahanas during Sangam Ages. Pandian,
       Chozhan and Cherans were ruling and even Asoka's inscription and
       the ambassadors in Greek and Roman courts should substantiate.

       What do you mean by 'aryanized Nagas' ? You mean the Nagas
       started to do vedic rituals ?
       

       
> You claim many things for Tamil, where as as literary works 
> many of the vedas predate 1000 B.C and the Upanishads 500 B.C.
> even by very very conservative dating schemes.

     Many agree that much of Vedas and certain other works could be
     earlier than the earliest available tamil work. But the available 
     Tamil works refer to many earlier works and clearly show that 
     there must have been works contemperaneous to
     Vedas [ assuming Vedas are not 'eternal'] If one compares the contents
     and quality between Tamil and Sanskrit there is a BIG 
     difference ( not in the sense of 
     superior-inferior but in the nature of the works). Many believe
     that sanskrit began to get influenced by Tamil literary traditions
     a little earlier than Kaalidaasa. While Kaalidaasa's works were
     celebrated as "Indian" literature why was NOT Sangam age works
     which are centuries older given due recognition ( say like in the
     Indian school text books in the north) ? The Silappathikaaram
     written by ILangO adigaL
     which is almost a contemperory work of Kaalidaasa's is extremely
     rich and a treasure house of music, drama and dance and why was this
     not celebrated by as "indian" classic ? [ it would be interesting if
     some knowledgeable persons could compare Kalidasa's work say Shakuntalam
     and Silappadikaaram] Won't you agree that some
     sanskrit-facism was practised by our historians and authors who
     claim to write about india ? 
     I feel that the Tamils religio-cultural accomplishments and their
     contribution throughout the history including the freedom struggle
     are slighted and supressed in India. While both Tamil and Sanskrit
     are ancient and have a rich collection of literature, why this
     unjust treatment to Tamil in India? Can some knowledgeable persons
      quote the amount of Central Govt. money spent on Sanskrit vs. for
      Tamil ? Serious injustice leads to trouble ! Look at Sikhs and muslims. 
     The Sikh's religio-cultural accomplishments
     and muslims's religio-cultural accomplished are trampled upon by
     sanskrit-centric views. Can you answer HONESTLY whether this is some 
     kind of sanskrit-facism or not ? [ please don't construe my comments
     as anti-sanskrit; i am only questioning the selective and biased
     representation of indian culture and heritage; I take as much pride
     as any re Skt. but my points are about the biases]
     
     
> 
> >     and sanskritic literature contain much wisdom and beauty which 
> >     we all can feel proud of BUT it is only ONE of many such rich and
> >     beautiful traditions, cultures and heritages. Quite importantly,
> >     sanskritic and vedic literature are from a small minority
> 
> It is only a minority that creates excellent works. Look at present day
> USA. How many Ph.Ds are there? That tells you something.  Nobody claimed
> on sci that there are no other cultural groups or literary achievements.
> Only you came chest beating; you suffer from a complex. That is the reason.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I too hold the view that it is the minority that is creative and 
    highly resourceful and THEY CREATE Civilization and the majority 
    enjoys the fruits of discovery and progress and try to emulate 
    the minority. BUT this minority come from every community ( ethnic,
    cultural, language, group) and if one group is suppressed ( say
    muslim writers or Orissan writers or Christian musicians) it is
    racism in my book. To say that the indian wisdom and culture and heritage
    is created by sanskrit-knowing minority mostly brahmins, it is a 
    serious distorion of the truth. Vedas are sacred
    only to a very small section of the people and it is a heritage of only
    those ( and thus part of India's heritage) and it is clearly a lie 
    to say it is the cultural heritage of whole of India. 
    In these postings I have only tried to address
    the untruths of vedo-centric theories and sanskrit-centric theories
    and practices and I have no hatred for vedas or sanskrit ( In fact,
    I respect much in Vedas and like Sanskrit as a language and admire
    the tremendous contributions made in Sanskrit).
    
    Now, about chest beating ! May I suggest that you talk of 'my chest
    beating' probably due to distortions in your tele-darshan reception
    and if you tune your tele-darshan a little , you will see 
    I am only typing with my two hands and this somehow appears
    in your 'screen' ( Vittalacharya 'mirror' ??) as if i am chest-beating.
     
> 
> >     of indians mostly belonging to brahminic traditions and thus is not
> >     representative of pan-indian culture. I sincerely believe that 
> >     many authors of various books on India and Indian culture have 
> >     painted brahminical culture as Indian culture which is completely
> >     untrue and a serious injustice. Sanskrit was popular only among a 
> 
> Again wrong. Nobody has propagated the myth that brahmanic culture is
> superior.  Its metaphyscial development, particularly of Badarayana,
> is a significant intellectual achievement. Any person with a touch
> of understanding of logic would realize that. The practices that 
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> came about are considered brahminical. People accepted them.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         You are too vague here ! What practices are you referring and
          which people are you talking about ?
> 
> >     small fraction of Brahmins
> >     and a few royal patrons and hence Sanskrit was NOT a lingua franca
> >     of India as popularly propagated. It will be similar to a claim: "look, 
> >     there are people who read and buy Tamil magazines in Bombay,
> >     Calcutta, and Delhi etc. and therefore Tamil is lingua franca of India". 
> >     Lest some patriotic soul call me 'tamil fanatic' for saying this , 
> >     let me suggeest replacing Tamil with Telugu :-) :-) [ Dr.Parikh, this
> >     is NOT directed at you but I have a friend on the net 
> >     'king-list-with-days-accuracy-for-4000-plus-years' fame 'Virendra' 
> >      and it is to this good friend I suggest switching Telugu for Tamil
> >      (-: :-)
> >
> 
> For heavens sake we don't want to switch your claims of Tamil to Telugu.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     Please read what I had said in the above ! It was meant to be joke.
     Further the POINT made is NOT dependent on the particular language !!
     I think you missed the whole point ! Why don't you apply our
     Badarayana's logic ? Answer me honestly about the validity of the
     claim that Sanskrit is lingua franca of India in the light 
     I had raised above? Please be objective !

> Fortunately for us, our language derives so many words from Sanskrit
> that we are fortunate. Our language was enriched as a result. If you read
> Sri Sri Mahaprashtanam you will find that he uses Sanskritic words
> most extensively. For your info, when Telugu Sahitya academy  was
> asked to generate technical vocabulary for use in Telugu medium science 
> books, do you know where they turned to? Sanskrit, not Tamil?  Sorry to
> say that. Ofcourse you can claim that the Telugu Sahitya academy consists of 
> stooges of Brahmincal culture.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

       I might have said that the academy would have been better of
       if they coined words from Telugu in which case the students would
       have gained greater understanding and would have felt less 
       mystified. It might also have been better to retain English words
       rather than to turn to Sanskrit IF telugu words could not be coined.
       Why should Telugus have to look to Skt. or Tamil ?!! Thats where
       lies the misunderstanding. 
        

        Regards,
        Selva Selvakumar




Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil