From: akash@moonlight.berkeley.edu (Akash R. Deshpande)
Subject: Re: About contribution of Dravidian to Indian culture
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:36:36 GMT

In article <By56I5.KxM@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:

>                                               I am only pointing out
>      the findings of others based on archeological findings ( about
>      cultural elements) and linguistic findings that the Indian
>      Civilization was and is Dravidianoid and the "Aryan" elements
>      -mostly as evident from Rig Vedic literature- are minimal. 

Unless there is more light shed on the term "Dravidianoid,"
it is impossible to assess the meaning and import
of the above statement.

>      Barring a few Tamil songs and the literature of Tholkappiam,
>      all the rest are post-500 B.C. But some songs in Tamil which
>      Talk about the MahaBharat war and about rivers "PahruLi' and
>      "Kumari" and the mountains "Kumari_kOdu" are considered to be
>      probably earlier than 1000 B.C. There are some who claim that
>      Tholkappiyam belongs to 700-1500 B.C ( not commonly accepted
>      by most Tamil scholars although they believe 700-800 B.C is NOT
>      impossible).

Judging from your citations above, the proposition that Tamil culture
preceded Sanskrit culture is highly inconclusive. The logic of your
argument seems to be the following. Aryans invaded India in 1500BC.
They were barbarians, but picked up the extant Dravidian culture
and developed it in Sanskrit. To support this view, all we need is
strong cultural development in Tamil around 1500BC, or equivalently,
700-1500BC according to some. Unfortunately, this thesis is based on
a rather tenuous hypothesis that there was an Aryan invasion into
India in 1500BC. Even granted that, one has to stretch the dates a
little bit, as seen above. Supposing that there was an Aryan invasion,
but say in 2000BC, then your theory fails. If in fact there was no
such invasion by Aryans, ie, they were already in India, then
your theory is hopeless. Thus, so far as I can see, the theory that
Tamil precedes Sanskrit seems to be based on the artifact of coincidence
of dates in a popularised hypothesis of Aryan advent into India and
earliest Tamil literature.

>                   However, the Vedic literature clearly shows
>      the existence and cultural accomplishments of non-vedic people.
>      Tamil literature offers more support. Rig Veda talks of enemies
>      of 'Aryans' such as Dasyus, Daasas, Raakshasas, Asuras, PaNi's
>      as rich people ( 'dhaninah' but without sacrifice; see Rig Veda
>      I.176.4 and many other places as well). Some of these 'enemies' 
>      have been owning fortified cities etc...

From my reading of the Rig Veda, I understand that Dasyus steal cows
from Aryans and hide them in caves under rocky hills, that Vruttras
tear the Aryans limb from limb, etc. I hope you are not claiming such
to be the culture of Dravidians, whatever that term means. But less
facetiously, these are psychological terms from the Veda. Imagine,
if you can, cows returning from their day in the pasture, with the
setting sun behind them. They symbolise in the Rig Veda the rays of
the sun coming to humankind, illumining its mind, bringing riches
such as clarity of thought, purity of intuition. This illumination
comes to one who has a burning aspiration for spiritual progress,
symbolically, one who has lit the fire of askesis within. The mind,
initially dense like butter, gets purified in this fire - like
clarified butter or ghee - all derived from cows. But spiritual progress
is not easy, for the seeker's askesis lapses due to the inertia of old
and unregenerate nature, due to habitual darkness of consciousness
clouding the light of illumination, all exacerbated by the temptations
in the environs. Symbolically, his cows of illumination are stolen and
hid in the dark caves under inert rocky hills by interfering
powers hostile to spiritual progress.

It will make a long treatise to elucidate the symbology of the Rig Veda.
But I want to point out two salient features. First, it is clear how
subsequent rituals could have developed - a physical fire of sacrifice
into which butter and ghee are poured, etc. But more interestingly, the
second, in that all across the Rig Veda, over several generations of
rishis, the same symbols, the identical terminology is used for
given psychological phenomena. This should strongly lead one to believe
that the Rig Veda was a compendium summarising a stable tradition
common to most mystics of the day - pointing to an even earlier stage
of amorphous spiritual culture. And such a culture itself would have
been preceded by long ages of agriculture and society before it became
prosperous enough to support such widespread spiritual seeking.

>     I entirely agree with you ! I had often stated that the influx of
>     Aryans took place some 3500 plus years ago as per almost
>     all authorities and hence there is not much point in discussing
>     whether the influx was an invasion on peaceful waves of setlements.

It is obvious that you don't agree with me at all. I had said that
an Aryan influx in whatever form did not take place in the past
7000 or more years. The reasons for this were spelt out in earlier
articles. The theory that an Aryan influx occured around 1500BC is,
according to me, ridiculous and flies in the face of reason. However,
it is crucial to your Tamil-precedes-Sanskrit thesis.

>       I agree there is not much point in talking about superior-infereior
>       etc. but your observation ' because they are only different names
>       or at most different aspects/phases of the same process"
>       is very significant. Don't you think the description of Indian
>       Civilization as Dravidian fits better than Aryan as many scholars
>       think ( example S.Tyler) ? I personally feel that the indian
>       culture is mostly non-vedic, although vedic culture is an important
>       sub-culture of Indian culture. I had often stated that the vedic
>       culture is a gem but one of many in India. 

After agreeing that there is no sense in classifying as superior or
inferior, you ask me to name the better choice? I am not senseless.
Unless you explain what you mean by Dravidian, it is not possible to 
comment on your proposition. I personally feel that Indian culture is
mostly vedic, an insight made more complete after several years deep
in Tamil country, where I also own some land.

-Akash