This song refers Nandas hiding their wealth under Ganges in Pataliputra. Nandas ruled during 4th BC. This Agam song shows that Tamils knew them.
Since this song refers that வெல்போர் நந்தர், the period of the song may be before the defeat of Nandas by Mouryas.
regards
-----Members are requested to ensure that copyright issues are not violated ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit http://ponniyinselvan.in to find archived messages Visit http://festival2009.ponniyinselvan.in to find out about PSVP Vizha ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
Since the whole of India was dominated by Tamil-speaking Dravidians, the question whether Tamils knew Nanda does not arise. We are trying to rediscover history. R. Narasimhan
Yes Mr.Shash, this helps us to confirm that Agananuru dates backbeyond 400 BC. So farhistorians were telling us that Sangam literature could not have begun before200 AD or atmost 200BC!
Dear Sir, The statement would be correct if you just add one line, 'if the Aryan-Dravidian divide is accepted then the whole India was dominated by Tamil speaking Dravidians'. You see this if statement is very much necessary as the divide I am talking about is much in discussion and not very clear.
The Aryan-Dravidian divide came about some time when society was intrigued by the language problem. The organised way of the Aryans and the Indo-Aryans to dismantle Buddhism was too much to resist, and the Divide became loud and clear after the Bhakti movement was started by the Alwars and the Nayanmars (na-Aryanmars). The Aryans and the Indo-Aryans effectively used the propaganda and marketing tool of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and this was also freely used by the Alwars and Nayanmars!! The movement was also ably supported by the Pallavas. R. Narasimhan
Can you provide some proof for your statement. Just by repeating the same thing again and again doesnt make it a historical fact. Aryan theory is being propagated for almost a century now without any basis and already this has been brushed aside by historians. You already once said that nayanmars are n-aryanmars....
can you please enlighten us on what basis you propose these theories...if you dont have solid proofs to substantiate, please dont spread such things in this group.
Dear Mr Shankar, If all sangam poets are Brahmins then yourrmark can be true. But facts speak loud that only a few poets were Brahmins. PLEAS DON’T HOPE TO TO WIN AN ARGUMENT BY SUCH JOKES. VKR
Dear Mr.Shankar, You are a very industrious person. You tour ,read and writ on very wide subject. But you are already settled with the view that A ryans and Non-Aryans of india are one race
YOU HAVE COME TO BELIEVE THAT PURANA IS HISTOY. You are a believer that some other than eart, wher we live gods of allsorte and avathars eist and descend fon earth doing the appearance and disappearance trick. Human beings from their stage of innocence grown in their knowledgeabout their themselves and their surroundings There has been a historic evolution. It is a fact. Science is not a perfect is a truth. But that is the best tool we have. Are you aware that European countrieshave on the average 59% of non-believers. China’s ancient Philosopher ,Confusius was a rationalist Who gave importance to morald and ethics withot any mythology. The later the Toaism an Zen Buddhism were of same ethical basis,dismissing any personified god. They all belived in making good use of the Brain and muscle given to man by nature.
Even Christians have wiped out the old Greek and Roman myths or puranas. I believ that Nature is an amazing force tha is self evolving. We can never under why Natur or this Univers exist. ” இயற்கையே இறை “ (or “Nature is God”) said the great Tanil scholar, Phi;osopher and one of the founders of Indian Trade Union Movement Thiru.Vi.Ka for first five years.. Kalki learnt his journalsm frm Thiru.Vi.Ka Prayers and chanting may relieve one from psychological depressin, as a tonic, and nothing more. Science calls it Áuto-suggestion or self hypnosis. Thank You V.Kothanda Raman.
When we read history we come across people of Anglo-Indian origin, Hisponic in US (Red Indian-European), African-Americans etc We are not assigning any race index to them. In the same manner, we should look at Aryans and Indo-Aryans (Aryan-Dravidian). There is no question of any race here R Narasimhan
No need to get worked up about anything! We're all open-minded (I hope, anyway), and I for one wouldn't mind seeing any of my pet theories demolished completely, if the evidence points to it (and of course, I would love to see one of them proved by evidence too).
What Satish asked is quite relevant: I'm quite curious as to the etymology Nayanmar -> Na-aryan-mars as Mr. Narasimhan claims. I would like to know if there's any justification for proposing this particular etymology, and what the other possibilities are.
And my other points re Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Aryan(ism?) and so on are still un-answered. I see no evidence to support Mr. Narasimhan's theories on these things as of now. Again, if presented with evidence, I will re-evaluate that position.
On a real, scientific basis, race does not exist. It has no physical or biological foundation. We are all one species, capable of interbreeding with any other human being on the planet. Differences between populations, on the other hand *do* exist, and we'd be discarding evidence by not acknowledging that fact. It would also be short-sighted to not acknowledge that many people have believed in such differences in the past, and continue to do so into this very century. This, we *have* to understand. However artificial, there are differences created between us, which don't really matter scientifically.
On the other hand, there are definitely scientific differences. These differences are basically what happens when populations get isolated from each other, and develop independently. For example, people who migrated into Europe lost most of the melanin in their skin, and the colour of their hair changed, to adapt to a colder, less sunny climate. We can use these differences to understand the movements of peoples across the world. This is still not race, it's just a physical difference.
Genetic studies have given us something more to use in understanding how people migrated from Africa, and into various parts of the world. There are definitely three distinct movements into India, between 50000 and 5000 years ago that we can trace. And we call the first of these movements "Adi Dravida", the second "Dravidian" and the third, "Aryan". But those are all labels, which don't necessarily correspond to the political use of the terms.
One thing I can see from the genes is that there was *really* a migration of peoples from the Steppe down into India, at about the end-period of the Indus Valley civilization, and the whole mass moved eastward, and then southward (probably within a millennium or so). Without any political overtones (we are talking about events from 5 millennia ago; easily more than a hundred generations), there's a definite genetic distinction between different communities, and you see more European/Central Asian genes in groups with a tradition of Indo-European languages, and this trait definitely grows as you go North.
On the other hand, while this difference exists, I don't find any reason to believe that any specific religious or social movements of antiquity had anything to do with them, whether they were merely linguistic or genetic differences. Specifically, I find nothing to support your theory that Buddhism or Bhakti can be identified as "Dravidian", and classical Hinduism (not Vedic Hinduism - I mean the Agamas and similar traditions) as Aryan. They all seem to have elements of it all, and the Buddha was specifically a Kshatriya who taught in Pali, or what became Pali eventually - which is definitely an Indo-European language that is more closely related to the various Prakrits and to Sanskrit than to the "Dravidian" languages.
The Bhakti movement in the South too - while it's primarily in non-Aryan languages (Tamil), the teachings are common to similar works in Aryan languages too. It just seems to have all been an anti-establishment movement (if I may use the word, again without political connotations), directed at organized, exclusionary religion and social order.
Basically, all that boils down to this: I'm still very confused as to your use of the terms Aryan and Dravidian - they don't seem to be race terms, and you're not giving me any reason to believe that they are religious or linguistic terms either.
So, I've laid out (in more detail than I intended) what I believe from the evidence that I've seen. What is it that you believe sir?
Shash
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Narasimhan Rangaswami