Hello SPS Sir, I am totally accepting your views. My path is also learn true history , but it is very very very small scale compared to yours. I loved history from my school. Have distinction of being in top .2% of CBSE exam writers in my 10th in History. But I never had habit of reading books.My sources were wikipedia and other mail fowards. I had gone across certain sources that Murugan and Skanda might be different gods earlier. In search for this, accidentally this year in January I read Smile of Murugan. The book made me realise the following things: the richness of Tamil Sangam and following literatures. And mainly the need for critical study.
Unlike Wikis which put forward one view, in critical study I saw various hypothesis and interpretation of different scholars...rather a survey first and the author examining each work and telling his comments and putting forward his idea if he had...in way leaving the reader make use his brain and think which should be right based on various arguments...
After reading that book, I stopped reading wiki's . Which ever area I wanted to study I just looked into bibliography in Smile of Murugan and started applying the books in inter library loan.
We should be indebted to works of A.K.Ramanujan,Gorge L Hart,Kamil Zvelebil in Tamil Studies. Especially Kamil Zvelebil for the sole reason for the simplicity of his language. Any common reader can understand what he says.
One thing I have to say in this regard is(though some people might not accept it)..there is some sort of bias knowingly or unknowingly among the Indian Historians when it comes to religion and esp Tamil/Sanskrit timelines and origins. Neelakanta Shastri is one of the greatest historians, but he too tends to say Sanksrit was the magic wand which when hit the southern proto language created Tamil, which is totally unacceptable to any scholar who analyzed Tamil and its history.
Next thing that is major problem to readers of history is that emotions, when have fixed notions on certain issues and when that is questioned we dont accept it even if it seems to be true... only when we are open to thoughts we can get real history..even if it means somebody says 'people of your caste are murders'...its offensive..but there might be 1% of truth in it...if we close our eyes we r not going to get the truth.
True history can be found but it can never be discussed! ... politicians , religious heads etc etc...there are so many people to obstruct and stop it.
I dont know what is the summary of this mail. But this is what I feel about True History. Unless and until people leave out their emotions and prejudicial notions true history is very hard to come.
> Next thing that is major problem to readers of history is that > emotions, when have fixed notions on certain issues and when that is > questioned we dont accept it even if it seems to be true... > only when we are open to thoughts we can get real history..even if it > means somebody says 'people of your caste are murders'...its > offensive..but there might be 1% of truth in it...if we close our eyes > we r not going to get the truth. > > True history can be found but it can never be discussed! ... > politicians , religious heads etc etc...there are so many people to > obstruct and stop it.
Very Right and Correct observations. A true Open mind is a pre- requisite for any historians. The Paradigms are only the killers in this regard. One need to really dispassionate in this regard.
My two cents in this regard - 1 Is the historian (or anyone ) having inherent bias/negativity and making generalistic comments on some section of people or is he/she really dispassionate? Calling all believers fools is a biased negative stance, discusssing a poet's stance many years ago is not negative, it is an objective view of what that poet did, personally I find nothing offensive in that at all.
2 I think we discussed this in the 'all Gods are one' thread, or something related. There is a context to what all poets/prophets/everyone says. When Jesus said 'I am the way' he meant spirituality as the single way to liberation, it was his way of saying it as the world was not so small in those days. What this poet said about brahmins similarly is based on his experience about some people who mis treated him and others like him, not all - the times he lived in it might have seemed like 'all'.
3 Lastly on self examination. What is our ties to this 'caste' related label and why? Is a software engineer who knows two words of sanskrit somewhere really the 'brahmin' referred to in poems and scriptures? Is he learned/qualified and in the same lines have the same biases as they did? Probably not. Then what is there to take offence? Personally to me nothing (I can understand however others sensitivity in this regard perhaps).
THanks SPS, i have seen this information before. however I am yet to come aross concrete evidence to this details to show with people who question authentcity of Bogar.
A few things are derived a. Bogar lived prior to Thiruvalluvar b. Uruva vazhipadu was available before thiruvalluvar. c. what was thiruavinankudi temple - uruvam or aruvam ? if uruvam - who built it and when?
More to follow, unless moderators want to stop it.
I have not read the history or the book 'Smile of Murugan', but I have written in one thread that Skanda, Karthikeya and Muruga are different. It is not a authentic 'copy book' view, but something that is derived out of religious texts. Facts can become myths over period of time, we cannot figure out facts for myths. Raja rajan can be a myth after 20,000 years from now. Well, if Ishvaku is one, why not RRC ?