Thursday, December 20, 2012

Mu to Lemuria & Kumari-Kandam to Sumeria. (Part-1)


A word to the readers…

This is part of my series in Tamil that analyses whether Tamilians were Dravidians. The original article in Tamil can be read here:-

I owe my gratitude to Mr T.G. Saranathan, former Chief General Manager of Telecom, Tamil Nadu circle for bringing out this article in English for our readers. He was previously associated with Sri Mukkur Lakshmi Narasinhachariyar Swamy whose works he had translated. His other notable contribution for the benefit of readers is the translation of Bhagavad Gita rendered by Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy. I am humbled to know that such a person of wide knowledge is an ardent admirer of my Tamil series. It is my good fortune that he has agreed to translate the Tamil articles of that series into English.

In the current article, I am taking up the translated version and adding more to that to show how the two supposed -to-have submerged continents of the Pacific ocean (called as Mu) and Indian Ocean (called as Lemuria) are not supported by the Indian sources. In that context, the supposed submergence of the Kumari – Kandam spoken by Tamil literature is discussed with its probable spill over to Sumeria.


The genesis of concepts of Mu and Lemuria.

In the 18th and 19th Centuries, Europeans were travelling all over the World and noticing unfamiliar new Cultures and new places. During the same time many disciplines in Science and Archeology were getting created and new research papers were getting released. As far as History was concerned Europeans were eager to trace their ancestors. They had learnt, from the great Greek scholar Plato, about the city of Atlantis, which had submerged in the ocean. They were searching for the location of that submerged city and that search continues this day. Using references about Atlantis, everyone from scientists to Archeologists were trying to locate that submerged city. They were trying to find any proof for cultural relationship between the civilization of the people of that city and themselves.

Their search entered India at the peak of colonial occupation. There are many ancient literature in India which speak enormously about the very ancient history of India. In the entire world, only India has the largest number of old books. It was difficult for the then European researchers to accept all the information and references found in them. Picking up here and there, they made their inferences in their own desired way. That resulted in the 'discoveries' of theories of Aryan Invasion and Aryan- Dravidian War.


A similar kind of methodology of research led to the 'discovery' of 'Mu' and 'Lemuria'. They hypothesized that in the Pacific Ocean there was a submerged continent called Mu, which they developed from "Mayan" and "Indian sources".  Similarly, they also hypothesized that in the Indian Ocean, there was a huge landscape, Lemuria, which is also now submerged. The surprise feature is that both these discoveries were revealed in the same year!

Picture below is that of the continent of Mu believed to have been submerged in Pacific Ocean.

And that of Lemuria continent, submerged in Indian Ocean, is below.


Taking up each of these one by one, the term Mu was coined by a French traveler, Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg, in 1864. This term itself was a wrongly understood one. (1) On the basis of this, Augustus le Plongeon, a British, told that Mu was a continent submerged in the Pacific Ocean. James Churchward elaborated it further.

In the same year another British by name Philip Sclator wrote an article in the Quarterly journal of Science that a continent by name Lemuria must have submerged in the Indian ocean. (2)  At the time of these revelations, new researches were going on. Europeans were making Scientific researches on the one side and explorations across the world on the other, which brought them into contact with people until then unknown to them. The impact of these was Mu and Lemuria, which are in fact results of their limited strides in these fields of knowledge.

Among these two, the source for the formation of opinion on Mu, was the people of Maya; the basis for Lemuria was Darwin's Evolution Theory.

These two theories of submerged continents had ONE common thread running in them. But this thread was never acknowledged by any other European Researcher. They continue to talk about these two continents, disregarding this thread. This thread was that human race emanated from the South and with time moved to North.

Though Mu was hypothesized to have existed 50,000 years ago in the Pacific, any further trace of the people of Mu started from India only. They opined that footprints of such a human race were found in India only. They said that all ancient Civilizations like Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek etc followed from that source only. But the fellow researchers of that time never agreed with that opinion. Had they agreed with that view, the theory that Aryans came from Europe to India and taught Vedas, would have vanished long ago.


The 'rise' of Mu, the continent submerged in the Pacific Ocean.

It was the time Europeans were trying to understand the lives of the aborigines of the American land. The creation of Mu continent was based on those people, their folklore and books. Just like the way they disregarded the traditional opinions in India, and interpreted Rig Veda in their own way and propagated the story of Aryan invasion, they created on their own the Mu continent from Mayan literature. Factually, Mu, neither as a word nor as an opinion is found either in Mayan literature or in their tradition. Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg, the French traveler, while translating Maya literature, wrote to the extent he could understand.

As an example, we can see here a page of the Mayan book, Troano Codex. It is from this, he deduced the idea "Mu".

Even the present Maya people themselves do not know what message this conveys. But the Europeans translated this. At present, with more researches having been done, they have come to a conclusion that the book might be depicting Astronomy-Astrology.

But the opinion about Mu, even after more than 100 years, is still held by them. Further impetus to the opinion of Augustus le Plongeon was given  by James Churchward.

James Churchward

If we, Indians, know how he developed that opinion, then we can understand how much truth is there in that. Because he had told that his opinion about Mu was formed while he was in India and with the assistance of the Indians. He was in India serving the British Army, during the Colonial Rule. Names found in the Mu continent theory, were also talked about in India. This increased his curiosity.

Importantly, he believed that Maya literature had many references to Naga and Nagas. Those pointed to Naccal, he thought. {Let us recall the reference to Nascal Ridge, the deep sea formation. That name indicated the deep sea underground passage used by Nagas} (3)

He thought that Naccal was the name of the people of Mu continent and Naccal was the language they talked. From where he got this idea is the key to this riddle. It appears he got the clue from a temple Archaka (priest) in India. It seems that priest showed him a secret plate written in Naccal language. That language was known only to three people in India. Churchward learned that language!

The plates in which this Naacal script was written were stored very secretly in an underground cellar and protected.(4)

The place he mentioned was the cellar in Ekamparanatha Temple in Kanchipuram (Tamilnadu, India).

Taking cue from Churchward, another researcher by name Thomas Ritter came to India and succeeded in getting access to the plates that Churchward once examined. The location is the same Ekambaranatha temple. He was taken to the underground chambers of that temple where he saw many stone tablets with inscriptions and many post-card sized plates of gold, silver and bronze with symbols and triangles inscribed on them - which he thought were maps and technical drawings! This 'discovery' was made in July 2011 which he did with the help of one Mr Pachayappan,  who "held a position of influence in the temple, because the other priests met him with great respect". Little did he know that in today's Tamilnadu, even priests of high caliber have no respect and they have to bow to the officials appointed by the Government to oversee the functioning of the temple.  Pachayappan seems to be one among the officials. The kind of guidance Pachayappan had given to Mr Ritter shows how little or nothing he knows of the objects stored in the underground chambers.  Had Mr Ritter taken guidance from a priest, say, Mr Narayan whom he mentions in his write-up, the Mu concept would have been further pushed towards its grave. (5)

Mr Ritter refers to a small plate that he received from Mr Pachayappa. He thinks that James Churchward also had seen such a plate. It is shown here:-