Disclaimer: I hereby declare that there is no chauvinistic intention of
promoting Tamil, which happens to be my mother tongue, in the series of
articles beginning with the present one. The intention is to bring to the
notice of readers, the presence of Tamil alongside Sanskrit in the Indian
Subcontinent for many thousands of years. A deeper analysis might give us leads
on why a fused Tamil and Sanskrit presence can be seen from India to Ireland to
Ice land and from Polynesia to the Incas.
My sincere thanks to Mr T.G. Saranathan for translating this article into English.
This series so far:
Part
6: Southern Madurai (தென் மதுரை) of 1st Tamil Sangam was
submerged at the time of Rama’s exile.
************************
TAMIL - THE LANGUAGE OF MAN.
There is evidence in the Sundara khanda of Valmiki
Ramayana, to
show that Valmiki as well as the people of entire Bharat, in
Valmiki's time, spoke and conversed in Tamil.
In the Sundata khanda, Hanuman saw Sita in Ashoka garden/forest.
He wanted to speak to her, and wondered in which language he should speak to
her. So he weighed the pros and cons of choosing the language he should speak
to her. He knew Sanskrit and the "language of humans" as well! Sanskrit is considered as Deva
Bhasha or the language of the gods. But which language was identified
as "the language of humans"?
If it was the language of human beings, then were there not many
other languages spoken by human beings? Today we hear so many languages being
spoken by different people. In that case which language did Hanuman identify as
the language of man which was known both to himself and to Sita?
If we go by today's scenario, people of Ayodhya might
have been speaking in one language and those in Kishkindha might
have been speaking another language. And, people of Lanka might
have spoken a totally different language.
The question here is which of these many languages Hanuman knew?
But the fact that Hanuman was able to understand the language spoken by Rakshasis,
and he was also able to converse freely with Sita, shows that the language he
spoke with Sita was not confined to a particular place or community. But the
language he chose to speak with Sita was well known to people all over Bharat.
Is that possible?
Well, we can see all around us various creatures. We can derive
some inferences from them. The chirping of birds might look un-intelligible to
us. But birds understand them. That language is inherent in them and not
tutored by anyone.
Like birds, animals also have natural language of communication.
Since the language of birds is more vocal than that of animals, it should be
elaborate. From ancient stories we understand that our ancestors were
knowledgeable in birds' language also. Like animals and birds, human beings
also should have had a natural language. That is, if there was no interference,
human beings could have communicated by making certain sounds and formed a
language – like how birds and animals have a language of their own which is
universal. If this is possible with birds and animals, it must have been
possible with human beings also. Such a language alone could have been
termed as a naturally formed human language or the language of Man or Manusham vaakhyam. .
A doubt arises here. Human beings were living in groups in various
places. Could it be possible that all the groups would have spoken the same
language? There is no way of finding this out. But when we probe how animals
and birds communicated, we could find a possibility.
For example, a bird brought from a distant country adapts to local
surroundings and communicates with other birds here. But if a bird group
migrates and forms groups in various places, there must be traces of the
original group's sounds in all the subsequent groups, even though they were
living totally unconnected. Similarly, if a human group migrated to other
places and formed different groups, it is possible that original human language
would have existed in some traces in all groups.
According to genetic analyses, the present people of India lived
together once and originated from a same gene pool. They separated as ancient
north Indian and ancient south Indian gene pool. Looking at literary sources,
we do get many clues on common surroundings for all these people during Ice age
or before that. The place where they once lived in close proximity was Shaka dweepa (south or South
East Asia) from where they diverged to various places.
{ A brief explanation on this:-
· Shaka dweepa is described in
Mahabharata, 6-11.
· The description of the
location, of the mountain of Malaya (extension
of western Ghats in to Indian ocean) associated with (monsoon) rains, the names
of places such as Sukumara
and Kumara and rivers such as Kumari and Kaveraka (river Kaveri's father was known as
Kaveraka as per Thiruvalankadu inscriptions of Cholas) do indicate this as the
former land of the ancient Tamils of first sangam period.
· The mention of a river
by name Ikshu
vardhanika shows
that the region was abundant in sugarcane which is possible only if it is the
tropics. The Ikshu of Ikshvaku is due to the
connection with sugarcane. It links them to an earlier location at Shakadwipa.
· The mention of the asterism
of Revathi as permanently fixed at Raivataka mountains indicates the
location near the equator on the 90 degree median range of which Andaman and
Nicobar are still seen above the sea.
· The 4 varnas that existed in
Shakadwipa include Brahmins known as Maga. Maga Brahmins were authorised to consecrate and conduct the
worship of Sun God, according to Brihad samhita. This specific feature must
have been applicable to people who lived near equator where the Sun shines on
all days. Later on they could have migrated to other parts of the globe, but
their original home could only be near the equator where the sun shines
throughout the year.
· The name shaka is derived
from the tree called shaka which was found in abundance in that place. The
Tamil equivalent of this tree is Vaagai ( வாகை (ACACIA SIRISSA) which is an important tree in
sangam texts / gramamar. The cultural identity
given to Vaagai in the grammar book of Tholkappiyam is such that the 4 varnas
appear only in Vaagai-th-thiNai connected to Paalai land! The
sunken Tamil lands had 14 Paalai lands (7 Mun paalai lands and 7 pin paalai
lands whereas the 3rd sangam period of current Tamil lands had
no specific paalai land, but one identified by the fusion of two other
land forms made so during dry season,) The 4 varnas are associated with Paalai
land of Vaagai-th-thinai (shaka tree) only and not with any other land form.
Infact three more varnas or groups are added along with the 4 varnas in
this region. In no other region of cultural identity, these varnas appear in
Tholkaappiyam. It shows that the varna system existed in the olden Tamil lands
(now submerged) where the predominant plant was Vaagai or Shaka! This puts the
ancient Tamil land at shaka dwipa. The presiding deity of Shakadwipa was Shiva
who was also the presiding deity of the Pandyans of that ancient land.
· Sri U.Ve. Srinivasachar who translated
Mahabharata into Tamil and published in the year 1919, had written in this
chapter (of Mahabharata) that in some olden texts that he referred for
translation, in the place of Shakadwipa, it was written as "Naga
dwipa". This also puts the location in the southern hemisphere.
In the beginning, a group led by Vaivasvata Manu,
migrated from Shaka dwipa to the Malaya mountain range of South India and the
extensions of land on the west in Arabian Sea. The time period must have been
Ice age when the water level of the Arabian Sea was low thereby exposing the
land in the west of Western Ghats. Dravideswara Manu (as he was called –perhaps he was a Kshatriya vrathya to be
called as Dravideswara) lived with his people in this region which borders
western side of South India. The identification of Pancha Dravida in South India was
perhaps due to this reason. When the first floods occurred in the Arabian sea,
Manu and his men were pushed to North India via Dwaraka and entered the
Saraswati River. That group fanned out and spread all over North India in
course of time.
It is also possible that people from Shaka island
entered directly to South India after Ice age when vegetation became available
in South India.
In all this, what cannot be denied is that the people of Shaka island
at some time in the past came under the reign of Thennan (Southerner) or Pandyan
who was also known as Gauriya (in the lineage of Gauri, another name for
Parvathi, the consort of Shiva).
If all the people in ancient India, say, during or after the
Ice age were somehow connected with Shaka dwipa in the south, then all of them
should have spoken the same, common language. This language might have been the
communication medium for all people of Bharat. Only then
Hanuman could have termed that language as language of Human beings. Hanuman
refers to that language as 'mAnusham
vAcham' (Valmiki Ramayana 5-30-17) and 'mAnusham vAkyam' (Valmiki Ramayana 5-30-19).
Hanuman first thought of conversing in Sanskrit. It was possible
for Sita to doubt how a 'vAnara' (monkey) could speak in Sanskrit and
she might think that Ravana in monkey disguise was speaking in Sanskrit.
Therefore, he decided to speak in the language of humans.
While mentioning about that language, Hanuman says, 'mAnusham vAkyam arthavath' - human language with sentences
full of meaning.
Here a doubt arises. Does it mean that there was a human language
with meanings and another human language without meanings?
The language of Human beings was not mere sounds, but conveyed
deep meanings also. This is conveyed at three places while talking about language
of the humans:
1 'arthavath' -full
of meanings (VR 5-30-18)
2 'srAvayishyAmi' -
(I will) make (Her) understand (VR 5-30- 43)
3 'avithatham' - (unalloyed) truth (VR
5-30-44)
After all, a language means it should contain meanings. We may ask
what is so great about that. But Hanuman chose a language that contained words
which could instil confidence, bring solace and convey truth.
The language in which Hanuman conversed made
**Sita to abandon suicidal attempt,
**She could trust Hanuman as Rama's messenger,
**Hanuman could convey the Samudrika beauty,
described in Sanskrit, of Rama in that language fully,
**Sita could convey her agony in that language, and
**Hanuman was able to assuage her feelings adequately, in that
language.
** Hanuman and Sita could talk in that language in whispers
** When it was still dark and each could not clearly see each
other, this language was able to convey each other and understand each other
fully.
** Not even one unnecessary word was spoken.
** No word was spoken which could have conveyed or understood with
different meaning.
** There was not a single word which was untruth.
Hanuman when decided to speak to Her, affirms that he would talk
only unalloyed truth ( At the end of chapter 30, he says 'avithatham jagAtha vAkyam'.
What is that 'avithatham' - unalloyed truth?
We assume that if we say something true then the sentence that
conveys it is a true sentence. Speaking truth means the expressed content is
true. But what if the words themselves are true? This is expressed in Chandogya Upanishad.
It says words have the power of truth. It says that words have
life and truth. "With those words even if,
for example, one says 'water', then even a dried up log would germinate and
tender leaves would sprout.", says Japala Satyakama ( Ch.Up.
5-2-3)
That is if the word 'water' is mentioned with full meaning,
truthfully and dedicatedly, it would quench dryness and thirst. Similarly by
mere mention of the word 'food' should eliminate hunger and fill
the stomach! This Upanishad says that is how prANa functions (5-19.1)
Words have that power.
Deva bhAsha, Sanskrit,
has that power of realizing the truth of the words. The Devas or
gods conversed among themselves and so Sanskrit is called Deva bhAshA,
just as humans conversed in human language.
Devas? Researchers with the Western mindset might regard Devas
and God to be imaginary beliefs. From their own angle of view, we can
denote Deva as the relativity formula of Albert Einstein,
E=Mc2
Devas and gods would appear suddenly and disappear instantly. There
are many reported instances of appearance of Devas/gods in
Tamilnadu.
Deva is an Energy form. He will be invisible in
that form. But he can become visible with Mass. But such a manifestation with
mass and therefore some form, would not be an ordinary image as it
possesses Velocity of light. So it (Deva) appears and disappears at speed of
light. (I may be crude in explaining this, but this formula of Einstein seems
to be easier way to explain the concept of Deva and his manifestation in
physical form in fleeting moments.)
Where from that light comes? It comes from the Universe. The stars
are the resource for the light in the Universe. The stars are responsible for
the creation and appearance of all living beings. They are the images of Devas
- nakshathrANi rUpam [Purusha
sooktham].
That is why we denote god with illumination or light. If that god
has to appear, that light also would be associated.
The difference between Mass and Energy lies in this Velocity of
light, in the Einstein's formula on Theory of Relativity. We can visualize this
Relativity Theory as Purusha and Prakruti.
While prakruti is Mass, Purusha is Energy.
Every living being is made of these two (soul and body). God is all
energy and He is Supreme Energy- purushOththaman. He will appear at
His will with a flash of light.
When our purusha or soul approaches Purushotthama level,
man becomes god -like. At that state, whatever he speaks is Deva bhasha or language of the
gods. This is how Deva bhasha can be described.
**In that level if word water is mentioned, it would quench
thirst. (It is not just a physical entity as water, it also has the energy of
water)
** In that level word food uttered, it would remove hunger.
** This also explains why and how the grains (akshthai) left by
Sage Yajnavalkya on the throne of the king, started to grow as plants
instantaneously!
When Sage Valmiki attained that level, Ramayana epic was
created.
Valmiki himself narrates the creation of Ramayana.
Valmiki requests Narada for the story of Rama. After hearing
it, Valmiki ponders over it and goes to Tamasa river for bathing. Before
bathing, he observes a pair of birds on a tree branch. Just then a hunter's
arrow shoots down the male bird. The female bird cries at the dead bird. Seeing
this with pity, Valmiki curses the hunter with words flowing out from his mouth
spontaneously.
But those words in Sanskrit were couched so nicely to form a
beautiful sloka. Not merely that. The words uttered as curse
in reality were glorifying Lord Rama. The sloka starts
with the word 'mA nishAdha' and glorifies Rama.
Till then Valmiki could not compose any sloka nor
did he know the grammar of Sanskrit. The quality of compassionate energy in him
at the sight of the slain bird sublimed him to godly level. In that state,
words in Deva bhasha -Sanskrit- came out spontaneously
from him. Those words were not created by human efforts. When one sublimes to
godly level, one possesses godly powers. In that state the spontaneous flow of
words constitute Deva Bhasha or language of the gods.
What Sages speak in that state become Vedas!
They can never be composed by human efforts but are composed at a
different wave length.
That Veda Bhasha is called chandhO
bhAshA. Chandho bhasha means it is in sound form and
cannot be written or read. (But persons like Macaulay read and interpreted in
their own way conveying absurd results.)
Valmiki was astonished at the sprout of those beautiful words in
the beautiful poetic format. Just then the Four faced Brahma appeared before
Valmiki and commanded him to create the Ramayana epic with the
very same words and poetic form, as they came at a sublime level.
Accordingly, the Ramayana he wrote flowed like flood waters from
his divine state. That is why Valmiki Ramayana is regarded as Mother Veda incarnated.
Vedas will always speak about Veda Purusha or God.
When that Veda Purusha incarnated as Rama, Veda Mata also
was born as Valmiki's Ramayana, glorifying Rama.
Devotees even today start reciting Valmiki Ramayana by
uttering slokas conveying this meaning.
It is usually believed that when one reaches Divine level,
goddess Saraswati takes one's tongue as her seat. This incident in Valmiki's
life is an example of this belief. Vedas are the source for Brahma.
When one chanted Vedas it was considered as Saraswati. That is how
people regard Saraswati as wife of Brahma.
**After the deluge, Vaivasvata Manu and others
regarded the river which made them to escape to safer place, as Saraswati. Or,
because Rig Veda flowed from the sages who were settled there,
in their sublime Divine level, the river came to be called as Saraswati!
We should note here that this is not only
applicable to Sanskrit, but also to Tamil.
** After the Second cataclysm, the Pandyas made Kavatapura as their capital
(kavatam also means door which is what Dwaraka means in Sanskrit. Both were the
places where the people had entered through after a deluge and started a new
living. How could the name with same meaning exist for Tamils and also in the
North?
** The Pandyan who thus started a new life along with his
surviving subjects started the Second Tamil sangam with 48
poets. The Tamil Epic poem called "Thiruvilaiyadal Puranam" (chapter
3-3) says that the 48 alphabets of Sanskrit were born as 48 poets and Lord Shiva joined
them as a mark of redemption of a curse on Saraswati. This assembly discussed and
analysed both Sanskrit and Tamil. All this goes to show that when all is lost
in a cataclysm, and the survivors regroup themselves, they revive their old
ways of education by invoking Saraswathi.
**This is reported in Tamil lands and also in North India when Manu
and others survived a cataclysm. Invoking of God by the language of Devas
was done in Saraswati valley. In Tamil lands, Saraswati herself was thought to
have been born as incarnation of 48 Sanskrit alphabets. All these can be
dismissed as mere exaggerations, but what must not be missed is that pattern is
similar – the name of place of entry is same and the revival of education is
the same and invoking of Saraswati's name is same.
** This practice was followed in Thennan's
(Pandyan) country also. (I use the word Thennan as it is very often used
in Sangam texts. It means 'southerner' – an expression to denote Pandyan kings)
** Interestingly it is mentioned in Sinnamanur inscriptions that
an olden Pandyan king mastered the Tamil language of the south! Why is this
specifically written in the prasasthi of the inscriptions is a question that
comes to our minds. Does it mean that the Pandyan kings did not know or
study Tamil as a matter of having it as their mother tongue? If we analyse in
this angle, we get some important clues on an ancient language coming to get
some status after refinement. We can find a chronological order in the mention
of this information. It is after this, comes the mention of driving away of the
sea by a Pandyan king by throwing his spear.
The details of the Sinnamanur inscriptions can be read here:
The reference here is to Ugra Pandyan, the son of Gauri and Lord Chokkanatha (Shiva) around whose time
the first Sangam was constituted. The time period is the first deluge after the
Ice Age. The olden Madurai of the South (known as Then-Madurai) escaped a major
catastrophe of sudden ocean-floods. This feat of Ugra Pandyan (of stopping the floods
by throwing the spear called as 'VEl' in Tamil and "Vadi vEl' in sangam
literature. This Ugra Pandyan in all probability is Skanda or Muruga) is
mentioned at several places in olden Tamil texts. From this it is deduced that
the Pandyan who mastered Tamil proceeded the time that Sangam was constituted
for the first time. It also conveys that Tamil existed then as a spoken
language among the common people and the king had learnt it. The mention of
Ugra Pandyan after this king shows that efforts to refine Tamil with the
grammar (of Sanskrit) was under way around that time and once it was
complete, the Sangam assembly was constituted by inviting people to compose and
publicise their poems in grammatical Tamil. By then Ugra Pandyan had come to
the throne.
During Ugra Pandyan's time, the people experienced the floods from
the seas for the first time. Ugra Pandyan threw the spear that he got from his
mother (Gauri) into the seas which resulted in some change in the direction of
waves in such a way that the floods receded. This is similar to the episode of
Rama (when he was planning to cross the sea to reach Lanka) throwing or
shooting his arrow (Brahmastra) in a region in the sea that resulted in rise of
some regions and inundation of some other regions.
After this, there comes the mention of founding the city of Madhura and walling it on four sides.
The 2nd canto of Thiruvilayadal puranam begins from this. The
relevant section of this epic detailing these events can be read here:
** Continuing from the previous idea of how Sanskrit is regarded
as a Deva Bhasha (by virtue of it being a 'truthful' language), let us see some
comparable features of Tamil, that was spoken by the common people even before
the 1st Sangam was constituted around 11,500 ago somewhere in a
region in the Indian ocean which is now under the sea waters.
Earlier we said that Chandogya Upanishad mentioned
that Sanskrit words had the energy and power. Similarly, Tamil words also had
energy and power.
** Just like the word water in Sanskrit had the power to quench
thirst, Tamil words from Nayanmars, the savants of Shiva, had the power to open
closed doors.
** Words of Thirugnana Sambandar in his divine level could bring
back to life a dead girl.
** Words of Abirami Bhattar brought full moon, to make his words
true.
** Such were the words of Hanuman when he wanted to speak 'avithitham'.
In the language of humans, there were words with unalloyed truth,
and so Hanuman decided to speak in that language. Such a language must have
existed strongly for a long time among the people. The period of First sangam
far preceding Ramayana times shows that Tamil was spoken long before Ramayana
happened. At the time of Ramayana, the 2nd sangam was on, as
the capital city of Pandyans is mentioned as Kavaatam in Valmiki Ramayana. (कवाटम् पाण्ड्यानाम् गता द्रक्ष्यथ वानराः VR- 4-41-19)
These features establish the prevalence of Tamil among the people.
With this if we examine peyariyal soothiram ( formula for Nouns) in Tholkappiyam, we can
find some deeper meanings.
The author of Tholkappiyam says that though all
words in all languages have certain meanings, in Tamil they contain appropriate
truthfulness ('பொருண்மை'=பொருந்திய உண்மை). It
means 'truth'
embedded in the word.
//"எல்லாச் சொல்லும் பொருள் குறித்தனவே.
பொருண்மை தெரிதலும்
சொன்மை தெரிதலும்
சொல்லின் ஆகும் என்மனார் புலவர்".//
Wherefrom Tamil got this 'truth' embedded in itself?
We talked about language of the birds. Parrots speak in their
language. But if we teach our language, a parrot speaks that language.
The parrots of Mandana Mishra, who
argued with Adi Sankara, chanted Vedas.
By refinement of parrot's language this was possible. Sanskrit has
natural refinement. Many language experts acclaim the superior refinement found
in Sanskrit.
Tamil was also refined, just like how the parrot's language was
refined.
The language of the commoner of the earliest times (before the
first deluge) was refined by Lord Shiva and sage Agastya. This is reiterated at
many places in ancient Tamil books.
As recently as a 100 years ago, this was common knowledge of the
people such that the Great Poet Subramanya Bharathiyaar says that Tamil was given by Shiva and the sage Agastya
framed the grammar and refined it.
//"ஆதி சிவன் பெற்று விட்டான் –என்னை
ஆரிய மைந்தன் அகத்திய னென்றோர்
வேதியன் கண்டு மகிழ்ந்தே – நிறை
மேவும் இலக்கணஞ் செய்து கொடுத்தான்"//
Even though this is forgotten now, Valmiki has mentioned the name
of Tamil as it was known originally in the beginning, at least in 8
places in Ramayana.
The same name occurs in Madurai Kalambakam, written
by Swami Kumara Guruparar.
The same name was mentioned by Subramanya Bharathi 100 years ago.
What is that name?
We will see it in the next article.
(to be continued)
25 comments:
Dear Madam,
its surprising & nice to know facts presented spoken language of manushya. I am amazed with your proficiency.
these days tendency is to learn or concentrate on Tamil language is considered as waste of time. North Indian kids in schools attitude shows they do not know value of Tamil language. (thanks to impressions created by our local politicians).
knowledge of different languages is definitely added advantage. Still parents should also ensure grandeur of tamil language is made aware to younger generation. There are tamilians who are proud they cannot pronounce "zha" & "lla" properly.
Sheela
Wait for the 3rd article in this series, Ms Sheela, you would be in for more surprises.
This is conjecture and I applaud the author for the imaginative thinking presented, for that is all this amounts to at best.
The manushya basha, lokokthi, madhura vaakyam with its adjectives referred to in Valmiki ramayana is not Tamil. It is prakrit, from which Tamil later originated, as telugu, marathi, bengali and other languages originated from. Tamil however, also had part of its origin from non-prakrit, non-sanskrit dialects spoken OUTSIDE of vedic india.
All archeological evidence from dwaraka sumberged in the sea to evidence from Ashoka and Harshavardhana days to gautamiputra satakarni days reveal Prakrit inscriptions in additional to sanskrit and pali. It was prakrit that was spoken inevery corner in ancient vedic india, and it is prakrit that satisfies all the criteria vetted by the author above. So, the manushya bhasha referred to valmiki in Ramayana is prakrit, not Tamil. Saying that it is Tamil requires high imagination not grounded in reality and a rejection of truth. For every argument made by author above, telugu, marathi, bengali, kannada also would satisfy to be the manushya bhasaha, but that wont make that the truth.
There are more articles to come on this Mr Jay, where you would know why I am saying like this. A reader of all my articles both in Tamil and English would know what I am going to say in this series, for I have already written the justifications. In a day or two the next part would be posted.
I object to the use of Tamil as being "outside Vedic India" That is what the colonial and present day Indians are thinking. But that is wrong. Just a few minutes ago I cleared a post by a person on how an olden folk song of Tamil (Kutrala kuravanji) called Tamil land as Aryan land. Read it in the comment in this link:-
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2008/01/no-aryan-dravidian-divide-it-was-one_23.html?showComment=1365100070160#c5864433546700707826
Until 100 years ago Bharathiyaar said in many verses that Tamilnadu was part of Aryan India!
On your view on Prakrith, please know that there was sanskrit based Prakrith and non-sanskrit based Prakrith. This was identified and enumerated by the British in their census. The non-Sanskrit based prakrith was known as Apabrahmsa, which formed the basis for all the Indian languages of today. Read the census report.
http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&action=previous&record=1443
The important information is that Apabrahmsa has many words of Tamil which are in corrupt form! It was called as Kodum Tamil in old Tamil literature. It was in the last 1000 to 2000 years sanskrit was added to these apabrahmsa and resulted in today's languages. Word loaning from Apabrahmsa and grammar from Sanskrit - this is how today's Indian languages evolved with. More to come in this series.
But one thing, in this series we are talking of a period that is 7000 years BP. Tamil existed at that time. In the following article I had given the proof of that as it existed in Ramayana times.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/02/all-tamils-must-unite-to-save-ram-setu.html
In the latter part of this article, I had written on apabrahmsa and some Tamil derivatives.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2012/06/cartoon-controversy-on-hindi-agitation.html
During Mahabharata times, Apabrahmsa was said to be spoken by Abhiras. Those who lost contact with sanskrit kept talking only in apabrahmsa which further changed over time and formed into new languages. The presence of Tamil words in many European languages (eg Hungarian alone has 1000s of words that are corrupt forms of Tamil) can be due to the spread of Abhir like people (who lost touch with Vedic life and hence forced to move out of Aryavartha). Jews are one among them, is my opinion.
Tamil was not called as Prakrith nor as Apabrahmsa, but was known by a unique name in the past. 'Tamil' was a coined name once after it was refined with grammar. But others who spoke the olden form of non-refined Tamil (proto-Tamil) had a name for it. That name was used by Valmiki in the places where the people were said to have conversed in Manushya bhasha. You would read that in the next part.
Thank you for providing some clarification and I agree with all of your response except your last paragraph. I didnt say that tamil speaking people were outsiders to India, no. Every resident of Tamil nadu today and his/her ancestors were very a part of vedic india as much as Guru Agastya, Sri Raghu Rama, Guru Visvamitra, Viraada, Kabandha, Sri Sugreeva etc. are! I stopped believing the Aryan invasion nonsense since 13 years ago and since I read books written by David Frawley on Rig Veda, etc. I said that the influence on the Tamil langauage was from outside. I meant what you refer to as Apabrahmsa. Perhaps the influence on the language is not from outside India.
However, in my opinion, it is prakrit that was the manushya bhasha spoken in days when Sri Raghu Rama walked the earth and which Adi Kavi Valmiki referred to as well.
Mr Jay,
I hope you had read the 1st part of this series.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/03/valmiki-of-ramayana-knew-tamil-spoken.html
Mr Jay, I expect that when you say that Prakrith was spoken in Ramayana times, you must show proof for it. In my articles, I am showing proofs or cross references. Let us see both and draw inferences.
MS Jayasree, before you read the following, please note that I am an ardent follower of your blog and one of your many fans. Now to reply to your post, I take exception with this author of this particular blog and your own blogs that you referenced above for me to read. I read them, and like in this instance, I did not see any evidence as I mentioned above.
The evidence I alluded to is the language of the inscriptions found by archeology researchers in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka (collectively the land which was all once a part of Vedic Saraswati civilization). The oldest found inscriptions in India are fourth century BC Ashoka inscriptions found in prakrit and brahmi scripts in some places, and in Kharosthi in other places. Book where I found this is "History of Ancient And Early Medieval India" by Upinder Singh. First century BC Taxila Copper plate inscription (in British Museum now) was in prakrit. And I am sure you already know that the most famous other first century BC Harappan and Mohenjo Daro inscriptions are still undeciphered (i.e. by no means tamil). While Sarada inscriptions were confined to kashmir, and Kharosthi altogether died later on, it was brahmi that remained, became most common and broke out into various branches, thanks to its prominence gained under the Gupta golden age, which morphed it into 'Siddhamaatrika' or 'Kutila' Brahmi. This later morphed further down into Devanagari or Nagari, then developed into Gaudi (bengali), Orissa, Assameese and Maithili Brahmi.
The 'Granthi' script used for Tamil is believed to be reserved when writing in Sanskrit only in ancient Tamil nadu, while the Vatteluttu and modern Tamil was reserved for today's tamil language. You can crosscheck this information in the book or online.
It is prakrit that is found in tamil language, and not the other way round. Let me also say this, if we lay caution and truth to the wind and for a second say that tamil did exist in the north, east and west of ancient India, then what really wiped it out entirely and completely cleansed even the remotest possibility of it's ancient presence in India's medieval languages or today's languages? If you even begin to answer that for a second, you are just playing into the song and hands of karunanidhi, DMK, AIDMK and their rouge preceptor Venkata Ramasamy.
Dear Mr Jay,
Thanks for your time and efforts to bring out the views which are common knowledge today. But my article goes far beyond the time these inscriptions came into being. Before going further, let me just present my credentials that I studied the art of reading inscriptions and history of it from Mr Ramachandran, retired archeologist just for the sake of my research for 'Thamizan drvidana'. I have in possession the publications of TN archeology dept that are relevant for my research. As a regular reader you would have known by now that I am not a parroting one but one who analyses from many angles with cross-references to accept something as credible. As such I found that the present idea of Brahmi as the source of Tamil script is totally false. Only a shred of why I think so, has been written in my olden article. I would write elaborately on that in my tamil blog and get it translated.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2012/07/was-tamil-script-derived-from-brahmi.html
Please go through the links I have given in that article - particularly the one on Vedic Kurma. That is farthest proof we have on when stone working started in India. The Aruvalars I mentioned in that article settled in Sriperumpudur - Kancheepuram were earlier in Dwaraka - kutch - therefore Kanchi also got the name Kacchi from them. I can show cross reference from Skanda purana and Nacchinarkkinayar commentary for this.
While they were in Dwaraka (so called Indus culture) they were working on stones for architecture and stone tablets, but the same stone workers found another job when kings started to boast of their works in stone carvings. By this I mean to say that inscriptions on stones had come only after the end of Indus culture or about 2500 to 3000 years ago when the stone workers became jobless due to displacements forced by natural calamities in the indus. This happened first in North India where majority of them shifted from the Indus in the wake of natural calamities.
In TN, Karikal cholan procured their instruments (from KAnchi) to chisel his emblem in the Himalayas. Then he got the idea to use stones to build the dam. That is how the 'Kallanai' across kaveri came in to being.
The Pallavas who came after him used stones to build temples. (Kancheepuram connection) One Pallava even claimed himself as Vichitra chitthan - for having done unique structures - a reference to the stone temples. By all this I come to say that stone works started only 2000 years ago in TN. In North India they (stone temples) would have been made but lost due to Muslim invasions.
In Tamil nadu Tamil script was already in place for 1000s of years. They used only palm leaves to write which had a life of 300 years. For this reason it had to be rewritten regularly. We have proof of regular writing works of this kind in Dharampal's book.
The Olden Tamil kings thought that their achievements were indeed God's work and therefore did not boast of their feats. But grants, donations and rules and laws were written in palm leaves. There is proof for this in Tholkaappiyam sutra which says that when there was a doubt about law or rights or responsibilities, one must look at olden / preserved the written records!! It is further elaborated in commentaries that written records were in bundles which of course were rewritten once the palm leaves were threatened by termites.
By all this I come to say that Tamil as we write today was in writing in existence 3000 years ago in Tamil lands
(cont'd).
The proof for the same script of Tamil in existence then is nothing but the "Grantha" script!!!
Yes Grantha has the Tamil letters that we have today. For example take 'ka' the first letter. The Brahmi experts would look at Aramic script to say that 'ka' was first written in Aramic - then adapted by Ashokan Brahmi and then Tamil Brahmi. But it is not like how we write 'ka' in Tamil today. But look at Grantha which was formed in 3rd century AD. The same 'ka' that we write today in Tamil is there in Grantha. How was it possible if it was not in existence then? Similarly all the letters of Tamil (12+18) except those which had the same form in land measurements and some such applications (which were there already before Grantha was introduced) are same as today's Tamil letters. This goes to show that Tamil letters were there and are continuing without change. They did not come from Brahmi
In this scenario, Brahmi was an brief interference which was brought in and promoted by Jain monks. But then when they tried to dominate the Tamil literary scene, they fell back on original Tamil or else they could not have written their works Tamil, for, there was the basic defect in Tamil Brahmi that it had only 7 in the place of 12 Uyir ezuththukkaL (primary alphabets) of Tamil.
The Grantha was introduced at the behest of Pallavas who could not pronounce the Tamil letters as there are no 'ka' - ga' difference in Tamil. Only a Tamil can know - but not today's Tamil !!!
So wherever the sound variation was there, there new letters were used. The Grantha could have been evolved only by those who knew Tamil and also sanksrit. I would write on that separately and how it was Brahmins who did that and how it was Brahmins who safe guarded the Tamil script inspite of interferences from Jains and got us today how it was. Until 50 years ago, only Brahmins were in teaching profession and they helped in transmitting Tamil as it is today for all these generations in the past.
Apart from Tamil, there was no language other than Sanskrit that had a writing form as early as 3000 years ago. The Indus script is not a language but traders' marks which Dr Kalyanaraman had extensively written. On my part form internal sources like Tamil works, I have shown the same.
If you can read Tamil read this. Or google translate and see if it works.
http://thamizhan-thiravidana.blogspot.in/2012/10/109-ogham_4138.html
The Indus script was known as "kaNNEzutthu" - the image that conveys the meaning by seeing.
(cont'd)
Prakrit or pali was the spoken language by the time Buddhism arose. The link that I have given from the census archives is a record of all the languages that were in vogue in India at the time of that census report - 150 years BP. It covered the entire Indian Sun continent - and it was the Bharat of those days. You must be aware that Brauhi spoken in Sivi in Pakisthan resembles Tamil. In the current series I would be writing on all that.
The vocabulary of those languages showed 2 distinct patterns. (Note vocabulary not grammar. If vocabulary loan words are there, it is a sign of mixing, migration or common language. The same holds good for European languages as they have sanskrit loan words but no connection with grammar). One, with sanskrit mix and another without sanskrit mix.
In the 2nd one the words were known as 'apabrahmsa'. This was common knowledge to people 150 years ago. The issue is that apabrahmsa has Tamil words in corrupt form - called as 'Kodum Tamizh' in Tholkappiyam. Kodum Thamiz could have been the proto-Tamil. The census record shows that almost all the languages of India had a mix of Apabrahmsa!! Particularly Hindi and Maratti had evolved from Apabrahmsa. Ask the linguistic researchers of these languages.
My present work is based on this revelation.
There was no written script for this apabrahmsa, or even sanskritised Prakrit. When Buddhists and Jains rose up, they discarded sanskrit and wanted to develop their own script which they could take to the people for propagating their religions. The first ever written work on a language other than sanskrit was an astrological book called "Surya Pragnapthi" by Jains. It was written in a script that came to be called as Ardha Magadhi. Locally it was called as Prakrut.
The Jains borrowed the scripts from west and Europe where they were evolving then. The Brahmi got a foot hold in India in this way through them. In their propaganda spirit, they persuaded people and kings to chisel out in stone their teachings and the donations or whatever in their script. In every region that they spread they adopted to local language and framed the script accordingly.
So as far as written script is concerned, this was the first. Until then people did not use any written script other than sankrit in regions outside Tamil lands. This is the story of growth of written scripts in india.
But what can not be ignored is that almost all the languages of India and even the lands upto Iceland had loan words from both Tamil and sanskrit. How did this happen? Sanskrit is agreeable, but how Tamil came into that is a mystery that I am trying to solve. I take into account all the availabel info including what genetics say in writing these. I have already written volumes in my Tamil blog and comments there.
Presently I am working on the 3rd article (some 5000 words over but still it continues) on the presence of a common spoken language throughout India during Ramayana times. I am showing that it was "Kodum tamizh" - the proto Tamil which was known as "madhuram". Apabrahmsa was a later name after this was corrupted. In fact it would be apt ot call apa brahmsa as Kodum Thamiz.
(cont'd)
You would find that Tamil-loan words in Incas and in North American pre-columbian natives. A reader of all the articles in my blog on this kind of historical issues would know most of the links I have written so far.
Even the 'zhi' in Chinese is a corrupt form of proto-Tamil that existed in Indian ocean - pacific ocean islands before Ice age.
From my comment in my Tamil blog:
//The mix up of Kodum Thamizh and this developed Tamil happened in South India upto Maharashtra on the North west and Orissa in the north east in the last 3500 years. This resulted in the development of what is now called as Dravidian languages. The nouns and pronouns would be similar but other words sound corrupted as a result of this development.
The same Kodum Tahmizh and sanskrit mixed up to give north Indian languages mainly Hindi.(Sanskrit influence is there in other South Indian languages {I hate to use the term Dravidian} because those who mixed up were migrants from North India. I would write it in the series). Hindi was a recently developed language. Its earlier form had more of Kodum Thamizh which was called as "Apa-Brahmsa" in sanskrit. This situation continued in the Central Asian and European countries too, not because of invasions, but because as early 2000 years ago stretching upto 5000 years ago during Mahabharata times, the people of North India and these European and Asian regions had interacted and therefore language mix-up had happened.//
One important info on Vedas - Certain sounds in Rig Vedas must be pronounced as "zha" - the special letter of Tamil.
Paramacharya had highlighted this.
http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/Kurall87.htm
How could the sages of the sarawati region have this special sound of Tamil, unless they were already having that in vocabulary or Tamil / proto tamil had already existed in regions where Vedism evolved.
(cont'd)
from my tamil blog:-
Now let's come back to the present study that says that Asians, Chinese and Native Americans shared a common genetic origin. After the 2nd deluge 7000 years ago, most of Sundaland was submerged and people have moved in 2 directions. The Daityas (Chinese) moved inland northward. The danavas who were also in the same Sundaland, moved to India via Arabian Sea and settled in NW India for some time. They further moved to Europe between 7000 to 5000 years ago. It was around 5000 years ago that Mayan architecture replaced Viswakarma architecture in ancient India. It was Krishna who patronized Mayan and made him build the city and Maya sabha for the Pandavas. From then onwards the Mayan architecture spread throughout India.
The Danavas differ from daityas in the maternal side. That is, as per Hindu sources, Danu (female progenitor of Danavas) and Diti (female progenitor of Daityas) were sisters. But the Manavas (Indians) too shared the maternal gene as their female progenitor was Aditi, who was a sister of Danu and Diti, but their paternal progenitor gene (Manu) also was totally different from Daityas and danavas.
At this time, the Indian Ocean - bound settlements continued and were completely shattered in the 3rd deluge that took place 3500 years ago. It was at that time migrations towards the American continents across the Pacific had happened. The Anishinabhe people seem to be connected with Tamils than anyone else. The peculiar sound of 'zha' (ழ) in Tamil language is seen as zhi and shi sounds in Chinese and 'wi' zhi' sounds in Native Americans. It must be noted that Rig Vedas (which were given by the new settlers of Manu in the Saraswathi basin) use the Tamil pronunciation of zha. The first Rig vedic mantra has a word "agnimILE" where the La must be pronounced as Tamil Zha! Similarly 'shi' sound in Rig Vedas interchanges with 'zhi' (ழி) of Tamil.
Paramacharya of Kanchi had spoken on this and said that quite a few words in Rig Vedas are pronounced as Tamil Zha. Similarly the Talavakara shaka of sama veda used 'zha' sound. One justification (which Paramacharya also says) is that this was due to the influence of Pradesha Bhasha (local language). But I don't agree with this suggestion. From the then existing numerous Vedas, Ved Vyasa picked out some and compiled them into 4 parts. He taught each part (each Veda) to each of his 4 disciples namely, Paila, Vaisampayana, Jaimini and Sumantu. These 4 disciples were instructed by Vyasa to go to the 4 directions of Bharat and teach them there. As such Jaimini came to South India and taught Samaveda.
Why was South India chosen for Samaveda is a question. If Samaveda had already contained 'zha' sounds, then only it is logical to expect Vyasa to have ordained Jaimini to teach it to South Indian Tamils, as they were by then well established in Tamil grammar. It must not be assumed that Vedas were taught in South India for the first time by Jaimini. Earlier Ravana of Lanka was known to be an expert in Sama Ghana. All the Vedas had existed before hand – even at the time of Vaivasvatha Manu as he had the sages do the yajna to beget a male child as his first child had a confused gender. Perhaps Pumsavana ritual for gender change into male in the 3rd month of the fetus was introduced then. (We are going out of the topic). What I want to emphasize here is that the special Tamil sound of 'zha' was olden and was present in Vedic chants. The Tamils retained it in sama Veda while the first sages who entered saraswathi basin retained that sound in Rig Vedic compositions due to their previous association with the culture that spoke Tamil when they were in the Indian ocean settlements.
Mr Jay you have this worry
//Let me also say this, if we lay caution and truth to the wind and for a second say that tamil did exist in the north, east and west of ancient India, then what really wiped it out entirely and completely cleansed even the remotest possibility of it's ancient presence in India's medieval languages or today's languages? If you even begin to answer that for a second, you are just playing into the song and hands of karunanidhi, DMK, AIDMK and their rouge preceptor Venkata Ramasamy.//
My aim is to unravel the truth. If it is proved that Tamil language existed throughout India, it would not improve the pride of Tamils. But it would make them compelled to accept Tamils as vedic society and Tamils as part of larger Indian population. I assume that you dont read Tamil. Already I have analysed the genealogy of Cholans which takes him to the sub lineage of Ikshwaku. Social networking Tamils have started quoting my articles and write ups on how Tamils are not exclusivists.
Moreover the Madhuram bhasha that I am coming to explain shows that people of India were one initially. It is also in sync with genetic studies on ANI and ASI. Manu, known as Dravideswara spoke Madhuram language or proto Tamil. That was because he had his earlier home in south and south east asia hnd shared past with early Tamils who were ASI. From Manu Madhuram bhasha spread to NI and Europe. This analysis plugs the gaps in the shared history of ANI and ASI.
Dear Ms Jaysree, It took me a while to read through your lengthy response and carefully understand it. Since you are more educated than me in linguistics, I will take whatever you say regarding Brahmi and it's development for face value.
Excluding that, everything else you said is built on the research that some words, pronunciations in Tamil linguistic appears in Sanskrit, and your premise of how can that be unless tamil existed way back and perhaps earlier than Sanskrit. You yourself can turn this premise and argument on its head, the reason la is pronounced as zha in Sanskrit, exactly as in tamil and the reason certain words from tamil appear in Sanskrit, is purely because sanskrit originated first and then came Tamil, not vice versa. You want evidence? You agree already that Sanskrit is deva bhasha. Devas were created first by the Srishti Karta, and then later came humans, so the deva bhasha came first and Tamil came later borrowing words & pronunciations from Sanskrit, not vice versa.
It is not the sages of Saraswati that had the special sound of Tamil. That is the chauvinism that I see in this particular blog post and in your arguments. It is that the much much much later sages of south India that had borrowed the special sound from Sanskrit! Not just Tamil, but Telugu, kannada and Oriya have the special zha sound.
Coming to taking verses from valmiki Ramayana,
aham hi atitanuḥ caiva vanaraḥ ca viśeṣataḥ |
vācam ca udāhariṣyāmi mānuṣīm iha saṃskṛtām - means "however, I am a very small in size particularly as a monkey, and will speak now Sanskrit, the human language.
yadi vācam pradāsyāmi dvijātiḥ iva saṃskṛtām |
rāvaṇam manyamānā mām sītā bhītā bhaviṣyati ||
vānarasya viśeṣeṇa kathaṃ syādabhibhāṣaṇamm - means, If I utilize Sanskrit like a brahmin/kashtriya/Vaysa, Seetha will get afraid, and will think of me as Ravana. Especially, how can a monkey speak it?
avaśyam eva vaktavyam mānuṣam vākyam arthavat ||
mayā sāntvayitum śakyā na anyathā iyam aninditā - means, Definitely meaningful words of a human being are to be spoken by me. Otherwise, the good Sita cannot be consoled.
There is no word in above verses that Lord Hanuman had any doubt about language. He simply contemplated about using the proper language or the colloquial version as evidenced above. Just like every Indian language today, which has a proper version and a colloquial version.
Now going to the last two slokas of 30th Chapter of divine sundara kaanda,
ikṣvākūṇām variṣṭhasya rāmasya vidita ātmanaḥ || 5-30-42
śubhāni dharma yuktāni vacanāni samarpayan |
śrāvayiṣyāmi sarvāṇi madhurām prabruvan giram || 5-30-43
śraddhāsyati yathā hi iyam tathā sarvam samādadhe - means Offering auspicious and righteous words about Rama the most excellent prince of Ikshvaku dynasty who possesses a learned soul and myself speaking in a sweet voice, I shall make everything intelligible so that Seetha rightly believes everything. Please note that 'giram' means voice, not language.
iti sa bahu vidham mahāanubhāvo |
jagati pateḥ pramadām avekṣamāṇaḥ |
madhuram avitatham jagāda vākyam |
druma viṭapa antaram āsthito || - means The noble-minded Hanuman, abiding in the midst of the twigs of the trees and seeing Seetha, spoke the following sweet words of many kinds which were not futile.
The word madhuram means pleasant, sweet, charming, lovely, etc. The word vakyam means saying, expression, sentence, rule, express declaration or statement, etc. & not language. If adi kavi intended a language, he would have used the sanskrit word 'bhasha', but he didnt in these slokas.
Injecting unintended meanings to words in these verses, and conjuring that those words referred to a proto version of modern day language is pure imagination not grounded in reality.
Thanks for the response Mr Jay.
//everything else you said is built on the research that some words, pronunciations in Tamil linguistic appears in Sanskrit, and your premise of how can that be unless tamil existed way back and perhaps earlier than Sanskrit.//
Not on some words. I am building this idea from Valmiki’s presence in Sangam Tamil works. Hope you read the 1st article in the series. Can you ignore the views expressed in that article which are there in the records of literature? And there are many more to come as I would not end the series without analyzing why Kumarila Bhatta called Tamil as Dravida bhasha – a notion which formed the basis for Caldwell’s theory on Dravidan languages.
*****
// You yourself can turn this premise and argument on its head, the reason la is pronounced as zha in Sanskrit, exactly as in tamil and the reason certain words from tamil appear in Sanskrit, is purely because sanskrit originated first and then came Tamil, not vice versa. You want evidence?//
I have never said in this or any other article on which came first, Sanskrit or Tamil? What I have said so far in my other articles / comments is that, from my multi pronged research I have come to the opinion that the present population of the world started around 25,000 years BP in Sundaland and the scattered islands in Indian Ocean which are submerged now. Varaha, Narasimha and Vamana avataras happened in that location. With Vamana avatara, habitations were completely lost in the south of equator (in the regions I mentioned) and population shifted to North of equator – to India. I am sure you have NOT read many of my research based articles in this blog or else you wont be asking these questions and I would not have to be repeating the same answers!
Sanskrit existed then, and even before when the first wave of people crossed NW India and moved to Russia / Siberia about 40,000 years ago. That was originally the Deva period. I have written in the comment section of the following article on the 3-fold Deva description in Hindu texts and who they are actually.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2011/12/why-ban-gita-when-russia-has-vedic-past.html
Detailed articles on the same can be read in 19, 20 and 21st articles in my Tamil blog
http://thamizhan-thiravidana.blogspot.in/
Deva bhasha came into existence even at that time, but its form and presence is no longer there now. There are no traces available now to analyse that. The present form and spread of Sanskrit evolved or continued in South Asian and Indian Ocean region. This was possible by the continuing existence of sages and seers throughout in the past 1000s of years. At this juncture let me tell you for your information, that a separate class called “Thaapathar” (tapaswi) existed in the 7 fold classification of people in Tholkaappiyam. According to Tholkaappiyam it was a continuing classification from the period that existed before it was composed. The sages were drawn from the same local / common group who were speaking the common bhasha. Once attaining the sage-hood, Deva bhasha flowed from their mouth – like how it happened for Valmiki. Thus the common bhasha and Deva bhasha coexisted – even drawing words from one another. That is how nearly 30% of the words are common in sangam Tamil and Sanskrit.
(cont'd)
The local ‘zha’ sound was very much in the tongue of the sages because it was in the common language (Proto-Tamil). This ‘zha’ sound made the language Madhuram and musical. Today Malayalam has retained most of “zha” even as today’s Tamil has replaced most of the olden words of ‘zha’ with other words. A look at Tamil dictionary would show it all. With that ‘zha’, Malayalam sounds musical – you can’t deny it.
The sages (Agasthya in particular) refined local Tamil with grammar most of which was in Sanskrit and named it Tamil. There are 2 sutras in Tholkaappiyam that says that one must refer to Vedas for ascertaining the maatra for the letters of Tamil!! The sound nuances of letters are told in Tamil grammar whereas the metre nuances are told in Sanskrit grammar. This shows that the 2 languages were learnt side by side in olden days – Tholkaapiyam also says that the two were learnt side by side and that they co-existed.
Please read my 54th Tamil article in the following link where was an extensive discussion on Sanskrit and Tamil that brought out a conclusion that these two languages were like the 2 horses drawing the same cart .
http://thamizhan-thiravidana.blogspot.in/2011/05/54.html
If you don’t know Tamil, please google translate this and read. There are some comments in English also in that link.
The refinement of Tamil with grammar happened 11,500 years ago. Refer the 1st article.
It was before that time, Vaivasvatha Manu entered Saraswathi through Dwraka. Those who came with him and their descendants gave Rig Veda which Paramacharya says has “zha” sound which originally belonged to Tamil! This was because the sages were speaking the same Human bhasha the also – the bhasha was Proto-Tamil, the called as Madhuram and later came to be known as Apa brahmsa. For a quick reading of Manu’s entry and migrations of the past, read this link – though I have written this in detail in several other articles.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2011/12/yet-another-genetic-study-that.html
Read this wiki article on Apabhramsa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apabhramsha
(cont'd)
// Devas were created first by the Srishti Karta, and then later came humans,//
Expression like this would not find takers among researchers and therefore we have to be more subjective and grounded to norms of science. The 3 fold Deva I explained would satisfy the norms.
****
//It is not the sages of Saraswati that had the special sound of Tamil. That is the chauvinism that I see in this particular blog post and in your arguments.//
Fine, its your view. The one thing I would say is that we must rise above language identities. The language divisions have accentuated only in the last 1000 years. Towards the end of the series I am going explain that language affinities do not decide the races or our identities. It is not so scientifically.
What is scientifically deduced is that the population was small and prevailed in Indian Ocean and SE asian regions in the past for more than 60,000 years BP. This made it possible for the prevalence of one language. There are evidences to say that there such a language some 12,000 years BP in that region. Leading Researchers of the world agree that it is some form of Proto-Tamil!!! The basis of this notion is that the presence of Tamil in some form is there in most languages of the world. In my Tamil blog so far I have shown the evidences for this in Polynesian islands and Incas in the Andes.
Today we have science offering us many leads on human populations and movements in the past. I am taking into account all these in my analysis. Please refer Dr Rajaram’s article also in the following links. In fact my disclaimer contains the words (fused Tamil and Sanskrit presence can be seen from India to Ireland to Ice land ) drawn from Dr Rajaram’s articles.
http://folks.co.in/blog/2013/01/01/indo-europeans-3-noahs-animals-march/
http://folks.co.in/blog/2012/12/18/indo-europeans-2-natural-history-of-languages/
Dr Rajaram thinks that there was Gauda group in North India and Dravida group in South India in the ancient past from which the present day languages came. But he does not go beyond saying what was the original Gauda language. Moreover he has not taken into account the Apabrahmsa that continued till 2000 years ago.
I am sending my articles to him, to Dr David Fralay, Dr Iravatham Mahadevan and all other researchers (including Witzel) from across the world who are researchers in linguistics , AIT and ancient history.
What I am writing in my articles can be written only by some one who is acquainted with sangam Tamil. In that capacity, I am bringing forth the connections from sangam Tamil. Let everyone read and debate.
Finally, on verses you have quoted from Sundhara khanda, there are many – other than what you have shown. My 3rd article is on those verses. Please wait and read them.
Mr Jay,
The 3rd article that deals with "Madhuram" in Valmiki Ramayana has been posted. The link is here.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/04/hanuman-and-sita-conversed-in-madhura.html
Dear Ms Jaysree,
Thanks for your comments. Your sources in your three posts are purely Tamil poets, Tamil authors and Tamil tales. So, not a sound basis to formulate an opinion and defend it.
//Not on some words. I am building this idea from Valmiki’s presence in Sangam Tamil works.// - This Valmiki that you are have written about is not the adikavi. As is extremely common in our culture, names repeat since new populace take on old names either out of reverence or as a title. Added to this every maha yuga, vasishta's, agastya's, vyasa's are born again again and again. Another view is that the so called sangams you refer to could have been a far more ancient practice of aaaranya-ashrama gatherings by ancient sages where discussions and discources were held in sanskrit. Evidence of these is plenty in Vyasa's Mahabharata. This is the correct way to think of the sangams.
//I am sure you have NOT read many of my research based articles in this blog or else you wont be asking these questions and I would not have to be repeating the same answers! // - Trust me, I have read a lot of your blogs, and I agree with some and disagree with the rest of your views in them.
By the way, if you go to Kasi or Gorakhpur, you will hear zha pronounced as zha by any sanskrit speaking person there, pandit and non-pandit as well. Thinking that zha is of a Tamil origin is a bit arrogant. Unlike in Hindi or other north indian languages, sanskrit has the distinct zha that is still pronounced as is today by north indian pandits.
//The sages (Agasthya in particular) refined local Tamil with grammar most of which was in Sanskrit and named it Tamil.// - you are 100% correct here, this is the crux of my arguments and I am glad you acknowledged this. This is the origin of Tamil, from sanskrit later on. The local apbrahmsa was refined with sanskrit to form tamil much later in history in the last 5,000 years. Kurukshetra war ended around 5,132 B.C. and Ramayana occurred around 10 million years ago (a yuga earlier than dwaapara that ended circa 5,250 B.C. Maha yuga comprises of 4.32 million years. I disagree with your definition of yugas and maha yugas. Even NASA dated the adam's bridge to around 10 million years ago).
//Those who came with him and their descendants gave Rig Veda which Paramacharya says has “zha” sound which originally belonged to Tamil!// - Again, the vedas as a-purusheya, i.e. not of human origin. The Sanskrit language has the zha, and from it was borrowed by modern Tamil language, not the other way around.
//I am going explain that language affinities do not decide the races or our identities// - yes, races came first, languages came later.
//What is scientifically deduced is that the population was small and prevailed in Indian Ocean and SE asian regions in the past for more than 60,000 years BP. This made it possible for the prevalence of one language. There are evidences to say that there such a language some 12,000 years BP in that region.// yes, and that common language was sanskrit, and its variations. Please do research on how similar Lithuanian language is to sanskrit. It was Sanskrit that was prevalent across the world in the past.
I have read your 3rd article, and will post a response to it there.
Dear Mr Jay,
//Your sources in your three posts are purely Tamil poets, Tamil authors and Tamil tales.//
Then how else you explore the past? If you have any sources in your language or any other language, you are free to expose it. What I have shown here are not tales but solid literary sources which can be historically cross checked. There is not one but scores of Tamil literature that came into existence 2000 years ago. These are valuable cross references.
//So, not a sound basis to formulate an opinion and defend it.//
Researchers do not think so. Today those who have gone far into analysing history of the world (through various tools such as marine archeology and genetics), are looking up at Tamil sources. The key to the past is hidden in the Tamil literary sources as they only talk about the previous location of mankind in the Indian Ocean - the missing link between the present to the past.
//- This Valmiki that you are have written about is not the adikavi. As is extremely common in our culture, names repeat since new populace take on old names either out of reverence or as a title//
I gave proofs for him to be the Adhi kavi. If you don't agree, disprove it.
//Added to this every maha yuga, vasishta's, agastya's, vyasa's are born again again and again. //
Mixing up things. Be clear in what you say. Define a Mahayuga and say who lived when. Show that it was tenable for man to have lived in that yuga. Its because our people are speaking like this, our knowledge sources were discounted by scholars in the past. Let us not give room for that. When we say a yuga, we have to define it with authority and also in such way that modern findings of research do tally with that.
//Another view is that the so called sangams you refer to could have been a far more ancient practice of aaaranya-ashrama gatherings by ancient sages where discussions and discources were held in sanskrit. Evidence of these is plenty in Vyasa's Mahabharata. This is the correct way to think of the sangams. //
Another mixing up. Without knowing what is Tamil Sangam, you are writing. I have given an outline of Sangam period in the 1st article. The literary works of sangam are HUGE.
//
By the way, if you go to Kasi or Gorakhpur, you will hear zha pronounced as zha by any sanskrit speaking person there, pandit and non-pandit as well. Thinking that zha is of a Tamil origin is a bit arrogant. Unlike in Hindi or other north indian languages, sanskrit has the distinct zha that is still pronounced as is today by north indian pandits.//
That is the important feature that Pamacharya pointed out. His opinion is that it was due to regional affinities, meaning thereby those groomed in Tamil or Tamil lands used that sound in the Vedas!! I am asking is there any letter for zha in Sanskrit? There lies the mystery and answer to it.
//
/The sages (Agasthya in particular) refined local Tamil with grammar most of which was in Sanskrit and named it Tamil.// you are 100% correct here, this is the crux of my arguments and I am glad you acknowledged this.//
//
This is the fact that we keep seeing in Tamil literary works and in the commentaries to those works. A Jay Sekhar saying that I am 100% correct here makes me smile..!!!
//This is the origin of Tamil, from sanskrit later on. //
Prove it.
//The local apbrahmsa was refined with sanskrit to form tamil much later in history in the last 5,000 years//
Prove it. At least show some sources to defend what you say.
(cont'd)
//Kurukshetra war ended around 5,132 B.C. and Ramayana occurred around 10 million years ago (a yuga earlier than dwaapara that ended circa 5,250 B.C. Maha yuga comprises of 4.32 million years. I disagree with your definition of yugas and maha yugas. Even NASA dated the adam's bridge to around 10 million years ago).//
On mahabharata, it is agreed. But you say Ramayana occurred 10 million years ago!! Did man exist then? It is by talks like this we have made our rich literary / historical sources a bundle of myths.
The Nasa stuff - know that the land link between India and Srilanka is a permanent feature. It existed even 10,000 years ago Read me article on Setu where I have reproduced Graham Hancock's maps based on sea level in the past.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/03/do-srilankan-tamils-support-setu.html
There is research that says that the causeway on that link was a recent formation, say, made around 7000 years BP. Browse for Bharat gyan's DK Hari's video on Ram Setu. He will tell you in that video. It tallies with the astronomical dating of Ramayana at 7000 years ago. There are many articles in my blog on the dating of Ramayana (and therefore the Ram setu)
May these 2 would give quick understanding of what they considered as Yuga:-
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2011/01/on-yuga-classification-and-what-causes.html
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2009/07/did-rama-rule-for-11000-years.html
Not only Ramayana, Parasurama who was there when Rama was born also is known from multiple sources - inscription, literary and demographic archives - I can show evidence from all these. By this I am coming to say that Ramavatara happened not 10 million years ago, but 7000 years ago. Lack of knowledge of Yuga systems among the general public is making a mockery of our Epics!
//Again, the vedas as a-purusheya, i.e. not of human origin. The Sanskrit language has the zha, and from it was borrowed by modern Tamil language, not the other way around. //
Apaurusheya and zha pronunciation apart, no researcher would agree that Tamil borrowed zha from sanskrit. Ask any linguist, he would say that 'Ra' (ற) 'na'(ன) and 'zha'(ழ) are peculiar to Tamil. There are no equivalents for this in sanskrit.
By your own logic, if ‘Zha’ was there originally in apaurusheya Vedas, then the same zha in Tamil makes it a divine language!!! Would you agree?
// yes, and that common language was sanskrit, and its variations. Please do research on how similar Lithuanian language is to sanskrit. It was Sanskrit that was prevalent across the world in the past.//
Read my disclaimer. The presence of not only Sanskrit and also Tamil in European languages is the inspiration for this series.
I admire your blog. In my blog (www.raws-amen.blogspot.com) I am investigating three topics: 1. a set of what I believe to be Tamil Portolan Maps. These have GPS and originate in 2. Göbeklitepe Observatory/ Temple Turkey. 3. Rajiv Malhotra correctly believes the complex to be Hindu. It is also part of the once world Fertility Religion he correctly says. The start point for the World Maritime Oceanographic maps is T-Pillar D18
This has writing and symbols. Can you please look at these and comment? profnoahzark@gmail.com
PS I live in Turkey. Your blog on Saraswati has been censored. Please post me the original direct. Saraswati as Japanese Benzaiten and her Kitsune Foxes have great status at Göbekli Tepe in Enclosure B. This fact offers great dating connectivity to your work.
After 15th July 2013, this author (AC.CA) has no post.
Jayasree madam: have you interacted with him ?
His points are (here and his blog) worth taking into account. Interesting to learning posts being blocked in Turkey. (China and few other countries that i know..)
Yes, I have interacted with him. I have not heard from him for long. He seemed to be ailing and he suffered a personal loss. He has come across a rare map of the old from his region which according to me looks like the Vastu Mandala for the earth as a whole! It looks like a map where the pyramidal structures of the world can be spotted at the crucial points of that Mandala. That strengthens my opinion that building structures was the oldest profession and that builders of the world were united and followed more or less the same technique. I will try to reach out to him and bring out his manuscript which he was passionate about.
Post a Comment