tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post4544585257316292371..comments2024-03-18T22:56:06.696+05:30Comments on Jayasree Saranathan: Mundas – a fused culture of Tamil and Sanskrit speaking Vedic society (Mundas -10)Jayasree Saranathan http://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-16105745089075636772014-05-05T20:18:05.676+05:302014-05-05T20:18:05.676+05:30Dear Mr Sathyasrayan,
Thanks for the link. I wil...Dear Mr Sathyasrayan, <br /><br />Thanks for the link. I will go through it. However I wish to state that Rama's time could not go before 7000 years BP, as Parashurama's time coinciding with rise in western coast happened 7000 years ago. You may take a look at these articles in my blog on Rama's time and Krishna's time.<br /><br />On Rama's time:-<br /><br />http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2010/10/rama-lived-7000-years-ago.html<br /><br />http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2010/10/when-was-rama-born.html<br /><br />On Krishna's time:-<br /><br />http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/10/is-vedic-astrology-derived-from-greek_5.html<br /><br />http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2011/11/inscriptional-evidence-for-mahabharata.html<br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-71750091215948132472014-05-05T18:20:03.913+05:302014-05-05T18:20:03.913+05:30Respected Madam,
Slightly digressing on the topic...Respected Madam,<br /><br />Slightly digressing on the topic, i came across another blog, wherein the author dates the Ramayana to 12200 BC using astrological clues in the epic itself.<br /><br />He writes a lot about astrology and i thought that many of his predictions validate your theory of a much ancient india and its great culture.<br /><br />http://nileshoak.wordpress.com<br /><br />My humble Namaskarams.sathyasryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16222533300758272923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-86997833731188470142014-04-17T18:16:41.961+05:302014-04-17T18:16:41.961+05:30Perhaps the name Uraiyur came up late with maize c...Perhaps the name Uraiyur came up late with maize cultivation. But before that itself the name Chola had come to stay.<br /><br />The Cholas called themselves as "Sembian" - coming from Sibi. Sibi was located in NW India in today's Pakistan. Sibi appears in Buddhist lore too and located in that region. Mahabharata also locates the descendants of Sibi (Saibyas) in that region. Therefore the Cholas claiming their descent from Sibi must have had their origins there.<br /><br />To add credence to this, there is a place called Cholistan near Sibi which is an IVC site. The frontal tuft- people were there in further NW of Sibi. Tamil-resembling Brahui is spoken near that area. All these put together make me think the way that was written in the article.<br /><br />On the 2nd idea by Paramacharya, I see it as a concurrence to my theory. Nambhoothiris sport mun-kudumi (front tuft). In contrast Deekshithars of Chidambaram sport side- tuft. The image of Nataraja in Chidambaram is carved with a side tuft only. This style depicts another or different set of people - those who are different from front tuft ones. I think based on the tuft, we can deduce origins of some of these people.<br /><br />On front tuft, the Nambhoothiris sporting it shows that they must have been had their origins in Saraswad or Dravida Brahmins. This shows that Dravida Brahmins and Manu et al could have had front tuft. Their first landing region is NW India. Cholan origin there fits with their roots in sibi who came in Ikshwaku dynasty - though not in the line of first sons of the dynasty.<br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-71455374205934177092014-04-17T17:59:30.197+05:302014-04-17T17:59:30.197+05:30Thanks Mr LRR for the inputs.
However I have res...Thanks Mr LRR for the inputs. <br /><br />However I have reservations on the first paragraph. Firstly, Kavery was a rice basin and not a place to grow rain deficient crops like maize. Secondly, the river Kavery did not exist when Cholavarman founded the Chola dynastry. The name as Cholas started at that time itself from his name - Chola varman. Kaveri was brought from Kodagu much later to Chola varman. To know this, check the genealogy in Thiruvalangadu copper plates here:-<br /><br />http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_3/no_205b_aditya_ii_karikala.html#_ftn25<br /><br />check Verse 35 <br /><br />"(V. 35.) Having come to know that king Bhagiratha engrossed in penance brought down (from heaven) the river of gods (i.e., Ganga) (to earth), this king (also) desirous to fame brought her (i.e., Ganga) to his dominions under the name Kaverakanyaka (i.e., Kaveri).[1][25]"<br /><br />My article on this:-<br />http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2008/11/origin-of-name-kaaveri.html<br /><br />*****<br />Uraiyur was originally called as Kozhi only. Uraiyur was a much later name. The reasons for calling it Kozhi are given in sangam texts as follows:<br /> <br />(From my article http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2010/08/cocks-in-indus-seal-and-cock-city-in.html)<br /><br />The name-cause for Kozhi is found in Silappadhikaaram.<br /><br />"முறஞ்செவி வாரணம் முன் சமம் முறுக்கிய<br /><br />புறஞ்சிறை வாரணம் புக்கனர் "<br /><br />(chapter 10 –verse 247-8)<br /><br /><br />Writing the commentary for this, Arumpatha uraiyaasiriyar (அரும்பத உரையாசிரியர் ) says:-<br /><br />" யானையைக் கோழி முருக்கலால் கோழி என்று பெயராயிற்று . யானையைச் சயித்த கோழி தோன்றினவிடம் வலியுடைத்தென்று கருதி , அவ்விடத்து அதன் பெயராலே சோழன் ஊர் காண்கின்ற பொழுது , சிறையும் கழுத்துமாக ஆக்கியவதனால் புறம்பே சிறையையுடைய கோழி என்றாயிற்று "<br /><br />(sirai – wings)<br /><br /><br /><br />Writing on the same verse, commentator says Adiyaarkku nallaar (அடியார்க்கு நல்லார் ) says:-<br /><br />"வாரணம் – கோழி , ஆவது உறையூர் . முற்காலத்து ஒரு கோழி யானையைப் போர் தொலைத்தலான் அந்நிலத்தில் செய்த நகர்க்குக் கோழி என்பது பெயராயிற்று "<br /><br /><br />Both have given the same version of a cock winning an elephant in an unknown past in that place. Since a unique feat of a cock winning en elephant happened in that place, the Cholan king, when he decided to have it as his capital - named if after the cock that has wings on its sides, says Arumpatha uraiyaasiriyar.<br /><br /><br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-66532355431967263232014-04-17T17:21:01.390+05:302014-04-17T17:21:01.390+05:30Respected Madam,
I have read (will try to get the...Respected Madam,<br /><br />I have read (will try to get the correct reference) that Cholas have been mentioned in one of the 18 Puranas and the etymology for Cholas is derived from the Maize (Corn) plant - Cholam. They were cultivators of Maize and hence got the honorific term after the plant. When they first settled in the banks of Kaveri river - they cultivated lots of Maize and called the place as Cholapuri (or Nicholapuri) - in Tamil that place was know as Uraiyur - this still exists and is now an area in Trichy city. Interestingly, the Tamil word for cover or sheath is called a 'Urai'. Maize (Cholam) has multiple layers of cover/sheath i.e. 'urai' in Tamil. So Cholapuri in Sankrit is Uraiyur in Tamil.<br />Regarding the front tuft (kudumi) relationship with Cholas that you mentioned - there is a Parasurama connection as per the below story by Sri Paramacharya Swamikal (68th Sankaracharya of Kanchi). The Brahmanas who were settled from Chola desam to the reclaimed Malayala land by Sri Parasurama, found the new land inhospitable (when compared to their native Kaveri land). They did not like the incessant rains and the snakes that were patronized by Sri Parasurama (to convert the saline soil to fertile one). Their dissatisfaction was sensed by Parasurama and to prevent them from migrating back to their native land - he changed some customs/forms/costumes/practices. This would make the Brahmanas as 'foreigners' if choose to go back. One of the change was the new Urdhva Shikha (front tuft). Many of the Brahmanas thus stayed put in Malayala desa - but some of them did return back - but as expected - they were not allowed to mingle genetically with the Chola desa Brahmanas - and were considered as a separate social group within Brahmins - Chozhiya Brahmanas. TiruGnanasambandhar comes from this 'caste'. In course of time, some of these Chozhiya Brahmanas migrated to Tirunelveli region.<br /><br />Thanks & Regards.LRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00534674308956857320noreply@blogger.com