Dravidian Cryptography:KArtikeya

[DKumar6248 at aol.com]

Dear members of the Indology List,

It is clear to me that an important point is being missed while some scholars
concern themeselves with the Dravidian phenomenon of inversion and
substitution. In order to keep the document on the Internet within a
reasonable length, I left unsaid some things which I have noted in my earlier
work in detail, and this has created some confusion. Now in order to save
space here, I will just quote from others postings what is relevant. For a
fuller version of their postings, the reader must refer to those postings,
the dates and times of which I have stated.

On	Sept. 8, 1997 at 01:o4:16BST narayana at hd1.vsnl.net.in (DEVARAKONDA VENKATA
NARAYANA SARMA) wrote
>>At 08:08 PM 9/7/97 BST, S.Krishna wrote:
>>
>>From: DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA <<narayana at hd1.vsnl.net.in>
>>>
>>>At 06:04 AM 9/6/97 BST, D.kumar wrote:
>>>
>>>>The other Kannada word kanda, which is an inverted and substituted 
>form ofdinku, denotes: young child (DED. #1411), .....I shall refer to this
work as: A.Parpola).
>
>>Devarakonda Venkata Narayana Sarma says: 
>>>On the one hand it is claimed that `skanda' is the inverted/substituted 
>>form of`dinkisu' (= leap). On the other hand it is claimed that`kanda'
....One word should have only one origin.
>>>
>>I can't hunt up the exact reference here, but I do remember reading 
>>somewhere that "skanda" is actually from tamil "kaNDa" ...i.e. the argument
as Tamil literature).
>>Regards,
>>Krishna
>>
>If `skanda' is a  sanskritised form of `kanda' a dravidian word, how can it
>be the inverted/substituted form of `dinkisu'.
>sarma.
The point that is being missed here is that first of all a participating word
many times has more than one participating counterpart. Now these
counterparts need not necessarily denote the same meaning or meanings which
is denoted by their otiginal word. These meanings can be logically related to
each other as well as to the meaning or meanings of their original
counterpart. This is absolutely important to keep in mind when we are
considering such things as the names of the deities. sages, etc., in the
Indian pantheon. This is the reason why "a leap" or "one who leaped or caused
by the leaping" can also be a kanda = child. Now these two meanings are not
related when you take them out of the context of Skanda, but they are
logically and intimately related when you consider them in the context of
this god. As I have noted, the cardinal religious doctrine of the Sumerians
(that the name of the deity somehow partakes of the reality of what it
denotes) also is there in the Indian pantheon, and this can be witnessed to a
fuller extent when the inverted and substituted forms denote the meaning or
meanings logically connected with the deity, or with his aspect or aspects,
legends, etc., If  the inverted forms have the same meaning or meanings
(which is, of course, also possible) as that or those of the original
counterpart, it is not possible to witness this doctrine fully in the Indian
pantheon, as also in the Sumerian pantheon. The idea which was the foundation
in crafting and coining the name of the deities was to pack as much logically
related meaning or meanings into it. This could be done only when the
inverted form of the name denoted a different but logically related meaning.
For instance, another name of this god is KArtikeya, and the element Kartik
here represents Krittika, which is apt for, KArtikeya is inseparably
connected with the Pleaides. But there is no manifestation of the above noted
doctrine, because KArtikeya was born for the express purpose of punishing
TAraka. You can witness this manifestation when you invert this name as eku
and TAraka. In Telugu eku means: to beat (DED.#765). So the reverse form of
the name KArtikeya denotes: 'The Beater of TAraka', which is, of course, what
he did. Now, if one starts an argument saying: how can the name of the
Pleaides, Krittika, be TAraka, the enemny of KArtikeya, then it would amount
to an admission that one is not prepared to witness this doctrine, or for
that matter, what was one of the main purposes for which this phenomenon was
employed by the ancinet scholars and sages. Indology will not be any more
interesting than before in this way. I can not write much, for there is no
space, but I would ask the concerned scholars to keep these and other such
important points in mind before making any comments which, in the first
place, do not have to be made. Also it is time to stop looking at Dravidian
through Sanskrit lens. Sanskrit herself would suggest this in the interest of
enlightenment. Best regards.
V. Keerthi Kumar ( http://www.mninter.net/!kumar ) email:  dkumar6248 at aol.com