Tamil Heritage (was Aryan invasion debate)

[C.R. Selvakumar]

nanda chandran wrote:
*But are the non-Indian religious texts considered as the epitome of Tamizh
*literature? The "Aim Perum KApiyangal" or the five great epics of the
*Tamizh literature are closely related to Arya culture. So is probably
*the finest work in Tamizh literature - the Kamba RAmAyanam
*(which the dravidian nationalists so *sadly ignore!).
*And this is what I'm trying to point out.

     Many Tamils consider Sangam literature, which is essentially secular
     or only mildly religious, is considered the epitome of Tamil literature.
     The tirukkuRaL, which is a secular literaure, is also considered to be
     an epitome of Tamil literature. In Silappatikaaram, the story of
     KaNNaki and the Tamil poetics which are admired and
     not the buddhist/jainist philosophies per se except a few
     which are also common with native tamil philosophies.
     (such as a notion of Karma etc. which are of dravidian origin as well)
     Same goes for other tamil literature. In later periods (say starting
     from 500 C.E to 1000 C.E or even to present day)
     Saivite and Vaishnavite literatures as in Tamil are
     held in high esteem. These are not 'arya' culture, but tamil culture!
     Temple worship, Bhakti movement, etc. are dravidian/tamil culture.

*If you can point out a *substantial* literary corpus which shows no Arya
*connections and points to an original individual identity of
*the Tamizh people, it would be more useful for the discussion.

     What are you trying to say ? Tamils don't have any original
     identity and no original literature ?
     Just an example: about 500 poets, including several women poets, between
     300 B.C.E and 300 C.E., produced a body of literature, a part of which are
     collectively known as Sangam works (such as puRa naanURu, aka
     naanURu etc.). Are they not original literaure of Tamils depicting
     Tamils' way of life ? Are not the post Sangam works such as
     Silappatikaaram depict Tamils way of life ? and tirukkuRaL Tamils'
     outlook and way of life?
     Why, show me a body of literature in 'Arya' culture like
     Sangam works or even much later poems of Azvaar or some nAyanmaars called
     thEvAram.  Since you vaguely say 'connection' I can ask the same question
     you're asking me - just replace Arya with
     Dravida. Even the Vedas including RV has connection
     with Dravidian as evident from the linguistics.
*
*>     By the way the tamil work tirukkuRaL is not a Jaina work,
*>     though it is often claimed so.
*
*Just asserting that it is not so will not do. Please give us more proof. If
*you want I can give you the Samskrutam name by which it is referred
*to by the JainAs.And they think that Thiruvalluvar was just
*the publisher and not the author.

     Give me your proof that tirukkuRaL is a Jaina work, and I'll extend my
     arguments. It is not just to you Nanda Chandran, to any indologist.
     If I should learn something new, I'll be happy to revise my opinion.
     Anyone who knows the intricate depth of tirukkuRaL, would certainly be
     quite amused by your comment that tiurvaLLuvar was 'just the publisher' :-)
*
*>The brAhmanas may be people who have accepted Vedas
*>     like Tamil Christians who have accepted Bible,
*>     but apart from the few differences in spiritual and cultural
*>     practices due to their  'religion' or 'sub-religion' they are
*>     by and large Tamils in their ethnicity, language and culture.
*
*By this I don't really understand as to where you're pointing!
*If the Tamizh brAhmanas are of the same race as the dravidian Tamizhs,
*then why not the rest of the brAhmanas in India?

    Some Tamils are Christians but not all Christians are Tamils.

*>    The Saiva Siddhantha was systematised by  Meykandaar who is not a brAhmana
*>    and the Saivite school is in part crystallized by Sekkizaar
*>    who wrote PeriyapuraaNam.
*There's a big difference between systematizing the doctrines of a religion
*and systematic philosophic thought.

     My reply was a counter point to your claim and now you've
     shifted the question! The systematic philosophic thoughts in
     Saiva and Vaishanva tamil literature are born out of Tamils spiritual
     experience.  Suppose I feel the thirst, the thirst is not Arya or Dravida
     and I drink water and sing my happiness, it is not Arya and Dravida.
     Tamils have a great heritage in spiritual experience and philosophical
     thoughts just like many other peoples. The Tamils experiences are
     beautifully expressed in various ways in their native Tamil.
*
*>The only problem is brAhmanas of non-tamil origin, who came from the
*>north at various periods, not knowing the tamil roots, try to
*>propagate the 'arya-centric' view as you are doing.
*
*This is a new angle, but definitely worth pursuing. If somebody could come
*up with the earliest date of literature in Samskrutam in the Southern lands,
*we could see if the brAhmanas in early Tamil Nadu had a preference to Tamizh over
*Samskrutam.

     Katyanana and Patanjali are supposed to be 'southerners' but in any case
     there is *probably* more contribution to Samskrutam from tamil lands than
     elsewhere. I'm open to correction here.
*
*FYI, my mother and grandmother are both pulavar level in Tamizh (they just
*laugh outright at the claim that Tamizh is not their native tongue!).
*And both have nurtured enough Tamizh pattru in me since childhood
*that I'll never degrade it on any false claim.
So I'm not 'Arya centric' as you presume, but am just trying to
*ascertain facts. So please let's not get carried away by our emotions and
*let's try to remain objective.

     The 'tamil pattru' is not an issue here. Your posting to which I first
     replied and this posting here again show extreme Arya-centric view
     (to the extent that you completely dismiss any Tamil or Dravidian heritage)
     and I'm surprised by your denial!
*
*>     The art of Carnatic music is in no small measure advanced by
*>     great Naagasuram players none of whom is a brAhmana (except may be one
*>     or two who are not exponents anyway).
*
*But this doesn't in anyway undermine the position of the 'trinity' in the
*field.

     You should know that there was a 'trinity' prior to the current trinity!
*
*>     Most of the Tamil brAhmanas are dravidians!
*
*So why don't classical dravidian exponents (and there're quite a few on this
*list!) accept it to be so?
*And I'm not really clear with your stand regarding the AIT, for you assert
*that the Tamizh brAhmanas are dravidians! So please state your position
*in your next *post, so *we can be clear as to what're arguing for!

      I don't have any stand in AIT, all that I'm arguing here is
      the Tamils/Dravidians have an independent heritage and culture.
*
*>There are people who have declared that it is a shame to call
*>     Tamil a language when it has got only a few letters in the alphabet
*>     which are different from the Sanskrit and now you think ('it seems')
*>    'dravidian culture has no idenity of its own'!
*>     Nothing new! Just as incorrect as ever!
*
*I just wish you'd more facts to support your claims, instead of mere
*assertions.

       One Mr. Caminata Desikar, a Sanaskrit Scholar said of
       Tamil language, "Intelligent persons will be ashamed to call it
       a language that possesses only five letters"
       (see page 10 in M. Varadarajan, "A History of Tamil Literature"
       translated by E.S. Visswanathan & published by Sahitya Akademi 1988)

       C.R.Selvakumar