Tamil Heritage (Was Aryan invasion debate)

[C.R. Selvakumar]

Nanda Chandran wrote:
* Why do you say ThirukkurAl is secular literature? Just because it
*concentrates only on the three aims of life and ignores God?
*The JainAs too don't believe in a creator God - does it make them secular?
*Also note Thiruvalluvars extreme views on vegetarianism -
*can you give me some similar views from the other secular or
*non-secular poets that you speak of?
* Plus the fact is that JainAs themselves claim the text to be their own.

   You are mistaken. The tirukkuRaL (T) does not deny God!
   read the first chapter !
   The Saivaites, Vaishnavites, Christians(G.U.Pope) and others also
   hold T as their own. This is because T is so endearing to so many.
   Let me mention just one fact why tiruvaLLuvar is not of Jaina school:
   T holds the path of family life as supreme (see for example
   Kurals 46 and 47) contrary to Jainas. Undoubtedly vegetarianism is a key
   tenet of Jainism, and quite possibly tiruvaLLuvar could have
   adopted this tenet into his system, but this is not enough to
   prove he is of Jaina school. Would you say brAhmanas, the so-clled
   "Saiva" mudaliyaars and pillais etc. are also Jainas, because they also
   follow vegetarianism? The vegetarianism indeed was appreicated all
   across Indian subcontinent and Jainism (and to a lesser extent Buddhism)
   must have been a major influence.

*     Is there any Tamizh text older than the Rg Veda or even the Buddha? If
*not, how can you claim that karma is of dravidian origin? Or of dravidian
*loan words in the Rg Veda?

   I don't think there is any known Tamil texts which are older than
   the Rg Veda. It does not mean Tamil/Dravidian did not possess any
   literature at the time of the composition or redaction of Rg Veda.
   For example Asoka's edicts declare about the Tamil kingdoms
   south of his empire, but hardly any tamil literature can be
   securely attributed to those periods. Tamils have lost lots of their
   literature due to floods and other reasons.

   Is it not accepted that there are many words and ideas
   of dravidian origin in the Vedas and Vedic literature ?

*
* >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?
*
*     It ofcourse reflects a way of life. For example if you take the kural,
*most JaniAs from whatever part of India, will feel pretty comfortable with it.
*Even if there are a few distinct differences, it is not unnatural when you take
*into account the regional diversity of the land. But what makes it truly
*distinct from the culture of the rest of India?

   I cited those works because you denied the very heritage of Tamils!
   The aims and goals of almost all of humanity is somewhat similar, not
   just for the people of Indian subcontinent, but the diversity is
   more in style and approach than in content. What is different then?
   First the language (it is not an 'Arya' language),
   second the Tamils way of classification of lands and their people and their
   culture, value system, the spiritual paths (illaRam and thuRavaRam,
   and not as four stages of life as in 'Arya' culture),
   classical arts, music and dance, architecture etc.
*
*   >  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.
*
*In the first place I'm not the one arguing for the distinct identity.

   But you're the one who is saying it is one and the same and
   there is no originality.

*Whatever you've in Tamizh literature - be it prose, poetry or drama - you'll
*in most cases find its equivalent in Samskrutam.

   Okay, please show me a body of literature.

*But again there's four thousand years worth of philosophical development in
*Samskrutam, which can hardly find a parallel in any language in the world,
*let alone Tamizh. And this distinguishes the Arya or the brAhmanical works
*from the rest. Systematic philosophy - whether brAhmanic or bauddha or jainA
*- seems to have been in most part only a brAhmana forte. And this can be
*attributed more to the vocation of the caste than to any racial
*distinctness.

   I don't agree with your claims. I think English today has more wealth of
   literature including a record of diverse philosophical development than
   Samskrutam. But for the contributions and interest of
   a small number of western (plus Japanese) indologists, and their
   contributions in English and european languages, few in India would
   care for all the 'philosophical development'. Further
   a large part of what you claim did come from Tamil land and flourished in
   Tamil milieu.  Can you deny that ?
   I leave aside your irrational caste-specific claim.

* >  Anyone who knows the intricate depth of tirukkuRaL, would certainly be
* > quite amused by your comment that tiurvaLLuvar was 'just the publisher' :-)
*
*Knowledge of the text doesn't neccessarily mean knowledge of the author. And
*apart from the legend that he was a weaver and a brother of avvaiyAr,
*I don't think there's much information about him for anybody to make
*substantial assertments about him. But the
*problem is that the JainA tradition thinks he wasn't the author.

    There are a few concocted 'legends' and they are of no use.
    Any claim about the author of the tirukkuRaL has to be based on the
    work.

*
* >The systematic philosophic thoughts in
* >    Saiva and Vaishanva tamil literature are born out of Tamils spiritual
* >    experience.
*
*Systematic philosophy is not doctrinal in a religious way, but an effort to
*solve the puzzle of the universe based on pure reason or in some cases to
*reconcile the experiences of seers with reason.

   There is plenty of that in Tamil!
*
*If there's any significant quantity of this kind of literature in Tamizh,
*I'm not aware of it.

  No wonder.
*
*  >   Katyanana and Patanjali are supposed to be 'southerners'
*
*But the problem is the Patanjali wrote his Yoga Sutras in Samskrutam. And
*all the classic commentaries on it are also in the same language. Even
*parallels exist in Tamizh, it hardly points to distinctness.

   Why is it a problem? It goes to show the rich heritage of the south.
*
*     But Tamizh pattru need not mean a "Tamizh only" supremacist attitude,
*but can also be raised to a integrating national cultural level.

   These are, in my opinion, irrelevant and non-issues here.
*
*     > I don't have any stand in AIT, all that I'm arguing here is
*     > the Tamils/Dravidians have an independent heritage and culture.
*
*      Your stand only implies the AIT stand. And saying that Tamil brAhmanas
*alone are dravidians will find no support from any quarter, especially from the
*brAhmanas themselves. Either accept all Indians to be one and accept your place
*amongst the seperatist crowd.

   Thank you for earmarking a place for me :-) But I've already been accepted in
   humanity of which Indians are a part.             /C.R.Selvakumar