Tamil heritage

[nanda chandran]

>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.

But though the brAhmanas took up vegetarianism, even till a very late date
they
didn't give up animal sacrifices as per Vedic regulations. Even
ShankarAchArya
doesn't forbid them and he's much later than Thiruvalluvar. And animal
sacrifices
to Gods are still carried out in Tamil Nadu by Tamils. And I doubt if
animal sacrifices would go well with Thiruvalluvar and this is one of the
main
objections of Jainism had against Vedic brAhmanism.

And since you already accept he might be influenced by Buddhism or Jainism
on
vegetarianism, also note that Thiruvalluvar himself mentions brAhmanas in
his
work. So that would prove the existence of brAhmanas also in his
environment.

And since there're dharmashAstras and other ethical Samskrutam texts, either
Astika or nAstika, which predate Thirukural and teach most of what
Thirukural
has to say, how can you call it original or distinct?

Also, take into account that only a very small minority of Tamils are
vegetarian. And judging by the type of reaction against brAhmanas during the
dravidian nationalist period, Thiruvalluvar's, "innA saithArai oruththal
avar
nAhna nannaiyam saidhu vidal," obviously held no meaning for the Tamils.

So in what way can Thirukural be said to represent the 'Tamil' way of life?

Actually considering the brAhmanic reaction to dravidian nationalism and
their
way of life, the brAhmanas or even the Jainas from whatever part of the
country
seem relate better with Thiruvalluvar's way of life, than the Tamils
themselves.

   >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.

   But Ashoka is later than the Rg Veda by atleast a milleneum. And mention
of a
   people doesn't necessarily imply progress of their culture, in terms of
art
   or literature.

   >Tamils have lost lots of their
   >literature due to floods and other reasons.

   If this finds academic acceptance, then there's something very wrong
indeed!  North
   India which faced the most barbaric invasions, which also had to fight
deliberate
   assaults against its culture, could still preserve a good part of its
literature
   (did it?), while due to floods and other reasons (???) Tamils have lost
   their literature? Does this even sound reasonable?

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

   I do not know who accepts this or what proofs warrant such acceptance.
But the
   simple logic would be that since there's no dravidian literature which
predates
   the Rg Veda, all such speculations are without a solid base and can be at
best
   learned guesswork and conjecture.

   And to go on about loan words and such, on such a base, is but shooting
in the
   dark.

  > 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?

  Not so. Never in the history of any other culture, has a concept called
samnyAsam
  been integrated into normal life, the way it was in BhArathvarsha. And
ofcourse
  it is totally related to the aim and goal of life.

  > First the language (it is not an 'Arya' language),

  Educated Indians are just getting into this field. Let's see what a few
more
  years of study in linguistics and Indology brings forth!

  > second the Tamils way of classification of lands and their people and
their
  > culture, value system,

  I still fail to see any major distinctness.

  > the spiritual paths (illaRam and thuRavaRam,
  > and not as four stages of life as in 'Arya' culture),

  brahmachArya + grhasta - illaram
  vAnaprastha + samnyAsin - thuravaram

 >  classical arts, music and dance, architecture etc.

Again, I don't see any major distinctness. And I'm still waiting for a
response
from Tamil scholars to Prof. Gupt's query regarding Carnatic music.

   >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 translations of Greek, Roman and German philosophers from their
original
   languages cannot be accounted for as original English literature. And
English
   has been a literary language for only the past three or four centuries
(or
   is it much later?).

   >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'.

   Ofcourse, that's what I pointed out. Apart from brAhmanical circles, I
doubt
   if there ever was any interest in other sections of the Indian society
about
   systematic philosophy.

   And just because most don't "care", it doesn't in any way affect the
importance
   of such literature. And for those concerned about culture and
civilization,
   it's ofcourse the most important.

   >Further
   >a large part of what you claim did come from Tamil land and flourished
in
   >Tamil milieu.  Can you deny that ?

   I doubt if there's much proof. And since we're talking about Samskrutam
which
   obviously met with such hostility amongst the Tamils, I doubt if it makes
a whit
   of a difference where it was produced. And definitely very little
'dravidian'
   involvement in the whole thing.

*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!

   For example? Ofcourse I'm talking about original texts and not
translations
   from Samskrutam.

   >Why is it a problem? It goes to show the rich heritage of the south.

   So are we moving from Tamil and dravidian to "South"?

>   But I've already been accepted in
>   humanity of which Indians are a part.

And from the South to Indian? Well, atleast there's progress :-)

   Actually I've a few questions and would be grateful for answers from
Tamizh scholars :

   1. Was there ever any Tamizh literature found in the other four 'dravida'
states?
   2. Is there any record of any 'invasion' by Aryas in Tamizh literature?
   3. Apart from references which can also be explained from the language
context,
   is there any clear reference to brAhmanas or North Indians are a seperate
race
   in Tamizh literature?
   4. Even if Tamils are indeed a seperate race, what proof is there that
they
   were the inhabitants of Harappa?
   5. BrAhmanas even in Tamil Nadu due to sub sect names and literature can
be traced to the North.
   Is there any indication in Tamizh literature or culture, which points to
a prior
   North Indian homeland?

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com