• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

A Few Glimpses from South Indian History

Status
Not open for further replies.
namaste smt.HH.

I don't mean to say that you praise the Dravidian group per se, but only that your claims that ******* came from outside after the Sangham period, that the Vedas they chanted were not Rg, Yajur and SAma, but only AtharvaNa, in which case they cannot be called brahmins, and so on only fuel the fire of hatred that the DG is seeking to sustain.

It is alright with me to contribute what I can to counter such claims from the viewpoint of a traditionalist, but since shrI Sangom cautioned that this might not help, I suggested that in that case the entire discussion about caste and the negative aspects of our dharma and religion should stop (because these exist with any religion). I have no problem with your discussing what you want to, although I might choose to reply to them when and with what I can.


Dear Shri Saidevo,

Please let me know where have I made any post praising the dravidian group ?
And that too for 'the sake of' empasising views that 'seek to' oppose the brahmin tradition.

I feel discussions on pujas, stotras, scriptures, vedas, sanskrit, etc can all go on on one end. Discussions on history, caste system, etc in no way hamper them. So such discussions too can go on. There are relevant sections within the forum for different topics.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
namaste shrI Sangom.

In that case you would agree that I have a right to express the traditionalist views which IMO cannot harm the cause of brahmins any more than the reformists' views can help it. So the discussions are to go on, in this or other threads, and I might choose to say what I can and when, to counter any unfair preceptions.

Dear Shri Saidevo,

What you "demand" seems to be disproportionate to the matter. I can talk for myself only and not for any one else. All that I can say is that in this thread I may have to post once or twice more, so that relevant observations from the cited book is given in some complete manner. I cannot bind myself to refrain for ever from "anything praising the Dravidian group just for the sake of emphasising your own views that seek to oppose the brahmin tradition." I reserve my right to express my views as and when any need arises in future.
 
.... Therefore, if yourself, HH, Nara, Kunjuppu and other reformists here won't post anything praising the Dravidian group just for the sake of emphasising your own views that seek to oppose the brahmin tradition,
Dear Saidevo, I can only speak for myself, and I have to say I agree with you, I won't, and indeed I have not in the past either, praised the Dravidian groups just for the sake of emphasising my own views. I have my views and I think I arrived at those views after careful and logical consideration of facts. If these intersect with some of what Dravidian groups espouse I can't help that.

Further, in my view, perpetuating Brahminical religious superstitions is not good for the community. So, I feel going back to discussing just scriptures, puja, etc., is the worst possible outcome. What I would suggest is we stop all discussions about scriptures, puja, sthotras, etc., and talk only about what is best for all Tamils in general and Brahmins in particular because this site is for Tamil Brahmins. Of course you will have a different perspective and I think that is alright.

Cheers!
 
namaste smt.HH.

I don't mean to say that you praise the Dravidian group per se, but only that your claims that ******* came from outside after the Sangham period, that the Vedas they chanted were not Rg, Yajur and SAma, but only AtharvaNa, in which case they cannot be called brahmins, and so on only fuel the fire of hatred that the DG is seeking to sustain.

It is alright with me to contribute what I can to counter such claims from the viewpoint of a traditionalist, but since shrI Sangom cautioned that this might not help, I suggested that in that case the entire discussion about caste and the negative aspects of our dharma and religion should stop (because these exist with any religion). I have no problem with your discussing what you want to, although I might choose to reply to them when and with what I can.

Dear Shri Saidevo,

You have made some assumptions abt my posts which I shall clarify later. Here I wud like to make 2 things clear:

1) Am more concerned with the veracity factor. Leaving politics aside, I wud like to know if a certain point is historically accurate, or is it a historical accepted fact (and if yes, then how it was derived to be so).

2) Am willing to accept any point as long as it is logical and / or well presented with sources.

Shri Saidevo I request you to continue this discussion at your own pace.

Regards.
 
dear sai,

if you read through some of my recent posts, i have repeatedly asked for suggestions as to how to get ourselves out of the fix that we are in tamil nadu.

I have not heard anything so far. All I seem to hear that the Dravidian forces led by periyar are pure evil who manipulated the gullible tamil people for their own ends. If that is all the argument that we can provide against 97% of tamil nadu, then we are in a very sorry state.

Believe it or not, the north Indians who were hated during the anti hindi agitation are more a part of Dravidian tamil nadu than us – as a community. As individuals I think each of us get by in our own way, except those, whose hatred and prejudice is so strong, that they are unable to conduct themselves civilly before NB tamils. hopefully these are few and far.

Sai, let us hear some constructive ideas for the future. That will move our focus towards rebuilding, as opposed to the current introspection.

Thank you
 
....
If you want to use the term brahmin for an anthanar, then you will need to do further research and prove that the anthanars were recognised as brahmins. Infact, i too am trying to find details on that.
Dear happy, you have made an important point. The term "anthaNar" is a much mixed up term. There is not much of conflation with the terms arasar, vaNikar, and Velalar. There definitely was a time that may include the Sangam period, when the term anthanar did not automatically mean Brahmin.

Take for instance Thiruvalluvar, he uses the term in the phrase அறவாழி அந்தணன் (aRavAzi anthaNan) in the first chapter. Here, there is no doubt it refers to some sort of god or acharya, not Brahmin.

The other place Thiruvalluvar uses this term is in நீத்தார் பெருமை/greatness of renunciates. In the context of this chapter, the natural way to understand the term is to take it as Thiruvalluvar's description of a renunciate. However, later day commentators who were influenced by Brahminism, such as Parimelzagar, did interpret this word to mean Brahmin. But, a neutral observer who looks at where the Kural in question appears and the general tenor of Thirukkural as a whole (e.g. only dharma, artha and kama, no moksham), surely will see it as a travesty to imprison Thiruvalluvar's anthaNar into varna system.

Renunciates being called anthaNar is found in other Sangam literature as well. For example, in Kalithogai #9, anthaNar is described as one who holds thridandam/முக்கோல் and kamaNdalam/கமணடலம். These are what people even today understand as marks of a renunciate, not a Brahmin.

The Sangam literature itself is free of any detailed definition of Varna system like what one will find in Sanskrit texts everywhere, starting from Rg Veda, ithihasas, down to BG, let alone the toxic dharma shasthras. Any unmistakable reference to Brahmins in Sangam literature, like பார்ப்பனன் (pArppanan), is almost always peripheral to the main topic of love or valor. It is hard to really come to any definite conclusion from the sangam literature as to who they were, whether thrivedis from the north, or just atharvana vedis as you suspect. As you say, more serious research is needed.

Later, by the time of Manimekalai, the term was already appropriated by Brahmins to mean just them. By this time it is clear that there was opposition to Brahmins and varna system. Seethalai Sathanar in Manimekalai was quite derisive of Brahmins.

Come down some more in time scale, and we come across the following poem by Auvaiyaar, a law text (நீதி நூல்) called Nalvazi verse #2:
சாதி இரணொழிய வேறில்லை சாற்றுங்கால்
நீதி வழுவா நெறிமுறையின் - மேதினியில்
இட்டார் பெரியோர், இடாதார் இழிகுலத்தோர்
பட்டாங்கில் உள்ள படி.


(There is nothing other than two jAthis, considered opinion says living an upright life, those who are generous are great and those who are greedy are low, that is what great texts say.
)
This is clearly a repudiation of Brahminism and its 4-fold varna system and the Brahmins are at the top.

The Bhakti movement was in its zenith around this time. At least the SV Bhakti literature is full of advice to those who considered themselves as high-born. One SV acharya was quite graphic, he says the scholarship of anyone who takes cognizance of a bhaktha's caste is like ornaments upon a dead body.

Coming little close to about the 14th century, there is a poem called Kapilar Agaval.
பார்ப்பன மாந்தர்காள் பகர்வது கேண்மின்
...
...
ஓட்டிய மிலேச்சரூணர் சிங்களர்
இட்டிடைச் சோனகர் யவனர் சீனத்தர்
பற்பலர் நாட்டிலும் பார்ப்பா ரில்லையால்
முற்படைப் பதனில் வேறாகிய முறைமைபோல்
நால்வகைச்சாதியிந் னாட்டினீர்
மேல்வகை கீழ்வகை விளங்குவ தொழுக்கால்


(Oh Brahmins, listen to what I am saying
....
....
there are many nations in the world, like Ottiyar, Melechar, Unar, Singalar, Sonakar, Yavanar, Chinese; there are no Brahmins in those lands, are they any worse off because of that? As the original matter was separated during creation, you established this four-fold jAthi, but in those other nations the high and the low are determined only by conduct (not by birth).)
Is this not an open challenge to Brahminism?

An unbiased analysis of available textual evidence will show that the Brahminical varna/jati system always faced opposition from at least a section of the learned class.

Cheers!
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji and Srimathi Happy Hindu Ji,

I came across this paper in Wikipedia, while casually surfing it to read about Sangam literature:
Michel Danino - Vedic Roots of Early Tamil Culture.

This seems like a scholarly paper. I know Professor Nara Ji knows quite a bit about Sangam literature.

Could it be that the caste system existed then, and with the advent of the Bhakthi movement, the antipathy towards the Brahmins started?

I don't know much about this, so I am just postulating.

Regards,
KRS
 
namaste Nara, smt.HH and others.

I have in this post, shown references from the Tamizh lexicon, with examples from texts, that the term andhaNar denoted both brahmins and the sages and God in 'aRavAzhi andhaNan' of TirukkuRaL, in Sangham and later Tamizh texts:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/5557-enge-brahmanana-10.html#post66786

There are many references in the Sangham texts too that use the term andhaNar to refer to pArppAns--brahmins. Samples:

• This verse no.88, in nAnmaNikkaDikai, a text that belongs to the kIzhkkaNakku nUlgaL to which TirukkuRaL belongs too, refers to brahmins by the term, because of its association with maRai--Vedas.

மறையறிப வந்தண் புலவர் முறையொடு
வென்றி யறிப அரசர்கள்--என்றும்
வணங்கல் அணிகலன் சான்றோர்க்கு அஃதன்றி
அணங்கல் வணங்கின்று பெண்

maRaiyaRipa va~ndhaN pulavar muRaiyoDu
venRi yaRipa arasargaL--enRum
vaNa~gkal aNikalan sAnROrkku aHdanRi
aNa~ggal vaNa~gginRu peN (88)

"andhaNa pulavOr--brahmins who know their Vedas, know their maRai--purport. The Kings knows his dharma as well as the way to victory. Humility is the ornament of sAnROr. And the woman does not worship any god other than her husband."

How does the term andhaN pulavOr refer to brahmins who know their Vedas?

The term pulavar among its other meanings, indicates one who knows the pulam. The term pulam in turn, is a name in Tamizh for the Vedas. Just as there are four words in Sanskrit that denote the Vedas--veda, Chandas, shruti, AmnAya, the four Tamizh words--pulam, maRai, kELvi, vAzhmozhi--refer to the Vedas.

paripADal, one of the core Sangham texts in the eTTutthogai classification, adores TirumAl--ViShNu, in its prayer song (verse 1) as

நா வல் அந்தணர் அரு மறைப்பொருளே

1:14 ~nA val a~ndhaNar aru maRaipporuLE

This line clearly refers to brahmins by the term andhaNar, who are nA val--capable of perfect tongue (pun intended) to chant the Vedas with its svaras--intonations. In that same verse again

விறல் மிகு விழுச் சீர் அந்தணர் காக்கும்
அறனும் ஆர்வலர்க்கு அருளும் நீ

1:40 viRal miku vizhuch chIr a~ndhaNar kAkkum
aRanum Arvalarkku aruLum ~nI

~nI--You, are the aRan--dharma, kAkkum--adhered to, by the viRal miku vizhuch chIr andhaNar--brahmins who are pure and distinctive (because of their veda dharma).

'perumazhaip pulavar' P.V.SOmasundaranAr, explains the term viRal miku vizhuch chIr a~ndhaNar as those brahmins were renowned due to their pArppana vAkai, which is the eminence achieved by pArppAns--brahmins, who did the vELvi vETTal--performing the Veda yajnas and getting them performed.

and yet again in the same verse

நலம் முழுது அளைஇய புகர் அறு காட்சிப்
புலனும், பூவனும் நாற்றமும் நீ

1:48 ~nalam muzhudu aLaiiya pukar aRu kATchip
pulanum, pUvanum ~nARRamum ~nI

~nI--You, are one of ~nalam muzhudu aLaiiya--all kalyANa guNas; and the pulan--Vedas, which impart, pukar aRu kATchi--faultless insight.

*****

paripADal in verse 6, describes the puduppunal--fresh floods flowing through the Vaigai river which some people revel while others shun because of its muddy composition.

• Women who wanted to take bath in the fresh floods, carried agni, flowers and other worship articles, making their husbands attire and adorn suitably for the event. Their bathing made the waters muddier albeit fragrant due to the sandal paste they wore on their chest and the kumkumam.

• Female elephants marched towards the river. Some of the women and their husbands rode them as well as the horses, carrying with them the things required for their water sports revelry, their small leather bags full of civet, horns full of rosewater, and a toy wooden chariot.

• The riverbank was so crowded that some of the youth could not enter it. The weak sought the bathing ghats while the strong jumped into the fresh waters for swimming against the currents.

• புலம் புரி அந்தணர் கலங்கினர் மருண்டு

pulam puri a~ndhaNar kala~gkinar maruNDu

Notice how the term pulam puri refers to the learned brahmins who studied the Vedas and VedAntas. These brahmins as they came early morning to the river for their bath, were confused to see the water muddy and filled with thrown flowers of women, faded garlands worn by women and their husbands, muddy roots and raw fruits of plants and creepers, and the pannADais--fibrous leaf-stalk shells of palm and coconut trees, used to filter toddy. Seeing the river unfit for bathing, the other people too left the place, which had become suitable only for the revelry of young people.

*****

maduraik kAnjchi, among the patthuppATTu, core Sangham text:

ஓதல் அந்தணர் வேதம் பாட

656:Odhal a~ndhaNar vEdam pADa--
"Brahmins performing their dharma of Odal--recital, by chanting the Vedas."

Kalitthogai 36, among the eTTutthogai, core Sangham text:

Nara, if Kalitthogai 9 refers to sages by the term andhaNar, in verse 36, it clearly refers to brahmins by the same term.

கேள்வி அந்தணர் கடவும்
வேள்வி ஆவியின் உயிர்க்கும் என் நெஞ்சே

kELvi a~ndhaNar kaDavum
vELvi Aviyin uyirkkum en ~ne~jchE

en nenju--My heart, uyirkkum--breathes hot, like the vELvi Avi--fire that rises from the yajnas, kaDavum--performed by, the kELvi andhaNar--brahmins who learned their Vedas by the oral tradition of shruti.

padiTRuppatthu, among the eTTutthogai, core Sangham text:

ஓதல் வேட்டல் அவை பிறர்ச் செய்தல்
ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்று ஆறு புரிந்து ஒழுகும்
அறம் புரி அந்தணர் வழி மொழிந்து ஒழுகி

24:6 Odhal vETTal avai piRarch cheydal
Idhal ERRal enRu ARu puri~ndu ozhukum
aRam puri a~ndaNar vazhi mozhi~ndu ozhuki

This verse praises the king who adheres to his dharma of sustaining the Veda dharma of aRu tozhil andhANar--brahmins with their six occupations (Odhal--chanting Vedas and getting them chanted, vETTal--performing and getting veda yajnas performed, Idhal--charity, and ETRal--accepting gifts).

This verse should convince that by his term 'aRutozhil andhaNar', TiruvaLLuvar only refers to pArppAnargaL--brahmins, following the tradition of the earlier texts.

padiTRuppatthu again:

அறங்கரந்து வயங்கிய நாவிற் பிறங்கிய
உரைசால் வேள்வி முடித்த கேள்வி
அந்தணர் அருங்கலம் ஏற்ப நீர்பட்டு
இருஞ்சேறாடிய மணன்மலி முற்றத்து

4:3 aRa~gkara~du vaya~gkiya ~nAviR piRa~gkiya
uraisAl vELvi muDittha kELvi
a~ndhaNar aru~gkalam ERpa ~nIrpaTTu
iru~jchERADiya maNanmali muRRatthu

This verse, titled uraisAl vELvi, describes a scene of a king giving dAnam--charity, to the Veda andhANargaL--vedic brahmins, with the proper gesture of நீர் வார்த்துக் கொடுத்தல்--~nIr vArtthuk koDutthal--symbolically by pouring water on hands and dispensing it to the floor.

The king gives the andhaNargaL, rare kalangaL with the shAstric gesture. The term kalan refers primarily to vessels, also to jewels. What is the yogyadAMsha--eminence, of the andhaNargaL who receive the gifts from the king? The poet beautifully describes it as aRam karaindu vayangkiya nAvin--by the clarity of their tongue obtained by learning, listening to and adhering to their aRam--dharma, and the piRangkiya uraisAl vELvi--the eminent Veda yajnas they performed, since the fame of pArppAns is obtained only by performing yajnas.

*****

I think these examples should convince anyone about the unambiguous reference of the term andhaNar to pArppAns--brahmins, right inside the core Sangham texts (besides their other references to the word), and that the type of Veda yajnas they performed and got them performed were not the Atharva vedic rituals but the yajnas of the three Vedas as detailed in the brAhmaNas.
 
Last edited:
raju,

can we avoid terms like 'cock and bull', please. it does not behoove well of good writing behaviour in my opinion.

though it does not directly attack the person that is sangom, i think, it borders on violation of his integrity. such a challenge is best proven with backup arguements, and not with emotional epithets.

you would find your arguements carry as much weight without these added on characterestics, and which are best avoided.
not only to maintain the decorum of the forum, but also our personal regard for each other.

thank you.

Shri Kunjuppu,

As I have said before also, people who feel unsure about their view points generally tend to reveal intolerance at the earliest opportunity because they probably feel that exhibition of fanaticism will help cow down the opponent/s.

I hope the supermoderator is watching.
 
dear sai,

if you read through some of my recent posts, i have repeatedly asked for suggestions as to how to get ourselves out of the fix that we are in tamil nadu.

I have not heard anything so far. All I seem to hear that the Dravidian forces led by periyar are pure evil who manipulated the gullible tamil people for their own ends. If that is all the argument that we can provide against 97% of tamil nadu, then we are in a very sorry state.

Believe it or not, the north Indians who were hated during the anti hindi agitation are more a part of Dravidian tamil nadu than us – as a community. As individuals I think each of us get by in our own way, except those, whose hatred and prejudice is so strong, that they are unable to conduct themselves civilly before NB tamils. hopefully these are few and far.

Sai, let us hear some constructive ideas for the future. That will move our focus towards rebuilding, as opposed to the current introspection.

Thank you

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

My perception is that the orthodox group of Tabras - represented here, probably by S/Shri Saidevo, Suraju, and others - hold the view that we Tabras were held in high respect and deep reverence spontaneously emanating from the minds of the rest of the Tamil Nad population, for millenia. This spontaneous reverence and respect came because of our vedic knowledge (which we jealously refused to share with others, like the Coca-Cola formula), our disciplined lives, our great virtues such as complete absence of greed, distaste for accumulation of anything more than one's immediate future need, and so on and so forth. But then, driven purely by such exalted qualities, many of us felt that the government jobs under the British Government will do a lot of benefits to us in further improving our aforesaid Brahmanic noble qualities. Naturally, more and more Tabras wanted to pursue this nobler path to salvation than whatever had been written in the old (and probably considered outdated, by then) scriptures and, therefore,made a near complete farewell to sanskrit and veda studies but continued in our habit of living contented with what little one could eke out from the new occupations.

This very noble ideal of Tabras provoked the jealousies of all those non-Brahmans and, as if to pour oil on flame, this EVR came on the scene and caused a virtual conflagration. Now that some of us have worked in non-Brahmanic (sudraic) occupations till we were asked to take retirement, have made somewhat satisfactory financial base for the rest of our lives (immediate future - not beyond one's own lifetime, you see), they seem to feel let us get back to studying vedas, doing poojas, etc., and let our next generation take lessons from our lives. But because of EVR/DK/DMK and the reservations, our children are not getting admissions and jobs; hence arise all the problems. But, at the same time you will notice that there are some opinions expressed here to the effect that Brahmans are still respected, etc.

Thus it is a very complex situation and can be corrected only if we can turn the clock back at least to 1875 A.D., I think!!
 
In such a case why at all should some members blame DK/EVR/DMK now and why should there be a grouse about reservations? It is the Tamil society which has approved both these and, if we feel that we are sure that we are part and parcel of that society we need not have such feelings. I don't understand.

Let us say there is a family of 5 brothers. One day four of them decide that they should occupy the neighbours property illegally using some muscle power and build a house there. The eldest brother is not in agreement with them and tells them plainly what he thinks.
Sangom Sir, please tell me whether the eldest brother will become an alien or outsider to the family? I believe he has every right to claim that he is a member of the family despite what the other brothers think.
Cheers.
 
HH,

The present day brahmins are considered descendents of vedic-brahmins who entered Tamilakam after 100 AD. They are not considered descendents of the anthanars.
As far as i understand, the anthanars were not recognized as brahmins.

This requires validation by independent evidences/proof.
 
Dear Kunjuppu and Sangom Sir,
The cock and bull story is a harmless expression used in the circle of friends in a conversation and it has no nefarious content in India. May be in Canada it may have other connotations.
Dear Sangom Sir,
As I have said before also, people who feel unsure about their view points generally tend to reveal intolerance at the earliest opportunity because they probably feel that exhibition of fanaticism will help cow down the opponent/s.
I hope the supermoderator is watching.
What you have said about people being unsure about their view points is equally applicable to every one including you. In the use of 'cock and bull story' there is no fanaticism involved and there is no attempt to cow down you. I know you will not be cowed down by any thing as am I. It was used only to introduce an element of imagery in a situation there was dull and drab presentations going back and forth.

Yes I am sure that the moderator has applied his mind and has made his decision.
 
Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

My perception is that the orthodox group of Tabras - represented here, probably by S/Shri Saidevo, Suraju, and others - hold the view that we Tabras were.........

Dear Sangom Sir,
This is a wonderful example of painting a horrible picture of the anti reformists. I will come with my reply later. Cheers.
 
namaste Nara.

சாதி இரணொழிய வேறில்லை சாற்றுங்கால்<br />
நீதி வழுவா நெறிமுறையின் - மேதினியில்<br />
இட்டார் பெரியோர், இடாதார் இழிகுலத்தோர்<br />
பட்டாங்கில் உள்ள படி.

This is clearly a repudiation of Brahminism and its 4-fold varna system and the Brahmins are at the top.

It is not that AvvaiyAr in the above verse eschewed caste and varNa, as evident from the fact that she talks about izhikulam--of low caste, in this same verse. Her purport is to emphasize the virtues of dAnam--charity, so she clubs people from all castes and varNas who do it into a single group periyOr, that's all. This is in no way repudiation of Brahminism or the varNa system given in TolkAppiyam.

I have quoted a similar verse from AvvaiyAr here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-15.html#post71555

which says keTTAlum mEnmakkaL mEnmakkaLE--people of noble qualities, even if they come to penury by their company, won't lose their status of nobility.

In that same post, I have pointed out the puRanAnURu verse 183:

வேற்றுமை தெரிந்த நாற்பா லுள்ளும்
கீழ்ப்பா லொருவன் கற்பில்
மேற்பா லொருவனும் அவன்கட் படுமே
--புறநானூறு, 183

vERRumai teri~nda ~nARpA luLLum
kIzhppA loruvan kaRpil
mERpA loruvanum avankaT paDumE

Of the nARpAl--four differentiated varNas, if a man of a lower varNa is well educated, a man of a higher varNa would approach him to learn without entertaining any difference in status, and respect him.

This verse is an example that the four-fold varNa system did exist in the Sangham period, as classified by TolkAppiyam, but it is also true that people of the lowest varNa were never considered shUdras, just for being born in it, and following their family occupation that came to them naturally, as the verse pazhamozhi nAnURu 21: family occupation is a natural vocation, indicates (which I have quoted in the same post), although they were barred from learning the Vedas (vEdam ozhindha kalvi--TolkAppiyam).

I wonder why our reformers here persist in quoting only a few of their same favourite quotes trying to hide a ripe pumpkin in a heap of cooked rice. I understand that it is difficult to change one's long held views, but one should at least have the inclination to look at facts with the right perspective.
 
Dear Shri Saidevo,

IMO, there are two issues, (i) who are anthanars, and (ii) how were the Brahmins viewed in Tamil country?

Who are anthanars?
There are two propositions for this questions:

A: anthanar means Brahmin
B: anthanar means Brahmin and only Brahmin

All I am saying is B is not true. From the way the term was used at that time it is clear that it had an independent meaning other than Brahmin. In due course of time it came to denote Brahmins exclusively, so much so, that even a clear anti-Brahmin like Seethalai Sathanar uses this term to refer to Brahmins.

Further, as Happy observes, during Sangam time and before Sangam time, who were these Brahmins is itself an unresolved question.

How were the Brahmins viewed?
If you look at the texts carefully, it is undeniable that it is clearly a mixed bag. As I have illustrated, there were severe critics of Brahminsm and their birth-based Varna system.

Dear Shri KRS, I read a few pages of the article you have cited carefully and it became clear that it had all the trappings of an academic paper, but none of its qualities. It is a polemical hit piece with a political agenda. Then, I skimmed the rest of the paper. The paper cites papers in general and expresses lots and lots of expansive opinions. To try to answer all the points will require enormous time and would be pointless. I will be happy to address particular points if you can identify a few.

I don't think anti-brahminism started with Bhakti-movement. The embers of anti-brahminism existed always. Bhakti movement, at least among SVs, started as a sort of inclusive reform movement to form a thondar kulam within which caste wouldn't matter. But, IMO, Brahmins hijacked the movement and imposed strict Brahminism upon it.

Cheers!
 
namaste shrI Sangom.

Your statements from post no.385 are in bullets, followed by my replies to them.

• My perception is that the orthodox group of Tabras - represented here, probably by S/Shri Saidevo, Suraju, and others - hold the view that we Tabras were held in high respect and deep reverence spontaneously emanating from the minds of the rest of the Tamil Nad population, for millenia.

This is true to a large extent: not just our perception but what we find as the fact as evident from the examples I have already given, that people from the king to the common man respected and admired brahmins in those days--I won't say revered in the sense of venerated--spontaneously from their minds, not for millenia because the Sangham history is hardly 2,000 years old!, but probably until the invasion of the Muslims.

• This spontaneous reverence and respect came because of our vedic knowledge (which we jealously refused to share with others, like the Coca-Cola formula), our disciplined lives, our great virtues such as complete absence of greed, distaste for accumulation of anything more than one's immediate future need, and so on and so forth.

As I said, it was not reverence but regard and respect, which came from the aRutozhil of the andhaNars done with a disciplined life, which certainly gave them the highest virtues--love, compassion and goodness. This is not to say that people of other varNas and jAtis did not possess these virtues.

As for the 'refusal to share the Vedas with others, like the Coca-cola formula), TolkAppiyam clearly talks about the education for which the four varNas were eligible: the pArppanar, arasar and vanikar varNas studied Vedas, and the fourth varNa, the vELAlars were given only vEdam-ozhinda kalvi--Veda-less education. However, chanting the Vedas and performance of the Veda yajnas, were done only by the brahmins. (I would be interested to know if there is evidence of people of any other varNa doing this). Please check my post here for more details:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-11.html#post71319

My viewpoint is that it was the aRuthozhil--six tasks, of the brahmins, especially studying and chanting the Vedas and performance of the Veda yajnas--the core dharma of brahmins--and the nityakarma that went with it, that gave them high eminence in society.

Thanks to shrI Kunjuppu for nderstanding this view of mine, in post no.380 and calling for suggestions: "let us hear some constructive ideas for the future. That will move our focus towards rebuilding, as opposed to the current introspection."

This is not to say that the brahmins were completely free of greed and avarice, since there were laukika brahmins too who turned to worldly occupations as in today and during the British rule. Here is some news that might interest you:

Some Shiva-andhaNargaL--Shaiva brahmins, were accused of stealing the temple gold. In proof of their innocence, they were asked to hold in their hand a peace of red-hot iron. Since the hands of brahmins named PeriyAran devan, kunRan bhangan, kunRan mARan, putRiDangkoNDAn, kunRan piraman, changhUdi* were burnt, they were declared as guilty and as Shiva-drohis, their lands at IluppaikkuDI were seized and made over to the temple, with suitable monetary compensation from the temple treasury to anyone who had already bought the lands, while any lands leased were seized terminating the lease, without any compensation.
மேற்றளியாரும் நலக்குன்றத்தாரும் - 3

* An interesting point to note is the pure Tamizh names of the Shiva-brahmins, which I find that shrI Vikrama has already pointed out here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/3110-aryan-migration-theory-3.html#post49110
 
namaste Nara.

Please drop the shrI in your address.

IMO, there are two issues, (i) who are anthanars, and (ii) how were the Brahmins viewed in Tamil country?

Who are anthanars?
There are two propositions for this questions:

A: anthanar means Brahmin
B: anthanar means Brahmin and only Brahmin

All I am saying is B is not true. From the way the term was used at that time it is clear that it had an independent meaning other than Brahmin. In due course of time it came to denote Brahmins exclusively, so much so, that even a clear anti-Brahmin like Seethalai Sathanar uses this term to refer to Brahmins.

My position is that andhaNar also meant brahmins, contextually, right in the core Sangham texts, as I have demonstrated--not that it came to refer to brahmins in due course of time.

Further, as Happy observes, during Sangam time and before Sangam time, who were these Brahmins is itself an unresolved question.

I hope smt.HH would take the right view about the examples I have given. If only she were familiar with Tamizh, I am sure she would have devoured the ancient Tamizh texts, which would certainly have augmented her perspective.
 
c) Given what we see even today, I am unable to see what the problem is with the statement about Brahmins that, "Amidst this sea of ordinary masses was a small group, holding allegiance to an entirely different culture, religion, scriptures in an alien language,...". Brahmins even today try to live in small groups, holding allegiance to an entirely different culture, religious practices, scriptures in an alien language. You have yourself conceded this as such, perhaps not about religion, but about culture and language.
Here lies the real problem. The Brahmins are said to be a small group holding allegiance to an entirely different culture, religion, scriptures in an alien language. This requires a critical look. The point put forward is that the small group of Brahmins had a culture, scriptures in alien language,had religious practices and system of belief which was alien to the Tamils. This is a far reaching conclusion which needs evidence. In accepted methodology there are two types of evidences which are admissible: the internal evidences-அகச்சான்று and external evidences -புறச்சான்று, the former being more reliable than the later . To disprove the contention I am giving here the internal evidences-அகச்சான்றுகள் first:

Dear Shri Suraju,

It is a well-accepted fact that the early Tamils were a distinct people (may not be genetically) with their own language, culture, customs and religious beliefs which underwent transformation when the Jains (and Buddhists) and the Vedic Brahmans migrated into what was formerly Tamil country. Since you say that you are starting with அகச்சான்றுகள் (internal evidence) first, without making a clear rebuttal of the premise that "The Brahmins are said to be a small group holding allegiance to an entirely different culture, religion, scriptures in an alien language.", let us examine these evidences first and then I will give arguments supporting the contrary view.

1. ஐங்குறுநூறு -ஓரம்போகியாரின் கவிதை:
வாழி ஆதன்! வாழி அவினி!
பகைவர் புள் ஆர்க! பார்ப்பார் ஓதுக!
என வேட்டோளே, யாயே: யாமே,
'பூத்த கரும்பின் காய்த்த நெல்லின்,
கழனி ஊரன் மார்பு
பழனம் ஆகற்க !' என வேட்டோமே .

புல் ஆர்க- புல்லரிசிச் சோற்றை உண்க:ஆதன் - ஒரு குறு நில மன்னன்:அவினி-ஆதனுடைய குடியில் பிறந்தோன் :

இந்தக் கவிதையில் பார்ப்பார் ஒதுக் என்ற வரிகள் அன்றைய சமூகத்தில் பார்ப்பனர்கள் இருந்ததையும் வேதம் முதலானவை ஓதுதல் அவர்தம் தொழில் என்பதும் தெளிவாகிறது. சமூகத்தில் வாழ்ந்த தோழி பாடுவதாக வரும் இப்பாடலில் பார்ப்பனர்களுக்கு எதிரான கருத்து எதுவும் வெளிப்படவில்லை. மாறாக அவர்களை வாழ்த்துவதாகவே வந்துள்ளன என்ற உண்மையை மனதில் கொள்ள வேண்டும்.
This is the fourth of the first hundred of aiṅkuṟuṉūṟu. Its author is one orampokiyār, a.k.a. orampotiyār, orerpokiyār. This person is held to be a tiller (uzhavar), a kāmpotiyar, etc. (Ref: Commentary of U.Ve. Swaminatha Aiyar). If the statement that the author was a kāmpotiyar, indicates that he is not of ancient Tamizh descent, it is but natural that he would include pārppār otuka (may the seers, Brahmans, recite). A tiller and bard may not be expected to deal with how the society looked upon its particular sections, especially when dealing with a household as the topic.

Even granting that the reference in the above verse is not uncomplimentary to pārppār, it does not appear to me as if it is in praise of the 'pārppār'; it is part of well-wishing, not praise. If it is agreed that what the pārppār were reciting was the sanskrit vedas and that it was their (sole) occupation — as stated in your explanatory words "வேதம் முதலானவை ஓதுதல் அவர்தம் தொழில்" — is it not clear that in a society which used Tamizh in all its transactions, including this verse, a set of people whose "occupation" itself was reciting vedas, and related scriptures, would have been a real contrast and peculiarity, if not something sticking out like a sore thumb? And I suppose you, or saidevo do not claim that at any point of time such veda-reciting pārppār were in the majority of Tamizh Nadu. In such a scenario, taking ordinary human nature into account, will it not be nearer to the truth to conclude that the then Tamizh society, comprising of different groups of people like aḷavar, iṭaiyar, iyavar, umaṇar, uḻavar, kaṭampar,etc., did not show any intolerance to this exotic group engaged in reciting some alien tongue, than to subscribe to the view that the pārppār were already a part and parcel of the Tamizh society, a view for which there is no possibility in view of the pārppār's allegience to something which was foreign to Tamizh language and the Tamizh culture itself?

In regard to the next example from kalittokai, it seems to me that the use of the description "mukkor pakavar" or tridaṇḍi sanyāsis can be said to refer to some wandering ascetics carrying three "staffs"; though this is indicative of vaishnavaite ascetics alone today, we cannot be sure as to what type of wandering mendicants it then referred to and whether they were the ājīvikas. The fact that they are depicted as roaming (wandering) asceticsm increases such a possibility. The other qualifications, viz.,'எறித்தரு கதிர்தாங்கி ஏந்திய குடைநிழல், உறித்தாழ்ந்த கரகமும், உரைசான்ற முக்கோலும், நெறிப்படச்சுவல் அசைஇ, வேறு ஓரா நெஞ்சத்துக் குறிப்பு இவள செயல் மாலைக் கொளை நடை அந்தணீர்' etc., will fit in even if the "mukkor pakavar" were ājīvikas. [Jain traditions hold that the Ajivikas declined after Asoka's time in north-India and the main references to them come in Tamil literature. There is evidence that they survived in South India until the fourteenth century. It seems that at the end there were two schools of Ajivikas. One was absorbed by the devotional Vaishnavas, the other was closer to Gosala's original teachings and was absorbed by the Digambara Jains. http://jainology.blogspot.com/2009/08/ajivika-sect-of-ancient-india.html]

Hence this verse just does not reveal that the Brahmans of the time had become part and parcel of the Tamizh society and adapted itself to the Tamizh culture, Tamizh religion and the belief system of the Tamizh people, which is the point I had emphasized in my post # 219 : "I am trying to deal with just one of the many qualifications attributed to TBs, viz., TBs were pure Tamils. I am not going into the genetic aspects because that science was not in the scene when these developments took place. But otherwise, here is a southern corner of the peninsula which has had a distinct language, which, as spoken by the non-erudite masses, is mostly free from the sanskrit language influence. It also became evident that this Tamizh language had a great literary history and its development was free from the vedic or sanskritic influences and presented a society with a sufficiently developed social structure. Amidst this sea of ordinary masses was a small group, holding allegiance to an entirely different culture, religion, scriptures in an alien language and which, at every other step, would convince an impartial student that this small group was living at best as ambassadors of an entirely different era, people, culture, religion and belief system." (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-22.html#post71985)

Let me now bring the following verse for consideration :

சிலப்பதிகாரம், வஞ்சிக் காண்டம் - வரந்தரு காதை, 160

அருஞ் சிறை நீங்கிய ஆரிய மன்னரும்
பெரும் சிறைக்கோட்டம் பிரிந்த மன்னரும்
குடகக்கொங்கரும் மாளுவ வேந்தரும்
கடல் சூழ் இலங்கைக் கயவாகு வேந்தனும் ...

அருஞ் சிறை நீங்கிய ஆரிய மன்னரும் = அப்பொழுது நீங்குதற்கரிய சிறைக் கோட்டத்தினின்றும் நீங்கிப்போந்த ஆரிய நாட்டரசரும்

cilappatikāram, vañcik kāṇṭam - varantaru kātai, 160

aruñ ciṟai nīṅkiya āriya maṉṉarum
perum ciṟaikkoṭṭam pirinta maṉṉarum
kuṭakakkoṅkarum māḷuva ventarum
kaṭal cūḻ ilaṅkaik kayavāku ventaṉum ...

aruñ ciṟai nīṅkiya āriya maṉṉarum = the Arya princes who had just been released from the prison

This is evidence from Sangam literature itself recognizing the Aryans as separate from them (the Tamizh people). This is in cilappatikāram, which is dated around the second century A.D., and thus the Aryan-Dravidian (non-Aryan) distinction existed then itself. What happened in recent history is, therefore, not a fresh mischief invented by the British or EVR/DK/DMK.

There are other evidences also for Dravidian being a language distinct from sanskrit/prakrit etc.
 
Let us say there is a family of 5 brothers. One day four of them decide that they should occupy the neighbours property illegally using some muscle power and build a house there. The eldest brother is not in agreement with them and tells them plainly what he thinks.
Sangom Sir, please tell me whether the eldest brother will become an alien or outsider to the family? I believe he has every right to claim that he is a member of the family despite what the other brothers think.
Cheers.

Dear Shri Suraju,

I do not find the simile here. Still, my point is the eldest brother (does it smack of tabra superiority in a veiled manner?) would normally have grown under the care of parents and followed the same customs, beliefs, practices etc., at least until he became an adult. Later he could change as he wanted. Is that the case with Tabras? Can we prove with supporting evidence that the Brahmans of Tamil Nadu were just like the other groups mentioned in various Cangam works (velir, uzhavor, umanar, kadambar, velan, vetan, etc.,), that there was a time when the tabras lived with the same set of religious beliefs and customs and sacred literature which the others followed, but changed subsequently because of external influence from the north and adopted the vedic Brahman beliefs, customs, practices, scriptures, etc., and studied sanskrit for that purpose. If such proof is available, perhaps the brothers comparison will be acceptable, even assailable.

But it seems to me that here we have a case of a wandering child from some other distant place, with no place to go, who was very graciously taken into the household and treated as another child, but that child did not follow the customs, habits, beliefs etc., of the households; on the contrary he felt different, posed himself superior to all the rest and claimed superiority on that basis. But he claimed that it was the bounden duty of the other brothers to look after him because of his superiority. Such a "brother" will not normally get any goodwill from the rest and any advice tendered by such a brother can be viewed as hypocritical also, besides himself being an 'outsider' because he did stand out as separate and superior as long as the wind was favourable to him.
 
This is true to a large extent: not just our perception but what we find as the fact as evident from the examples I have already given, that people from the king to the common man respected and admired brahmins in those days--I won't say revered in the sense of venerated--spontaneously from their minds, not for millenia because the Sangham history is hardly 2,000 years old!, but probably until the invasion of the Muslims.

Shri Saidevo,


Mere references to anta
ṇar cannot be taken to imply "respect and admiration", apart from the basic issue raised by Shri Nara and Smt. happyHindu about the real import of that term antaṇar itself and whether it meant vedic Brahmanas in old Tamizh society. For the present, let me examine the examples cited by you in post # 383 (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-39.html#post73017)

Readers kindly instal all the fonts from
http://www.tamilvu.org/coresite/html/cwfontins.htm
to see the portion in Tamil.

ñ¬øòø¤ð õï¢îí¢ ¹ôõó¢ º¬øªò£´
ªõù¢ø¤ òø¤ð Üóêó¢è÷¢ - âù¢Áñ¢
õíé¢èô Üí¤èôë¢ ê£ù¢«ø£ó¢è¢° Üçîù¢ø¤
Üíé¢èô¢ õíé¢è¤ù¢Á ªðí¢.

(Þ-÷¢.) Üï¢îí¢ ¹ôõó¢ -Üï¢îí¢¬ñ»¬ìò Üø¤ëó¢è÷¢, ñ¬ø Üø¤ð -ï£ù¢ñ¬ø𢠪𣼬÷ Üø¤õ£ó¢è÷¢; Üóêó¢è÷¢ ñù¢ùó¢è÷¢, º¬ø«ò£´ - ï´¾ 郎ô¬ñ«ò£´, ªõù¢ø¤ -ªõø¢ø¤»ñ¢; Üø¤ð - Üø¤õ£ó¢è÷¢; ê£ù¢«ø£ó¢è¢° -ªð¼ï¢î¬è¬ñ 郎øï¢îõó¢èÀ袰, âù¢Áñ¢ -âð¢ªð£¿¶ñ¢, õíé¢èô¢ - õí颰î«ô, Üí¤èôñ¢ -Üí¤èôñ¢ «ð£ô¢õî£ñ¢; Üç¶ Üù¢ø¤ -ܶ«õ»ñô¢ô£ñô¢, Üíé¢èô¢ - èíõ¬ùòô¢ô£î «õÁ ªîò¢õé¢è¬÷, ªðí¢ õíé¢è¤ù¢Á - ªðí¢ñè¢è÷¢ õí颰îô¤ô¢¬ô.

(è-¶.) Üï¢îíó¢ ñ¬ø òø¤ð; Üóêó¢ º¬ø»ñ¢ ªõø¢ø¤»ñ¢ Üø¤ð; ê£ù¢«ø£ó¢è¢° Üí¤èôñ¢, âù¢Áñ¢ õíè¢èº¬ìòó£ ò¤¼î¢îô¢; ªðí¢®ó¢ èíõ¬ùòù¢ø¤ «õÁ ªîò¢õî£ö£ó¢.

(õ¤-¬ó.) ¹ôõ¼÷¢ Üï¢îí¢¬ñ»¬ì«ò£ó¢ Üï¢îíªóùð¢ ð´õó£èô¤ù¢,ÔÜï¢îí¢ ¹ôõ' ªóù¢Á õ¤î¬óè¢èð¢ðì¢ì¶. º¬ø -°®è¬÷ò£Àñ¢ Üøº¬ø; ªõù¢ø¤ - ð¬è𢠹øé¢è£µñ¢ ªõø¢ø¤, Üçîù¢ø¤ ªòù¢ø¶, õ£÷£ âù¢Âé¢è¼î¢î¤ô¢ õï¢î¶. Üíé¢èô¢ ªî£ö¤ô£° ªðòó£ò¢î¢ ªîò¢õî¢¬î »íó¢î¢î£ï¤ù¢ø¶; Üí颰îô¢ -õ¤¼ñ¢¹îô¢, Ü뢲îô¢ ; Üí颬è âù¾ñ¢ ð£ìñ¢.

[.î¤.².ð£ô²ï¢îóñ¢ ð¤÷¢¬÷òõó¢è÷¢(Þ÷õöèù£ó¢) à¬ó]


It will be observed that the commentary does not refer to Brahmans at all; on the contrary, we get the meaning that poets/bards with அந்தண்மை (antamai – calm or noble disposition) are intended by this word. The round-about interpretation of “pulavar” from ‘pulam’, etc., is also not correct, it appears. FYI, only the following meanings are found in the Tamil Lexicon (University of Madras) :

, n. < id. + புலம் + ādhi. Anxiousness, being full of cares; கவலை. (J.)

தினைப்புனம் tiṉai-p-puṉam
, n. < id. +. Millet field; தினைவிளையும்புலம்.
தென்புலத்தார் teṉ-pulattār
, n. < தென்புலம். 1. The manes, as living in the South; [தென்றிசையிலுள்ளார்] பிதிரர். தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தொக்கல் (குறள், 43). 2. See தென்புலர்.
நுழைபுலம் nuḻai-pulam
, n. < நுழை +. Intellectual acumen; நுண்ணிதான அறிவு. நுழைபுலம்படர்ந்த (பு. வெ. 10, காஞ்சிப். 4, கொளு).
புல -த்தல் pula- : (page 2783)
(ஏலாதி, 11).--tr. To dislike; வெறுத்தல்.பல புலந்து (பொருந. 175).
புல²-த்தல் pula-
, 12 v. tr. < புலம். To make known; to instruct; அறிவுறுத்துதல். புலக்கவேண்டுறுமக்காதை (உபதேசகா. சிவத்துரோ. 264).
புலக்காணி pula-k-kāṇi
, n. < புலம் +. High, elevated land; மேட்டுநிலம். (W.)
புலங்கொள்(ளு)-தல் pulaṅ-koḷ-
, v. intr. < புலம் +. 1. To be clearly understood; விளங்குதல். (W.) 2. To be visible; to be bright; பிரகாசமாதல்.
புலச்செய்கை pula-c-ceykai
, n. < புலம் +. Agriculture, husbandry, tillage; உழவு. (W.)
புலத்தோர் pulattōr : (page 2784)
of Aiṅkuṟunūṟu; ஐங்குறுநூறுதொகுத்த சங்ககாலத்துப் புலவர்.
புலத்தோர் pulattōr
, n. < புலம். Wise men, sages, savants; ஞானிகள். போத நிலைகண்டபுலத்தோர் (தாயு. பராபர. 194).
புலநெறிவழக்கம் pula-neṟi-vaḻakkam
, n. < புலம் + நெறி +. Literary usage or convention, dist. fr. ulakiyal-vaakkunāaka- vaakku; புலவரால் கைக்கொள்ளப்படும் செய்யுள்வழக்கு. (தொல். பொ. 53.)
புலம் pulam
, n. 1. Arable land, rice field; வயல். மிச்சின் மிசைவான் புலம் (குறள், 85). 2. Place, location, region, tract of country, இடம். புலங்கெட விறுக்கும்
புலம் pulam : (page 2784)
Quarter, point of the compass; திக்கு.தென்புலவாழ்நர்க்கு (புறநா. 9). 4. High land for dry cultivation; மேட்டு நிலம்.புலம்பல கலங்க (ஞானா (J.) 5. Sense, faculty of any organ of sense; இந்திரியம்.. 27, 6). 6. Sensation; consciousness; perception by the senses; இந்திரியவுணர்வு. அடல்வேண்டு மைந்தன் புலத்தை (குறள், 343). 7. Knowledge, learning, wisdom;

புலவரை pula-varai
, n. < புலம் +. 1. Boundary, as of a country; நிலவெல்லை. புலவரைத் தோன்றல் யாவது (பதிற்றுப். 80). 2. The utmost bounds of knowledge; அறிவினெல்லை.புலவரை யறியாப்
புலாதி pulāti
, n. perh. புலம் + ādhi. 1. Care, anxiety; கவலை. (J.) 2. Confusion; பிராந்தி. (யாழ். அக.)
. . . continued
 
Last edited:

It will be seen that none of the above gives the meaning that you invest the word with. Hence, it will be necessary for you to furnish the source from which you come to the conclusionHow does the term andhaN pulavOr refer to brahmins who know their Vedas?

The term pulavar among its other meanings, indicates one who knows the pulam. The term pulam in turn, is a name in Tamizh for the Vedas. Just as there are four words in Sanskrit that denote the Vedas--veda, Chandas, shruti, AmnAya, the four Tamizh words--pulam, maRai, kELvi, vAzhmozhi--refer to the Vedas.


Coming to the next instance given by you from [FONT=&quot]பரிபாடல் [/FONT](paripāal), the commentaries are silent because they feel as under :

ºîø¢ ð£ìô¤ô¢ Üó£èñ£è õ¼è¤ù¢ø 14 Ýñ¢ õó¤ ºîô¢ 28 Ýñ¢ õó¤ õ¬óò¤½÷¢÷ ð°î¤ ªî÷¤õ¤ù¢ø¤ à÷¢÷¶. Þð¢ ð°î¤ò¤ô¢ ªð£¼÷¢ õ¬óò¬ø ªêò¢õîø¢°ð¢ ð¤óî¤è÷¤ù¢ àîõ¤»ñ¢ ð¬öò à¬óò¤ù¢ àîõ¤»ñ¢ 褬ìè¢èõ¤ô¢¬ô. Þõ¢õ£«ø ã¬ùò ð£ìô¢è÷¢ ê¤ôõø¢ø¤½ñ¢ å¼ê¤ô Þìé¢è÷¢ à÷¢÷ù.

(Lines 14 to 28, incl., appear out of metre and unclear. Though the material could be obtained from some of the MSS, the old commentaries are silent about this portion. There are other such instances also.)

It is thus almost clear that these lines are later interpolation. Hence we should not consider it at all.

The second quote from the same anthology, line 40, viz.,

[FONT=&quot]விறல் மிகு விழுச் சீர் அந்தணர் காக்கும்[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]அறனும் ஆர்வலர்க்கு அருளும் நீ[/FONT]


viṟal miku viḻuc cīr antaṇar kākkum
aṟaṉum ārvalarkku aruḷum nī

the commentary goes like this:

37 - 48: Üï¢îíó¢ æñ¢¹ñ¢ Üøºñ¢, ï¤ù¢ Üù¢ðó¢è¢° ï¦
ܼÀñ¢ ܼÀñ¢ 嶺ò! ò£¬óî¢ î¤¼î¢¶ñ¢ ñøºñ¢ 嶺ò! ï¦
ð¬èõó¢è¢è¤òø¢Áñ¢ ¶ù¢ðºñ¢ 嶺ò! î¤é¢èÀñ¢ ë£ò¤Áñ¢ ñ¢ 嶺ò!
Üö¤è¢°ñ¢ Ýø¢ø½¬ìò ê¤õÂñ¢ ï¦, Üõù¢ ªêò½ñ¢ 嶺ò! «õîºñ¢
嶺ò! Üî¬ù æ¶ñ¢ ð¤óñÂñ¢ Üõù¢ ð¬ìî¢îø¢ ªø£ö¤½ñ¢ 嶺ò!
ºè¤½ñ¢ õ¤²ñ¢¹ñ¢ ï¤ôºñ¢ ï¤ôî¢î¤ù¤ù¢ Áòó¢ï¢î Þñòñ¬ô»ñ¢ 嶺ò!


We have already seen that the derivation of the meaning ‘Brahmanan’ for antaṇaṉ is not warranted. Let us see what [FONT=&quot]அறம்[/FONT] (aṟam) means. The Lexicon gives the following:
அறவாணன் [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a-vā[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. +. God, the abode of virtue, or whose abode is virtue; [/FONT]கடவுள். (பெரியபு. வாயி. [FONT=&quot]8.)[/FONT]
அறவாழி [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a-v-ā[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. +. 1. Wheel of virtue; [/FONT]தரும சக்கரம். அருளோடெழு மறவாழி யப்பா (திருநூற். [FONT=&quot]5). 2. Ocean of virtue; [/FONT]தரும சமுத்திரம். அறவாழி யந்தணன் (குறள்[FONT=&quot], 8).[/FONT]
அறவாளன் [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a-v-ā[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. + [/FONT]ஆள்-.[FONT=&quot] Virtuous man; [/FONT]தருமவான்.
அறவி [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]avi [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. 1. Virtue; [/FONT]அறம்.[FONT=&quot] ([/FONT]மணி. [FONT=&quot]11, 23.) 2. That which is holy; [/FONT]புண்ணியத்தோடு கூடியது. அறவி நாவா யாங்குளது (மணி. [FONT=&quot]11, 25). 3. Female ascetic; [/FONT]சன்னியாசினி. ஆசில் கொள்கை யறவிபா லணைந்து (சிலப். [FONT=&quot]13, 103). 4. Public place; [/FONT]பொதுவிடம். (மணி. [FONT=&quot]7, 93.)[/FONT]
அறவிய [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]aviya [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], adj. < [/FONT]அறம். [FONT=&quot]Virtuous, disposed to virtue; [/FONT]அறத்தோடு கூடிய. அறவியமனத்த ரன்றி (சூளா. தூது. [FONT=&quot]91).[/FONT]
அறவியங்கிழவோன்[FONT=&quot] a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]avi-y-a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]-ki[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a- vō[/FONT][FONT=&quot], n. < [/FONT]அறவி +. [FONT=&quot]Buddha, as wedded to virtue; [/FONT]புத்தன். (மணி. [FONT=&quot]11, 23.)[/FONT]
அறவியான் [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]aviyā[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. Virtuous man; [/FONT]அறத்தினிற்பவன். (சீவக. [FONT=&quot]1125.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < [/FONT]அறம் +. [FONT=&quot]One who practises virtue, not for virtue's sake, but for the reward it brings here or hereafter; [/FONT]பொருளை விலையாகக் கொடுத்து அறங்கொள்வோன். இம்மைச் செய்தது மறுமைக் காமெனுமறவிலை வாணிகன் (புறநா. [FONT=&quot]134).[/FONT]
அறவினை [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a-vi[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ai [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. +. Virtuous deed; [/FONT]புண்ணியச்செயல். (குறள்[FONT=&quot], 909.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]*[/FONT]அறவுபதை [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a-v-upatai [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < [/FONT]அறம் +.[FONT=&quot] Test of a minister's or officer's honesty by throwing him into circumstances in which his loyalty is sorely tried with tales of unrighteousness concerning his sovereign, one of four upatai, q.v.; [/FONT]உபதை நான்கனுள் ஒன்று. (குறள்[FONT=&quot], 501, [/FONT]உரை.)
அறவுரை [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a-v-urai [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. +. Religious or moral instruction; [/FONT]தருமோபதேசம். (அருங்கலச்.[FONT=&quot] 116.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]*[/FONT]அறவோர்பள்ளி [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]avōr-pa[/FONT]ḷḷ[FONT=&quot]i [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < [/FONT]அறவோர் +. [FONT=&quot]Jain or Buddhist temple; [/FONT]சைனபௌத்தஆலயம். (சிலப். [FONT=&quot]5, 179, [/FONT]உரை.)
அறவோன் [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]avō[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < [/FONT]அறம். [FONT=&quot]Virtuous man; [/FONT]தருமிஷ்டன். அறவோரவைக்களம் (சிலப். [FONT=&quot]30, 193).[/FONT]
அறன்[FONT=&quot] a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < [/FONT]அறம். [FONT=&quot]Sacrificer, as performing a sacred duty; [/FONT]வேள்விமுதல்வன்.[FONT=&quot] ([/FONT]பரிபா. [FONT=&quot]3, 5.)[/FONT]
அறன்கடை [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]-ka[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ai [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. +. Sin; [/FONT]பாவம். அறன்கடை நின்றாரு ளெல்லாம் (குறள்[FONT=&quot], 142).[/FONT]
அறனில்பால் [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]-il-pāl [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. +. Evil destiny; [/FONT]தீவினை. (ஐங்குறு. [FONT=&quot]376.)[/FONT]
அறனிலாளன் [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]-il-ā[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. +. One who does not practise virtue; [/FONT]தருமச்செயலில்லாதவன். (ஐங்குறு. [FONT=&quot]118.)[/FONT]
அறனோம்படை [FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]an-ōmpa[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ai [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot], n. < id. + [/FONT]ஓம்பு + அடு[FONT=&quot]¹-. 1. Fostering virtue; [/FONT]தருமம்
It is therefore farfetched to equate virtue or dharma with veda/s. In tirukkuṟaḷ, this word is not used to mean “veda dharma”. Hence this example also cannot be considered as referring to Brahmans or Vedas.

The next :

[FONT=&quot]நலம் முழுது அளைஇய புகர் அறு காட்சிப்[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]புலனும்[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]பூவனும் நாற்றமும் நீ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

1:48 ~nalam muzhudu aLaiiya pukar aRu kATchip
pulanum, pUvanum ~nARRamum ~nI

~nI--You, are one of ~nalam muzhudu aLaiiya--all kalyANa guNas; and the pulan--Vedas, which impart, pukar aRu kATchi--faultless insight.”



pulan cannot be pulam, it means organs of perception. The commentary says «õîºñ¢ 嶺ò! Üî¬ù æ¶ñ¢ ð¤óñÂñ¢ Üõù¢ ð¬ìî¢îø¢ ªø£ö¤½ñ¢ 嶺ò!.

But this is what naturally an eulogy of [FONT=&quot]திருமால் [/FONT](tirumāl - viṣṇu) would say. We can safely conclude that these verses were a very late layer of the paripāal, by which time the bhakti cult must have become quite popular in Tamizh Nadu. It should be remembered that this cult was open to all types of people in its initial stages but, later on, Brahmans took control of it, as stated by Shri Nara more than once here. This looks, therefore, to be a verse which reflects the period after such Brahmanization.


[FONT=&quot]புலம் புரி அந்தணர் கலங்கினர் மருண்டு[/FONT]
pulam puri a~ndhaNar kala~gkinar maruNDu”


Since it has already been proved that the word “pulam” does not mean “veda/s” and also that “antaṇaṉ” does not necessarilymean Brahman, the reference has no relevance to the point at issue. Even if your interpretation is considered (but not agreed to) it can at best be a routine reference and nothing more to indicate that the Brahmans were held in high esteem.

“padiTRuppatthu, among the eTTutthogai, core Sangham text:

[FONT=&quot]ஓதல் வேட்டல் அவை பிறர்ச் செய்தல்[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்று ஆறு புரிந்து ஒழுகும்[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]அறம் புரி அந்தணர் வழி மொழிந்து ஒழுகி[/FONT]

24:6 Odhal vETTal avai piRarch cheydal
Idhal ERRal enRu ARu puri~ndu ozhukum
aRam puri a~ndaNar vazhi mozhi~ndu ozhuki

This verse praises the king who adheres to his dharma of sustaining the Veda dharma of aRu tozhil andhANar--brahmins with their six occupations (Odhal--chanting Vedas and getting them chanted, vETTal--performing and getting veda yajnas performed, Idhal--charity, and ETRal--accepting gifts).

This verse should convince that by his term 'aRutozhil andhaNar', TiruvaLLuvar only refers to pArppAnargaL--brahmins, following the tradition of the earlier texts.

padiTRuppatthu again:

[FONT=&quot]அறங்கரந்து வயங்கிய நாவிற் பிறங்கிய[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]உரைசால் வேள்வி முடித்த கேள்வி[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]அந்தணர் அருங்கலம் ஏற்ப நீர்பட்டு[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]இருஞ்சேறாடிய மணன்மலி முற்றத்து[/FONT]

4:3 aRa~gkara~du vaya~gkiya ~nAviR piRa~gkiya
uraisAl vELvi muDittha kELvi
a~ndhaNar aru~gkalam ERpa ~nIrpaTTu
iru~jchERADiya maNanmali muRRatthu”


These are attributed to pālai kautamaṉār and kapilar respectively. In view of the apparent affiliation of these bards with Sanskrit names and probably, themselves being Brahmanas, such glorification is understandable but, in essence, it becomes self-praise, i.e., Brahmans putting in highly praise-worthy picture about themselves especially when they have been able to buy out the native ruler to their religion, made him spend for one of the highest costing yaga ([FONT=&quot]உரைசால் வேள்வி[/FONT]) and this verse itself is depicting the king’s hands moist with the water poured while giving a lot of daanas to the Brahmins. It would have been sheer ungratefulness on the part of the Brahmans if such eulogy were not made.

Once again, I have the opportunity to present the following lines from the same patiṟṟuppattu [FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

Ýó¤òó¢ ¶õù¢ø¤ò, «ðó¢ Þ¬ê Þñòñ¢
ªîù¢Üñ¢ °ñó¤ªò£´ Ýò¤¬ì
ñù¢ ñ¦è¢ ÃÁïó¢ ñøñ¢ îðè¢ èìî.


The concept of āriyar who are said to have populated the “imayam“ or the Himalayas, seems to come up once again. Hence, irrespective of all the painstaking efforts made here by you, the Cangam bards were very clear that the āriyar were distinct from themselves. It is mere commonsense therefore to conclude that they would have viewed the allegiance to the Aryan way of life, language and scriptures as alien to theirs. It is just similar to one non-Hindu family coming to occupy a house in an agrahāram, I would say. Suppose this was due to a royal edict of those days, the Brahmans would not be able to resist it but would have put up with that.

And, once again, we find evidence for the fact that the British/EVR/DK/DMK were not “inventing” the āriyar - tirāviṭar differentiation, but only discovering what people of the Tamizh countries believed centuries ago.

 
Last edited:
namaste shrI Sangom.

Please tone down the size of the font in your reply. Do you think you can prove a point by presenting it in an irrititatingly enlarged font?

The Tamizh word pulam definitely has a meaning that indicates the Vedas, in more than one dictionary. For example,

• if you search the Chennaip palkalaikkazhaga Tamizhp pErakarAdi in the links below, and search the word pulam by using the Tamizh keyboard provided (pa+u+la+ma+.), you would surely find the following reference to the Vedas, with the same paripADal reference I have quoted:

11 The vddas;
vedam pulampuri yandhaNar (paripA 6.45)

TAMIL LEXICON
Tamil lexicon

• if you search the Tamizh - Tamizh akara mudali in this link too you would find the meaning 'vedam' among the other meanings:
Tamil - Tamil Agaramuthali By M. Shanmugampillai

• In the 'PALS Tamizh min akarAdi' I have, 'vedam, maRai nUl' occurs as the 9th entry for the word pulam. This dictionary can be downloaded here:
Download free PALS Tamil e-DICTIONARY : MAYU’s Personal Blog

pulan cannot be pulam, it means organs of perception.

This again, is incorrect. pulan definitely corresponds to pulam.

• if you search the Chennaip palkalaikkazhaga Tamizhp pErakarAdi in the link below, and search the word pulan by using the Tamizh keyboard provided, you would surely find the following reference:

10. See pulam 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11. (Meaning no.11, as indicated above is 'The Vedas').
TVU - Tamil Lexicon

So, that settles it: that the word pulan also means pulam and pulam also means The Vedas.

IMO, since the Vedas are shruti, which is connected with the ear, by such terms as chevippulan, chevippulam, the term pulam/pulan might have come to mean the Vedas.

Hence, it will be necessary for you to furnish the source from which you come to the conclusion“How does the term andhaN pulavOr refer to brahmins who know their Vedas?

As I have indicated in this post of mine, the term andhaN pulavan in singular refers to pArppanap pulavan--brahmin scholar, with exactly the same quote we are discussing here in this link:
Tamil lexicon
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/5557-enge-brahmanana-10.html#post66786

That said, and since an andhaN pulavan--where it means a brahmin scholar--should have studied the Vedas in those days (although he might not have practised chanting and yajna performances), the term pulavan with reference to the Vedas stands for the Tamizh equivalent of the Sanskrit vedavid, IMO.

[Today, people who pass the graduate degree in Tamizh, are called 'Tamizh vidvan', or rather 'Tamizh vitthuvAn' and they use term 'pulavar' to refer to their title. Incidentally, I am reminded of a joke our Tamizh pandit cracked in school: He said a boy told him once, 'vitthuvAn katthuvAn'--'a vidvan shouts' and he replied, 'ninaichchA thUkkip pOTTu etthuvAn'--'if he thought it fit, he would even kick and throw you'.]

The key reference to a brahmin in the quote under discussion here, is the term maRai, in the Tamizh tradition has been a Tamizh name for the Vedas.

I am NOT at all saying that the term andhaNar meant only brahmins in core Sangham Tamizh texts: only that it meant them more often than not, or at least as often as it meant a sage or wise man.

**********
 
namaste shrI Sangom.

Please tone down the size of the font in your reply. Do you think you can prove a point by presenting it in an irrititatingly enlarged font?


Shri Saidevo,


This is an uncharitable, snide remark, unless you are not very familiar with web and browsers. I am requesting you to withdraw this sentence. I have posted very much as usual and do not know why it should appear large. And, the very fact that you have commenced such remarks indicates, IMO, that you are not on solid ground now.


The Tamizh word
pulam definitely has a meaning that indicates the Vedas, in more than one dictionary. For example,

• if you search the
Chennaip palkalaikkazhaga Tamizhp pErakarAdi in the links below, and search the word pulam by using the Tamizh keyboard provided (pa+u+la+ma+.), you would surely find the following reference to the Vedas, with the same paripADal reference I have quoted:

11 The vddas;

vedam pulampuri yandhaNar (paripA 6.45)

TAMIL LEXICON

Tamil lexicon


• if you search the
Tamizh - Tamizh akara mudali in this link too you would find the meaning 'vedam' among the other meanings:
Tamil - Tamil Agaramuthali By M. Shanmugampillai


• In the 'PALS Tamizh min akarAdi' I have, 'vedam, maRai nUl' occurs as the 9th entry for the word
pulam. This dictionary can be downloaded here:
Download free PALS Tamil e-DICTIONARY : MAYU’s Personal Blog




This again, is incorrect.
pulan definitely corresponds to pulam.

• if you search the
Chennaip palkalaikkazhaga Tamizhp pErakarAdi in the link below, and search the word pulan by using the Tamizh keyboard provided, you would surely find the following reference:

10. See pulam 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11. (Meaning no.11, as indicated above is 'The Vedas').

TVU - Tamil Lexicon


So, that settles it: that the word
pulan also means pulam and pulam also means The Vedas.

IMO, since the Vedas are shruti, which is connected with the ear, by such terms as
chevippulan, chevippulam, the term pulam/pulan might have come to mean the Vedas.
No comments.

As I have indicated in this post of mine, the term
andhaN pulavan in singular refers to pArppanap pulavan--brahmin scholar, with exactly the same quote we are discussing here in this link:
Tamil lexicon

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/5557-enge-brahmanana-10.html#post66786


That said, and since an
andhaN pulavan--where it means a brahmin scholar--should have studied the Vedas in those days (although he might not have practised chanting and yajna performances), the term pulavan with reference to the Vedas stands for the Tamizh equivalent of the Sanskrit vedavid, IMO.

[Today, people who pass the graduate degree in Tamizh, are called 'Tamizh vidvan', or rather 'Tamizh vitthuvAn' and they use term 'pulavar' to refer to their title. Incidentally, I am reminded of a joke our Tamizh pandit cracked in school: He said a boy told him once, 'vitthuvAn katthuvAn'--'a vidvan shouts' and he replied, 'ninaichchA thUkkip pOTTu etthuvAn'--'if he thought it fit, he would even kick and throw you'.]


The key reference to a brahmin in the quote under discussion here, is the term
maRai, in the Tamizh tradition has been a Tamizh name for the Vedas.

I am NOT at all saying that the term andhaNar meant only brahmins in core Sangham Tamizh texts: only that it meant them more often than not, or at least as often as it meant a sage or wise man.


**********
Even if it is granted, for discussion's sake that the term antanan denotes Brahmanan in some places, none of the references give any indication that the antanan was regarded as deserving praise; it appears more as a common name to indicate a certain class or group of persons in which the Brahmans who recited (sanskrit) vedas were also included; the closest example may be the general use of the term cUtran (SUdran) by most Tabra households at one time, to denote all people other than Brahmans themselves. We cannot draw a conclusion that the antanar (brahmans) of yore were being referred to in any different manner than the above.

The two references - from the same group of cangam texts - about the notion of Ariyar as a separate, warring (hence imprisoned), and populating the Himalayas - side by side with whatever remarks about antanars you have furnished can only take us to the conclusion that the Brahmans or antanars were one class within the populace, who knew and recited vedas but there was an unmistakable idea of the Tamilians being distinct from the northern Ariyars.


It was this feeling which was rediscovered in the last century when it was found that the Brahmans had usurped all government posts as also the political forum of the Congress, that despite repeated suggestions to have these loaves of office shared with the rest of the people and that the Brahmans were adamant and unyielding, that the age-old aryan-dravidan issue came up to the surface. IMHO, it is this crucial aspect, which all of us have to understand and acknowledge and stop criticising
only the actions of EVR/DK etc.

Shri Saidevo,

I am posting this also but reducing font size to 3. Earlier I was not looking into this at all. Kindly let me know how this appears.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest ads

Back
Top