Are Not Tamil Brahmins Tamilians ?

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

i have reduced myself into quite a bundle of resigned fate when it comes to things like religion, caste, etc. i suppose those who keep talking about it will in some form develop a diff kinda attitude.

its a crazy world out there of haves and have-nots, and getting out of it all seems the best option for those who cannot gulp it nor chew it (since i do not like periyar). am leaving stuff as such here..hope kspv and kchandra read this someday.

 

[s007bala]

re

Happy Hindu

>>(was writing this while a distraction came up as above)<<

:rofl:.Only opposite poles attract,like poles repel each other as per theory of magnetism..khe khee:rofl:

I guess i have attracted enuff flak in this forum...pattal daan theriyum paarpanukku...:becky:.I must say Kspv,chandra,kaundinya..all posters of past..are no longer posting...can't be surprised,becoz it is slowly dawning into me,why?:drama:

sb

 

[happyhindu]

Kspv,

I felt like writing this to you:

Last year, while digging for info on various tribes and their practices, I came across matrilineal tribes like Garos, Khasis..due to many reasons, found myself reasoning that Khasis at some point cud have been in conflict with other austro-asiatic folk like munda tribes (verses like ‘munda madhanay’ celebrating women in war might ring a bell); and post-fight they likely merged. Also wanted to consider that their merger was in some form related the Khasas and that quite a few of them found their way from Assam, Bengal into Orissa (methinks the kamarupa kingdom in the northeast and kalinga and bhauma kara kingdoms of orissa most likely have these matrilineal tribal input, like pg 135 of Woman Ruler by Elin Sand is interesting). Same goes for these devi-worshipping folk who went down south and were keeping naga kaavus for worship (like nairs?)…I mean am talking about what could have been the carryover from the older tribal into current caste system….so when i read abt the liner told by someone that one needs to have brahmin blood to hate a brahmin, was left wondering whether it was intentionally malicious – i mean it didn’t make sense, why shd anyone hate anyone merely for following his own tribal practice…i mean, most of us always believed in full freedom for a woman, and come to think of it, if a woman comes from a tribe of agile, athletic, martial men but still is a warrior in her own right, gets to choose her own mate, and passes on her name and lineage to her offspring, what a pride it shd be to her – wish i were born in those times)…all thru this time have been rather trigger happy to think anything is fine as long as ppl are making love, not war..

But today i went thru the rest of your posts (in other threads as well). And am feeling bad thinking that I have been judgemental…i think i misunderstood you. You seem to have written it as a matter of socially understood thing amongst some people. But what really caused the angst was the rest of the thread. Was aware that EVR used to speak all sorts of horrible things and went around breaking / garlanding idols with slippers; but had no idea about the cutting off threads and tufts / physical violence involved…

Though it felt like people were trying to connect his anti-brahmin stand with unrelated stuff, felt really bad to think that one or two posters were probably associating all of one community as the same kind (dunno in what way I can assure, but so far amongst enuf ppl to fill one kalyana mandapam like 2000+ ppl, I have not come across any one with an anti-hindu or anti-brahmin attitude. If some brahmins had a superiority complex in the past, there were a handful of worse apples in our own basket with an equally bad attitude to boot, everyone is aware of that.)..

 

[silverfox]

Dear Happyhindu:
I got your post because I must have at one point in time subscribed to the thread. Nevertheless, I am always moved by your humanistic approach. It is because of people like you, the sun still rises!! (metaphorically speaking!!)

Speaking of EVR in the 60's, yes I remember his atrocities! I used to cringe and not wanting to go to school because his lowlife scums would come after me just because I was a Brahmin boy! Come to find out, he was NOT even a Tamilian - he was a Kannada-speaking Baluja Naidu!! But then again, the Tamilians were (and still are) the village idiots! (me included!).

Kspv,

I felt like writing this to you:

Last year, while digging for info on various tribes and their practices, I came across matrilineal tribes like Garos, Khasis..due to many reasons, found myself reasoning that Khasis at some point cud have been in conflict with other austro-asiatic folk like munda tribes (verses like ‘munda madhanay’ celebrating women in war might ring a bell); and post-fight they likely merged. Also wanted to consider that their merger was in some form related the Khasas and that quite a few of them found their way from Assam, Bengal into Orissa (methinks the kamarupa kingdom in the northeast and kalinga and bhauma kara kingdoms of orissa most likely have these matrilineal tribal input, like pg 135 of Woman Ruler by Elin Sand is interesting). Same goes for these devi-worshipping folk who went down south and were keeping naga kaavus for worship (like nairs?)…I mean am talking about what could have been the carryover from the older tribal into current caste system….so when i read abt the liner told by someone that one needs to have brahmin blood to hate a brahmin, was left wondering whether it was intentionally malicious – i mean it didn’t make sense, why shd anyone hate anyone merely for following his own tribal practice…i mean, most of us always believed in full freedom for a woman, and come to think of it, if a woman comes from a tribe of agile, athletic, martial men but still is a warrior in her own right, gets to choose her own mate, and passes on her name and lineage to her offspring, what a pride it shd be to her – wish i were born in those times)…all thru this time have been rather trigger happy to think anything is fine as long as ppl are making love, not war..

But today i went thru the rest of your posts (in other threads as well). And am feeling bad thinking that I have been judgemental…i think i misunderstood you. You seem to have written it as a matter of socially understood thing amongst some people. But what really caused the angst was the rest of the thread. Was aware that EVR used to speak all sorts of horrible things and went around breaking / garlanding idols with slippers; but had no idea about the cutting off threads and tufts / physical violence involved…

Though it felt like people were trying to connect his anti-brahmin stand with unrelated stuff, felt really bad to think that one or two posters were probably associating all of one community as the same kind (dunno in what way I can assure, but so far amongst enuf ppl to fill one kalyana mandapam like 2000+ ppl, I have not come across any one with an anti-hindu or anti-brahmin attitude. If some brahmins had a superiority complex in the past, there were a handful of worse apples in our own basket with an equally bad attitude to boot, everyone is aware of that.)..

 

[s007bala]

Village Idiots indeed

sb

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Silverfox-ji,

Am still rather confused and pained...always thot if someone wants to take the path of hate, he will do it anyways, no matter what...just wondering what did he get out of it all...reports abt him are conflictng, he played the divide and rule to the hilt, he tried his best to prevent independence ..and its perplexing to think that there are unrelated idiots even on the north that continue his legacy.....and as regards kspv, i think i inadverently caused him pain too...

 

[happyhindu]

KSPV,

Whoever you are, first my huge THANKYOU to you. Guess what? Your writing led me on and i dug out some wonderful stuff. It is likely that you right about the nayaka stock part in a major way. Because good many older groups do overlap on occupation basis and they mingled up. They were reinventing themselves in associated that is allied occupations and mixing up again and again. So yes those that were in the administrative function occupation groups are really looking like they share a few common populations amongst them. And i also came across some stuff about greek soilders marauding women and leaving traces in our populations...and i must apologize to you for my stupid emotional immaturity. I am SORRY, very truly sorry. and thankyou really..because if not for this i wud have missed looking in that direction...bye. God bless.

 

[[email protected]]

Dear all this is the time to think of totally change of the Indian constitution,because this old Ambathkars written unwritten British law should go,this law was created all sort of caste,religion and other probulams,we all should voice against this Law and to change. srk.

 

[happyhindu]

SRK,

Asking change of whatever constitution is like asking who will bell the cat? God knows how much of history have they really taken into account; for a country that is overflowing with too much history of various proportions.

During the Chola times it seems that a nattar was mostly a vellalar and sometimes a brahmin, but by the 18th century quite a few other tamil communites were either using the nattar title or had been appointed a nattar (tamil equivalent of a nayaka) by other non-chola kingdoms, and a good many of these intermingled (cholas model of governance was quite similar to the eastern chalukya model, areas of commerce called nagaram in both had vaisyas intermingling).

At every stage there seems to have been an overlap or merging of population groups. Every single caste seems to have some amount of matrilineal tribal input though they may be following the patrilineal model (it was just a case of who won and which culture was subsequently followed), many jains were descended from matrilineal tribes.

Looks like whatever claims of brahmin superiority there was, it came about at its peak in the British times. The brits seems to have promoted the idea of brahmin superiority only to create the divide and rule by using it to turn a section against them.

An Ariyar in the Chola times was simply a person selected from a group of nattars, like a Chief Secretary appointed from a group of Collectors, reporting directly to the king. So most ariyars were actually mostly vellalars and very few were brahmins. Am sure Mr.Chief Minister knows all this, so why on earth does he call only brahmins as aryans? Am sure even EVR might have known abt this since he dug so much for the wrong side of the scriptures as well as history, so why was he calling only the bramins as aryans as well?

 

[[email protected]]

Thankyou Happy Hindu, for information. Every educated Indian better knows that the current Indian constitution changed so many times by the betrayied politicians. There is no Justice to the right people, every body witnesed the Madras Highcourt Happenings,created by a section of lawyers (Goondas), since they are agitateing for srilanka issue,so to divert people's attention one leading all india party staged this goonda act at Highcourt, there is no guarantee for life of any person entering in the Hc premises. Vakathavanuku vaithiyar velai, now Vakathavanuku Vakil velai, since the low mark scoring students only join in the law college. How can we expect good moral from this kind of persons. The Police Should Unite and they should take sutabile action against the Lawyers.The Police should uphold their Moral this time to prove their ability or All the Top Officers should Resign their Posts and to show the Politicions.Then only some relife will come. S.R.K.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

SRK,

Asking change of whatever constitution is like asking who will bell the cat? God knows how much of history have they really taken into account; for a country that is overflowing with too much history of various proportions.

During the Chola times it seems that a nattar was mostly a vellalar and sometimes a brahmin, but by the 18th century quite a few other tamil communites were either using the nattar title or had been appointed a nattar (tamil equivalent of a nayaka) by other non-chola kingdoms, and a good many of these intermingled (cholas model of governance was quite similar to the eastern chalukya model, areas of commerce called nagaram in both had vaisyas intermingling).

At every stage there seems to have been an overlap or merging of population groups. Every single caste seems to have some amount of matrilineal tribal input though they may be following the patrilineal model (it was just a case of who won and which culture was subsequently followed), many jains were descended from matrilineal tribes.

Looks like whatever claims of brahmin superiority there was, it came about at its peak in the British times. The brits seems to have promoted the idea of brahmin superiority only to create the divide and rule by using it to turn a section against them.

An Ariyar in the Chola times was simply a person selected from a group of nattars, like a Chief Secretary appointed from a group of Collectors, reporting directly to the king. So most ariyars were actually mostly vellalars and very few were brahmins. Am sure Mr.Chief Minister knows all this, so why on earth does he call only brahmins as aryans? Am sure even EVR might have known abt this since he dug so much for the wrong side of the scriptures as well as history, so why was he calling only the bramins as aryans as well?

HH,

Long before Mu. Ka. came into the picture the Tamil Brahmins have been calling themselves Aryan and shouting this from the rooftops. They continue this even today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyer

They have also been emphasizing their migration from North India. They have no claim to be the direct descendants of the Brahmins of the Sangham age. If you see the Wikipedia article it does not say historically, but only "As per popular tradition".

There is a theory ( unproven) that the Tamil Brahmins of today especially the Smarthas are all later migrants who displaced the local Brahmins of the earlier periods. There is a lot of material pointing in that direction. But nothing conclusive.

This claim of being Aryans and migration from North India is also made by other Brahmins like Namboodiris, GSBs and others.

The Dravidian parties are only quoting the Brahmin's own version of their history.

 

[happyhindu]

Sir,

There does seem to be a carryover from previous populations into the current population. Moreover, whatever was hinduism in the previous time seems to have been considerably shaped by the austroasiatic tribes.

If one goes by karava oral traditions, it might appear that the gurukkul brahmins first appeared in sri lanka when the kurukulams first surfaced there (so it just might make sense that gurukuls came about in southindia when the cholas surfaced there). It looks like the various tribes of central india included a big chunk of the current Tamil populations like Vellalar, Mukkalathor and Nagarathar, since all these 3 are very closely related to the populations immediately to the north and west of tamilagam (those 3 too shd be considered aryan then). Movements were ofcourse not one way alone, but back and forth, multi-way. Each language and culture grew that way.

Usually when groups moved to a diff place, it wud be the brahmins of the tribe that would have kept a note or record of the movement. The only prob is that the current Tamil nationalistic sentiment prevents a Tamilian from accepting that he once occupied central India, not south. Whereas the brahmin continued his tradition of remembering his movement and calls himself an aryan though he too is probably the same as a vellalar. Similarly, a northie wud find it tuf to think his ancestors once lived in the south, but that's undeniable.

But more than the aryan-dravidian divide, the British really seem to have scored with the claims of brahmin superiority. According to one maratha friend, it is impossible to get a man trained in combat to consider himself inferior in anyway. Am wondering if it was ever possible for a brahmin to have claimed to be superior all thru chola to maratha times (reverence yes but superiority?)..and if brahmanical customs were important, am wondering how could some families have allowed them to fall into disuse to be almost forgotten (ofcourse a brahmin wud not have given up his customs as easily for fear of abandoning his dharma). For others, it looks like people have always been reinventing themselves according to circumstances.

 

[happyhindu]

There is a theory ( unproven) that the Tamil Brahmins of today especially the Smarthas are all later migrants who displaced the local Brahmins of the earlier periods. There is a lot of material pointing in that direction. But nothing conclusive.

Sir,

Instead of "displaced", perhaps it was "replaced", since those folk appear to have moved into lucarative professions or had to take up arms and become a different class due to force of circumstance. So tehre was a vaccum created and the positions requiring a brahmin was replaced by folk whom they brought in from the places where they themselves once resided.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

The Gurukkal community who follow Saiva Siddhanta are considered to be the descendants of the Sangham Brahmins. They are called Adi Brahmins. They are only allowed to officiate as priests in all the old temples. Smarthas cannot be the priests of the old agamic temples. The Brahmin Nayanmars were Saivites and not Smarthas. The other group which could be old residents are the pre-Ramanuja Vaishnavites who follow the Agamic Vaishnavite religion.

It took a lot of discussion in Wikipedia to get the term "As per popular tradition" put in as there is no historical evidence of the Brahmin migration. The only historical record is that of a group of Kashmiri Brahmins settling in Tamil Nadu during the Pallava times. Kashmir is the only state which has a recorded history. Raja Tharangini.

The Bengali Brhmins have historical evidence of their migration to Bengal. One group came from South India. Their migration could be even later than that of the Tamil Brahmins. But they totally identify themselves as Bengalis and do not keep on talking about their migration. According to a book on the races of Bengal most of them are either Dravidian or Asuric ( I do not remember this name well). But then these are talked about only in academic circles unlike Tamil Nadu.

There was a recent book about the Aryan Dravidian issue consisting of research articles about this issue.

 

[happyhindu]

Interesting sir...some people have always wondered what wud have been the dravida populations before a section of vellalars and mukkalathors came into tamilagham. And after talking to a few people, it seems they might have been the pallars, yadhavas and kallars (surprisingly all 3 of them are associated with presence of R1a, perhaps it maybe possible that this R1a once went from south to north in very remote antiquity and then came back into the south as a part of other populations).

Since asuric was considered divine not demonic in the rigvedic times, it might mean that whoever was part of the asuric group got into some fight with an other group, and the latter group on winning might have turned asuric to mean demonic...or perhaps both groups were calling the other ausric to mean demonic since the meaning of the word changed over time due to unknown reasons..

Wud be interesting to see if dravidic as asuric may fit into this...interestingly asuri is a mundari language branch (the austroasiatic folk do seem to have been fighting amongst themselves) and the mundari is supposed to have left a substrate in the dravidian language group.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

HH,

A short note. Please check up that during the early Vedic period the so called Bharathavarsha was not habitable. And again the remnants of the Indus valley civilization is nearer/in peninsular India.

And many of the Puranas including notable ones were written in South India.

 

[happyhindu]

Sir, Would early Vedic period be about 10,000 BC to 5000BC? And would bharathavarsha refer to the whole of India or the deccan regions?

Generally it is supposed that modern humans travelled along the sea route crossing over from bab-el-mandeb and moving all along the coast to SE Asia. It is debatable if the route taken in India was along the southindia sea coastal areas or did they break along central india plains and move into bengal (without moving into southindia) and from thereon went subsequently into SE Asia. Please note the first pic in green and the red line in the last pic: http://www.kaisyahin.id.au/ft/Geno/ft_matri.html Then there are those who seek to classify M as either african origin or asian origin.

Generally it is supposed that the fishing groups must have existed along the coast. Then there is the popular case of Virumandi from Madurai which has been accepted by many quarters as supporting sea route travel: http://haplogroup-i.com/2008/dna-india/ But all of this would pertain to a period far earlier than IVC.

It would be really difficult to predict in the present time whether or not a given area in india was habitable or not..Generally the weather pattern is the biggest deciding factor to movements..they say where rainfall abounds, there diversity of flora, fauna and various human tribes also abound (northeast india is a classic example).

This is an interesting article: http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Jou...Winder-C/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C-Tt.pdf

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

The standard text books dates are as under
3000 B.C - Indus Valley civilization Peak period 2500 B.C
1900 B.C - decline of indus Valley civilization due to tectonic movement in the Indus Saraswati system.
1500 B.C Chalcolithic culture _ Rig Veda

But some of the other scholars have dated the Rig Veda to 3500 B.C.

What is known is the Iron was not known during the period of Rig Veda.

The connection between the Indus_Saraswati Civilzation and the Vedic civilization has not been established. It is more of a collective memory rather than continuity. This is evident from the fact that many aspects of the Indus valley civlization like town planning etc. were not known in the Vedic age.

The Indus Valley civilization is considered a lost civilzation like the Mayas.

The map of Bharata Varsha is shown here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakha

But HH, academically I belong to the school which does not believe in DNA and haplogroup theories.

 

[s007bala]

When i was in meditative state,people existed as they are from time immemorial,was the vision.Even though thru logic of science,people are pinning down,migratory patterns and then conclude,is of limited time.Science can only go thus far,unlike spiritual science,from where all originated,sustained,get destroyed and the endless cycle keep happening again and again...so say the seers...

cheers

sb

 

[happyhindu]

The standard text books dates are as under
3000 B.C - Indus Valley civilization Peak period 2500 B.C
1900 B.C - decline of indus Valley civilization due to tectonic movement in the Indus Saraswati system.
1500 B.C Chalcolithic culture _ Rig Veda

But some of the other scholars have dated the Rig Veda to 3500 B.C.

Sir,

Iron was not mentioned either in the vedas plus was not used in IVC...as you say IVC is considered a lost civilization... They say iron was manufactured first by the chinese, so the idea of an axe made of iron is supposedly a later input into the scriptures. Iron axes turned upside as a plough made farming easier (though agri expansions happened in the neolithic, easier farming methods enabled most of mankind to settle wholesale from hunting / fishing into farming mode comfortably). But during the time periods stated above, the deccan of india is generally supposed to have been inhabited. Also it is hoped that those trying to look for archeological evidence will tumble upon equally or perhaps more ancient sites than IVC in the northeast side of india. Most of the gene pool of southindia is derived from the east / northeast regions.

Also from what i understand from one yogi is that the art of building a temple is perhaps related to the megalithic urn burial system with a veera kal (stone commerating a warrior) installed to mark that place (he said people used to be buried in pots and the place used to be marked and worshiped, but ppl used to be buried in pots only during megalithic time, so am supposing he meant the megalithic urns, not sure if am right in supposing that). Later it seems, a samadhi wud be marked by a statue on top to regard the person as alive in the afterlife; and various sevas wud be performed. It seems most agamic temples have a siddhar in samadhi in them, wonder if its true though...wud that mean that the system of temple-worship and building temples (not made of concrete or stone but wood and other other perishable material) actually have an ancient southindian origin?

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Leaving the genepool theories aside The early Vedic people did bury their dead. Cremation came later. The early Agamic temples do not have a Siddhar as founder. It is only the later temples like Pazhani which are associated with Siddhars.

Talking abou the Siddhas, they are a branch of the school of Nath/Siddhas. The name of Matsyendra Nath ( Maccha muni in Tamil) and Gorak Nath (Gorakkar in Tamil ) are clear evidence. Thiru Mandiram is basically a Nath/Siddha text.

But research into this is stymied by the regional considerations.

Very few scholars have done studies which rely on sources in the entire India. They confine themselves to what is available in their university/region.

Any research which goes against prevalent belief system gets thrown into the dust bin. I remember an Old Tamil Scholar who was asked by the then Tamil Nadu government to undertake a study to find out whether the idea of Metempsychosis was known to the early Tamils. When after years of study he came to the conclusion that this idea was not known to the early Tamils, he was humiliated, his paper consigned to the dust bin and he was not even paid for the research, though it was a UNESCO grant.

I read that Vedic burial sites have been discovered in Kerala. Then there is a research paper showing how Tamil has influenced Sanskrit.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

The old school text books in Kerala claimed that Tamilians came from Termania. And someone wrote a paper claiming that the god Murugan is from the Middle eastern God Moloch.

 

[happyhindu]

Sir,

Its really sad to think this kind of parochial attitude shd interefer in someone's work and esp after putting in years of study...

Thankyou for clarifying on the temple part. So, the later temples associated with the siddhars are agamic or non-agamic?

And is there any clue to when cremation actually came into vogue? i read in books abt archeologists mentioning that unavailability of bones in india is a prob in reconstructing the past.

What is the name of the place of the vedic burial site in Kerala? Generally, yes it is supposed that the south of india was inhabited prior to 3500bc. This article mentions cave sites in sri lanka: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asian_Stone_Age#The_coming_of_Homo_sapiens

And this article is abt the urns: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/07/07/stories/2002070701710500.htm Is there no written material to show the how the temple form of worship originated?

 

[[email protected]]

Sir, The Tamil Siddhers never used idle worship or particular God. They all said only Sivam is altimate goal.Natta Kally dheivamendru naluputpam sathiye, Sutrivandhu monamonedru sollu Mandhiragal medhada, Natta Kallum Pesuma, nathanonul eirukkyial,Suttasathi sattuvam Karichuvy Oriumo? by SIVA VaK Kiyar. The siddhers always find the God with in, they never preched any God by name,Only Seivan and Sivam both are Same. S.R.K.

 

[[email protected]]

Sir, Tirumanthiram is a Yoga Sasthra Book, 3000. poem, out of that 800 gives about Yoga,and explains about Mukthi, and merge with SIVAM. At present I am duing a reserch work On sound and light in Tirumanthiram and Sar Bachan poetry. After reading siddhers works I understand about Tamilnadu was only Saivate Worship and after 12th century only Temple worship Started. Siddhers are real mankind and what they enjoyed in their Meditation and found that they written as poems. S.R.K.