Evolution of Saivaism and it's development in Tamil Nadu

[indian224080]

Devapriya, Solomon, Uppuma and all those anti-tamil vedic stooges can't give a single quote from the Vedas - to support their view that Siva is Vedic..

There is no Siva in the Vedas ..

End of argument!

Corollary to that is: Sivam<>Sivan is Tamil word; Sivan worship originated in Tamilnadu/ (Dravidian country).

Yes yes I agree with Mala.
It originated from Dravidian country. Dravidian country extends from Seattle in the West to Tokyo in the east. Tamil is the mother of English.
English is itself derived from tamil word Aangilam.
Aangilam->Engilam->Adding the sanskrit sh (done by vedic stooges)->English.

[bis_mala]

Devapriya, Solomon, ............................... is Vedic..

There ................ Vedas ..

End .......

Corollary to ......................... country).

Yes yes I agree with Mala.
It ..............................................>Eng lish.

Hai Indian brother! You will forever be unhappy. I have looked into the causes. You have this number 224080 my dear! It adds up to 7 and according to numerology, not only that you will be unhappy, but you might also end up attaining reverse enlightenment. Do apply quickly to admin of the hub to change it and have a re-look at our presentations. That will give you a much-needed lead to recovery. Best regards!!

[devapriya]

Friends,

I have requested many to show me Lingam Worship in Sangam Lit. , or the Proper Name used as Sivan in Sangam Lit. and we see
Idiappam wrote: There is no Siva in the Vedas ..
bis_mala Corollary to that is: Sivam<>Sivan is Tamil word; Sivan worship originated in Tamilnadu/ (Dravidian country).

Why don’t you show me , proofs for these assumptions?

When you say Hart did not say and I quote Prof.Hart you run away, or say that is his opinion. Prof.Burrows was the incharge of Lexicon project i.e., a Head of Many Linguistic Scholars and also consult many before publishing.
His point that 20 words of Rig is Tamil is of Much more objective than any others. Burrows, Lahavery, Caldwell are of the Scholars who say Dravidians Language speakers are from Outside India, who settled in India, around 3000 BCE. Now Aryan Invasion Theory is totally dropped and comes Aryan Incoming theory and it says Aryans came from 8000BCE to 1500 BCE, in small groups. Now you can also read the book “The Real Eve : Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa (Paperback)”
by Stephen Oppenheimer which analyses DNA research, little details in Maths thread.
For the benefit of Idiyappam and Friends,
þÕìÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø ¯Õò¾¢Ã¨É ÁðÎõ ãýÚ À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢Öõ (1:114, 2:33, 7:46) Å¢‰Ï¨Å ÁðÎõ ãýê À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢Öõ (1:154,155; 7:100) À¡¼ôÀðÎ þÕ츢ýÈÉ. þ측Äò¨¾ô §À¡Ä§Å §Å¾ ¸¡Äò¾¢Öõ Áì¸û þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý ¸¢¨Ç¨Âô ¦ÀÕí ¸¼×Ç¡¸ô §À¡üȢɡ÷¸û. «¾É¡ø ¯Õò¾¢ÃÉ¢ýý Á¸ý ÁÕ¾Óõ «ì¸¢É¢Ôõ Å¢‰ÏÅ¢ý §¾¡Æý þóò¾¢ÃÛõ þÕìÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø ÀÄ À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢M À¡¼ô Àð¼¡÷¸û. þÕóÐõ §Å¾¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¯Õò¾¢ÃÛõ Å¢‰Ï×õ ¸¼×û¸éìÌò ¾¨ÄÅ÷¸Ç¡¸ô §À¡üÈô Àð¼¡÷¸û. Àì- 217
§Å¾ì ¸¼×û ¯Õò¾¢Ãý ¾ý º¢Åý ±ýÀ¾üÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø «¸îº¡ýÚ þøÄ¡ÁÄ¢ø¨Ä- "²À¢ º¢Å;” ±ýÚ þÕìÌ §Å¾õ(10:92:9) ÜÚ¸¢üÐ. ͧž¡ŠÅ¾Ã ¯ô¿¢¼¾ò¾¢ø "¯Ã¢ò¾¢Ã¨É- ¯Õò¾¢Ãº¢Å¡" "º¢Åõ" "º¢Å¡õ" "º¢Å¡" ±Éì ÜÚ¸¢È¡÷. º¢Åõ ±ýÀ¾üÌ º¡ó¾õ ±Éô ¦À¡Õû ÜÚÅ÷. Àì 89

§Å¾¢Â÷¸û ¡¸º¡¨Ä¢ø µÁÌñ¼òòüÌì ¸¢Æ츢ø âÁ¢Â¢ø ¸õÀí¸¨Ç ¿ðÎ ¦¾öÅí¸Ç¡¸ Å½í¸¢É¡÷¸û. þì¸õÀí¸¨Ç §ÅñÊì ¦¸¡ñÎ þÕìÌ 3:8ø À¡ÊÂÅ÷

"µ ÅÉŠÀ¾¢§Â! þ¨ÈÀ½¢ Òâ§Å¡÷ ¯ÉìÌ ±ñ¦½ö ¦¾öòÐ ×¾¢ «Ç¢ì¸¢È÷¸û. ¿£ §¿Ã¡¸ «ý¨É¢ý Á¡÷À¢ø þ¨ÇôÀ¡Úõ §À¡Ð ±í¸ÙìÌî ¦ºøÅõ «Õûš¡¸. §Å¾¢Â÷ ¸¢Æ츢ø ¯Â÷ò¾¢Â ¸õÀí¸û ¸¼×Ç÷¸Ç¡¸¢ì ¸¼×Ç÷ ÌÊ¢ÕìÌõ þ¼í¸ÙìÌô §À¡¸¢ýÈÉ”
±ýÚ Ó¾ü À¡¼Ä¢ø ÜȢɡ÷.

þ¾É¡ø §Å¾¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¸õÀí¸¨Ç ¿ðÎ ¦¾öÅÁ¡¸ Å½í¸¢ Åó¾Ð ¦¾Ã¢ÂÅÕõ. «ì¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¸õÀò¾¢üÌ ±ñ¦½ö §¾öòÌ «À¢§„¸ï ¦ºö¾Ð §À¡ø þ측Äò¾¢ø ¦¾öÅî º¢¨Ä¸ÙìÌõ º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌõ ±ñ¦½ö §¾öòÐ «ô§„¸ï ¦ºöÂô Àθ¢ÈÐ. º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌ «ô§„¸ï ¦ºöÔõ §À¡Ð "¾¢¨ÃÂõÀ¸õ ƒ¡Á§†" ±Éò ¦¾¡¼íÌõ §Å¾ Áó¾¢Ãõ (þÕìÌ 7:59:12, ƒ¤÷ 6:30) µ¾ô Àθ¢ÈÐ. þÐ §Å¾ ¸¡Ä¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌ «À¢§„¸ï ¦ºöР⃢ì¸ô ÀðÎ Åó¾¨¾ì ¸¡ðθ¢ÈÐ. Àì- 101

quotes from Tamil Arignar R.Shanmugasundaram- PazhanthTamil Varalaru-this book has supportive foreword by Dr.R.mathiwanan- former Director of Tamil Etymological Dictionary project (NuulNalan).

Now Bismala says Siva is Tamil Vishnu is Tamil and Idiyappam says Saivam is Tamil etc., Sorry friends, in this book’s foreword Dr.R.Mathiwanan- clearly puts Sivaniyam and Maliyam for Saivam and Vaishnavam. And even the Author’s name Shanmuga Sundaram, a name of Muruga- Shan- from Sanskrit Six and Sundaram for Beauty for Sanskrit- Dr.Mathivanan wrote it as Arumuga Alaganar.
SO any amount of repeating same and misinterpreting with roots do not prove any thing. Please give proogs from releavant period please.
There is no Dravidian or Aryan God , all are one and all derived from Vedas.
Please see my post in Kural Thread for clarifications.
Devapriya.

[bis_mala]

//Idiappam wrote: There is no Siva in the Vedas ..
bis_mala Corollary to that is: Sivam<>Sivan is Tamil word; Sivan worship originated in Tamilnadu/ (Dravidian country).
//Why don’t you show me , proofs for these assumptions?//




Well you have been given the Tamil root words. That is proof enough. But if you want to carry out a DNA test on the word Sivan, then please carry on.

//When you say Hart did not say and I quote Prof.Hart you run away, or say that is his opinion.//

Prof Hart can say whatever he wants and so can the others. What we can accept we do. What we cannot, well sorry. There is no such thing as "He is a prof, so he must be believed". An Islamic prof said that Islam is the truth. So according to you, since he is a prof, you would readily become a Muslim and give up your research on anthaNar, iyer, vEtham etc. I learnt from other professors and not Hart. Hart is not my prof. Sorry.

// Prof.Burrows was the incharge of Lexicon project i.e., a Head of Many Linguistic Scholars and also consult many before publishing.//

He has done what he could. There were also professors in Nalanda University. But they could not produce the atom bomb.
They did not know it, just like your grand dad did not know what you know and vice-versa.


//SO any amount of repeating same and misinterpreting with roots do not prove any thing. Please give proogs from releavant period please.//

You repeat ad nauseam. You change me if you can. Your quotes are unconvincing for reasons I have given before. Sorry.

[bis_mala]

//
Now Bismala says Siva is Tamil Vishnu is Tamil and Idiyappam says Saivam is Tamil etc., Sorry friends, in this book’s foreword Dr.R.Mathiwanan- clearly puts Sivaniyam and Maliyam for Saivam and Vaishnavam. And even the Author’s name Shanmuga Sundaram, a name of Muruga- Shan- from Sanskrit Six and Sundaram for Beauty for Sanskrit- Dr.Mathivanan wrote it as Arumuga Alaganar//


º¢Åõ ±ýÀÐ ¾Á¢ú¡ø. º¢Å Žì¸ò¨¾Ôõ ¦¸¡û¨¸¨ÂÔõ ÌÈ¢ì¸ "º¢Å¡É¢Âõ" ±ýÈ ¾Á¢ú ÅÊÅõ Ò¨ÉÂôÀð¼Ð.

º¢Åõ+ ¬(É) + þÂõ. º¢Åõ ¬¸¢Â ¦¸¡û¨¸. þÂõ ±ýÀРŢ̾¢ «øÄÐ À¢ý¦É¡ðÎ.

º¢Åõ (¾Á¢ú) > ¨ºÅõ (¾Á¢ú¡øÄ¢ø þÕóÐ Ò¨ÉÂôÀð¼ ºí¸¾ ¦Á¡Æ¢ ÅÊÅõ. ¾ò¾¢¾¡ó¾ ¿¡Áõ ±ÉôÀÎõ.

þý¦É¡Õ ¯¾¡Ã½õ:

§ºÃø (§ºÃý)(¾Á¢ú) > §ºÃÄõ(¾Á¢ú) > §¸ÃÇõ (Sanskritized) > ¨¸Ã¡Ç¢ (¾ò¾¢¾¡ó¾õ).

ÌÃÅ÷ (¾Á¢ú) > ÌÕ (¾Á¢ú) (¸¨¼į̀È) > Guru (Skrt) > ¦¸ªÃÅ÷ (¾ò¾¢¾¡ó¾ ¿¡Áõ ).

ÌÁâ (¾Á¢ú ) > ÌÁ¡Ã¢ ( ¾Á¢úò ¾¢Ã¢Ò) > kumari (Skrt) > ¦¸ªÁ¡Ãõ (¾ò¾¢¾¡ó¾ ¿¡Áõ ).


Saivam is the sanskritized form of the Tamil word Sivam.

[devapriya]

Bismala wrote
////When you say Hart did not say and I quote Prof.Hart you run away, or say that is his opinion.//

Prof Hart can say whatever he wants and so can the others. What we can accept we do. What we cannot, well sorry. There is no such thing as "He is a prof, so he must be believed". An Islamic prof said that Islam is the truth. So according to you, since he is a prof, you would readily become a Muslim and give up your research on anthaNar, iyer, vEtham etc. I learnt from other professors and not Hart. Hart is not my prof. Sorry.

// Prof.Burrows was the incharge of Lexicon project i.e., a Head of Many Linguistic Scholars and also consult many before publishing.//

He has done what he could. There were also professors in Nalanda University. But they could not produce the atom bomb.
They did not know it, just like your grand dad did not know what you know and vice-versa.//
- I do not understand a single point of what you are Conveying- but making clear that your Position is “I am not amenable to any Scientific Views, My Views could be wrong, My mind is closed, but keep giving more evidences, so that I would use all my tricks to misinterpret it and make world feel that Tamils are Hypocrites””
Friend Where is Sivalingam worship or The Name “Siva” in Sangam Tamil Lit. Silapathikarm tells us about Triupathi where Lord Vishnu is worshiped in Standing Posture (.¿¢ýÈ ¾¢Õ째¡Äõ) and SriRangam as Lying Posture(¸¢¼ó¾¡ý …ÂÉõ- ÀûÇ¢¦¸¡ñ¼ ¾¢Õ§¸¡Äõ), ThiruMurugatrupadai gives the various Murugan Temples, but no Lingam is mentioned.

I look History only from the Evidences and not Blind Superstition and I understand your Arrogance of Intelligence which is without any base, and the root of Siva as per International Scholars-for all to see-from
Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge, in his famous work, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Cambridge University Press, 1988,
”The words Shiva and Shambhu are not derived from the Tamil words civa (to redden, to become angry) and cembu (copper, the red metal), but from the Sanskrit roots si (therefore meaning “auspicious, gracious, benevolent, helpful, kind”) and sam (therefore meaning “being or existing for happiness or welfare, granting or causing happiness, benevolent, helpful, kind”), and the words are used in this sense only, right from their very first occurrence.”

Maraimalai Aadigal’s said- Óì¸ñ½ý, º¨¼Âý, Á½¢Á¢¼üÈ¡ý ±ýÛõ ¾Á¢ú áü ¦ÀÂ÷¸Ç¡Öõ "¯Õò¾¢Ãý", "º¢Åý" ±ýÛõ żëü ¦ÀÂ÷¸Ç¡Öõ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀð¼ ÓØÓ¾ü ¸¼×û º¢Å¦ÀÕÁ¡§É ±ýÀÐ «í¨¸Âí¸É¢ §À¡ø ¿ýÌ Å¢Ç¹¸¡ ¿¢ü̦Áý¸. -Àì 129 ¾Á¢Æ÷ Á¾õ. Maraimalaiar agrees here Siva from Sanskrit source.
The word Kerala, comes from Sanskrit – Keralam, rather in full- for Coconut- it is Nariyal Keralam- and the earliest written source- Asoka’s inscriptions refer them as Keralo Putras.

Gouravas are referred as by that name or equivalent in Sangam to Manimekhalai and your meaningless breaking to Guru does not help, please do not spoil Tamil.

The dating of Tamil usage and Sanskrit Usage and the Literatire are “Well Established”, and international Linguists agree that Sanskrit is the Eldest Sister (for Many Mother) to Latin and Greek and Germanic Groups and Tamil uses One Third of words burrowed from Sanskrit and half that from its Branches Prakrit and Pali. Now picking this Burrowed words and showing its usage in world languages for Tamil does not make Any Good to Tamil.

Please allow me to quote from Sangam to Bakthi Movement to show Saivite Tamil Lit.
By Attacking Personally You have not allowed anybody to give the Historic evolcution of Saivam in Tamilnadu.

Devapriya

[devapriya]

Friends,

We were trying to analyse Siva Bakthi Movement in Tamilnadu.

The very name Siva does not come till ThiruMular. The Sanskrit form Saivam comes in Manimekhalai.

Siva in Purananuru is always referred to as Vedic God.

Quiet a few Tamil Scholars have confused Tholkappiyam’s God for Kurinji Land- God of mountains Seyon- Lord Muruga as Siva, because they were of the illusion that Tholkappiyam was older literature and absence of Siva as embarrassing. Today Tholkappiyam is dated to 50-100CE, late Sangam Lit. and these forgeries need not be done at all.

The Oldest of Saiva Thirumurai Collection is “Thirumurgatrupadai” a Sangam Lit. a part of 11th Thirumurai.

Details of this in my next posting.

Devapriya

[bis_mala]

Devapriya, how would you reply to MP Prakash of 13th Distr Sahitya SammaLan who says that Kannada is 1500 years OLDER than Tamil which is only 1000 years old according to him.

Prakash said that he had international scholars on his side.

That means your date lines are wrong??

LET'S HEAR FROM YOU.

[devapriya]

Dear Bismala,

Thank you for your post, following the hIGHLY Unscientific methods adopted by Thani-Tamil movement, now this methodis used by all.

Any Scholar can claim, what I quote is an almost Unanmous, mostly accepted by Scholars of International Acceptance.

I give an example, Pavanar in his first book dated Tholkappiyam to 2000BCE, on later findings he backed to 650BCE, while Tho.po.mi, L.Rasamankanar and all said close to 200-300BCE, today with more and more proofs coming Tholkappiyam cannot be dated earlier than 50-100CE.

As for as Kannada, During Indus Dechiphering, Parbola took words like "Thinkal" in Kannada means date and moon similar to Tamil, and few words were Tamil does not have that meaning but kannada has, so Indus Dechipherers tried Proto Dravidian close to Kannada also. But Parbola's method has not yielded and not a sucess, and that can not be quoted. Earliest Kannada Stone Inscriptions start from 4th Cen. CE, but many Tamil Brahmi Inscriptions have Kannada and Telugu words from 100 bce, Kannada or Telugu donot deny Vedic Influence.

So your purpose of this post is not understood.
\
Devapriya

[bis_mala]

Any Scholar can claim, what I quote is an almost Unanmous, mostly accepted by Scholars of International Acceptance

.

Thanks so much. But MP Prakash is also saying that what he says has been accepted by Scholars of International standing and repute!! So you see, among the "international scholars " one bunch contradicts and conflicts with another bunch...How do you decide who is acceptable to you and who is not? Can you briefly expound the methods they use? (All of them seem to rely on similar methods and identical data). Yet widely differing opinions?

I am sure most other hubbers would also like to know these things from you.

When experts give scientific evidence in courts, they are cross-examined in detail by the advocates for the plaintiff and defendants and then the judge makes a ruling to accept or reject. You do not have such facility. So, how do you accept or reject madam devapriya?