DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**HedgeYourBets** · 05-02-2006, 08:00 AM

Solomon wrote:

Archeology is the best to guide and based on Stone Inscriptions the Tholkappiyam can be never dated earlier than 200-150 BCE, and first Tamil inscriptions are done after Samane North Indians wrote it in their scripts- the Tamil words, Tamil did not have previous scripts, atleast in pre-500 years prior to 500 BCE, Indus Seals, if you cut the Missionaries, 50% read it as Sanskrit and 50% as Proto-Tamil, but with morethan 4000 types of Pictures, they are more Picotorial than Scriptal. The claimed antiquity of S'krit was itself based on speculation. Historical events like Buddha's passing away, Asoka's missionary work, accounts from travellers from outside India --- from the dates of these events. you have to work back and speculate the Aryans entering India must have come in at least two thousand years before and should have taken at least 2000 years to reach the Gangetic plains issuing the vedas. Hence, 2000 yrs before the Christian Era + 2000 yrs in CE. Buddha's demise is calclulated or speculated by references to whatever records are available from Tibet!!

If one does not believe in Aryan Migration into India - worse still, You cannot use the above speculation method to say when the Vedas were written and when the other works came into existence.

As for Tamil, at least there is a legend / history of Kumari Kandam. S'krit has nothing .

Tamil was always known as Tamil. When you talk of Sanskrit, you have so many different names like Chandasa, Vedic etc., It is disputed whether the other names mean "Sanskrit". Why change names if it is the same language? why many times?

Historians say that it was Sanskrit which did not have a writing system.
Why apply that situation to Tamil?

If the first stone inscription was in 100 CE (for example), that does not mean Tolkappiyam was written in 100 CE. What's the connection?. Tomorrow if another stone insc. is found and it is 10000, would the date of Tolkappiyam become also 10K years old? What's the relevannce??

If Sanskrit is IE, why is it not have a writing system like Greek and Latin - Ah, Bah, Cah, Dah etc.,

If it is not IE, why still depend on the dates speculated on the basis of its IE origin?

05-02-2006, 08:00 AM	#27
HedgeYourBets Join Date Aug 2008 Posts 4,655 Senior Member	Solomon wrote: Archeology is the best to guide and based on Stone Inscriptions the Tholkappiyam can be never dated earlier than 200-150 BCE, and first Tamil inscriptions are done after Samane North Indians wrote it in their scripts- the Tamil words, Tamil did not have previous scripts, atleast in pre-500 years prior to 500 BCE, Indus Seals, if you cut the Missionaries, 50% read it as Sanskrit and 50% as Proto-Tamil, but with morethan 4000 types of Pictures, they are more Picotorial than Scriptal. The claimed antiquity of S'krit was itself based on speculation. Historical events like Buddha's passing away, Asoka's missionary work, accounts from travellers from outside India --- from the dates of these events. you have to work back and speculate the Aryans entering India must have come in at least two thousand years before and should have taken at least 2000 years to reach the Gangetic plains issuing the vedas. Hence, 2000 yrs before the Christian Era + 2000 yrs in CE. Buddha's demise is calclulated or speculated by references to whatever records are available from Tibet!! If one does not believe in Aryan Migration into India - worse still, You cannot use the above speculation method to say when the Vedas were written and when the other works came into existence. As for Tamil, at least there is a legend / history of Kumari Kandam. S'krit has nothing . Tamil was always known as Tamil. When you talk of Sanskrit, you have so many different names like Chandasa, Vedic etc., It is disputed whether the other names mean "Sanskrit". Why change names if it is the same language? why many times? Historians say that it was Sanskrit which did not have a writing system. Why apply that situation to Tamil? If the first stone inscription was in 100 CE (for example), that does not mean Tolkappiyam was written in 100 CE. What's the connection?. Tomorrow if another stone insc. is found and it is 10000, would the date of Tolkappiyam become also 10K years old? What's the relevannce?? If Sanskrit is IE, why is it not have a writing system like Greek and Latin - Ah, Bah, Cah, Dah etc., If it is not IE, why still depend on the dates speculated on the basis of its IE origin?
	Quote