| Reply to Thread New Thread |
10-21-2005, 08:00 AM
|
#1 |
|
|
Friends,
The list given looks attaractive, but Pandiyars have taken over MADURAI ONly in around 300BCE, and Alines from outside is what Sangam LITerature says. The Fables of Kumari KANdam etc., are not supported by Sangam LIETerature. Please quote all Sangam songs wherever is required. Otherwise all your post looks highly Speculative, as Tholkappiyam clearly refers to Vethams and other Vedhic references. MosesMohammedSolomon |
|
|
10-22-2005, 01:07 PM
|
#2 |
|
|
//The list given looks attaractive, but Pandiyars have taken over MADURAI ONly in around 300BCE, and A lines from outside is what Sangam LITerature says.
The Fables of Kumari KANdam etc., are not supported by Sangam LIETerature. // If Pandyars took over Madurai around 300 BCE, where do you think they lived before that? The Capital cities of Pandiyan Kingdoms and other Thamizh Kingdoms changed due to the destruction of their capital cities. Furthermore, it is believed that Pandiyars had most of the 'KumarikkaNhdam' under their rule and when the KumarikkaNhdam, submerged, they took over and moved to the upperland which was under the rule of differection Thamizh sect. Anyhow go read Silapathigaram to find out the reference to the 'Kumarikkandam.' I believe Ilango refer it something like, 'PakruLi aarum panmaet kodum ...something' I don't remember the full sentence, but it refer to the KumarikkaNhda mountain range and to the pakruLi river which ran south of nowday 'Eezham' aka Sri Lanka in Singhalam. //Please quote all Sangam songs wherever is required. Otherwise all your post looks highly Speculative, as Tholkappiyam clearly refers to Vethams and other Vedhic references. // Solomon you know your a real moron! You ask others to give specific reference where as you quote [[[...Pandiyars have taken over MADURAI ONly in around 300BCE, and A lines from outside is what Sangam LITerature says. ]]] I hope my reference to the Kumarikkanhdam in Silappathikaram is more than enough FOR YOU. I'm tired of seeing you, an anti-Thamizh virus who praise Sanskirit, while some Thamizhars like AP MASILAMANI and FSG have proved again and again that Sanskirit has Thamizh roots and Sanskirit isn't something that you praise it as. //The Fables of Kumari KANdam etc., are not supported by Sangam LIETerature. // Solomon you talk as if you have acquired the whole knowledge of the Thamizh Sangam Literature and that finally you have come to a conclusion that Kumari KaNhdam is a fable story. You moron, even without a country the Thamizhs have enough evidence to support Kumarik KaNhdam, having a country would help to do an archealogical excavation regarding KumarikkaNhdam. You can't expect anything from the Government of India nor from any other Governments who suck the juice out of Thamizh people. You haven't looked into Silapathigaram or any other Sanga works which refer to the existence of the Thamizh Continent 'KumarikaNhdam.' Haven't you realized anything out of the recent 'aAzhipperalai' (Tsunami)? You won't even consider the possibility of such unthinkable disasters, which would have led to the very extinction of the KumarikkaNhdam. I bet you don't even know how many 'avvaiyars' existed throughout the Thamizh History. Go read things before you come to a conclusion like 'KumarikkaNhdam didn't exist, because you said so.' Who care if you jus had a nightmare or not?! Go read books solomon, don't read the Sanskiritized version of the texts either. nanRi paNhivu |
|
|
|
10-22-2005, 01:12 PM
|
#3 |
|
|
typos
'Pandiyan Kingdoms' as Pandiyan Kingdom //I don't remember the full sentence, but it refer to the KumarikkaNhda mountain range and to the pakruLi river which ran south of nowday 'Eezham' aka Sri Lanka in Singhalam. // I meant to say that Ilango referred in his text 'Silappathigaram' that the pakruLi river and the mountain rangers around it submerged under the sea, I believe the mountain range could have been the 'Meru Mountain' range or the left over portion of the 'Meru Mountain Range' |
|
|
|
10-24-2005, 06:33 PM
|
#4 |
|
|
Friends,
I have quoted from the book authored by V.P.PURUSHOTHAM- Sanga Kala Mannargal Nilai Varalaru, which has also a foreword by Director of International Tamil Studies and ThaniTamil movement Scholor Mr.SalaIlanthiraiyan. Silapathikaram Line tells Kumari Kodu, does not means Kandam, and moreover Satelite Pictures do not support any Below SEA land mass Between Indian Ocean to Pacific. Pavanar Schools Mr.Kodumudi Shanmugam in his Recent book completely Disowns Kumari Kandam Fables siting the above and the CENTENARY Meeting in Honour of Pavanr in Chennai University. MosesSolomon |
|
|
|
10-25-2005, 06:32 AM
|
#5 |
|
|
Friends, and moreover Satelite Pictures do not support any Below SEA land mass Between Indian Ocean to Pacific. It must have been a hazy day. Wait for clear day -- give 'em poor things another chance!! 
|
|
|
|
10-25-2005, 01:23 PM
|
#6 |
|
|
Hi Solomon, you are quoting others works as a basis for rejecting Kumari kandam. Hey different people have different opinion some are great and some are even foolish(belive me there people who belive that earth is flat and sanskrit existed Before the birth of christ). Please provide your analysis of the original work or its translation (apparently your knowledge of tamil langauge is higly limited).
As correctly said by Idiyappam, does is matter if it is called kodu/kandam/continent ? as long as it conveys that a huge land mass was submerfged by the sea. I sympathize with you, being a sanskrit fan you can only give importance to the structure and not the content, words become important than what they convey, dogmatism is the your way of life. solomon wrote: Otherwise all your post looks highly Speculative, as Tholkappiyam clearly refers to Vethams and other Vedhic references what is your point ? solomon wrote: but Pandiyars have taken over MADURAI ONly in around 300BCE, and Alines from outside is what Sangam LITerature says. Mahabharatha specifically refers to pandyas as participating in the war, are you trying to say that mahabharatha war happened much later than 300BCE, Solomon Contradiction and confusion are your middle name. |
|
|
|
11-26-2005, 08:00 AM
|
#7 |
|
|
senthilkumaras, great post buddy, what an excellent work !
Well done ! F.S.Gandhi vandayar, Nedunchezhiyan, Idiappam, mahadevan i too appreciate your view and opinion. Defenders of Tamil can be proud. Unfortunately our culture is not well known by about 98 % of people in this Earth... It's unfortunate with a huge heritage like ours... What i can say is that Human is Ignorant by nature. I don't say i know everything, if you understood that it's a mistake, what i say is that we are all ignorants... Nobody can pretend to detain the Truth, it's foolish. |
|
|
|
12-17-2005, 02:07 AM
|
#8 |
|
|
Friends, a foreword by the director of tanithamizh movement---------------any politician never ever did any grasp on LANGUAGE , CLASSICAL that is , and CIVILIZATION(everybody will agree sure on civilization and politician Iam sure) AND heard of the ATLANTIS- go to http://www.atlan.org/book/ please see it for yourselvesLOST CONTINENT ? FOR A LONG time until ARCHAEOLOGY and OCEANOLOGY took the subject everybody thought it was A MYTH, BUT NO , THERE WAS ATLANTIS scientists say now!!!!! as the wise old king said(solomon) there is no satellite pictures or physical underwater Reef or Ridges yet of the submerged Atlantis!! YET OCEAN ARCHAEOLOGY reveals possibilities of a submerged land mass in the Atlantic ocean. THAT IS BECAUSE THE EARTH'S CRUST MOVES A LOT IN 1000'S OF YEARS; AND SIMILARLY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY also AGREES to the history of KUMARI CONTINENT -ALONG with existence of the city of DWARAKA that LORD KRISHNA BUILT FOR HIS PEOPLE and that a bigger city of MAHABALIPURAM AND POOMPUGAAR AS PROVED BY THE EXPEDITIONS OF SIR GRAHAM HANCOCK AND THE ROYAL BRITISH DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY(visit Graham Hancock Ocean archaeology websites) By the by have you read the North Indian Historians giving proof on the TIMELINE OF LORD KRISHNA IN THE YEAR 4,100 B.C.E. AND THEIR EARLIEST SANSKRIT WORK BASED ON THE POSITION OF STARS AND CONSTELLATIONS IN THAT PERIOD TO ABOUT 8,000 B.C.E. BASED ON THE SAME CALCULATIONS THEY HAVE ALSO DERIVED THE TIMELINE OF TAMIL WORKS TO 65OO B.C.E. (read it in my previous links on these calculations). According to those SENIOR North Indian Historians these are scientific facts that holds good. WHEN SCIENCE SAYS IT YOU SHOULD BE BRAVE ENOUGH TO ACCEPT THAT THE EARLIEST TAMIZH AND SANSKRIT WORKS DATE AROUND 6500 TO 8,000 B.C.E. |
|
|
|
01-22-2006, 08:00 AM
|
#9 |
|
|
Hello
I think the ignorance about our literature is primarily due to external forces. Culture and language usually fourish in the presence of military and economic independence and social development. Actually they are all inter-connected and it is difficult to say which leads to what. Since we have been under varying degrees of foriegn rule for around 800 years now, it is just natural that this is happening. Of course, now that India is moving towards increased capitalism and federalism, regional priorities and preferences will play an important part in national politics. And that in turn will show some good results on the culture/language front. Hopefully. |
|
|
|
02-16-2006, 08:00 AM
|
#10 |
|
|
Historians' TIMELINE of ancient Tamil Kings of Sangam works
As far as we have collected from sangam literature,
the Timeline of ancient Thamizhagam is as follows[years in bold are historically correlated well identified dates] TO READ AS :[E]=EMPEROR OF HIS TIME; FIRST NAME+-SURNAME ACCREDITED NAME : YEAR OF ACCESSION TO THRONE: CHANGE OF CAPITAL TO: [E]kaai cina vazhuthi 9800 B.C.E.-THENMARUTHAM nedumeen thizhigan vael'meen kaavan .......... kadungoan 5400 B.C.E.-KU'ADAM (ALAIVAAI) ilanthirai vazhuthi 5370 B.C.E. ........... vaandroarchezhiyan 3100 B.C.E.-KOR'KAI mukkaavan vazhuthi 3020 B.C.E. ........... [E]alaivaai agazhch chezhiyan 2845 B.C.E. -old remaining land of the partially submerged city of KU'ADAM,then an island [E]thamizhi ,thizhigan 2800 B.C.E. [E]nar'seyan vazhuthi 2750 B.C.E. -KOR'KAI because the remaining KU'ADAM too submerges, porkaippandyan 2400 B.C.E. ol'vaenmaruthan 2350 B.C.E. -MAN'AVOOR ........... [E]yaazhthi kaavan 2300 B.C.E. -THIRUCHCHEERALAIVAAI kaavan thizhigan 2275 B.C.E. mudaththirumaar'an 1700 B.C.E.-MATHURAI ilanambi maar'an 1665 B.C.E. ........... [E]nediyoan, , vaimbalamba nindra,munneer vizhavin , perungalanediyoane 510 B.C.E. thizhigan chezhiyanvazhuthi ...... . neduvazhuthi [E]nambi, , pandyan arivudai 360 B.C.E. paan'arvazhuthi nedunjezhiyan kochchezhiyanaval'an perunjezhiyan [E]poothappaan'diyan ollaiyur thandha poothappaan'dian 150 B.C.E. .... .... [E]nambi nedunjezhiyan 76 B.C.E. semmaaran 35 B.C.E. nedunjezhiyan , aryapadaikadantha, 10 B.C.E. [E]perumpaeyar vazhuthi ,karungai ol'vaall', 25 C.E. nedunjezhiyan , cithiramadathu thunjiya 85 peruvazhuthi , velliambalathu thunjiya 110 nanvazhuthi , koodakarathu thunjiya 118 nanmaar'an , ilavanthigaipalli thunjiya 121 [E]nedunjezhiyan , thalaiyaalangaanaththu 125 cheru vendra pandyan ukiraperuvazhuthi, kaanapaereyil erindha 165 [E]peruvazhuthi , palyaagasalai mudhukudumi 200 C.E. CHOZHA KINGS mudiko,mael,kaal'aiyam,thagaiyan 2750 B.C.E.-POOMPUGAAR ilangokkeezhkaalaiyanthagaiyan 2730 [E]nedunjaetchozhathagaiyan ?2710 keezhnedumannan 2680 kaal'andhagan 2665 ilangeezhnannan ? 2645 [E]kaal'aiyangudingyan ?2630 nedungaal'andhagan 2615 vaengaineduvaelvaraiyan 2614-2615 vaetkaal'kudingyan 2600 il'avaelvaraiyan 2590 [E]sibi vendhi 2580 B.C.E. [E]parunonjichaamazhingyan 2535 vaeqratrtrichembiyachozhan 2525 [E]saamazhichozhiyavael'aan 2515 uthivengaalaithagan 2495 nannanthatkaal'aithagan 2475 velvaenmin'di 2445 nedunjembiyan 2415 [E]nedunonji vendhi 2375 [E]vaelpaqratrtri 2330 perunthoan'nonji 2315 kudikopungi 2275 perungoeppoguvan 2250 koeththatrtri 2195 [E]vadisembiyan 2160 [E]aal'ampoguvan 2110 nedunjembiyan 2085 perumpaeyarpoguvan 2056 kadunjembiyan 2033 [E]nedunkathan 2015 [E]parunakkan 1960 van'isembiyan 1927 udhachir'amondhuvan 1902 perunkaththan 1875 [E]kadunkandhal'an 1860 nakkamonjuvan 1799 maar'kovaelmondhuvan 1785 ven'kaandhal'an 1753 perunakkan thatrtri 1723 vaerkaththan 1703 [E]ambalaththu irumundruvan 1682 kaarimondhuvan 1640 ven'nakkan thatrtri 1615 vaqroat cembiyan 1590 [E]maar'kochunthuvan 1565 [E]vaerparunthoan'mundruvan 1520 [E]udhankaththan 1455 [E]kaarikosunthuvan 1440 vendrinungun'an 1396 mondhuvan vendhi 1376 kaandhaman 1359 mundruvan vendhi 1337 kaandhaman 1297 monjuvan vendhi 1276 an'isembiyan 1259 nungun'an vendhi 1245 maar'kopperum cenni 1229 monjuvan nanvendhi 1180 [E]kopperunarchenni 1170 monthuvanjembiyan 1145 narchenni 1105 caetchembiyan 1095 nakkarchenni 1060 [E]parunjembiyan c.1045 venjenni 998 musugunthan 989 maar'kopperunjembiyan 960 nedunjenni c.935 thatchembiyan 915 ambalaththuiruvaerchembiyan 895 kaarikochenni 865 venvaerchenni 830 [E]kaandhaman , 788 perunjenni kaandhal'an 721caetchenni 698 van'inungun'an 680 mudhusembiyan vendhi 640 peelanjembiyachchozhiyan 615 maeyangadungo 590 [E]thiththan 570 -UR'AIYUR perunarkilli porvaiko 515 kadumundruvan 496 nedunjembiyan 495 nakkanaranjozhan 480 thevvangochozhan 465 naranjembiyan 455 [E]nakkampeelaval'avan 440 iniyanthevvanjenni 410 var'cembiyan 395 kopperunjozhan 386 narkilli mudiththalai 345 ambalathuirungochchenni 330 perunarkilli 316 kochaet cenni 286 [E]ilanjaetcenni cerupazhi erinda, 275 pamuloor erindha neithalangaanal nedungopperunkilli 220 [E]cenni ellagan (elder brother of Ellaalan who conquered Srilanka  205-POOMPUGAAR perungilli 165 [E]kopperunjozhiyavil'anjaetcenni 140 perunarkilli mudiththalaiko 120-UR'AIYUR ilamperunjenni 100 perungilli vendhi 70 nalangilli caet cenni , ilavanthigaipalli thunjiya 45 vaenalangilli 15 B.C.E. ilanjaetcenni , uruvapakraer 10-16 C.E. [E]peruval'aththaan , karikaalan 31-POOMPUGAAR perunarkilli , vaerpaqradakkai 99 perunthirumaval'avan ,kuraapalli thunjiya 99 nalangilli 111 [E]perunarkilli , kulamutrtraththu thunjiya 120 perunarkilli , irasasuyavaetta 143-URAIYUR vaelkadunkilli 192 kochengan'aan 220 CERA KINGS [E]maavalicheran c.1150 B.C.E.-NAR'AVU [E]parasuramaraadan c.1050 B.C.E. [E]uthiyan cerlaadhan , perunjoatrtru c.900 B.C.E. ......... [E]nedunjeraladan , imayavaramban 680 ...... [E]ceral irumborai , naarmudi 300-VANJI(in his later years) ..... [E]anthuvanjeral irumborai 130 perunjeralirumborai , ol'vaall' 100 B.C.E. .... [E]kuttuvankoadhai 45 B.C.E. kudakko ilanjeraladan 10 C.E. perunjeraladan 40 kudako nedunjeraladan 99 [E]cenguttuvan , kadal pir'akkoattiya vaelkezhu 99 selvakadungo , vaazhiyaadhaan 120 paalai paadiya sikkarpalli thunjiya [E]perungadungo , vaazhiyaadhaan 137 thagadoor erindha marutham paadiya maariven'ko 165 irumborai , kanaikkaal 198 CERA KINGS FROM THON'DI kodhai maarban 120-THON'DI maaandharanjeral 124 irumborai maakkoadhai , kottambalathuth thunjiya 143 C.E. [sources: Delineated timeline of ancient civilizations, Gerald Hugo & Lesley Wells,1974 with incomplete Pandyan line and Cera kinglines, Nakkeerar's Timeline of Tamizh Koodal Academies and Sumerian kinglist of Ur and Uruk.] Most historians accept the timeline (historical dates) given in the ancient works like Mahavamso , Vedas,Chinese texts, Roman scripts and Greek texts and epics , eventhough they all are mixed with mythological and imaginary stories of their respective civilizations; but how is that they do not look into the truth and narration of historical events without any adulteration of mythology in the ancient Tamilzh works like Puram,Agam,etc. Is it because of the ignorance and inefectiveness of our Tamizh scholars are lack of documentation of such historical dates of events from our Sangam works due to carelessness or lazyness. Kindly friends, put on your valuable thoughts. thankyou; |
|
|
|
02-18-2006, 09:31 AM
|
#11 |
|
|
Another remark,
Majority of indians are still brainwashed by the european concept of Aryan/Dravidian races... There is not such division ! If someone say that Sanskrit have a Tamil-Brahmi root, it so does mean that division between the indian languages by Indo-European and Dravidian does not exist and that it exists only one super-family of indian language !! Everybody should understand that ! But it's sure that with time and evolution , one language changes... Modern Tamil vocabulary is composed by many english words... |
|
|
|
02-19-2006, 08:00 AM
|
#12 |
|
|
timelines mean historical dates of important events decided mostly on the basis of archaeology and literatures and recorded texts:
for example, Vedas claim the aryan civilization existed for 400,000 years having the long epoches divided into YUGAS.[archaelogical evidence-date only from 1500 B.C.E...] The Chinese have recorded texts of important historical events of their country which elaborate their timeline of kingdoms from 3000 B.C.E.;[archaelogical evidence-date only from 2000 B.C.E...] similarly the Sumerianshave recorded texts of history from 2600 B.C.E.;[archaelogical evidence-date only from 2600 B.C.E...] Romans have timeline from their literary works dating from 750 B.C.E.; Greeks have texts claiming history from beyond 2900 B.C.E.;[archaelogical evidence-date only from 1700 B.C.E...] even the SriLankan literature texts claim their history from 500 B.C.E.;[archaelogical evidence-date only from 100 B.C.E...] WHY DON'T WE CLAIM OUR TAMIZH HISTORY DATES FROM OUR SANGAM WORKS MUCH and WHY DO THE OTHER HISTORIANS DONOT ACCEPT ALSO OUR ANCIENT LITERATURES AS SOURCES OF HISTORICAL DATELINES as the Sangam works are full of such recorded dates of ancient historicxal events, eg. Till now the International historians accept the earliest Tamizh literature date as 200 B.C.E. to 200 A.D only;and historyline date from 500 B.C.E. only;while even the archaelogical evidence-date from 4000 B.C.E.(from the excavations of Porunai valley....] while .Puranaanoorru shows poems written during the Mahabharatha war which even the North Indian scholars claim to have happened around 800-900 B.C.E. and that means we have poems written in 900 B.C.E.this 900 B.C.E. TIMELINE is with the last Koodal academi only;even without the previous Koodal [academies] or Sangam literature works which were deemed to have been lost in the last ice age floods. why do the historians donot accept the documented dates of events in our ancient Tamizh works. Are we not doing enough popularizing like our ANorth Indian counterparts? |
|
|
|
08-10-2006, 08:00 AM
|
#13 |
|
|
Dear Thiru Senthilkumaras,
You wrote // why do the historians donot accept the documented dates of events in our ancient Tamizh works. Are we not doing enough popularizing like our ANorth Indian counterparts // We have enough popularised our works. But all historians are north Indian oriented. Few south indians historians are who are also sanskrit oriented. Tamil oriented historians are less in India. This is bitter but truth. You talked about Greece,Romans and Singalas. They have their own nations. Wheareas tamils dont have nation but have taken India/Malaysia/Singapore as nation or atleast in citizenship. Perhaps If tamils some 100 years back accepted Hindhi / Hindhustani, left their own language tamil in education and other spheres, never tried to legitimise their originality and turned into some language like telugu and kananada the so called north Indian historians would have accepted and familiarise the tamils history spread stories that tamils were the foremost race of indians history. The confusion could have been rejected in their mind.  Some of the historians are accepting the truth in the sense that there is some proto-dravidian / Archaic tamil / you give a name other than tamil. The best way to make all indian historians accepting tamil heriditary is to tell them there is no tamil anywhere in india / world. Is this possible ? Think it over. f.s.gandhi |
|
|
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
