• 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.

Vedic God Varuna in Oldest Tamil Book

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nara

Well-known member
Are you joining this hate mongering because Palindroneji is against Smarthas? What if she was against Vaishnavas, would you still say the same things? Just be careful, it is dangerous to cultivate poison.

I hate to add in this thread, it has lost its focus.
Dear prasad1, you say, "What if she was against Vaishnavas...". You seem to assume I harbor some affinity for Vaishnavam. While I may be guilty of many shortcomings what you suggest is not one of them. If palindrome wishes to discuss Vaishnavam I will gladly join in.

Now, your last two posts in this thread are deliberately offensive in the extreme against palindrome -- whatever may be the disagreement words like "poison" to describe another person is downright mean. Just adding the suffix "ji" does not exempt anyone from the obligation to behave with a modicum of civility. It is a shame that such vitriol directed against a fellow member is tolerated. It is shame indeed.

-- Dileepan
 
Sangom said:
I tend to believe, till some scientific evidence comes up to disprove it, that the vedas, vedic language, its refined sanskrit form and the whole vedic religion were not autochthonous to this sub-continent and were imported by group/s of foreign people who came here and have by now mingled almost completely with the rest of the indian population so that even genetic identification will be next to impossible now.
If you are basing your opinion on similarity of languages, let me point out that the Dravidian languages are also linked to elamites, who lived in the same Iranian region. Besides, cultural similarities were identified between sumerians, who also lived in the same region, and Dravidian groups.
 

palindrome

Active member


Dear Palindrome,

I agree that there has been change in my views about "jAthis" vis-a-vis the varnas since the last one year or so. When I joined this forum in May 2010, I was having the impression that the smritis were completely responsible for all the caste panorama that we had/still have in India. But subsequent readings about Kerala as also India, has made me rethink this point.

It is true that "theeNDal" (ritual impurity by simply coming near) is mostly a Kerala-based idea but in one book it was stated that in the north this had undergone a change because of the Mughal rule and has survived as 'from whom we can drink water?' and 'with whom we can eat in the same row or panthi?'. I remember such ideas are still prevalent even among the lowest castes in UP etc., from my old reading.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the response.

A good many practices such as theendal (ritual impurity) are simply tribal practices. A few years back I was reading a book on pregnancy and child birth. I was amazed so many tribes / cultures across africa, europe, far east asia, observed ritual pollution after child-birth. The concept of 'what is pollution' (ritual or otherwise, by touch or presence) is very varied.

Most certainly, dharmashastras did not create these concepts. Instead selective customs were codifed to represent one's varna through birth and death. Unfortunately, in dharmashastras, varna is based on birth and uses violence to keep varna vyavastha enforced.


I understand that at the dawn of the 20th. century what was then NEFA, had hundreds of tribes most of whom were at war with each other and head-hunting from other tribes was a prestige. This comes from some Malayalam books, written, incidentally by an OBC person.
Head hunting even today is a matter of prestige amongst borneo tribes (last year a christian missionary who visited that place had told me due to conversion to christianity headhunting incidents have markedly decreased, otherwise they were common even 10 years back, even a small rivalry could cause a man to loose his head). There is nothing surprising about it.

Headhunting must have existed in native indian tribes (for whatever reasons of rivalry). Without headhunting how else would some of our gods / goddesses wear a garland of skulls?


Because of such new inputs I have started doubting whether at all Manu's delineation of pratiloma unions and their results can be the sole reason for the origin of the myriad of castes, sub-castes and even sub-sub-castes may be or whether Manu was just attempting some labelling of broad categories over and above the original four of the chAturvarNya in order to put the innumerable groups of indigenous people into and some manual of social conduct to be uniformly followed by the Aryan migrants, made in that way.
Castes certainly existed before the time of Manu and his smriti. At least as per social historians caste is an ancient unit of social organization.

Manu merely tried to represent and organize myriad (pre-existing) castes into his varna scheme. Since he could not represent all under his varna system, he used the term dasas to indicate "everyone else". Manusmriti 10.45 says Mukhabahurupajjanam ya loke jatayo bahih | mlechchavachascharyavachascha sarve te dasyavah smritah || -- everyone outside the mouth, arms, thighs, feet representation are dasas whether they speak aryan or mlechcha.

Obviously before the time of Manu itself different linguistic groups and social organization units such as those based on occupational category (caste) existed.


There was this classification in ancient Persia AFAI have read : Arthvan, Rathestar, Vastrayosh & Hutoksha. The last corresponded to the Sudra and denoted, in ancient Persia to the camp followers during travels.
I tend to believe, till some scientific evidence comes up to disprove it, that the vedas, vedic language, its refined sanskrit form and the whole vedic religion were not autochthonous to this sub-continent and were imported by group/s of foreign people who came here and have by now mingled almost completely with the rest of the indian population so that even genetic identification will be next to impossible now. (The only groups which may provide some interesting findings may be the Chitpavan Brahmins and the Namboodiris.)
Thankyou for the correction sir. Am sorry i was aware only of Atharvas (priests), Rathesthas (warriors), and vastryafshuyans (farmers). Afaik, the term hutoksha does not appear in the zend avesta (please correct me if am wrong). The term hutoksha was merely used to denote everyone else outside the system (just like the term "dasa" of manusmriti).

Slavery, enforced by violence on a group called shudras, afaik is absent in the religion of ahura mazda
(again, please correct me if am wrong).

The chitpavans are not brahmins at all. Their claim to brahminhood comes from a select set of interpolations into the skanda purana made during peshwa period, they got all other copies of skanda purana burnt (this we had already discussed).

The namboodiris are a curious set. The only people who perform agnicayana and elaborate yagnas. The only people, who imo, can be called vedic brahmins, simply due to their culture.

The problem you have, seems to me to be that your span of history starts from the so-called "colonial period" and your bete noire is currently the smArtas. Just as in my case your dislike of the smArtas is a somewhat recent phenomenon. But in the beginning of the colonial period (1600 A.D.) only smArta brahmins would have been there and even the kshatropetas were not outside the ambit of smritis, I believe.
It took me a while to understand dharmashastras, a select set of vaidika agamas, some avaidika agamas, and a fair deal of history from various sources, to come to the current conclusions.

I think most problems of present-day india spill over from the colonial period; and hence, the repeated reference to colonial period. I cannot dislike people for their caste (oh please, how cud i dislike my own cousins just for something as dumb as caste). I firmly believe religious ideology of divide and rule, including smriti ideology of varna vyavastha, will not benefit any individual anymore.

The varna vyavastha does not exist now as far as governance is concerned but jAthi or caste is in full swing. But, do you think this caste phenomenon is as bad as the varna vyavastha?
Yes, caste seves no purpose. Jatis (castes) are "former-occupation" categories. Of what use is a former-occupation identity in this century?

We live in a secular world, where everyone receives wages. Women study, earn and inherit wealth. Our children are free to educate themselves into any profession. Then why link them to a "former-occupation" of their great-granddad? What religious or social purpose does it serve? (if for census requirement 'caste' is okay, as demographics are needed for policy-making; but for all other purposes 'caste' is a nonsequitur).


Kindly read my post again as a whole. This reference to head-hunting was to support the observation that thousands of years ago this whole sub-continent might also have been in such a social state. Hence it is relevant to my observation that

"I do subscribe to the Aryan-Dravidian concepts and I feel that the Aryans on coming into this sub-continent, found very many indigenous tribes who were mutually inimical with one another, and the Aryans put these various mutually warring tribal groups under four large labels to which they were possibly accustomed since the Iranian society also had a four-fold classification."
Thankyou for the clarification sir. Yes i see your point. But i thot practices of all sorts, gruesome or otherwise, existed across cultures in the tribal past. Was head-hunting absent amongst aryan speakers?

Scythians are known to have used skulls for drinking. In some ascetic traditions (such as kapalikas) the skull was used as an alms-bowl. Am not sure if any of these can be linked to aryan culture. Perhaps it would be difficult to trace.

Thank you.

 
Last edited:

palindrome

Active member
கால பைரவன்;196874 said:
If you are basing your opinion on similarity of languages, let me point out that the Dravidian languages are also linked to elamites, who lived in the same Iranian region. Besides, cultural similarities were identified between sumerians, who also lived in the same region, and Dravidian groups.
Perhaps you are confused between Indo-Aryan speakers and Indo-Iranian speakers. Indo-Iranian includes non-indo-aryan speakers (such as the dardic). The term Indo-Aryan refers to a very specific set and culture. Whether this Elamo-dravidian has any connection to Indo-Aryan, we do not know yet. Occupying the same region does not automatically mean they had a common origin or otherwise. Culture tends to have similarities across various regions, and is not always exclusive (though tribes tried creating unique identities or representations for themselves)
 
Perhaps you are confused between Indo-Aryan speakers and Indo-Iranian speakers.
My response was specific to Sangom's observations, please. I think Sangom connects "Aryans" to ancient Iranian society because of the class or varna system itself. AFAIK, this four-fold class division did not exist in European societies. The fact that it existed in tamil society points to a strong link to Indo-Iranian Origin as there is linguistic connection between dravidian and elamite systems.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
கால பைரவன்;196888 said:
The fact that it existed in tamil society points to a strong link to Indo-Iranian Origin as there is linguistic connection between dravidian and elamite systems.


I wonder if everyone was some Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan origin...then who were the original inhabitants of Bharat?

What about the time of Matsya Avatar where there was already Kings and Brahmins in the land known as Dramila(present day Tamil Nadu) and the river Kritamala where the King found Matsya Avatar as a small fish is the present day Vaigai river of Tamil Nadu...so who were the Brahmins at that time then?? Non Aryan??
 
OP
OP
L

london swaminathan

New member
Renuka

I am writing a long article on this subject. Every thing gets confused because of the fake, fictitious, malicious, mischievous, poisonous, parochialistic, chauvinistic,divisive, anti Hindu, anti Indian, destabilizing Aryan Dravidian Race theory. If you drop it, you will be able to decipher Indus script and You will be able to push back Indian history by several thousand years.You will see new meaning in to India and Hinduism. I am not alone. Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan leader BR AMbedkar, Swami Vivekananda and Kachi Paramacharya blasted this theory long ago.As long as one sticks to this there will be heated debates and name callings.
My aim is to smash this and shatter it to 1000s of pieces. Wait and see.
 

sangom

Well-known member
கால பைரவன்;196874 said:
If you are basing your opinion on similarity of languages, let me point out that the Dravidian languages are also linked to elamites, who lived in the same Iranian region. Besides, cultural similarities were identified between sumerians, who also lived in the same region, and Dravidian groups.

Dear KB,

I personally would give more importance to linguistic evidence/s. I have not so far gone into Elamite and Dravidian, but if you know aome urls, books, etc., kindly furnish.

Even then, I think the language streams are different in the case of Tamil and sanskrit or vedic. Am I correct?


 
Dear KB,
I personally would give more importance to linguistic evidence/s. I have not so far gone into Elamite and Dravidian, but if you know aome urls, books, etc., kindly furnish.
Even then, I think the language streams are different in the case of Tamil and sanskrit or vedic. Am I correct?
Dear Sangom,
Yes, the language streams are different.
For elamo-dravidian info, please refer to work of McAlpin, though there are many scholars who discount that hypothesis. The proto Dravidian languages themselves are distinguished often in terms of region (north, middle, and south india, for example) and there are different theories and they are often connected to different linguistic systems.
 
I wonder if everyone was some Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan origin...then who were the original inhabitants of Bharat?
What about the time of Matsya Avatar where there was already Kings and Brahmins in the land known as Dramila(present day Tamil Nadu) and the river Kritamala where the King found Matsya Avatar as a small fish is the present day Vaigai river of Tamil Nadu...so who were the Brahmins at that time then?? Non Aryan??
Dear Doc, There is a tamil saying: ஊருக்கு இளைத்தவன் பிள்ளையார் கோயில் ஆண்டி

Similarly, some people like to blame brahmins for everything.

Consider this tamil poem from the Sangam-age கலித்தொகை

ஆயர் மகன் ஆயின், ஆய மகள் நீ ஆயின்,
நின் வெய்யன்ஆயின், அவன் வெய்யை நீ ஆயின்,
நின்னை நோதக்கதோ இல்லைமன் நின் நெஞ்சம்,
அன்னை நெஞ்சு, ஆகப் பெறின்

காதலியும் காதலனும் ஒரே சாதியாக இருந்தால் காதலியின் தாய் மனம் நோகாது என்று அர்த்தம்.

Is divya's mother in ilavarassan-divya issue different from this mother of sangam age? You described casteism as delusionism but the delusion has been there even in Sangam age :)
 
Last edited:

palindrome

Active member
கால பைரவன்;196888 said:
My response was specific to Sangom's observations, please. I think Sangom connects "Aryans" to ancient Iranian society because of the class or varna system itself. AFAIK, this four-fold class division did not exist in European societies. The fact that it existed in tamil society points to a strong link to Indo-Iranian Origin as there is linguistic connection between dravidian and elamite systems.
Perhaps you have not been reading Sangom's sir (especially previous posts such as this) wherein he described the varna system. For someone who posted on Arkaim, Andronovo and Sintashta-Petrovka cultures, I feel Sangom sir is well aware of different cultures which used to prevail in the iranian / eastern europe regions.

Varna system is a very specific culture, pertaning to a very specific set supposedly called the 'indo-aryan' speakers. It is very much comparable to ancient european societies. The Roman, Greeks, and other Proto-Indo-European speakers had a class system of the following ranks: priests and kings, warriors, and herders-cultivators. Of these, the cultivators were slaves (put to work on captured land). There is also archeological evidence for this. For example, in early 5th century the Spartan society was found to bury its people in 3 seperate tombs -- priests, warriors, agricultural slaves. This matches the idéologie tripartite of proto-indo-european societies.

Much of medieval europe was feudal. Religious laws (linked to Christianity in Europe's case), helped the king rule over people in the name of God. Same case with Sharia and sultanates. Same case with Smritis (dharmashastras), which helped a feudal system (See this post).

The case of tamil society was different. The tamil society functioned on a 8-fold organization -- Arivar (knowledgeable men or ascetics), Ulavar (farmers aka vellalar, karalar), Ayar (Aayar or shepherds), Vedduvar (hunters), Kammalar (artisans), Padayatchier (military men), Valayar (fishermen), Pulayar (tanners). Witzel has provided some info on the BMAC religion (which is non-indoaryan) but things remain shrouded in mystery.

(Note: the non-indoaryan societies such as the Kalash speak Dardic. Though there are similarities in words with equivalents, the context and associated folk stories vary widely.
Kashmir also used to speak Dardic languages (also called Pisacha) -- this was non-indoaryan culture). Interestingly, the Kalash claim they came to Afghanistan from a place in the south called tsiyam (whether this was the indian subcontinent, we do not know yet).

Anyways, Tholkappiyer was the first to desribe Tamil society in 4 guilds -- அரசர் (arasar), அந்தணர் (anthanar), வணிகர் (vanikar), வெள்ளாளர் (vellalar). By Tholkappiyer's time, the Satavahanas had made inroads and the effect of sanskritization cannot be missed. Yet, the functions are nowhere close to the dharmashastra description.

I again ask --
(1) what does Thiruvalluvar or any sangam literature say about the origins of the அந்தணர் (anthanar) -- from where did they arise?

(2) Show me any tamil / sangam literature which endorses slavery, and that too using violence.


Thanks.
 

palindrome

Active member
Renuka

I am writing a long article on this subject. Every thing gets confused because of the fake, fictitious, malicious, mischievous, poisonous, parochialistic, chauvinistic,divisive, anti Hindu, anti Indian, destabilizing Aryan Dravidian Race theory. If you drop it, you will be able to decipher Indus script and You will be able to push back Indian history by several thousand years.You will see new meaning in to India and Hinduism. I am not alone. Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan leader BR AMbedkar, Swami Vivekananda and Kachi Paramacharya blasted this theory long ago.As long as one sticks to this there will be heated debates and name callings.
My aim is to smash this and shatter it to 1000s of pieces. Wait and see.
Mr. London Swaminathan,

Hope your hindutva ideologies will not be shattered into 1000s of pieces. :D

Good luck.
 

palindrome

Active member


Dear KB,

I personally would give more importance to linguistic evidence/s. I have not so far gone into Elamite and Dravidian, but if you know aome urls, books, etc., kindly furnish.

Even then, I think the language streams are different in the case of Tamil and sanskrit or vedic. Am I correct?



கால பைரவன்;196993 said:
Dear Sangom,
Yes, the language streams are different.
For elamo-dravidian info, please refer to work of McAlpin, though there are many scholars who discount that hypothesis. The proto Dravidian languages themselves are distinguished often in terms of region (north, middle, and south india, for example) and there are different theories and they are often connected to different linguistic systems.
Personally, i subscribe to the Elamo-Dravidian theory. As of now, there is no conclusive evidence. From linguistic pov also, the hypothesis has holes. Yet, there are some pointers due to which i think the hypothesis will gain acceptance over time. Probably from multidisciplinary research involving linguistics as well as genetics. I feel old tamil shares similarities with akkadian; and likely cultural similarities with sumerian. Also, there are migration pointers from the current iran region.

My hypothesis is the ASI were linked to BMAC and other non-indoaryan cultures, before admixture with ANI. Similarly, the ANI were linked to indoaryan cultures (and probably the steppe) before admixture with ASI. However, it all depends on emerging evidence. Lets see how things come along. For now, i base my hypothesis on religion similarities (such as worship of snakes in BMAC religion). Plus some researchers, such as Sarianidi are of opinion that Zoroastrian culture is of BMAC origin (although this point is refuted by some historians, this is not improbable -- for more details on it, the book The Origin of the Indo-Iranians by Elena Efimovna Kuzʹmina can be interesting).

Anyways, the moot point is -- Can we link Varna-system (Varna-vyavastha) culture to 'indo-aryan' speakers? What if these were imposters? Or arose from other cultures but claimed to be inheritors of "aryan" culture? Is Varna-vyavastha "aryan" culture at all? If yes, then what is Zoroashtrian culture? In short, what if proponents of varna-system were iranian or indo-european people of non-indoaryan cultures?

Regards.


 
Last edited:
palindrome said:
Anyways, Tholkappiyer was the first to desribe Tamil society in 4 guilds -- அரசர் (arasar), அந்தணர் (anthanar), வணிகர் (vanikar), வெள்ளாளர் (vellalar). By Tholkappiyer's time, the Satavahanas had made inroads and the effect of sanskritization cannot be missed. Yet, the functions are nowhere close to the dharmashastra description.
Sangam period literature is the earliest literature available that gives a glimpse of tamil society and what you call as "sanskritisation" is visible in most of them. This means as far as ascertaining tamil history from literature is concerned, you will have to live with this so-called sanskritisation.
References to the class division that you have termed guilds is not just seen in tolkappiyam. It is seen in other sangam literature also. These guilds are defined as occupation categories and your claim that they are nowhere close to what is found in sanskrit scriptures is not true. Tamil scholars from ilampooranar to modern day authors, even those who subscribe to the Aryan invasion, do not make such claim. Rather some have clearly noted the similarities.
 
(2) Show me any tamil / sangam literature which endorses slavery, and that too using violence.
Thanks.
Do you mean it is possible to enslave people without violence?
There is a book that that talks about slavery in tamil nadu right from ancient tamil society. It is called "தமிழகத்தில் அடிமைமுறை" by A. Sivasubramanian.
 

sangom

Well-known member
The case of tamil society was different. The tamil society functioned on a 8-fold organization -- Arivar (knowledgeable men or ascetics), Ulavar (farmers aka vellalar, karalar), Ayar (Aayar or shepherds), Vedduvar (hunters), Kammalar (artisans), Padayatchier (military men), Valayar (fishermen), Pulayar (tanners). Witzel has provided some info on the BMAC religion (which is non-indoaryan) but things remain shrouded in mystery.


Kerala society had jAtis called vEDan, kammALan, valayan, nuNayan (fisherfolk of another kind), pulayan, etc. Ayar or Ayan was not there possibly because the terrain did not support sheep breeding. But the kingdom of Travancore emerged from the Ay dynasty near present day Shencottah/AykkuDi area and this initial Thrippaappur swaroopam (as it was known till about the 17th. century AD) became vENAD (or vEL nAD or the land of vELs or veLLALars) and subsequently to thiruvithAmkoor (Travancore). Hence, the category Ayar was not unknown at least in the southern tip. But all these castes were shudras and each of them observed untouchability as also theeNDal with all the rest.

That is what prompts me to conclude, notwithstanding learned scholars' views, that the chAturvarNyam could not have given rise to the inter-se untouchability and theeNDal since all of these categories were unapproachable for the higher jAthis or castes.
 

Nara

Well-known member
கால பைரவன்;196996 said:
Dear Doc, There is a tamil saying: ஊருக்கு இளைத்தவன் பிள்ளையார் கோயில் ஆண்டி

Similarly, some people like to blame brahmins for everything.
Dear KB,

There are at least three points that I am able to gather from the above post:

#1. The verse talks about the girl's jAti and that the mother will be upset if the boy was not of the same jAti
#2. The upshot of the verse proves "casteism" was preset even during Sanga kalam
#3. There are some people who blame brahmins for casteism even though it was present in Sanga kalam

I submit all three are unfounded.

#1 and #2. There is no reason to interpret ஆயர் as a jAti. In fact the word ஆயர் always follows with the word குலம், and குலம் is not jAti. Further, all the cited verse is saying is that the mother will be anguished. There is nothing in this verse, or the entire set of verses that describe a conversation between a girl in love and her friend, to indicate that she will be forbidden to marry or elope with the guy if he is not also of ஆயர் குலம், let alone the father committing suicide, protracted caste battles and suspicious death of the paramore. So, any comparison drawn to Ilavarasan-Divya is completely untenable.

#3. What kind of social divisions existed during the Sanga kalam is open to debate. We can argue endlessly without changing minds. However, there are a few observations that can be readily verified. Whatever may have been the system, they did not have any edicts similar to the Dharmashasthras that were codified as the essence of "justice" as in the supremely "just" மனு நீதி. Nothing like this existed up until the end of the களப்பிரர் time, the epoch that gave us a range of Sanga text including the much revered திருக்குறள். The fall of களப்பிரர் and the ascendency of the Pallavas marked the beginning of the dominance of Vedic religions and the adoption of Smartha texts as State doctrine.

To what extent the vile and noxious rules enshrined in the Smartha texts were followed can be argued, but, that these smrithees contain these vile and noxious edicts and the texts are considered divine, cannot be questioned. All this would mean very little if they have been subsequently repudiated. Unfortunately, these texts not only remain unrepudiated, but they are still held as supremely divine by the Brahmins. This is so not only of Smartha Brahmins, but non-Smartha Brahmins as well. This open adoration of abominable texts in combination with the open supremacist attitude as exemplified by the many posts routinely made in this forum -- one I saw today says donating a cow to worthy brahmin is the best -- are the reasons for what you lament as the attitude of "some" (this certainly includes yours truly I suppose) to blame Brahmins for "everything" -- though I must object, your statement is untrue, my criticism of Brahmins is only about their refusal to come clean and own up to their share of culpability, which is a lion's share, for the varna/jAti ideology, and to do something about it.

One more point, let us not use the ugly episode of Ilavarasn-Divya to score points. This tragedy is emblematic of the casteist mindset of an entire nation. Whether casteism existed in Sanga period or not, it exists in all its filthy glory today. Who is to blame? I like to say the entire nation is to blame. All of us must join together and work to free us from this casteist scourge. In this effort the responsibility of the Brahmins is to repudiate all the Smartha texts that glorify Brahmins and withdraw the intellectual justification for Varna/jAti.

best regards
 

palindrome

Active member
கால பைரவன்;197035 said:
Sangam period literature is the earliest literature available that gives a glimpse of tamil society and what you call as "sanskritisation" is visible in most of them. This means as far as ascertaining tamil history from literature is concerned, you will have to live with this so-called sanskritisation.
References to the class division that you have termed guilds is not just seen in tolkappiyam. It is seen in other sangam literature also. These guilds are defined as occupation categories and your claim that they are nowhere close to what is found in sanskrit scriptures is not true. Tamil scholars from ilampooranar to modern day authors, even those who subscribe to the Aryan invasion, do not make such claim. Rather some have clearly noted the similarities.
In this particular context, the context of Sanskritization refers to the introduction of Sanskrit-related culture. Sorry literature aside, perhaps you missed previous posts like this one. Very obviously, Sanskritization was introduced into the south once upon a time.

Caste system is also based on occupation. That does not mean it is the same as varna vyavastha (varna system). Rigidly assigning and suppressing one into a occupation, plus violence to subjugate the other to designate oneself to a higher varna is absent in caste structures. In short, Varna vyavastha was designed for a feudal form of governance. Whereas caste is a tribal and intra-clan form of social organization.

Please give me the description of functions of these 4 -- அரசர் (arasar), அந்தணர் (anthanar), வணிகர் (vanikar), வெள்ளாளர் (vellalar). Time and again you skip this question, so i ask again -- what does sangam literature say about the origins of the அந்தணர் (anthanar) -- from where did they arise?

கால பைரவன்;197037 said:
Do you mean it is possible to enslave people without violence?
There is a book that that talks about slavery in tamil nadu right from ancient tamil society. It is called "தமிழகத்தில் அடிமைமுறை" by A. Sivasubramanian.
Oh please, am sure you understand what I meant. Please specify if the following existed in sangam literature
(1) Presence of Slavery
(2) Endorsement of violence as a law to keep a class oppressed into slavery.

In dharmashastras, the kshatriyas were given the right (or law) to enforce varna vyavastha thru violence (since shudras could never be released from slavery hence kshatriyas were assigned the role of tormenting shudras to keep them oppressed into slavery). Does any sangam literature have such an equivalent for the arasar? Was the arasar assigned to keep the vellalar (who according to you were shudras) oppressed into slavery?

In this context, please provide excerpts with english translation from the book "தமிழகத்தில் அடிமைமுறை" by A. Sivasubramanian. I suspect you are doing a twisting job again (like you did with niganthus here -- as requested there, i request again -- please provide a verse from the divakara or pingala niganthu in which vellalars are mentioned as சூத்திரர் (shudras), or சதுர்த்தர் (chaturthas)).

Also in context to this old post, if Sangam period pertains to the BRW culture phase, how did slavery exist? In what form?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

palindrome

Active member


Kerala society had jAtis called vEDan, kammALan, valayan, nuNayan (fisherfolk of another kind), pulayan, etc. Ayar or Ayan was not there possibly because the terrain did not support sheep breeding. But the kingdom of Travancore emerged from the Ay dynasty near present day Shencottah/AykkuDi area and this initial Thrippaappur swaroopam (as it was known till about the 17th. century AD) became vENAD (or vEL nAD or the land of vELs or veLLALars) and subsequently to thiruvithAmkoor (Travancore). Hence, the category Ayar was not unknown at least in the southern tip. But all these castes were shudras and each of them observed untouchability as also theeNDal with all the rest.

Kindly explain on what basis could one assign these to "shudra" category? How were these categorized under the varna-vyavastha culture? By whom? And why?

That is what prompts me to conclude, notwithstanding learned scholars' views, that the chAturvarNyam could not have given rise to the inter-se untouchability and theeNDal since all of these categories were unapproachable for the higher jAthis or castes.
Sorry sir, the idea of ritual pollution existed before the dharmashastras and chatruvarnas. However, to designate a group of people by birth as untouchables, simply to keep them suppressed, under the chaturvarna system, is plain mischevious.
 
palindrome said:
In this particular context, the context of Sanskritization refers to the introduction of Sanskrit-related culture. Sorry literature aside, perhaps you missed previous posts like this one. Very obviously, Sanskritization was introduced into the south once upon a time.
I mentioned as far as tamil literature is concerned, if you deem the presence of these terms as sanskritisation, then you would have to apply the same logic to a vast majority of the earliest literature. If you are not disputing it, there is no argument there. Your saying that tolkappiyam is influenced by sanskritisation and hence the four-fold division is mentioned is not tenable, because we do not have earlier literature available without such influence.

If you depend on resources other than literature to buttress your claim of this sanskritisation, it is okay. That is a separate argument.

palindrome said:
Please give me the description of functions of these 4 -- அரசர் (arasar), அந்தணர் (anthanar), வணிகர் (vanikar), வெள்ளாளர் (vellalar). Time and again you skip this question, so i ask again -- what does sangam literature say about the origins of the அந்தணர் (anthanar) -- from where did they arise?
I suggest you to refer to the various உரைகள் written for sangam literature. There is nothing new that I can write here, other than reproduce what has already been written.
palindrome said:
I suspect you are doing a twisting job again (like you did with niganthus here -- as requested there, i request again -- please provide a verse from the divakara or pingala niganthu in which vellalars are mentioned as சூத்திரர் (shudras), or சதுர்த்தர் (chaturthas)).
I am beginning to wonder whether you even understand what a nikandu is?
I have attached a couple of images from bingala nikandu. Let the readers make up their own mind.
 

Attachments

  • nikandu1.png
    nikandu1.png
    182.6 KB · Views: 110
  • nikandu2.png
    nikandu2.png
    208.5 KB · Views: 86
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks