Civilization - Aryans or Dravids - Page 3

Originally posted by: tina59

The origins of Tamil, like the other Dravidian languages are unknown, but unlike most of the other established literary languages of India, are independent of Sanskrit.

I beg to differ. Just like how the Aryan theory is a myth, the study of languages especially of Southern region is another half-baked assumption. My point was based on the fact that original Malayalam language was formed from Sanskrit. In all our scriptures it is clearly mentioned how Malayalam evolved from Sanskrit. There was a time when Keralites used to converse in Sanskritized Malayalam. Since Tamil is similar to other languages in South India my assumption was based on that and I still believe it to be true. There was influence of many languages and people on each region which has influenced the language too. But I still believe that the entire nation had a similar language which got distorted later.

Originally posted by: Maya_M

I beg to differ. Just like how the Aryan theory is a myth, the study of languages especially of Southern region is another half-baked assumption. My point was based on the fact that original Malayalam language was formed from Sanskrit. In all our scriptures it is clearly mentioned how Malayalam evolved from Sanskrit. There was a time when Keralites used to converse in Sanskritized Malayalam. Since Tamil is similar to other languages in South India my assumption was based on that and I still believe it to be true. There was influence of many languages and people on each region which has influenced the language too. But I still believe that the entire nation had a similar language which got distorted later.

I dosagree , My understanding is that tamil was original and that it was independent and not derived from any language. As per history , tholkapiyam was the earliest found tamil scripture which had absolutely no influence of sanskrit. later , they did "loan" some sanskrit words , the tamil scholars removed it as they were unhappy abt it and they wanted to be a pure original literary language .

Malayalam language was evolved from tamil but later one separated and formed its own script . It was later a mixture of tamil and sanskrit that comprised malayalam.

its a known fact that Tamil was indeed on of the classical languages of the world along with sanskrit which was independent and formed on its own . Our scriptures too confirm the same.

Originally posted by: tina59

Originally posted by: tina59

I dosagree , My understanding is that tamil was original and that it was independent and not derived from any language. As per history , tholkapiyam was the earliest found tamil scripture which had absolutely no influence of sanskrit. later , they did "loan" some sanskrit words , the tamil scholars removed it as they were unhappy abt it and they wanted to be a pure original literary language .

Malayalam language was evolved from tamil but later one separated and formed its own script . It was later a mixture of tamil and sanskrit that comprised malayalam.

its a known fact that Tamil was indeed on of the classical languages of the world along with sanskrit which was independent and formed on its own . Our scriptures too confirm the same.

In my opinion, the story of an "invasion" by Aryans is a myth. My Caucasian professor on Hinduism said the same thing.

However, I do think that there was a migration perhaps not in 1500 BCE, but earlier.

The use of Avestan/Pahlavi terminology in Sanskrit such as haoma (soma), ahura (asura), daeva (deva) points to the fact that most of these languages orginated from a Proto-Indo-Iranian language. Modern Persian is not related to sanskrit. I am not talking about script over here. Urdu has an Arabic script, but the words are pronounced the way Hindi is.

Similarly, ancient Avestan definitely has words which are very very similar if not completely the same in terms of pronunciation:

"Gathic Avestan is an archaic language with a complicated grammar which consists of eight case forms and a highly inflected noun system. It is still quite close to the Vedic Sanskrit."

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian)

"The Avestan language should not be confused with the Avestan alphabet, which is a significantly later invention."

There are a couple of things that are bugging me. I am just copying and pasting that section from the information Tina posted:

"It was the Indo-Aryans who declared that they are the true Aryans while the Iranians were not. This battles eventually ended with Aryans, led by King Sudas ( a Sudra king) establishing supermacy all over India and the Iranians moving onto what today is the Iranian Subcontinent."

Why were the Shudras regarded amongst the lowest ranks in the hierarchy of the social structure if a Shudra king led the Indo-Aryans to victory. Also, where did the racial divide originate? What was the true intention of the varnasrama dharma? Varna still means "colour" isn't it? Does it mean skin colour?

Also, did the "Indo-Aryans" as they are called, migrate to the subcontinent before the indus valley civilization?

Note: The purpose of my post is to question and challenge flaws in both theories. I would like to learn more about this from a neutral perspective.

Yes T varna means Color but not the colour of the skin, but the colour of one's character or quality. Conduct and character count and not lineage alone. If one is Brahmana by birth and, at the same time, if he possesses the virtues of a Brahmana, it is extremely good, because certain virtuous qualifications only determine the birth of a Brahmana. But thw work divided the caste system.A Brahmana (Brahmin or priest) is no Brahmana if he is not endowed with purity and good character, and if he leads a life of dissipation and immorality. A Sudra is a Brahmana if he leads a virtuous and pious life

As per dharma color of body is reflected by the work you do. THis is what was the belief of caste system. It says your karma are reflected i your body. Hinduism also beleives that all four caste did come from differen parts of the Lord Brahma.

FOund this on net for u

In Purusha-Sukta of the Rig-Veda, there is reference to the division of Hindu society into the classes. It is described there that the Brahmanas came out of the face of the Lord the Creator, Kshatriyas from His arms, Vaisyas from His thighs, and the Sudras from His feet.

The division is according to the Guna and Karma. Guna (quality) and Karma (kind of work) determine the caste of a man. This is supported by Lord Krishna in the Gita, also. Lord Krishna says in the Gita: "The four castes were emanated by Me, by the different distribution of qualities and actions. Know Me to be the author of them, though the actionless and inexhaustible""(Ch.4-13).

There are three qualities or Gunas, viz., Sattva (purity), Rajas (passion), and Tamas (inertia). Sattva is white, Rajas is red and Tamas is black. These three qualities are found in man in various proportions. Sattva preponderates in some persons. They are Brahmanas. They are wise persons or thinkers. They are the priests, ministers or philosophers who guide kings or rulers. In some persons, Rajas is predominant. They are Kshatriyas and Vaisyas. The Kshatriyas are warriors or men of action. They fight with the enemies or invaders and defend the country. The Vaisyas are traders. They do business and agriculture and amass wealth. In some persons, Tamas is predominant. They are Sudras. Sudras are the servants. None of these qualities is highly developed in the Sudras. They serve the other three castes. In a broad sense, a Sattvic man, who is pious and virtuous and leads the divine life, is a Brahmana, a Rajasic man with heroic quality is a Kshatriya, a Rajasic man with business tendencies is a Vaisya and a Tamasic man is a Sudra.

Serenity, self-restraint, austerity, purity, forgiveness, and also, uprightness, knowledge, realisation and belief in God are the duties of the Brahmanas, born of their own nature. Prowess, splendour, firmness, dexterity, and also, not flying from battle, generosity and lordliness are the duties of the Kshatriyas, born of their own nature. Agriculture, cattle rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaisyas, born of their own nature. And action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra, born of their own nature.

This division of labour began in Vedic times The Vedas taught that the Brahmana was the brain of the society, the Kshatriya its arms, the Vaisya its stomach, and the Sudra its feet.

NASA Images Discover Ancient Bridge
Between India & Sri Lanka

Space images taken by NASA reveal a mysterious ancient bridge in the Palk Strait between India and Sri Lanka. The recently discovered bridge currently named as Adam's Bridge is made of chain of shoals, c.18 mi (30 km) long.

The bridge's unique curvature and composition by age reveals that it is man made. The legends as well as Archeological studies reveal that the first signs of human inhabitants in Sri Lanka date back to the a primitive age, about 1,750,000 years ago and the bridge's age is also almost equivalent.

This information is a crucial aspect for an insight into the ancient epic RAMAYANA, which was supposed to have taken place in treta yuga (more than 1,700,000 years ago)......

Science historians have long acknowledged that the international numeral system (1,2, 3,), based on the concepts of placement and zero, as well as the decimal system were invented by the ancient Hindus. (Nonetheless many Western publications continue to call these numerals Arabic-- Arab historians themselves have always acknowledged the numerals' Hindu origins.)