PDA

View Full Version : The Tamil Epics?



Sagefrakrobatik
09 February 2010, 09:04 PM
I am reading a book that attempts to disprove the aryan invasion theory and in one part of the book the author mentions the Shilappandikaram and the manimekhalai. Just wondering if anyone hear has read these? Man it seems as though i try to stop learning about India and learn about other cultures but everytime i find something new and worthy of investigating.

grames
10 February 2010, 01:04 AM
Yes sir. I have read both of them and they are related kavyas through the relationship of the Heriones of these kayvas.

AIT is a myth and there is no real proof of this and even the original proposer of this theory no longer admits this :)

rahulg
10 February 2010, 03:50 AM
Yes sir. I have read both of them and they are related kavyas through the relationship of the Heriones of these kayvas.

AIT is a myth and there is no real proof of this and even the original proposer of this theory no longer admits this :)

I do not wish to start a war, but there are some things that puzzle me no end, thus making me wonder whether AIT or at least Aryan migration theory could be true. North Indians are tall, light-skinned, and have Caucasian facial features, whereas South Indians (I am a South Indian, by the way) are short, dark and have Aboriginal features. Yes, there are exceptions, but India is a huge country, so pointing to a few exceptions doesn't cut it. Sure there are light-skinned South Indians and dark Northies, but usually it's the other way around. The same goes for light Brahmins and dark non-Brahmins.

How can this be explained without resorting to AIT? Climate is more or less the same throughout India and cannot be the answer. Even otherwise, climate doesn't influence color, bone structure and all that. Whites in hot countries don't magically become black, nor do blacks in cold countries turn white. So race seems to be the only explanation, meaning North Indians are from Europe.

Suppose this is true, why is it hard for us Hindus to accept it? What's wrong with accepting AIT?

Again, I am not even saying AIT is correct, but why is it most Hindus waste so much time and energy trying to prove it wrong? What's the worst thing that could happen if it's right? Am I missing something here?

grames
10 February 2010, 03:55 AM
Dear Ji,

Why it is that we have to accept some theory which introduces 'artificial' complexity among natural inhabitants? Refusal is not the agenda here but denying such wrong notions is the purpose.

Skin color is not deciding factor for such AIT and please i would suggest you to read what exactly this AIT is all about before raising doubts.

rahulg
10 February 2010, 04:09 AM
Dear Ji,

Why it is that we have to accept some theory which introduces 'artificial' complexity among natural inhabitants? Refusal is not the agenda here but denying such wrong notions is the purpose.

Skin color is not deciding factor for such AIT and please i would suggest you to read what exactly this AIT is all about before raising doubts.

My point is different. Whether or not AIT is right, why must we waste our time and energy opposing it? What purpose would it serve? I hope you understand my question. Why do we, as Hindus, get upset when someone so much as mentions AIT?

grames
10 February 2010, 05:28 AM
Oh that way....

Then you also should be ignoring it as irrelevant. Same idea here.

Eastern Mind
10 February 2010, 07:21 AM
Vannakkam all:

The reason AIT is unacceptable is that it's underlying inference is that culture started in Europe, (actually with the Abrahamic centerpiece, Jerusalem) and spread its 'wonderful' wings outward. Its Eurocentric, and insulting to anyone outside that field. This includes the indigenous peoples of North America, South America, Australia, and Africa as well. It all goes back to the 'We're the civilised ones' doctrine. That's why I find it insulting, and deserving of disproof.

Aum Namasivaya

rahulg
10 February 2010, 07:35 AM
Vannakkam all:

The reason AIT is unacceptable is that it's underlying inference is that culture started in Europe, (actually with the Abrahamic centerpiece, Jerusalem) and spread its 'wonderful' wings outward. Its Eurocentric, and insulting to anyone outside that field. This includes the indigenous peoples of North America, South America, Australia, and Africa as well. It all goes back to the 'We're the civilised ones' doctrine. That's why I find it insulting, and deserving of disproof.

Aum Namasivaya

I understand what you say. Unfortunately, the past is always understood in terms of the present. If I am a convicted murderer today, nobody is going to believe that I was a saint yesterday (even if that be true). Since the west is civilized at the present (with its human rights record, democracy, freedom, and all that) and the east isn't, it'd be more logical to believe that civilization spread from west to east rather than the other way around.

Eastern Mind
10 February 2010, 07:56 AM
Since the west is civilized at the present (with its human rights record, democracy, freedom, and all that)

Namaste: Propoganda! You've been had.

Outside of the Islamic world, Texas has the highest rate of capital punishment.

Our First nations peoples had Amnesty International comparing them to the apartheid of South Africa to the Canadian government.

gambling addiction, alcohol addiction, childhood obesity rates at 30%, rampant pornography, wanton waste of natural resources, over 50% divorce rate, huge debts of governments due partly to war spending ...and the list continues

Go ahead and call this 'civilised' if you wish but clearly you and I don't have the same definition on that word.

Aum Namasivaya

grames
11 February 2010, 01:02 AM
Eastern countries are suffering more and more because of the influence of "civilized" western attitude. :)

West is never been "civilized" and you have to really go through the history and current status of their life and life style with out being carried away by few statements.

God Bless You!


I understand what you say. Unfortunately, the past is always understood in terms of the present. If I am a convicted murderer today, nobody is going to believe that I was a saint yesterday (even if that be true). Since the west is civilized at the present (with its human rights record, democracy, freedom, and all that) and the east isn't, it'd be more logical to believe that civilization spread from west to east rather than the other way around.

rahulg
11 February 2010, 02:27 AM
Eastern countries are suffering more and more because of the influence of "civilized" western attitude. :)

West is never been "civilized"

Which is why everybody migrates to the west.;) As to eastern countries suffering on account of the west, trust me, even without the west, they'll continue to suffer by fighting each other over land, wealth, and power. History demonstrates that aptly. Without the west, do you think countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan would be angels? With or without the west, the east is going to be barbaric, no matter what.

grames
11 February 2010, 02:37 AM
People go to west not to being their quest for love and peace but for money and so called scientific advancement of life. People who stay here have much more peaceful mind and life than living in an environment where you do not know when you will face a bullet from the gun of some psycho or someone who believe your skin color is inferior than his.

If you are one of the person with residual slave mind, let your Jesus save you! If Jesus is your True God, pray to Him and ask Him why dear Jesus you are not protecting the Christians in South America. If your Jesus gives an answer to you, please come back and let us have a conversation or conversion here. Until then, peace be Unto You!



Which is why everybody migrates to the west.;) As to eastern countries suffering on account of the west, trust me, even without the west, they'll continue to suffer by fighting each other over land, wealth, and power. History demonstrates that aptly. Without the west, do you think countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan would be angels? With or without the west, the east is going to be barbaric, no matter what.

rahulg
11 February 2010, 03:02 AM
If you are one of the person with residual slave mind,

This sounded so funny.:D But then again, we're all slaves to sin. Only God can save us, so you're right about that...

grames
11 February 2010, 03:11 AM
You have perfectly all the right to conclude about your "slavery" to Sin or any but oh my dear, No you do not have such rights on anyone else's sovereignty.

Thanks for accepting and answering though!

Let that all merciful Lord, Son of Christ save you and my prayers and wishes be with you always.

God Bless!


This sounded so funny.:D But then again, we're all slaves to sin. Only God can save us, so you're right about that...

Sagefrakrobatik
20 February 2010, 10:37 AM
What i find fascinating about this mini debate is that I think Eastern Mind is a westerner defending India's past and Rahulg is an indian defending European invasion

Eastern Mind
20 February 2010, 10:57 AM
Sage: Yes there is irony all around us. The other day I met a person from Kerala at our temple. I always wear veshti because it is the house of God. There are a few more elder Tamils who do the same... make a point of it.

But this fellow seemed sort of stuck on this white guy in veshti bit, which happens to me all the time. I just said, "Somebody should, after all it is the tradition, and encouraged him to do same next time.. " So yes there is irony.

Eastern souls in western bodies, western souls in eastern bodies.

Aum Namasivaya

saidevo
21 February 2010, 12:08 AM
namaste EM.



Eastern souls in western bodies, western souls in eastern bodies.


Apart from the obvious irony of it, your statement made me think about it, but I am not able to reach a conclusion. Perhaps you or someone could help. Let it be understood that I am not all referring to You or Rahulg or anyone else personally in my references to soul and body below.

Assuming that because of the climate, culture, food and habits, eastern body is subtler and more sattvic than its western counterpart (--if this is disputed then there is no issue at all):

• An Eastern soul in a Western body: is this a compliment for the soul, or a consequence of its karmic debit balance?

• A Western soul in an Eastern body: When the soul is still Western in propensity, why an Eastern body for it? Would it mean that its karmic debit balance has come down to the extent that an eastern body would suit it better to enjoy or further it, so in a subsequent birth the soul itself could become Eastern?

• And then the irony of Eastern souls in Eastern bodies enjoying their life in the West, gradually soiling their souls and bodies with the vAsanas of the West.

• As against this, we have Western souls in Western Bodies living in India, although only a few of them get influenced by the religious and dharmic heritage of the country.

What could be the conclusion, any lesson to learn for all souls and bodies here?

sanjaya
21 February 2010, 02:42 AM
Which is why everybody migrates to the west.;) As to eastern countries suffering on account of the west, trust me, even without the west, they'll continue to suffer by fighting each other over land, wealth, and power. History demonstrates that aptly. Without the west, do you think countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan would be angels? With or without the west, the east is going to be barbaric, no matter what.

I know I'm late to this party, but I feel it's worth pointing out that for over a hundred years, Western nations have been carving out "spheres of influence" in Eastern nations and have been destabilizing this part of the world. Yes, without the West as a restraining influence, Pakistan would likely get away with more than it does, and Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule. Then again, without the West, Pakistan may very well have never existed in the first place. Don't forget that the West has been dictating who can and can't have nuclear bombs (thank God India paid no heed to this), and has been attempting to dictate domestic policy in the East citing terrorism concerns.

Now why is it that everyone migrates to the West? I'm under no delusions of Indian nationalism or supremacy. I'm well aware that India is replete with political and corporate corruption, and that the standard of living is far poorer than in the West. But don't forget the many atrocities that mark Western history. Until recently, suffrage in the United States was based on skin color. The medieval West likewise was ruled by tyrannical kings that could give any modern Islamic state a run for its money. The Christian West has only become more civilized since it began to outgrow Christianity and move toward a more secular form of government. The economic disparity between the East and the West doesn't imply a superiority of Western Christian values. As Grames has asked: if Christianity is responsible for Western success, then why has it been impotent to rescue South America from poverty?

Rahul, your statement about slavery to sin might as well be taken straight out of Galatians 5:1. Why are you getting your sense of morality from a disreputable source like the Bible? I find your behavior to be spiritually self-destructive, and I'm somewhat concerned.

Eastern Mind
21 February 2010, 07:30 AM
namaste EM.

Apart from the obvious irony of it, your statement made me think about it, but I am not able to reach a conclusion. Perhaps you or someone could help. Let it be understood that I am not all referring to You or Rahulg or anyone else personally in my references to soul and body below.

What could be the conclusion, any lesson to learn for all souls and bodies here?

Vannakkam Saidevo: Yes, I too have pondered the statement. I concluded that it was just another way to simply state the irony, and indeed perhaps an oversimplification. Certainly there is a multitude of individual souls with a multitude of varying karmas. We've both seen it all. I don't see much difference in the bodies actually. At least not from India compared to Europe. I do see a larger difference in the Asiatic bodies like the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, but again I have no actual data, just personal observation.

I actually think it has more to do with the narrowing of the world, for transportation and communication. One hundred years ago it would have taken this soul that now lives in this body at least six months to contact the soul that inhabits the body you have.

I have read that souls would normally stay within family groups,and I have observed that to be true today in babies reminding you of their paternal grandfathers and such. So in the old days, if this theory holds, souls would have reincarnated in the same villages etc. not moving about much, as the past life karmic entanglements would hold them in that pattern of thought. An example would be married couples whose bond is so tight from a joint dharma that they remarry again in a future life.

But then imperialism changed all that. The Europeans spread the peoples in both directions. The Fijis, South Africans, North Americans, and just about the whole world had a great body/mind/soul geographical shift. In other words the village mentalities of old started intermingling. So today an old Tamil soul from Sri Lanka may 'follow' their brethen to Toronto, or a European mystically inclined person may find a birth in India after a trip there to discover its wonders.

Of course these are just some of my ideas on the subject. Certainly, if a study on vegetarianism for example was done, one would discover it is on the rise in America and Europe, and on the decline in India.

So have you ever given any thought to where you would like to be reborn? I think that latent desire may be a key to where a soul does find a new physical body, karmic entanglements aside.

Aum Namasivaya