A Historical account of the Mahabharata(m) war

**viggop** · 13th July 2005, 10:19 AM

Ramraghav
Thanks a lot.So, purananooru mentions ramayana too long before Ilango Adikal!!!
Please see the link
http://www.geocities.com/promiserani2/c1473.html
where the song "Vadavarayai mathaki" is explained by ilango adikal.

Lot of stories associated to Lord Krishna is known by Ilango Adikal.He must have known the Bhagavatham very well indeed.And he denotes Krishna as God inspite of modern scholars calling him a Jain monk!

**Google Adsense** · 13th July 2005 10:19 AM

**viggop** · 13th July 2005, 10:22 AM

Ramraghav
especially note the lines
"
nadandha_adi panchavarkkuth thoodhaaka nadandha_adi madangalaay maaRattaay maayamO marutkaiththE
"

Here Lord Krishna is mentioned as the messenger of peace for the "Panchavar"(Pandavas)

**viggop** · 13th July 2005, 10:31 AM

¦¾ý ÀÃ¾Å÷ Á¢¼ø º¡Â
Å¼ ÅÎ¸÷ Å¡û µðÊÂ

Ah Ha!!! Another interesting thing here.So, the poet of this song refers to India as "Bharatham".South Indians are "Then Bharathar" !
mmm....
So, there was concept of Bharatha nadu then and Tamil Nadu was considered as southern part of bharatha Nadu? I thought it was the British who unified India and there was no concept of "Indian/Bharatha" nation before British. Interesting , interesting...

**viggop** · 13th July 2005, 10:39 AM

Ram raghav
Again , see the last stanza in the Ilango Adikal song

nooRRuvarpaal naaRRisaiyum pORRap patarndhu aaraNam muzhangap panchavarkkuth thoodhu nadandhaanai Eththaatha naavenna naavE naaraayaNaa ennaa naavenna naavE

Here again the 5 versus 100 is mentioned.But no mention of Kauravas and Pandavas.Also, the vamana,rama avatarams are also mentioned by Ilango Adikal.

**viggop** · 13th July 2005, 11:21 AM

naavenna naavE naaraayaNaa ennaa naavenna naavE

here, the name "Narayana" has been used."raman" and "sita" has been used in purananuru song as ramraghav pointed out.
Has the name "Krishna" been used as is in any Tamil literature?

**Idiappam** · 13th July 2005, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by viggop

Ramraghav
Thanks a lot.So, purananooru mentions ramayana too long before Ilango Adikal!!!

Before we assume that, we have to confirm the age of the poet who wrote the Puranaaru song , 'Oon Podhi Pasungudaiyar'!

**ramraghav** · 13th July 2005, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Idiappam

Originally Posted by viggop

Ramraghav
Thanks a lot.So, purananooru mentions ramayana too long before Ilango Adikal!!!

Before we assume that, we have to confirm the age of the poet who wrote the Puranaaru song , 'Oon Podhi Pasungudaiyar'!

Pretty simple, fix the date of seruppazhi erindha Ilanjetchenni

**Idiappam** · 13th July 2005, 09:23 PM

Yes, Yes! would someone fix that please!

**Idiappam** · 13th July 2005, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by viggop

¦¾ý ÀÃ¾Å÷ Á¢¼ø º¡Â
Å¼ ÅÎ¸÷ Å¡û µðÊÂ

Ah Ha!!! Another interesting thing here.So, the poet of this song refers to India as "Bharatham".South Indians are "Then Bharathar" !
mmm....
So, there was concept of Bharatha nadu then and Tamil Nadu was considered as southern part of bharatha Nadu? I thought it was the British who unified India and there was no concept of "Indian/Bharatha" nation before British. Interesting , interesting...

Please Viggop, that not what the poet meant!

"Then barathavar midal saaya
vada vadugar vaal ottiya"

In the South, the mischief of the Bharatha people (clan, tribe) was suppressed
The might of the Vadugars who came from North was crushed .....

India was not "Bharatham' or the South Indians 'Then Bharathars' as you say.

**ramraghav** · 13th July 2005, 10:55 PM

Sabapathy and Viggop Avargale

'தென்பரதவர்' need not refer to a nation. Indeed, as far I know, Sangam literature considers Chera, Chozha and Pandiya nations as seperate sovereign republics and there was no question of a 'greater' republic encompassing non-Tamil areas. On the other hand, it may not refer to a clan/tribe either.

In my opnion, it refers to the inhabitants of the southern part of பரதம் (பரத கண்டம்), as opposed to குமரி கண்டம் (which was probably already gone by that time).