Vedic Past of Pre-Islamic Arabia

[mahadevan]

Hi Friends
None of the Interpretations of Solomon/devapriya of vedic Lit and other Forgeries and Fradulant dating are acceptable to any Neutral Scholars. FSG's showing of Lingam Worship in sangam lit, absence of Siva in vedics -ABSOLUTE Absence of Lingam Worship in Rig veda, to later sanskrit work. Instead of Misinterpreting of vedic rudra God as Siva iscomplete misinterpretation of Truth.

Dating of sanskrit lit can never be earlier then 2nd Century CE (AD) And I quote Author of more than 600000 books and presenter of Many Articles in International Universities on prakrit inscrtiptions and vedic Lit. DR.A.Maaminathan from his book- Baratha samuthaya panpaattu varalaaru -
// Rig muthal atharva nuulkalul pinthiyathu enak kuuralam. ..
innuul 2000 Andukatku murpattatyhu ana aRignarkal Ku ruvar." Page 92.//
As per this learned author sangam lit were prevalent in vedic Days and let me post in my next posts.


On Asoka Inscription and its Dechipherment -Scholars first Transilarated this Pragrit to Sanskrit and only then the interpretations were possible, i.e., they were composed in Sanskrit and written in Pragrit.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
So Please stop meaningless posts.
Mahadevan

[devapriya]

[tscii:e745aae229]Friends,

The Languages spoken in Arabic group is called Siemitic- which includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic etc., and the Opinion of Scholars on this is summarized as follows, by Theosophical Society Founder Blawatsky in her Secret Doctrine-
//Inflectional Speech : the root of Sanskrit very erroneously called the “Elder Sister” of the Greek instead of “MOTHER”- WAS the fist Language, now the mystery tongue of the Inititate of the Fifth Race. The “Semitic” Languages are the Bastard (Step Parented) Descendants of the first Phonetic Corruption of the eldest Children of the Earthly Sanskrit.
.. .. The Semites, especially the Arabs, are later Aryan degenerate in Spirituality and perfected in Materiality to these belong all the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews are a Tribe descended from the Chandalas of India, the outcastes, many of them ex-brahmanas, whoc sought refugee in Chaldea, in Scinde(Sind) and Aria( Iran) and were truly born from their from their Father A-Bram (No Brahman) .. ..
The later the Arabs are the descendants of those Aryans who would not go to India at the dispersion of nations, some of whom remained on the border lands there of, in Afganistan and Kabul and along the Oxus, while others Penitrated into and Invaded Arabia. Vol-3
Friends- Greek,Latin and Persian Languages are Daughters to Vedic Sanskrit and this has been accepted long back.

Tholkappiyam’s EzuthAthikaram confirms that Brahmi Scripts are the source of it and Brahmi Scripts are the writing System Developed for Sanskrit and but was Popularly used later by Prakrit. Tamil writing method till 19th Cen. Confirms that Tamil witting was burrowd from Sanskrit.

Also Tamil Mei Ezuththukkal Series has all Sanskrit common letters first and lastly the letters which are not in Sanskrit again confirming the Source. PRAKRIT has differences, and hence “Vadasol Kizavi vadaeluthu Orie” by Tholkapppiyar refers is as Pavanar and other Tamil Linguists confirmed refers Sanskrit.

Tholkappiyar is clear Tamil words cannot start with ச சை சௌ , ய, and even ஞ with exceptions. Now FSG Says it is not applicable to Tamil words and Bismala tries to misinterpret it to minimize is effects. Tholkappiyam is dated now to 50-100CE and Tirukural to 250-300CE, Tirukural avoids those letters and I GIVE rough estimate:
Kurals starting with

க – 77; த- 35; ந -43; ப -62; ம-60; வ-20 and only Kurals with ச that too only two words, both of which as per Linguists are of Sanskrit Origin.
Then Tholkappiyam rules are very much followed, and please do not make Tholkappiyam as Laughable stock by your misinterpretation and childish dating of it.

I sincerely regret the way Mahadvan responds which is like a Child Kid make a Clean place with shit and still laughs and Bismala supports tells of their weak arguments and their Calibre.

Arab like most parts of World was Vedic, and let us see more of it.
Devapriya
[/tscii:e745aae229]

[ramraghav]

"Asokan Brahmi" is an amusing misnomer.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/02/17/stories/2005021704471300.htm

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2004/05/26/stories/2004052602871200.htm

[bis_mala]

Bismala writes.


Devapriya wrote:
Every major feature in Bible is easily traceble back to Jend Avestha and Rig Veda.


Please give us more details on your statement above.

I intend to forward to a Christian theologian for his consideration and reply.
_________________
B.I. Sivamaalaa

None of the Interpretations of FSG & bISMALAS of Sangam Lit and other Forgeries and Fradulant dating are acceptable to any Neutral Scholars. My showing of Lingam Worship in Rig Veda, absence of Siva in Tholkappiyam -ABSOLUTE Absence of Lingam Worship in Sangam Lit, to Manimekhalai. Instead of Misinterpreting of Tholkappiyam's Seyon God of Kurinji Land( Mountains)- Seyon i.e., as Siva iscomplete misinterpretation of Truth.

Dating of Tholkappiyam can never be earlier then Ist Century CE (AD) And I quote Author of more than 60 books and presenter of Many Articles in International Universities on Brahmi inscrtiptions and Sangam Lit. DR.A.SWaminathan from his book- TAMILNATTU samuthaya panpaattu varalaaru -
// tholkappiyam kadaisanga nuulkalul pinthiyathu enak kuuralam. ..
innuul 2000 Andukatku murpattatyhu ana aRignarkal Ku ruvar." Page 92.//
As per this learned author Vedas were prevalent in Sangam Days and let me post in my next posts.

On Asoka Inscription and its Dechipherment -Scholars first Transilarated this Pragrit to Sanskrit and only then the interpretations were possible, i.e., they were composed in Sanskrit and written in Pragrit.
So Please stop meaningless posts.
Devapriya.

Nevermind about all other stuff you are writing about,

Just let me have the proof for your this statement: "Every major feature in Bible is easily traceble back to Jend Avestha and Rig Veda. "

I shall put the "proofs" you provide to the theologians for their consideration and reply. I shall reconvey their reply back to you. Don't worry.

[devapriya]

Dear Friends,

As for as Adichanallur we have not got any Carbon14 dating till date.

Much before we have Brahmins here and Jains here, hence just because Asoka Popularised it , it is called Asoka Brahmi.

Till date Dechiphering of Indus is a failure and Witzel and Seafarmer of Hardward University has Open Challenge to Prove it as any Langauge Script..

Tamil Writing Method of Tholkappiyar Ezuththathikaram relies on Sanskrit can be easily understood after I put my detailed presentation shortly.

Devapriya

[bis_mala]

Just let me have the proof for your this statement: "Every major feature in Bible is easily traceble back to Jend Avestha and Rig Veda. "

Prove it!

[mahadevan]

Dear Friends,

As for as anything to do with the claims of vedic protogonist like devapriya we have not got any Carbon14 dating till date.

Much before we have xyz here and abc here, hence just because Asoka Popularised it , it is called Asoka Brahmi.

Till date claim of sanskrit as a practise language is a failure and zbe and yxy of softward University has Open Challenge to Prove it a real Langauge

sanskrit Writing Method of copied from Panini relies on Tamil can be easily understood after I put my detailed presentation shortly.

Devathidevapriya

[devapriya]

Friends,

Vedic Culture spread all over the world, and Brahmi was developed for Sanskrit and not Prakrit.

On Indus Valley I GIVE you the views of International Scholars:

//In his recent edition of Survey of Hinduism (Sunny, State University of New York Press 1994), Professor Klaus Klostermaier has noted important objections to this theory. He suggests that the weight of evidence is against it and that it should no longer be regarded as the main model of interpreting ancient India.
He states (pg.34): "Both the spatial and the temporal extent of the Indus civilization has expanded dramatically on the basis of new excavations and the dating of the Vedic age as well as the theory of an Aryan invasion of India has been shaken. We are required to completely reconsider not only certain aspects of Vedic India, but the entire relationship between Indus civilization and Vedic culture." Later he adds (pg.3: "The certainty seems to be growing that the Indus civilization was carried by the Vedic Indians, who were not invaders from Southern Russia but indigenous for an unknown period of time in the lower Central Himalayan regions."//

Vatican Museum has a Sivalinga dated to Pre CE OF Erthruscan community, we have not one Sivalinga from TN.

Vedic was available every where.

Devapriya.

[bis_mala]

These "scholars" go from one theory to another.
The religious practices of India grew from Dravidian roots.
That is the truth.

Nothing is Vedic except the chanting by a minority.

[devapriya]

[tscii:ffc7f3bb5e]Friends,

Iravatham Mahadevan was asked to Comment on various deciphering between 1995-2000 at Harward University in Presence of Parbola i(n 2002) and others and his comment was very Critical against Two Deciphering reading Indus from Left to right – i.e., the opposite side of the Original Writing. His comment was both N.S.Rjajram and Dr.Mathivanan both are of same quality and also HAD TO COMMENT OF CHILDISH REFERENCE OF MATHIVANAN SAYING TAMIL IS NATURAL LANGUAGE AND SANSKRIT IS NOT and also Mathivanan’s deciphering had Sanskrit words also, and also His putting a Chronology of now completely dropped meaningless KUMARI KANDAm Myths probagated by Slater and Pavanar. I QUOTE Iravatham Mahadevan’s words on Indus Scripts- whether it is Dravidian or Indo-European.
//“I face a problem here. At the Forty-ninth Session of the Indian History Congress held at Dharwar in 1988, I presided over Section V on Archaeology, Epigraphy and Numismatics and read a paper with the title: What do we know
about the Indus Script? Neti neti 'Not This Nor That'.”//

Actually the interview from which I quoted IM is a long one where He was clear- He goes by the Majority that Aryan’s where Outsiders, and he does not want to put on his comments on that. Misinterpreter Mahadven known for his dirty Methods wants to read few lines selectedly, leaving its full contents, which I COULD well have blocked. From Bishop Caldwell to Burrows Liguistic Proofs are clear that Dravidians are Outsiders of India and Marched to India who came in around 3000BCE or later.
As for as Aryans the dating of arrival is now put in from 7000- 2000BCE. I DO not
Accept both, India has One tradition that is Indic.
Dravidian is a Fraud Politics by motivated persons.

Devapriya.
[/tscii:ffc7f3bb5e]

[bis_mala]

Dravidians, the masters of everything they surveyed all over the subcontinent.

Aryans -- myth!!

Sans - 2/3 Dravidian. (lexical base) with Munda etc.
Sans - sound system - entirely Dravida origin.
Sans - made by Dravidians as prayer compo. 1/3 may be Iranian and outside languages.

[devapriya]

Dear Friends,

Our Ex.President a great Philosopher has written many books which are rated for its highest standards. wherein he traces Hinduism base on NewTestament fully.

Tamil has 1/3 words burrowed from Sanskrit.
Half that from Prakrit and Pali.

Where as your Lies are from improper Linguists.

I have given links to Sites which replied the latest Researches that many words claimed by Tamil Lexicon by Burrows as Dravidian as Sanskrit only by Proper Grammer.

So post here about Arab and not mear Lies.

Devapriya.

[bis_mala]

Dear Friends,

Tamil has 1/3 words burrowed from Sanskrit.
Half that from Prakrit and Pali.

Where as your Lies are from improper Linguists.

I have given links to Sites which replied the latest Researches that many words claimed by Tamil Lexicon by Burrows as Dravidian as Sanskrit only by Proper Grammer.

So post here about Arab and not mear Lies.

Devapriya.

There is nothing to borrow from Sanskrit which is a language of prayer composition. Sanskrit was refined from the various Prakrits. Please be mindful of the fact grammar rules can become obsolete and that does not mean Sanskrit can help itself and covet all those words framed subsequently. So if your son's feet have become bigger and cannot wear his old shoes, your neighbour can claim the shoes as his - can he? Grammar is just a collection of rules elicited from the usage of the time. Language: the feet. Grammar: shoes for those feet at the time. Understand that.

[mahadevan]

sanskrit is a man made language that took vocabulary and grammer from the existing langauges (mostly from Tamil). It was perfected, god only knows what is meant by this, it is complex yet does not convey anything precisely. Any language that cannot qualify for the very basic of communication (clarity) is not even worthy of being called a language. Srivatsan now do not jump, this lack of clarity is often cited by all vedic translators as the reason for not yet knowing the real (so call hidden)meaning of vedic lit. If you differ and really belive in your knowledge of sanskrit, why dont you start a seperate thread and do your translation of Rig in english with the correct meaning, so that we all can cherish the so called vedic knowledge. Please do not write bs like solomon/his other avatars, I am expecting a scholarly work from you !

[devapriya]

Friends,

Semitic Languages are the branches of SAANSKRIT, Which I HAVE GIVEN WITH Proof quotes of Secret Doctrine of Theosophical Society.

Prakrit are branches of Vedic Sanskrit as Classical Sanskrit.

If your attacking of CLASSICAL Sanskrit is never spoken, never was Classical Tamil spoken, as we see the Colloquial language mised with Sanskrit and Prakrits in most of the Stone Insceiptions.

As for roots of words, I have given links which have proved that Pro.Burrows who claimed many Sanskrit words as Tamil are proved wrong, in respecrtive threads.

Every Language is Man made and if Sanskrit is artificial also is Tamil.

Let us concentrate on Arab here.

Devapriya.

[bis_mala]

Semitic Languages are the branches of SAANSKRIT, Which I HAVE GIVEN WITH Proof quotes of Secret Doctrine of Theosophical Society.

If they are sure, why should they hide it as secret?


Prakrit are branches of Vedic Sanskrit as Classical Sanskrit.

Prakrits: roots.
Sanskrit: the leaves.
Roots are not branches of leaves.


If your attacking of CLASSICAL Sanskrit is never spoken,

Stating a fact is not attacking, isn't it?


never was Classical Tamil spoken, as we see the Colloquial language mised with Sanskrit and Prakrits in most of the Stone Insceiptions.
Please do not close your eyes and claim darkness around you!!



As for roots of words, I have given links which have proved that Pro.Burrows who claimed many Sanskrit words as Tamil are proved wrong, in respecrtive threads.

Prof Burrows left out many. Lahovery found them all. 2/3 borrowed by sans


if Sanskrit is artificial also is Tamil.

How absurd! If your lips are lipstick-red, another girl's lips may be natural red. Your lips are yours; her lips are hers; no connexion.