the ground rules for ease of discussion
Thiru Solomon.
Quote:
You have so much problems in accepting, that Skepticism is root of Problem.
We can of course accuse each other of being skeptical Thiru Solomon! You refuse to accept that the "naanmaRai" referred in Panampaaranaar's stanza is aRam, poruL, onpam, viidu. We are talking about a treatise of grammar of the Tamil Language, which is Tolkaappiyam. First of all, there must be compelling reason for me to conclude or to be convinced that the poet was not referring to Tamils' own naan maRai and that he was referring to some other naan maRai across the border. What compelling reason or reasons are there?
Let me give you an example. If I tell you that the tuition expenditure of 4 children comes to ONE THOUSAND, without telling you at the same time whether I am referring to my own 4 children or the 4 children in my neighbour's house, as my listener you have to naturally conclude that I am speaking of my own 4 children and not my neighbours' children. But if you insist that I referred to my neighbour's children, then a number of evidential problems arise.
Firstly you have to convince me or yourself that the neighbour had 4 children and not 6 or 7! Secondly why I speak or have to speak of my neighbour's children and not my own when I have my own!!
If you insist that I spoke of my neighbour's, you have two burdens to discharge: (1) that I am referring to my neighbour's children; (affirmation) (2) that I am not at all referring to my own children.(this is known as rebuttal). Both items of burden must be proved and proved conclusively. There must be some preponderance of evidence or proof before one is entitled to conclude one way or the other.
In addition you also need to consider other factors: the causative factor: why I am speaking of my four children? The other is the sine qua non: the setting in which the basic facts operated.
Looking at the naan maRai in the stanza, is the phrase relevant to the factual setting given in the stanza? Is there any consistency between naan maRai and the other things mentioned in the stanza? What is its significance vis a vis the facts, circumstances and consequences if any as obtained from the stanza? Is it contrary to common sense and experience to accept or reject a proposition or item of evidence? If a matter is open to double or multiple interpretations after going through all the above criteria, then you can reject all and believe none of it!!
Mr. Solomon, let all the jambavans decide whatever they want to decide. If as a result of a jambavan's decision, you are going to lose half your estate, you would not let it stand. You will of course challenge it in Supreme Court WHETHER HE IS A JAMBAVAN OR NOT. If it does not affect you in that manner and it is purely of academic or other minor interest, you let him survive or go on his way. don't you? So, I am not worried about jambavans. For all I know, you can be a jambavan, but not declared to be one so far just because you were not "in the scene" - so to speak. This is not to say we slight everyone around but we do not lose our right and privilege as fellow human beings with some brains to examine what they are saying and to conclude for ourselves what we can believe and what we should not.
Firstly, let me hear from you whether the 4 vedas have already come into existence at the time of Athangodu Aasan. I read the Vedas and understand that they were all composed [verbally] by different persons and at different times. The various hymns in each of the Vedas too were composed at different times. For a long time they were in oral form just being recited on religious occasions in North India before they were finally reduced to writing.
Also note that "aRam karai naavin..." aRam is already mentioned.
[ not urukku karai naavin ] (Rig Veda is not mentioned ). So the other three are: poRul, inpam, viidu. There is internal evidence available for my conclusion. How this is displaced by the arya vedas, pl also tell me. A book on ethics can be a maRai. ThirukkuRaL is a maRai. The Tamils had their own maRai. The aryans had their own at some point of time of course.
You have also to prove that the phrase naan maRai was not a later insertion into what was already composed. [ If the original is "aRam karai naavin naaRporuL muRRiya," I can easily change it to "aRam karai naavin naanmaRai muRRiya" and no one would be the wiser! ] Please itemise in point form your proof for greater clarity not only for me but for the world that watching us via the internet. Thank you.