Re: Dating of Tholkappiyam
Quote:
Originally Posted by devapriya
The pulli is being talked about in tholkappiam ,it is a point on top of the alphabet as against the brahmi pulli which is on side. Since there is no evidence of such pulli in any inscriptions before 7th century AD, The tholkappiam is said to belong to later than 7th century AD.
Oh good heavens :banghead: Once more, as I said in the first post to which you responded, the Anaimalai inscription, from the 2nd century AD, uses the pulli.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devapriya
The influence of various Sanskrit works like Manavadharmashastra, Arthashastra, Natyashastra and grammarians like Panini and Patanjali is evident in the Tolkappiyam.
It would be useful if you could care to explain how the Tolkappiyam can, simultaneously, embody both non-Paninian Aindra and Paninian schools of grammar. Part of the point Burnell makes - if you actually read the book you refer to - is that the two are radically different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devapriya
Parts of the Collathikaram are, for instance, almost a direct translation of the Sanskrit texts.
Parts? In the plural? There is one measly verse, which is almost universally acknowledged to be a later interpolation, that closely resembles a verse in Patanjali. If there're more, please feel free to provide details - you'll revolutionise Indology with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devapriya
The eight feelings mentioned in the Porulathikaram seem to be heavily inspired by the eight rasas or the rasa theory of the Natyashastra.
Except that in the Sanskritic system, the meyppadus would be considered sthayibhavas, not rasas. Also, the key point of rasas is the distinction between the emotions expressed in the performance, and the emotion engendered in the "rasika". This distinction - which, I emphasise, is the main point of the entire rasa theory - doesn't exist in Tamil. Meyppadu - in stark contrast with rasa - is the emotion associated with the text, not with the characters or the audience. You can hardly call this a "heavy" inspiration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devapriya
If you see the various arguments you will find that date cannot be before 8th century AD forget about before christian era.
The 8th century? The Tolkappiyam is later than Iraiyanaar Akapporul?? Right, Solomon, now you've made your true views known. According to you, Kamil Zvelebil, Iravatham Mahadaven, Takanobu, Vaiyapuri Pillai and just about every 20th century scholar is wrong. :roll: Ungaloda pesi payan illai.