Revelations from the Rig Veda


Many of you know that i began researching the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) formally about 10 months ago. I am happy to say  i have made reasonable progress – my first paper (written jointly with Priya Raju & NK Sreedhar) countering FSW’s arguments is going to be published shortly. My paper on the Bangle Hypothesis has been selected for the Classical Tamil Conference set to happen in June 2010 in Coimbatore. 

Rig Veda

I had already showed how the Rig Veda couldn’t have been written by the IVC people.   Over time, I realized that the Rig Veda (RV) is a veritable treasure trove to divine the Real History of India. I started looking at who the Vedic people called as demons or enemies and any references to gods of the enemy people.


Interestingly, I found the term Kuyavan, who is a Dasa, who is killed by Indra. There are 6 occurrences of the Dravidian word Kuyava – RV.I.103.8, RV.I.104.3, RV.I.174.7, RV.IV.18.8, RV.VII.19.2, RV.II.1.104.3.

It turns out that,  i am the first researcher [Iravatham Mahadevan Sir has acknowledged this] to tie the RV demon Kuyava to the Dravidian word (DEDR 1762) , which means potter, obviously a very important profession for the IVC people.  Therefore, if one Dravidian person was identified as a Dasa (an enemy) by the RV people, it is likely there is more to it than meets the eye.

Alongside one of the mentions of Kuyava, there is a mention of Kuyava’s wives – Anjasi and Kulisi.  I was breaking my head on what these names could mean and i stumbled upon Kulici – a type of pot [well connected to the potter Kuyavan).  Yes, we could question how a type of pot could have become a name of Kuyava’s wife.  However, if the Vedic people could take Kuyava, the name of a profession, as a name of a person, then this is also possible, right?  Given that the term Kuyava is found in the earliest sections of the RV, the error could be due to their unfamiliarity with the Dravidians, as they may have just arrived into the Indus Region.

I haven’t yet figured out what Anjasi is? Is it also a type of pot?


Namuci is the next demon name that got my attention. Namuci was some type of chieftain, not an ordinary enemy. Indra vanquishes him after a lot of difficulty (per the RV). After chasing several deadends, i pursued an idea Priya Raju gave me – is it connected to Padayachi, Pethachi etc. ?   The suffix achi is usually used to denote affection – ammucci, appucci, acchan (father in malayalam), or to denote respect – pethachi, padayachi.   When i looked at the etymology of ucci it struck a chord – it means head, summit etc. This means Namuci could be Nam + Ucci = where Nam = Our and Ucci = Head – in other words, Chief.

Susna Deva & Mura Deva

RV talks in a derogatory fashion about 2 native gods – Susna Deva and Mura Deva. Several scholars have translated Susna Deva to Phallic God and Mura Deva has been translated as Foolish God (because Mura is an alt. form of Muda which means foolish in Sanskrit).

I was not convinced about these translations. So i started digging into it and I found that in one of the references to Susna, RV talks about the Horn – Sringa in Sanskrit means Horn. Interestingly, Sringara in Sanskrit means passion.  That the Horn is a phallic symbol is quite obvious from this. Now we all know who the Phallic God is right? – Shiva. I am not yet able to find out what is the old Dravidian name for Shiva, because Shiva seems to be from Sanskrit.

That the Muradeva could be Muruga was postulated by the Bandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI, Pune in their Annals Volume XXIV from 1943).  Again i wasn’t convinced and dug deeper. Interestingly, in one of the references to Muradeva, the RV says the god has bent neck.  If you look at Mahadevan Signs #47 & #48 [2nd sign from the right in this pic], which are thought to be symbols of Murugan, you can see the bent neck. The word Muruku in tamil has the meaning of crooked or twisted as well.


As you can see, RV is filled with many clues as to the true nature of the peoples, the Vedic people conquered/merged with/assimilated – whatever is your favorite term.  What do you all think? Do you agree with me?  Do you have any thoughts/ideas that can help me?

Disclaimer – many of what i have said here needs to be taken as a hypothesis and not as a scientific proof. As in the Bangle Hypothesis, which i converted into a scientific 5 page paper, i will be converting this post also into a scientific paper.


  1. Quote

    Its a post.. lot of information fro Me!!..
    Well, “Mura Deva has been translated as Foolish God ??” Does this Argument Stands True and Good in rest of the part of translated RV? Have they mentioned any Foolish stuff about Muru Deva? If yes, Translated RV are correct, isn’t?

  2. Quote

    Its a good post.. lot of information for Me!!..
    Well, “Mura Deva has been translated as Foolish God ??” Does this Argument Stands True and Good in rest of the part of translated RV? Have they mentioned any Foolish stuff about Muru Deva? If yes, Translated RV are correct, isn’t?

  3. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 11, 2010, 9:33 pm:

    Thanks. There are only 3 occurrences of the term Muradeva in the RV. In my view, Mura is a name and hence translating it may not be correct. Having said that, since the RV talks about the worshippers of Muradeva in a derogatory fashion, therefore, translating it to Foolish God, does fit the purpose.

    Hope that helps?

  4. Quote

    yep. thanks.

  5. Quote

    Brilliant Sukumar. A very interesting post. After talking to you, bought a book on Rig Veda.

    Namuchi was truly interesting interpretation.

    Regarding Mura Deva, I was wondering how Mura could be traslated as foolish. Muda(foolish) in sanskrit is pronounced with a long u (mooda). Cooked by itself has negative connotations right. Followers of crooked god, by itself can be derogatory.

    Mura also reminded me of Murari, another name for Krishna, which can be split as mura + ari – the enemy of Mura. I know Krishna is much much later in time. Just wondering if there are references to Murari in RV, since most puranic stories are based on vedas.

  6. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 12, 2010, 5:18 pm:

    Thanks for your kind words.

    1. The Ra sound becoming Da sound is a common occurrence. For example, many people in Rajasthan call Birla as Bidla. That’s why the translators have used Muda = Foolish as the possible meaning for Mura. In my view, the translation is not appropriate. Mura = Muruga makes the most sense given that the bent neck more clearly identifies Muruga.

    2. the term Krishna as an adjective occurs many times in the RV and also as a name of a person 4 times. No where has the term Krishna been used as a God in the RV. Therefore, as you correctly point out, Krishna as a God is from a much later time.

    3. Your Murari concept is interesting but not likely due to many reasons. Given that Krishna as a God himself doesn’t exist in the RV, Murari, a synonym of Krishna the God is unlikely. Additionally, Murari is clearly a Sanskrit name, there is no reason for them to make a spelling mistake and call him Muradeva. They would have called it simply MurariDeva. Therefore the most likely explanation is that it is Mura standing for Muruka. And the RV has precedents for making errors with Dravidian names – Kuyavan being used as a name instead of a profession.

    Hope that helps?

  7. Quote

    Excellent hypothesis Sukumar. I have some doubts

    1. Why RV people attacked Kuyava? Since Kuyava is a profession and they are no where related to war. As per RV,Killing a person who is not a warrior or who is not possess any weapon is sin?

    2. I think Kuyava here means king, the pot maker and “sirpi”(sculpture) both can be called Kuyava. Most the kings may had some extra skills mainly sculpture. The 2 wives and their milk bath all makes me think the Kuyava is king.

    3. The old Shiva name is “Pasupathi”. Isn’t it?

  8. Quote
    Celestine said April 12, 2010, 10:17 pm:

    That’s really interesting, my Dad would be really interested in this he being Close to Tamil for a pretty long time… I am gonna get him to read this and comment on this……
    Congrats on getting selected to present in The Classical Tamil Conference!!!

  9. Quote


    As a long standing contention, i could not agree with vedic people as a single race. Just because those who have composed Rig Veda had praised Indra, or Shiva, that doesnt mean, they all are of single race.

    Similarly, i dont know how many times the word Dravida occurs in Rig Veda. You may say Rig Veda refers dravida as dasyus .. but still how dravida = dasyus is debatable..

    Dravida in the present context refers to four distinct regions, the kerala, karnataka, andhra and tamilnadu. Out of these 4, only tamil and malayalam is similar, while kannada & Telugu is different.. How can we take only tamil word as a reference for interpretation. Do we mean, the entire IVC people spoke tamil or the ancestors of tamilians?

    In my view, we are seeing the history through the prism of Races, and that too as an independant, unrelated races. I strongly advocate a complete relook in this.. It appears we are struck with the identities, rather than the history..

  10. Quote
    Prem Pandurangam said April 13, 2010, 8:21 am:


    It is fascinating to read about Rig Veda and the people of those times.

    Namuci – We have the well known Namachivayam (refers to Shiva : nama – name; sivayam – devotee of Siva). Shiva was known as Siva as seen in many Tamil texts. He is also referred to as Pithan (crazy or mad) as he was supposed to spend most of his time at the graveyard. He was also known to be the god of black magic.

    Muruga and Vinayaka or Vigneshwara are forest gods. Though they are referred to as Siva’s sons this might be a later fusion of faiths. Muruga is largely untraceable outside Tamil Nadu. Vinayaka is of course ubiquitous but largely found in western India in early temples.

    Just my two cents worth.

  11. Quote


    The sanskrit name for muruga is Skanda.. when there is a sanskrit name itself for muruga, why should the RV people use the tamil word?

    Also, i could not agree on muru to mean as bent.. its only murukku (eg: kayiru murukkuthal) that gives the meaning “to bend”.. muru gives other meaning as well like “muru muru nu irukku”

    And is there any reference for muruga having bent neck? (i am asking from dravidian reference, and NOT what RV says)..

  12. Quote

    Interesting post.Honestly speaking,I ve not read Rig veda etc. But I would like to comment on Mura deva and Muruga.In sanskrit/marati ‘moorkh’ is a fool.but i don’t think that there is any link b/w muruga and mura bcos in north, muruga is known as karthikeyaswamy and muruga is a pure dravidian name. worship of muruga is not as common as it is in south and women are not allowed to visit muruga temple in north bcos he is considered as brahmachari here.women are allowed only on karthik month poornima.
    ‘murukkal’ is to bend where as ‘murugal’ in tamil is crispy.since we don’t have distinct letters to differentiate b/w ‘ka’ and ‘ga’ , a slight confusion is there.
    Anyway,this post has created an interest in me to read abt vedas.Thank u.

  13. Quote

    Again, on word ‘murugan’ ,In tamil for ‘MuRukkal” letter “RA’ is used.for e.g,RA in ARAM,MURAM etc.where as in “murugan” “ra” is used .(oruvan etc).

    Contradicting my earlier statement,I think that, “murugan” could ve been derived from hindi/sanskrit word “Murg/Murgaa” which means bird cock/seval.and we know that Lord murugan is associated with bird seval/cock in south.

    “Murakna” is to sprain/to turn /to tilt in hindi. so can’t associate Murugan and bent neck.

  14. Quote

    Regarding word ‘kuyava’ i found one interesting meaning //But contradiction I.103.8: Kuyava: “meaning, probably, ‘causing bad harvests’, is the name of another of the demons of drought.” // in a site titled “misintepretations of Rigveda”

  15. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 14, 2010, 10:49 am:


    1. I doubt Yuddha Dharma – Ethics of War was developed during the time period we are talking about. Those were all developed much later in time. As far as the RV is concerned Kuyava is an enemy and they killed him. Pure & Simple.

    2. Kuyava means Potter. He would likely have been some type of Chieftain. I haven’t fully understood the wives bathing in milk connection, although i have also heard that in historical times, queens took bath in milk (for example, Cleopatra is said to have done this). I don’t yet have a clear understanding of this in the RV. However, it is quite clear from the RV that the Kuyava is an important person on the enemy side.

    3. Pasupathi is a Sanskrit word. Given that is Sanskrit, it is unlikely to have been the old name of Siva.

    Hope that helps.

  16. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 14, 2010, 10:50 am:

    Thanks Celestine. Look forward to your dad’s comments on this post.

  17. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 14, 2010, 11:02 am:

    You are talking about ideology and i am talking about research. Unfortunately, these two don’t go together.

    1. I never talked about any race in my post. Although, i do believe that the Vedic People and the IVC people were likely to have been from different gene pools (the notion of race is outdated for a while now.) In today’s India, the Aryan/Dravidian people have completely mixed into each other. Except the tribals, there is hardly any meaningful Aryan/Dravidian divide in today’s India. Having said that, whether the Vedic people were the same race as Dravidians is not really relevant to my argument. My point is pure & simple – the Vedic People [you could say Sanskrit speaking people] and Dravidian [Dravidian speaking] people were enemies during the Rig Vedic period and that is what the evidence i have laid out shows, if you choose to read it, instead of depending on your ideology.

    2. I just showed in my post that Kuyavan, a potter has been described as a Dasa/Dasyu. If one Dravidian person is called a Dasa/Dasyu, it is reasonable to assume that was the category assigned to the local Dravidian people. RV has 3 categories of enemies – Dasa/Dasyus seem to be the principal enemy. There are also Danavas and Simyus who are also depicted as enemies. No one seems to have figured out who the Danavas and Simyus are.

    3. I would urge you to read up a bit on Linguistics. The Dravidian language family is one of the most important language families of the world with 28 languages. Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu, Oraon, Gondi … are all Dravidian languages. [Sanskrit and its derivatives are from the Indo European language tree and is perhaps more important language family because it is spread out in more regions of the world than Dravidian].

  18. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 14, 2010, 11:12 am:


    1. Namuci – interestingly one of the deadends i chased first on this was that somehow Namachivayam was converted to Namuci. However, it is a deadend because it is very difficult prove that Shiva in Sanskrit is a loan word Siva from Dravidian. In order for us to prove such loan words there are rules developed by Burrow/Emeneau. I tried applying those rules and couldn’t prove that the Shiva is from Siva. If you all are interested i can do a post on the Burrow/Emeneau rules?

    2. Vigneshwara or Ganesh is amongst the most recent Gods in the Hindu pantheon. I don’t remember the exact dates, but research shows that Ganesh was introduced only in the 1st Century AD or so. As i said in my post, several scholars have tried to tie Muruka to specific symbols in the Indus script and it seems quite accurate. When you say Murukan is not there beyond Tamilnadu, i think it is not based upon any research you have done? Murukan is known very much in Kerala and Andhra & Karnataka as Subramanian, In the North he is called Karthik or Skanda. He is very much there in Bengal as Karthik. According to my research, the Ganesh as a God was introduced into the pantheon to reduce the importance of Muruka/Karthik. By introducing Ganesh and the associated Mango Myth, Ganesh was made a more important God than Muruka. This was part of the Aryanization/Sanskritization process of India.

    If you want to understand my hypothesis on the Indus religion, you may want to read this post

    Hope that helps?

  19. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 14, 2010, 11:18 am:

    I am responding to your comment to Prem, since he has not done so himself.

    1. You didn’t read my post properly. RV says Muradeva is an enemy god. Why would they call Skanda an enemy god? Secondly, the notion of Skanda = Murukan happened much later which is why the RV being a very old text holds on to the notion that Muradeva is an enemy god. As the Aryanization/Sanskritization process proceeded, they tied Muruka to Skanda and Rudra to Shiva and so on.

    2. Again you didn’t read my post properly. I never said Muruku means bent neck. I said there is an additional term in the same shloka which refers to Muradeva, which signifies that the God has a bent neck. Now, I am sure you have heard of the classic pose of Murukan where he sits with his arms around his knees. That pose usually comes with a bent neck. In fact, as i showed in my post, there is a sign in the Indus script, that ties well with this posture and hence has been identified as Murukan by some key scholars.

    Hope that helps?

  20. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 14, 2010, 11:27 am:



    1. The Hen/Chicken/Rooster is a late entrant to India. It was definitely not there in the IVC. I was wrong, it does appear IVC had chicken. However, the IVC people calling Muruga as Muruga because it means Rooster in Hindi is not possible because Hindi as a language is amongst the youngest languages of India. It maybe the reverse, since the rooster is identified by Muruga, perhaps hindi borrowed the term. Not sure.

    2. We are talking about Vedic times which is very ancient (1700 BC or so). At that time, as i have shown the Muradeva worshippers were the enemies of the Vedic people. As i also said in my post, Mura has been incorrectly translated to Foolish. Because it seems to be a loan name, we cannot look for a sanskrit meaning for it, but rather a Dravidian meaning. If you look at it from that perspective, and adding up other evidences, it seems Muradeva = Muruka is a strong likelihood.

    3. Like Senthil, you also seemed to have missed the Bent Neck point. There is a separate word in the RV that shows that Muradeva has bent neck which makes the Muradeva = Muruka connection stronger. Muruka by itself doesn’t mean bent neck, yes, but i never said that in my post.

    4. Good work on the meaning of Kuyava. The meaning you turned up is the currently accepted meaning of Kuyava. Like in the case of Muradeva, the scholars have looked for the meaning of Kuyava in Sanskrit and came up with some absurd meaning. Since it is a loan name, we should look for the meaning of the word from Dravidian, where the meaning is crystal clear. Now Kuyava is such a clear Dravidian word that there can never be any dispute on whether Kuyavan is Dravidian or not.

    Hope that helps?

    Hope that helps.

  21. Quote
    Prem Pandurangam said April 14, 2010, 2:12 pm:

    Thanks Sukumar. It would be interesting to read on Burrow/Emeneau rules.

    A lot does ride on Shiva-Siva relationship simply because there is only one Shiva-Siva across India though Eswara had different identities and interpretations from vedic days. I also alluded to the crazy (pithan) aspect of Siva that can also be explored. Add to it the curious case of a snake lining his neck there may be more to study about the reference to a bent neck.

    What I meant in my comment about Muruga was that in terms of time and space he was too far apart to relate to Rig Veda. Though there are relationships between Skanda-Karthik-Muruga across different regions my hypothesis is that the amalgamation came later including the addition of Vigneshwara to Shiva’s family. Also what I alluded was that Muruga was a forest god and probably a misfit in IVC.

    Interestingly many Tamils in Mauritius/Renunion Islands refer to their religion as Muruga and not Hindu.

  22. Quote


    1. What we follow as Hinduism today is an amalgmation of the Vedic Religion and the Dravidian Religion. My research shows that Siva (don’t know the original name), was a God of Love but in the new amalgamated religion a god of destruction. Therefore I think the original name of Siva would have also been different.

    2. Murukan as a forest god cannot be conclusive. For example, If you read the Paripadal – sangam age religious poetry, they mention 4 gods – Vaigai (mother goddess), Madurai (city), Sevvel (murugan), and Thirumal (later Aryanized to Vishnu). Paripadal was composed in Madurai which is an ancient city. Like with many gods/goddesses of Hinduism, the same god has multiple personas. So it is not correct to say Murukan is entirely a forest god.

    3. Now the time and space argument is the one that is the most popular objection to the Dravidian hypothesis. That’s because researchers are using Tamil which is the oldest of the dravidian languages and the one that is the closest to the proto-dravidian likely to have been spoken in the IVC. The better way would be look at the dravidian language footprint in India which is considerable. You can consult Parpola or Burrow/Emeneau for that.

    Hope that helps?

    3. Interesting that in Mauritius they call their religion Muruga. Is there a reference for this?

  23. Quote

    Interesting thought on Snake. (The Pithan part I haven’t thought about). I am sure you know that the Snake is a phallic symbol as well. The snake, the lingam which we worship even today are the only 2 things still left from the Original Shiva as God of Love. All other aspects of Siva seem like the modified version. Snakes were holy during the IVC but for the Vedic religion Snakes became demons. This is typical when cultures switch – what is holy for one becomes demon for the newer one. There are several examples of this in anthropology. The beauty is amalgamated Hinduism could never get rid of the snakes as holy part of the original religion. That is why you still see copulating snakes being worshipped in many temples especially in south india. The original religion was likely very sexual and fertility oriented. The amalgamated religion has tried to exorcise sexuality as much as possible but not completely. The lingam, copulating snakes, erotic sculptures in temples etc are the clear substratum, a hold over from the old religion.

    Hope that helps?

  24. Quote


    I have crossed the ideological framework long back. 🙂

    I am not saying that this post talks about races.. rather, my view is that the approach taken here have a racial dimension, caused by identities that historians have created.. I will leave this racial angle now for focus on your post..

    /** I just showed in my post that Kuyavan, a potter has been described as a Dasa/Dasyu. **/

    From your post, RV denotes kuyava as a dasa.. does it mention anywhere, kuyava as a potter? Its we who are interpreting in that way, which i feel may not be correct. So, still dasyu NOT equal to dravida..
    My contention is that many languages have same pronouncing word, but different meanings.. eg: in tamil patti denotes shed of the sheeps.. in malayalam, it denotes dog..

    regarding dravidian languages, i outrightly reject this very categorization itself.. i am still finding out, the parameter they used for this classification.. Also, i could not agree with hierarchial classification of languages, like proto-dravidian, indo-european etc.. both the proto-dravidian and indo-european languages are hypothetical, and NOT real.. these are constructed with the flawed approach that all languages originated from common parent..

    Next, the comparison of civilizations based on linguistic scripts itself is flawed.. because, the scripts are only pictorial representative of the spoken language and NOT the language itself.. that’s why we have prakuruthams, the spoken language, and samskritham, the refined one.. samskritham evolved from prakrutham and NOT independantly.. (this is what i infer from my own analysis)

  25. Quote

    On the dating of RV, i have this question which i missed to raise in the previous discussion.. All four vedas are passed on orally for thousands of years.. there is no single person revealing those, and there is no written texts of these, so that we can carbon date that.. In such case, the date arrived (as 1800 BC) is only a hypothetical one and NOT scientifically proven..

    Next, the new field of archeo astronomy reconstructs the date based on planetary & star positions described in our ithihasa, which gives the data of Krishna to be around 3100 BC.. but the sad fact is that this very field “archeo-astronomy” itself is not acknowledged properly, which again is a scientific & intellectual narrowness..

  26. Quote

    /** What we follow as Hinduism today is an amalgmation of the Vedic Religion and the Dravidian Religion. **/

    Vedas do not fit in to the concept of religion.. even if we accept vedas as religion, probably it is acceptable to some extent, as it denotes the four vedas..

    However, what is the dravidian religion that is mentioned here? Is there any specific description for it?

    Regarding the paripadal, i will quote the tamil version of the poems below.

    எரி திரிந்தன்ன பொன் புனை உடுக்கையை-
    சேவல் அம் கொடியோய்! நின் வல வயின் நிறுத்தும்
    ஏவலுட் பணிந்தமை கூறும்,
    நா வல் அந்தணர் அரு மறைப் பொருளே.

    Do any one know what does அந்தணர் அரு மறைப் பொருளே here refers to?

    /** Snakes were holy during the IVC **/

    How do we know snkaes were holy in IVC.. holiness is something which exists at the mental plane.. Btw, there is no concept of holiness both in vedas or in other indic religions.. this is yet another example, where the way we interpret our native religions with in the prism of the western concepts..

    /** but for the Vedic religion Snakes became demons. **/

    /** What we follow as Hinduism today is an amalgmation of the Vedic Religion and the Dravidian Religion. **/

    Actually, hinduism is just an identity and NOT a religion.. The original religions are the sanmathams, as categorised by adi-shankara.. later many offshoots emerged.. Other than these 6 internal religions, all others are cults.. for example, my primary god is my kula deivam which is unique to my gothra, but by religion, i am a shaivite.. the same case with all other hindus.. they have their primary god and a religious god..

    Why i am mentioning here is that the present understanding of hinduism as a religion itself is a flawed one, and hence any further thesis based on this would be also be mis-leading..

    I will end my points with this..

    Again, if snakes are demons for vedic people, how come vishnu has snake bed?

  27. Quote

    I just missed this point..

    /** but for the Vedic religion Snakes became demons. **/

    Again, if snakes are demons for vedic people, how come vishnu has snake bed?

  28. Quote

    Regarding the contention that shiva is equated to rudra later, i was just reminded of the word “sadhashiva”.. I heard this word was mentioned in Vedas itself.. which means, shiva and rudra is used in vedic times itself.

  29. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 15, 2010, 10:29 am:

    It has been pointed out to you before that writing a barrage of comments shows that you are very agitated and are attacking the author of this post – which is myself. I am sure you don’t want to convey that impression. This is a discussion based upon the research i have done. You don’t have to like or agree with my points of view.

    1. Kuyavan = potter is proven because it is a word from the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DEDR reference given in the post). If you think it has some other meaning, you need to show what that is. Obviously the RV wouldn’t call Kuyava a potter because they have taken the name of a profession as a name of a person [Please check your logic training]. if there is an egregious error the Vedic People made, this is one. And the second error is to include it in the Rig Veda, holiest of holy documents of Hinduism.

    2. Obviously, your analysis of languages is from the Hindutva side, whose arguments are solely based on upon ideology. Hindutva folks reject Comparative Linguistics because it inconveniences them heavily. It forces them to consider the fact that Indo European and Dravidian are 2 distinct language families. Seems like you belong in this camp, even though you said in your comment you have moved away from the ideological framework. Looks like you haven’t moved an inch away. To reject an entire field called Comparative Linguistics is absurd, it brings to nought thousands of person years of research in this field. If you want to stick to this Hindutva position, you are welcome to. Please don’t argue with me about it.

    3. Archaeo-astronomy – we won’t believe in Comparative Lingustics, but we will believe in Archaeo-astronomy because it throws up acceptable dates for the Rig Veda. How convenient? It is actually not that difficult to date the Rig Veda. It doesn’t cover anything important to the IVC and hence it clearly postdates it. Using dating techniques IVC has been dated to 2600 BC to 1900 BC (the mature period). So RV is post 1900 BC. It cannot be before that. Of course, the Hindutva folks want to use Archaeo-astronomy and other things that are not scientifically proven to date the Rig Veda to some age-old period.

    4. This is the next thing from the Hindutva camp. When push comes to shove, we will claim that Hinduism is not a religion it is a way of life etc. without realizing all religions are a way of life. The point is quite simple – Vedic Religion embodies a set of religious practices, The IVC artefacts shows certain religious practices, there is no correlation between the two. If you don’t like the term Dravidian religion, try IVC religion.

    5. I don’t understand why i should tell you the meaning of some arbitrary verse in Paripatal? It is not connected to this post. If you think there is some connection, please explain.

    6. Snakes are holy in the IVC because there are artefacts showing people worshipping snakes. What do you mean there is no holiness in RV? Please don’t trot out some random stuff. RV – Rig means Praise. RV is filled with shlokas that praise the various Vedic gods/goddesses. Those Gods/Goddesses are holy. Anything anybody worships becomes holy – pure and simple common sense.

    4. Again, the Hinduism is not a religion stuff from Hindutva ideology.

    5. Good question on Snake becoming Vishnu’s bed. As i said, during the amalgamation process certain snakes became holy and not demons. This must be some sort of change management. For your information – in Kaliya Nardhanam, Krishna vanquishes a snake demon. If snake was holy for the Vedic people, why did that happen? the point is whenever, ideologies are mixed up, some compromises are needed.

    6. This is not about what you remember. It is about doing research. Rig Veda both in its original sanskrit form and various translations are online. Shiva as a name of a God doesn’t occur in the Rig Veda. Rudra is a minor God in the Rig Veda. the Shiva of the IVC Religion (must have been some other name as i have said many times before) and the Rudra of the Rig Veda were amalgamated to form the God Shiva that we now worship. In the IVC Religion, the Shiva was a God of Love. Now Shiva is a god of destruction. Clearly a major change.

    Hope that helps?

  30. Quote


    I am very sorry, if my comments gave an impression that i am attacking you.. I did not intend so..

  31. Quote

    As usual a great post with enriching comments. The etymology and symbology driven approach is brilliant.

    When we draw a parallel with Christianity did they also reverse any pagan religious symbols or gods? There seem to be more absorption like observance of Haloween, cross, easter, Dec 25 and new year etc. Anyways..I understand that there is no formula to be followed by everyone in the same way.

  32. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 16, 2010, 10:03 am:

    Thanks for the clarification. I only said that a barrage of comments gives the impression that you are attacking the blogger. I know you didn’t intend that.

    I am assuming my responses adequately answered your questions.

  33. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 16, 2010, 10:51 am:

    Thanks for the kind words.

    Yes, i think the Christianization process offers a lot of analogies to what might have happened. The pagan religion that Christianization encountered had a lot of similarities to the IVC religion given that it was also a Neolithic religion [This is pure hypothesis at this stage without scientific proof]. In Christianity, we have Father/Son/Holy Spirit. by using Holy Spirit in place of the Mother Goddess, it tried to reduce the importance of the Mother Goddess. But later when it encountered strong resistance to Christianization in some parts of the Pagan World, the Mother Goddess was reincorporated into Christianity as Mary. Many pagan practices like Tree Worship were also incorporated. Later Protestantism rose as a purer form of Christianity which tries to return Christianity to its purist roots. In India, the analogy would be the Amalgamated Vedic-Dravidian Religion which overtook India and the rise of Vaishnavism which is a much purer form standardizing on a single Vedic God – Vishnu and rejecting all other Gods from the Hindu pantheon with some minor exceptions.

    Having said all this, it is unlikely there is going to be a single model/formula of proselytization that works universally.

    Hope that helps.

  34. Quote


    Your comment on christianisation analogy is what i was wanting to point earlier, but missed out. The christianisation of the europe, or the islamisation of the middle east are entirely different, from the so called aryanisation. I will list out the reasons below. (from my own understanding, and not from any hindutva ideology 🙂 )

    1. IF christianisation drive was mostly from the biblical concept that only Jesus is the true god and all other gods are false. And that Jesus will resurrect only when all humans in this world is converted to christianity. It is this biblical statement, that motivated the entire christianisation process.
    The RV Vs IVC conflicts do not have that kind of totalatarian and eliminating history.

    2. The Bible is a religious code, which every christian should ahere to. Any one violating this are branded as apostate and persecuted.
    However, Vedas are NOT religious code, which everyone should adhere to and hence there is no concept of apostates here. More over, the dravidian religion is NOT book based, and hence it should be as diverse as we have now.

    3. There is difference b/w conversion and amalgamation. In the former, the converting religion totally destroys the identity of the converted. In the case of europe, all paganic religious identities are systematically destroyed, and the christian identity reimposed over paganic religions. Thus, the winter solstice is converted to christmas.
    Whereas, in the case of IVC / Vedic amalgamation, it was a mutual fusion, and both identities are kept intact with in the original context. We all know how important the identities are. When identities are lost, everything is lost.

    4. As i said earlier, in europe, there is no remnants of paganic cultures today. However, in india, both IVC and Vedic mode of worship is still followed. TO quote an example, my kula devata statue has two canine teeths protruding out at the both ends of the lips. This shows, the god is the asuric god, and hence i think i may belong to asura group. Our temples contains the saptha kannimar, the protective god “Karuppanna swamy”, and other deities, which may very well belong to dravidian category. I think these are absent in either vaishnava or shiva temples, which are called vedic temples. Which means, the IVC & Vedic religions co-existed with each other without eliminating each other.

    5. There is no concept of conversion in either IVC or the RV, and hence the very meaning of aryanisation doesnt apply here.

    6. Neither Vedic nor the IVC cultures are Monotheistic. which means, there are lot of deities worshipped on both sides. However, christianity is a monotheistic religion, which later adopted the concept of trinity

    There are other major differences, to prove that we cannot apply the analogy of christianisation over aryanisation.

    Next, if we look at the religious history of india, i find around 5 major religious groups, which continues till today with its own distinctive identity.

    1. The vaishnava sects.
    2. The shaiva sects
    3. The people groups worshipping the kaali.

    The first two are known to all. However, the system of kaali devi worship is as vast and geographically distributed, as the other two major religions of hindu identity.

    Everyone would have heard about Vikramaditya stories, the king of ujjain. Ujjain is the seat & root of all kaali devi worshipping cultures. If we locate the distribution of kaali worshipping cultures, it extends from west bengal to kanyakumari. The method of animal sacrifice that we do to our kula deivam is same as that practiced in bengal. The people of bengal, bihar, UP also have kaali devi as kula deivam, just i have here in tamilnadu.

    Here, if we consider this kaali worship as IVC religion, then i would say, it is still practiced without any hindrance from the people following vedas.

    So my request here is to consolidate the list of present religions, which can be categorised as IVC / Dravidian religions, and those as Vedic religions.

    In my opinion, the kaali worship, the worship of the village deities, the karuppanna samy, saptha kannimar, muniswamy, all can be part of the IVC cults.

  35. Quote

    Let the research proceed and facts emerge based on scientific process before you write off anything. If you look at the series it is not complete.

    At the end of the day, all Kali form of godesses are believed to be a form of Parvathi, daughter of Himavan. If a first class trinity is changed in order, changed in roles and one of the gods became a second class god, whatever way you put it it is a domination of thought, culture or belief.

  36. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 17, 2010, 8:31 pm:

    With this type of comment you have written, we can try to have a meaningful discussion. I am glad. Thanks for that.

    1 & 2. I gave Christianization as an analogy. I didn’t say anywhere that the Aryanization = Christianization. Even in my previous post, my analogy of typewriting was inferred by many people as Typewriting = Programming. Analogies are not meant to be taken literally. Aryanization of India started approx 1700 BC, whereas Christianization in full fervor started in the 5th century AD during Constantine’s time. There is a time gap of almost 2,200 years between the two. Obviously, during this time, the techniques of proselytizers changed a lot. But there are several similarities as well as i pointed out. A detailed discussion between the differences/similarities of Christianization & Aryanization is outside the scope of this discussion and blog post.

    3 & 4. How are you so sure that identities were not lost and they were preserved? On the contrary, as Vamsi has pointed out accurately, in response to your comment, the nature of the God itself has changed from God of Love to God of Destruction, rituals of worship changed (vedic practices were introduced), Mother Goddess relegated to an adjunct of the Male God. Muruga lost his importance. Both Mother Goddess and Muruga were removed from the trinity and 2 new Aryan Gods took their places. the God of Destruction Shiva actually represents another Aryan God.Festivals have changed significantly – Diwali, Ganesh Chaturthi, Rama Navami, Vaikunta Ekadasi, Krishna Jayanthi etc have taken root and displaced native festivals. Even if you ignore all of this, the biggest change is in the language. All of India was populated by Dravidian and Austro Asiatic speakers. Both language groups have been reduced to a minority. Though they still manage to worship native gods/goddesses like you point out, they are a minority in this country. The abandonment of one’s native language and the adoption of a different language is probably the biggest change one can imagine in identity. So not just the religion, the language also changed. If this is not identity change, what is?

    5. How can you be so sure there was no conversion? Dravidian gods and their religion was ridiculed by the RV. Dravidians were killed, their settlements were burnt. There is also evidence to show that there were some Dravidians who started worshipping the Aryan Gods and started supporting the Aryans. Even if you choose not to agree with this, the fact remains that the original IVC religion is completely gone (i am hoping it is still being practiced in remote corner of India and searching for it fervently), which means they were converted to the then new Aryan religion right?

    6. According to my research IVC for tri-theistic. Vedic was polytheistic. Current day Hinduism is polytheistic. This means that the Polytheistic vedic hinduism won over the local religion. You are right, there may be still some pockets of India which are practicing some hold overs from the old religion (i am not very sure), but they are a minority in this country.

    Hope that helps?

  37. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 17, 2010, 8:32 pm:

    Thanks for responding to Senthil. You are right, the original religion is completely gone. As i pointed out, even the original langauges have gone for the most part and going away fast.

  38. Quote


    I was in the same impression that kaalidevi was a from of parvati.. but when i consulted with few scholars regarding this, they said, the parvathi worship is completely different from kaali worship.. We can understand from the difference in the way ambal is worshipped, and in the way kaali devi is worshipped..

    From that perspective, kamakshi amman of kanchipuram, is not same as the sellandi amman which is the kula deivam for the chera kings.. and the parvathi devi is not the same as the kaaliamman that our community used to worship..

    Generally kaali worship belongs to tantric mode of worship, where animal sacrifice is one of the tantric practices (which ofcourse the present media demons ridicule)..

    If you still believe, kaali devi is manifestation of parvati devi, i would like to know the sources for your claim.

  39. Quote


    Shiva is known to have only two wives – Parvathi (or Sati) and Ganga. So if Kali is consort of Siva, then would she not be a form of Parvathi. Also, in Durgashtami/ Navarathri, we pray that Parvathi took a form of Kali to kill Mahishasura. Again – this is what Sukumar is trying to say I guess. All tantric, IVC, tribal, local gods and godesses are made form of Siva/ Parvathi. There are other Siva forms like Veerabadhra, pothuraju who are rural dieties, who seem to be considered as a form of Siva. One distinct observation is many such rural gods will not necessarily have Brahmin priests.

    Animal sacrifices – It is a different story all together. Let us not deviate.

  40. Quote

    Vamsi.. i think you are invoking puranic stories, which sukumar has rejected earlier.. Also, is there any reference to kaali devi in vedas.. (I really dont know)..

    Consider this fact.. the kaali devi worship is mostly predominant among farming communities, through out india.. IVC is known for agricultural settlements, whereas vedic people are known for nomadic one.. so there is more probability that kaali worship should be one of the IVC cult..

    Regarding the manifestation of eeswara among many gods (such ayyanareeswaran, muneeswaran etc), i recently had a chance to accompany an epigraphist to explore a stone inscription. He told that during the peak of bhakthi movements, the shaivites, in order to win the support of the village people, made all village gods as manifestation of the eeswaran.. prior to that, for each village, the ayyanar is the village head deity, and the karuppusamy is the village kaaval deivam..

    So its not during RV period, but rather during bhakthi movements, the gods shiva, vishnu became more popular among the people..

  41. Quote


    Regarding my earlier quote from paripadal, the word “அந்தணர்” indicates the people who learned vedas, and the word மறைப் பொருளே refers to the vedas itself.

    Now, if sangam tamil age belongs to IVC, and if RV & IVC are enemies, why should the paripadal write high of vedas and the brahmins who professed it.

    Also, in one of the comments you have replied to padma, that the reference to cock for the god muruga should have come later.. but the same reference has been found in paripadal..

  42. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 21, 2010, 12:00 pm:

    I don’t exactly know where the Parvathi, Kali.. discussion is headed. According to my research there were only 3 gods in the IVC – Sun (Shiva – dont know the original name), Earth (Mother Goddess, again dont know the old name) and Moon (Muruka, likely to be the original name). If this theory is correct, Kali or Mari or Parvati are manifestations of the mother goddess. When the Vedic religion took roots, the concept of manifestation may have been lost and we may be having prescribed roles asssigned to each God/Goddess. Maybe this concept of manifestation is the one that later became the Vedic concept of Avatar.

    I am glad you are saying Shiva/Vishnu became popular in later times not RV. Although, i haven’t really commented on when Vishnu, Shiva became popular, i have clearly shown that Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma were either non-existent or minor gods in the RV scheme of gods/goddesses.

  43. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 21, 2010, 12:11 pm:

    You need to read up on history a bit more. Did i ever say that Sangam age is contemporaneous with the IVC? Sangam literature is dated between 1st Century BCE to 1st Century CE. IVC is 2600-1900 BCE. There is a gap of almost 2000 years between the collapse of the IVC and the Sangam Age.

    Now, by the time of the Sangam Age, there is enough evidence that Vedic religion was just starting to thrive in Tamilnadu.

    Therefore, just because of the fact that Dravidians in the IVC and Vedic people were enemies doesn’t mean, their enmity will continue for 2,000 years. Hope you are able to understand this?

    On the Paripatal – marai porul could have simply meant hidden meaning or profound meaning or something like that. How do you know it meant Vedas? Anthanar simply means priest. That it represents Brahmins is an interpretation. The problem i find is that there is a heavy doctoring of the translations of Paripatal and other Sangam literature. The doctoring has been done to convert Paripatal into poetry in praise of Aryan Gods, when it clearly is meant to praise the Dravidian Gods.

    On the Padma comment, I made a mistake. I did some research and it does seem like Chicken were found in the IVC. Her overall point is still inaccurate. I already pointed out that Pariptal is 2,000 years later than the IVC.

    By the way, please stick to the subject matter of this post. Paripatal is not connected to this post.

  44. Quote

    I was keeping off from such discussions since I left with bitterness last time.

    Just saw this comment from Sukumar that Paripadal is dravidian. See these following songs

    19. செவ்வேள்
    கடவுள் வாழ்த்து
    பாண்டியன் தன் பரிவாரங்களுடன் பரங்குன்றை வலம் வரும் காட்சி

    என்றூழ் உற வரும் இரு சுடர் நேமி
    ஒன்றிய சுடர்நிலை உள்படுவோரும்;
    ‘இரதி காமன், இவள் இவன்‘ எனாஅ,
    விரகியர் வினவ, வினா இறுப்போரும்;
    ‘இந்திரன், பூசை; இவள் அகலிகை; இவன் 50

    சென்ற கவுதமன்; சினன் உறக் கல் உரு
    ஒன்றிய படி இது‘ என்று உரை செய்வோரும்:
    இன்ன பலபல எழுத்து நிலை மண்டபம்,
    துன்னுநர் சுட்டவும், சுட்டு அறிவுறுத்தவும்,
    நேர் வரை விரி அறை வியல் இடத்து இழைக்கச் 55

    சோபன நிலையது–துணி பரங்குன்றத்து
    மாஅல் முருகன் மாட மருங்கு.

    For starters ” இரதி காமன், இவள் இவன்= means Rathi and Manmadan
    இந்திரன்= Indra
    பூசை= Pooja
    அகலிகை= Ahalya
    கவுதமன்= Sage Gowthama

    Please tell me where in Dravidian literature I can find the above names.

    Just because Murugan is a pure Tamil name, it automatically does not mean he is not the Skanda of Puranas. Puranic romanticism and symbolism and Tantric symbolism and Vedantic Philosophy have amalgamated to form the current so called Hinduism.

    For example, the family of Murugan is from Purana. His depiction ” on the peacock, with the cock flag, the weapon spear, the snake on the feet of the peacock” are from Tantra. The tantric stamp is clearly visible on all religions of today. Shiva has the snake on his neck. Vishnu has it as his bed. Vinayaka has it across his torso. Parvati has it as a ring. In tantric symbology snake depicts the coiled up power inside the base of the spine called “kundalini”.

    Tantric symbology is a higher level education and DEFINITELY not available for cursory scholarship. Ultimately they are for realization of one’s own self. The difference being in the Tantras, there is an immdeiate step of realizing the form before enlightenment. The mantra meditation along with the prescribed form is a MUST in Tantra upasana. Each Guru parampara insisted on its own symbolism of a particular God. And we see many depictions of the same God in various regions. Maharashtrians call Muruga as Karthikeya whereas Kannadigas call him Kumaraswamy. The temple in Kukke near Bangalore is more connected with the snake symbology.

    The word (mantra) and the Form make an inseparable entity and is specific to every cult . But Sukumar, I see an attempt by you in making them look like forced ones on another culture. For example, even though Krishna was praised by all Azhwars, there were not many Krishna temples (except in Srivilliputtur) known to me belonging to their period. They invariably worshipped the four armed Vishnu. They all saw Krishna in Vishnu. This is the pattern in Nalayira Divviya Prabandam.

    Coming to your other statement that only Thirumal is worshipped in Paripadal and not Vishnu.

    1. திருமால்
    அந்தணர் இருக்கை

    ஒருசார்-அறத்தொடு வேதம் புணர் தவம் முற்றி,
    விறல் புகழ் நிற்ப, விளங்கிய கேள்வித்
    திறத்தின் தி¡¢வு இல்லா அந்தணர் ஈண்டி, .. .. 20

    And here again

    ஆதிசேடனின் சிறப்புக்களைப் போற்றுதல்

    திகழ் ஒளி முந்நீர் கடைந்த அக் கால், வெற்புத்
    திகழ்பு எழ வாங்கித் தம் சீர்ச் சிரத்து ஏற்றி, …65

    மகர மறி கடல் வைத்து நிறுத்துப்
    புகழ்சால் சிறப்பின் இரு திறத்தோர்க்கும்
    அமுது கடைய, இரு வயின் நாண் ஆகி,
    மிகாஅ இரு வடம் ஆழியான் வாங்க,
    உகாஅ வலியின் ஒரு தோழம் காலம் …70

    Please give your interpretation of the above and refute if it does not describe the churning of the milk ocean. Also comment on

    அறத்தொடு வேதம் புணர் தவம் முற்றி
    விளங்கிய கேள்வித்
    திறத்தின் தி¡¢வு இல்லா அந்தணர் ஈண்டி

    If you can find Dravidian equivalents for Vedam and VeLvi please let me know. Thanks for publishing this comment.


  45. Quote
    Sukumar (subscribed) said April 21, 2010, 7:04 pm:

    If i could remind you, you left because you were arguing points not connected with the subject matter of the post, that too in an impolite manner. You are at it again by commenting on something not mentioned in the post at all.

    While i did say that paripatal is for dravidian gods, i also said this “Now, by the time of the Sangam Age, there is enough evidence that Vedic religion was just starting to thrive in Tamilnadu. “.

    Obviously, the references to Indran and some Vedic myths and concepts is to be expected. That doesn’t mean Paripatal is an Aryan document.

    I have showed in this post (in case you decide to actually read my post before commenting), that there are Dravidian words in the RV. Would you be okay, if i claimed based on that statement, that the RV was written by Dravidian people?

    BTW, while i was able to find the Indran reference you quoted, i am not able to find the next set of verses (anthanar irukkai, adhiseshan etc) you quote from Paripatal. Can you please quote it as Hymn#-Verse#?

  46. Quote


    First to the Vedas and the points you have raised. Technically, the Vedas are just the Samhitas. The Brahmanas and Aranyakas were man made as is claimed within their content. But the classical viewpoint being Aranyakas and Brahmanas are also Vedas. Brahmanas are explanations of Vedic texts and Aranyakas are derived and distilled content of the Vedas.

    Samhitas are the real Vedas and the ‘revelation’ and in traditional parlance, is called ‘apaurusheya’ meaning not made by man. By the meaning of the term, they are common for all yugas and hence timeless.

    This being the case, how can the Samhitas contain history ? This most important point was raised by Maharishi Dayananda in the 19 cent. The questions raised by him stand unanswered till today. He has very successfully argued that Vedas have no history. If Griffith believed he saw some of it, let us correct it.

    I have gone through your post and in fact came back to read the blog on Senthil’s insistence. I also sent him commentaries on the Mantras you mentioned in Suktams 103 and 104 of the Prathama Mandala of Rigveda. As Senthil did not send it to you , I am typing it again

    Mandalam 1, Suktam 103, mantra 8
    Suktam 103 is about main proof of God in this world

    susNum pipram kuyavam vrutram yadAvadheervi pura: sambarasya |
    tannO mitrO varuNo mAmahantAmaditi: sindhu: pruthivI uta yO:||

    susNum; mighty
    pipram- prapUrakam- fulfiller
    kuvayam- the cause of the growth of barley and other corns on earth

    (these are all adjectives or attributes not proper nouns)

    O Indra, , when thou destroyest the cities or fort of the wicked enemy as th sun destroys the mighty cloud that causes barley and other corns to grow and which which fill up the earth rivers etc and as he demolishes the cities or bands of powerful raining cloud then let friends, noble persons, earth , firmament, river and ocean, light of the sun, be the cause of our respectability.

    Mandala 1, Suktam 104, mantra 3
    Duties of Kings

    ava tmanAm marate ketavedA ava tmanAm marate fenamdan |
    ksheeraena snAta: kuyavasya yOshe hate te syAtAm pravaNe sifAyA: ||

    ketaveda- Rajapurusha

    If a government servant , knowing the nature of wealth misappropriates (marate) (public funds) or a man of public (yah cha) misappropriates that of the state, both of them are ruined (ksheeraeNa) like him who because of two jealous and quarrelous wifes, drowns himself in the current of water.

    Mandala 1, Suktam 104, mantra 4 (1-104-4)

    yuyOpa nAbhirusharasyAyO, pra pUrvObhistarate rashti sUram |
    anjasI kulisI vIrapatnI payO hinvAnA udabhirbharante ||

    A king who is like the navel or the centre of man that unite all and who , like clouds are the givers of various prosperity to the public, charms all by his noble conduct. He being a hero and destroyer of his enemies, shines forth with prosperous subjects. He grows more and more. As flowing rivers with their water fill the ocean, so virtuous, propsperous and famous subjects who regard the brave king as their husband, fill him with riches.

    anjasi- prosperous
    kulisI- famous


    The AnthaNar irukkai verse is from Paripatal Thirattu, which was rescued from Nachinarkkiniyar’s commentary. Look at Project Madurai site for Paripdal and you will see it appended to Paripadal.

    Looking at the religious landscape of Bharat with the Arya Dravidian lens is the problem and that is what I am addressing now. The Vindhyas in fact did not deter the North south exchange. There is enough internal evidence in Ramayana itself to believe that Valmeeki is a Tamil poet. (

    The people of yore did not believe there was indeed a divide between Arya – Dravida. Pre Caldwell, show me an instance that there was hatred and mutual repugnance.

    From your recent comment
    ///“Now, by the time of the Sangam Age, there is enough evidence that Vedic religion was just starting to thrive in Tamilnadu. “////

    Will you tell me what was the Vedic religion and what were the imprints you saw of it in Sangam age ? Vedic religion , if the name can be used , was on its last leg during the Mahabharata War itself. No rocket science is needed to know that. During the Sangam age what was thriving was the Puranic, Tantric religion. Tholkappiam has the five lands and five God theory. Puranas are a late appendage to the Hindu literature and we know where the Paripadal stands vis a vis the Vedas.

    Thirumal is a Tantric depiction. His pose on the snake bed is Known as ” aRithuyil’ or Yoganidra. So is Shiva. This shiva is not the Rudra. There is another explanation in the Tantras. The word Shiva is not mentioned in RV and not even YV but in a Brahmana (Thaithireeya) in a section called Sri Rudram.

    namah shambhave cha mayOpavecha namah sankarAya cha mayaskarAya cha namah shivAya cha shivatarAya cha ||

    Even here, Shiva is used as an attribute and not as a name. The mantra ‘ nama Shivaya” was taken from Sri Rudram only. Interestingly Tamil does not have the soft si but only has the chi in its letters. Shiva is definitely an import from Vedas.

    I think this will suffice to show the dependence of Tamil on Vedic Sanskrit for scriptural needs. If there is still doubt I will post the Tantric explanation of Shiva.

  47. Quote

    Thanks Venkat. These are the type of comments that show a discussion going on. Thanks for that.

    Your views and my views are diametrically opposed. I doubt we’ll be able to come to mutual agreement. Therefore, let us agree to disagree.

    BTW, on the Paripatal, please don’t use passages that are obviously add-ons. No wonder I couldn’t find them in the main paripatal.

  48. Quote

    ////”Your views and my views are diametrically opposed. I doubt we’ll be able to come to mutual agreement. Therefore, let us agree to disagree. “//////

    In which instance ? In my understanding of construction of the Vedas or the in my analysis of the Mantras you mentioned ? If in the former, I can understand, if in the latter, I will still need explanation as to how we disagree. I have quoted the verses in transliterated form as well as translated form with keywords explained. Most importantly, I have gone to the root of the ‘kuyavam’ word and have given meaning.

    ///BTW, on the Paripatal, please don’t use passages that are obviously add-ons. No wonder I couldn’t find them in the main paripatal.////

    Paripadal is a digest of various poems in those times but compiled later. Many got missed out and one such is the above poem. This was found in Nachinarkkiniyar’s commentary to Tholkappiar. Hence timewise they match. However, if you need proof of Vedic sanskrit in paripadal, and if you need proof of Thirumal as being the Vishnu he is, and if you want proof that the paraphernalia of Gods are in fact their counterparts in Tantras and Puranas, the Bhakti movement is proof. But, still, I will post the relevant translations in a day or two.

    By the way, I presume the kuyava issue is settled as I have explained.


  49. Quote

    Sorry Venkat. I don’t agree with anything you said. That pretty much sums up your opinion on the things I have said in my post as well. Please move on.

  50. Quote

    On Sukumar, ///It maybe the reverse, since the rooster is identified by Muruga, perhaps hindi borrowed the term. Not sure. ///

    This is 99% possible bcos Tamil is the oldest Dravidian mother language which was a contemporary to Sanskrit.

Leave a Comment



Formatting Your Comment

The following XHTML tags are available for use:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

URLs are automatically converted to hyperlinks.