How Vedas Sanatana Dharma Tamil Quote Each Other

I received a comment for my Post Brahmin Migration 8000 years ago, DNA Proof.

This is it.(in Facebook)

“Hey, I visit this page often. The one posted here is quite confusing. There is a sentence,”Tamil quotes the Vedas and they quote Tamil.”… what does this mean exactly? Does it mean Vedas are classified in Tamil language? Does these Samhitas, Upanishads etc are in Tamil not in Sanskrit. If this is true then, Vedavyasa would be knowing Tamil, then he is a Dravidian. But he is born on the banks of river Yamuna a fisher woman and Parashara, son of Vasishta. The article talks about Rama’s ancestors, who are Dravidians migrated to North; this again implies many of north Indians are Dravidians. Then this disapproves the theory of migration of Aryans to Northern Indus region….quite confusing article. If meticulously read, it confuses still more.”

Well, the mistake is mine,

Vedas were not written by the Brahmins

It was remiss of me not to have written a Post on the subject of Tamil and Vedas quote each other.

The same is the case with Ramayana and Mahabharata.

To clear the readers question ,

Tamil langauge does not have Vedas.

Vyasa was not born in the South.

The Aran Invasion is a Myth.Please read my Post on this

Now coming to Vedas and Tamil quoting each other.

The Vedas do not refer to Tamil  language directly, but it mentions the produce of Tamil Region, Sandalwood,Elephant Tusks,Pearls,special wood being used to kindle Homa Fire.

Vedic Rishi, Viswamitra banished his son to Dravida Desa and their descendant Apasthamba ,compiled the Apasthamba Sutra, combining the best of Vedic practices and Tamil Practices.

The Rig Veda Talks of Dasa and Dasyus.

‘Equating Dasyu with Manu is extremely significant. If Manu in this context were to represent the figurehead from whom all Arya descended, than this one statement, clearly seeks to differentiate origins of the Dasyu from the Arya. Since we know that Nahusa is a descendant of Manu and therefore the oft mentioned five tribes of Nahusa would also have descended from Manu, does this one statement then establish that the Dasyu, whoever else they may have been, were not people that belonged to the five tribes?

We have already seen above that the Dasa were a tribe and that they were “subdued” by the Arya. The question that remains to be answered is, were they one amongst the five tribes of Nahusa or distinct from the five tribes?

Verse RV 6.022.10 suggests that they were not one amongst the five tribes

RV 6.022.10
Give us confirmed prosperity, O Indra, vast and exhaustless for the foe’s subduing.
Strengthen therewith the Arya’s hate and Dasa’s, and let the arms of Nahusas be mighty.

Why would the “arms” of Nahusa become “mighty” if one of its own constituents were subdued? The only plausible explanation therefore is that the Dasa tribe was not one of the five tribes.

Reaffirmation that the Dasa were a tribe (viz) may be found in Mandala II – RV 2.011.04. Indeed, the suggestion is that the Dasa were a collection of tribes.

RV 6.011.04
We who add strength to thine own splendid vigour, laying within thine arms the splendid thunder-
With us mayst thou, O Indra, waxen splendid, with Surya overcome the Dasa races (viz).

Based on the evidence we have considered so far, it seems clear that the Dasa were a collection of tribes, distinct from the five tribes of Nahusa. While we can say for sure that the Dasyu were a people not part of the five tribes, whether they too were a distinct tribe or somehow related to the Dasa is not yet clear.’

Based on the present available evidence it may be stated that the Dasyu were not a part of the basic five tribes of the Rig Veda,

This could denote those who did not worship Agni, Fire, who were treated as Heretics.

This description fits the people of Dravida Desa, who did not worship Agni but Shiva.

This also confirms that the Shiva worship was in the South , they did not worship Fire,and were treated as outsiders by the Rig Veda.

But  other practices of the Vedas were followed by the Dravidas, Tharpana, Yagas and Yagnyas.

Sage Agasthya who composed Rig Vedic Hymns is credited, along with Lord Shiva, as the Founder of the Tamil Language.

“When we look at the Vedic Rishis, and their mantras, associations with later Siddha and Natha traditions, and their powers in the Epics such as Ramayana and Mahabharata, we begin to see how they are much like the Nathas and Siddhas of later times also.

Agastya for example, teaches Rama the Solar-King in the Ramayana text in the science of Brahmastra (the weapon chant). These astras are found everywhere in Vedic texts, especially in the texts such as Mahabharata, where the mentors of the Aryan cousins, Kauravas and Yadavas are taught these by Drona, Bhishma and Karna.

These arte part of the Vedic martial arts systems, which are traced back to Parshurama, historically, Rama Jamadagni, the son of Vedic Rishi Jamadagni of the Bhargava (Brighu) Seer family. Interestingly, in southern regions such as Kerala, he and his Vedic martial arts traditions are still honoured.

The Rig Vedic Maruts appear to have had this science, as per their description as Seer-warriors, as also the Dhanurvidya (martial science) is described as a Vedic science in the early Upanishads, such as Brihadaranyaka.

The Vedic Gods, such as the Ashwins, the founders of Ayurveda or Vedic Medical Science, are also portrayed like Siddha or Nathas of later times, with their mystical, almost yogic powers.

One verse of the Rig Veda (VII.67.5) asks the Ashwins to assist us in battle with their powers (shaktis) and actually refers to them as Shachipatis or Lords of the Shakti or Power.

The Shakti is the yogi’s power in later Hinduism, and here seeing it appearing as a feminine term also shows it’s importance in relation to the Vedic Gods, and the siddhis (mystical yogic powers), since the Ashwins perform many feats through it.

They make cripples walk (I.117.19) and the blind to see (VIII.68.2), and put together the body of the Seer Shyava that was sliced in three (II.118.24)
and restore the head of Seer Dadhyak’s with that of a horse (I.117.24), in the Rig Veda.

The Queen, Vispala is given a golden left by the Ashwins, after hers is cut off in battle (RV.I.118.8). She is then able to fight again.’

Tamil On Vedas.

அறு வகைப் பட்ட பார்ப்பனப் பக்கமும்
ஐ வகை மரபின் அரசர் பக்கமும்
இரு மூன்று மரபின் ஏனோர் பக்கமும்
மறு இல் செய்தி மூ வகைக் காலமும்
நெறியின் ஆற்றிய அறிவன் தேயமும்
நால் இரு வழக்கின் தாபதப் பக்கமும்
பால் அறி மரபின் பொருநர்கண்ணும்
அனை நிலை வகையொடு ஆங்கு எழு வகையான்
தொகை நிலைபெற்றது என்மனார் புலவர்.   — Tolkkappiyam 2.16

The Dweeling Place of the Brahmins in the south, Agrahara is described in the  Perumpaanatupadai, a Sangam work, which is dated around 3000 years ago.

This is from Tholkaapiyam ,the earliest Tamil work, dated around 3000-5000 Years back.

This could be older.

This poem describes the Brahmin presence in Tamil Nadu, then Dravida Desa.

Tamil Grammar assigns Gods for each of the five landmass, Kurinji, Marutham,Mullai, Neydhal and Palai.

Vedic Gods in Tholkaapiyam.jpg
Vedic Gods in Tholkaapiyam.

I shall be writing on how Ramayana , Mahabharata quote Tamil and how Tamils quote them.


5 thoughts on “How Vedas Sanatana Dharma Tamil Quote Each Other

  1. the dialogue is clear n fact ,FIRANGI or BRITTANIYA dynasty self called LORD uff ,this is the JOKE or demolish our SANATAN DHARMA in this time you are collect this concrete Sree Ramana sahab ,great n fantastic PAT TA-PATTA, BOO TA-BOOTA hall hamara jane hai ,na jane to bus wo jo hum!!!! VATAN ke rehbar hai ( SECULAR S )


  2. i wonder why VEDIC HYMNS containing ARYA DASYU/DASA WAR DASARNA WAR much given historical importance? How long INDIANS ARE GETTING FOOLED BY MAXMULER’S TREATISE O N SAYANA VEDA BASHYAM AND CALDWELL’S DRAVIDIAN THEORY? I am a TAMIL SPEAKING BRAHMIN BELONGING TO KAUSHIKA GOTHRA. Formerly I was also under the impression of BRAHMA RISHIS. But it is mischievous. Even as per Ramayana SAGE KUSHIKA the progenitor KAUSHIKA was MANASA PUTRA OF BRAHMA. However as per Ramayana GADHI A SCION OF KAUSHIKA FAMILY gave up PUROHIT DUTIES AND BECAME A RAJANYA. Now the question is the term BRAHMARISHI SIGNIFIES ONLY THE IMMEDIATE PREDECESSOR AND NOT THE ORIGINATOR? Similarly VASHISTA as PER BHAGAVATHAM AND MAHABHARATHA were not of ORIGIN FROM BRAHMA. Now let us come to DEVI MAHATMAYAMAND SHIVA PURANA. As per DEVI MAHATMAYAM SAGE KATHA was the son of KAUSHIKA and he had two siblings–KAUSHIKI who became a river and KHADHI who became a king. Sage KAT was another descendent of SAGE KATHYAYANA and AMBAL was born as a daughter–KATHYAYINI and upto fifty years ago there was a sub sect among TAMIL BRAHMINS known as VEEZHIYAS remaining in and around TIRUVEEZHIMIZHALAI practising KATYAYANA SUTRA. Further as per SAIVA AGMAS KAUSHIKA GOTHRA IS ONE OF THE FIVE GOTHRAS(Representing FIVE FACES OF LORD SHIVA) WHICH ARE ALONE ELIGIBLE FOR STATUS OF SIVACHARYAS. Thus the question how can the descendents of KUSHIKA MANASA PUTRA OF BRAHMA can be considered as KSHATRIYAS? Please stop completely relying on BHAGAVATHAM/MAHABHARATHA AND RIG VEDIC HYMNS. Let us look ar RIG VEDIC HYMNS GLORIFYING INDRA bereft of SAYNA-MAXMULER DUO.Any group not possessing weaponry will always look for a strongman-that group need not be ethnic. For example in AFRICAN SOCIETIES THE ARTISAN GROUP NEVER ASPIRED FOR KINGSHIP which always rest with AGRICULTURAL GROUP. Viewed in this angle RIG VEDIC HYMNS represented HYMNS FORMULATED BY PRIESTS FOR ARTISAN GROUPS. The RIGVEDIC HYMNS MAY EVEN REPRESENT GAZNI’S BATTLE WITH TEN GROUPS. Lastly why are you omitting PERSIA? The Arya/Dasa war ws more pronounced in IRAN rather than in India. I have written numerous rejoineders to you with regard to the word DRAVIDA-which is completely bsent in RAMAYANA AND TAMIL SOURCES UPTO BUDDHIST ENTERING TAMILNADU AND FORMATION OF JAIN SANGHA –DRAVIDA appeared in Tamilnadu only during fourth century AD. DR.CALDWELL AND HIS STOOGES WANTONLY MISLED THE HISTORICAL COMMUNITY BY REFERRING IT AS DAMELA FOUND IN SRILANKAN INSCRIPTIONS which referred only ANDHRA–KRISHNA/GODAVARI BASIN. Rest of India never recognized TAMIL AS A SEPARATE LANGUAGE and DRAVIDA REPRESENTED ONLY KRISHNA GODAVARI BASIN. Even Kumarila Bhatta refers only DRAVIDA ANDHRA BHASHA and DANDI a native of KANCHIPURAM never refers PALLAVAS but identify them with DRAVIDAS. Even Sri APPAIYAB DISHITAR hailed only ANDHRA AS TRILINGA DESHA and never refers famous shrines of TAMILNADU. LASTLY GANGADEVI IN MADURA VIJAYAM REFERS NOT CHIDAMBARM AS REFERRED IN INSCRIPTIONS BUT VYAGRAPURI. It is the practice of the people to refer places only where their ethnic brethren live and hence in the whole of India only Andhra and Karnataka refer places in Tamilnadu since these people from SATAVAHANAS period had fortified settlements known as VELAM(VALLAM IN TAMIL) throughout TAMILNADU. Lastly the present TAMILAGAM appeared only after FIRST CENTURY AD and upto FIRST CENTURY AD EARLY TAMIL KINGDOMS EXISTED IN PLACES FROM SHOLAPUR TO KORKAI AND WESTERN PART OF SRILANKA. I humbly request you not to view TAMILNADU from BANISHED SONS OF VISWAMITHRA since as a person from KAUSHIKA GOTHRA AND HAVING TAMIL AS MOTHER TONGUE IT HURTS ME

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for your comments.That Viswamitra bandished his sons is a fact.Refer PT Srinivasa Iengar’s History of Tamils.Kindly await my posts on Pre Sanatana Dharma, Shiva in Dravida where I shall be writing on the Southern Sanatna Dharma predates the one on the North and Shiva is a pre Sanatana Dharma Deity.My blogs are expressions of my journey through the Ancient India and as I explore more details are emerging, as our History has been distorted by the British and it takes time to find out the Truth.Regds

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s