Re: A disturbing aspect of Tamil history

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:33 pm

Ignore the aryan vs Dravidian nonsense and focus on the essence of this post with respect the writings of Sampandar:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meykandar/message/770

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:Ignore the aryan vs Dravidian nonsense and focus on the essence of this post with respect the writings of Sampandar:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meykandar/message/770

it has some garbage characters showing up. is there a verse # from the thirumurai?

by rawemotions Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:38 pm

bw wrote:rashmun strikes gold after a period of lull.

max falls hook, line and sinker.

Since it is ancient India, we should focus on the King.
Using the argument of Apologists for Islamic terrorism (persecution).
the record shows that, the King also gave contributions to Jain Temples during his lifetime.

Thus this king was the most "secular" of all Kings in India. Case Closed.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:40 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Ignore the aryan vs Dravidian nonsense and focus on the essence of this post with respect the writings of Sampandar:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meykandar/message/770

it has some garbage characters showing up. is there a verse # from the thirumurai?

Not that I can see. The essence of the post w.r.t. Sampandar is this:

Dr.Loganathan then started criticizing me and told me to give my view on this issue. So I responded and established that the term ‘karpazhippu’ refers to ‘rape’ alone giving clear internal evidences as follows:
"While responding to this issue you (Dr.Loganathan) have quoted three songs in which the third is the focus of our discussion. However, it is important to look at the context of this song and I thank you for publishing the earlier two songs. The two songs that occur before this song clearly explain the reason and context for the occurence of the word 'Karpazhippu'.

In the first song Sampanthar sings, the Jains who are not performing Yajna (Vedic sacrifice) should be defeated in the argument

and in the second song he sings, the Jains should be massacred («Æ¢ì¸)

and in the third song he sings that the Jains should be raped.

by Rishi Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:47 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rishi wrote:http://www.jainworld.com/society/jainevents/GJE2003/a%20word%20about%20samanatham.htm

the claim here is that he wrote verses encouraging the raping of jain women. where in the thirumurai does that verse occur?

I have no idea whether the claim made by S. Anand that Sambandar advocated the rape of Jain women is true or not. Rashmun seems to believe that.

However it looks like Sambandar encouraged the persecution of Jains and thus helped to totally wipe off Jainism from TN. If you think Sambandar did not do that, please present your case.

by Rishi Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:53 pm

Rashmun,

To be fair, you must seek some Tamil scholars who have read Sambandar's works and get the exact verse number and post it here.

It is a serious charge S. Anand made.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:59 pm

Rishi wrote:Rashmun,

To be fair, you must seek some Tamil scholars who have read Sambandar's works and get the exact verse number and post it here.

It is a serious charge S. Anand made.

I'll try.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:37 pm

there definitely was bad blood between tamil kings who were saivite and jaina monks. sambandar is said to have converted the pandya king nedumaran to saivism, but what is being charged here is a direct role in jain pogroms. that i am not sure of and i certainly don't believe this claptrap about encouraging rape.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:45 pm

It is interesting to note that the king who is said to have carried out the execution of 8,000 Jain monks as well as his queen and minister who were all involved in this action are all considered part of the 63 Nayanars along with Sambandam.

If Sambandam did have a hand in the killings, as is alleged, he may have paid a price for his thuggery. He died at a young age. It is said he was burnt alive in his sleep. One wonders whether some disgruntled jain(s) were responsible for this.

by rawemotions Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:54 pm

Rishi wrote:http://www.jainworld.com/society/jainevents/GJE2003/a%20word%20about%20samanatham.htm

Beware! My McAfee siteadvisor says this is a Dangerous site. It is possible that the site hosts themselves do not know that umpteen programs get loaded on your machine if you visit this site.

For example dictionary.com is the worst offender in this regard. If you visit their site, 200 different programs load cookies on to your computer and send info about your search /web access details to themselves without your knowledge.

by Guest Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:37 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:there definitely was bad blood between tamil kings who were saivite and jaina monks. sambandar is said to have converted the pandya king nedumaran to saivism, but what is being charged here is a direct role in jain pogroms. that i am not sure of and i certainly don't believe this claptrap about encouraging rape.

i believe the verses being attributed to Sambandar are actually existent. There is no reason why Outlook, a national magazine, would publish a blatant lie and discredit itself. Besides, these verses are alluded to in numerous online discussions.Two possibilities arise:
1. Sambandar wrote beautiful moving verses but he also had a vicious streak in him. And he had a special dislike/hatred for Jains.
2. Some other tamilian wrote these anti-Jain verses and these were padded on to the writings of Sambandar and it was made to appear (after Sambandar's death) that Sambandar had written these verses so as to give these verses greater prominence.

by Seva Lamberdar Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:14 pm

As I indicated yesterday on your other post on Tamil Hindus (Saivites) killing Jains long ago (https://such.forumotion.com/t11379-the-massacre-at-madurai ... https://such.forumotion.com/t11379-the-massacre-at-madurai), there is no truth to this.

I am reposting here in the following my first response from yesterday (you can check out my subsequent responses during the above discussion / thread yourself).

"There probably was no killing of 8000 Jains or Jain priests in Madurai (south India) by Koon-Pandiyan or any other Saivite (king or anyone else) during 7th century AD.

"Around that era, and even until 1000 AD, there were frequent intermarriages between Jains and Hindus in north India. Moreover, the Jain women who married Hindu men were usually allowed to keep their religion after marriage. If there had been much animosity between Hindus and Jains during that era, especially the killing of a large number of Jain priests by a Hindu / Saivite king in SI, it would have spilled into north India in terms of tension or violence between Jains and Hindus. Peaceful co-existence between Hindus and Jains in north India, especially the intermarriages between Jains and Hindus, would not take place in such tense atmosphere.

"This indicates that the story of massacre of 8000 Jain priests in Madurai, even if existing in some texts, is probably not true and might be a later creation / addition. Personally, I doubt there were that many (8000) Jain priests in Madurai at that time to start with. Moreover, since this story exists in some Hindu / Saivite texts and not the texts of Jains (who supposedly were the victims and would not miss the opportunity to record such a huge loss / massacre of their own) is another indication that this story is not true.

"Perhaps this fictional story was created and planted by some Saivite (Hindu) priests in their own texts in an effort to discourage their flock (ordinary Saivites) from getting into close relations with Jains (including inter-marriages) and switching religious allegiances."

by Guest Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:17 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:As I indicated yesterday on your other post on Tamil Hindus (Saivites) killing Jains long ago (https://such.forumotion.com/t11379-the-massacre-at-madurai ... https://such.forumotion.com/t11379-the-massacre-at-madurai), there is no truth to this.

I am reposting here in the following my first response from yesterday (you can check out my subsequent responses during the above discussion / thread yourself).

"There probably was no killing of 8000 Jains or Jain priests in Madurai (south India) by Koon-Pandiyan or any other Saivite (king or anyone else) during 7th century AD.

"Around that era, and even until 1000 AD, there were frequent intermarriages between Jains and Hindus in north India. Moreover, the Jain women who married Hindu men were usually allowed to keep their religion after marriage. If there had been much animosity between Hindus and Jains during that era, especially the killing of a large number of Jain priests by a Hindu / Saivite king in SI, it would have spilled into north India in terms of tension or violence between Jains and Hindus. Peaceful co-existence between Hindus and Jains in north India, especially the intermarriages between Jains and Hindus, would not take place in such tense atmosphere.

"This indicates that the story of massacre of 8000 Jain priests in Madurai, even if existing in some texts, is probably not true and might be a later creation / addition. Personally, I doubt there were that many (8000) Jain priests in Madurai at that time to start with. Moreover, since this story exists in some Hindu / Saivite texts and not the texts of Jains (who supposedly were the victims and would not miss the opportunity to record such a huge loss / massacre of their own) is another indication that this story is not true.

"Perhaps this fictional story was created and planted by some Saivite (Hindu) priests in their own texts in an effort to discourage their flock (ordinary Saivites) from getting into close relations with Jains (including inter-marriages) and switching religious allegiances."

But Max was questioning the authenticity of the verses of Sambandar in which he talks of massacring the jains and of raping jain women. I was trying to explain the reason for the occurrence of these verses attributed to Sambandar in my previous post.

by Seva Lamberdar Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:31 pm

"But Max was questioning the authenticity of the verses of Sambandar in which he talks of massacring the jains and of raping jain women. I was trying to explain the reason for the occurrence of these verses attributed to Sambandar in my previous post." Rashmun

>>> May be the guy was just "bragging" about it without any truth and facts in it. Or, perhaps someone else used this guy's name to write all this nonsense, like someone else wrote the Manusmriti using famous Vedic sage Manu's name after Manu had been dead for a long time. Here is waht I added on this topic on your other thread (on Madurai).
"This probably was just a wishful thinking on the part of some Saivites (priests probably) to impress their own folks in that region by using such fake stories to show their "elusive" political power. I have heard other similar stories.

"In one story, when Mohamed Ghazani (1000 yrs. ago) attacked a Hindu temple to destroy it, the wasps appeared from the walls of the temple and attacked M. Gazani's soldiers making them run away.
In another story, Prithvi Raj Chauhan (who supposedly had been blinded and held prisoner by Mohammed Gauri) one day heard the voice of Mohammed Gauri, shot an arrow in the direction of the voice while still in captivity and killed Mohammed Gauri.

"Even the proclamation in the Manusmriti that any shudra trying to read the Veda would have molten lead poured in his ears is quite fake. Many shudras (Valmiki and Satyakame for example) had been reading the Veda for a long time. Moreover, most of the people in society (including brahmins and shudras) avoided reading the Veda, because it was a very lengthy and tedious effort without significant advantage later (as also indicated in Macaulay's report -- https://such.forumotion.com/t9108-caste-based-quotas-in-the-light-of-macaulay-s-report)."

by Guest Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:49 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"But Max was questioning the authenticity of the verses of Sambandar in which he talks of massacring the jains and of raping jain women. I was trying to explain the reason for the occurrence of these verses attributed to Sambandar in my previous post." Rashmun

>>> May be the guy was just "bragging" about it without any truth and facts in it. Or, perhaps someone else used this guy's name to write all this nonsense, like someone else wrote the Manusmriti using famous Vedic sage Manu's name after Manu had been dead for a long time. Here is waht I added on this topic on your other thread (on Madurai).
"This probably was just a wishful thinking on the part of some Saivites (priests probably) to impress their own folks in that region by using such fake stories to show their "elusive" political power. I have heard other similar stories.

"In one story, when Mohamed Ghazani (1000 yrs. ago) attacked a Hindu temple to destroy it, the wasps appeared from the walls of the temple and attacked M. Gazani's soldiers making them run away.
In another story, Prithvi Raj Chauhan (who supposedly had been blinded and held prisoner by Mohammed Gauri) one day heard the voice of Mohammed Gauri, shot an arrow in the direction of the voice while still in captivity and killed Mohammed Gauri.

"Even the proclamation in the Manusmriti that any shudra trying to read the Veda would have molten lead poured in his ears is quite fake. Many shudras (Valmiki and Satyakame for example) had been reading the Veda for a long time. Moreover, most of the people in society (including brahmins and shudras) avoided reading the Veda, because it was a very lengthy and tedious effort without significant advantage later (as also indicated in Macaulay's report -- https://such.forumotion.com/t9108-caste-based-quotas-in-the-light-of-macaulay-s-report)."

But Adi Sankara refers to this verse (molten lead to be poured into the ears of sudras, and other such punishments for those sudras who dare to study the Vedas) in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra. Your comments?

by Guest Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:55 pm

On another note, Seva, could you please give the link to your blog where you compare and contrast hindi with tamil.

by Sponsored content