The author of the book “Arctic Home in the Vedas” is known in India only for his patriotism and not for his views in this book or in the other book, ‘The Orion’ in which he had misinterpreted the notion of Equinox of the Hindu astrological texts. The reason for the non-popularity of these books is just that they are not true. I am constrained to say that a book written 100 years ago, under the influence of Aryan invasion theory promoted by the likes of Max Muller has found a rebirth in this blog. The book and its contents are redundant and carry no value in the light of many new inventions that reassert the original history as told by Ramayana and Mahabharata.
I will write the scriptural views on the issues in a question- answer form.
- Where did the Devas live?
- Does it not mean that Devas – the people who inhabited the North pole once, were the custodians and originators of Vedas? Does this not mean that Vedas came from the North pole?
- Were Devas, Aryans?
This dance is called as “Arya-k-kooththu” (Arya dance) because this is similar to Aryan nature of balancing oneself in spite of any distraction and yet doing one’s duty. This is expressed in a proverb in Tamil “Arya-k-kooththaadinaalum, aariyaththil kaN” (concentrate on the work at hand even if you do Aryan dance). This concentration on work without any disturbance of mind is Krishna’s ultimate teaching in Bhagavad Gita. Viewed in this perspective, we can even call Gita as Aryan literature. No other work is dedicated to this Aryan-ness as Gita does.
This Aryan-ness of balance of mind is expressed by Thirukkural, a famous literary work in Tamil. The corresponding Tamil word for Arya is “Saandron” which is explained in Thirukkural in 10 verses, all dealing with the above described Aryan qualities. The same qualities are found applicable to Tamil kings in Sangam literature.
- Then who is a Dravida?
Dravida is explained in n Manu smrithi, as one belonging to the 7th generation in the lineage of Kshatriyas (warrior) who have given up their interest in warrior tendencies. A Kshatriya (one having warrior tendency) is one who has the urge to fight, harm others in the course of which is ready to harm oneself and bear physical injuries. The person having this tendency by nature is a Kshatriya and will be fit to join army or in the protection of people or land. If for some reason a person is not showing these tendencies either by nature or due to renouncing the job which he is expected to do, it is said his off-spring also will not show up such a tendency to the fullest extent. If he too gives up warrior-hood, his off-spring would show much less interest and capability in warring instincts. Like this, the tendency gets depleted in 7 generations. People of the 7th generation of that lineage was called Dravida.
The names of 7 generations are,
The verse from Manu smruthi is
“ From a Vratya (of the) Kshatriya (caste), the Ghalla, the Malla, the Likkhivi, the Nata, the Karana, the Khasa, and the Dravida.” (10-22)
Once a person becomes a Dravida, he ceases to be a warrior. His off springs also will be called as Dravida. But a Dravida can become a warrior and become Kshatriya again. Such a migration was possible in the system because, these classifications were done on the basis of one’s nature depending on which one contributed to the society through a job that was suitable for his nature. That is why we find a Dravida Raja (king) by name Indrani Gupta. He wrote a famous Sanskrit play Mricchakatika. This shows that though one becomes a Dravida owing to giving up warrior hood for generations, one can show his warrior tendencies and become a ruler of a country.
Dravida – a Sanskrit term – can be interpreted in 2 ways. It could mean one who has run away (run away from the duty of protection of the country). It could also mean that which runs – meaning water or the one who knows the passage of water. The Dravida mentioned in the 11th century Kashmiri work called Raja Tarangini was one who knew the underground water routes.
The earliest Dravida king was none other than Vaivasvatha Manu who escaped a flood and entered the Saraswathy. The sages who accompanied him were largely responsible for the Vedic culture in India. They gave the Rik Vedas.
Vaivasvatha Manu is called as Dravideswara, (the lord of land of Dravida) in none other than a sacred book of Hindus (Aryans) called Srimad Bhagavatham ( 9-1,2 & 3). So Dravidas were not alien to or hated by “Aryans”. What makes one an Arya is different from what makes one a Dravida. A Dravida can be an Arya and an Arya can be a Dravida (from the above descriptions of Hindu texts)!!
The land of Dravida (of Dravideswara Manu) is identified in south west India by Varahamihira in his book Brihad samhita.
The regions of land and sea coming in the South west within the orange coloured box in the above pic is the region where Dravida is identified along with other regions of the South west by Varaha mihira.
Baed on his data, I have zeroed in on this and identified Dravida within curved region as shown below.
This fits in the inundation map of Graham Hancock that shows the early places to have sunk after the end of Ica age.
In the picture below, Manu and others have escaped the floods and entered through the Sarasvathy river into North Indian main land. The entry point was Dwaraka (now submerged) which literally means Door way.
Now the question of Dravida language.
Manu spoke early Tamil. Because he and his people were a branch that came from Deep South and settled in locations in Arabian sea during the Ice age.
(The movement of man starting from East Africa. Many groups entered India (black arrows). One group that went through the Arabian sea entered through Sarasvathy and spread all over India. These are shown as red arrow marks in the above pic. There is a possibility of another branch entering through the Persian Gulf and to Middle east. )
All these will take many articles to cover – which is what I am doing in my Tamil blog. So I am going ahead with saying that a people of same culture and language, settled in the above mentioned Dravida and entered North India about 13,000 years ago. People may call their language as Proto Tamil, but there is a word in Tamil literature for it as – ‘kodum Tamil’. It is non- grammatical Tamil. That is why we find remnants of it in many places near Sarasvathy river (eg - Brahui)
Grammatical Tamil was formed around 11,000 years ago in Pandyan kingdom in deep South and spread to today’s Tamilnadu. At that time people of rest of India were also speaking Tamil (kodum Tamil) a corrupt and old form of Tamil. One strong reason back up this claim, is that the so-called Indo-Aryan north Indian languages such as Hindi and Marati were formed from an olden language called ‘Apabrahmsa’. Apabrahmsa was the language spoken by Abhiras and others who were settled in Sarasvathy region but given up Vedic life. When a person gives up Vedic life, it means he ceases to learn Sanskrit. He is left with only his language of daily life. The Abhiras started solely speaking this daily language which came to be called as Apabrahmsa. (The Dravida king mentioned above by name Indrani Gupta was a Abhira.)
The interesting news is that Apabrahmsa has 70% words belonging to Tamil. These are corrupt or un grammatical forms of Tamil! Hindi got developed from this Apabrahmsa about 1000 years ago!
Another information that linguistic researchers give us is that even Marathi, the language of Maharashtra has 70 % of Apabrahmsa thereby making it take up words that were originally Tamil! All the North Indian languages with variation in Hindi, thus has Tamil connection.
It is therefore not right to say that only the South Indian languages belong to a same group. Even the North Indian languages looked similar to Tamil about 1000 – 2000 years ago as they were developed from Tamil. This means all the researches linking North Indian languages in to a separate language class is flawed. This also shows why and how the Tamil impression is present in languages of Northwest India and in Middle east too.
--For my own part, please allow me to reaffirm that I was not saying the same thing as the author of this book The Arctic Origin of the Vedas had said, I was not using the word "Aryan" to mean the language of the people that came from the arctic, I was saying that some of the stories from this arctic region had come down South to India together with "Uralic" linguistic elements which in turn were incorporated into the languages the Anthropologists call Dravidian and Jayasee calls Tamil. I understood the term Dravidian as used by the Anthropologists to be synonymous with Tamil.
My point was especially that In order to even know what the conditions were at Polar locations, some people had to have come from a polar location to India with the description. This is not a matter which Jayasree has discounted, which might seem be the interpretation of his text above. These conditions were described in the book in question, by the famous Indian patriot, and they included specifications about the way the constellations were set in the sky and how they moved; and many descriptions of ice, snow, and Northern weather conditions. These things could not have been learned or guessed in India. Yes, there was the Political problem in his use of the term "Aryan" in the way he did, but I am not concerned with that part-I am more concerned with the descriptions of physical conditions.
Best Wishes, Dale D.