Let us continue seeing how tamil languages date is taken to antiquity
Date of Tholkappiam
The dating of the earliest tamil grammatical work Tholkappiam has been debated much and it is still imprecise and uncertain and has seen wide disagreements amongst scholars in the field. It has been dated variously between 8000 BCE and 10th CE.
While most of the antediluvian datings which stem mostly from a descriptive commentary in an 12th century work called Iraiyanar AgapporuL, about the existence of three Tamil Academies, which have been rejected as being devoid of any evidence, the genuine disagreements now center around widely divergent dates lying between the 3rd BC and 10th AD. As the Tolkappiyam is often claimed as the earliest extant work of Tamil literature, the dating of Tolkappiyam is inherently tied to the dates ascribed to the birth and development of Tamil literature as a whole.
Viyapuri Pillai, the author of the Tamil lexicon and towering figure in the field dated Tolkappiyam to not earlier than the 5-6th CE.
Kamil V. Zvelebil, a Czech indologist specialised in the Dravidian languages, dates the core of Tolkappiyam to pre-Christian era.
Robert Cladwell, a 19th century linguist who, for the first time, categorised all Dravidian languages as one language family, maintains that all extant Tamil literature can only be dated to what he calls the Jaina cycle which he dates to the 8th-9th CE to 12-13th CE.
Dr.B.G.L Swamy, a renowned botanist by profession and an acknowledged historian in his own right, contends that the Tolkappiyam cannot to be dated to anything earlier than the 10th CE.
Takahashi Takanobu, a Japanese Indologist, argues that the Tolkappiyam has several layers with the oldest dating to 1st-2nd CE, and the newest and the final redaction dating to 5th-6th centuries CE.
T.R. Sesha Iyengar, an eminent scholar and expert on Dravidian literature and history, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to have been composed 'before the Christian era'.
Dr. Gift Siromoney, an expert on ancient languages and epigraphy, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to be around the period of Ashoka(c 300 BCE)
V. S. Rajam, a linguist specialised in Old Tamil, in her book A reference grammar of classical Tamil poetry: 150 B.C.-pre-fifth/sixth century A.D. dates it to "pre-fifth century AD".
Herman Tieken, a Dutch author, who endeavours to trace the influence of the Sanskrit Kavya tradition on the entire Sangam corpus, argues that the Tolkappiyam dates from the 9th century CE in his book, "Kāvya in South India : old Tamil Caṅkam poetry". He arrives at this result by reassigning new dates to the traditionally accepted dates for a vast section of divergent literature.
A C Burnell, a renowned indologist of the nineteenth century who has contributed seminally to the study of Dravidian languages dates the Tolk., to the 8th CE in his book.
Iravatham Mahadevan an Indian epigraphist, in his work on epigraphy published in 2003, advances a theory where he claims that Tolkappiyam could not have been written before 2nd CE.
Tholkoppiam quotes poruladhikaramsutra , a horary astrologer of 400AD.
You may say Holy God. Why such a variation. But this is the nature of dating tamil literature. People come with dates usually the oldest based on flimsy assumptions.
Pulli theory
One of the dating methods used is the use of alphabets to determine the date. As tholkappiam talks about alphabets. Pulli theory is one of the such. The pulli is being talked about in tholkappiam ,it is a point on top of the alphabet as against the brahmi pulli which is on side. Since there is no evidence of such pulli in any inscriptions before 7th century AD, The tholkappiam is said to belong to later than 7th century AD.
Influence of Sanskrit
Influence of Sanskrit grammarians See also: Aindra school of grammar Tolkāppiyam is claimed to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school. The preface of Ilampuranar's twelfth century commentary of the Tolkappiyam, describes it as aindiram nirainda ('comprising aindra'). This annotation was interpreted by Arthur Coke Burnell as alluding to the pre-Paninian Aindra school of Sanskrit grammar mentioned in the Ashtadhyayi. To investigate his hunch, Burnell compared the Tolkappiyam with the non Paninian Katyantra grammar and concluded that the Tolkappiyam indeed exhibited a strong influence of the non Paninian school of grammar. However, this claim has also been met with skepticism from recent researchers. The issue of the Aindra school notwithstanding, the grammar expounded by the Tolkappiyam owes a great deal to Sanskrit. The influence of various Sanskrit works like Manavadharmashastra, Arthashastra, Natyashastra and grammarians like Panini and Patanjali is evident in the Tolkappiyam. Parts of the Collathikaram are, for instance, almost a direct translation of the Sanskrit texts. The eight feelings mentioned in the Porulathikaram seem to be heavily inspired by the eight rasas or the rasa theory of the Natyashastra.
If you see the various arguments you will find that date cannot be before 8th century AD forget about before christian era.
From : N.Shankarappa Toranagallu
ReplyDeletePart-1 :
Below are the excerpts from my recently released book titled “Tamilagam-Sangam : Eshtu Praceena ? in Kannada.
The date of Tolakappiam has been seen from comparative and language development basis. This analysis indicates later date for Tolkappiam.
# The name of the grammer work called ‘Tolkappiam’ appears for the first time in Nakkirar’s (800-1000 C.E) commentary on ‘Iraiyanar Ahapporul. In this book elobarate myth regarding Tamil Sangams appear for the first time and includes Tolkappiam as the work of second sangam.
# Prakrit and Sanskrit have set a tradition in presenting the technical subjects such as grammer , prosody , mathematics, astronomy , dictionary etc., since from beginning . This tradition includes (1) Phonetic description and alphabetical arrangement (2) Adoptation of Sutra style presentation (3) Conventions of Tantra Ukti resembnling mnemonic sutras (4) Book writing techniques such as manuals , abridgements , digests etc., (5) Employment of technical vocabulary (6) Methodological theoretical approaches (7) preparation of accessories for understanding such as koshas , dictionaries , commentaries etc.,
Tolkappiam and its commentaries adopt the above tradition completely. Katantra grammer of Sanskrit by Sharvavarma ( 200 C.E ) adopts arrangement of subject by ‘Heading’. Tolkappiam has followed this technique. Nagavarma (1042 C.E) who wrote first grammer in Kannada in ‘Shabdhasmruti’ chapter of his ‘Kavyaavalokana’ has followed Katantra school of grammer. He proudly calls himself as ‘Abhinava Sharvavarma ( Modern Sharvavarma) . This indicates that during 1000-1200 C.E Katantra was popular in South India and was followed in construction of native grammers .
# Nacchinarkkiniyar (1400-1500 C.E) the commentator on Tolkappiam informs that the literary works were presented in the court of Pandyas for approval. On this basis Kamil Zvelebil asserts that Agattiyam and Tolkappiam might have got such approval. But no where in Tolkappiam such possibility is indicated neither explicitely nor implicitely. It is very strange that Tolkappiam maintains silence about its approval , approving committee , the court which approved etc., KavirajaMarga which is equivalent to Tolkappiam in Kannada clearly says ‘Nrupatungadevatanumatamappa i.e., As per the approval of Nrupatunga Deva’
# Between 1100-1800 , in a span of 700 years seven commentaries have appeared on Tolkappiam. They are :
(1) Ilamapuranar (1100-1200 C.E) commentary on all Adigarams
(2) Perashiyar (1200-1300 C.E) commentary on Solladigaram
(3) Senavaraiyar (1200-1300 C.E) commentary on Poruladigaram
(4) Nacchinarkkiniyar (1400-1500 C.E) commentary on all Adigarams
(5) Teyvyashillaiyar (1600 C.E) commentary on Solladigaram
(6) Kalladanar (1600-1700 C.E) commentary on Solladigaram
( 7) Anonymus (1700-1800 C.E) commentary on Solladigaram
# Whenever Tolkappiam is taken to Sangam or Pre sangam period the doubt arises that why such a great work was not referred even once in the entire Sangam literature of 33000 lines or why until Nakkirar know body gave any scant reference to existence of it.
# The first five commentaries on Tolkappiam appears between 1100-1400 C.E. A.C Burnell and B.G.L Swamy considers this as the strong proof that Tolkappiam is 100-200 years older than these commentaries.
From : N.Shankarappa Toranagallu
ReplyDeletePart-2 :
# Developement of a language can be assessed through erudite works in that language such as Grammer ,Prosody ,Dictionary etc., Refer Tables 1 to 6 which give the first appearance of such literature in Indian Languages which are considered ancient. In all languages except Tamil , the time gap between the first grammer and first commentary on it is 200-300 years. Whereas in Tamil it is thousands of years. Except Tolkappiam no other erudite work in Tamil is ancient than Kannada. The Tables clearly show continuous and proper flow of various grammatical works in Sanskrit, Prakrit, Kannada and Telugu. But in case of Tamil the time gap between Tolkappiam and next grammatical work ‘Viracholiyam (1100 C.E) there is a time gap of 1300 years . This time gap is artificial and purposely maintained to push back the date of Tolkappiam by thousands of years.
# Grammatical works in a language appear to explain and maintain the language
whenever the old forms of a language are undergoing drastic changes/ are becoming extinct , the regional variations in a language are imminent due to contact with other languages . Tolkappiam has been written after the classification of Sangam Literature and the period in which severe contact with Sanskrit and its influence over Tamil has been established. The first Malayalam grammatical work ‘Lilatilakam ‘ emerged under the same conditions & supports this view.
# From history of Karnataka , it is well established that there is gradually increasing pride among southern states regarding their language and state. From Kadambas to Chalukyas to Rashtrakutas to Hoysals this pride is enhanced along with development in literature and political power. In this context Kavirajamarga the first erudite work in Kannada declares Karnataka as ‘Kaveriyim Godavarivaramirpa nadu ( The land between Kaveri & Godavari) . In the same tone Tolkappiyam declares ‘Vada vengada tena kumari ayidai Tamil kuram nal ulagattu ( The sweet land of Tamils between Vengada at the north and Kanyakumari at the south). Both of these authors belong to the same period and pressurized by the emerging regional nationalities called Kannada and Tamil . Hence the pride for Tamil and Tamilagam not found in Sangam literature is vibrant and evident in Tolkappiam.
From : N.Shankarappa Toranagallu
ReplyDeletePart-3 :
# Tolkappiam speaks about the iyacchol region of pure Tamil called sendamil and tishaisol of colloquial Tamil. Commentators of Tolkappiam Nacchinarkkiniyar and Senavaraiyar describe the region around Madurai as fostering pure sendamil , and regions beyond that colloquial Tamil called Koduntamil. Tolkappiam explains the methods to Tamilise the nonTamil/Sanskrit words and vocabulary. George Hart , kamil Zvelebil and hundreds of other Tamil Pundits have argued that the effect of Sanskrit on Sangam literature is negligible and almost absent. By Sangam literature it is almost clear that there was no regional variations in Tamil. The regional variations of Tamil, influence of Sanskrit on Tamil as depicted in Tolkappiam are of later period. It has been established that upto 5 th century the Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions are highly influenced and are almost Prakritic in nature. But Tolkappiam is unaware of this great influence of Prakrit on Tamil. This indicates the later date for Tolkappiam. Like Tolkappiam . KavirajaMarga also talks about regional variations in Kannada and further wonders whether these variations can be understood by Vasugi of thousand tongues.
# The period of Tolkappiam can be seen from other linguistic angles also. As the languages evolve the variety in literature will appear. Due to this the vocabulary of the language increases , the meaning of the words change. The changes in colloquial , written and elite forms will become more demarked. The words from other languages will find place. This situation demands the specific methodologies to borrow foreign words and construction of dictionaries. This transition period is same for Tamil and Kannada as indicated by the first appearance of Dictionaries, prosodies and other erudite works. If otherwise date of Tolkappiam is dragged to antiquity , the great time gap of thousands of years between various works is unexplainable.
From : N.Shankarappa Toranagallu
ReplyDeletePart-4 :
From the Tables 1-6 it can be noticed that in all ancient languages the erudite works have emerged in homogeneous and continuous manner. In Tamil ,except Tolkappiam other works follow this pattern. This fact establishes the fact that it belongs to 900-1000 C.E
(From 1.0 C.E , the Samskrit started to replace Prakrit in writing . Due to Regional Variations in Prakrit there was confusion that which variety of it has to be considered as stabdard for erudite works. This gave great edge to Sanskrit over prakrit and hence vast erudite literarature started to appear in Sanskrit. This is clearly seen in the below tables.)
TABLE 1 : DICTIONARIES
PRAKRIT :
10 C.E : Deshi Nama Mala (Hemachandra)
11 C.E :Payyalacchi Nama Mala (Maha Kavi Dhanapala)
12 C.E :Abhidana Rajendra (Vijayendra Suri)
SANSKRIT
4 C.E : Amarakosha (Amarasimha) Dhanvantari Nighantu (Dhanvantari)
6 C.E : Anekartha Samucchaya (Shashaavata)
10 C.E : Abhidana Ratna Mala (Hemachandra ),Srikanda Shesha Vishvakosha (Srikanda Shesha),HaravaLi (Purushottama Deva) ,Abhidana Ratnamala (Halayudha)
11 C.E :Vyjayanti (Yadava Prakasha), Nama Mala (Dhananjaya) , Anekartha Nama Mala (Amara Keerti) , Shabdha Pradipa (Sureshvara)
12 C.E :Namarthaarnava Sankshepa , Shabda Kalpa Druma (Keshava Svamin ), Vishva Prakasha (Maheshvara) , Namartha Ratnamala (Abhaya Pala) , Abidana Cintamani +Anekartha Sangraha (Hemachandra) , Anekartha Kosha (Mankha) , Akyata Candrika (Malla Bhatta) , Raja Nighantu (Narahari)
14 C.E : Nanartha Ratna Mala (Irugappa Dandanatha) , Madana Vinoda Nighantu (Madana Pala)
15 C.E : Shabda Chandrike ( Vamana Bhatta) , Shabda Ratnakara(Bana)
16 C.E :Sundara Prakashabdarnava (Padma Sundara)
17 C.E :Kalpa Druma (Keshava Daivajna), Nama Sangraha Mala(Appaiah Dikshita)
TAMIL :
10 C.E – Sendan Divakaram (Divakaram) , Pingalantai (Pingalar)
12 C.E : Chudamani Nighantu (Mangala Puttiran)
16 C.E : Chudamani Nighantu ( Mandala Purutan) ,Akaradi Nighantu (Chidambara Revana)
17 C.E : Uriccol Nighantu (Gangeyan) , Kayataram (Kayatarar) ,Bharati Deepam (Anonymus) , Ashiriya Nighantu (Anonymus)
18 C.E : Pothigai Nighantu (Swaminatha Kavirayar), Pal Porul Chudamani (Eshwara Bharati) , Arumpporul Vilakka Nighantu (Anonymus)
KANNADA
10 C.E : Ranna Kanda (Ranna)
11 C.E : Abhidana Vastu Kosha (Nagavarma-2) ,Abhidana Ratna Mala+Amarakosha Bhashya (Halayudha)
12 C.E :Nachirajiya (Naciraja)
13 C.E : Akaradi Vaidya Nighantu+Indra Dipike+Madanari (Amrutanandi)
14 C.E: Karnataka Shbda Sara (Anonymus) , Karnataka Nighantu (Anonymus), Abhinavabhidana (Abhinava Mangaraja)
15 C.E : Chaturasya Nighantu(Bommarasa) , Dhanvantariya Nighantu (Anonymus)
16 C.E : Kabbigara Kaipidi (Linga Mantri) , Shabda Ratnakara (Anonumus) , Nanartha Kanda (Chenna Kavi) , Nanartha Ratnakara+Ekakshara Nighantu (Devottama) , Karnataka Shabda Manjari (Totadarya) , Bharata Nighantu (Anonymus) , Amarakosha Dipike (Vitthala)
17 C.E : Karnataka Sanjivini +Kavi Kanthahara (Shrungara Kavi) , Karnataka Nighantu (Surya kavi)
TELUGU :
14-18 C.E : Venkateshandhramu (Ganavarapu Venkatakavi) , Akaradi Deshiyandhra Nighantu ( Anonymus), Andhra Prayoga Ratnakaram (Anonymus) , Sarva Lakshana Shiromani (Anonymus) ,Padya Rupa Amara Kosham ( Venkata Rayudu), Andhra Nama Sangraham (Lakshmana Kavi) , Andhra Nama Vishesham (Sura Kavi) Samba Nighantuvu (Kasturi Ranga) , Andhra Bhasharnavam ( Venkata Narayanudu) , Akshara Malika Nighantu (Parvatishvara Shastry) , Andhra Pada Nidanam (Tumu Ramadasa) , Sarnadhra Sara sangraham (Amrutapuram Sanyasi),Nanartha Nighantu (Jayarama Rayulu)
From : N.Shankarappa Toranagallu
ReplyDeletePART-5
TABLE 2 : GRAMMERS
PRAKRIT:
5-7 C.E : Prakruta Prakasha (Vararuchi) , Prakruta Lakshana (Chanda) , Prakruta Kamadhenu (Anonymus)
12 C.E : Prakrutanushasana (Purushottama) , Siddha Hema Shabdanushasana (Hemachandra)
14 C.E : Prkruta Shabdanushasdana (Trivikrama) , Shdbhasha Chandrika (Lakshmidhara)
17 C.E : Prakruta Sarvasva (Markandeya)
SANSKRIT
4-2 B.C.E : Ashtadhyayi (Panini) , Mahabhashya-Commentary on Ashtadhyayi (Patanjali)
2 C.E : Katantra Vyakarana (Shrvavarman)
6 C.E : Mahabhashya Dipika-Commentary on Mahabhashya (Bhatruhari ), Kashika Vrutti- Commentary on Ashtadhyayi (Vamana)
7 C.E : Ashtadhyayi-Commentary (Jayaditya)
8 C.E : Kashika Vivarana Pancika –Commentary on Kashika Vrutti (Jinendra Buddivada)
9 C.E : Pada Manjari - Commentary on Kashika Vrutti (Haradatta)
11 C.E : Pradipa ( Kaiyata) , Bhasha Vrutti -Commentary on Ashtadhyayi (Purushottama Deva)
13 C.E ; Rupavatara (Dharma Keerti)
14 C.E : Mitakshara- Commentary on Ashtadhyayi (AnnaM Bhatta) , Rupamala (Vimala Sarsvati)
15 C.E : Prakriya Kaumudi (Ramachandra Shesha)
16 C.E : Shabda kaustubha (Bhattoji Dikshita) , Prakriya Sarvasva (Nayarana Bhatta)
17 C.E : Pradipodyota (Nagesha Bhatta)
TAMIL :
-3 to 10 C.E : Tolkappiam (Tolkappiyanar)
11 C.E : Viracholiyam (Buddha Mitra)
12 C.E : Neminatham (Gunaveera pandita) , Tolkappiam- Poruladigaram Commentary (Perashiyar)
13 C.E : Nannul (Bhavanadi) , Tolkappiam- Solladigaram Commentary (Senavaraiyar)
14 C.E : Tolkappiam-Commentary (Naccinarkkiniyar)
16 C.E : Tolkappiam- Solladigaram Commentary (Teyvacilaiyar , Kalladanar)
17 C.E : Tolkappiam- Solladigaram Commentary (Anonymus)
KANNADA
11 C.E : Kavyavalokana (Nagavarma)
13 C.E : Shabdamani Darpana ( Keshiraja) , Shabdanushasanam (Akalanka Deva)
17 C.E : Shabdamani Darpana-Commentary (Nitturu Nanjayya)
17 C.E : Shabdamani Darpana-Commentary (Anonymus)
TELUGU :
13 C.E : Andhra Bhasha Bhushanam (Mulaghatika Ketana)
14 C.E : Kavyalankara Chidamani (Vinnakota Peddana)
From : N.Shankarappa Toranagallu
ReplyDeletePart-6:
TABLE 3 : POETICS/PROSODY/RHETORIC
SANSKRIT :
5 C.E : Bruhatsamhita (Varahamihira)
6 C.E : Kavyalankara (Bamaha) , Kavyadarsha (Dandin)
9 C.E : Kavyalankara Sara Sangraha (Uddata) , Kavyalankara Sutravrutti (Vamana) , Kavyalankara (Rudrata), Dhvanyaloka (Anandavarhana)
10 C.E : Cahmdraloka (Jayadeva)
11 C.E : Chandonushasana (Jayakirti), Kavyamimamse (Rajashekhara) , Abhidaavrutti Maatruke (Mukula Bhatta) , Kavyakautuka (Bhatta Tauta) , Hrudaya Drapana (Bhatta Nayaka)
12 C.E :Vrutta Ratnakara (Kedara Bhatta) ,Kavya Praklasha (mummata)
15 C.E : Chando Manjari (ganga Raja)
TAMIL :
-3 to 10 C.E : Tolkappiam (Tolkappiyanar)
10 C.E : Yappurungulam + Yappurungulakkarikai (Amruta Saagara)
11 C.E : Chulamani (Gunasagarar) , Purapporul Vembamalai (Iyanaar Idanaar), Dandiyalankaram(Annonymus)
12 C.E : Ilakkana Vilakkam (Jivanana Munivar)
13 C.E : Veyyappadial (Gunaveera Panditar)
17 C.E : Chidambaram Seyyuttakkovai (Kumara Kruparar)
18 C.E : Ilakkana Vilakkam (Vaidyanathan Alvar)
KANNADA
9 C.E : Kaviraja Marga (Sri Vijaya)
10 C.E : Chandobudhi (Nagavarma-1)
11 C.E : Kavyavalokana (Nagavarma-2)
12 C.E : Udayadityalankaram (Udayaditya) , Shrungara Ratnakara (Kavi Kama)
15-16 C.E : Madhavalankara (Madhava), Kavi jihva Bandhana (Eshwara Kavi) , Kavya Sara (Abhinava Vadi Vidyananda) , Rasa Ratnakara+Apratima Veera Charite (Tirumalarya)
17 C.E : Navarasalankara (Timma) , Kuvalayananda( Jayendra)
TELUGU :
13 C.E : Kavi Vagbhadanamu (Tikkana)
14 C.E : Pratapa Rudriya (Vaidyanatha) , Kavi Janaashrayamu (Rachanna ) , Kavyalankara Chudamani ( Vinnakota Peddana) , Shrungara Dipika (Srinatha)
From : N.Shankarappa Toranagallu
ReplyDeletePart-7 :
TABLE 4 : ENCYCLOPEDIAS
SANSKRIT :
5 C.E : Bruhatsamhita (Varahamihira)
12 C.E : Abhilashitartha Chintamani ( Bhulokamalla)
TAMIL :
10 C.E : Sendan Divakaram (Divakaram) , Pingalantai (Pingalar)
12 C.E : Chudamani Nigantu (Mangala Puttiran)
KANNADA :
10-11 C.E : Lokopakara (Chavundaraya)
15 C.E : Viveka Chintamani (Nijaguna Shivayogi) , Siribhuvalaya (Kumudendu), Shivatatva Chintamani (Lakkana Dandesha)
16 C.E :Sakala Vaidya Samhita Sararnva ( Veeraraja)
TELUGU :
20 C.E :Andhra Vignana Sarvasvam ( K.V.L. Pantulu)
From : N.Shankarappa Toranagallu
ReplyDeletePart-8:
TABLE 5 : MEDICINE/VETERINARY SCIENCE/EROTICS
SANSKRIT :
-2 TO 0 C.E : Sushruta Samhite (Sushruta) , Gajayurveda (Palakapya) , Ashvashastra (Shalihotra), Vaidyaka Sarvasva ashva Chikitse(Nakula)
0 TO 2 C.E : Charaka Samhita (Charaka) , Kumara Tantra (Ravana) , Prayoga Ratnakara (Garga), Bruhaspatimata (Bruhaspati), Kamasutra (Vatsayana)
4 C.E :Ashtanga Hrudaya + Ashtanga Sangraha (Vagbhata) , Ashvayurveda Saara Sindhu (MallaDeva) ,
5-7 C.E :Matanga Leela , Shalihotra , Ashva Vaidyaka
7 to 10 C.E : Madhava Nidanam +Rugna Nischaya (Madhavakara) , Charaka samhite-Commentary (Jayadatta Suri) , Rati Rahasya (kokkoka)
11 to 13 C.E : Nibandha sangraha (Dallana) , Shabda Pradipa (Sureshvara) , Raja Nighantu+Dhanvantari Nighantu (Narahari) , Sarottama Nighantu (Anonymus) , Bhanumati (Chakradatta) , Jayamangala (Yashodhara) , Nagara sarvasva (Padmashri)
14 to 15 C.E : Madana Vinoda Nighantu (Madanapala), Sarangadhara Samhite (Sarangadhara) , RatiManjari (JayaDeva)
16 to 17 C.E : Anna Pana Vidhi (Susena) , Pathyapathya Nighantu + Bhojana Kutuhala ( Raghunatha) , Anangaranga (Kalyana Malla) , Kandarpa Chudamani (Veerabhadra Deva)
TAMIL :
13 to 18 C.E : Vaidya Shataka Nadi + Chikitsa Sara Sangraha ( Teraiyar) , Amudakalai Jnanam+Muppu+Muppuvaippu+Muppuchunnam+Charakku+GuruseyNeer+PacchaiVettu chuttiram (Agastya) , Kadai Kandam +Valalai ChuttiraM +Nadukandam (Konganavar) , Karagappa +Muppu Chuttiram +Dravakam (Nandikeshvara) , Karpam +Valai Chuttiram (Bogara)
KANNADA :
11-12 C.E : Karnata Kalyana Karaka (Jagaddala Somanatha) , Balagraha Chikitse (Devendra Muni) , Govaodya (Kirti Varma) , Madana Tilaka (Chandra Raja) , Anubhava Mukura (Janna)
14 C.E : Khagendra Mani Darpana (Mangaraja) , Ashvashastra (Abhinava Chandra)
15 C.E : Vaidyanruta (Sridhara Deva) , Vaidya Sangatya (Salva) , Ashva Vaidya (Bacarasa), Janavashya (Kallarasa)
16 C.E : Vaidya Sara Sangraha (Channaraja) , Hastayurveda-Commentary (Veerabhadraraja ) , Ashva Vaidya (Bacarasa), Janavashya (Kallarasa)
17 C.E : Vaidya Sara Sangraha (Nanjanatha Bhupala) , Vaidya Samhita Sararnava (Veeraraja ) , Shalihotra Samhita (Ramachandra), Hayasara Samuccaya (Padmana Pandita), Vaidyakanda (Brahma), Strivaidya (Timmaraja)
TELUGU :
15 C.E : Haya Lakshana Sara (manumanchi Bhatta)
TABLE 9 : ASTRONOMY/MATHEMATICS/ASTROLOGY
SANSKRIT :
3-2 B. C.E : Surya Prajnapti , Stananga Sutra , Anuyogadvara Sutra , Shatkhandagama
2-0 B. C.E : Vedanga Jyotishya (Lagada) , Bhadrabahu samhita +Surya Prajnapti-Commentary (Bhadrabahu) , Tiloyapanatti (Yatishvaracharya), Tatvarthayagama shastra (Umasvamin)
5-6 C.E : Arya Bhatiya (Arya Bhata) , Pancvha siddantika + Bruhajjataka+Laghu Jataka + Bruhatsamhita (Varahamihira) , Dashagitika Sara (Anonymus) , Aryastashata (Anonymus)
6-7 C.E : Brahma sputa Siddhanta+Kanadakadhyaya(Brahma Gupta) , Maha Bhaskariyam + Karana Kutuhala (Bhaskara-1) , Rajamruganka (Bhoja)
8 C.E : Shishayabhuvruddhi (Lallacharya) , Ganita Sara sangaraha (Mahaveeracharya) , Horasatpanchashika(Pruthuyana)
11-12 C.E : Siddhanta Shekhara (Sripati) , Siddhanta Shiromani (Bhaskara-2)
14 C.E : Yantraraja (Mahendra Suri)
15 C.E : Tantra sangraha (Neelakantha somayaji)
16 C.E : Sputa Nirnaya (Achyuta)
TAMIL :
16-18 C.E : Ganakkadigaram , Ganita Nul , Asthana Golakam , Ganita Venba , Ganita Divakaram, Ponnilakkam
KANNADA :
11 C.E : Jataka Tilaka (Sridharacharya) ,
12 C.E : Vyavahara Ganita+Kshetra Ganita+Chitra Hasuge +Jaina Ganita Sutra Tikodaaharana +Lilavati (Rajaditya)
15 C.E : Kannada Lilavati (Bala Vaidyada Cheluva)
17 C.E : Ksetra Ganita (Timmarasa) , Behara Ganita (Bhaskara)
TELUGU :
11 C.E : Ganita sara Sangrahamu (Pavaluri Mallana)
Great Work Mr.Shankarappa Toranagallu and thank you for sharing information with us.
ReplyDeleteKindly let us know the publisher details ,we will get a copy.
Rgds
Moda Sattva
I would have been really glad if the opinions of real scholars like U.V. Saminatha iyer, (his Guru ) Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai, Parithimal kalaignar, Madurai Narayana Iyengar, V M Gopalakrishnamacharya, m. Varadarajan among others. They possessed great literary depth and could have easily solved the difficulty in timing.
ReplyDeleteI totally reject the findings of non Tamil scolars since, with a second hand knowledge of Tamil, they are headed nowhere and are apt to parrot the mistakes of his predecessors. Same for foreign 'Scolars' who have a working knowledge of Tamil, but never a sharp and penetrating knowledge. That comes from birth, by speaking Tamil and living its culture.
Venkatasubramanian
So your beliefs are based on personalities, not evidences. You will believe a person even if what he tells is the biggest lie.
Deleteyes this really true. tamils are desperately wanted to show their language to be oldest so that they can get power among other states of india. but kannada is the oldest among all south indian languages
DeleteIravatham mahadevan also states a post christian era date for tolkappiyam
DeleteIf one wants to know something about the Vedas, we need to approach only Vedic scholar like a Ghanapati or a Sastra panditha and definitely not one foreign to Vedas. Hence a personality does count. Similarly for Tamil, a Tamil scholar like U Ve Sa needs to authenticate any findings.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge counts, not personalities. No Personality can have complete knowledge of any fields. Here we are not even talking about single time frame. We are talking in so many different time frames. So nobody including me know everything.
DeleteNow Vedas is a work. So anybody can read seek a understanding. Now Tamil is a vast subject, there are lot of works in it. Nobody can be a scholar of everything.
There is so much emotion in Tamil. One person to certify everything for you is really not practical. And for me to accept your theory is not possible.
good analysis. Informative. Timeline cannot be ascertained without any evidences which are absent or destroyed with criminal intentions on various reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe very name THOL KAPPIYAM is a derivative of the sanskrit name TOLA KAVYAM, meaning comparative KAVYA. Tola comes from the word TULA or TULANA. The various chapters/parts also are named in sanskrit. Elandu Adhikaram and Sollu Adhikaram, and Porul Adhikaram. Adhikaram means RULES/POWEER. this is identical with the work of Sravara Varma. Many adhyayas are identical translations of Bharata Natya Shastra. Many Sanskrit Scholars works have been quoted.
ReplyDeleteThe work cannot be earlier than 10th AD. Many Southern languages also translated sravara's works, as it was very exhaustive.
Pride is something. But integrity to Research is something else
From : N.Shankarappa Toranagallu
ReplyDeleteA few extracts from my recent book in Kannada ಹಳಗನ್ನಡ-ಸಂಗಂ ತಮಿೞ್ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಗಂ ಕಾಲದ ತೀರ್ಮಾನ (Old Kannada- Sangam Tamil And Determination of Date of Sangam) regarding Tolkappiam. The below are a few facts which fix the date of Tolkappiam (T). The numbers indicated in the bracket (IN-n) corresponds to the Inscription listed by I.Mahadevan in his book Tamil Epigraphy (From the Earliest Times To The Sixth Century A.D) . T-E-N-n indicates , Tolkappiam-Eludadigaram-Nool Marabu- verse No.
(A) T-E-N-1 : 30 are the alphabets a to n. ( 12 Vowels + 18 Consonants)
Tamil Brahmi inscriptions use Sa , Dha . Arikamedu pottery writing includes Kha, Ja, Jha , Da , Da , ba, bha , Sha and Sa. Therefore Tolkappiam does not have any saying about Tamil Brahmi alphabet system.
(B) T-E-N-16 : All dot less (puLLI less) consonants have a vowel in them (IN-93)
(C) T-E-N-30 : Except ra and Ra all other consonants when written one after another , first represents consonant without vowel and the second with included vowel. Both of which form consonant conjuncts. (IN-94)
The above rules are against all methods of Tamil Brahmi reading proposed by I.Mahadevan in which a consonant is with vowel , without vowel , with short vowel , with long vowel as per the demand of the reading situation. Therefore it is very clear that Tolakappiam is proposing well established writing system which is no where comparable with Tamil Brahmi.
(D) T-E-N-2 : i , u with dot (puLLi) represent short vowels and aydam is indicated with 3 dots . (IN-86 , 117 )
This rule has neither found in Tamil Brahmi nor in Vatteluttu inscriptions. Among 12 vowels listed by Tolkappiam only 8 appear in Tamil Brahmi insciptions . (a,A ,i, I , u, U, E , O).
(E) Rule T-E-N-4 lists long vowels in which Ai is included.
In Tamil Brahmi inscriptions Ai is found to be written as A and I separately. The single representation does not appear until C.E 6th Century vatteluttu inscription of Tirunathar Kunru.
(F) T-E-N-15 : Long vowels E , O with dot (puLLi) represent short vowels
Long Vowel E with dot (puLLi) to represent short E has been found in Tamil Brahmi Inscription IN-85 which is assigned to C.E 4th century and Vatellutu Inscriptions IN-117 , 102, 106, 109, 110 which are assigned to C.E 6-7 century.
Long vowel O with dot (PuLLi) to represent short O has been found in Tamil Brahmi Inscription IN-77 which is assigned to C.E 4th century and Vatellutu Inscriptions IN-102, 104 which are assigned to C.E 6-7 century.
(G) T-E-N-15 : Consonants with dot (puLLi) indicates pure consonants.
This rule appears without any ambiguity and dispute in C.E 6th century inscriptions of Pallava Mahendravarman.
(H) T-E-N-9 : Ma with large dot (puLLi) represents vowel less Ma i.e M (IN-90)
This is found in Tamil Brahmi inscription IN-90 which is assigned to C.E 4th Century.
(I) T-E-N-38 For Consonant with short vowel Aidam Comes before. (IN-96)
This rule has not been found any where in Tamil Brahmi or Vatteluttu writings.
From evidences obtained from Inscriptions with sufficient confidence it can be safely said that there are no comparisions between Tamil- Brahmi and Tolkappiam writing system. Tolkappiam discuss the completely evolved, fixed writing system . Therefore, Tolkappiam can not be assigned to any date before C.E 9 century considering time lag between complete writing system and documentation of 1-2 centuries.