Why Chennai can't and won't speak Hindi

[INDIC]

so,what is your point??? India should be split into two halves...one for aryans and other for dyasu dravidans???...are you happy now???dei,there is no Aryans or dravidans here..we are Indians...don't bother too much for us...Chennai may speak Tamil or hindi...what it has to do with srilankans like you??..please,leave here...and go to your Ceylon...and fly a kite...
thank you...

You will find lots of amusing characters here, many morons even claiming Vedas as monotheist religion, they don't know a single word but passing out crappy judgement about Sanskrit language. BTW I doubt that he is Tamil because I never saw him writing in Tamil.

 

[abjktu]

You will find lots of amusing characters here, many morons even claiming Vedas as monotheist religion, they don't know a single word but passing out crappy judgement about Sanskrit language. BTW I doubt that he is Tamil because I never saw him writing in Tamil.

actually ,he is a jaffna tamil (brahmin??) ,born and brought up in Colombo and now living in Canberra,Australia..i know him for more than 3 years..he is a regular poster in a srilankan forum,where he claimed to be a Tamil Brahmin..but i doubt about his Brahmin lineage..his posts are full of anti Indian,anti Brahmin rantings...
yes,,you are right..i haven't seen him posting Tamil..the only Tamil sentence he knows is 'visar naai..undha amma okka'(mad dog,....your amma)..

 

[Vinod2070]

the only Aryan religious source that can be relied upon, in regard to early Aryan history, is the Rig veda.

This is the typical (and frankly quite pathetic) line taken by the AIT supporters.

Let me quote directly from a book about this issue.

Rigveda is a book of (religious) hymns. It neither is, nor claims to be, either a geographical manual or a historical treatise. The Puranas on the other hand are, and claim to be, historical treatise giving incidentally, the geographical particulars concerning the various historical eras or ages with which they profess to deal.

And yet, we find a peculiar and extremely fishy situation prevailing in the study of India's most ancient history: The evidence of the Puranas (consisting of what is actually said in the Puranas) is rejected on the basis of the "evidence" of the Rigveda (consisting of "evidence" from the "non-mentions" in the Rigveda)...

This situation is without parallel anywhere else in the world.

As clear as it can be! What part of it do you have issues with?

Is the history of Europe derived purely from religious sources? Why for India?

The old testament has parts like the book of psalms that deal with religion and the chronicles that deal with history. Guess which parts are used for what purpose.

Yet, in the case of India, the motivated (and mostly clueless) crowd tries to do what is never done anywhere else.

the other literatures such as puranas are mythological and much later period works, some puranas are as recent as 500 AD

even in Hindu orthodox traditions, puranas are relied upon as secondary not primary sources

Smriti - Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia

So the history mentioned in Puaranas is "mythological" yet the RIgveda which consists of religious hymns is "historical"!

Some puranas may be late period works but what about the history and the dynastic references going back in antiquity, far before the Rigveda? That is all to be rejected because it doesn't fit in with the preconceived and motivated notions?

Do you realize how absurd this is? Or do you even know what you are talking of?

Vedas are Shruti and take precedence from a religious perspective, not from a historical perspective.

 

[manlion]

Is the history of Europe derived purely from religious sources? Why for India?

the puranas are Hindu religious text and its only used by Hindutvas as source of history. Credible historians or research scholars, do not rely on these mythological legends as history.
.

So the history mentioned in Puranas is "mythological" yet the RIgveda which consists of religious hymns is "historical"!

the Rig veda hymns are about Aryan exploits and historic inferences can be made from the hymns e.g fighting fortified cities, dark skin natives

Some puranas may be late period works but what about the history and the dynastic references going back in antiquity, far before the Rigveda? That is all to be rejected because it doesn't fit in with the preconceived and motivated notions?

to be accepted as authoritative source , they should be historically or archeological verifiable .

Vedas are Shruti and take precedence from a religious perspective, not from a historical perspective.

that's your own assertion, for orthodox schools, shruti takes precedence over smriti on all fronts historic and religious , not the case for Hindutva mumbo jumbos

,

 

[punit]

-Tami people are not queuing up to watch Hindi movies.
-Still the best music director is doing music in Tamil for Tamil people and he shall do in Hindi for Hindi people...brrra obvious?
-The same music director spoke in Tamil when he won Oscar not in Hindi.
-Now about Vellore..it's my hometown and ironic now you just dragged it into discussion. why talk about Bengal when we arguing about Hindi? Begalis are not jumping to impose Bengali or to make it national language.
-If some Hindi movie critic is Tamil then even I can name whole bunch of other language speaking Tamil movie critics...

This is the very exact thing we don't want to hear. You want us to speak in Hindi just because we have to communicate with you?
What's special about you?

eventually Hindi can't and won't be national language and Chennai will always speak in Tamil.

1.and what if if the do watch! whats ur problem. talk about ur choices .. why imposing ur pov on others.
2.what exactly is your point here!
3. he spoke in 3 diff languages infact and even quoted a dialogue from hindi movie (deewar) "mere pass maa hai".
4. vellore is classic example of people willingness to learn a new language if they want ! like it not. and who exactly is imposing an language over any one! not me at least.
5. refer pt2.

when did i asked u or any one to learn Hindi. it just that people are learning it on their own!

 

[Vinod2070]

the puranas are Hindu religious text and its only used by Hindutvas as source of history. Credible historians or research scholars, do not rely on these mythological legends as history.

the Rig veda hymns are about Aryan exploits and historic inferences can be made from the hymns e.g fighting fortified cities, dark skin natives

to be accepted as authoritative source , they should be historically or archeological verifiable myths , furthermore the are acknowledged as works of mortals and subject to error , unlike the vedas which are considered as "divine revelation".

that's your own assertion, shruti takes precedence over smriti on all fronts historic and religious , for orthodox Hindu schools, not so in the case of the mumbo jumbo puranic traditions

Completely clueless reply. Can't say it was unexpected though.

So again, Rigveda (a book of religious hymns) has more historical validity than the Puranas! They supposedly have "historically or archeological verifiable myths"?

Anyway, for people who are not as clueless and motivated, the Puranas' historical account matches with independent records till 3100 BC. It also matches excellently with Rigveda wherever there is an overlap of dynasties.

Nanda period (6th century BC) independently verified by the Greek records

Mahabharata war (~1500 BC) - verified by the archaeological dating of the Dwarka city, astronomical references in the Mahabharata and Puranas, number of years separating the Nanda and Mahabharata as per the puranas (10 nakshatras=1000 years).

The great flood 3100 BC - The date confirmed by the Mesopotamian records. Match with Puranic evidence in terms of number of generations separating Manu Vaivasvata (the first king after the flood) and Mahabharata.

Now only the most motivated historians (or their most motivated lackeys) claim that Puranas contain no historical core. The serious historians agree that all traditions contain a core of valid history.

Now there is no reason to reject the Puranic material before 3100 BC just because we don't have independent verification (as yet).

 

[manlion]

Anyway, for people who are not as clueless and motivated, the Puranas historical account matches with independent records till 3100 BC.

Nanda period (6th century BC) independently verified by the Greek records

Mahabharata war (~1500 BC) - verified by the archaeological dating of the Dwarka city, astronomical references in the Mahabharata and Puranas, number of years separating the Nanda and Mahabharata as per the puranas (10 nakshatras=1000 years).

Marabharata war as in 1500 BC, but your puranic history claims Krishna appeared 5,000 yrs ago ?

Hindu Gods - Krishna

The great flood 3100 BC - The date confirmed by the Mesopotamian records. Match with Puranic evidence in terms of number of generations separating Manu Vaivasvata (the first king after the flood) and Mahabharata..

does this mean the Hindu history (purana) is copied / based upon from Mesopotamian history and Middle Eastern myths?

So again, Rigveda (a book of religious hymns) has more historical validity than the Puranas! They supposedly have "historically or archeological verifiable myths"?

YES, because its the oldest written Sanskrit text, compared to the puranas or Mahabharata bed time stories

 

[Vinod2070]

Marabharata war as in 1500 BC, but your puranic history claims Krishna appeared 5,000 yrs ago ?

Hindu Gods - Krishna

http://www.indhistory.com/hindu-gods/hindu-gods-krishna.html

Show me this reference directly from the Puranas. Which Purana has this reference?

Anyway, the Puranas do exaggerate in a few places. Doesn't mean that they are completely invalid.

does this mean the Hindu history (purana) is copied / based upon from Mesopotamian history and Middle Eastern myths?

Again clueless. This "myth" is repeated in several civilizations. Only the Mesopotamian one has been precisely dated.

How difficult can that be to understand!

YES, because its the oldest written Sanskrit text, compared to the puranas or Mahabharata bed time stories

And yet it mentions far older history than Rigveda?

You have nothing here. Just some pathetic obsession about something you have no clue of.

Unless you have something of substance, let's stop wasting time.

 

[abjktu]

4. vellore is classic example of people willingness to learn a new language

a good portion of velloreans are telegus,telegus learn languages very quickly than others...i have many telegu friends and most of them speaksKannada and hindi fluently besides telegu...
though dravidan in origin,telegu has so many words common with hindi...so its easy for them to learn telegu...

sorry,...to learn hindi

 

[Vinod2070]

a good portion of velloreans are telegus,telegus learn languages very quickly than others...i have many telegu friends and most of them speaksKannada and hindi fluently besides telegu...
though dravidan in origin,telegu has so many words common with hindi...so its easy for them to learn telegu...

sorry,...to learn hindi

The common words are from Sanskrit roots. Same is the case with Kannada.

In fact, being a Hindi speaker, I find Kannada the easiest to understand (though still to a small degree) compared to any other South Indian language.

Kanndigas and Telugus both have a great ability to speak multiple languages. I have met many people who speak anywhere from 4 to 9 languages and all of them very well.

 

[manlion]

Show me this reference directly from the Puranas. Which Purana has this reference?

Anyway, the Puranas do exaggerate in a few places. Doesn't mean that they are completely invalid.

don't expect to be spoon fed, you should know which purana, and I don't have to teach you that Mahabharata is an epic - itihasa- not a "purana"

with your admittance on 'exaggerate' - I rest my case

 

[INDIC]

actually ,he is a jaffna tamil (brahmin??) ,born and brought up in Colombo and now living in Canberra,Australia..i know him for more than 3 years..he is a regular poster in a srilankan forum,where he claimed to be a Tamil Brahmin..but i doubt about his Brahmin lineage..his posts are full of anti Indian,anti Brahmin rantings...
yes,,you are right..i haven't seen him posting Tamil..the only Tamil sentence he knows is 'visar naai..undha amma okka'(mad dog,....your amma)..

It don't need much hardwork to learn a single sentence in Tamil.

 

[Vinod2070]

don't expect to be spoon fed, you should know which purana, and I don't have to teach you that Mahabharata is an epic - itihasa- not a "purana"

with your admittance on 'exaggerate' - I rest my case

You never had anything.

Anyway, you are so devoted to Rigveda, so let's talk about it.

The astronomical references in early Rigveda hymns point to the period around 4500 BC. The bulk of the hymns were composed between 3500 BC and 2500 BC, when vernal equinox was in the orion (4500-3500 BC) and later receded to Rohini (3500-2500 BC).

There can be no doubt about these dates as astronomy is a precise science. There is no way this data can be wrong.

So the AIT and its chronology goes out the window.

This plus the fact that Rigveda has no reference to any areas out of India can mean only one thing.

 

[Chola warrior]

when did i asked u or any one to learn Hindi. it just that people are learning it on their own!

No one is learning to communicate in Chennai only in case of going outside.

 

[punit]

No one is learning to communicate in Chennai only in case of going outside.

whatever!!