Already went on too long about it, but still, some further things to expand on, so I can -hopefully- feel completely done with this topic.
Chindu's introduction to Mohadevan's statement seems to imply that he wishes to insist that Tamil Brahmi must somehow be a Mauryan-derived product or related back to it. Such an expectation is unnecessary. It's faulty logic.
Even if we allow for Megasthenes being accurate concerning this detail and assuming the statement attributed to him is correctly presented, his statement only says something about Writing not being known in the *Mauryan* kingdom, which was certainly not all of old Bharatam. That leaves it open, by the time Ashoka rolled along, for the latter's kingdom to finally have learnt to import Brahmi from elsewhere in the country. The story would still fit.
Naturally, Ashoka and his context would get less of the credit, of course - as 490 BCE for Tamizh Brahmi predates Ashokan Brahmi. As there's no evidence of Buddhism entering into TN/the south of the subcontinent at that early time, it takes away the link to Buddhism that was assumed by the presence of Asokan Brahmi as being the earliest Brahmi. (This was only originally a working assumption anyway, it's just that the idea has become entrenched.) However, eager Buddhism-peddlers hope to reinterpret such finds exactly as that, that is, as being earlier proof of Buddhism in the south, by inverting what the find guaranteeably means. I.e. they insist that the [only] conclusion to be drawn from these developments is that Buddhism "must have" arrived in the south earlier than so far supposed, even though there's no evidence of *Buddhism* in TN at 490 BCE and before, nor even as far as I'm aware for it setting off for the south at that time. <- There is moreover an ideological need among SL Buddhists to launch this theory concerning the finds in their own backyard, as otherwise the matter becomes especially controversial for them from their POV. Which is also why every [pre-Ashokan] Brahmi find in SL that is called "Tamizh Brahmi" is immediately contested for its being dubbed "Tamil" at all, although whether it's Tamil Brahmi or not is actually a secondary issue to the larger revelation of pre-Ashokan Brahmi (pre-Ashokan by quite a number of centuries possibly).
Note: a tie between Brahmi and Buddhism/Jainism has not been established, not even one between Brahmi and Prakrits. And, as briefly mentioned before, there is factually no absolute connection to even be made between Buddhism/Jainism and Prakritas - i.e. can't find something ancient written in Prakrit in North India and leap to the conclusion that "only some Buddhist or Jain could have made it" without the text indicating that it's Buddhist/Jain in intention - since Prakrits were pre-existing dialects and languages spoken by a decent majority of inhabitants of a certain region of India within a certain time frame of the subcontinent's history. These inhabitants were by no means exclusively Buddhists and Jains, which last were only starting out when these languages were predominant in their locus of origin (there's no evidence the two then-new religions invented the Prakritas, and indeed, there's every indication they *didn't* invent them), and who moreover would definitely have been small in number when their respective groups did first start out.
Just like Hindi or Tamizh or other local language literature does not imply that Hindus could not have written any old literature existing in these languages (as is nevertheless frequently assumed because of the ridiculous imputation that Sanskrit is suposedly the only language Hindus were to have been interested in employing). After all, historically there were Hindus of each region writing in both Skt and the local language(s). Likewise, the use of Prakrits was not [remotely] restricted to non-Hindus, as Hindus could and did easily employ both Skt and Prakrits where necessary. Certainly Hindu society/the laity in most places has been seen historically using the local languages in everyday life.
To add to this statement:
"Because it's exactly how Tamilisation of such Skt words works too." And it does so independent of Prakrit presence or mediation. The old example: just like Agastiyar => Agattiyar is a change Tamizh itself makes. Yet this last is sort of close to how Prakrit would change the word, too. That's why the usual silly arguments of "Shaastaa => Satta *must* be owing to Pali" are flawed: because that's exactly how Tamizh would naturally change it, not just Pali or some other Prakrit. Because there exist certain 'common' ways - or common to Indian populations, that is - of simplifying/localising Skt, and so that's how many regional languages even if not all could and would have simplified/localised it. Like I brought up a few posts earlier: many of today's Hindi speakers often say "dukka" when speaking Hindi casually, even though most of these know quite well how to pronounce this originally-Skt word the Skt way when reciting *Skt*. But "dukka" is exactly how Tamizh Hindus would *also* say the word if they were to voice it out casually, such as when coming across the word for the first time and/or if having only a passing familiarity with Skt. I.e. dukka is the natural Tamizh way of pronouncing the word and so also happens to be the way the Skt word in Skt stotras gets transliterated into unmodified Tamizh script. So both Hindi and Tamizh are "prakritising" the same Skt-origin word along similar and expected lines, but without Hindi speakers having had to influence Tamizh Hindus in this, or vice-versa. Not all possible simplifications made by Indians are the same of course, but some tend to be noticeably so. The point: Skt vajra into Tzh vayra is *quite* how Tamizh changes the word into Tzh naturally without the need for introducing extra variables and intermediaries like Prakrits, nor for claiming that it "can and must only" represent a Prakrita word.
From everything. As seen in the many weird imputations/predicates invented against them and passed about as fact: "Predicate: Hindus had no interest in writing Tamizh works, because their only interest must have been to write in Sanskrit alone. Hence all old Tamizh works are Jain/Buddhist/not Hindu". "Predicate: Vedic religion can't have known ascetism. So Yoga to Vedaanta are actually Ur-Shramanic in origin or at least influence." "Predicate: Vedic Religion is Oryan/Alien AND Vedic Religion is the only Oryan/Alien. IVC is native, therefore IVC is non-Vedic=ur-Shramanic/Jain[/Buddhist theology]." "Predicate: Hindus could not have come up with writing, they had no need for writing. They must have only cared about divine parrotting.* Therefore writing and Brahmi must be Buddhist/Jain/ur-Shramanic again".
* Yet, at most/even at its worst, this accusation can only be directed at Vedabrahmanas and not at the rest of Vedic=Hindu society: no one else is expected to divine-parrot from the Vedas 24/7 - even where these do carry out or take part in Vedic rites. That is, the rest of Hindu society are at least known to have other work/professions/daily life to get back to. And even were it true - but it isn't - that that's indeed all *brahmanas* were concerned with (though actually, it's been a stipulation for brahmanas to devise and preserve Hindu sciences, skills and arts, by learning these and teaching them to Hindu society), still, every other type of Hindu from the king to your everyday householder certainly does have uses for writing at work and in daily life and is well-capable of seeing a need for it and seeking to devise it. Clearly writing could be of great use for everything from royal decrees to ledgers and manuals and to-do lists, novels/poetry to love-letters.
But then, that's where it comes in handy yet again to de-recognise the existence of the Hindu laity (all of Hindu society actually), you see: so any deficiencies that can be exagerrated and stereotyped onto brahmanas - such as their alleged disinterest in writing - must now become the shared lot for every other type of Hindu, who were first made invisible under the ridiculously false "There's no such thing as Hindu laity" rule and next have to suffer mass self-enforced illiteracy by assocation - i.e. for being Vedic Hindus like Veda brahmanas are.
It's beyond daft. I can't believe people don't complain.
Quote:The Asokan-Brahmi is dated to 250 BCE. Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya, Emperor Asoka's grandfather, had stated that the people of Chandragupta Maurya's kingdom did not know how to write and that they depended on memory. Besides, there is no inscription of the pre-Asoka period available. Mr. Mahadevan said: ââ¬ÅSupposing a large number of carbon-datings are available from various sites, which will take us to the period of the Mauryas and even the Nandas, we can consider. But to push [the date of the origin of the Tamil-Brahmi script] a couple of centuries earlier with a single carbon-dating is not acceptable because chances of contamination and error are there.ââ¬Â
Chindu's introduction to Mohadevan's statement seems to imply that he wishes to insist that Tamil Brahmi must somehow be a Mauryan-derived product or related back to it. Such an expectation is unnecessary. It's faulty logic.
Even if we allow for Megasthenes being accurate concerning this detail and assuming the statement attributed to him is correctly presented, his statement only says something about Writing not being known in the *Mauryan* kingdom, which was certainly not all of old Bharatam. That leaves it open, by the time Ashoka rolled along, for the latter's kingdom to finally have learnt to import Brahmi from elsewhere in the country. The story would still fit.
Naturally, Ashoka and his context would get less of the credit, of course - as 490 BCE for Tamizh Brahmi predates Ashokan Brahmi. As there's no evidence of Buddhism entering into TN/the south of the subcontinent at that early time, it takes away the link to Buddhism that was assumed by the presence of Asokan Brahmi as being the earliest Brahmi. (This was only originally a working assumption anyway, it's just that the idea has become entrenched.) However, eager Buddhism-peddlers hope to reinterpret such finds exactly as that, that is, as being earlier proof of Buddhism in the south, by inverting what the find guaranteeably means. I.e. they insist that the [only] conclusion to be drawn from these developments is that Buddhism "must have" arrived in the south earlier than so far supposed, even though there's no evidence of *Buddhism* in TN at 490 BCE and before, nor even as far as I'm aware for it setting off for the south at that time. <- There is moreover an ideological need among SL Buddhists to launch this theory concerning the finds in their own backyard, as otherwise the matter becomes especially controversial for them from their POV. Which is also why every [pre-Ashokan] Brahmi find in SL that is called "Tamizh Brahmi" is immediately contested for its being dubbed "Tamil" at all, although whether it's Tamil Brahmi or not is actually a secondary issue to the larger revelation of pre-Ashokan Brahmi (pre-Ashokan by quite a number of centuries possibly).
Note: a tie between Brahmi and Buddhism/Jainism has not been established, not even one between Brahmi and Prakrits. And, as briefly mentioned before, there is factually no absolute connection to even be made between Buddhism/Jainism and Prakritas - i.e. can't find something ancient written in Prakrit in North India and leap to the conclusion that "only some Buddhist or Jain could have made it" without the text indicating that it's Buddhist/Jain in intention - since Prakrits were pre-existing dialects and languages spoken by a decent majority of inhabitants of a certain region of India within a certain time frame of the subcontinent's history. These inhabitants were by no means exclusively Buddhists and Jains, which last were only starting out when these languages were predominant in their locus of origin (there's no evidence the two then-new religions invented the Prakritas, and indeed, there's every indication they *didn't* invent them), and who moreover would definitely have been small in number when their respective groups did first start out.
Just like Hindi or Tamizh or other local language literature does not imply that Hindus could not have written any old literature existing in these languages (as is nevertheless frequently assumed because of the ridiculous imputation that Sanskrit is suposedly the only language Hindus were to have been interested in employing). After all, historically there were Hindus of each region writing in both Skt and the local language(s). Likewise, the use of Prakrits was not [remotely] restricted to non-Hindus, as Hindus could and did easily employ both Skt and Prakrits where necessary. Certainly Hindu society/the laity in most places has been seen historically using the local languages in everyday life.
To add to this statement:
Quote:VAIRA(M) - e.g. vaira toDu - which is the *TAMIZH* WORD for diamond DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE SKT WORD Vajra for diamond. There's no actual reason to insist it "must" be a Prakrit (capital P) word as Mohadevan presumes, as Skt Vajra naturally/prakritically (small p) turns to Vaira in Tamizh without external help. Because it's exactly how Tamilisation of such Skt words works too.
"Because it's exactly how Tamilisation of such Skt words works too." And it does so independent of Prakrit presence or mediation. The old example: just like Agastiyar => Agattiyar is a change Tamizh itself makes. Yet this last is sort of close to how Prakrit would change the word, too. That's why the usual silly arguments of "Shaastaa => Satta *must* be owing to Pali" are flawed: because that's exactly how Tamizh would naturally change it, not just Pali or some other Prakrit. Because there exist certain 'common' ways - or common to Indian populations, that is - of simplifying/localising Skt, and so that's how many regional languages even if not all could and would have simplified/localised it. Like I brought up a few posts earlier: many of today's Hindi speakers often say "dukka" when speaking Hindi casually, even though most of these know quite well how to pronounce this originally-Skt word the Skt way when reciting *Skt*. But "dukka" is exactly how Tamizh Hindus would *also* say the word if they were to voice it out casually, such as when coming across the word for the first time and/or if having only a passing familiarity with Skt. I.e. dukka is the natural Tamizh way of pronouncing the word and so also happens to be the way the Skt word in Skt stotras gets transliterated into unmodified Tamizh script. So both Hindi and Tamizh are "prakritising" the same Skt-origin word along similar and expected lines, but without Hindi speakers having had to influence Tamizh Hindus in this, or vice-versa. Not all possible simplifications made by Indians are the same of course, but some tend to be noticeably so. The point: Skt vajra into Tzh vayra is *quite* how Tamizh changes the word into Tzh naturally without the need for introducing extra variables and intermediaries like Prakrits, nor for claiming that it "can and must only" represent a Prakrita word.
Quote:Anyway, it's amazing how Hindus get dismissed out of hand.
From everything. As seen in the many weird imputations/predicates invented against them and passed about as fact: "Predicate: Hindus had no interest in writing Tamizh works, because their only interest must have been to write in Sanskrit alone. Hence all old Tamizh works are Jain/Buddhist/not Hindu". "Predicate: Vedic religion can't have known ascetism. So Yoga to Vedaanta are actually Ur-Shramanic in origin or at least influence." "Predicate: Vedic Religion is Oryan/Alien AND Vedic Religion is the only Oryan/Alien. IVC is native, therefore IVC is non-Vedic=ur-Shramanic/Jain[/Buddhist theology]." "Predicate: Hindus could not have come up with writing, they had no need for writing. They must have only cared about divine parrotting.* Therefore writing and Brahmi must be Buddhist/Jain/ur-Shramanic again".
* Yet, at most/even at its worst, this accusation can only be directed at Vedabrahmanas and not at the rest of Vedic=Hindu society: no one else is expected to divine-parrot from the Vedas 24/7 - even where these do carry out or take part in Vedic rites. That is, the rest of Hindu society are at least known to have other work/professions/daily life to get back to. And even were it true - but it isn't - that that's indeed all *brahmanas* were concerned with (though actually, it's been a stipulation for brahmanas to devise and preserve Hindu sciences, skills and arts, by learning these and teaching them to Hindu society), still, every other type of Hindu from the king to your everyday householder certainly does have uses for writing at work and in daily life and is well-capable of seeing a need for it and seeking to devise it. Clearly writing could be of great use for everything from royal decrees to ledgers and manuals and to-do lists, novels/poetry to love-letters.
But then, that's where it comes in handy yet again to de-recognise the existence of the Hindu laity (all of Hindu society actually), you see: so any deficiencies that can be exagerrated and stereotyped onto brahmanas - such as their alleged disinterest in writing - must now become the shared lot for every other type of Hindu, who were first made invisible under the ridiculously false "There's no such thing as Hindu laity" rule and next have to suffer mass self-enforced illiteracy by assocation - i.e. for being Vedic Hindus like Veda brahmanas are.
It's beyond daft. I can't believe people don't complain.