Nagaswamy speaks like an ardent Brahmanist and a Hindu nationalist. What nonsense to suggest that Asoka was simply using ideas from the Upanishads, and not from Buddhism, which was the faith and practice he embraced wholeheartedly and spread. And to completely ignore the enormous influence of Buddhism and Jainism on Tamil culture - playing down Silapadikkaram and Sangam literature (using dismissives like "purely creative", "not an epic", "poetically embellished works," "not history" etc.).
He wants to claim Tamil civilization as an appendage and effect of Brahmanism (though he claims it was a "two-way or reciprocal relationship. NOte how he says "the outlook of the people was the same and the culture was one." Sure, just throw in the phrase "the people" and the sentence becomes true?
Nowhere on the planet would any historian assert that "the outlook of the people was the same and the culture was one." Culture is characterized by the conflicting associations of differences, and that holds true for small hunter gatherer communities as it does large agrarian populations. The claim of cultural homogeneity is no more than an attempt to flatten differences and make invisible the complexities of real history. It is the refuge of nationalists, not an insight of historians.
Dr.Nagaswamy is an eminent archealogist.What he is saying is not new.Eminent Philosphers like Dr.Radhakrishnan have written how the upanishad thoughtsare restated in Buddha's philosophy.He is restating the opinion with literary evidence.Hope you will not dismiss Dr.Radhakrishnan who was supported to the post of president by none other than great Jawaharlal Nehru.Moreover the demarcation of religions like buddhism,jainism and hinduism is very narrow in ancient India as all these religions are clearly Indian in character and thought and overlap on each other very often.In Hinduism the Buddha is considered an Avatar of Vishnu and first tithankara Rishabadeva of Jainism is accepted as an avatar of Vishnu by Bhagvat Puran.Ramayana and Mahabharata similarly find acceptance in Buddhist and Jain philosphy.Vishnu as Padmapani and Shiva as Avalokiteswara were Gods in Buddhist thought which i remember to have read in my School Text books.To ignore the complete impact of Hinduism on Jain and Buddhist thought is also a big blunder which is what Shri Nagaswamy is pointing to.
We must not make the mistake of argument from authority; Dr. Nagaswamy makes an argument based on some evidence. We should look at that evidence objectively.
We must not make the mistake of argument from ideology; Dr. Nagaswamy makes an argument based on some evidence. We should look at that evidence objectively.
The performance of scarifices were from time immemorial in Tamil world. The great Pandiyan king, Palyagasalai mudhukudumi peruvazhudhi' has been given 'Palyagasalai' based on his innumerable sacrifices he has performed on the river banks of Pahruli. Veda's are not only for Brahmins and Aryan's but they are universal like the god himself..Thats why they say not to look at Nadhi moolam and Righi moolam.
Not to mention Rajasooyam Vetta Perunarkilli. Rajasooyam it self indicates the deed. This king lived very long after the earlier one.
The great Rishi Jabaleya was not born brahmin and not all the Rishi's are Brahmins, and Hindism, did not hide the fact..it spoke truth and always truth. And these Rishi's gave us the Veda's. The upanayanam of a brahmin, is to initiate one to Gayathri mantra, which is given to the world by a Kshtriya, turned a Brahmin, Raja Rishi (King turned Rishi) Vishwamitra.
There is still debate on who took what from whom, between Aryan's and Dravidian's. There are yagna kundam's in Turministan's and as well in Lemuria..Can someone debate on Aryan's took Scarifices from Dravidian's? This is an endless debate..