gOthram
Ravi Sundaram
a handful of rishis. All progeny of a particular
rishi belongs to a gOthram named after that rishi.
They are supposed to be brothers-sisters and hence
can not marry among themselves.
But when a woman gets married she takes the gOthram
of her husband and her children belong to a different
gOthram. So aththai-piLLai/poNNu or maamaa-piLLai/poNNu
would belong to a different gOthram and it is socially
acceptable to marry them.
Genetically there is no difference between marrying
this cousin or that cousin.
The gOthram concept might have originated to prevent
in breeding. But there is already too much of in breeding
because of the cross-cousin marriages. And perfect
strangers are prevented from marrying becuase of their
gOthrams. And there are cases where the son
is given for adoption (sweehaaram changes the gOthram)
just to enable a particular marriage to take place.
The whole gOthram concept is antiquated. But one important
lesson is to be drawn from gOthram concept.
India has seen fights/feuds due to caste, religion, language
etc. But never bhaaratwaajans fighting kowsikans etc.
So marriage across caste, religion, language, culture sustained
over generations will definitely lead to peace in India.
de-balkanize India. Promote these marriages.
Ravi Sundaram
UTA
Aero
PS: Truth in postings disclosure:
I am already married (without crossing ANY of the
barriars mentioned.)
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
> It is believed that all of us are decendants of
> a handful of rishis. All progeny of a particular
> rishi belongs to a gOthram named after that rishi.
> They are supposed to be brothers-sisters and hence
> can not marry among themselves.
>
> But when a woman gets married she takes the gOthram
> of her husband and her children belong to a different
> gOthram. So aththai-piLLai/poNNu or maamaa-piLLai/poNNu
> would belong to a different gOthram and it is socially
> acceptable to marry them.
Only in the south. Actually the canonical Hindu law prohibits such
marriage. The traditional Hindu religious law requires seven degrees of
separation on either side. To my knowledge Bengalis enforce this pretty
strictly. The cross-cousin marriage is thought to be a Dravidian custom.
S. Vidyasankar
Ravisankar M. S
: Only in the south. Actually the canonical Hindu law prohibits such
: marriage. The traditional Hindu religious law requires seven degrees of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: separation on either side. To my knowledge Bengalis enforce this pretty
: strictly. The cross-cousin marriage is thought to be a Dravidian custom.
:
: S. Vidyasankar
\start vs
Boss , what you have mentioned is a christian concept ( see BIBLE ).
\end vs
I feel this Gothram stuff has a high male chauvinistic basis.
(There are two classes of men, one accept that they
are male chauvinists and others dont:-),
but all are MCPs [MSR-lemma 1])**
Forget all this Friends. If you like a girl and She is unfortunately
interested in marrying you. Go and ahead have genetic counseling before
getting married.
IF the results say you should not, don't worry, go ahead and
get married . But make sure to adopt kids (dont venture to produce one, it
is a genetic crime )
( word produce sounds gross, but people in India and China produce
kids, but everywhere else they give birth to children )
--
Hunter of the East
** It is like
There are two kinds of people, some are bad and others did not get
a chance so far .
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
> Vidyasankar Sundaresan (cco.caltech.edu!vidya) wrote:
>
> : Only in the south. Actually the canonical Hindu law prohibits such
> : marriage. The traditional Hindu religious law requires seven degrees
of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : separation on either side. To my knowledge Bengalis enforce this
pretty
> : strictly. The cross-cousin marriage is thought to be a Dravidian
custom.
> :
> : S. Vidyasankar
>
> \start vs
> Boss , what you have mentioned is a christian concept ( see BIBLE ).
> \end vs
Is also a Hindu concept. Read P. V. Kane's history of Dharmasastra.
S. Vidyasankar
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
: In article <m0pi4Ft...@utacfd.uta.edu> sund...@utacfd.uta.edu (Ravi
Who are Hindoos? Only vEdic descendents.
And laws. canon game. W've not heard those fearful
laws. There is no such thing.
anban
kathir
: S. Vidyasankar
Dorai Sitaram
<-: Dravidian insists on marrying first cousin as a
blow against the Vedas. :->
Actually, your heckle merely proves Vidyasankar's
point. As you say, Dravidians do not accept
restrictions customary elsewhere when it comes to
cross-cousin marriage. Details on the peculiar
localization of this custom and the justifications
either offered or internalized by its practitioners can
be found in Margaret Trawick, "Notes on Love in a Tamil
Family", U. of Calif., 1990. (For those who are
interested in tracking this phenomenon more, Trawick
includes several seed references to and quotes from
people who've specialized in this.)
The "cross-cousin marriage", practiced by all Tamil
castes --- high and low, or left and right, whatever
--- to a lesser or a higher degree, is the high
preference for alliances of the form: guy marries
* mother's brother's daughter [most preferred]
* sister's daughter [also common]
* father's sister's daughter [least common]
As Trawick says, these alliances are so prevalent that
the language winks them into the collective psyche by
overloading kinship terms like maaman, aththai,
machchaan, machchi. As an interesting aside, and since
you apparently like cinema songs so much: hit movie
songs of yesteryear, mostly mirroring popular
conservative values, portray the cross-cousin alliance
as the tops. Consider the movie song, supposedly very
moving, where T.M. Soundarajan conjures up the image
of a baby growing up, marrying its aththai's child and
becoming so successful that it buys up the world; or
the one by Suseela extolling the pleasures of playing
with the (product of the) loins of one's aththai
(innocent play as children is carefully and formally
graduated to approved sexual attraction as adults).
Unbelievable elsewhere, but in Tamil culture, they are
the norm. So much so, that a Tamil, even in Ottawa,
feels bad when an unrelated man and woman flirt just
the teensiest bit, but would have no qualms --- indeed
nod his approbation like a solemn boom-boom bull --- if
the very same man marks out his mother's brother's
daugher as his sexual territory.
There is an interesting tension between this and the
opposing tendency of Dravidians to Sanskritize
themselves. As must be obvious from the
net.matrimonials and the net.vimarsanams, one just
doesn't give up passionately held views in the marriage
and sex area even though one is open to superficial
changes for prestige or economic betterment. This has
created some fluff about why Dravidian copulatory
patterns are not only neutral but also "good".
("Rebellion against the Vedas" is a new one. :-> )
There is no evidence [given the considerable number of
non-first-cousin marriages that happen anyway, and the
size of the genetic pool, in spite of all the
restrictions] that these first-cousin couplings could
be too harmful to the offspring, but they are certainly
not "good" either. All the same, it is certainly
interesting, and just a little bit macabre. I remember
seeing the beautiful patterns (kOlams) depicting
generation upon generation of close-knit alliances
among a group. It was almost like those funky "after
dark" designs used to save computer screens. Only when
you realize that these kOlams actually represent people
practicing a societally approved form of incest down
the ages does it give you pause.
As Trawick, summarizing previous study, says: "it is
natural for a [Dravidian] man, when he forms a marriage
alliance, to want to form it with someone who is like
his mother --- someone with whom he has a warm and
friendly relationship. This person is the mother's
brother. One extends one's affection for one's mother
onto all of one's mother's kindred, in particular the
mother's brother, and thence to this man's daugher, and
so marries her..." In other words, she continues, it's
the Oedipus Complex, which removes some of the mystery
without diminishing its spookiness one bit.
I highly recommend Trawick's book. It has a lot of fun
stuff about other aspects of Tamil culture too.
--d
Balaji Raghavachari
|> The gOthram concept might have originated to prevent
|> in breeding. But there is already too much of in breeding
|> because of the cross-cousin marriages. And perfect
|> strangers are prevented from marrying becuase of their
|> gOthrams. And there are cases where the son
|> is given for adoption (sweehaaram changes the gOthram)
|> just to enable a particular marriage to take place.
|>
I doubt that the system had any scientific reasoning behind it.
After the fact, we can always come up with reasons like
"they came up with the scheme to avoid in-breeding".
Humans have been around for a long-long time.
Most of these customs and laws are recent. At the time the
"law" was formulated, there were probably thousands of people
in each gothram and the chances that an arbitrary person from
a group is genetically close to another person in the same group
is very small.
It is possible that the reasons that marrying of cousins is
common in South India (especially in TN and AP?) are:
1. Relatives are probably less likely to torture the woman
if problems arise in the family.
2. The "wealth" stays in the family.
--
Balaji Raghavachari
r...@utdallas.edu
V. Nagarajan
Dorai Sitaram <do...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
....
Gothram? What? Nice. article. dravidian dorai! ;-)
>So much so, that a Tamil, even in Ottawa,
>feels bad when an unrelated man and woman flirt just
>the teensiest bit, but would have no qualms --- indeed
>nod his approbation like a solemn boom-boom bull --- if
>the very same man marks out his mother's brother's
>daugher as his sexual territory.
The reason is not hard to guess!
>There is no evidence [given the considerable number of
>non-first-cousin marriages that happen anyway, and the
>size of the genetic pool, in spite of all the
>restrictions] that these first-cousin couplings could
>be too harmful to the offspring, but they are certainly
>not "good" either.
I don't know about "no evidence" but it is hard to believe
that marrying within family in an already narrowed genetic pool
(by caste-related endogamy) is not positively harmful.
- Nagarajan
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
I read the whole book two years ago.
She also says how that is a taboo in the North.
Please do not mix issues. I have not come here
to say "this is thamizh. this is sanskrit".
Please do not say "hindu laws" because there
is no single law per se hindu.
: The "cross-cousin marriage", practiced by all Tamil
: castes --- high and low, or left and right, whatever
: --- to a lesser or a higher degree, is the high
: preference for alliances of the form: guy marries
: * mother's brother's daughter [most preferred]
: * sister's daughter [also common]
: * father's sister's daughter [least common]
: As Trawick says, these alliances are so prevalent that
: the language winks them into the collective psyche by
: overloading kinship terms like maaman, aththai,
: machchaan, machchi. As an interesting aside, and since
: you apparently like cinema songs so much
**************************************
how did you conclude that.
: hit movie
: songs of yesteryear, mostly mirroring popular
: conservative values, portray the cross-cousin alliance
: as the tops. Consider the movie song, supposedly very
: moving, where T.M. Soundarajan conjures up the image
: of a baby growing up, marrying its aththai's child and
: becoming so successful that it buys up the world; or
: the one by Suseela extolling the pleasures of playing
: with the (product of the) loins of one's aththai
: (innocent play as children is carefully and formally
: graduated to approved sexual attraction as adults).
malaranthum malaraatha paathi malar.
You mind can go cross winds and derive sex from
even air and sand.
: Unbelievable elsewhere, but in Tamil culture, they are
: the norm. So much so, that a Tamil, even in Ottawa,
: feels bad when an unrelated man and woman flirt just
: the teensiest bit, but would have no qualms --- indeed
: nod his approbation like a solemn boom-boom bull --- if
: the very same man marks out his mother's brother's
: daugher as his sexual territory.
Where did I ever talk about flirting
and my annoyance. I was objecting to introducing
a "saarayak kadai " song as folk song of tamil people.
: There is an interesting tension between this and the
: opposing tendency of Dravidians to Sanskritize
: themselves. As must be obvious from the
: net.matrimonials and the net.vimarsanams, one just
: doesn't give up passionately held views in the marriage
: and sex area even though one is open to superficial
: changes for prestige or economic betterment. This has
: created some fluff about why Dravidian copulatory
: patterns are not only neutral but also "good".
: ("Rebellion against the Vedas" is a new one. :-> )
Do not bring in Vedas and say
everything is from them. That is all. There
is no rebellion against the skt language.
The problem is only when you say everything
springs from skt.
: There is no evidence [given the considerable number of
: non-first-cousin marriages that happen anyway, and the
: size of the genetic pool, in spite of all the
: restrictions] that these first-cousin couplings could
: be too harmful to the offspring, but they are certainly
: not "good" either. All the same, it is certainly
: interesting, and just a little bit macabre. I remember
: seeing the beautiful patterns (kOlams) depicting
: generation upon generation of close-knit alliances
: among a group. It was almost like those funky "after
: dark" designs used to save computer screens. Only when
: you realize that these kOlams actually represent people
: practicing a societally approved form of incest down
: the ages does it give you pause.
Your mind can say anything.
While you can point the genetic side of it
and discuss merits do not say incest and all
that. The first category 1. thaai maaman has
been found to be unhealthy. The other categories
have been researched and studied by many people
and found to be normal.
: As Trawick, summarizing previous study, says: "it is
: natural for a [Dravidian] man, when he forms a marriage
: alliance, to want to form it with someone who is like
: his mother --- someone with whom he has a warm and
: friendly relationship. This person is the mother's
: brother. One extends one's affection for one's mother
: onto all of one's mother's kindred, in particular the
: mother's brother, and thence to this man's daugher, and
: so marries her..." In other words, she continues, it's
: the Oedipus Complex, which removes some of the mystery
: without diminishing its spookiness one bit.
: I highly recommend Trawick's book. It has a lot of fun
: stuff about other aspects of Tamil culture too.
Thanks.
She has a lot of good stuff about thamizh culture.
Please note she says that she went to a brahmin first
who had a vEdic bias.
Later decided to get an objective picture.
She wanted
to explore thamizh culture in a different perspective
and chose thEmozhiyaar-who was an expert is thiruk kOvaiyaar.
You can try your best to say `vEdic culture
is the root. Or some shastra talks this law that is
Hindu law'. But people have lived without those rules
and laws in a civilised society.
vEda or skt/skc is 5% of Tamil culture.
anban
kathir
: --d
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
Kathir,
I was just stating a fact. I am not making any value judgments about Vedic
descendants or Dravidians. By your reasoning, I am a Vedic descendant
being a Brahmin. But as far as I am concerned, I am also a Dravidian
because I am Tamizh. I am not interested in entering into the same
hackneyed argument about things that happened millenia ago.
S. Vidyasankar
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
: In article <CMzBE...@cunews.carleton.ca> k...@doe.carleton.ca (Kathiravan
It is because you quoted some shastra.
I did not make the assumption. All the south indian
brahmins (except prob namboodiris) in fact do practice the local custom of
cross cousin marriage.
I was objecting only
to saying Hindu law. As far as I am concerned
there is no Hindu law.
A few people writing some thing on a piece
of paper does not become a Hindu law.
Our culture is diverse and practices
vary from region to region.
anban
kathir
: S. Vidyasankar
Ravisankar M. S
: I don't know about "no evidence" but it is hard to believe
: that marrying within family in an already narrowed genetic pool
: (by caste-related endogamy) is not positively harmful.
: - Nagarajan
Marrying is harmful, it increases the population legitimately!
--
Hunter of the East
Note: I like to do harmful things.
V. Nagarajan
Ravisankar M. S <r0m...@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>Marrying is harmful, it increases the population legitimately!
Why does the legitimate part bother you so?
- Nagarajan
Kalpana K
I have under the impression that 'gOthram' is purely a brahminical
concept. What is the equivalent among non-brahmins when they seek
out prospective matches ? Can someone shed some light on this ?
Just curious.
Sinead
> While you can point the genetic side of it and
> discuss merits do not say incest and all that.
Yup. Hide the truth and sing in praise of Mother Tamil!
-=Satyamev Jayate=- Sinead
Shyamala Parameswaran
>
>Anban Kathir (k...@doe.carleton.ca) sneered at Dorai:
>
>> While you can point the genetic side of it and
>> discuss merits do not say incest and all that.
>
-=Satyamev Jayate=- Sinead says in response:
> Yup. Hide the truth and sing in praise of Mother Tamil!
Kathiravan has made a point re. the use of the word "incest"
in labelling (or, application to) cross-cousin marriages in
India, particularly in S. India. I'm not sure whether such
kinship ties are more prevalent among Brahmin and Vellala
communities than, say, Dalits, but if it is so then
it becomes a second point, not addressed here.
Slapping the label "incest" on a kinship practice
that has both historicity and localized implications, is
easy to do. Given our understanding of the term where
incest is "sexual relations between close kin and is
legally forbidden," we are viewing the socio-cultural
practices of an old civilization with the glasses of another.
The concern with cultural anthropologists, and Trawick is one,
is the search for understanding of different peoples. The
foregone premise in anthropology is the notion of difference
and tradition in societies, whatever their level of "evolution"
or development by "modern" standards. In respecting this
basic premise, some socio-cultural practices may appear
shocking to those from societies where a different norm
prevails. Thus, arranged marriages might "scare the
living daylights" out of someone who has been raised in
a society that has moved from this "old" practice to
newer forms of mate-selection, as in "love" marriages.
Similarly, "incest" and taboo get similar reactions
in disparate societies where practices not legally
sanctioned by one are not only adopted, but are approved
in another.
Let's call this latter society, for argument's sake,
the "shocking" society. So what are we going to do,
now that we have broadened our world view as "natives"
from the shocking society? In the case of endogamous
kinship ties through marriage and fertility, we
recognize the risks in restricting gene pools.
The practice increases probabilities of defects
in progeny but I'm no geneticist who can specify
what level and chance. Then, on the other hand,
we have a cultural practice where this scientific
fact would not have gone unnoticed if a) the practice
was very common or b) if the progeny were affected in
frequencies that could be viewed as more than chance
occurence.
Personally, I think the western wisdom is defining
incest as "legally forbidden" is to prevent even that
chance occurence of defect, something that humans can
control in improving life quality. This is just like
the practice where these days pre-nuptial
declarations/contracts are drawn regarding assets, finances
and sharing, which has legal sanction in this society.
This is based on factual information regarding marriages
and failures and large numbers of messy divorce suits,
to prevent rip-offs and victimization in contested
divorces. Very unromantic the contract, given the
romance of the "love" marriage mode but necessary
for the sake of practicality in living in high
pressure societies, I suppose. Still, this business
of pre-nuptial contracts may shock the living daylights
out of a person, say, one that comes from a society
where marriages are taken for granted, as stable and
life enduring.
In the context of the shocking society, while there is
need for education regarding greater improvement in
individual life quality, physical and mental health,
and longevity in general, the labelling and insensitive
route does little. As far as I recall, Trawick's
ethnography on Desire in Kinship in Tamil families
was a sensitive inquiry, withholding terms with
bias and distinctive connotations. I can't recall
her use of the term "incest" even once in exploring a
practice that must surely have been new, if not
astounding, to her.
Shyamala
V. Nagarajan
Shyamala Parameswaran <U15...@uicvm.uic.edu> wrote:
....
>Let's call this latter society, for argument's sake,
>the "shocking" society. So what are we going to do,
>now that we have broadened our world view as "natives"
>from the shocking society? In the case of endogamous
>kinship ties through marriage and fertility, we
>recognize the risks in restricting gene pools.
>The practice increases probabilities of defects
>in progeny but I'm no geneticist who can specify
>what level and chance. Then, on the other hand,
>we have a cultural practice where this scientific
>fact would not have gone unnoticed if a) the practice
>was very common or b) if the progeny were affected in
>frequencies that could be viewed as more than chance
>occurence.
Apparently it hasn't gone unnoticed. A quick search thru "medline"
reveals that the offsprings of consanguineous marriages (that is,
marriages among relatives) in South India suffer from autosomal
recessive disorders, neural-tube defects and post-natal mortality
at singnificantly higher levels than the average. A friend of mine
(a psoriasis researcher) tells me that the incidence of psoriasis
is significantly higher among south indian iyers; the comparison
here is to various races and tribes around the world.
Ethical relativism is well and good but if a practice harms the
future generations it must be stopped notwithstanding the fact
that we may appear to be giving into someone else's idea of what
we ought to be like.
>Personally, I think the western wisdom is defining
>incest as "legally forbidden" is to prevent even that
>chance occurence of defect, something that humans can
>control in improving life quality.
Of course!
You have lost me with the rest of your post talking about marriage
contracts and such.
The question i have is: If inbreeding is harmful should it not be
abolished? What the western notion of relationship is, is quite
irrelevant.
- Nagarajan
Dorai Sitaram
>|>Kathir admonishes dorai:
>|> Do not use words like incest ...
>|> Shyamala's well written long follow up supporting kathir mentions:
>|> incest is "sexual relations between close kin and is
>|> legally forbidden," we are viewing the socio-cultural
> The Hindu Personal Law forbids marriages among close
> relatives ...
>
> However it clearly has a provision excempting from this
> list some of the socially acceptable (cross-cousin)
> marriages.
>
> So the use of the term "incest" is clearly wrong.
I have mistakenly used "incest" to mean simply
"inbreeding", without realizing that it means "legally
prohibited inbreeding". I hereby emend my phrase "a
societally approved form of incest" to "a societally
approved form of inbreeding". Thankfully, there are no
other occurrences of the word "incest" in my article.
To Kathiravan Krishnamurthi, Shyamala Parameswaran and
Ravi Sundaram, my apologies for my sloppy vocabulary
and my thanks for setting me straight.
--d
Shyamala Parameswaran
In article <2mod7h$b...@news.u.washington.edu>, ng...@u.washington.edu (V.
Nagarajan) says:
>
> Apparently it hasn't gone unnoticed. A quick search thru "medline"
> reveals that the offsprings of consanguineous marriages (that is,
> marriages among relatives) in South India suffer from autosomal
> recessive disorders, neural-tube defects and post-natal mortality
> at singnificantly higher levels than the average. A friend of mine
> (a psoriasis researcher) tells me that the incidence of psoriasis
> is significantly higher among south indian iyers; the comparison
> here is to various races and tribes around the world.
> Ethical relativism is well and good but if a practice harms the
> future generations it must be stopped notwithstanding the fact
> that we may appear to be giving into someone else's idea of what
> we ought to be like.
>
[...]
> The question i have is: If inbreeding is harmful should it not be
> abolished? What the western notion of relationship is, is quite
> irrelevant.
Yes, I too did a rapid search on the "no evidence..." and found
some articles but didn't get into details. The "scientific fact
would not have gone unnoticed..." in my posting referred to
a simplistic level, that of observation and news in India since
scientific study results are yet to get publicised there, at the
level they are in this country.
But since I didn't look closely enough, I don't know the dates
and rates of disorder occurence. One would hope that results
would be made publicly known without too much delay. As it is,
only those families affected by consanguinous marriages and
friends would know. The "no evidence" and another posting
by Kathiravan in response, reflect this lack of communication.
And then the other point is: even if the ill-effects of
consanguinous marriages were made known effectively, can such
marriages be stopped? A few posters have shown earlier how
such alliances are closely tied to important factors: economic
conditions where parties can't "afford" to marry outside,
social-cultural conditions where some relatives would remain
unmarried and single if the kin did not marry her...
I think economic distress coupled with the larger distress
of having an unmarried or "non-marketable" daughter prompt
many of these kin marriages, regardless of observed or told
facts. I should know. My parents were closely related and
paid a heavy price. I'm one of the two survivors out of
six children born to them, and who lived troubled lives.
So it is a non-superficial and compassionate cultural
understanding of "incest" and "inbreeding" beyond science
and ethnic relativism that I state my case on. Science and
knowledge is wonderful but it can be a luxury and gamble in
hard, real life.
Shyamala
N. Gopalswamy
I think the concept is identical at least among all communities in the
Kongu country (Coimbatore, Salem & Nilgiris). The equivalent of the
word gothram is koottam. Males and females born in a particular koottam are
brothers and sisters (if they are of similar age). A married woman
takes her husband's koottam. A female married into
a koottam becomes daughter-in-law for all the elders of the new koottam;
becomes sister to other women who got married into the koottam like her; becomes
aNNi (local word is nangaiyaL) for males younger than her and "kozhunthiyaaL"
for the males older than her.
In each community there may be several (I have seen up to 10) koottams.
Let us say the koottams are A,B,C,D &E. It is possible that two or
more of the koottams are parallel. e.g, if A and C are parallel, they
are considered to be "pangaaLi"s and hence marriage is forbidden between
A & C. A & C become cross to B,D,E &F. The mapping between koottams
is very interesting.
There have been occasional attraction between a male and a female
of the same koottam. When the news breaks and the koottam is found to be
the same, then a new koottam is established for the boy (probably a
prefix or suffix to his previous koottam).
I know of a community who use bird names for identifying koottams,
e.g., kaadai, aanthai etc. In another community, I have heard
names like arasan (king), kaaLi (the goddes), Thennilai (a town
signifiying the place of origin) etc.
This koottam can be clearly seen as a generalization of the
cross-cousin marriage to all possible distant cross-cousins.
I know this is true among communities which migrated into Kongu
country hundreds of years ago. Each koottam has a kula deivam.
My friends have told me that in southern Tamil nadu, people
use "koil kumbiduRavar" as the equivalent of koottam. It is
the same concept because each koottam has a unique kula deivam.
I think this concept is universal among all communities in south
India as I have discussed with my friends from other states.
Some additional info:
Another interesting point is that the maharashtrians also follow
this kula deivam and cross-cousin marriage, which is a cultural
aspect while they use a indo-european language. In fact Maharashtra
is at the cross-roads of this cultural transformation.
In south India, only Namboothiris do not follow the so-called
dravidian kinship (Namboothiris seem to have come to
the south only after 9th century AD).
Further interesting details can be found in a book
"THE DRAVIDIAN KINSHIP" by Trauttman.
gopal
C. R. Selvakumar
Sinead <span...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>Anban Kathir (k...@doe.carleton.ca) sneered at Dorai:
>
>> While you can point the genetic side of it and
>> discuss merits do not say incest and all that.
>
> Yup. Hide the truth and sing in praise of Mother Tamil!
Marrying paternal aunt's offspring or maternal uncle's offspring
( the so called 'cross-cousin' marriage) is indeed the tamil
tradition and I understand is also the tradition among dravidians
and a few other ethnic groups. I don't understand how this becomes
incest. How does it become 'hiding the truth and singing in praise
of mother tamil' ? This practice is well known and is still
popularly practised. While there can be some criticism that the
'genetic ramifications might get somewhat limited', there is no
proof that such ramifications are beneficial ( except in cases
where genetic defect related diseases are dominant). There are
lots of issues which are not well understood and it is premature
to say one thing is better than the other ( this applies largely
to even 'animal breeding' and 'agricultural experiments' imo unless
one uses some limiting criteria ).
This 'incest' charge against the whole tamil society and
the charge of 'hiding truth and praising mother tamil'
coming from Sinead ( span...@nyx10.cs.du.edu)
are nothing but the age-old practice of putting down tamil
people and their practice/culture/custom by whatever means they can.
What a thougtful and truth-loving set of writers !
>
> -=Satyamev Jayate=- Sinead
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is grammatically wrong :-) \bt vAymaiyE vellum \et !
-Selvaa
Sinead
Shri C.R. Selvakumar (selv...@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
> This 'incest' charge against the whole Tamil society..
`Incest' or `inbreeding', the oedipus complex taking the
shape of cross-cousin marriages in the Tamil society is
brought out well in the work by Margaret Trawick that Shri
Doraiji quoted in his article a few days ago.
-= Om Shanti =- Sinead
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
: -= Namaste =-
vaNakkam sineadji!
I have read trawicks book. Dorai's terminology
is not used. please take the book and tell me
the page number where she has used
the word spookiness.
*********dorai's quote***********
he Oedipus Complex, which removes some of the mystery
without diminishing its spookiness one bit.
******************
: -= Om Shanti =- Sinead
"seppin puNarchchi pOla koodinum koodaathE
utpakai uRRa kudi"
- vaLLuvan
C. R. Selvakumar
>>> While you can point the genetic side of it and
>>> discuss merits do not say incest and all that.
>
> -=Satyamev Jayate=- Sinead says in response:
>
>> Yup. Hide the truth and sing in praise of Mother Tamil!
>
>Kathiravan has made a point re. the use of the word "incest"
>in labelling (or, application to) cross-cousin marriages in
>India, particularly in S. India.
Yes, I think Kathiravan's objection was valid one.
[...]
>Personally, I think the western wisdom is defining
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>incest as "legally forbidden" is to prevent even that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Incest" is supposed to be between parent-child
or brother-sister ( In these days one could add
between brothers and between sisters etc.). Calling
cross-cousin marriage as incest is strange, and knowing
the posters' peculiar propensities I'm not
surprised too much.
>chance occurence of defect, something that humans can
>control in improving life quality. This is just like
>the practice where these days pre-nuptial
>declarations/contracts are drawn regarding assets, finances
>and sharing, which has legal sanction in this society.
>This is based on factual information regarding marriages
>and failures and large numbers of messy divorce suits,
>to prevent rip-offs and victimization in contested
>divorces. Very unromantic the contract, given the
>romance of the "love" marriage mode but necessary
>for the sake of practicality in living in high
>pressure societies, I suppose. Still, this business
>of pre-nuptial contracts may shock the living daylights
>out of a person, say, one that comes from a society
>where marriages are taken for granted, as stable and
>life enduring.
Well said !
>
>In the context of the shocking society, while there is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>need for education regarding greater improvement in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>individual life quality, physical and mental health,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is need for education and inter-learning ( mutual learning ?)
in all societies involved in these matters.
>and longevity in general, the labelling and insensitive
>route does little. As far as I recall, Trawick's
>ethnography on Desire in Kinship in Tamil families
>was a sensitive inquiry, withholding terms with
>bias and distinctive connotations. I can't recall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>her use of the term "incest" even once in exploring a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>practice that must surely have been new, if not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>astounding, to her.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good. Even if she did use it, it is of little consequence - because
it might be just her lack of comprehension of the differences
between societies or misunderstanding of what an incest is.
The fact appears to be that some of us don't bother to
examine a point and think independently.
How insensitive to call the age-old cross cousin marriage as incest !!
\bt anbu paasam uRavu ennum soRkaLukku poruL viLankaathu mayankum
oru silarathu pEchchaagath therigiRathu intha izhivaana
pazhippugaL
\et
>
>Shyamala
anbudan
-Selvaa
Subramanian Varadarajan
>In article <940322144...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>,
>Sinead <span...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>>Anban Kathir (k...@doe.carleton.ca) sneered at Dorai:
>>
>>> While you can point the genetic side of it and
>>> discuss merits do not say incest and all that.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Yup. Hide the truth and sing in praise of Mother Tamil!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Marrying paternal aunt's offspring or maternal uncle's offspring
> ( the so called 'cross-cousin' marriage) is indeed the tamil
> tradition and I understand is also the tradition among dravidians
> and a few other ethnic groups. I don't understand how this becomes
> incest. How does it become 'hiding the truth and singing in praise
> of mother tamil' ? This practice is well known and is still
> popularly practised. While there can be some criticism that the
> 'genetic ramifications might get somewhat limited', there is no
> proof that such ramifications are beneficial ( except in cases
> where genetic defect related diseases are dominant). There are
> lots of issues which are not well understood and it is premature
> to say one thing is better than the other ( this applies largely
> to even 'animal breeding' and 'agricultural experiments' imo unless
> one uses some limiting criteria ).
>
The practice of marriage among cousins is not limited to tamil tradition only.
It was widely practised by royal families in England (Maybe Eurpore also).
P.G.Wodehouse (sp?) books have stories about romantic relationships between cousins.
It was practised even in the US, more in the South (where family values and bonds are
stronger it is believed). The book "Gone With The Wind" mentions about marriage
among cousins in the South. Einstein's second marriage was with one of his cousins,
so it was wide-spread in Europe also (I read/heard this somewhere, correct me if I'm
wrong).
Calling cross-cousin marriage as incest is not right. It was accepted and followed
in number of societies all over the world.
Rajan
C. R. Selvakumar
V. Nagarajan <ng...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <94081.092...@uicvm.uic.edu>,
[..]
>
> Apparently it hasn't gone unnoticed. A quick search thru "medline"
> reveals that the offsprings of consanguineous marriages (that is,
> marriages among relatives) in South India suffer from autosomal
> recessive disorders, neural-tube defects and post-natal mortality
> at singnificantly higher levels than the average. A friend of mine
[1] Most of the things indulged in to an excessive degree
can often lead to problems. If marriages between
*close* relationships prevails over many generations, it
is possible that such disorders can occur. I think
our fore-fathers had enough wisdom ( don't interpret that
they knew 'autosomal recessive disorder etc.) to avoid
repeated marriages between close relatives.
Unwise people exist in all societies
and they might not have paid sufficient attention to such
things.
[2] Can you elaborate what you mean by 'significantly
higher levels than average' - if you happened to
have the details handy ? I know it is not always
sought to be established on a causal basis in medical
field ( where they often look for or satisfied with
mere 'correlation' ). It is important to ask what other
factors the researchers considered.
How the cases were selected ? ( I know that the reviewers
of these articles might have asked such questions - but I do know
that so many 'published' research is proven wrong later in
medicine.. )
While it may be true that a particular disorder has a
higher chance of occurence, we should also ask
how does the number of occurences of this disorder compare
with other kinds of disorder that develop in other types of
marriages.
> (a psoriasis researcher) tells me that the incidence of psoriasis
> is significantly higher among south indian iyers; the comparison
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
By how much ? Is this linked to ONLY consanguineous
relationship.
> here is to various races and tribes around the world.
> Ethical relativism is well and good but if a practice harms the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> future generations it must be stopped notwithstanding the fact
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that we may appear to be giving into someone else's idea of what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> we ought to be like.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree that if a practice harms future generations
it must be, preferably, stopped even if it is a time
honoured practice.
But what is harmful should be clearly established !
Repeated marriages between close relatives is conceivably
harmful and I am not supporting it but to declare that
cross-cousin marriage is harmful is what I don't agree with.
One also has to consider relative harmfulness, no ?..
[ divorce causes emotional scars for the children - should
divorce be abolished ?.. homosexuality ?.. abortion ?
driving automobiles and polluting ? ..]
>
>>Personally, I think the western wisdom is defining
>>incest as "legally forbidden" is to prevent even that
>>chance occurence of defect, something that humans can
>>control in improving life quality.
>
> Of course!
> You have lost me with the rest of your post talking about marriage
> contracts and such.
> The question i have is: If inbreeding is harmful should it not be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> abolished? What the western notion of relationship is, is quite
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> irrelevant.
What degree of 'inbreeding', if 'inbreeding' is a right word,
is harmful will be a more appropriate question, imo. Zero
degree of inbreeding might sound correct to some of you
but it needs more thought.. In any case cross-cousin
marriage is not hramful as per my understanding unless
such cross-cousin marriages are repeated for
several generations in an exclusive fashion..
>
> - Nagarajan
>
anbudan
-Selvaa
dxp...@tesla.njit.edu
> The "cross-cousin marriage", practiced by all Tamil
> castes --- high and low, or left and right, whatever
> --- to a lesser or a higher degree, is the high
> preference for alliances of the form: guy marries
> * mother's brother's daughter [most preferred]
> * sister's daughter [also common]
> * father's sister's daughter [least common]
Whether we originated from Adam & Eve or monkeys, the world population
could not have grown without incest. I like to know at what point in time
people thought it was immoral to marry one's sister or cousin.
Why people thought it was ok to marry father's sister's daughter and not
father's brother's daughter. Is there any (scientific) reason?
Howmany gothrams are there?
I hope someone has answers to the above questions
Prabaharan
>
> --d
Ravisankar M. S
: Whether we originated from Adam & Eve or monkeys, the world population
: could not have grown without incest. I like to know at what point in time
: people thought it was immoral to marry one's sister or cousin.
After Moses ( or during Moses period ) Marrying first cousin was
prohibited. Bible is silent about how the system was during the
Adam and Eve. Even Eve was genetically constructed using the cells of
Adam' bone marrow ( rib bone ). Even their relationship can be stated
as highest form of incest.
: Why people thought it was ok to marry father's sister's daughter and not
: father's brother's daughter. Is there any (scientific) reason?
: Howmany gothrams are there?
It purely based on the assumption ( but wrong though ) that the
child's nature is influenced only by the father and mother is just
a carrier. Hence you can't marry father's brothers' daughter(s) but
you can marry his sisters' daughters.
I don't know how many Gothrams are there. ( I wildly based on wild
assumptions guess it must be seven , as every yuga has seven distinct
rishis in their configuration )
( Today I have to go to Library and check the meaning of Gothram. I want
to find out its root. But generally when you a say a word $%@#@#$@&,
immediatly Selva will come up with an argument that word is from
a tamil word ##$!~^&.)
Forget all this Maaan!, If I like a girl I will go ahead and marry
her irrespective of her history and geography*.
--
Hunter of the East
* A related MCP joke.
My friend always says selecting a girl is a matter of history
and geography. If her history is good, you assume that her geography
must be bad , and the vice versa. It is always a compromise.
Sinead
[ `Hamlet', Act III, Sc. II, 243 ]
Srikant Sridevan
In article <CnC2M...@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>,
selv...@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (C. R. Selvakumar) writes:
>>Hmmm I was under the impression that the gotram indicated a brahmin's
>>paternal rishi ancestor. So the "in the lineage of" argument would
>>apply here IMO. No cow fundas as far as I can tell. :-)
>
> Srikant, please let me know the meaning of Sanskrit 'gotram' as
> per Sanskrit roots. I'm open for correction.
The liberal use of "IMO, as far as I can tell, I was under the
impression" should indicate to those of even the meanest intelligence
that I was merely stating my opinion and was not stating a fact as I
knew it. I don't know how this flew by the esteemed professor that he
would think I was challenging his vast and superior knowledge in this
matter. The smiley would even set in cement the fact that I was not
trying to oppose the esteemed professor but was merely stating my views.
I can assure the professor that if I need to make an authoritative point
against him I do not need to use smileys.
>
> Things might become clear to you when you become a
> 'clear_wissenschaftenstudent' !
This mindless dig does not do the professor proud.
Srikant
--
--
Bierwissenschaftenstudent
e-mail : s...@apollo.psrc.ncsu.edu
Shyamala Parameswaran
says:
>
>" The lady doth protest too much, methinks. "
> [ `Hamlet', Act III, Sc. II, 243 ]
>
> -= Om Shanti =- Sinead
Of course. What (level) can we expect from one
who makes a virtue of copying left and right,
from the living and the dead?
Just an equal opportunity copier claiming peace!
shyamala
C. R. Selvakumar
>I don't know how many Gothrams are there. ( I wildly based on wild
>assumptions guess it must be seven , as every yuga has seven distinct
>rishis in their configuration )
There are hundreds of gotrams among brahmins although seven or so
is more common. There are hundreds of kOththtiRams among non-brahmins
and there are similar numbers of koottams and kulams.
There are some who don't follow these gotram, kOththiRam, koottam,
kulam, kudi now.
>
>( Today I have to go to Library and check the meaning of Gothram. I want
>to find out its root. But generally when you a say a word $%@#@#$@&,
>immediatly Selva will come up with an argument that word is from
>a tamil word ##$!~^&.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't understand why some of you get this feeling 'Selva will
immediately come up with an argument that it is from Tamil'!
Do I not give reaons ? Did I not fairly say that Sanskrit
gotram comes from 'go' = cow ( which Srikant seemed to disbelieve,
but you've yourself found the same). Do you know that kOththiRams are
there in vogue among other communities ( sEkkizhaar, senguntham
kizhaar.. karooraar, kodumudiyaar, mErooraar.. etc. are examples)?
Do you know the origin of the word kOththiRam in these ?
If you don't trust me, please ask or verify with someone whom you
trust but is knowledgeable in this matter.
If I say somethings I happened to know, some of you seem to
not like it. If I said everything came from Sanskrit, may be you'll
like all that I say ?
The problem is, probably, because some of you know a part of
the history you think that that is all there is in history
and for you others probably don't exist ( I mean about India).
The reason I said sanskrit gotram could have come from tamil
koottam ( but I said is probably less likely) is koottam >
kooththram > gOtram with sanskritization. Does the root you gave
namely 'go + tra' sound sensible or 'koottam' sound sensible ?
Be honest. To me 'go + tra' sounds artificial and koottam > gotram
sounds better but I won't insist except that the tamil word
kOththiRam has a different history.
>
>Hunter of the East
[..]
anbudan
-Selvaa
Shyamala Parameswaran
>
>In article <2n1nep$7...@news.tamu.edu>,
>Ravisankar M. S <r0m...@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrote:
>[..]
>>I don't know how many Gothrams are there. ( I wildly based on wild
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>assumptions guess it must be seven , as every yuga has seven distinct
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>rishis in their configuration )
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> There are hundreds of gotrams among brahmins although seven or so
> is more common. There are hundreds of kOththtiRams among non-brahmins
>
[...]
Aren't the lines quoted first obvious to indicate you
are responding to them? You quoted only three lines
and underlined all three -- what was the need? Comes
across like shouting and my eyes hurt each time
I read these posts. Why can't this horrible response
style be dropped, with a little more consideration
to readers? Did my request have no effect?
Shyamala
Raghu Seshadri
-and in Tamil. In tamil 'kO' means 'king, leader, one-who-has-attained
-great-fame,..etc.' kOththiRam means in tamil 'in the lineage of'
-and it usually refers to a distant ancestor. Brahmins also use
-kOththiRam but call it gOtram and it is supposed to be related
-to 'gO' = cow. It is also possible, imo, the sanskrit might have
-got gOtram from 'koottam' although it appears less likely.
-Selvaa
Gotram literally refers to a stable where cows can be safe.
( Go = cow, tra = root verb meaning 'protect' )
Later on it came to mean one's domain, and by extension,
one's clan space, or lineage. All members of a gotram are
"supposed to" hail from a particular Rishi. Therefore it
was forbidden to marry within one's gotram, as all sagotras
share the same lineage. Like all other cultural practices,
reality in India is a blend of Shastra and Dravidian mores.
The total number of gotrams is 49.
Another well-known word that has the 'go' connection is
Gopuram - literally, cow dwelling - referring to the ornate
gates that adorned cattle sheds. From the relatively simple
gates one sees at Buddhist stupas, they grew in size and
prominence till they reached the towering heights one sees
in the magnificent South Indian temples. Only the name remains
to remind us of its humble origins.
RS
C. R. Selvakumar
I didn't think that someone could interpret/perceive as you do.
I'm sorry I don't share your thought that it is a 'horrible style',
'less considerate ( as you imply)' but I do agree that probably
the underlining is unnecessary as in this case and will save
bandwidth. Oftentimes I use markers like etc.
^^^^(1)^^^^^
to refer to specific parts and underlining has become a habit.
It sure sounds strange to me that
these should be viewed as 'shouting' and that it should
'hurt your eyes'. Anyways, I'll try to minimize using these
underlines.
>Shyamala
anbudan
-Selvaa
Srikant Sridevan
In article <CnEt7...@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>,
selv...@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (C. R. Selvakumar) writes:
>>>>Hmmm I was under the impression that the gotram indicated a brahmin's
>>>>paternal rishi ancestor. So the "in the lineage of" argument would
>>>>apply here IMO. No cow fundas as far as I can tell. :-)
>>>
>>> Srikant, please let me know the meaning of Sanskrit 'gotram' as
>>> per Sanskrit roots. I'm open for correction.
>>
>>The liberal use of "IMO, as far as I can tell, I was under the
>>impression" should indicate to those of even the meanest intelligence
>>that I was merely stating my opinion and was not stating a fact as I
>>knew it. I don't know how this flew by the esteemed professor that he
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>would think I was challenging his vast and superior knowledge in this
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I didn't think you were challenging or anything like that !
> I was asking what you thought was the Sanskrit roots and I
> said I'm open for correction. I thought this should have been
> clear to any one who can understand English ;-) [ Srikant,
> I'm merely echoing your 'meanest intelligence' referrence :-) ]
I do realize that you were asking for what I thought was the Sanskrit
root of gO and that you were willing to be corrected. However you might
remember in your original post, the one that I responded to at any rate,
that you had also said that the Tamil word either koottam or kOtthiram
implied lineage or being descended from. This, rather than any "cow
funda", seemed to make more sense to me given my understanding of the
meaning of gOtram. That explains my statement disbelieveing the "cow funda".
> I din't know that the word 'professor' can be used with such
> effects as you show here !
>
One learns a new thing every day. :-)
C. R. Selvakumar
C. R. Selvakumar <selv...@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>P.S. One more word for your consideration:
> kOdalam = pala therukkaL koodum idam
> = sikaram koNda mudi ( spiral head dress )
I should have also added 'kOdali mudichchu' a style of tying
ladies hair- a word in popular use related to the above kOdalam.
It gets this meaning on two accounts - it is a spire
and it is slanted ( kOduthal = vaLaithal, sAithal).
Saithal > 'tapering'. Judges are required to maintain
'oru paal kOdaamai' ( = not siding/slanting/be biased to any
one side of the arguing parties ) :-)
anbudan
-Selvaa
Raghu Seshadri
-:-) I've heard this, but it sounds funny. I know that
-semantic roots can be far removed from present day
-sense and the set of meanings develop by associations.
Exactly. Later generations might find it funny rating
electric and gasoline motors in terms of horse power.
Many words develop by association. Given the close
religious and sentimental bond between the ancient
Hindus and cows, I can imagine a word denoting home-space
for cows getting transferred to mean simply home-space,
and then clan-space and finally lineage. There are a
lot of words with a lot more complex derivation.
-It is conceiveable that go = cow can be related, but
-it sounds unreasonable.
I hope my little explanation helps. But then I am no
scholar. This is just off the cuff.
> ( Go = cow, tra = root verb meaning 'protect' )
> Later on it came to mean one's domain, and by extension,
> one's clan space, or lineage. All members of a gotram are
> "supposed to" hail from a particular Rishi. Therefore it
> was forbidden to marry within one's gotram, as all sagotras
> share the same lineage. Like all other cultural practices,
> reality in India is a blend of Shastra and Dravidian mores.
---------------------------
> The total number of gotrams is 49.
- RS ! Dravidians have Shastras !
My dear Selva, my usage of the word Dravidian did not refer
to today's people, but the original culture. I meant that later
day Hinduism is a blend of Aryan and pure Dravidian concepts and
practices, ( yes, even in the far North, let alone the South ) to
the extent that it is very difficult now to identify which is which.
I'm sure that later day Dravidians have the Shastra too; of course
they do - like all other Hindus, they also have inherited this
composite culture, and their current practice reflects this blend.
As Nehru says, there is no pure Aryan or Dravidian culture left in the
subcontinent - each has affected the other extensively in creating
Hinduism.
> Another well-known word that has the 'go' connection is
> Gopuram - literally, cow dwelling - referring to the ornate
> gates that adorned cattle sheds. From the relatively simple
> gates one sees at Buddhist stupas, they grew in size and
-This appears incorrect. The related tamil words
-kOyil = kO + il = temple
- kOttam = temple
- kOttagam = temple
- should convince a person that kOpuram = kO + puram
- refers to temple > temple entrance. ( even the word
- puram means temple in tamil).
-kO refers to 'king, a high one'. kO also can mean mighty,
-tall. kooduvathu kOdu ; koottam > kOttam.
-I can cite many words to relate to the above sense of
-kOpuram. That gopuram refers to the gate
-of the cattle shed appears contrived.
Your account sounds quite likely, and should be considered
seriously by the academic community. Unfortunately
I am only an amateur in these areas, and I have provided
the standard explanation of this word from the textbooks.
Perhaps one day you can publish your theory and shake up
the academic world ...
You still have to explain why the little gate in front of
the stupas at Sanchi ( Bihar ) and elsewhere were called Gopurams
though.
-But no one will
-say that you'll give a sanskrit root for any #$!6% word;
-that kind of remark applies only to people who try to
-give tamil roots :-)
I don't know quite what you are getting at here; I
find your knowledge of Tamil very impressive - please
do share it with the rest of us. I sympathise with
your stance that Dravidian contribution to collective
Indian culture has not been documented to the extent
it should be.
As for those who think that you find a Tamil root for
everything - perhaps they will say the same thing if
someone finds a Sanskrit or a Polish root for everything
too. The operative word is not "Tamil" or "Sanskrit" but
"everything". Please think about it.
< Extensive list deleted >
-Many sanskrit words
-were, like you have done, improperly derived and the reason
-is that their tamil roots and connection were not transparent
-to Sanskrit scholars who don't have the benefit of Tamil knowledge..
This opens up a fertile field of research for a gifted
person knowledgeable in both. Looks like several easy
PhDs and a chance to get very famous if this is true. Why
isn't more work being done in this area ?
This is all the more puzzling since a generation ago there
were several men who were pundits in both Sanskrit and
Tamil.
RS
Sinead
replying to Shri Raghu Seshadri :
RS>> ..All other cultural practices, reality in
RS>> India is a blend of Shastra and Dravidian mores.
> RS ! Dravidians have Shastras !
Dravidians are as crazy as Aryans indeed !!
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
: Gopuram - literally, cow dwelling - referring to the ornate
: gates that adorned cattle sheds. From the relatively simple
: gates one sees at Buddhist stupas, they grew in size and
: prominence till they reached the towering heights one sees
: in the magnificent South Indian temples. Only the name remains
: to remind us of its humble origins.
: RS
"poovinuk arungkalam pongku thaamarai
aavinuk arungkalam aran aNYchaaduthal
kOvinuk arungkalam kOttamathil
naavinuk arungkalam nama sivaayavE!"
kO? kOttam? kOpuram etc
not from skt.
all these one letter words poo, aa, kO and naa
give rise to numerous words.
anban
kathir
Srini Pichumani
>
> Selva wrote:
>-But no one will say that you'll give a sanskrit root for any
>-#$!6% word; that kind of remark applies only to people who try to
>
> I don't know quite what you are getting at here; I
I think what Selva is saying here is that while people in general
eagerly accept Sanskrit etymologies for words however outlandish
or contrived they are, they will balk at even serious/scholarly
attempts towards Dravidian/Tamil etymologies for many words.
> This opens up a fertile field of research for a gifted
> person knowledgeable in both. Looks like several easy
> PhDs and a chance to get very famous if this is true. Why
> isn't more work being done in this area ?
Among Western scholars, people like Murray B.Emeneau, Thomas Burrow,
George Hart and others have worked towards correcting the tendency
that I mention above. Their research dealing with Dravidian etymologies,
features that link ancient Tamil literature and Sanskrit literature
(sometimes via Prakrit literature like Hala's Sattasai) where the
movement of ideas/concepts is from Tamil to Sanskrit, have been well
accepted in general.
-Srini.
C. R. Selvakumar
>> The total number of gotrams is 49.
What is the basis ( source for this info)? I think there
are more based on Panini and subsequent developments..
There are gotrams today like jamdagni-vatsa gotam
( Jamadagni gotram is okay) which are not
mentioned or recorded..
>
>- RS ! Dravidians have Shastras !
>
> My dear Selva, my usage of the word Dravidian did not refer
> to today's people, but the original culture. I meant that later
> day Hinduism is a blend of Aryan and pure Dravidian concepts and
> practices, ( yes, even in the far North, let alone the South ) to
> the extent that it is very difficult now to identify which is which.
> I'm sure that later day Dravidians have the Shastra too; of course
My dear RS, what makes you think that the earlier day
Dravidians did not have Shastras ?!
> they do - like all other Hindus, they also have inherited this
> composite culture, and their current practice reflects this blend.
> As Nehru says, there is no pure Aryan or Dravidian culture left in the
> subcontinent - each has affected the other extensively in creating
> Hinduism.
[..]
>-Many sanskrit words
>-were, like you have done, improperly derived and the reason
>-is that their tamil roots and connection were not transparent
>-to Sanskrit scholars who don't have the benefit of Tamil knowledge..
>
> This opens up a fertile field of research for a gifted
> person knowledgeable in both. Looks like several easy
> PhDs and a chance to get very famous if this is true. Why
> isn't more work being done in this area ?
A decent amount work is being done in this area.
But not much imo.
Some of our fellow indians don't notice and are not open
minded.
In my opinion, an honest set of research studies done
in this direction would certainly contribute to
fundemental changes to the current understanding and
emphasis in Indian history but there are serious
political impediments. A 5-10% of Indian history is now
projected as 95% of our history. The 5-10% of the history
should obviously hold an exalted position in view of its
greatness and depth but it is only one of such great traditions.
[..]
> RS
anbudan - Selva
Shiva Shivakumar
>
>In article <Cn6s...@lehman.com>, raj...@lehman.com (Subramanian
>Varadarajan) writes:
>
>> Calling cross-cousin marriage as incest is not right. It was accepted
>> and followed
>> in number of societies all over the world.
>
>only those close-relative marriages that are *not* accepted and followed
>all over or in some parts of the world?
>
>Is it possible to have different definitions of what constitutes incest
>in different cultures and societies? And please don't give me that "It
>has been followed in our tradition for millenia so it can't be wrong"
Objecting to the term incest to describe cross-cousin marriage is NOT
saying that this practice is not wrong.
There is a difference between X falling in love with/having sexual
relations with/ .... his cousin and Y doing the same thing if X and
Y are from different societies, one accepting/promoting this practice
and the other outlawing/looking down upon this practice.
The outcome may be the same but one should not draw same conclusions about X and Y.
Jagadisan Shivakumar
>claptrap. Just because it was accepted for millenia does not mean it
>cannot be an incorrect practice.
>
>Please do not treat my questions as rhetorical and do answer them.
>
>Thanks,
Raghu Seshadri
>> The total number of gotrams is 49.
-----
-are more based on Panini and subsequent developments..
A book by Monier-Williams. I should get confirmation from
other sources, I must admit.
-My dear RS, what makes you think that the earlier day
-Dravidians did not have Shastras ?!
Because Shastra is a Sanskrit word; and guys like Manu
who wrote some of the Shastra gave the indigenous people
of India short shrift. These led me to believe that the
Dravidians didn't have any input in these books.
You have touched upon an area where I am quite ignorant.
What are the names of these Dravidian Shastras, who wrote
them , their time periods and a summary of their contents
would help too ...
> Why isn't more work being done in this area ?
-A decent amount work is being done in this area.
-But not much imo.
Why not ? Considering the interest in this topic, why are
people not taking up the subject where they could get very
famous ?
-Some of our fellow indians don't notice and are not open
-minded.
But a scholar who does flawless, objective and meticulous
research can hardly be ignored; that people have entrenched
opinions should not encourage anyone. Where would Darwin be
if he allowed himself to be discouraged by the number of
Europeans who believed in Creation in 7 days ?
-In my opinion, an honest set of research studies done
-in this direction would certainly contribute to
-fundemental changes to the current understanding and
-emphasis in Indian history but there are serious
-political impediments.
I don't get this. Do you think a scholar who tries to
do research and write a paper or a book on Dravidian
contributions to Indian culture will face impediments
from politicians ? I wasn't aware that our illiterate
politicians read latest university research
papers :-) I am sorry , Selva, but your contention is quite
incredible !
There is a lot that is wrong with our politicians, but
inhibiting university research cannot be one of them !
I don't think they read enough to be aware of these
things.
What do you think of the following statements ?
" Why do we have to have these power shortages ? Can't
you save the electricity at night when everyone is
sleeping and use it in the daytime ? "
" The opposition, while in power, built many hydro-electric
projects - this removed all the energy from the water with
the result that the water is now no good for farming ".
One of these statements was by a DMK minister and the
other by a UP Congress Chief Minister. And you fear that
these jokers are keeping track of academic research ! :-)
RS