Cordeux and Zhao etc need to be understood in the context of the chronology of papers and arguments presented since 2000 or so..So for example, Cordeux's results have been invalidated by a later study by Thanseem et al (2006)...I will try and put together a quick summary of this chronology in a subsequent post over the next few days.ramana wrote:Did anyone read them to understnad why they are holding out?
In other words what are their facts?
ramana
Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Oh good. Because this could mean that Bharatavarshis were producing Electricity in 4th millennium B.C.peter wrote:Dr Abhyankar in his paper: Agastya a sage and a star has conclusively shown that Agastya (Canopus) became visible in the Vindhya around 4500 BC (Checked it in Stellarium and it jives). This could help date the travel of Agastya to South India and further help in dating the Vedas.
http://cpdarshi.wordpress.com/2012/04/2 ... a-sanhita/
अगस्त्य संहिता में एक सूत्र हैः
संस्थाप्य मृण्मये पात्रे ताम्रपत्रं सुसंस्कृतम्।
छादयेच्छिखिग्रीवेन चार्दाभि: काष्ठापांसुभि:॥
दस्तालोष्टो निधात्वय: पारदाच्छादितस्तत:।
संयोगाज्जायते तेजो मित्रावरुणसंज्ञितम्॥
अर्थात् एक मिट्टी का बर्तन लें, उसमें अच्छी प्रकार से साफ किया गया ताम्रपत्र और शिखिग्रीवा (मोर के गर्दन जैसा पदार्थ अर्थात् कॉपरसल्फेट) डालें। फिर उस बर्तन को लकड़ी के गीले बुरादे से भर दें। उसके बाद लकड़ी के गीले बुरादे के ऊपर पारा से आच्छादित दस्त लोष्ट (mercury-amalgamated zinc sheet) रखे। इस प्रकार दोनों के संयोग से अर्थात् तारों के द्वारा जोड़ने पर मित्रावरुणशक्ति की उत्पत्ति होगी।
यहाँ पर उल्लेखनीय है कि यह प्रयोग करके भी देखा गया है जिसके परिणामस्वरूप 1.138 वोल्ट तथा 23 mA धारा वाली विद्युत उत्पन्न हुई। स्वदेशी विज्ञान संशोधन संस्था (नागपुर) के द्वारा उसके चौथे वार्षिक सभा में ७ अगस्त, १९९० को इस प्रयोग का प्रदर्शन भी विद्वानों तथा सर्वसाधारण के समक्ष किया गया।
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Virendra
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
I apologize for long and belated reply. 
I'll explain. There is one, Sri Kota Venkatachalem, who is proposing more ancient dates for Buddha than the ones suggested by the colonial historians. Now, the colonial historians have given Buddha the date of 500 BCE. Kota Venkatachalem is proposing 1800 BCE. He thinks he has to refute the dates given by the colonial historians. To do this, he uses many logics.
One such logic is: He shows (what is already well known) that Buddha was not a contemporary of Kumarilla Bhatta or Adi Shankara. Kumarilla Bhatta and Adi Shankara are generally accepted as belonging to 800 CE both by traditionalists and colonial/commie historians. AFAIK, only Kanchi Mutt differs on this and gives a more ancient date of 500 BCE. Kota Venkatachalem accepts this date based on Kanchi Mutt's records. Based on this date, he argued that Buddha must be older than 500 BCE because Buddha was more ancient figure than Adi Shankara. It is universally accepted that Buddha is more ancient figure than Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta. No controversy there. But, the fly in the ointment in the logic used by Kota Venkatachalem is that he relies on the records of Kanchi to establish the dates of Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta.
My point is that Kanchi records are bogus. Basing the dates on this bogus records will yield wrong dates for Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta. Using these wrong dates to counter the obviously fraudulent dates given by colonial historians for Buddha is funny and ironic. One set of fraudulent dates are being countered by another set of fraudulent dates.
According to tradition, there are 4 mutts established by Adi Shankara. The Dashanami order of sanyasis also accept the authority of these 4 mutts only(and not Kanchi or anyother). The 4 mutts are:
a) East - Puri - Govardhan Mutt.
b) South - Sringeri - Sharada Mutt.
c) West - Dwarka - Kalika Mutt.
d) North - Badri - Jyothir Mutt.
Of these four mutts, the Jyothir Math had long been vacant, till it was revived in 1940 CE. So, it does not have many ancient records. And Dwaraka and Puri maths have patchy histories, with periods when there were no presiding Sankaracaryas.
The historical records of these 3 mutts are, therefore, not reliable to know the dates of Adi Shankara.
So, that leaves Sringeri which has had an unbroken succession of mathadhipatis. The records of Sringeri are corroborated by the Vijayanagara records. Vijayanagara records give details of various years in which grants were given and who the pitadhipathi was at that time. These details corroborate the records of Sringeri. Further, Sringeri records are corroborated by other royalties and third party records.
Kota Venkatachalem depends on Kanchi records and ignores Sringeri records for dating Adi Shankara. Sringeri records give 800 CE date for Adi Shankara while Kanchi mutt claims 500 BCE.
The problem is Kanchi's records are not corroborated by any third party records. There are only and only Kanchi's claims. Very tall claims but simply no corroboration. Kanchi mutt claims to be in existence from 500 BCE, yet there are no records in history from any independent sources to attest of such an existence. There is no mention of Kanchi mutt in the entire history(except in the last 200 yrs). The other(original) 4 mutts and their existence can be attested by other sources from 800 CE onwards.
In fact, there is no evidence that any peetham existed in Kanchi before 1800 CE.
Then, the list of Acharyas provided by Kanchi is also full of defects. I read that the information is self-contradictory or contradicted by other third-party historical records.
By all these points, Kota Venkatachalem's dates for Adi Shankara are fraudulent( or at best, dubious).
Also, the oldest inscription found in Kumbhakonam math(Kanchi mutt before it was shifted to Kanchi) is 1821 CE. I am not one of those who insists on taking archeological evidence as the be all and end all. I am quite ambivalent about archeological evidence. But, if you say your mutt is as old as 500 BCE and the oldest inscription is just 1821 CE, then that is a big problem(as far as I am concerned).
Having said all that, I understand that you can accuse me of taking sides in a dispute. You can say that all this is my personal opinion based on my bias. Fine. I will even acknowledge my bias. In fact, I think anyone who is trying to make conclusions(or judgements) based on disparate data points must first acknowledge his own bias, so that he himself and other people are aware of it. Being aware of a bias does not necessarily neutralize it, but definitely moderates its impact because others can be more careful. By working under the cloak of feigned neutrality, people allow the inherent human biases to make a greater impact on judgements or conclusions. It is highly misleading when the role of bias is unacknowledged or outright rejected by claiming impartiality. This applies in any field.
Anyway, the pertinent point here is that the same charges that can be made against me(of being partisan and biased), can be made against Kota Venkatachalem, who is also taking sides in the dispute by accepting the records of Kanchi while ignoring Sringeri's records.
Let me clarify that I am not against Kanchi mutt's pro-Hindu activities. I am clarifying because there is a chance that some may arrive at that conclusion because of what I said about Kanchi mutt's records. As far as I am concerned, anyone who works for Hinduism is to be supported. I am more concerned about the work rather than the brands. Brands are useless if they don't do the requisite work. And I don't mean any disrespect to the peetadhipatis of Kanchi mutt. I have heard glowing tributes of Sri Chandrashekarendra Saraswati. He seems to have played a very prominent role in protecting the interests of Hinduism. I appreciate that effort.
My irritation in this matter is that I think an unnecessary historical controversy is being created where none exists.
In fact, this is a classic illustration of how historical controversies start. Such controversies can start by two ways:
a) Misinformation:Unintentional, disorganized, caused by ignorance/inadvertent mistake.
b) Disinformation:Intentional, organized, definite motive.
Disinformation is, generally, more organized, planned and passionate. There may be a definite motive in spreading a disinfo. There may be a group of players who spread the disinfo with a definite agenda. So even if the contrary proof is shown, the disinfo campaign will persist. On the other hand, misinfo is mostly unintentional, disorganized, and is more open to correction when the mistakes are pointed out. It is generally, caused by ignorance or an inadvertent mistake. Disinfo campaigns target the ignorant or misinformed people. So, once these people are convinced, then the disinfo is spread via misinfo also. A disinfo campaign backed by powerful players can be very effective, far-reaching and long-lasting. It is nothing more than propaganda.
While, it may be possible to identify an unintentional mistake, it is far more difficult to identify an intentional fudging of the records. This difficulty rises exponentially as the time passes by. So, it becomes more and more difficult to spot an inaccurate information (misinfo or disinfo) in historical records. More the antiquity of records, more difficult it is to differentiate between accurate info from false info.
People in history are similar to the contemporary people. And their records are also similar to contemporary records. Some are honest, some are not. Some are well-informed, some are not. Some distort(or even lie) with a specific agenda, some are truthful. This is true today, it was true in the past(history) and it will will be true in future. This is the main reason, there are so many conflicting claims in Indian History( or for that matter any history with long timelines). Given the long timelines, many people/groups have indulged in disinformation(to further their agendas) in the past(just as some people/groups do in present and no doubt, some will continue to do in the future). And then, there are those who spread the false info mistaking it for the correct info(misinfo). Such people are also useful to those who are interested in spreading the disinfo. Disinfo campaigns, generally, target those who are less knowledgeable. Once these people are convinced(or duped) into believing the false info, they can then spread the false info believing it to be true.
Also, there may be multiple parties interested in spreading a certain false info (about past, present or future). All these parties can come together and work with each other to fulfill their common agenda/interests. It is not necessary that these parties be allies or friends. As long as, these parties have common interests/agenda in spreading the same false info, they can cooperate to that limited extent. This happens now, this must have happened in the past, and this will happen in the future.
Given, all these factors, it is very difficult for a historian to know which one is a fraudulent historical record and which is the authentic one.
One simple way is to assume that the oldest is most authentic. Another method is to assume that the data point that is accepted by most records must be closer to truth. Both of these are great assumptions not backed by practical experience. The above methods gives incentives to the forgeries(or propagandas) that have survived in time or have spread widely. If a particular propaganda or forgery has powerful backing, it could have (in its time or later) destroyed or suppressed the other records which expose its fallacies. In fact, the survival of this record may be directly attributed to its falsity rather than authenticity. Yet, the authentic records may also survive such periods due to many factors.
So, we are back to the problem: given, all these factors, how does the historian know which one is a fraudulent historical record and which is the authentic one?
The simple answer is: There is no way.
So, invariably, all records are clubbed together and given same treatment by the modern historian. That means, because the modern historian is unable to distinguish between the accurate source (i.e acceptable/reliable source) and inaccurate source (i.e. unacceptable/unreliable source), he resorts to treating all sources as more or less equally accurate/inaccurate. So, all the sources are considered equally reliable and equally suspect. That means, the historian thinks all records are equally correct and equally false.
But, what happens when the historical records differ on a particular data point? In fact, the whole reliable/unreliable thingy is redundant if all the records agree on all aspects, isn't it? The reliability/unreliability becomes an issue only when these records give differing picture of the same data point. So, what happens when the historical records differ on a particular data point? How does the historian know which record is giving the correct picture and which one is distorting(if not outright lying)? What does the modern historian do? The problem is not to be underestimated because the historian is unable to know the reliable sources and has clubbed all the sources into the same category of reliability.
Then, how does the historian construct a narrative of history from these differing sources(all of which have been classified as equally reliable/unreliable)?
What the historian does is that he gleans those data points from these divergent records, that he thinks must be true. For example, he reads three different portrayals of a same event from three different sources. Then, he constructs the narrative that he thinks is most plausible. For this, he chooses data points most suitable to his narrative from these three sources. He rejects all other data points as unreliable or irrelevant. It is almost like he thinks he has some kind of superhuman intuitive intellect that can differentiate the truth from untruth and bring the real events to light. Of course, what may seem plausible to one man may seem farfetched to another and vice versa. So, the same records can be used by different historians to produce different narratives.
This method is obviously faulty, even if we assume that the historian himself is unbiased, neutral, fair, and intelligent. Of course, historians are seldom unbiased or neutral.
History has a value only if it is related to present. And there is always politics in the present which will have an impact on how history will be read. This fault is inherent in historical records that speak of their past. That means, just as a modern historian can be biased in presenting the events of past, an ancient historian can also be biased. For example, a 100 yr old document talking about 200 yr old event can be biased or inaccurate just as a modern document talking about the history can be biased or inaccurate because of the bias or ignorance of the historian. Similarly, a 1000 yr old document talking about 1100 yr old event may be biased or inaccurate.
We know that any historian, who presents a narrative that runs contrary to the convenience/interests of those who are presently in power, is ignored or bullied socially and/or politically. This happened now, this must have happened in the past, this is likely to happen in the future as well. Yet, there can also be regimes (in past, present or future) that may have encouraged any honest investigation. There can also be regimes (in past, present or future) that may not care for any history and allow all kinds of narratives to survive and prosper. The point I am trying to make is that there is no formula by which any reader of history can simply come to correct understanding of history.
All this makes it very difficult for people to know history by consulting historical records unless one has some method by which authentic records can be differentiated from the frauds.
This is the only solution. Generally, traditions achieve this purpose. Traditions accept certain sources/records and base the narrative upon those records/sources. All other records/sources are ignored or considered irrelevant. In this regard, the traditions and the methods of modern historian may seem similar. But, there is a vital difference. The traditions accept a particular record(s)/source(s), while a historian accepts a particular data point from different sources. When a particular record(s) is accepted, everything within the record must be accepted. There is no escaping it. On the other hand, a historian gleans different data points from different sources constructing his own narrative. Some of the blanks in the narrative may be filled by his own imagination. The historian does not fully accept any source as reliable, because if he does he would have to simply accept the narrative presented by that source. At the same time, the modern historian does not fully reject all sources either, because if he does he has no other source to construct the narrative(except his vivid imagination). So, he picks and chooses what he thinks is plausible from different sources and rejects the other data points from those sources. In short, we have a customized history presented by the modern historian. In contrast, traditions present history which may be biased in its favour but not completely customized to suit every convenience/sensibility. Unlike, modern day historians, traditions don't pretend to be unbiased. They are unapologetically partisan. So, when we study a tradition we know exactly what their agenda is.
The colonial(EJ) and commie historians want to claim neutrality This feigned neutrality is used as a cloak to spin historical narratives that suit their preferred ideologies. They do this in most absurd manner by arbitrarily choosing what to believe, how much to believe and when to reject. Their convenience is the only criteria. Anything that doesn't fit their convenience gets rejected and anything that fits is accepted. The result of such arbitrariness is theories like 'Sheet Anchor'(or 'Anchor Sheet' or whatever). And this is, then, used as a basis for all other dates.
Needless to say that those dates are bound to be arbitrary. Even then those dates are further adjusted if a detail is inconvenient. This approach is nothing but intellectual dishonesty especially since they claim neutrality.
Instead, the age old method of going by one's traditions to accept or reject a historical record or detail is more honest(even if partisan).
Each group/community has their own traditions. And based on those traditions, every group/community accept or reject certain historical records. Each group/community believes in the primacy of its own traditions. It is natural.
But, all traditions need not be truthful. Some(if not many) traditions may be born around disinfo campaigns or propaganda.
So, traditions can also be authentic or flawed. Some traditions can be considered less authentic than others because their narrative is self-contradictory or patently irrational/false (again, this is a subjective view).
According to Hindu traditions, Puranas are the authentic account of the Indian history. Other sources are useful only to the extent that they clarify the Puranic account. If any historical record(say Buddhist or Jaina) is contradicting Puranas, then it is rejected as a misinformation or disinformation.
I welcome Kota Venkatachalem's work because it insists that we must go back to Puranas for proper Indian history instead of relying on Greek(or other foreign accounts which may be uninformed or propaganda).
I have no problem in accepting the Buddha's date given by Kota Venkatachalem. In fact, I am more than happy to accept it.
But, when I superficially glossed through his work, I checked the dates given by him for Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta. I find them dubious at best and fraudulent at worst.
Actually, there is no need to bring in the dates of Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta when you are working on Buddha's dates. I think they are irrelevant to each other.
I'll give an example of what I think Kota Venkatachalem has done by bringing in dates of Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta while trying to refute Buddha's dates(given by colonial historians):
Lets say, you propose that Sri Rama belonged to 14th century CE based on some bogus info(or interpretation of info). Now, I want to refute your proposal. So, I say that my uncle lived in 14th century and he told me he never met Sri Rama and that proves Sri Rama was older than 14th century. If someone points out that my uncle could not have belonged to 14th century while I belong to 21st century, it does not mean he is agreeing to the original proposal that Sri Rama belonged to 14th century. It only means that he is merely pointing out the mistake in my counter-argument.
Similarly, I do not agree with the dates given for Buddha by the colonial/commie historians. But, at the same time, the dates given by Kota Venkatachalem also seem to be bogus.
I repeat that I heartily welcome Kota Venkatachalem's work because it insists that we must go back to Puranas for proper Indian history. In fact, the Puranas preserve and present ancient oral traditions from guru(teacher) to shishya(disciple). Every Purana starts with a set of people(rishis) asking some questions to Suta pauranika. Suta pauranika then tells them that he heard this narrative from X who was told by Y who learnt it from Z, so on, dating back to the original event or God/Goddess Himself/Herself. These traditions are now preserved in the Puranas. So, there is continuous historical narrative extending to great timelines. This is a unique feature of Puranas unlike any other historical source.
So, we must go back to the Puranas and check what they are saying. That must be done, before anything else is done. Actually, anyone who wants to learn Indian history has no other recourse but the Puranas. Other historical records and archeological evidences can only supplement the Puranas. But, without Puranic account, the other historical records and archeological evidences are useless to construct any coherent narrative or timeline of Indian history. So, invariably, all the historians interested in Indian history must depend on the data presented by Puranas. It is just that these historians only pick the data but do not accept the timelines or narrative given by Puranas. They use the data to spin their own fables convenient to their worldview.
2 points:
1) An avatara need not be old or new. Adi Shankara is also considered an avatara of Lord Dakshinamurthy(Shiva). The oldest date given for Adi Shankara by Kanchi is 500 BCE. If that date is not right for an avatara, then? On the other hand, the date accepted for Adi Shankara is 800 CE, which is quite recent date considering Indian historical timelines, even so, He is accepted as an avatara. Even those hindu communities that may not accept Him as an avatara have their own recent historical figures who are revered as avatara. So, date, recent or ancient, has nothing to do with being or not being an avatara.
In fact, Kalki(one of the avatars of Vishnu) is yet to manifest and is supposed to so in future.
2) I agree with you that Buddha's date has to be much older. This is corroborated by many other independent factors. For example, Chinese traditions say that Buddhism came to China much earlier than the current dates given for Buddha by the colonials.
I partially agree with you, when you say that consequently the others also move back. I think not all dates need to move. Only those dates that are derived from or depend on the dates of Buddha will move. Those dates that are independent of the dating of Buddha will remain as they are.
AFAIK, Adi Shankara's date is independent of Buddha's dating. It is directly derivable from Sringeri records which are accepted by the other 3 mutts also and corroborated by the independent records like Vijayanagara and Marathas.
What does all this have to do with this thread?shiv wrote:johneeG wrote:
As for Kanchi, its claims and records are bogus.
<snip>
1. The Illustrated Weekly of India, "The Weekly Cover Story" - K. P.
Sunil, September 13, 1987.
2 a. The Truth about the Kumbhakonam Math, - Sri R. Krishnaswamy
Aiyar and Sri K. R. Venkatraman, Sri Ramakrishna Press, Madurai,
1977.
b. Kanchi Kamakoti Math - a Myth - Sri Varanasi Raj Gopal Sarma,
Ganga Tunga Prakashan, Varanasi, 1987.
LC Call No.: BL1243.76.C62 K367 1987
What does all this have to do with this thread? This looks like an Inter-Hindu math disagreement between Brahmins of different maths in their usual cat-fight and that you are one one side. That is your prerogative but I believe you are needlessly taking a dump on this thread. This is like Deobandi saying Barelvi are munafiq.
If you think Sringeri Math is right it is enough for you to say that. No need to post the entire Ramayana and Mahabharata to support your personal opinion.
I'll explain. There is one, Sri Kota Venkatachalem, who is proposing more ancient dates for Buddha than the ones suggested by the colonial historians. Now, the colonial historians have given Buddha the date of 500 BCE. Kota Venkatachalem is proposing 1800 BCE. He thinks he has to refute the dates given by the colonial historians. To do this, he uses many logics.
One such logic is: He shows (what is already well known) that Buddha was not a contemporary of Kumarilla Bhatta or Adi Shankara. Kumarilla Bhatta and Adi Shankara are generally accepted as belonging to 800 CE both by traditionalists and colonial/commie historians. AFAIK, only Kanchi Mutt differs on this and gives a more ancient date of 500 BCE. Kota Venkatachalem accepts this date based on Kanchi Mutt's records. Based on this date, he argued that Buddha must be older than 500 BCE because Buddha was more ancient figure than Adi Shankara. It is universally accepted that Buddha is more ancient figure than Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta. No controversy there. But, the fly in the ointment in the logic used by Kota Venkatachalem is that he relies on the records of Kanchi to establish the dates of Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta.
My point is that Kanchi records are bogus. Basing the dates on this bogus records will yield wrong dates for Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta. Using these wrong dates to counter the obviously fraudulent dates given by colonial historians for Buddha is funny and ironic. One set of fraudulent dates are being countered by another set of fraudulent dates.
According to tradition, there are 4 mutts established by Adi Shankara. The Dashanami order of sanyasis also accept the authority of these 4 mutts only(and not Kanchi or anyother). The 4 mutts are:
a) East - Puri - Govardhan Mutt.
b) South - Sringeri - Sharada Mutt.
c) West - Dwarka - Kalika Mutt.
d) North - Badri - Jyothir Mutt.
Of these four mutts, the Jyothir Math had long been vacant, till it was revived in 1940 CE. So, it does not have many ancient records. And Dwaraka and Puri maths have patchy histories, with periods when there were no presiding Sankaracaryas.
The historical records of these 3 mutts are, therefore, not reliable to know the dates of Adi Shankara.
So, that leaves Sringeri which has had an unbroken succession of mathadhipatis. The records of Sringeri are corroborated by the Vijayanagara records. Vijayanagara records give details of various years in which grants were given and who the pitadhipathi was at that time. These details corroborate the records of Sringeri. Further, Sringeri records are corroborated by other royalties and third party records.
Kota Venkatachalem depends on Kanchi records and ignores Sringeri records for dating Adi Shankara. Sringeri records give 800 CE date for Adi Shankara while Kanchi mutt claims 500 BCE.
The problem is Kanchi's records are not corroborated by any third party records. There are only and only Kanchi's claims. Very tall claims but simply no corroboration. Kanchi mutt claims to be in existence from 500 BCE, yet there are no records in history from any independent sources to attest of such an existence. There is no mention of Kanchi mutt in the entire history(except in the last 200 yrs). The other(original) 4 mutts and their existence can be attested by other sources from 800 CE onwards.
In fact, there is no evidence that any peetham existed in Kanchi before 1800 CE.
Then, the list of Acharyas provided by Kanchi is also full of defects. I read that the information is self-contradictory or contradicted by other third-party historical records.
By all these points, Kota Venkatachalem's dates for Adi Shankara are fraudulent( or at best, dubious).
I am inclined to believe Sringeri Math because its records are attested by other parties while even the existence of any mutt named Kanchi before 1800 is doubtful. Kanchi(Kumbakonnam)'s claims of great antiquity bear no corroborative records from any other sources(except the holy forgeries of Kanchi. Eg: list of Acharyas dating back to 500 BCE).This looks like an Inter-Hindu math disagreement between Brahmins of different maths in their usual cat-fight and that you are one one side. That is your prerogative but I believe you are needlessly taking a dump on this thread. This is like Deobandi saying Barelvi are munafiq.
If you think Sringeri Math is right it is enough for you to say that. No need to post the entire Ramayana and Mahabharata to support your personal opinion.
Also, the oldest inscription found in Kumbhakonam math(Kanchi mutt before it was shifted to Kanchi) is 1821 CE. I am not one of those who insists on taking archeological evidence as the be all and end all. I am quite ambivalent about archeological evidence. But, if you say your mutt is as old as 500 BCE and the oldest inscription is just 1821 CE, then that is a big problem(as far as I am concerned).
Having said all that, I understand that you can accuse me of taking sides in a dispute. You can say that all this is my personal opinion based on my bias. Fine. I will even acknowledge my bias. In fact, I think anyone who is trying to make conclusions(or judgements) based on disparate data points must first acknowledge his own bias, so that he himself and other people are aware of it. Being aware of a bias does not necessarily neutralize it, but definitely moderates its impact because others can be more careful. By working under the cloak of feigned neutrality, people allow the inherent human biases to make a greater impact on judgements or conclusions. It is highly misleading when the role of bias is unacknowledged or outright rejected by claiming impartiality. This applies in any field.
Anyway, the pertinent point here is that the same charges that can be made against me(of being partisan and biased), can be made against Kota Venkatachalem, who is also taking sides in the dispute by accepting the records of Kanchi while ignoring Sringeri's records.
Let me clarify that I am not against Kanchi mutt's pro-Hindu activities. I am clarifying because there is a chance that some may arrive at that conclusion because of what I said about Kanchi mutt's records. As far as I am concerned, anyone who works for Hinduism is to be supported. I am more concerned about the work rather than the brands. Brands are useless if they don't do the requisite work. And I don't mean any disrespect to the peetadhipatis of Kanchi mutt. I have heard glowing tributes of Sri Chandrashekarendra Saraswati. He seems to have played a very prominent role in protecting the interests of Hinduism. I appreciate that effort.
My irritation in this matter is that I think an unnecessary historical controversy is being created where none exists.
In fact, this is a classic illustration of how historical controversies start. Such controversies can start by two ways:
a) Misinformation:Unintentional, disorganized, caused by ignorance/inadvertent mistake.
b) Disinformation:Intentional, organized, definite motive.
Disinformation is, generally, more organized, planned and passionate. There may be a definite motive in spreading a disinfo. There may be a group of players who spread the disinfo with a definite agenda. So even if the contrary proof is shown, the disinfo campaign will persist. On the other hand, misinfo is mostly unintentional, disorganized, and is more open to correction when the mistakes are pointed out. It is generally, caused by ignorance or an inadvertent mistake. Disinfo campaigns target the ignorant or misinformed people. So, once these people are convinced, then the disinfo is spread via misinfo also. A disinfo campaign backed by powerful players can be very effective, far-reaching and long-lasting. It is nothing more than propaganda.
While, it may be possible to identify an unintentional mistake, it is far more difficult to identify an intentional fudging of the records. This difficulty rises exponentially as the time passes by. So, it becomes more and more difficult to spot an inaccurate information (misinfo or disinfo) in historical records. More the antiquity of records, more difficult it is to differentiate between accurate info from false info.
People in history are similar to the contemporary people. And their records are also similar to contemporary records. Some are honest, some are not. Some are well-informed, some are not. Some distort(or even lie) with a specific agenda, some are truthful. This is true today, it was true in the past(history) and it will will be true in future. This is the main reason, there are so many conflicting claims in Indian History( or for that matter any history with long timelines). Given the long timelines, many people/groups have indulged in disinformation(to further their agendas) in the past(just as some people/groups do in present and no doubt, some will continue to do in the future). And then, there are those who spread the false info mistaking it for the correct info(misinfo). Such people are also useful to those who are interested in spreading the disinfo. Disinfo campaigns, generally, target those who are less knowledgeable. Once these people are convinced(or duped) into believing the false info, they can then spread the false info believing it to be true.
Also, there may be multiple parties interested in spreading a certain false info (about past, present or future). All these parties can come together and work with each other to fulfill their common agenda/interests. It is not necessary that these parties be allies or friends. As long as, these parties have common interests/agenda in spreading the same false info, they can cooperate to that limited extent. This happens now, this must have happened in the past, and this will happen in the future.
Given, all these factors, it is very difficult for a historian to know which one is a fraudulent historical record and which is the authentic one.
One simple way is to assume that the oldest is most authentic. Another method is to assume that the data point that is accepted by most records must be closer to truth. Both of these are great assumptions not backed by practical experience. The above methods gives incentives to the forgeries(or propagandas) that have survived in time or have spread widely. If a particular propaganda or forgery has powerful backing, it could have (in its time or later) destroyed or suppressed the other records which expose its fallacies. In fact, the survival of this record may be directly attributed to its falsity rather than authenticity. Yet, the authentic records may also survive such periods due to many factors.
So, we are back to the problem: given, all these factors, how does the historian know which one is a fraudulent historical record and which is the authentic one?
The simple answer is: There is no way.
So, invariably, all records are clubbed together and given same treatment by the modern historian. That means, because the modern historian is unable to distinguish between the accurate source (i.e acceptable/reliable source) and inaccurate source (i.e. unacceptable/unreliable source), he resorts to treating all sources as more or less equally accurate/inaccurate. So, all the sources are considered equally reliable and equally suspect. That means, the historian thinks all records are equally correct and equally false.
But, what happens when the historical records differ on a particular data point? In fact, the whole reliable/unreliable thingy is redundant if all the records agree on all aspects, isn't it? The reliability/unreliability becomes an issue only when these records give differing picture of the same data point. So, what happens when the historical records differ on a particular data point? How does the historian know which record is giving the correct picture and which one is distorting(if not outright lying)? What does the modern historian do? The problem is not to be underestimated because the historian is unable to know the reliable sources and has clubbed all the sources into the same category of reliability.
Then, how does the historian construct a narrative of history from these differing sources(all of which have been classified as equally reliable/unreliable)?
What the historian does is that he gleans those data points from these divergent records, that he thinks must be true. For example, he reads three different portrayals of a same event from three different sources. Then, he constructs the narrative that he thinks is most plausible. For this, he chooses data points most suitable to his narrative from these three sources. He rejects all other data points as unreliable or irrelevant. It is almost like he thinks he has some kind of superhuman intuitive intellect that can differentiate the truth from untruth and bring the real events to light. Of course, what may seem plausible to one man may seem farfetched to another and vice versa. So, the same records can be used by different historians to produce different narratives.
This method is obviously faulty, even if we assume that the historian himself is unbiased, neutral, fair, and intelligent. Of course, historians are seldom unbiased or neutral.
History has a value only if it is related to present. And there is always politics in the present which will have an impact on how history will be read. This fault is inherent in historical records that speak of their past. That means, just as a modern historian can be biased in presenting the events of past, an ancient historian can also be biased. For example, a 100 yr old document talking about 200 yr old event can be biased or inaccurate just as a modern document talking about the history can be biased or inaccurate because of the bias or ignorance of the historian. Similarly, a 1000 yr old document talking about 1100 yr old event may be biased or inaccurate.
We know that any historian, who presents a narrative that runs contrary to the convenience/interests of those who are presently in power, is ignored or bullied socially and/or politically. This happened now, this must have happened in the past, this is likely to happen in the future as well. Yet, there can also be regimes (in past, present or future) that may have encouraged any honest investigation. There can also be regimes (in past, present or future) that may not care for any history and allow all kinds of narratives to survive and prosper. The point I am trying to make is that there is no formula by which any reader of history can simply come to correct understanding of history.
All this makes it very difficult for people to know history by consulting historical records unless one has some method by which authentic records can be differentiated from the frauds.
This is the only solution. Generally, traditions achieve this purpose. Traditions accept certain sources/records and base the narrative upon those records/sources. All other records/sources are ignored or considered irrelevant. In this regard, the traditions and the methods of modern historian may seem similar. But, there is a vital difference. The traditions accept a particular record(s)/source(s), while a historian accepts a particular data point from different sources. When a particular record(s) is accepted, everything within the record must be accepted. There is no escaping it. On the other hand, a historian gleans different data points from different sources constructing his own narrative. Some of the blanks in the narrative may be filled by his own imagination. The historian does not fully accept any source as reliable, because if he does he would have to simply accept the narrative presented by that source. At the same time, the modern historian does not fully reject all sources either, because if he does he has no other source to construct the narrative(except his vivid imagination). So, he picks and chooses what he thinks is plausible from different sources and rejects the other data points from those sources. In short, we have a customized history presented by the modern historian. In contrast, traditions present history which may be biased in its favour but not completely customized to suit every convenience/sensibility. Unlike, modern day historians, traditions don't pretend to be unbiased. They are unapologetically partisan. So, when we study a tradition we know exactly what their agenda is.
The colonial(EJ) and commie historians want to claim neutrality This feigned neutrality is used as a cloak to spin historical narratives that suit their preferred ideologies. They do this in most absurd manner by arbitrarily choosing what to believe, how much to believe and when to reject. Their convenience is the only criteria. Anything that doesn't fit their convenience gets rejected and anything that fits is accepted. The result of such arbitrariness is theories like 'Sheet Anchor'(or 'Anchor Sheet' or whatever). And this is, then, used as a basis for all other dates.
Needless to say that those dates are bound to be arbitrary. Even then those dates are further adjusted if a detail is inconvenient. This approach is nothing but intellectual dishonesty especially since they claim neutrality.
Instead, the age old method of going by one's traditions to accept or reject a historical record or detail is more honest(even if partisan).
Each group/community has their own traditions. And based on those traditions, every group/community accept or reject certain historical records. Each group/community believes in the primacy of its own traditions. It is natural.
But, all traditions need not be truthful. Some(if not many) traditions may be born around disinfo campaigns or propaganda.
So, traditions can also be authentic or flawed. Some traditions can be considered less authentic than others because their narrative is self-contradictory or patently irrational/false (again, this is a subjective view).
According to Hindu traditions, Puranas are the authentic account of the Indian history. Other sources are useful only to the extent that they clarify the Puranic account. If any historical record(say Buddhist or Jaina) is contradicting Puranas, then it is rejected as a misinformation or disinformation.
I welcome Kota Venkatachalem's work because it insists that we must go back to Puranas for proper Indian history instead of relying on Greek(or other foreign accounts which may be uninformed or propaganda).
I have no problem in accepting the Buddha's date given by Kota Venkatachalem. In fact, I am more than happy to accept it.
But, when I superficially glossed through his work, I checked the dates given by him for Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta. I find them dubious at best and fraudulent at worst.
Actually, there is no need to bring in the dates of Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta when you are working on Buddha's dates. I think they are irrelevant to each other.
I'll give an example of what I think Kota Venkatachalem has done by bringing in dates of Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta while trying to refute Buddha's dates(given by colonial historians):
Lets say, you propose that Sri Rama belonged to 14th century CE based on some bogus info(or interpretation of info). Now, I want to refute your proposal. So, I say that my uncle lived in 14th century and he told me he never met Sri Rama and that proves Sri Rama was older than 14th century. If someone points out that my uncle could not have belonged to 14th century while I belong to 21st century, it does not mean he is agreeing to the original proposal that Sri Rama belonged to 14th century. It only means that he is merely pointing out the mistake in my counter-argument.
Similarly, I do not agree with the dates given for Buddha by the colonial/commie historians. But, at the same time, the dates given by Kota Venkatachalem also seem to be bogus.
I repeat that I heartily welcome Kota Venkatachalem's work because it insists that we must go back to Puranas for proper Indian history. In fact, the Puranas preserve and present ancient oral traditions from guru(teacher) to shishya(disciple). Every Purana starts with a set of people(rishis) asking some questions to Suta pauranika. Suta pauranika then tells them that he heard this narrative from X who was told by Y who learnt it from Z, so on, dating back to the original event or God/Goddess Himself/Herself. These traditions are now preserved in the Puranas. So, there is continuous historical narrative extending to great timelines. This is a unique feature of Puranas unlike any other historical source.
So, we must go back to the Puranas and check what they are saying. That must be done, before anything else is done. Actually, anyone who wants to learn Indian history has no other recourse but the Puranas. Other historical records and archeological evidences can only supplement the Puranas. But, without Puranic account, the other historical records and archeological evidences are useless to construct any coherent narrative or timeline of Indian history. So, invariably, all the historians interested in Indian history must depend on the data presented by Puranas. It is just that these historians only pick the data but do not accept the timelines or narrative given by Puranas. They use the data to spin their own fables convenient to their worldview.
Ramana garu,ramana wrote:JohneeG, My thinking is Buddha (~500BCE) is not right for him to be accepted as an avatara. It has to be much older.
Consequently the others also move back.
2 points:
1) An avatara need not be old or new. Adi Shankara is also considered an avatara of Lord Dakshinamurthy(Shiva). The oldest date given for Adi Shankara by Kanchi is 500 BCE. If that date is not right for an avatara, then? On the other hand, the date accepted for Adi Shankara is 800 CE, which is quite recent date considering Indian historical timelines, even so, He is accepted as an avatara. Even those hindu communities that may not accept Him as an avatara have their own recent historical figures who are revered as avatara. So, date, recent or ancient, has nothing to do with being or not being an avatara.
In fact, Kalki(one of the avatars of Vishnu) is yet to manifest and is supposed to so in future.
2) I agree with you that Buddha's date has to be much older. This is corroborated by many other independent factors. For example, Chinese traditions say that Buddhism came to China much earlier than the current dates given for Buddha by the colonials.
I partially agree with you, when you say that consequently the others also move back. I think not all dates need to move. Only those dates that are derived from or depend on the dates of Buddha will move. Those dates that are independent of the dating of Buddha will remain as they are.
AFAIK, Adi Shankara's date is independent of Buddha's dating. It is directly derivable from Sringeri records which are accepted by the other 3 mutts also and corroborated by the independent records like Vijayanagara and Marathas.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
As it turns out, came across a very recent Russian paper that goes beyond their typical forum trolling arguments - into some kind of coherent paper: Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current DescendantsArjun wrote:If any of the participants even had some iota of academic credibility in archeogenetics, why wouldn't they have utilized their arguments for at least a paper or book that reasons out their argument for Europe as origin of R1a1a ?
The argument here is rather strange though: R1a developed in Central Asia some 20-35K years back and came to India not later than 12K YBP. It then proceeded further out of India into the West. So far so good, since this agrees with the theory that India was a meeting ground for all nationalities as a refuge during the last LGM, and post LGM started to repopulate the West.
The authors then proceed to amalgamate this with the existing linguistic theories - by theorising that the R1a carriers were the folks who formed PIE in Anatolia sometime 10K years back, which then entered Europe and also circled back via the steppes to introduce Sanskrit into India through the 'legendary' Aryans.
This completing the circle business stretches credulity....If the same genetic stock moved on from India to Anatolia - why would one have to presume that PIE necessarily developed in Anatolia ? Why not further back in India ?
The authors also attempt to refute the various studies dating ANI, ASI presence in India to more than 12K YBP, by suggesting that assumed population mutation rates are incorrect:
These same authors, Klosov & Rhozanskii, have recently published a paper that aims to prove that anatomically modern humans originated in Europe rather than in Africa. Presumably - their work on R1a is as outlandish as their other work, but it would still be important for future papers to refute the conclusions of this particular one.Some studies alleged that the most ancient common ancestors of R1a haplotypes were Indian; however,the results were flawed by erroneous calculations of timespans using incorrect “population mutation rates” (see their description and discussion in Klyosov, 2009a, 2009c, and references therein), which routinely converted the actual 3600 - 4000 ybp(“Indo-European” R1a1 in India) into 12,000 - 15,000 ybp.This was erroneously claimed as the proof of “origin of R1a in India.” Furthermore, high percentages of R1a in some regions in India or in some ethnic and/or religious groups (such as Brahmins) were incorrectly claimed as the proof of the origin of R1a in India (Kivisild et al., 2003; Sengupta et al., 2006; Sahooet al., 2006; Sharma et al., 2009; Thanseem et al., 2006; For-narino et al., 2009). The application of the flawed approach resulted in confusion amongst researchers in the field of human population genetics over the last decade. The course of research is hopefully corrected by the application of today’s most recent developments of DNA genealogy, which utilizes a principally different methodology (Klyosov, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Roz-hanskii and Klyosov, 2011; Klyosov, 2011b).
Last edited by Arjun on 20 Oct 2012 17:49, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
johneeG ji,
here are some official versions:
Jyotirmaṭha Pīṭhaṃ, Jyotirmath, Uttarakhand says
@1:58
==> dhai hajaar varsh poorv (2500 years ago)
Can't find the version from Dvāraka Pīṭhaṃ, Dwaraka, Gujarat
Two of the founder Mathas say Adi Shankaracharya appeared 2,500 years ago, and Kanchi Math is not included.
here are some official versions:
Jyotirmaṭha Pīṭhaṃ, Jyotirmath, Uttarakhand says
Śārada Pīṭhaṃ, Sringeri, Karnataka writesआघ जगद्गुरु भगवान श्री शंकराचार्य ने आज से २५०० वर्ष पूर्व सनातन धर्म विरोधी नास्तिक मत-मतान्तरों का उच्छेद कर धर्म के प्रचार प्रसार हेतु चार पीठ स्थापित किये | उत्तर में बदरिकाश्रम में ज्योतिष्पीठ, दक्षिण में रामेश्वर क्षेत्र में श्रृंगेरी पीठ, पूर्व में जगन्नाथ पुरी में गोवर्धन पीठ और पश्चिम में द्वारिका में शारदा
Govardhana Pīṭhaṃ, Puri, Odisha saysJagadguru Sri Adi Shankara Bhagavatpada established the first of the four Amnaya Peethams1 at Sringeri more than twelve centuries ago to foster the sacred tradition of Sanatana Dharma.
@1:58
==> dhai hajaar varsh poorv (2500 years ago)
Can't find the version from Dvāraka Pīṭhaṃ, Dwaraka, Gujarat
Two of the founder Mathas say Adi Shankaracharya appeared 2,500 years ago, and Kanchi Math is not included.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
The earliest settlers' antiquity and evolutionary history of Indian populations: evidence from M2 mtDNA lineage
Most of this 2008 paper seems rather uninsightful, except for this rather stunning statistic:
Most of this 2008 paper seems rather uninsightful, except for this rather stunning statistic:
The center of gravity of the human world until the start of the Neolithic age was very clearly in the Indian subcontinent.Magnitude of this southern Asian growth phase suggests that over half of the global human population lived in Indian subcontinent between ~45 to 20 kyBP and population size peaked at over 60% around 38kyBP.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
There is also one theory that there are 2 ShankaraCharyas, Adishankara and Abinava Shankara but the basic story of his life is only one without any major dispute and therefore can not be accepted. One of the difficult issue is that Shankaracharya life donot contain any kings name and yet his has toured all the places in the nation. I do not know why major kings of that time who are no doubt are supporters of Sanathana Dharma just had not even met him as per the records as none of his meetings with any rulers of his supposed time are avaliable. It would be impossible for any indic rular to ignore such a sage in their kingdom. Very strange.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
LinkDETERMINING SANKARA'S DATE - AN OVERVIEW OF ANCIENT SOURCES AND MODERN LITERATURE
Transliteration Key
The Sources: Placing Sankara in a period according to the modern calendar is a difficult problem. The official date accepted currently is 788-820 CE, and the Government of India celebrated the 1200th anniversary of Sankara's birth in 1988. This date is largely based upon one traditional view prevalent in India. [1] However, the date is still open to question, as pointed out by swAmI tapasyAnanda in his translation of the mAdhavIya Sankaravijayam. [2] This difficulty is experienced for almost all personalities in Indian history, due to paucity of proper records and conflicting traditions current in different parts of the country. As far as the problem of dating Sankara is concerned, our sources of information are: internal evidence from Sankara's works, the astronomical details recorded in some of the Sankaravijayams, and the traditional accounts kept in the advaita maThas in India.
Internal Evidence: Of these three sources, a lot of scholarly work has been done in the recent past, analyzing the internal evidence from Sankara's works. The date now seems to be converging to the early 8th century CE. [3] The most important internal evidence comes from Sankara's verbatim quotation of dharmakIrti, the buddhist logician. Hsuan Tsang, the Chinese pilgrim, who visited India in the time of harshavardhana, king of Thanesar (606 - 647 CE), gives clues to dharmakIrti's date. He also mentions bhartRhari, but not of Sankara. It follows that Sankara is post-dharmakIrti, and possibly post-Hsuan-Tsang also. Critical academic scholars are converging to a date near 700 CE for Sankara's period.
Astronomical Details: The astronomical details in the various Sankaravijaya texts are not of much use. More often than not, the details in one work contradict those in another, and one cannot rely on any of them unless one is preferentially biased to accept one of the Sankaravijayas as more authoritative than the others. Dates ranging from the 5th cent BCE to 8th cent CE have been calculated on the basis of such astronomical details. One further complication is that some astronomical information is said to have been obtained from works which are not available anywhere in India. So it is difficult even to authenticate the astronomical details from their supposed sources. Also, not all the currently available texts titled Sankaravijaya are accepted as authoritative within the living advaita tradition. Under the circumstances, it should be noted that the astronomical references in one text is only as good or as bad as all the other such details in other texts, and no firm conclusion can be drawn about their validity.
Records of maThas: Whether Sankara established any maThas at all has been questioned in the modern literature. Thus, Paul Hacker attributes the tradition of four AmnAya maThas at Sringeri, Puri, Dvaraka and Joshimath to vidyAraNyasvAmin. The native oral tradition, however, takes the history of these four maThas, each associated with one of the four geographical directions and one of the four vedas, to SankarAcArya himself. The daSanAmI sannyAsI sampradAya, with its various akhADas in northern India, accepts affiliation only with these four maThas, though such affiliation is largely nominal. There seems to be some historical evidence for the existence of the oldest daSanAmI akhADas as early as the 9th cent. CE. [4] However, as swAmI tapasyAnanda points out, the evidence of the daSanAmI sannyAsI tradition has never been properly taken into account in the modern literature. It seems very likely that the tradition of four AmnAya maThas reflects historical fact. It is immaterial whether Sankara established them himself or whether these four maThas developed naturally at the places where the four famous disciples of Sankara lived and taught. It is clear that even if they were not actually established by Sankara himself, the four AmnAya maThas came into existence early in the history of post-Sankaran advaita vedAnta.
Of these four maThas, the Joshimath title had long been vacant, till it was revived in 1940 CE. Consequently, it does not have many ancient records. The Dvaraka and Puri maThas have, in the past, claimed a date of 5th century BCE for Sankara. This is partly based upon a dating of a grant by a king named sudhanva who is supposed to have been a contemporary of Sankara. Nothing else is known about this king, and the grant itself has not been dated with any accuracy. In any case, it should be remembered that the records of the Dvaraka and Puri maThas are rather fragmentary, because they have had patchy histories, with periods when there were no presiding SankarAcAryas. This is also accepted by the administrations of these institutions, and they do not hold to the 5th century BCE date with absolute certainty. Meanwhile, Sringeri has been the only maTha of the original four which has had an unbroken succession of maThAdhipatis. This may be no more than an accident of history, as southern India has not experienced as many political upheavals as the north. Given these facts, among the traditional sources, only the Sringeri records seem to lend themselves to critical historical analysis.
The Sringeri maTha's record states that Sankara was born in the 14th year of the reign of vikramAditya. The record does not give any clue about the identity of this king. Some 19th century researchers identified this king with the famous vikramAditya of the gupta dynasty, thereby postulating a date of 44 BCE for Sankara. A period of more than 700 years was then assigned to sureSvara, because the later successors in the Sringeri list can all be dated reasonably accurately from the 8th century downwards. This is rather anomalous, and can be resolved quite neatly, as pointed out by Mr. B. Lewis Rice in his Mysore Gazetteer. [5]
If one identifies the vikramAditya as a member of the Western cAlukya dynasty, which ruled from bAdAmi in Karnataka, one gets a much more reasonable date for Sankara. The cAlukya dynasty reached its greatest fame in the time of pulakeSin II, a contemporary of Harshavardhana. According to historians, there were two kings named vikramAditya in this cAlukya dynasty - vikramAditya I ruled in the late 7th century CE, while vikramAditya II ruled in the early 8th century. [6] However, there is still some ambiguity with respect to which of these two vikramAdityas is actually meant, but as with most Indian historical records, this is the best one can do. It is more reasonable to identify the vikramAditya of the Sringeri record with one of these two cAlukyan kings, who ruled from Karnataka, rather than the northern gupta king, whose empire did not include southern India. This interpretation of the Sringeri record is also consistent with the internal evidence from Sankara's works. In either case, this implies that the earliest date that one can postulate for Sankara has to be in the late 7th century CE. swAmI tapasyAnanda also quotes a letter from Sringeri, which makes it clear that this maTha claims nothing more than what its record states, interpretation of dates being the historian's job. [7] This is the sensible approach to take, given the fact that traditions in India tend to be rather ambiguous in their chronology.
In addition to these four original maThas, a number of other advaita maThas have come into being over the centuries, some of which are quite well-known. These maThas either started out as branches of the original institutions, or were set up as independent monasteries by notable sannyAsIs of the daSanAmI order. With the proliferation of such maThas came a number of "traditions," many of them conflicting with one another in details. For example, some of these maThas also claim to have been established by Sankara himself. [8] Some of them also claim 5th century BCE to be the date of Sankara.(He is referring to Kanchi)
Conflicting Traditions: Historically, such claims often resulted in serious conflicts with the traditions of the undisputed four. The propagation of such conflicts was helped by the fact that the various advaita maThas had become politically influential institutions, with access to land and revenue donated by various rulers at different times. It is a fact that this has led to fierce rivalries in the past among the followers of different maThas. Such rivalries are not unknown in northern India, but they have particularly been the cause of many problems in southern Indian sources. This is probably because of the intimate connection of the founders of the Vijayanagara empire with the Sringeri maTha, and the competition by other maThAdhipatis in the south for similar honors as traditionally accorded to the Sringeri maTha. Every southern maTha with a claim to be the "original" one wants to deny Sringeri's chronological primacy. This denial only has the effect of reinforcing the fact that Sringeri has been the most important advaita maTha for centuries before any of the other maThas even came into being. As such, their conflicting claims about Sankara's date have to be evaluated in the context of their political motivations in putting forth such dates.
While most of the conflicts among the various maThas can be dismissed as petty polemics, or as "bazaar gossip," as swAmI tapasyAnanda does, a serious historian needs to be aware of these problems among the traditional sources. No "tradition" about chronology should be accepted without critical analysis. For example, I find swAmI tapasyAnanda unwittingly contradicting himself in his introduction to the translation of the mAdhavIya, because he tries to concede as much as possible to all kinds of contrary "traditional" dates. There is no need to consider seriously the claim that 788 CE is the date of one "abhinava Sankara," and to conclude that Sankara's date must therefore be much earlier. Firstly, the name abhinava Sankara is mostly used only as a title of respect. Thus, one such abhinava Sankara, the author of the SrIrudra-bhAshya, was called rAma brahmAnanda tIrtha, but he lived much later than the 8th century. [9] Even in the 20th century, various sannyAsins have been titled "abhinava Sankara" by their followers [10]. There may have been many such abhinava Sankaras over the centuries, but there is no independent evidence for the existence of someone named "abhinava Sankara" in the 8th cent. CE. Secondly, Sankara, the writer of bhAshyas to the brahmasUtras and upanishads, is the SankarAcArya who is relevant for the history of advaita vedAnta. When internal evidence from the bhAshyakAra's undisputed works shows that he lived not earlier than the 8th century CE, it follows that this "abhinava Sankara" theory is not sufficient reason for positing a date much earlier than the 8th century CE for Sankara himself.
Similarly, I find some of Prof. Karl Potter's statements to be quite misleading. [3] That a fifth advaita maTha at Kancipuram is very active today, does not mean that it has always been so, nor does such activity lend any special credibility to its claims to antiquity. The political influence and prestige that a maTha enjoys today also do not confer any legitimacy to such claims. It is inconceivable that the daSanAmI sampradAya would have overlooked a fifth maTha in choosing its affiliations. Claims to historicity that are made in a spirit of political one-upmanship seldom stand up to serious scrutiny. There is no necessary correlation between the modern activity of an advaita maTha and its claimed antiquity. Prof. Potter has also not consulted available historical evidence that enables us to date the origin of this fifth maTha. [11] There will be no cause for confusion if such independent evidence is also taken into account. Moreover, in addition to the four AmnAya maThas and a well-known fifth institution at Kancipuram, there are numerous other maThas in India, whose traditions are at least as valid as those of the Kanci maTha. To be really impartial, the traditions of all these other minor maThas in India should also be taken into account, but such a study has not attracted any scholarly attentionb.
The 5th cent. BCE date can be rejected without much discussion. It is much too early, and Sankara cannot be reasonably held to have been a contemporary of the Buddha. The only objection to this rejection of such an early date comes from those who believe that the actual date of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, should be earlier than the 9th cent. BCE, possibly as early as the 18th cent. BCE. Based on such an early date for the Buddha, it is argued that the possibility of a 5th cent. BCE date for Sankara should be taken seriously. However, all the available evidence points to the 5th cent. BCE as the best possible period for dating the Buddha. In any case, the proponents of the 5th cent. BCE date for Sankara also seem to forget that the evidence of Hsuan Tsang with respect to dharmakIrti is too strong to be neglected. That Sankara has quoted from dharmakIrti's work is confirmed by sureSvara. Therefore, even if the Buddha's date were to be drastically re-evaluated, and an 18th cent. BCE date accepted, this will simply not affect Sankara's date at all. It must remain in the 8th cent. CE (near 750 CE, with a window of around 50 years on either side), as held by the major tradition and confirmed by internal evidence from Sankara's own works.
It must also be remembered that the 5th cent. BCE date does not really come from any ancient tradition, notwithstanding the high-pitched rhetoric of those who claim otherwise. This date has been proposed only in the last two centuries or so, during British times. In the post-Independence period, some people champion the 5th cent. BCE date because it helps bolster a unique kind of national pride: any great Indian should have necessarily lived before Jesus Christ! [12, 13] Part of this is a modern backlash against some of the early Indologists, whose belief in Biblical chronology colored their perception of Indian history. Still, these modern proponents of the 5th century BCE date perhaps forget that the date of Christ has little relevance to events in Indian history, except for fixing dates according to international convention. Surely, Sankara's greatness is not increased by an early BCE date, nor is it lessened by a date much later than Christ's.
It should also be remembered that what is said to be tradition is often very misleading. The traditions of the four maThas at Sringeri, Puri, Dvaraka and Joshimath may disagree about the date of Sankara, and also about who was the successor of Sankara. Notwithstanding this, the fact remains that each recognizes the other three paramparAs to be its equal in age and origin. The daSanAmI sannyAsIs also accept affiliation only with these four maThas. There can be no doubt that these four are the original maThas, dating close to Sankara's times, and that all other maThas are later ones. When traditional accounts conflict (and they do so more often than not), it is necessary to test each source for internal consistency, and then for compatibility with independent external sources. If a maTha's claimed list of gurus is not historically verifiable, its traditions about Sankara's date and life must not be accepted uncritically. This is all the more imperative in cases where even recent personalities, who lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, are dated to impossibly early times. It is quite easy to make up a "tradition" and a list of maThAdhipatis, much like the royal genealogies of some of India's erstwhile kings. Any source that does not meet the criteria of internal consistency and independent external confirmation should not be accepted. This applies as much to the traditions of the powerful and influential maThas as to those of the less well-known ones.
References:
See R. M. Umesh, Shankara's Date, with a foreword by Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja, Madras, 1981, for a full discussion of this issue.
LC Call No.: n.a.
Swami Tapasyananda, The Sankara-dig-vijaya of Madhava-Vidyaranya, Ramakrishna Mission, Madras, 1st ed., 1978, 2nd ed., 1983.
LC Call No.: PK3798.M168 S2613 1978
Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, Karl H. Potter, Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. 3, pp. 1-18, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1981.
LC Call No.: B131 .E5 1977 vol. 3 B132.A3
Swami Sadananda Giri, Society and Sannyasin, Kriyayoga Asrama, Rishikesh, 1976.
LC Call No.: BL1245.D27 S2
B. Lewis Rice, Mysore, A Gazetteer, Constable, Westminster, 1897.
LC Call No.: DS485.M84 R4
Also read a posting on the advaita mailing list for more details.
K. A. Nilakantha Sastry, A History of South India, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, Madras, 1976.
LC Call No.: DS484 .N5 1976
Letter from Sringeri maTha, quoted in pg.12 of reference no. 2 above.
A. Nataraja Iyer and Lakshminarasimha Sastry, The Traditional Age of Sri Sankaracharya and the Maths, Madras, 1962.
LC Call No.: B133.S5 N324 1962
Abhinavasankaracarya, Srirudrabhashyam, (a) Sri Vani Vilas Press, Srirangam, 1962, (b) with translation and notes in Telugu by Lakshminarayanamurti Avadhani, Hyderabad, 1990.
LC Call No.: BL1113.46 .A23 1990
Thus, followers of karapAtrI svAmijI (hariharAnanda sarasvatI), a modern guru, call him by this name, as a mark of respect. See Abhinava Sankara, Svami Karapatriji, smrti-grantha, Dharmasangha Prakashan, Meerut, 1988.
LC Call No.: BL1175.H35 A62 1988
So also, followers of SrI saccidAnandendra sarasvatI call him an abhinava SankarAcArya
The Illustrated Weekly of India, The Curious Case of the Missing Monk, The Weekly Cover Story, September 13, 1987. Also, An article on the newsgroup alt.hindu, which deals with this issue in some detail, and a posting on the advaita mailing list, for more about such controversies.
Udayavir Shastri, The Age of Shankara, translated by Lakshmi Datta Dikshit, Virajananda Vedic Research Institute, Ghaziabad, 1981.
LC Call No.: n.a.
S. D. Kulkarni, Adi Sankara: the saviour of mankind, Bhagavan Vedavyasa Itihasa Samshodhana Mandira (BHISHMA), Bombay, 1987.
The primary points being:
1) any source that claims 500 BCE for Adi Shankara seems to have internal conflicts (or self-contradiction) and lacking in any independent third party corroboration.
2) There is no ancient scripture that claims 500 BCE for Adi Shankara. This dating is recent(last 200 years).
3) Sringeri, which has unbroken chain of pontiffs has best preserved records of the 4 institutions started by Adi Shankara. Other institutions have had phases when their was no presiding pontiff. Sringeri records are free from any internal conflicts and are also attested by third party independent records.
4) Buddha's date is not related to Adi Shankara's date or vice versa.
5) The other 3 mutts do not insist on their 'official' version and acknowledge that their records are 'patchy'. I think it means they accept the 800 CE date for Adi Shankara.
6) Only Kanchi hangs on to this date. Even otherwise, Kanchi mutt makes several extra-ordinary claims that are not accepted by any other mutts. Dasanami sanyasis only recognize the 4 mutts and not Kanchi as the original. Not just the dates, but even the place where events occurred are disputed by the Kanchi. Others don't dispute it.
for eg:
a) Kanchi version: Adi Shankara ascended the Sarva Agna Peetha in Kanchi.
Traditional Version(including Sringeri): Adi Shankara ascended the Sarva Agna Peetha in Kashmir.
b) Kanchi version: Adi Shankara established 5 mutts. Adi Shankara Himself headed the Kanchi Mutt while His 4 primary disciples were appointed as the pontiffs in the 4 mutts assigning one region to each mutt. Kanchi was supposed to be the central mutt reigning over all the 4 mutts. But the other 4 mutts have betrayed the Kanchi and are acting independently.
Traditional Version(including Sringeri): Adi Shankara established 4 mutts in 4 directions of India. 4 primary disciples of Adi Shankara were appointed as 4 pontiffs of these 4 mutts. Sringeri was established first and it was also given a primacy. That means, if ever, there is disagreement among the mutts, then the decision of Sringeri will be final.
When, Jyotishmutt was revived, it was done with the approval of 3 other mutts(including Sringeri). There was a dispute over who should be the pontiff of Puri. The court proposed that Sringeri's decision will be final. Both the parties to the dispute accepted proposal and Sringeri Pontiff, Sri Chandrashekara Bharathi Mahaswami, ruled that Bharathi Krishna Thirthaji Maharaj will be the pontiff of Puri. Incidentally, Bharathi Krishna Thirthaji Maharaj is the re-discoverer of Vedic Maths.
No 5th mutt is recognized. Kanchi is merely a branch mutt of Sringeri. It was originally established in Kumbakonam. Later, it declared independence and started making extra-ordinary claims.
c) Kanchi version: Adi Shankara left His mortal coil in Kanchi.
Traditional Version(including Sringeri): Adi Shankara accompanied by His disciples went to Kedarnath. Then, Adi Shankara ordered His disciples not to follow Him and went a little farther and disappeared from their sight.
---
There is another figure called Abhinava Shankara, if I remember correctly(though I am not sure). Also, many later Shankaracharyas have been called as 'Abhinava Shankara' by their followers. But all of them are much later figures than Adi Shankara, there is no doubt that Adi Shankara was a single person. And He is never confused with any Abhinava Shankara. There is one Abhinava Gupta in Adi Shankara biography.
The King Sudhanva, the King of Kashi(Wiki says King of Kerala), features prominently in Adi Shankara's biography. In fact, he accompanied Adi Shankara on His vijayayatras along with army. At one instance, in Kanchi, kapalikas are put down by the army of Sudhanva(and Sudhanva personally leads the army) when they attack Adi Shankara and His entourage for refuting their religion.
King of Kerala is Rajashekara Verma, who also appears briefly. Vidharbha King is also mentioned in passing, though I don't know whether his name is mentioned or not.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
johneeG ji,
as of now I see two original Mathas in favor of 507 BCE date, so I'll go with them. If anything changes on that front, may be I could revise my thoughts on it.
I just think that if Buddha's age was 1887 BCE - 1807 BCE, then 2675 years till Adi Shankara was born (789 CE) is too long a time for Buddhism to go unchallenged. 1380 years seem more like it.
This thread is however not the right place to have a detailed discussion on the subject. Perhaps the subject can be discussed elsewhere.
as of now I see two original Mathas in favor of 507 BCE date, so I'll go with them. If anything changes on that front, may be I could revise my thoughts on it.
I just think that if Buddha's age was 1887 BCE - 1807 BCE, then 2675 years till Adi Shankara was born (789 CE) is too long a time for Buddhism to go unchallenged. 1380 years seem more like it.
This thread is however not the right place to have a detailed discussion on the subject. Perhaps the subject can be discussed elsewhere.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Looking at the antiquity of populations it is easy to believe that IE languages in Europe incorporate corrupted, sound changes Sanskrit words.Arjun wrote:Very good paper. The argument of Levant and Middle East having extreme climatic conditions over most of the Ice Age is key here - and points towards India to Eastern Iran region as being the original crossroads of the world, not the Middle East as generally considered. Arguments are well presented for this region acting as refuge during the LGM and civilization having really gotten a start through the re-population of increasingly hospitable regions over last 12K years from this refuge.
Would have been good to see Mount Toba also being considered in this paper, but given that was supposed to be more than 50K YBP may not be directly relevant.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
I don't see many AIT-Nazis talking about the Out-of-Africa migration(s) and how India became the refugium for half of the world population. Their story really starts with some pastoralists in Central Asia and then they talk about the West Asian civilizations. They however never go back to the beginning! Also they don't talk about Paleoclimatology or LGM! They don't talk about how the domesticated animals spread in the world. Except Horse, of course!
So I think it is a good thing that the discussion is moving to the beginnings. When some AIT-Nazi comes on too heavy, change the discussion about the beginnings, about Last Glacial Maximum, about sheep and goat domestication!
So I think it is a good thing that the discussion is moving to the beginnings. When some AIT-Nazi comes on too heavy, change the discussion about the beginnings, about Last Glacial Maximum, about sheep and goat domestication!
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
It's getting close to Durga Puja time, so let me post in full some info about Shiva/Parvati in Eastern Europe and Russia
http://richston100.tripod.com/bhavani.html
http://richston100.tripod.com/bhavani.html
Siva, Bhavani and Shiva
An essay showing similarities between two "different" goddesses, but with a unique twist.
Copyrighted material 2001 by Richard Stoney of Orleans, CA.
Shiva and 'Ring around the Rosy'
These are the three main elements to this essay:
--Siva, a Slavic goddess. Her name means "living, being, existing." She is is also known as Siwa, pronounced "sheeva" in modern Polish and Old Slavic; she was worshipped in Poland, Czechoslavakia, East Germany. Also known as Russian Zhiva/Z'iva, Polabi Zhywie and Slovak Zivena. Even other forms of her name are Sivve, Shiwa, Sieba, Syeba, Siba and Dsiva (Znayenko, pp. 75, 220).
With regards to the etymology of her name, "some scholars associate the name with Dlugosz's Zywye, others with the Indian SHIWA, [sic] god of life, still others with SIVA, 'grey'".
--Bhavani, Hindu goddess. Her name means "being, existence" < Skt. BHAVA < BHU, "to live, be, exist".
--Shiva, "Auspicious" Hindu god; third member of the Hindu triad with Brahma and Vishnu. He is aso known as Ardhanarishvara, "Androgynous Lord", who is half-Shiva, half-female/half-shakti.
The purpose of this article is to point out the close similarities between Bhavani and Siva. But here is the critical, compelling element joining the two:
1) Bhavani is one of Shiva's Shakti.
2) The Sanskrit word shakti means "power", but it can also be used as "the meaning of words." (Monier-Williams, p. 1044)
3) Therefore as Shakti of Shiva, Bhavani has the meaning of Siva.
Now I will show the similarities between Bhavani and Siva.
Both Siva and Bhavani are goddesses of life, offspring production and fertility. But both Hindu Shiva and Zhiva are also associated with death.
There is another similarity between Siva and Bhavani: "In pagan worship…Friday was sacred to the goddess [Siva] of the Western Slavs." (Hubbs, p. 117). There are stories of the twelve Fridays, which "provided protection from some specific evil--fire, sickness, flood, and so forth" (Ibid). In the case of Bhavani, she is known as Sankata Devi, "Goddess of Dangers", for she is the one who vanquishes dangers for her devotees with celebrations taking place on Fridays in Benares". (Eck, pp. 168-9)
In Slovakia, the equivalent to Siva is life-goddess Zivena, who is counterposed with chief god Praboh (Jones and Pennick, p. 187). His name means "(original) primitive god" (Konus, p. 906). Compare these interrelated Sanskrit words:
PRA- (prefix): "before, in front", and therefore, "first, original"; BHU, #1 BHU', #2 BHU': "becoming, being, produced, live". All are the root words of BHAVA/BHAVANI
---PRA-BHU*, "excelling, powerful, lord", a name of Shiva. The name itself means "before-living", in other words, "original God". It obtains the concept of "excelling, powerful" exactly in the same way that Eng. PRIME implies "the best".
---PRA-BHU/PRA-[root] BHU-, -BHAVATI, "originate from, be powerful/master."
---PRA-BHAVA*, "excelling, production, origin, Creator ("might, power"=PRA-BHAVA) (Monier-Williams).
A picture of Siva shows her with a sun-disk behind her head (admittedly, not an unusual occurrence for ancient deities). And there is mention of Siwa/Syuna, a goddess of the Western Polabi (Hastings, vol. 11, p. 594). According to one source, etymology about this word is confusing at best, but consider [?] Skt. SYUNA, "ray of light, sun."
The following deals with Zhiva: "..…There persisted another religious rite more closely related to Procopius's account of the veneration of nymphs. This religion appears to have had no organized priesthood. It revolved around the goddess called Zhiva by the Elbe Slavs. The ceremonies were performed by the whole community in the depths of the forests [like the Baiga and Savaras of Northern India, who believe fully in forest spirits. (Hastings, vol. 2, p. 333; vol. 7, p. 214}] and in places where land and water met. (Hubbs, pp.12-13). "Chroniclers, who confirm Procopius's earlier observations, refer to the river, lake, and forest nymphs as BEREGINY." (from BEREGINA, "earth, shore"). BEREGINY represent the fertility goddesses (Ibid, pp.14-15).
The role of diety of guardianship/family/ household is shared by Bhavani, Prabha and the BEREGINY (Kinsley, pp. 109 and 110; Ann and Imel. p. 291; Hubbs, p. 13).
In a similar vein, Shiva-Bhava is the "presiding diety of the waters" (Gupta, p.15). Banaras/Benares, known as Shiva's City, is referred to as the center of Earth, "this shore," on the Ganges River and is an embodiment of the goddess Kashi ("shining, sun". Cf. Hebrew names Ziva or Zivah, ("shining, radiant"). Kashi is a counterpart to Bhavani and is a shakti of Shiva (Eck, pp.159, 418). Kashi is said to sit above the earth as a crossing place between earth and the "far shore" of the transcendant Brahman. (Eck, pp. 6, 35). It is said that, when one dies, Shiva whispers the "ferryboat mantra", or mantra of the crossing (Eck, p. 331). This compares with Slavic concepts of the dead traveling across an ocean with a conductor to guide the deceased. Likewise, the Slavic Siva is connected with the life/death cycle. (Ann and Imel, p. 73).
Compare Slavic SHIVAYA/ZHIVAYA VODA (various sources give different spellings), "living water", which brings dead people back to life; and MERTVAYA VODA, "dying water", which makes a living person dead (Professor A. Babyonyshev, email). The "dying water" heals all wounds on the corpse of the deceased, and then the sprinkling of "living water" bring it to life.
And in the Kanjar tribe, Bhavani is worshipped along with the goddess Prabha, "light" (Hastings, vol. 7, p.653). This word is associated with a sun-disk (Monier-Williams, p. 683). The Kanjar use a protector-exorcist called a SYAANAA ("wise one") to propitiate bad spirits (Hastings, vol. 7, p. 653). Neither the Kanjar nor the followers of Siva had any formal priesthood (Hubbs, pp. 13, 14; Hastings, vol. 7, p. 652).
There is a tale in which Zhiva falls in love with Dazhdbog, "the god who gives well-being" (Gutkin). Like Shiva, he is god of prosperity and wealth. (Jobes, vol. 1, p. 420; Smith, p.158). In the end, they "accept the gold wreath and get married. So that is how Russians appeared, and that's why they are called his grandchildren". (Naoumov) Similarly, "in the Chhattisgarh District, the Baiga worship centers around the Dulha Deo, the deified bridegroom god and Devi, the Mother-Goddess, in her manifestation as Bhavani" (Hastings, vol. 2, p. 333).
Dazhdbog is the third member of the Kievan pantheon, while Shiva occupies the same position in the Hindu triad. And there is a picture which shows, in order from the left, Prono (also known as Prove), Ridegast and Siva.
In some mythology, Slav Svarog is the supreme god, and since he created the living Universe (Naoumov), he could be considered the "original god". He had a son, Perun, who then had a son, Dazhdbog. That would make Dazhdbog the grandson of the Original God. However, according to one mythology, Perun is top god, so that would make Dazhdbog "Son of the Original God". Similarly in another myth, "in old chronicles, Daz^bog is termed Czar Sun and Son of Svarog" This would make him the son of the Original God who is married to Zhiva/Siva (MYTHOLOGY OF ALL RACES, vol. 3, p.297). Meanwhile on the Hindu side of the equation, Bhavani is worshipped by the Baiga with Narayan Deo (Hastings, p. 333)(cf. Skt. Narayana, "son of the original god" from Skt. NARA, "primeval Man or eternal Spirit pervading the Universe"; he is always associated with Narayana. Both are considered as gods [Monier-Williams, pp. 528-9, 536]). He is a sun-god, like Dazhdbog, but I am not aware of whether he is actually married to Bhavani.
There is mention of a Polish/Western Slav god, Zivalo (Hastings, vol. XI, p. 593). Could he be a male counterpart to Siva, just as Bhava (=Shiva) corresponds to Bhavani?
Here is some information about Bhavani in her role as Annapurna: "On the eleventh day of each fortnight, when the giving of alms is especially prescribed, one will hear [elderly people] at the doors of Banaras households, calling to the mother of the house..., "Mother, give me food." (Eck, p. 161). Similarly, Naumov explains the meaning of Dazhdbog's name: "There is one version of Yuri Miroliubov that I personally support. The word is a complex conglomerate of the two. Listen: Dazhdbog--->Dazhdbo--->Dai Bo--->Dai Bog. The final two are in English 'Give me, God'". The connection between Bhavani and Dazhdbog is weak in this case, but I am including it just for the record.
Also, the Kanjar wandered around in gangs, supporting themselves by theft and highway robbery (Hastings, vol. 7, p. 652). Bhavani was also worshipped by The Thugs of India. The Thugs were assassins and robbers, whose victims were "always taken unawares from behind". They formed their own organizations and held responsible positions in government (Walker, vol. 2, pp.501-2). (cf. Slang SHIEVER, "double-crosser". Quote: "The worst thing you can call a crook is a shiever"; Ger. SCHIEBERTUM and SCHIEBUNG, "corruption, graft, dirty politicians"; Ger. SCHIEBEN, "act corruptly"; CHIVE-FENCER, "murder-protector" (Wentworth and Flexner, p. 466) or "criminal-protector" (Partridge, p. 149); CHIVING-LAY, "robbing the rear of a coach by cutting" (this final word may actually derived from CHIV/SHIV, "knife."). Similarly, the Polabi worshipped a goddess named Svantovit on the island of Rugen/Rungen (sp?) in the Baltic, where there is a mention of armed military men who were pirates. There is a statue of Svantovit which mirrors that of a Tree of Life goddess found in northern Russia and which is said t be similar to statues of Scythians (=ancient Iranians). This Shiva-like statue has four faces, is phallic-like, has females breasts on one side, and is associated with fertility and warrior functions. (Hubbs, p. 12). The high priest had long hair, longer than was customary for the day (Hastings, vol. XI, p. 593), while Shiva has hair that is dishevelled/shieveld, "unkempt" (see Oxford English Dictionary).
According to http://www.waningmoon.com/guide/library/lib0019.html (under "Slavic"), Dazhdbog was worshipped as Svantovit during harvest. There have been various interpretations of Svantovit's name, the most common being "Holy Light". But consider Skt. SV-ANTA, "auspicious"; Slavic -OVIT, "son of." Son of Auspicious?
Related theory: Shiva-Shakti Pattern
According to at least one source, Slavs are the only people among the European nations with mythology based on Indo-European and Indo-Iranian beliefs. They are believed to be of Indo-European stock, so there are many similarities between Hindu and early Slavic worlds: practice of cremation and belief in reincarnation; karma, in which like produces like; existence of vampires, phallic dieties plus polycephalous gods in their mythologies; having the sun represented by Sanskrit SUURYA and Slavic ZORYA; and the use of waving iron to drive away demons. Also, women played an important part in religious ceremonies.
Last edited by shiv on 21 Oct 2012 09:56, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Possible Shiva derived etymology in European languages
http://richston100.tripod.com/ssp.html
http://richston100.tripod.com/ssp.html
Mukta-Keshi, shakti of Shiva, "dishevelled hair" (cf. Eng. SHEVELLED/ SHIEVELD, old forms of DISHEVELLED < Fr. DESCHEVELER, "disarrange the hair". Compare Croatian SHIVETA, "mat, hassock, plaited hair" (Shiva has matted hair);
Ukrainian SHEVELYURA, "thick hair, chevelure". Wigs of olden days were made of densely matted material.
---------------
Vikrita-mukhi is a shakti: VIKRITA, "deformed, distorted, misshapen" + MUKHII, "mouth, face" (cf. Eng. SHEVEL-MOUTH and Sc. SHAIVLEMOOT, "distorted mouth".
More on Shiva's body:
Modern German SCHIEFE, "crookedness", akin to such earlier, related words SCHEVE, SCHEWE, SCHEIWE, SCHEIV, SCHEIB, and SCHIEB < roots *SKAIBA and *SKAIFA (Antje Casaretto of Institut Fur Sprachwissenschaft of Cologne University; Kluge and Jacob Grimm).
Anglo-Saxon SCEAF-FOT, "twisted, curved, bent, warped foot" and "splay-foot", a medical condition marked by having the foot turned outward, not straight. Shiva's foot is described as being curved in the middle with the toes bent down. (< Sans. KUN~CITA, "bent, curved, crooked"). His heel is also raised. Consider Ger. SCHIEF, which can also be used to imply "slant"; Turkish S[H]IV/S[H]EV, "bevel"; Eng. SHEVELING-HEELED, "twisted, distorted, downtrodden heel". Shiva also walks with a swagger, literally with the leg turned out. Cf. Eng. SHEVEL, "walk crookedly"; Ukr. SHEVERNOGII*, "bowlegged", that is, with the leg turned outward. See THE DANCE OF SIVA by David Smith on pp. 8 and 164 for a description of his feet.
Antje also mentions names of people circa 1300: Joh. Schefvot, Willeke Scheve and Schevenacke. And towns like Scheweling and Scheveling. Finally, Antje says that the "crooked" words originally denoted a person with a distorted or twisted body: Der SCHIEFGEWACHSENE.
---------------
Kameshvari: "Goddess of love and sex" (Cf. SHEVA, "coitus" < some Slavic language. I lost that info in a computer malfunction; Eng. Slang CHIVALRY/CHIVARL[E]Y, "coitus"; and perhaps Bulg. SHAI*BA, which means many things, including "(screw) nut" and "(female) screw." One source says the last example may pertain to sex, perhaps, but is not certain. Also: Uzbekistani and Adzerbaijani SEV, "(non-sexual) love".
Of relevance is QUOIT < COITE (=Eng. SHIVE < OS. SCIVA). One form of the word involves a coil of rope (See Kundalini) or metal and throwing it over a stake, like the American game of horseshoes. This mimics a pole like linga (penis) surrounded a YONII (vulva) at the base, an obvious sexual connection. OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY admits uncertainty as to etymology except to say there is a French connection. I would suggest French COI"T, "coitus". This concept is backed up by the fact that QUOIT later means "buttocks" (cf. "piece of ass")
---------------
THE SHIVERS, "horror". (Bhairavi, Bhairava, the Bhairavas). Quote: "Bhairavi, terror or the power to cause terror".
---------------
Modern Finnish SIEVA", "pretty" (=Sundari). Finnish has no SH-sound.
---------------
Modern Finnish SIVEA, "chaste" (=faithful Sati). She immolated herself in protest because her father Daksha hated Shiva.
Uma, daughter of Daksha, is a reincarnation of Sati. A SANSKRIT DICTIONARY says her name may mean "Oh, don't" but seems not totally certain. Primary definition offered is "flax". (cf. Eng. SHEAVE, "part of flax", and SHIVE, "refuse of flax". Also: Ger. SCHEBE (Ox. Eng. Dict, vol. 15, col 1 p. 209). I remember that Uma was described as being thin, an apt description of the scrawny flax plant.
---------------
Vach ("speech") is a daughter of Daksha and identified with Uma. (cf. Turkish S[H]IVE, "pronunciation, accent" and S[H]IFAH-EN, "verbally"; Japanese SHIWA, "lip language"; Ukrainian SHEVELGTI (SP?), "lisp". Eng. SHIVAREE, "greet [talk to?] with a shivaree", can be dissected into SHIVER-REE:
a) RI, "interjection of laughter". SHIVAREE is associated with celebration.
b) "sound reiterated in stammer". Quote: "The musicians letting off at each repetition of the demand peals of shiver-ree" )
#2 RII, "interjection of terror"; #3 RII, "Bhairava". See section of THE SHIVERS. "She turned on all the horrors of The Battle of Prague, that venerable shivaree and waded chin-deep into the blood of the dead". Another quote mentions the dreaded old man.
#1 RI or RII, "dissolve" and #2 RI, "property". Quote about SHIVAREE, "much official talk": "Next came the usual shivaree about such and such case [legal] and what would be taken and so on." (A DICT. OF SLANG. AND UNCONVENTIONAL ENGLISH, 7th ed. P. 759).
Vach does not seem to be involved in all cases. Perhaps Bhairavi? Quotes are found under SHIVAREE in OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY.
---------------
Lalita ("amorous, playing, wished for, desired"): Turk. S(H)EVK, "longing desire"; Secondary definitions are:
"trembling" (cf. Eng. SHIVER < CHYVER, "tremble due to emotions". I have run into examples when she is distraught, but have none of trembling. "tremulous" (cf. Eng. SHIVERING, "tremulous" [of sound and music]. She is associated with music and metres. (A SANSKRIT DICTIONARY). Quote: "16.. [year] And closing up his layes, like a full quire, a shivering consort plays" (OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY). Does this quote refer to her?
---------------
Hindu philosophy accepts all the world's religions as viable substitutes to Hinduism. They understand that some people need to follow different paths. They, therefore, accept all cultures.
---------------
Rudrani < RUDRA or Raudri, "pertaining to Rudra," who is known as the Howler, Roarer: ". Cf. Hung. S[H]IVALKODIK, "scream" (various sources give various spellings); Slovak S(H)IBAVEC, "stentor".
---------------
RAGINI, "red", is a possible shakti. Quote: An alternate derivation from postulated root *RUD, meaning "be red", can be connected with a proposed derivation for the name SHIVA with a Dravidian word meaning "red". (ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Mircea Eliade, p. 8, vol. 13).
---------------
Parvati, "She-of-the-mountains": PAARVATII appears to be the feminine form of PAARVATA < PARVATA, "knotty, rugged (of mountains); mountain range, rock fragment, the number 7." (CF. Heb. SHIVAH, "seven"; Eng. SHIVER, "rock fragment").
---------------
Sita is best known for her part in RAMAYANA, which is actually of Vishnu/Krishna mythology. But according to other mythologies, she is Uma, a shakti of Shiva (q.v.). SIITAA means "furrow". Compare Polish SKIBA, "furrow". However, it is pronounced "skeeba", so I may be stretching things too much. But it is important to note that SKIBA also means "slice", which has cognates Nor. SKIVE, Ger. SCHEIBE, Eng SHEAVE/SHIVE, "slice (of bread" < O.S. SCIVA, OHG. SCIBA.
From a passage about the linga: "Sex symbolism has long been associated with husbandry and the implements connected with it. The Sanskrit word for plough is LAANGULA (LAANGALA from another source), derived from LAK, denoting both a digging implement and phallus. The female pudenda is similarly associated with ploughing and identified with the furrow as personified linguistically by Sita" (less correctly written S[H]IITAA). Sita is represented by a plowshare (HARPER'S DICTIONARY OF HINDUISM, Margaret and James Stutley, p. 278). She was created when her father Janaka was plowing a field. (IBID, p. 162). He emblazoned a plow on his standard in her honor (THE HINDU WORLD, vol. 1, Benjamin Walker, p. 497).
The reasons for these associations stem from Hindus, views of the Mother Earth as a womb which is impregnated by the male sun/sky using rain as sperm. The furrow/vagina represents the opening/parting into the womb. Compare English SHIVER, "breastplate of a plow," akin to SHEAVE and SHIVE < OS. SCIVA; Eng. SHEAT(H), "plow bar connecting the beam and sole in front". Quote: "According to the position of the sheath, the earth of the furrow is turned over more suddenly" (OED, vol. XV, p. 207).
The words SIITAA and SHIITAA change into SAITA and SHAITA, "worshipper of Sita". SIITAA can also used to denote a parting of the hair or vagina (Cornelia Dimmitt, "Sita: Fertility Goddess and Sakti, in THE DIVINE CONSORT, J.S. Hawley and D.M. Wulff, eds., p. 211 ). Consider German SCHEITELN, "to part (hair)"; SCHEITEL, "parting of hair"; SCHEIDE, parting, vagina", akin to M.E. SCHEDE/SCHETE < O.E. SCEATH, Also "vagina".
---------------
Mohini’, "confusing", may be a shakti. She joined sexually with Shiva in the story about Churning of the Waters/Ocean. CF. Ukrainian SHE’VPATISYA, "become confused".
---------------
Vi-raja, "free of dust, cleansed from sin" (cf. Finnish SIIVO, "decent" and SIIVOTA, "clean"; Estonian SIIVUS/SIIVSA, "clean, decent"). Finnish has no SH-sound.
---------------
Sarasvati:
1. SARA, "fluid, liquid".
2. SAARASVATAA, "relating to Sarasvati".
3. SARASA (fr. SARAS) "pertaining to lake, water".
4. SARAS, "anything fluid, flowing, lake, SHEET OF WATER; speech (a meaning given to account for SARAS-VATII".
5. SARASVAT, "full of lakes, juicy, sapid". (cf. Pol. SZYBA, "sheet of water; Port. SEIVA, "sap, blood"; Rom. SEVA, "sap".
---------------
Hinduism believes the world is in a state of metamorphosis toward the obtainment of complete harmony.
---------------
Kali, "black, dark blue" (cf. Old Slavic SIVU [sheevuh"], "black, dark blue".)
Gopatha?
---------------
Canda, "wrathful, cruel". (cf. Port. SEVO/SEVA, "cruel"). Portuguese has no SH-sound. She is definitely a shakti.
Munda, "shaved", is a shakti. Shiva fought Canda and Munda and joined them into one creature, Camunda (no definition). Cf. Eng. SHAVE < OE. SCEAFA/SCEABA/SCAEBA; Eng./Nor. SKIVE, "shave (leather)", of Scandinavian origin.
---------------
CHHINNA-MASTA : CHHINNAA, "cut off, divided" + MASTA, "head". (cf. It. SCEVERARE, "to cut off, sever" or SHIVER, "split, " and Fr.-Eng. CHEVAGE/CHIEVAGE/CHIEF, "head"; Perhaps: Bulg. SHAIBA, "head" (source is not yet determined as being reliable).
---------------
Shiva himself represents "fortunate, lucky, welfare, kind, benevolent, final emancipation". Compare definitions of Fr.-Eng. CHEVE/CHIEVE or Fr.-Eng. CHEVAGE/CHIEVAGE, CHIVALRY. All deal with welfare, luck, prosperity, kindness, success, reaching an end. The names of a few shakti also have this definition.
---------------
Representing the Ganges River, Ganga means "swift-goer". Compare Hung. S[H]EBES[H], "rapid"; and Slovak S[H]IBAT', "speed by" (train) and Estonian SIVA, "quickly". Conceivably, the first two could derive from Sans. SHIIBHYA, "rapid", a name for Shiva, but SIVA is closer to Eng. CHIVAN/CHIVEN (from French), as in PLAY THE CHIVAN, "run away quickly" This is derived from the action of the chub, a shy fish which runs away quickly and hides in holes. Perhaps it is more than coincidence that the only "fish" phrase mentioned in A SANSKRIT DICTIONARY in regards to GAN'GAA is GAN' 'GAA-TEYA, "going in the Ganges", a reference to shrimp. While not related to the chub by modern taxonomy standards, shrimp will make violent,quick movements, sometimes jumping out of the water, then burying themselves in the sand. (cf. Eng. CHEVY/CHIVVY, "run fast").
---------------
Shanti, "peace, alleviation of pain". Cf. Turk. S[H]IFA, "restoraton of health".
---------------
Gopatha?
Miscellaneous concepts:
SHIVA JYOTIS, "Shiva-light", the fire, is considered a linga of Shiva. JYOTII can also refer to sunlight, so consider ENG. SHIVELIGHT, a "sliver of light". For the sake of this paper, the word SLIVER is interpreted as a small part of a whole: There is "a story [about the jyotir-linga] of ascendancy that is very important in Kashi [Benares] lore: the Famous myth in which Shiva's linga splits open the earth as a fiery column of light. The [resulting] shaft is flanked by Brahma on the one side, and Lord Vishnu on the other, both kneeling in reverence upon their divine lotus blossoms. The shaft, with flames shooting from its sides, has been broken" (Eck, p. 70). There are "twelve places where the linga…shone forth in a fiery column of light [all in Kashi/Benares]; the sixty-eight places where Shiva's lingas are said to have emerged from the earth" (IBID, p. 38). There are several temples in Benares, one of which is three feet underground with only enough room for one worshipper and a stone linga (IBID, p. 114).
The light linga is the supreme "partless" reality, out of which Shiva may sometimes appear in bodily form as a "partial" reality (IBID, p. 107). At one point, "Shiva vowed that this [large] unfathomable linga would become small so that the people might have it as an emblem for their worship"
Garlic is considered an auspicious sign, a form of SVASTIKA (A SANSKRIT DICTIONARY). Cf. CHIVE/SHIVE and CHIBE < N. Fr. CHIVE, also known as CIBOULETTE. CHIVE, like garlic, is a member of the Allium genus and also known as Wild Garlic (OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY). In some countries, red string or thread were tied around garlic and seems similar to Hindu thread ceremonies involving the tying of red thread around the wrist.
When one of Brahma;s five heads insulted Sarasvati, Shiva cut it off. Since he was guilty of murder, the resulting skull stuck fast to Shiva's hand, and he was forced to wander around for 12 years as the naked/half-naked beggar, Bhikshatana, "Wandering-for-Alms". "). There is some mythology in which Parvati’says to Shiva, "You went naked into the Pine Forest and seduced the wives of the sages on the pretext of begging. And when you had gone, they gave you great honor. The sages there caused your loincloth to fall…." (ASCETICISM AND EROTICISM IN THE MYTHOLOGY OF SIVA, Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, p. 174).` (Cf. Eng. SHIVERING JEMMY, "the name given by street folk to any cadger who exposes himself half-naked on a cold day to obtain alms". Could this term be divided thus: Shiva + Hindi-Urdu JIM or JIMI=JEM-, "like", (adverb, conjunction), that is, "like Shiva"?
Uncertain:
Guno^dari, "tied, string"? Cf. Eng. SHEAVE/SHEAF/SCEABAS, "harvest/tied bundle of grain". Cf. perhaps J. SHIBARU, "tie with cords." It is perhaps important to note that a picture of Z^iva/Siva (THE MYTHOLOGY OF ALL RACES, vol. 3, opposite p. 288) shows her holding a bundle of grain, a sheaf. Compare the above with the Nordic-Danish (perhaps mythical) figure known as Scef/Sceaf and, according to AN ANGLO-SAXON DICTIONARY, Sceafa, "sheaf". This word is akin to such Anglo-Germanic words as SCEAFAS, SCEABAS, SCHEIFF, SHEIVE and SHEVE. He, too, is equated with fertility (Gertrude Jobes, DICTIONARY OF MYTHOLOGY, FOLKLORE AND SYMBOLS, p. 149).
Ardha-Keshi, "half/halved/split-hair? (cf. Finnish SAIVARRELLA", defined as "split-hair; however, this refers to petty arguing and not the condition of hair. Sources from Finnish universities say the base-word is SAIVAR, "nit", so the implication is "nit-picking". Ardha-Keshi may also refer to parting of the hair. More information on the mythology is needed to understand any relationships
Lola^kshi, "woman with a rolling eye": LOLA, "moving, rolling hither and thither, back and forth, inconstant". (cf. Ger, SCHIEBER, "slide-bolt"; It. SCIVOLO and Nor. SKYVE, both "slide". Perhaps: J. SHIBORI-BEN, "throttle valve": BEN means "valve", so I am assuming that we have something which goes back and forth like a carbeuretor slide. Perhaps of relevance are German SCHIEBEN and Nor. SKIBBE, "shift", so Eng. consider Eng.SHIFT, SHIFTY-EYED, SHIFT-GOT [?] ). Also: AS. SCEAWIAN, "observe, eye"?
DIIRGHA-GHONAA: "extended nose"? GHONAA can also refer to a plant that makes people sneeze. I understand that in a dialect of India, the name of Shiva actually means "he sneezed". Also: Ukrainian SHIBATI V NIS (SP?), "to induce sneezing by tickling the nose".
Last edited by shiv on 21 Oct 2012 09:55, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Jai Bhavani!
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Awesome post shiv ji
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
If Shankara is 500 BCE, Kumarila would be older than that. In that case, the Tamil words in the Tantravartika would be dated as older than 500 BCE. That would then push the dates of Old Tamil much further into the past than currently claimed by linguists. Somebody who knows Old Tamil needs to tell us whether those words are legitimate Old Tamil or Middle Tamil.RajeshA wrote:as of now I see two original Mathas in favor of 507 BCE date, so I'll go with them. If anything changes on that front, may be I could revise my thoughts on it.
KL
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Virendra - note both those posts are cut and paste - I just did not put them in quotes so the credit must go to the author of those links.Virendra wrote:Awesome post shiv ji
That said the more I read the more the links between India and the European bearers of R1A1a1 seem close.
For example, the word "bag", cognate of "bhagwan" has come up before as "God" in Iran. But in Europe - ranging from Russia to the Slavic nations to Poland the word for God is "bog"
In Russia, Poland and other nations there used to be two gods, bielobog and charobog (approximation of various similar names)
The word "bielobog" means white god. "biely" means white in Russian and other east Euroopean languages. I was unable to find a close cognate in Sanskrit other than "valaksh" . But he Kannada word for white is "bili" , cognate of Tamil "vellai" Ther is some connection there.
"Charobog" means black god. Now "char", "kar" etc seem to be related to Sanskrit "krishna" (black), Kannada too has "kari" meaning black, as Tamil has "karppu". Incidentally the Christian gilr name "kari" may be derived from Gaelic Ciardha (meaning black-haired one)
There are dep links that are not acknowledged by the type of anglosaxon scholarship that we tend to follow.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Thanks. I knew this website based on Pokorny's lexicon, but it is only after your post that I tried directly cutting and pasting into Excel - it works!shiv wrote:Let me see what I can do here. I believe the name Pokorny is associated with creating just such a list and it is available online. Will get back on this topic after I find a suitable database - good idea.
OK. Here it is.
Here is a database that can be cut and pasted onto a spreadsheet.
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ ... aster.html
I will start working on this.
KL
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Earlier in this thread I had posted the following link about ancient Slovenian tradition
http://www.thezaurus.com/?/webzine/perc ... landscape/
There is a reference to an "Indija Koromandija"
http://www.thezaurus.com/?/webzine/perc ... landscape/
There is a reference to an "Indija Koromandija"
The reference to warm weather while the weather was actually cold might be a clear reference to perception of people in Europe in the centuries after the last glacial maximum receded and people migrated back to the north. Stories of a southern land that was always warm and had two crops a year is not mythology. They are memories.Slovenian folk tales and songs about the Deveta dežela (ninth country) describe places, where the inhabitants lead a life of blissful leisure, and eat huge amounts of the most delectable food. Indija Koromandija is also a magic land of plenty, which every year gives two or three crops, and where there is no knowledge of sin or sinners
<snip>
That world was a reflected image of the human world, a kind of upside down world, because of different temporal space, but also in that there was summer while there was winter in the real world. Indija Koromandija is a sort of ‘a land below’ where there is eternal spring and autumn.
-
member_23700
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 58
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Where does Mahabharata mention the visibility of Canopus/Agastya? What North Indian location it alludes to? Kurukshetra?peter wrote: What is interesting is that Mahabharata mentions the visibility of Canopus (Agastya) in North India.
Would appreciate specific Mahabharata text references.
TIA.
-
member_23700
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 58
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Avesta has similar referece to 'followers of Avesta/Zaratusthra' moving from 'land of eternal spring to their current location (Iran?). This is because of 'land of eternall spring ... turning into land of bitter cold and snow and ice.etc.. This is interpreted by some as referring to migration from say Kashmir to Iran.shiv wrote:Earlier in this thread I had posted the following link about ancient Slovenian tradition
http://www.thezaurus.com/?/webzine/perc ... landscape/
There is a reference to an "Indija Koromandija"The reference to warm weather while the weather was actually cold might be a clear reference to perception of people in Europe in the centuries after the last glacial maximum receded and people migrated back to the north. Stories of a southern land that was always warm and had two crops a year is not mythology. They are memories.Slovenian folk tales and songs about the Deveta dežela (ninth country) describe places, where the inhabitants lead a life of blissful leisure, and eat huge amounts of the most delectable food. Indija Koromandija is also a magic land of plenty, which every year gives two or three crops, and where there is no knowledge of sin or sinners
<snip>
That world was a reflected image of the human world, a kind of upside down world, because of different temporal space, but also in that there was summer while there was winter in the real world. Indija Koromandija is a sort of ‘a land below’ where there is eternal spring and autumn.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Pandit Kota Venkatachelam gives the age of Kumarila Bhatta as 557 BCE - 493 BCE!KLP Dubey wrote:If Shankara is 500 BCE, Kumarila would be older than that. In that case, the Tamil words in the Tantravartika would be dated as older than 500 BCE. That would then push the dates of Old Tamil much further into the past than currently claimed by linguists. Somebody who knows Old Tamil needs to tell us whether those words are legitimate Old Tamil or Middle Tamil.RajeshA wrote:as of now I see two original Mathas in favor of 507 BCE date, so I'll go with them. If anything changes on that front, may be I could revise my thoughts on it.
He bases it on Jina Vijaya, which states the date of birth of Kumarila Bhatta as Rishi = 7, Vara = 7, Purna = 2, Martyakshau = 2 of the Yudhishtira Era (as calculated by Jains).
Written in reverse order the date is 2077 years after the the start of the Yudhishtira Era (commences 468 years after start of Kali Era, i.e. 3102 BCE - 468 = 2634 BCE). So the date of Kumarila Bhatta would be 2634 BCE - 2077 = 557 BCE.
Also Chitsukhacharya, the companion of Sankara, writes in his "Brihat Sankara Vijaya", Kumarila was 48 years older than Sankara.
According to Jina Vijaya, Kumarila was pushed into the street from the terrace two years after the death of Mahavira, and the date given is 2109 of the Yudhishtira Era. Kumarila was 32 then, in 525 BCE.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
It is accepted that Siddharth Gautam and Mahavir were contemporaries. There is reference to their once being in the same area and not have actually ever met.
As per the Theravada tradition (claimed to be an unbroken chain of masters since ~500 years after the death of Siddharth Gautam) his time was about 500 BCE. Other dates have appeared on this thread for The Buddha.
A large scale revision of dates may happen some time in future after correlation of different sources and facts.
Of course, a difficult/impossible task as mentioned earlier by others.
As per the Theravada tradition (claimed to be an unbroken chain of masters since ~500 years after the death of Siddharth Gautam) his time was about 500 BCE. Other dates have appeared on this thread for The Buddha.
A large scale revision of dates may happen some time in future after correlation of different sources and facts.
Of course, a difficult/impossible task as mentioned earlier by others.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Do you have any cite or reference for this that I can look up?kenop wrote: As per the Theravada tradition (claimed to be an unbroken chain of masters since ~500 years after the death of Siddharth Gautam) his time was about 500 BCE.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
The Lost River
Michel Danino's latest article on Sarasvati has appeared in Daily Pioneer lately.
The Sarasvati has a large bearing on the AIT/AMT/OIT debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts :-
A modern myth is that satellite imagery ‘rediscovered’ the river in the 1970s. Actually, it only confirmed what had been known for over two centuries: As early as in 1760, a map from The Library Atlas published by Bryce, Collier & Schmitz showed the Saraswati (spelt ‘Soorsuty’) joining the Ghaggar (‘Guggur’) in Punjab; indeed, even today a small stream called ‘Sarsuti’ seasonally flows there. In 1778, James Rennell, a noted English geographer and cartographer, published a Map of Hindoostan or the Mogul Empire with similar details. In the early 19th century, several topographers surveyed the bed of the Ghaggar, a seasonal river that flows down from the Shivalik hills, and found it much too wide for the paltry waters it carried during monsoons; the first scholar to propose that the Ghaggar-Saraswati combine was the relic of the Vedic Saraswati was the French geographer Louis Vivien de Saint-Martin, who authored in 1855 a massive Geography of India’s North-West According to the Vedic Hymns. Subsequently, nearly all Indologists, from Max Müller to Monier-Williams or Macdonell (and later Louis Renou) accepted this thesis. Geologists such as RD Oldham (1886) joined in, followed by geographers such as the Indian Shamsul Islam Siddiqi (1944) or the German Herbert Wilhelmy (1969)....
....decades of further explorations both in India and Pakistan have established that the Saraswati basin was home to about 360 sites of the Mature Harappan Phase (the urban phase that saw cities thrive, from about 2600 to 1900 BCE). This includes settlements such as Bhirrana, Rakhigarhi, Kunal or Banawali (all in Haryana), Kalibangan (Rajasthan) or Ganweriwala (Cholistan) — altogether, almost a third of all known urban Harappan sites.....
....Again, that the Ghaggar-Hakra was the Saraswati’s relic was accepted by most archaeologists, including Mortimer Wheeler, Raymond Allchin (both from Britain), Gregory Possehl, JM Kenoyer (both from the US), Jean-Marie Casal (France), AH Dani (Pakistan), BB Lal, SP Gupta, VN Misra or Dilip Chakrabarti (India)....
....most or all Harappan sites were abandoned sometime around 1900 BCE, a period coinciding with the end of the urban phase of the Indus civilisation. Clearly, the river system collapsed — which archaeologists now saw as a factor contributing to the end of the brilliant Indus civilisation....
The Aryan Issue :-
Despite the broad consensus, scholars such as Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib and the late RS Sharma started questioning this identification in the 1980s. What prompted this rather late reaction? It was a new development: A study of the evolution of the pattern of Harappan settlements in the Saraswati basin now revealed that in its central part — roughly southwest Haryana, southern Punjab and northern Rajasthan — most or all Harappan sites were abandoned sometime around 1900 BCE, a period coinciding with the end of the urban phase of the Indus civilisation. Clearly, the river system collapsed — which archaeologists now saw as a factor contributing to the end of the brilliant Indus civilisation.
Why was this a problem? We must remember that the Saraswati is lavishly praised both as a river and a Goddess in the Rig Veda, a collection of hymns which mainstream Indology says was composed by Indo-Aryans shortly after their migration to India around 1500 BCE. However, by that time, the Saraswati had been reduced to a minor seasonal stream: How could the said Aryans praise it as a ‘mighty river’, the ‘best of rivers’, ‘mother of waters’, etc? There is a chronological impossibility. Hence, the objectors asserted, the Ghaggar-Hakra was not, after all, the Saraswati extolled in the Rig Veda. While some (Rajesh Kochhar) tried to relocate the river in Afghanistan, others (Irfan Habib) decided that the Saraswati was not a particular river but “the river in the abstract, the River Goddess”; but both theses ran against the Rig Veda’s own testimony that the river flowed between the Yamuna and the Sutlej.
However, what should have remained a scholarly issue now turned into an ideological and often acrimonious battle: On the one hand, those who stuck to the identity between the Saraswati and the Ghaggar-Hakra concluded that the composers of the Rig Veda must have lived in the region during the third millennium BCE at the latest — but as the only settlements known of that period were Harappan ones, they often held that the Harappans were part of the Vedic people; cultural evidence such as a Harappan swastika, yogic postures, figurines in namaste and more was pressed into service to bridge the Harappan and the Vedic worlds. On the other hand, scholars who continued to swear by an Aryan immigration in the mid-second millennium BCE, and therefore a pre-Vedic Harappan civilisation, accused the former of ‘chauvinism’, ‘jingoism’ or worse, conveniently forgetting that dozens of Western scholars had, for a century-and-a-half, accepted the same location for the Saraswati river....
New Research :-
....A Lawler claimed that “the Ghaggar-Hakra was at most a modest seasonal stream... from 2500 BCE to 1900 BCE”, that is, at the height of the Harappan civilisation. This ran against the notion of a mighty, or simply perennial, Saraswati flowing during mature Harappan times....
....Yamuna once flowed into the Ghaggar-Hakra, but switched eastward tens of thousands of years ago; the Sutlej also contributed to the Ghaggar system but abandoned it 10,000 years ago or earlier. But the paper remained non-committal as regards the precise time for the drying of the Ghaggar itself.....
....the Ghaggar-Hakra was active during the mature Harappan period, although not fed by glacial sources; it was a monsoon-fed river, like rivers of central or southern India: “Reliable monsoon rains were able to sustain perennial rivers earlier during the Holocene, (which) explains why Harappan settlements flourished along the entire Ghaggar-Hakra system without access to a glacier-fed river"....
....we know from a 15th century Islamic chronicle that the Sutlej and Ghaggar systems were still connected in medieval times, and therefore sands of Himalayan provenance carried by the Sutlej should be identifiable in the Ghaggar’s central and lower basin....
....2012 study, directed by Indian geologist Rajiv Sinha and published in Quaternary International, which mapped palaeo-river sedimentary bodies in the subsurface by measuring their electrical resistivity (water-bearing sediments having a lower resistivity than dry ones). The study offered “the first stratigraphic evidence that a palaeochannel exists in the sub-surface alluvium in the Ghaggar valley. The fact that the major urban sites of Kalibangan and Kunal lie adjacent to the newly discovered subsurface fluvial channel body suggests that there may be a spatial relationship between the Ghaggar-Hakra palaeochannel and Harappan site distribution”....
....A convergence of archaeological, geological and climatic studies is thus on the horizon, and we may soon be in a position to better understand the reasons for the decline of the Indus civilisation. As regards the Saraswati river, allowing for some metaphorical inflation in the Vedic hymns, nothing in the recent research contradicts the river’s break-up and gradual extinction as depicted in India’s ancient literature. We are thus back to the original problem: If we accept the Vedic hymns’ description of a river flowing from the mountain to the sea and located between the Yamuna and the Sutlej, the Ghaggar remains the sole candidate; but as we now know, this description can only apply to the third millennium BCE or earlier, an epoch that does not fit with the conventional scenario of a second millennium Aryan migration into India. We still have to wait for the last word on India’s protohistory.
The writer is the author of The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvati (Penguin, 2010) and a long-time student of Indian protohistory; he is currently guest professor at IIT Gandhinagar and visiting professor at IIM Ranchi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Virendra
Michel Danino's latest article on Sarasvati has appeared in Daily Pioneer lately.
The Sarasvati has a large bearing on the AIT/AMT/OIT debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts :-
A modern myth is that satellite imagery ‘rediscovered’ the river in the 1970s. Actually, it only confirmed what had been known for over two centuries: As early as in 1760, a map from The Library Atlas published by Bryce, Collier & Schmitz showed the Saraswati (spelt ‘Soorsuty’) joining the Ghaggar (‘Guggur’) in Punjab; indeed, even today a small stream called ‘Sarsuti’ seasonally flows there. In 1778, James Rennell, a noted English geographer and cartographer, published a Map of Hindoostan or the Mogul Empire with similar details. In the early 19th century, several topographers surveyed the bed of the Ghaggar, a seasonal river that flows down from the Shivalik hills, and found it much too wide for the paltry waters it carried during monsoons; the first scholar to propose that the Ghaggar-Saraswati combine was the relic of the Vedic Saraswati was the French geographer Louis Vivien de Saint-Martin, who authored in 1855 a massive Geography of India’s North-West According to the Vedic Hymns. Subsequently, nearly all Indologists, from Max Müller to Monier-Williams or Macdonell (and later Louis Renou) accepted this thesis. Geologists such as RD Oldham (1886) joined in, followed by geographers such as the Indian Shamsul Islam Siddiqi (1944) or the German Herbert Wilhelmy (1969)....
....decades of further explorations both in India and Pakistan have established that the Saraswati basin was home to about 360 sites of the Mature Harappan Phase (the urban phase that saw cities thrive, from about 2600 to 1900 BCE). This includes settlements such as Bhirrana, Rakhigarhi, Kunal or Banawali (all in Haryana), Kalibangan (Rajasthan) or Ganweriwala (Cholistan) — altogether, almost a third of all known urban Harappan sites.....
....Again, that the Ghaggar-Hakra was the Saraswati’s relic was accepted by most archaeologists, including Mortimer Wheeler, Raymond Allchin (both from Britain), Gregory Possehl, JM Kenoyer (both from the US), Jean-Marie Casal (France), AH Dani (Pakistan), BB Lal, SP Gupta, VN Misra or Dilip Chakrabarti (India)....
....most or all Harappan sites were abandoned sometime around 1900 BCE, a period coinciding with the end of the urban phase of the Indus civilisation. Clearly, the river system collapsed — which archaeologists now saw as a factor contributing to the end of the brilliant Indus civilisation....
The Aryan Issue :-
Despite the broad consensus, scholars such as Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib and the late RS Sharma started questioning this identification in the 1980s. What prompted this rather late reaction? It was a new development: A study of the evolution of the pattern of Harappan settlements in the Saraswati basin now revealed that in its central part — roughly southwest Haryana, southern Punjab and northern Rajasthan — most or all Harappan sites were abandoned sometime around 1900 BCE, a period coinciding with the end of the urban phase of the Indus civilisation. Clearly, the river system collapsed — which archaeologists now saw as a factor contributing to the end of the brilliant Indus civilisation.
Why was this a problem? We must remember that the Saraswati is lavishly praised both as a river and a Goddess in the Rig Veda, a collection of hymns which mainstream Indology says was composed by Indo-Aryans shortly after their migration to India around 1500 BCE. However, by that time, the Saraswati had been reduced to a minor seasonal stream: How could the said Aryans praise it as a ‘mighty river’, the ‘best of rivers’, ‘mother of waters’, etc? There is a chronological impossibility. Hence, the objectors asserted, the Ghaggar-Hakra was not, after all, the Saraswati extolled in the Rig Veda. While some (Rajesh Kochhar) tried to relocate the river in Afghanistan, others (Irfan Habib) decided that the Saraswati was not a particular river but “the river in the abstract, the River Goddess”; but both theses ran against the Rig Veda’s own testimony that the river flowed between the Yamuna and the Sutlej.
However, what should have remained a scholarly issue now turned into an ideological and often acrimonious battle: On the one hand, those who stuck to the identity between the Saraswati and the Ghaggar-Hakra concluded that the composers of the Rig Veda must have lived in the region during the third millennium BCE at the latest — but as the only settlements known of that period were Harappan ones, they often held that the Harappans were part of the Vedic people; cultural evidence such as a Harappan swastika, yogic postures, figurines in namaste and more was pressed into service to bridge the Harappan and the Vedic worlds. On the other hand, scholars who continued to swear by an Aryan immigration in the mid-second millennium BCE, and therefore a pre-Vedic Harappan civilisation, accused the former of ‘chauvinism’, ‘jingoism’ or worse, conveniently forgetting that dozens of Western scholars had, for a century-and-a-half, accepted the same location for the Saraswati river....
New Research :-
....A Lawler claimed that “the Ghaggar-Hakra was at most a modest seasonal stream... from 2500 BCE to 1900 BCE”, that is, at the height of the Harappan civilisation. This ran against the notion of a mighty, or simply perennial, Saraswati flowing during mature Harappan times....
....Yamuna once flowed into the Ghaggar-Hakra, but switched eastward tens of thousands of years ago; the Sutlej also contributed to the Ghaggar system but abandoned it 10,000 years ago or earlier. But the paper remained non-committal as regards the precise time for the drying of the Ghaggar itself.....
....the Ghaggar-Hakra was active during the mature Harappan period, although not fed by glacial sources; it was a monsoon-fed river, like rivers of central or southern India: “Reliable monsoon rains were able to sustain perennial rivers earlier during the Holocene, (which) explains why Harappan settlements flourished along the entire Ghaggar-Hakra system without access to a glacier-fed river"....
....we know from a 15th century Islamic chronicle that the Sutlej and Ghaggar systems were still connected in medieval times, and therefore sands of Himalayan provenance carried by the Sutlej should be identifiable in the Ghaggar’s central and lower basin....
....2012 study, directed by Indian geologist Rajiv Sinha and published in Quaternary International, which mapped palaeo-river sedimentary bodies in the subsurface by measuring their electrical resistivity (water-bearing sediments having a lower resistivity than dry ones). The study offered “the first stratigraphic evidence that a palaeochannel exists in the sub-surface alluvium in the Ghaggar valley. The fact that the major urban sites of Kalibangan and Kunal lie adjacent to the newly discovered subsurface fluvial channel body suggests that there may be a spatial relationship between the Ghaggar-Hakra palaeochannel and Harappan site distribution”....
....A convergence of archaeological, geological and climatic studies is thus on the horizon, and we may soon be in a position to better understand the reasons for the decline of the Indus civilisation. As regards the Saraswati river, allowing for some metaphorical inflation in the Vedic hymns, nothing in the recent research contradicts the river’s break-up and gradual extinction as depicted in India’s ancient literature. We are thus back to the original problem: If we accept the Vedic hymns’ description of a river flowing from the mountain to the sea and located between the Yamuna and the Sutlej, the Ghaggar remains the sole candidate; but as we now know, this description can only apply to the third millennium BCE or earlier, an epoch that does not fit with the conventional scenario of a second millennium Aryan migration into India. We still have to wait for the last word on India’s protohistory.
The writer is the author of The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvati (Penguin, 2010) and a long-time student of Indian protohistory; he is currently guest professor at IIT Gandhinagar and visiting professor at IIM Ranchi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Virendra
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
peter, We are following the Agastya/Canopus discussion in the GDF.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Can we not use Nilesh software to date Shankracharya. I am surewhen he was born or some important event in his life had a horroscope casted.
Thanks,
Fanne
Thanks,
Fanne
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Could some one post links to the Chinese version on Buddha's dating/ timeline (in English of course)
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
From hereshiv wrote:Do you have any cite or reference for this that I can look up?kenop wrote: As per the Theravada tradition (claimed to be an unbroken chain of masters since ~500 years after the death of Siddharth Gautam) his time was about 500 BCE.
The "unbroken chain of teachers" of Theravada tradition in Mynamar is empahtically talked about in Vipassana. The fact that Pali is the language of Theravada tradition is interesting too as Buddha is known to have communicated in Pali. Of course, the sermons were written down much after his passing away.Through uninterrupted transmission from generation to generation over 2000 years, this dedicated lineage transmitted the technique from teacher to pupil. All Sangha , all pure minded people, are the repository of Dhamma.
The Patiyatti ( theoretical aspect) and Patipatti (practical aspects) of the Tipitaka was maintained in Myanmar (Burma) in its pure form because of unbroken chain of teachers and students among those vernerable ariya monks . Not only that, a chain of devoted teachers (of monks and some lay people) in Myanmar preserved the teaching of the Buddha in its pristine purity.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
kenop ji,
the "unbroken tradition" of Therevada Buddhism is only since 2000 years. Even by newer reckoning of Buddha's age, that would be 400 years or so after him. Can it be a sure witness?
In fact, it is not even clear whether the site is pledged only to the teachings of Therevada Buddhism, or whether it is also pledged to Buddha's historicity. Both the things are not always the same. In case it does not do its own history keeping, it can be that they have simply taken the most popular date for Buddha from Western opinion. They have not really offered any concrete dates. Sometimes they just want to avoid controversy around dates and focus on the message.
the "unbroken tradition" of Therevada Buddhism is only since 2000 years. Even by newer reckoning of Buddha's age, that would be 400 years or so after him. Can it be a sure witness?
In fact, it is not even clear whether the site is pledged only to the teachings of Therevada Buddhism, or whether it is also pledged to Buddha's historicity. Both the things are not always the same. In case it does not do its own history keeping, it can be that they have simply taken the most popular date for Buddha from Western opinion. They have not really offered any concrete dates. Sometimes they just want to avoid controversy around dates and focus on the message.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
The context of my first post was about the dates around Buddha which is generally accepted as ~500 BCE. Theravada tradition (claimed to be about 2000 years old) fits in with other data like the fact that Buddha's teaching reached Myanmar after the fourth council in Sri Lanka (~100 BCE) and the sermons were committed to palm leaves. Earlier in this thread, Buddha's time was being referred to much earlier than ~500 BCE.
This left me wondering about correct dates for Buddha.
This left me wondering about correct dates for Buddha.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
kenop ji,
You are right. There are reasons to believe that Buddha's date may not be around 500 BCE but earlier. Please read this online book should you be interested in understanding the reasons for doubting the currently accepted dates. Perhaps one can go deeper into why there are differences in perceptions.
You are right. There are reasons to believe that Buddha's date may not be around 500 BCE but earlier. Please read this online book should you be interested in understanding the reasons for doubting the currently accepted dates. Perhaps one can go deeper into why there are differences in perceptions.
-
Nilesh Oak
- BRFite
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Thank you Shiv ji,
Amber G provided good verbal explanation for 'Epoch of Arundhati' which I have tried to illustrate via a Figure iwth circles and lines and arrows.... that I had posted on this thread before.
You may check Amber G explantion with my diagram here
Amber G provided good verbal explanation for 'Epoch of Arundhati' which I have tried to illustrate via a Figure iwth circles and lines and arrows.... that I had posted on this thread before.
You may check Amber G explantion with my diagram here
Last edited by Nilesh Oak on 22 Oct 2012 07:16, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Nilesh Oak ji,
please feel free to cross-post or link anything you feel is relevant to this thread.
The link above however is mistakenly directed to "quote" or "edit" action of the relevant post. Also for the label of the link, you may like to give a little explanation in a few words to what is being linked.
please feel free to cross-post or link anything you feel is relevant to this thread.
The link above however is mistakenly directed to "quote" or "edit" action of the relevant post. Also for the label of the link, you may like to give a little explanation in a few words to what is being linked.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Some resources from the Infinity Foundation of Rajiv Malhotra on Indian history, some of which are quite relevant for this thread.
HISTORY Essays @Infinity Foundation
Here is one interesting piece:
Lithuanian folklore as a source of Baltic religion: the fire ritual
By Inija Trinkuniene
HISTORY Essays @Infinity Foundation
Here is one interesting piece:
Lithuanian folklore as a source of Baltic religion: the fire ritual
By Inija Trinkuniene
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Nileshji on the top right hand side of every post (or somewhere associated with every forum post) should be a small icon that looks like this:Nilesh Oak wrote:Post deleted since it was linked to edit section of my post.
Will make another attempt another time....
That icon indicates the url of each post. If you click on that icon it will only get you back to the very post you are reading. Right clicking that icon will allow you to copy the url of the post to paste later where you want it posted
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Here is one interesting piece about Baltic religion and cultureRajeshA wrote:Some resources from the Infinity Foundation of Rajiv Malhotra on Indian history, some of which are quite relevant for this thread.
HISTORY Essays @Infinity Foundation
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/manda ... ameset.htm
The idea of Darna (harmony) lies in origins of Baltic culture. The rule of darna harmony will lead to change and growth. Morality is the most important ideal of nature and man and is attained and maintained through persistent effort. Darna - the rule of harmony has always been of significance in the ancient faith. Man lives and the world exists due to harmonious interactions rudimentary to life and through man's own correct and moral behavior
[..]
Darna is the most important nature's and man's ideals, attained and maintained with constant work and toil. Darna is not a steady and unchanging happiness, good fortune. It depends heavily on the efforts and concerns of man and his Gods. Baltic Darna - harmony is very close to the Hindu Dharma - the principle moral order of the world.
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
another thought for you all to chew on
hanuman and the monkey army - if they hopped across the palk straits to lanka - say during a period of low sea levels (during the last ice age), could the distinction between humans and monkeys be a folk memory of the interaction/collaboration between homo sapiens and homo erectus?
hanuman and the monkey army - if they hopped across the palk straits to lanka - say during a period of low sea levels (during the last ice age), could the distinction between humans and monkeys be a folk memory of the interaction/collaboration between homo sapiens and homo erectus?
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
Yes I have had this thought. Could be some other sentient primate.Lalmohan wrote:another thought for you all to chew on
hanuman and the monkey army - if they hopped across the palk straits to lanka - say during a period of low sea levels (during the last ice age), could the distinction between humans and monkeys be a folk memory of the interaction/collaboration between homo sapiens and homo erectus?
Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth
The remains of Homo floresiensis was discovered recently in Indonesia. Was supposed to have existed as recently as 12K years back and was closer to apes than humans.Lalmohan wrote:hanuman and the monkey army - if they hopped across the palk straits to lanka - say during a period of low sea levels (during the last ice age), could the distinction between humans and monkeys be a folk memory of the interaction/collaboration between homo sapiens and homo erectus?
Here's an illustration of what Homo Foriensis may have looked like: How a hobbit is rewriting the history of the human race
Last edited by Arjun on 22 Oct 2012 14:33, edited 1 time in total.