Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3262
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Rony » 16 Feb 2013 01:54


johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby johneeG » 16 Feb 2013 02:03

disha wrote:JohneeG'ji,

You are doing excellent work, digging out details. But a gentle request to hold your horses on some language (or attitude?)

For example:

johneeG wrote:Angkor Wat was originally a Hindu temple. Later, it was usurped over by the Buddhists. This is not an isolated incident. Buddhists and Jains had attempted to usurp many Hindu sites, a partly succeeded(at least, for some time). The same thing may have happened at Ceveteri.


Usurp means taking something by force illegally.

It will be not just ignorance and narrow mindedness, but stupidity to think in those lines. If you are thinking in those lines, stop and revert since you have already fallen for the divisions caused by the AIT'vadis. You can as well start thumping the book!

To come back and say that they "usurped" religious places is not just sheer ignorance, but stupidity. So please do not go there. I do understand the frustration that a lay Hindu adherant has., but a note - we are welcome to kill all Jains and Buddhists and usurp their religous place of worships and convert all of them to "Hindu"., but then we are no different from Taliban and of course we have not understood the Sanatana Dharma (or Hinduism).


Saar,
when I was writing, I too felt that the word 'usurp' is too strong. Initially, I had used the word 'taken over', but that seemed too mild(and indicated voluntary relinquishing by Hindus). So, I used 'usurp', in the sense that it was taken over through social and political dominance, not necessarily by force. If you see, there is even a trace of 'taken over' in my post. I had only replaced 'taken' with 'usurped', but forgot to replace 'over'.

The phenomenon of Buddhists and Jains taking over Hindu sites seem to have happened quite a lot. And many of these sites, may have been reclaimed by the Hindus. When I say 'taken over' and 'reclaimed', I don't mean to indicate use of force(I don't know whether force was used or not). It seems, it was more of a social evolution and political influence. Ellora Caves seem to be a good example.

Also, it seems to me that Buddhism and Jain are more or less like a glorified sect of Hinduism. Sorry for using the word 'glorified sect', I am unable to think of other words. What I have in mind is that Buddhism and Jainism act as Hindu sects for a large part. So, taking over the Hindu sites becomes the most natural thing for them. In fact, this phenomenon of Hindu sites passing from the hands of one Hindu sect to another is also quite common. The same phenomenon may have continued with Buddhism and Jainism. Political patronage also plays a vital role because one needs lot of funds to create sculptures. Moreover, the temples were dependent of royal grant.

But, saar, where did I give you any indication of proposing 'killing Jains or Buddhists'? :shock: I must say that was a shocker from you. Personally, I think Jainism and Buddhism are nastika Hindu sects. I mean they are more or less Hinduism with some commissions and omissions. In fact, it seems to me that the similarities were far more, when they started out.

disha wrote:Whether you question the historicity of Ashoka or not, the truth is that Chandragupta Maurya took samadhi as a Jain monk and his grandson was a Buddhist.


No, no, saar. I am not questioning the historicity of Ashoka Maurya or Chandragupta Maurya. I am only skeptical about the dating given by the indologists. And I am skeptical of connecting Piyadasi with Ashoka Maurya. I mean the inscriptions keep mentioning 'Piyadasi, the favourite of Gods'. But, they never seem to mention 'Maurya' or 'Ashoka', correct me if I am wrong.

I am not questioning that Ashoka Maurya was a Buddhist King. Neither am I doubting Chandragupta Maurya becoming a Jain. What I doubt is whether the dates given to them(along with birth of Buddhism) are correct? I think Ashoka Maurya, Chandragupta Maurya, and Buddhism are much more older.

After Ashoka Maurya, there may have been several Buddhist kings who continued to patronize Buddhism and support the missionary work in home and abroad. The extent of spread of Buddhism is very large. Such a large spread, it seems to me, is difficult to be achieved in a short time(under one king). Such a spread indicates that Buddhist missionaries have been at work for a far longer time and conquered(religiously) bit by bit(supported by several kings).

How Chandragupta Maurya was Equated with Sandrocottus – Sheet Anchor Chronology.

Sir William Jones could not believe in the antiquity of the Bharata War according to Indian accounts because of his Christian faith which told him that Creation took place at 9-00 a. m, on 23rd October 4004 BC. He tried to search the Greek and Roman accounts. These accounts supplied some information about India of the time of the Macedonian king Alexander. It mentioned seven names of three successive Indian kings. Attributing one name each for the three kings the names are Xandrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus. Xandrammes of the previous dynasty was murdered by Sandrokottas whose son was Sandrocyptus.

Jones picked up one of these three names, namely, Sandrokottas and found that it had a sort of phonetic similarity with the name Chandragupta of the Puranic accounts. According to the Greek accounts, Palibothra was the capital of Sandrokottas. Jones took Palibothra as a Greek pronunciation of Pataliputra, the Indian city and capital of Chandragupta. He, then, declared that Sandrokottas of the Greek accounts is Chandragupta Maurya of the Puranas. Jones died just a year after this declaration and possibly before his death, could not know that Puranas have another Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty.

Later scholars took this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya as proved and carried on further research. James Princep, an employee of the East India Company, deciphered the Brahmi script and was able to read the inscriptions of Piyadassana. Turnour, another employee of the Company in Ceylon, found in the Ceylonese chronicles that Piyadassana was used as a surname of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The inscription bearing the name of Asoka was not found till the time of Turnour. In 1838, Princep found five names of the Yona kings in Asoka's inscriptions and identified them as the five Greek kings near Greece belonging to third century BC who were contemporary to Asoka.

In the Greek accounts, Sandrokottas of Palimbothra is described as a contemporary of Alexander of Macedonia who invaded India during 327 BC to 323 BC This decides the approximate date of Chandragupta Maurya. Princep's research decides the approximate date of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya as in 3rd century BC Both these dates were adjusted with the reign periods of the three successive Magadha kings, Chandragupta, Bindusara and Asoka of the Maurya dynasty given in the Puranas. Thus, the date c. 320 BC was fixed as the date of coronation of Chandragupta Maurya. It is on this date that every other date of Indian history has been constructed.

Max Mueller, in 1859 AD, finalized this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya and declared c. 320 BC, the date of coronation of Chandragupta Maurya as the Sheet Anchor of Indian history. M. Troyer did not agree with this conclusion and noted this fact in the introduction to his translation of Rajatarangani of Kalhana. He even communicated his views to Prof. Max Mueller in a letter but did not receive a reply from him.

Smith's Chronology:
Historian V. A. Smith took the chronological identity asserted by the predecessors in this historical hierarchy as the basis for further calculation of the exact dates of the different dynasties that ruled over Magadha after and before the Mauryas. He took the aid of numismatics in addition to epigraphy. He could not however get over, as if by compunction, to follow the Puranas in the enumeration of the kings and their dynasties. But he reduced their reign periods. The total reduction done by these British scholars, from Jones to Smith, comes to 1300 years according to some Indian chronologists.

Indian View Chandragupta Maurya did not meet Megasthenes

1) Megasthenes has nowhere mentioned the word Maurya

2) He makes absolutely no mention of a person called either Chanakya or Kautilya.

3) Indian historians have recorded two Chandr aguptas, one of the Maurya dynasty and another of the Gupta dynasty. Both of them had a grandson called Ashoka. While the Mauryan Chandragupta' s son was called Bimbasara (sometimes Bindusara), The Gupta Chandragupta had a son called Samudragupta. Interestingly Megasthenese has written that Sandrakuttos had a son called Samdrakyptos, which is phonetically nearer to Samudragupta and not Bindusara.

4) The king lists given by the Puranas say that 1500 years elapsed from the time of the Kurukshetra war to the beginning of the Nanda dynasty's rule. If one assumes the Nandas' period to be 5th century BCE, this would put the Bharatha war around 1900 BCE whereas the traditional view has always been 3100 BCE. This gives a difference of 1200 years which go unaccounted.

5) Megasthanese himself says 137 generations of kings have come and gone between Krishna and Sandrakuttos, whereas the puranas give around 83 generations only between Jarasandha's son (Krishna's contemporary) to the Nandas of the Magadha kingdom.. Assuming an average of 20 to 25 years per generation, the difference of 54 generations would account for the gap of the 1200 years till the time of Alexander.

6) The Chinese have always maintained that Buddhism came to China from India around 1100 -1200 BCE, whereas the western historians tend to put Buddha at 500 BCE

7) According to the Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts.

8) The king lists given by the Puranas say that 1500 years elapsed from the time of the Kurukshetra war to the beginning of the Nanda dynasty's rule. If one assumes the Nandas' period to be 5th century BCE, this would put the Bharatha war around 1900 BCE whereas the traditional view has always been 3100 BCE. This gives a difference of 1200 years which go unaccounted.

9) Megasthanese himself says 137 generations of kings have come and gone between Krishna and Sandrakuttos, whereas the puranas give around 83 generations only between Jarasandha's son (Krishna's contemporary) to the Nandas of the Magadha kingdom.. Assuming an average of 20 to 25 years per generation, the difference of 54 generations would account for the gap of the 1200 years till the time of Alexander.

10) The Chinese have always maintained that Buddhism came to China from India around 1100 -1200 BCE, whereas the western historians tend to put Buddha at 500 BCE

11) According to the Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts.
Link

Comments on the blog:
Indeed, Sandrokottas was not Maurya Chandragupta. Even the very Phonetic basis of identification should have been rejected at the time of Sir William Jones by a vote of 2 is to 1. Even Jones while suggesting this idea in 1793 demanded more research. But as we all know, the Satan Christian missionary Max Mueller was here on the very purpose to distort our history, nothing else could have emerged.
Apart from the facts that you mentioned, one more very important point is-
Guptas who are placed in the 3rd-4 th century are no where mentioned by the chinses traveller Fa Hein. Interestingly, students are still taught that he visited during the reign of Chandragupta= Devgupta= Vikrmaditya despite the fact that Fa Hein while mentioning numerous other kings, never gives a slightest hint about the emperor of India( The Guptas).
Salute to Romila Thapar & NCERT!.
One last thing for you to ponder over, Yavanas Of Arthashashtra or Puranas i.e. Yonas of Ashokan edicts are surly Not the Macedonians or Greeks.


Now the Buddhist and Purana sources are silent on this story, casting doubts on this story and it was written in 4th century AD. The Chinese traveler Fa-Hian who visited Pataliputra says it is ruined city. Ruined city? Captial of mighty guptas at that time? And Fa-Hian does not talk about Guptas.

Chandragupta of Alexander time is ChandraGupta of Gupta Dynasty.
Ranjith pal identified, The main stratagem of the drama in the theft of a signet-ring, which, according to him, is linked to the mysterious manner in which Perdikkas produced Alexander's signet-ring. Crashing gates, poisoning cups, poison-maidens and forged letters feature prominently in the drama, and the same devices also appear in Alexander's history. Ranjit pal identifies sasicutts with Chandragupta. Purana confirms the not so noble ways of Guptas. But western historians will differ and say , the story is a combination of Babylon and Darius story.

Samundragupta took to Bhuddism after defeating 16 kings and took the title of Ashokaditya(first one to have no sorrorws) and was generally knowns as ashoka. He progated Buddhism. Ashoka of Mauryas (called Ashokavardhan) was king in magadha by purana sources. Much of the edicts of ashoka are attributed to Samudragupta. In the Manjushrimulakalpa, a Buddhistic work, the description of Samudra Gupta fits well with that of the conqueror Ashoka of the inscriptions.
The Piyadassi Inscriptions are of twofold nature: the ones which belong to Ashoka Maurya and the ones which belong to Ashoka Gupta or Samudra. Bindusara does not tally with Amitrochates or alithrogates. In fact 'Amitraghata' (Slayer of enemies) and 'Ajathasetru' (Man having no enemies) tallies with Ashokaditya. Only puranas mention Ashoka not greek.


Now coming to Chronology
Megasthanes
Xandremes Sandrocottus Sandrocyptus Xandremes(puranic view Maurya- Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya, Bindusara, Ashoka)(Indian view Gupta- Chandramsi, chandragupta Gupta, samudragupta).(Western view - Magesthanes mentions maurya not Gupta).
Both Sandracottus and Amitrochates received envoys, both are now lost except few passages.
Strabo says
Generally speaking, the men who hitherto have written on the affairs of India, were a set of liars. Deimachus holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next, while Onesicritus and Nearchus, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words [of truth]. Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Deimachus and Megasthenes. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider-legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer's fable concerning the battles of the Cranes and Pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, of Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all; meantime, as Eratosthenes has observed, reciprocally accusing each other of falsehood."


Kalinga – On the basis of Megasthenes’ account, Pliny says that Kalinga was an independent province during Chandragupta’s reign. But the Purana and Buddhist text evidence for Nanda’s control of Kalinga, their subsequent overthrow by Chandragupta, and also Chandragupta’s influence further south point towards Chandragupta’s control over Kalinga also.

When Kalinga was under control of Nanda and Chandragupta. Bindusara was not a small ruler to lose kalinga, the question of Ashoka conquering Kalinga does not arise.

So which chandragupta are we talking about


Rama Gupta son of Samudra gupta is mentioned in Lost of dramas of Visakhadatta entitled Devi chandraguptam, fragments of which are preserved in Natya darpana, a work on dramaturgy by Ramachandra and Gunachandra. Ramagupta was a cowardly ruler, and it is alleged that in response to the saka king's demand he agreed to surrender even his wife Dhuruvadevi. But honour was saved owing to the intervention of her husbands brother, chandragupta, who in the guise of a woman killed the saka ruler. Chandragupta did away with Ramagupta too and ascended the throne of pataliputra. Echoes of this story also comes from Bana's Harsacarita and the commentary on it by sankararya and some other later authorities like srinagara prakasa of Bhoja, the sanjan plates of Amoghavarsha and the mujmalut tawarikh.
source History of Ancient India by Rama Shankar Tripathi

Now the Signet ring story is similar to this story, so the sasicottus can be Chandragupta II of Gupta Dynasty.
Link

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 16 Feb 2013 07:46

shiv wrote:
johneeG wrote:Shiv saar,
the author of the above pdf makes the same argument that the word 'Hindu' is as ancient as Hapta Hindu, which is a distortion of Sapta Sindhu. And, 'Sindhu' is found in Vedas.

The author also raises another interesting point: If Persians could not pronounce 'sa' and distorted it as 'ha', then what about the 'sa' in Persia. So, the author concludes that the habit of pronouncing 'sa' as 'ha' is not from Persia(originally), but from Gujarat where Somnath(is called Homnath...etc).


Not surprising. Zoroastrians are descended from the rishi Bhargava (Bhrigu) . Bhargava is another name for Spitama who is said to be the ancestor of Zoroaster. Zoroaster was himself an atharvan or fire priest like Bhargava (Bhrigu)

The town of Bharuch (now Broach) in Gujarat gets its name from Bhrigu-kaksha, so the Bhrigus were all over that area originally. They migrated to the west after they broke with the Vedic beliefs of Rishi Angirasa's clan. Angirasa appears in Zoroastrianism as the representative of evil Angra Mainyu. The Atharva Veda that we have today is the Angirasa Atharva Veda. The Gathas of the Zend Avesta (oldest parts) correspond to the Bhargava Atharva Veda.

The Gopatha Brahmana actually refers to the Atharva Veda as the Bhargava-Atharva Samhita. But our Atharva veda has nothing from the Bhrigus

Do you have any text references for what you write?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 16 Feb 2013 08:13

peter wrote:
shiv wrote:
Not surprising. Zoroastrians are descended from the rishi Bhargava (Bhrigu) . Bhargava is another name for Spitama who is said to be the ancestor of Zoroaster. Zoroaster was himself an atharvan or fire priest like Bhargava (Bhrigu)

The town of Bharuch (now Broach) in Gujarat gets its name from Bhrigu-kaksha, so the Bhrigus were all over that area originally. They migrated to the west after they broke with the Vedic beliefs of Rishi Angirasa's clan. Angirasa appears in Zoroastrianism as the representative of evil Angra Mainyu. The Atharva Veda that we have today is the Angirasa Atharva Veda. The Gathas of the Zend Avesta (oldest parts) correspond to the Bhargava Atharva Veda.

The Gopatha Brahmana actually refers to the Atharva Veda as the Bhargava-Atharva Samhita. But our Atharva veda has nothing from the Bhrigus

Do you have any text references for what you write?

Yes. You will find them in my book. But if you look hard enough you can find them yourself,

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby johneeG » 16 Feb 2013 11:32

shiv wrote:
johneeG wrote:Shiv saar,
the author of the above pdf makes the same argument that the word 'Hindu' is as ancient as Hapta Hindu, which is a distortion of Sapta Sindhu. And, 'Sindhu' is found in Vedas.

The author also raises another interesting point: If Persians could not pronounce 'sa' and distorted it as 'ha', then what about the 'sa' in Persia. So, the author concludes that the habit of pronouncing 'sa' as 'ha' is not from Persia(originally), but from Gujarat where Somnath(is called Homnath...etc).


Not surprising. Zoroastrians are descended from the rishi Bhargava (Bhrigu) . Bhargava is another name for Spitama who is said to be the ancestor of Zoroaster. Zoroaster was himself an atharvan or fire priest like Bhargava (Bhrigu)

The town of Bharuch (now Broach) in Gujarat gets its name from Bhrigu-kaksha, so the Bhrigus were all over that area originally. They migrated to the west after they broke with the Vedic beliefs of Rishi Angirasa's clan. Angirasa appears in Zoroastrianism as the representative of evil Angra Mainyu. The Atharva Veda that we have today is the Angirasa Atharva Veda. The Gathas of the Zend Avesta (oldest parts) correspond to the Bhargava Atharva Veda.

The Gopatha Brahmana actually refers to the Atharva Veda as the Bhargava-Atharva Samhita. But our Atharva veda has nothing from the Bhrigus



Saar,
I don't think that the above theory is supported by Hindu Puranas and literature(Ramayana and MB). I have limited knowledge on this, so please do correct me where I am wrong.

Bhrigu and Angira are 'created' by Brahma. Bhrigu and Angira(like other Prajapatis and early Rishis) married daughters of Kardama and Devahooti. Kapila Maharshi(who propounded Sankhya) was the son of Kardama and Devahooti.

Bhrigu's wife is Khyati(daughter of Kardama and Devahooti). Bhrigu has two other wives Usana and Puloma. I don't know whose daughters they are. Angira's wife is Shraddha(daughter of Kardama and Devahooti).

Bhrigu's sons are: Chyavana(mother is Puloma) and Shukra(mother is Usana).
Angira's sons are: Uthaya and Brihaspati.

Goddess Lakshmi is also supposedly born as daughter of Bhrigu and Khyati, just as Goddess Sati was born to Daksha. So, Goddess Lakshmi is called Bhargavi, just as Goddess Sati was called Daakshayani. Later, Sati Devi gave up that body and was re-born as the daughter of Himavat and Menaka. She was, then, called as Haimavati.

Chyavana married Sukanya(daughter of Saryati). Saryati was the son of Vaivasvata Manu and brother of Ikshvaku and Ila. Ikshvaku's descendents ruled Ayodhya. Ikshvaku's lineage is called Solar Dynasty(Surya Vamsha). Sri Rama was born in Surya Vamsha.

Ila married Chandra(Budha/Mercury, son of Chandra/Moon) and descendents of Ila started Moon Dynasty(Chandra Vamsha).

Saryati was the brother of Ikshvaku and Ila. Saryati's daughter Sukanya married Chyavana(son of Bhrigu). Sukanya's sons were: Ruchika and Dadeechi(Indra's weapon, Vajra, was supposedly made from the bones of Dadeechi).

Bhrigu's another son was Shukra. He became the teacher of Asuras. It was Shukra who had learnt the Sanjeevani vidya.

Angira's sons are: Uthaya and Brihaspati.
Uthaya's wife is Mamta. Brihaspati had affair with Mamta and their son was Kach. Brihaspati had another son Bharadvaja(his mother is Mamta?). Brihaspati became the teacher of Devas. Brihaspati's wife was Tara.

Bharadvaja had two sons: Drona and Garga. Drona became the teacher of Pandavas. Garga was the one who named Sri Krishna.

Uthaya(son of Angira and brother of Brihaspati) had a son from Mamta named Dirghatamas. Dirghatamas had 5 sons: Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Pundra and Sushma. 5 Kingdoms were established on their names.

Kach(Brihaspati's son, Brihaspati was Angira's son) went to Shukra(Bhrigu's son) to learn Sanjeevani Vidya. Shukra agreed to teach Kach, he did not teach immediately. Instead, Shukra used keep Kach busy with various chores. But, the Asuras were unhappy with this decision. They could not displease Shukra, at the same time could not afford to let Devas learn Sanjeevani Vidya. Amrita was lost, at the time(I think...). The one who had Sanjeevani Vidya would have decisive advantage in war.

So, while Kach was living in Shukra's hermitage(Ashram), Asuras tried to assassinate Kach several times in different ways. Each time Kach died, he was revived by Shukra. Finally, Asuras killed Kach, burnt his body to ashes and then mixed those ashes in the alcohol drunk by Shukra. Shukra drank that alochol without knowing and so the body of Kach was now in Shukra's stomach. Shukra could not revive Kach without killing himself. But, Shukra revived Kach only half and taught him the Sanjeevani Vidya. Then, he revived Kach completely. Kach came out tearing open Shukra's stomach. Then, Kach used Sanjeevani to revive Shukra.

Shukra had a daughter: Devayani. Devayani had wanted to marry Kach. But, now that Kach was reborn from the body of Shukra, Devayani's proposal was rejected by Kach saying that she was like his sister. Devayani cursed that Kach's knowledge would not work(practically). Kach went to Svarga and taught the Sanjeevani Vidya to Devas. Kach was under the curse, but the Devas had no such curse, so the Vidya worked for them.

The king of Asuras, at that time, was Vrishaparvan. Vrishaparvan's daughter was Sharmishta.

Devayani and Sharmishta married Yayati(of Chandra Vamsha, i.e. descendent of Ila). Devayani's son was Turvasu. Turvasu's son was Yadu. Yadu's descendents are called Yadavas. Sri Krishna was born as a Yadava in Chandra Vamsha. Sharmishta's son Puru became the successor of Yayati's throne. Pandavas and Kaurvas were born in the lineage of Puru in Chandra Vamsha.

Ruchika was the son of Sukanya and Chyavana. Chyavana was the son of Bhrigu. Ruchika married Satyavati(sister of Vishvamitra). Vishvamitra was the descendent of Gadhi. Ruchika's son was Jamadagni. Jamadagni married Renuka. Their son was Parashurama.

Thus, Parashurama was a descendent of Bhrigu. And Drona was a descendent of Angira. Drona acquired his skill in weaponry from Parashurama. Shukra was the son of Bhrigu and Kach was a descendent of Angira. Kach learned sanjeevani vidya from Shukra.

Vishvamitra had a daughter named Shakuntala. She married Dushyanta of Chandra Vamsha. Their son was Bharata.

Bhrigu was one of those who attended Daksha's Yagya where Sati Devi self-immolated Herself unable to tolerate the denigration of Lord Shiva. Seeing that the Sati Devi left Her body, Shiva's followers(Pramadha Ganas) were enraged and tried to storm the Yagya. But, Bhrigu immediately performed an abhichara(ritual) and thwarted the Shiva's followers. They went and reported these happenings to Lord Shiva in Kailasa. Then, Lord Shiva was angered and created Virabhadra, and appointing Him as the commander of Pramadha Ganas. Virabhadra was ordered by Lord Shiva to punish those who participated in the wicked deed. Virabhadra, along with Pramadha Ganas, went and destroyed the Daksha's Yagya. All the attendees of the Daksha's Yagya were also punished brutally. Bhrigu's beard was pulled out when he tried to again perform another abichara(ritual) to resist the onslaught unleashed by Pramadha Ganas under the leadership of Virabhadra. Daksha's head was chopped.

Later, all of the victims went to Kailasa and begged for Lord Shiva's mercy. Lord Shiva forgave them. Daksha was given a new head: goat's head. The yagya that was stopped in the middle was finished. From that time, Lord Shiva was immersed in Tapas. Later, Tarakasura was born. Tarakasura obtained a boon that only Shiva's son could kill Tarakasura. Goddess Sati blessed Himavat and was born as his daughter named Parvati. In trying to ignite love in the heart of Shiva for Goddess Parvati, Kama(Cupid) was burnt to ashes by Lord Shiva at the place Anga. Kama is the son of Vishnu.

Later, the ashes of Kama gave birth to Bandasura. Bandasura was killed by Lalitha Devi. Then, Shiva married Parvati Devi. Karthikeya(Kumara Swamy or Subramanya) was born. He lead the armies of Devas against the Tarakasura.

Before that Devas were awaiting the birth of Karthikeya. At that time, they were under severe duress from the attacks of Tarakasura. They asked for the help of King Muchukunda. Muchukunda was a King of Ikshvaku dynasty. He was an ancestor of Sri Rama. Muchukunda agreed and fought on the side of Devas. Finally, when Karthikeya assumed the mantle and won the victory, Devas(Indra) thanked Muchukunda and offered a boon. Indra also informed Muchukunda that a single day in Svarga was equivalent to 1 year on earth and 1 year in Svarga is equivalent to 360 years on earth. So, during the time that Muchukunda spent in Svarga fighting on the side of Devas, several generations had passed on the earth. So, Muchukunda's friends and family had died long ago. Muchukunda asked for Moksha. Indra said that He was unable to grant it. Then, Muchukunda asked for the boon of undisturbed long sleep. Indra granted the same. Indra promised that anyone who disturbed Muchukunda's sleep would die instantaneously. Muchukunda came to earth and chose a cave. In a cave, he went and slept. He slept for a long long time. Finally, in Dwapara Yuga, Sri Krishna's fort was attacked by Kalayavana. Jarasandha, Mathura's king was also preparing to attack Sri Krishna.

Kalayavana was lured by Sri Krishna into the cave where Muchukunda was asleep. Kalayavana mistook Muchukunda to be Sri Krishna and disturbed him. Consequently, Kalayavana died instantaneously.

Later, in the beginning of Kali Yuga,
johneeG wrote:Kali Yuga was starting. Once upon a time, the Saptarishis(7 Sages) wanted to perform a Yagam(Sacred Fire Ritual). They wondered who they must dedicate the rite to. They elected Bhrigu to test and select one of the Trimurti(Hindu Trinity) suitable for the dedication of the ritual. This is the power of Kali that even the Saptarishis got such inappropriate ideas. Who can test the Trimurtis? The judge must be superior the contestants he is judging. Are the Saptarishis or Bhrigu in a position to judge the Trimurtis?

Anyway, Bhrigu accepted the role and went to Brahma Loka. Lord Brahma knew on what purpose Bhrigu had come. The Lord did not even welcome him and seemed completely occupied in listening to the Veena of Goddess Saraswati. Bhrigu, who was hoping for a grand welcome was angered by this attitude. And cursed the four-headed Lord. Bhrigu declared the Lord unfit for the dedication of the ritual.

Then Bhrigu went to Kailasa. There, Lord Shiva, the omniscient, also did not care for the Bhrigu. He was not even welcomed. Bhrigu was enraged and cursed the three-eyed Lord as well. And declared Him unfit for the dedication of the ritual.

Here, it seems like anyone who does not give attention to Bhrigu is declared as unfit. So, it seems like it was not Bhrigu who was testing the Trimurti. Rather, they were testing him and even exposed him.

Anyway, Bhrigu then finally went to Vaikunta. He had already striked down 2 candidates out of 3 as unfit. So, Lord Vishnu was the last candidate. If Lord Vishnu also did not 'qualify', then what would Bhrigu do? If he goes back and tells the Saptarishis that all the 3 Trimurtis 'failed' his test, then they may think it Bhrigu's failure. So, Bhrigu may get humiliated. This was Bhrigu's position when he entered Vaikunta.

To his utter ire, even the Lord Vishnu ignored him completely. In the desperation and not knowing what to do and whom to choose, Bhrigu went and kicked the Lord on His chest. Lord, who pretended to be in Yoganidra, immediately raised and pretended to respect Bhrigu. Goddess Lakshmi who watched this was annoyed and dismayed to see that someone can perform such transgression against the Lord and instead of punishing him, the Lord is respecting him.

Meanwhile the Lord started pressing the feet of Bhrigu. Bhrigu was mighty pleased and declared Vishnu as fit to dedicate the fruit of ritual. What Bhrigu did not realise was that the Lord was about to crush his arrogance.

Bhrigu had an eye in his leg and it was a source to his arrogance. So, Lord on the excuse of pressing his feet, poked that eye and disabled it. When this happened, Bhrigu came to his senses and realised his mistake. And returned from Vaikunta.

However, Goddess Lakshmi was not impressed at this cunning of Her Lord. She considered it beneath the dignity. So, she left in a huff from Vaikunta. And settled in Kolhapur in Maharashtra. Kolhapur has been one of the Shakti-Peetas from ancient time. So, when the Goddess came to earth, she chose Kolhapur to stay.

After the Goddess left, even the Lord could not stay in Vaikunta and left it. He came to Tirupati and settled there as Venkateshwara.

This is how Venkateshwara came to Tirupathi. Here, the Goddess Lakshmi motivated the Lord to come to the rescue of the people. If Rishis were behaving in such manner owing to Kali, then what would be the condition of laymen? So, out of kindness, the Goddess inspired the Lord to incarnate in Tirupathi.

Accordingly, the Lord is in Tirupathi. Originally, inhabitant of Tirupathi is Lord Varaha along with Bhoodevi. Venkateshwara took lease of this place from the Lord Varaha till the end of Kali Yuga. The Lord Varaha placed a condition that He will agree to lease if the devotees first pay obeisance to Lord Varaha before going to visit Venkateshwara. Lord agreed to the condition. So, the devotees are supposed to visit Lord Varaha's temple before visiting Lord Venkateshwara. Otherwise, the visit will not be completely fruitful.
Link to original post

So, the descendents of Bhrigu and Angira are in India and Hinduism only. There was no rebellion. Descendents of Bhrigu and Angira played important role in India and also interacted with each other in a friendly manner(even when they were on opposite sides).

---
Murugan wrote:Word Heart is Chori-chapati of Sanskrit हार्द

हार्द् (fr. and hṛd ). See. dur- and su-h/ārd .
हार्द mfn. relating to or being in the heart
हार्द n. love, kindness, affection for( locative case or compound ) etc.
हार्द n. meaning, intention, purpose
हार्दवत् mfn. feeling affection for( locative case )
हार्दविद्या f. Name of work
हार्दि m. contentment, ease, comfort
हार्दि m. the heart
हार्दि n. the heart or interior of the body (also applied to the intestines)


Hruday means Heart. Hruday seems to be connected to 'Daya'(Compassion).
The word 'Suhardhr', 'Hardhik',...etc are supposed to be related to friendship. Yes, they are related to Hruday(Heart). So, it is possible that 'हार्द' may have become heart.

There is a post by Shiv saar on this:
shiv wrote:ManishH disagreed with the contention that "cinnamon" and "daruchini" are cognates. To me both words have a clear common element that involves a "cinn/chin" component that surely refers back to the same item. The only dispute is why one is cinna-mon and the other daru-chini. There is some commonality and a great difference. One can only speculate how the difference came about.

The words "hru-daya" and "ji-hua" are fascinating to me. They have cognates in "kardia" and "lingua". Now in Sanskrit "hru" and "hva" are deliberately pronounced sounds that actually have a letter combination that indicates the exact pronunciation. To me both words are deliberate constructs. Why do I say they are deliberate constructs?

The sound "hru" is a documented sound in Sanskrit. If you agree with the hypothesis (likely truth) that writing systems came long after speech, you find that by the time Sanskrit was written down, centuries after the spoken form of Sanskrit had been used, the sound "hru" existed as a distinct phoneme that was recorded and preserved as a valid written phoneme. In other words, "hru" the phoneme had not degenerated to "ku" or "kru" or "hu" and all the latter sounds also existed as separate phonemes that got their own place in the written form.

For this reason it is very likely that hru-daya (or hrd as in heart) is a deliberate phonemic construct that exists in Sanskrit and has been preserved. That does not necessarily mean that ""cor" or "kardia" are degenerate forms of "hrudaya". But hrudaya can more easily degenerate to krudaya, while kardia is less likely to be converted to the less easily pronounceable "hrudaya". The question that arises from this is if the speakers of Sanskrit were insane masochists to invent the sound "hru" and apply it to many words? The answer to that is yes and no. Yes because they did invent a whole series of sounds based on almost all phonetic possibilities that the human vocal system is capable of producing, and "hru" and "kru" are valid phonemes in the range. No because they may not have been insane masochists. Just smart people.

Personally I am willing to accept "kardia" as a separate development. But there is every possibility that kardia is actually a degenerate form of hrudaya.

Jihua versus lingua is another curious case. In the first place the most "natural" phonetic (onomatopoeic) representation of the tongue would be the sound "waaa" as in a child retching. It is likely that both "-hua" and "-gua" are derived from a very ancient onomatopoeic phoneme based on the retching sound "waaa". It is anybody's guess why one set of people say "lingua" while another set chose "jihua". In terms of ease of pronunciation I would suggest that a conversion of "hua" to "gua" is more likely than "gua" to "hua".
Link to original post

---
Murugan wrote:Btw, Soup is a sanskrit word too !! (Indicated by Nilesh Oak and further digging by yours truly)

कलायसूप m. pea-soup
माषसूप m. -bbean-soup
सूपिक m. orn. (?) sūpa , sauce, soup etc.
सूप्य mfn. fit for a sauce or soup etc.
सूप्य n. food consisting of soup

Nilesh-ji suggested that in Mahabharat Bhim was known as Soop Kaarak - an expert cook in making soups (?)


Saar,
could you provide links to Nilesh Oak's post or any other link to validate this? It seems interesting.

It seems the word 'यूष'(yush) means a soup or broth. The word 'piyush'(as in Piyush Chawla) seems related to 'यूष'(yush). So, 'Piyush' means a drinkable(peyam) 'यूष'(yush) i.e. soup or broth.

---
udy wrote:I must apologize as this might not be correct and ot. I remember seeing in the early parts of this thread of an indus seal with a cow like animal with a forward bent horn.
This photo appears in firstpost website today
Image

The cow has has what looks like forward bent horns though not as straight as the ones in the seal. As you see the location is gujarat.


Yep, it seems the bulls of Gujarat region have prominent horns. They look very beautiful. I noticed it in the movie Lagaan. But, I did not connect it to harappan.

Image

Lagaan was shot in Kutch area of Gujarat.
After searching through Rajasthan, Nasik, UP, they zeroed in on an ancient village near Bhuj, located in Gujarat's Kutch district, by May 1999, where the film was primarily shot.[24]

The script demanded a dry location: an agricultural village where it had not rained in several years. To depict the 1890s era, the crew also required a village which lacked electricity, communication and automobiles.[21] Kutch faced the same problems at that time and hence the village of Kanuria, located a few miles away from Bhuj, was chosen. During the filming of Lagaan, it did not rain at all in the region. However, a week after the shoot finished, it rained heavily bringing relief to Bhuj, which had a lean monsoon the previous year.[8] The typical old Kutch hamlet was built by the local people four months before the arrival of the crew.[24]


Image
Terra cotta figurine of a bull from Harappa without a hump. There may have been many species of bulls used in different parts of the Indus valley.

Image
Set of four earthenware modelled bulls, the surface variously marked by dark painted lines, emphasizing the forward-curved horns, the elongated snout and the hump. Terracotta figurines such as these ones have been unearthed also at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, suggesting a commonality of style and purpose throughout the Indus Valley during the mature Harappan period (ca. 2600-2450 BCE). Like many figurines datable to this period, the front and back legs are joined together. In one excavated example from Chanu-daro a hole was poked in the belly, indicating that it would have been attached to a stick for use as a puppet or a small standard of the kind carried in the processions depicted on some seals.
Link


Image

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Lalmohan » 16 Feb 2013 18:34

here is a hypothesis - sparked by watching the russian meteorite strike. hinduism is replete with tales of gods being dismembered and their parts falling to the earth, great weapons of terrifying power, heat and light...

perhaps some folk memory of ancient meteor strikes? the places where the fragments fell would be places of wonder... the fact that people knew there were multiple "impact points" suggests a large and connected civilisation (even if separate kingdoms...) - places which today are holy sites for worship

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 16 Feb 2013 20:19

peter wrote:
shiv wrote:
Not surprising. Zoroastrians are descended from the rishi Bhargava (Bhrigu) . Bhargava is another name for Spitama who is said to be the ancestor of Zoroaster. Zoroaster was himself an atharvan or fire priest like Bhargava (Bhrigu)

The town of Bharuch (now Broach) in Gujarat gets its name from Bhrigu-kaksha, so the Bhrigus were all over that area originally. They migrated to the west after they broke with the Vedic beliefs of Rishi Angirasa's clan. Angirasa appears in Zoroastrianism as the representative of evil Angra Mainyu. The Atharva Veda that we have today is the Angirasa Atharva Veda. The Gathas of the Zend Avesta (oldest parts) correspond to the Bhargava Atharva Veda.

The Gopatha Brahmana actually refers to the Atharva Veda as the Bhargava-Atharva Samhita. But our Atharva veda has nothing from the Bhrigus

Do you have any text references for what you write?

shiv wrote:Yes. You will find them in my book. But if you look hard enough you can find them yourself,

What I gather is that you have cracked a mystery about the origin of zoroastrians, with evidence, a feat which has not been accomplished by myriad scholars for last three hundred years! Truly a work of Genius!!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 16 Feb 2013 20:53

peter wrote:What I gather is that you have cracked a mystery about the origin of zoroastrians, with evidence, a feat which has not been accomplished by myriad scholars for last three hundred years! Truly a work of Genius!!

Thank you for your compliment. But no thanks for your sarcasm. I must apologize to myself for having looked at and answered your posts, a mistake I will not commit again for some time. The forum software thankfully hides your posts from from me at my request. Maybe I will communicate with you again after a few months if I feel like it - but this time it was definitely my mistake. I am genuinely sorry to have read and answered your question.

Your opinion of yourself is as high as mine is of me so you are best left to your own viewpoint, and I will do and say what pleases me. I saw how jealous and angry you became of another person's viewpoint about astronomy earlier and that should have been a warning to me. The world is big enough for me, and me. You are free to do what you please in the space you occupy. Enjoy the little wiggle room you have given your mind.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 17 Feb 2013 08:21

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:What I gather is that you have cracked a mystery about the origin of zoroastrians, with evidence, a feat which has not been accomplished by myriad scholars for last three hundred years! Truly a work of Genius!!

Thank you for your compliment. But no thanks for your sarcasm. I must apologize to myself for having looked at and answered your posts, a mistake I will not commit again for some time. The forum software thankfully hides your posts from from me at my request. Maybe I will communicate with you again after a few months if I feel like it - but this time it was definitely my mistake. I am genuinely sorry to have read and answered your question.

Your opinion of yourself is as high as mine is of me so you are best left to your own viewpoint, and I will do and say what pleases me. I saw how jealous and angry you became of another person's viewpoint about astronomy earlier and that should have been a warning to me. The world is big enough for me, and me. You are free to do what you please in the space you occupy. Enjoy the little wiggle room you have given your mind.

Well the intention was noble. I really wanted to look at your evidence. Since I have done some research on this and related topics I hoped that your case is watertight and nobody can breach it. With this intention I requested you for data which you brushed aside.

Second aim was to point out any shortcomings/lacuane that this group as a whole can help with for the betterment of your book by pointing stuff out before it gets published. As you may or may not recall Talageri's hypothesis has some difficulty once you graph it.

And No I am not jealous or angry with Nilesh Oak or anyother participant. My hope in that discussion also was to arrive at an evidence based conclusion for the date of Mahabharata war.

Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Klaus » 17 Feb 2013 10:25

Lalmohan wrote:here is a hypothesis - sparked by watching the russian meteorite strike. hinduism is replete with tales of gods being dismembered and their parts falling to the earth, great weapons of terrifying power, heat and light...

perhaps some folk memory of ancient meteor strikes? the places where the fragments fell would be places of wonder... the fact that people knew there were multiple "impact points" suggests a large and connected civilisation (even if separate kingdoms...) - places which today are holy sites for worship


viewtopic.php?f=1&p=1381826#p1381826

The Late Heavy Bombardment is also hypothesized to have bought water to the surface of the primitive earth, shortly after its crust formed and stabilized, with the first cratons kicking off the process of plate tectonics.

They are also hypothesized to have carried the first amino-acids, however it is hard to understand how the amino/nucleic acids would have remained stable under the high temperature of atmospheric entry and hypersonic impact.

There is no doubt that Sanatana Dharma has organically 'documented' and chronicled the evolution, both of the planet and its life giving attributes in a manner that no other faith, organized or otherwise can claim. There was a discussion on Epics thread on how the avatars of Vishnu also seemed to mirror the evolution of multi-cellular complex life (from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals and human beings.)

In a way, the on-going debate between secular science and young earth creationists in the West seems to be a discovery of fool's paradise when Sanatana Dharma had it figured out already. Its a bad joke and terribly ironical, bordering on devolution on the part of the West.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 18 Feb 2013 02:44

A Blog by Yantrajaal
Saraswati : The River

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 18 Feb 2013 09:07

RajeshA wrote:A Blog by Yantrajaal
Saraswati : The River


The video on that page sums it all up - a song in an "Indo European" language that is at least 5000 years old being sung about a 5000 year old river. I was thinking of transcribing the words and marking all the cognate words in other Indo European languages - all of which are supposed to have arisen after the river dried up.

Why would anyone praise a dried up river?

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3487
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby fanne » 20 Feb 2013 00:46

Dont know if posted before -
See the embeded you tube video

http://www.drishtikone.com/did-krishna-really-exist/

member_23686
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_23686 » 23 Feb 2013 11:32

How human language could have evolved from birdsong

http://web.mit.edu/press/2013/how-human ... dsong.html


Linguistics and biology researchers propose a new theory on the deep roots of human speech.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — “The sounds uttered by birds offer in several respects the nearest analogy to language,” Charles Darwin wrote in “The Descent of Man” (1871), while contemplating how humans learned to speak. Language, he speculated, might have had its origins in singing, which “might have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions.”

Now researchers from MIT, along with a scholar from the University of Tokyo, say that Darwin was on the right path. The balance of evidence, they believe, suggests that human language is a grafting of two communication forms found elsewhere in the animal kingdom: first, the elaborate songs of birds, and second, the more utilitarian, information-bearing types of expression seen in a diversity of other animals.

“It’s this adventitious combination that triggered human language,” says Shigeru Miyagawa, a professor of linguistics in MIT’s Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, and co-author of a new paper published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology.

The idea builds upon Miyagawa’s conclusion, detailed in his previous work, that there are two “layers” in all human languages: an “expression” layer, which involves the changeable organization of sentences, and a “lexical” layer, which relates to the core content of a sentence. His conclusion is based on earlier work by linguists including Noam Chomsky, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser.

Based on an analysis of animal communication, and using Miyagawa’s framework, the authors say that birdsong closely resembles the expression layer of human sentences — whereas the communicative waggles of bees, or the short, audible messages of primates, are more like the lexical layer. At some point, between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago, humans may have merged these two types of expression into a uniquely sophisticated form of language.

“There were these two pre-existing systems,” Miyagawa says, “like apples and oranges that just happened to be put together.”

These kinds of adaptations of existing structures are common in natural history, notes Robert Berwick, a co-author of the paper, who is a professor of computational linguistics in MIT's Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

“When something new evolves, it is often built out of old parts,” Berwick says. “We see this over and over again in evolution. Old structures can change just a little bit, and acquire radically new functions.”

A new chapter in the songbook

The new paper, “The Emergence of Hierarchical Structure in Human Language,” was co-written by Miyagawa, Berwick and Kazuo Okanoya, a biopsychologist at the University of Tokyo who is an expert on animal communication.

To consider the difference between the expression layer and the lexical layer, take a simple sentence: “Todd saw a condor.” We can easily create variations of this, such as, “When did Todd see a condor?” This rearranging of elements takes place in the expression layer and allows us to add complexity and ask questions. But the lexical layer remains the same, since it involves the same core elements: the subject, “Todd,” the verb, “to see,” and the object, “condor.”

Birdsong lacks a lexical structure. Instead, birds sing learned melodies with what Berwick calls a “holistic” structure; the entire song has one meaning, whether about mating, territory or other things. The Bengalese finch, as the authors note, can loop back to parts of previous melodies, allowing for greater variation and communication of more things; a nightingale may be able to recite from 100 to 200 different melodies.

By contrast, other types of animals have bare-bones modes of expression without the same melodic capacity. Bees communicate visually, using precise waggles to indicate sources of foods to their peers; other primates can make a range of sounds, comprising warnings about predators and other messages.

Humans, according to Miyagawa, Berwick and Okanoya, fruitfully combined these systems. We can communicate essential information, like bees or primates — but like birds, we also have a melodic capacity and an ability to recombine parts of our uttered language. For this reason, our finite vocabularies can generate a seemingly infinite string of words. Indeed, the researchers suggest that humans first had the ability to sing, as Darwin conjectured, and then managed to integrate specific lexical elements into those songs.

“It’s not a very long step to say that what got joined together was the ability to construct these complex patterns, like a song, but with words,” Berwick says.

As they note in the paper, some of the “striking parallels” between language acquisition in birds and humans include the phase of life when each is best at picking up languages, and the part of the brain used for language. Another similarity, Berwick notes, relates to an insight of celebrated MIT professor emeritus of linguistics Morris Halle, who, as Berwick puts it, observed that “all human languages have a finite number of stress patterns, a certain number of beat patterns. Well, in birdsong, there is also this limited number of beat patterns.”

Birds and bees

The researchers acknowledge that further empirical studies on the subject would be desirable.

“It’s just a hypothesis,” Berwick says. “But it’s a way to make explicit what Darwin was talking about very vaguely, because we know more about language now.”

Miyagawa, for his part, asserts it is a viable idea in part because it could be subject to more scrutiny, as the communication patterns of other species are examined in further detail. “If this is right, then human language has a precursor in nature, in evolution, that we can actually test today,” he says, adding that bees, birds and other primates could all be sources of further research insight.

MIT-based research in linguistics has largely been characterized by the search for universal aspects of all human languages. With this paper, Miyagawa, Berwick and Okanoya hope to spur others to think of the universality of language in evolutionary terms. It is not just a random cultural construct, they say, but based in part on capacities humans share with other species. At the same time, Miyagawa notes, human language is unique, in that two independent systems in nature merged, in our species, to allow us to generate unbounded linguistic possibilities, albeit within a constrained system.

“Human language is not just freeform, but it is rule-based,” Miyagawa says. “If we are right, human language has a very heavy constraint on what it can and cannot do, based on its antecedents in nature.”


Written by: Peter Dizikes, MIT News Office


weren't we discussing about some part of samveda being similar to birdsongs?

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby AbhiJ » 24 Feb 2013 20:08

What is this Shamanism and where it has been made to fit?

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 24 Feb 2013 20:40

The beginning of sounds and words, From "Being different":
The bibical expression "In the beginning was the Word' would not be an accurate description of creation according to Sanskrit-based philosophies. It could be more accurate to say: 'In the beginning was the primordial sound that differentiaes into multiple root sounds, which manifest further before compunding sound sequences are made possible as words'. This is to say that much has happened in the creation process before words appear, and this mechanism of vibrations prior to the appearance allows the person meditating/chanting to go back to the source. Only in Sanskrit do we find that each and every word can be parsed into it's root sounds that contacin its origin and meaning and from which it is derived. "Of Sanskrit, Sri Aurodino writes:

Every one of its vowels and consonants has particular inalienable force which exists by the nature of things and not by development or human choice; these are the fundamental sounds which lie at the base of the Tantric bija-mantras and constitute the efficacy of the mantra itself.
Every vowel and every consonant in the original language had certain perimary meanings which arose out of essential Shakti or force, and [these] were the basis of the derivative meanings
.

anmol
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 05 May 2009 17:39

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby anmol » 25 Feb 2013 11:55

This may be relevant:

Nature: Long-lost continent found under the Indian Ocean

Sand from Mauritian beaches reveals rock from ancient landmass.
Sid Perkins
24 February 2013

The drowned remnants of an ancient microcontinent may lie scattered beneath the waters between Madagascar and India, a new study suggests.

Evidence for the long-lost land comes from Mauritius, a volcanic island about 900 kilometres east of Madagascar. The oldest basalts on the island date to about 8.9 million years ago, says Bjørn Jamtveit, a geologist at the University of Oslo. Yet grain-by-grain analyses of beach sand that Jamtveit and his colleagues collected at two sites on the Mauritian coast revealed around 20 zircons — tiny crystals of zirconium silicate that are exceedingly resistant to erosion or chemical change — that were far older.

The zircons had crystallized within granites or other igneous rocks at least 660 million years ago, says Jamtveit. One of these zircons was at least 1.97 billion years old.

Jamtveit and his colleagues suggest that rocks containing the wayfaring zircons originated in ancient fragments of continental crust located beneath Mauritius. They propose that geologically recent volcanic eruptions brought shards of the crust to Earth’s surface, where the zircons eroded from their parent rocks to pepper the island’s sands. The team's work is published today in Nature Geoscience1.
Crustal remains

The paper also suggests that not just one but many fragments of continental crust lie beneath the floor of the Indian Ocean. Analyses of Earth’s gravitational field reveal several broad areas where sea-floor crust is much thicker than normal — at least 25 to 30 kilometres thick, rather than the normal 5 to 10 kilometres.

Those crustal anomalies may be the remains of a landmass that the team has dubbed Mauritia, which they suggest split from Madagascar when tectonic rifting and sea-floor spreading sent the Indian subcontinent surging northeast millions of years ago. Subsequent stretching and thinning of the region’s crust sank the fragments of Mauritia, which together had comprised an island or archipelago about three times the size of Crete, the researchers estimate.

The team chose to collect sand, rather than pulverize local rocks, to ensure that zircons inadvertently trapped in rock-crushing equipment from previous studies did not contaminate their fresh samples. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced the Mauritian zircons is on Madagascar, far across a deep sea, Jamtveit notes. Furthermore, the zircons came from Mauritian sites so remote that it is unlikely that humans carried them there.

“There’s no obvious local source for these zircons,” says Conall Mac Niocaill, a geologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who was not involved in the research.

Also, it does not seem as if the zircons rode to Mauritius on the wind, says Robert Duncan, a marine geologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis. “There’s a remote possibility that they were wind blown, but they’re probably too large to have done so,” he adds.

Other ocean basins worldwide may well host similarly submerged remains of “ghost continents”, Mac Niocaill notes in an accompanying News & Views article2. Only detailed surveys of the ocean floor, including geochemical analyses of their rocks, will reveal whether the splintered and now submerged Mauritia has any long-lost cousins, he suggests.
Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2013.12487


Wikipedia: Lemuria (continent)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lemuria (pron.: /lɨˈmjʊəriə/)[1] is the name of a hypothetical "lost land" variously located in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The concept's 19th century origins lie in attempts to account for discontinuities in biogeography; however, the concept of Lemuria has been rendered obsolete by modern theories of plate tectonics. Although sunken continents do exist – like Zealandia in the Pacific and the Kerguelen Plateau in the Indian Ocean – there is no known geological formation under the Indian or Pacific Oceans that corresponds to the hypothetical Lemuria.[2]

Though Lemuria is no longer considered a valid scientific hypothesis, it has been adopted by writers involved in the occult, as well as some Tamil writers of India. Accounts of Lemuria differ, but all share a common belief that a continent existed in ancient times and sank beneath the ocean as a result of a geological, often cataclysmic, change, such as pole shift.

Scientific origins

In 1864 the zoologist and biogeographer Philip Sclater wrote an article on "The Mammals of Madagascar" in The Quarterly Journal of Science. Using a classification he referred to as lemurs but which included related primate groups,[3] and puzzled by the presence of their fossils in both Madagascar and India but not in Africa or the Middle East, Sclater proposed that Madagascar and India had once been part of a larger continent. He wrote:

The anomalies of the Mammal fauna of Madagascar can best be explained by supposing that ... a large continent occupied parts of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans ... that this continent was broken up into islands, of which some have become amalgamated with ... Africa, some ... with what is now Asia; and that in Madagascar and the Mascarene Islands we have existing relics of this great continent, for which ... I should propose the name Lemuria![3]

Sclater's theory was hardly unusual for his time: "land bridges", real and imagined, fascinated several of Sclater's contemporaries. Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, also looking at the relationship between animals in India and Madagascar, had suggested a southern continent about two decades before Sclater, but did not give it a name.[4] The acceptance of Darwinism led scientists to seek to trace the diffusion of species from their points of evolutionary origin. Prior to the acceptance of continental drift, biologists frequently postulated submerged land masses in order to account for populations of land-based species now separated by barriers of water. Similarly, geologists tried to account for striking resemblances of rock formations on different continents. The first systematic attempt was made by Melchior Neumayr in his book Erdgeschichte in 1887. Many hypothetical submerged land bridges and continents were proposed during the 19th century, in order to account for the present distribution of species.

After gaining some acceptance within the scientific community, the concept of Lemuria began to appear in the works of other scholars. Ernst Haeckel, a German Darwinian taxonomist, proposed Lemuria as an explanation for the absence of "missing link" fossil records. According to another source, Haeckel put forward this thesis prior to Sclater (but without using the name "Lemuria").[5] Locating the origins of the human species on this lost continent, he claimed the fossil record could not be found because it sunk beneath the sea.

Other scientists hypothesized that Lemuria had extended across parts of the Pacific oceans, seeking to explain the distribution of various species across Asia and the Americas.

J. H Moore writing in his book Savage Survivals (1933) wrote:

It is believed that man evolved somewhere in southern Asia, or possibly, still further south than the present boundary of Asia, in lands now drowned by the Indian Ocean. This supposed land is called Lemuria.[6]

Superseded

The Lemuria theory disappeared completely from conventional scientific consideration after the theories of plate tectonics and continental drift were accepted by the larger scientific community. According to the theory of plate tectonics (the current accepted paradigm in geology), Madagascar and India were indeed once part of the same landmass (thus accounting for geological resemblances), but plate movement caused India to break away millions of years ago, and move to its present location. The original landmass broke apart – it did not sink beneath sea level.[citation needed]

In 1999, drilling by the JOIDES Resolution research vessel in the Indian Ocean discovered evidence[7] that a large island, the Kerguelen Plateau, was submerged about 20 million years ago by rising sea levels. Samples showed pollen and fragments of wood in a 90-million-year-old sediment. Although this discovery might encourage scholars to expect similarities in dinosaur fossil evidence, and may contribute to understanding the breakup of the Indian and Australian land masses, it does not support the concept of Lemuria as a land bridge for mammals.

Blavatsky, Elliot, and Bramwell

Lemuria entered the lexicon of the Occult through the works of Helena Blavatsky, who claimed to have been shown an ancient, pre-Atlantean Book of Dzyan by the Mahatmas. Lemuria is mentioned in an 1882 Mahatma letter to A.P. Sinnett.[8] According to L. Sprague de Camp, Blavatsky's concept of Lemuria was influenced by other contemporaneous writers on the theme of Lost Continents, notably Ignatius L. Donnelly, American cult leader Thomas Lake Harris and the French writer Louis Jacolliot.[9]

Within Blavatsky's complex cosmology, which includes seven "Root Races", Lemuria was occupied by the "Third Root Race", described as being about 7 feet (2.1 m) tall, sexually hermaphroditic, egg-laying, mentally undeveloped and spiritually more pure than the following "Root Races". Before the coming of the Lemurians, the second "Root Race" is said to have dwelled in Hyperborea. After the subsequent creation of mammals, Mme Blavatsky revealed to her readers, some Lemurians turned to bestiality. The gods, aghast at the behavior of these "mindless" men, sank Lemuria into the ocean and created a "Fourth Root Race" – endowed with intellect – on Atlantis.[citation needed]

One of the most elaborate accounts of lost continents was given by the later theosophical author William Scott-Elliot. The English theosophist received his knowledge from Charles Webster Leadbeater, who communicated with the Theosophical Masters by "astral clairvoyance". In 1896 he published The Story of Atlantis, followed in 1904 by The Lost Lemuria, in which he included a map of the continent of Lemuria as stretching from the east coast of Africa across the Indian and the Pacific Oceans.[10]

James Bramwell described Lemuria in his book, Lost Atlantis, as "a continent that occupied a large part of what is now the South Pacific Ocean."[11] Bramwell described the people of Lemuria in detail and attributed them with being one of the "root-races of humanity." According to Bramwell, Lemurians are the ancestors of the Atlanteans, who survived the period "of the general racial decadence which affected the Lemurians in the last stages of their evolution." From "a select division of" the Atlanteans – after their promotion to decadence – Bramwell claims the Aryan race arose. "Lemurians, Atlanteans, and Aryans are root-races of humanity", according to Bramwell.[12]

Lemuria and Mount Shasta

In 1894, Frederick Spencer Oliver published A Dweller on Two Planets, which claimed that survivors from a sunken continent called Lemuria were living in or on Mount Shasta in northern California. Oliver claimed the Lemurians lived in a complex of tunnels beneath the mountain and occasionally were seen walking the surface dressed in white robes.

This belief has since been repeated by Guy Warren Ballard, followers of the Ascended Masters and the Great White Brotherhood, and Bridge to Freedom, The Summit Lighthouse, Church Universal and Triumphant, and Kryon.[citation needed]

Kumari Kandam and Lemuria

Kumari Kandam is a legendary sunken kingdom sometimes compared with Lemuria (Tamil இலெமூரியா; cf. works of G. Devaneyan, Tamil: ஞானமுத்தன் தேவநேயன்).

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2013 14:33

anmol wrote:This may be relevant:

Lemuria


Lemuria is bullshit-tiya. It is relevant only in terms of what it is being used for.

First the Aryan invasion theory said that superior Aryans kicked black Dravidian butts and sent them to South India. This story was believed by Indians. Next church groups started saying that the black Drvidians have been discriminated against by racist Brahmins from the north who represent the cruel Aryans, and that the Dravidians need a break from this racist Hinduism that Brahminsim represents.

Next the theory of Lemuria is brought up saying there was a huge continent joining Africa and India and the Dravidians who got butt kicked and their African brothers came from this long lost continent and that they all need Christianity to save them Hence South India is being saved by evangelism

Indians have been stupid enough to believe the Aryan invasion theory and have started political parties based on a cooked up fake theory made up by linguists and are now busy falling for the new trick that says Dravidians will be saved by the church.

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Anand K » 25 Feb 2013 16:18

"Sunken continents" like Lemuria, Mu etc were AFAIK esoteric stuff cooked up by those who were not yet enlightened by plate tectonics and isostasy. But do look up some of those theories which mirror those Christ-lording-over-Atlantis-as-Lord Melchizedek myths....... 8)
Might as well believe in the Pieces of Eden and the Hyperborean Root Race and the Reapers.

Here's one illuminating piece

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 26 Feb 2013 18:21

By Stephen Knapp
Were there Two Buddhas?

Much of the evidence that follows comes from a book called Beyond Nirvana: The Philosophy of Mayavadism: A Life History. This was written by Srila Bhakti Prajnan Keshava Gosvami Maharaja of the Gaudiya Math, the person who gave sannyasa initiation to His Divine Grace Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. The book was later translated and published in English by Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, and published in 2003 in Mathura, India.

The whole book gives a lengthy dissertation on the development, history and present situation of the impersonalist point of view. Chapter Two especially focuses on the evidence for two Buddhas that had existed.

First, however, we should point out that there had always been a conflict in the dates of the Buddha’s birth. One birth is around 560 BCE, but when analyzing the records, there is evidence for a much earlier birth of Lord Buddha


Image

Beyond Nirvana: The Philosophy of Mayavadism: A Life History
Author: B V Narayana Goswami Maharaj
Publication Date: 2003 (Translation)

Chapter 2

Two Buddhas
Shakya Simha Puddha and the Vishnu Avatara Buddha

It may be observed in different places in the Puranas that Mayavadism had been referred to as Buddhism [or "covered Buddhism". It is this "covered Buddhism" that is described in the Puranas as being the major religion after 10,000 years of Kali-yuga have passed, and when the world will have forgotten all information about the personal form of God.]. It is therefore necessary in this context to briefly discuss Buddhism. Sri Buddha’s philosophy or views is Buddhism. Hence, it is imperative that readers become acquainted with scriptural facts about Lord Buddha, who is declared by scripture to be one of the ten incarnations (avataras) of the Supreme Lord, Sri Vishnu. This is described in Srila Jayadeva Gosvami’s composition "Gita Govinda":

vedan uddharate jaganti vahate bhugolam udbibhrate
daityam darayate balim chalayate kshatra kshayam kurvate
paulastyam jayate halam kalayate karunyam atanvate
mlecchan murccayate dasaktikrite krishnaya tubhyam namaha


"O Krishna, He who accept ten incarnations! I offer my obeisances unto You for saving the Vedic scriptures as Matsya-incarnation; You help up the universe as Kurma-incarnation, and lifted up the world as Varaha, the Boar incarnation; as Nrishimha You vanquished Hiranyakashipu; as Vamana You deceived Bali Maharaja; as Parashurama You exterminated the corrupt warrior class; as Rama You slew Ravana; as Balarama You took up the plough; as Buddha You bestowed compassion, and as Kalki You kill the Mlecchas." 1

In his Dasa Avatara Stotram, Srila Jayadeva writes in the ninth verse:

nindasi yajna vidherahaha shrutijatam
sadaya hridaya darshita pashughatam
keshava dhrita bhuddha sharira
jaya jagadisha hare jaya jagadisha hare


"O Lord of the universe, Keshava! You took the form of Lord Buddha Who is full of compassion and stopped the slaughter of animals which is strictly forbidden in the Vedas."

If this Lord Buddha is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, then Sri Sankaracharya’s connection to Him requires further elaboration and analysis. It becomes imperative to research this matter if Sankaracharya’s philosophy is referred to as another presentation of Buddhism. Sri Sankaracharya’s assessment of Buddha seems opaque, for he would have us believe that Shakya Simha Buddha [the human] and the Lord Buddha [the avatara] that the Vaishnavas worship, are one and the same personality. However, this is far from the truth. Our revered gurudeva, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, revealed that Shakya Simha Buddha was simply a highly intelligent mortal, a vastly learned person who had attained some inner realizations [his enlightement]. So by declaring Shakya Simha to be Lord Buddha or by equating him with Lord Vishnu’s incarnation, Sri Sankaracharya gives sufficient proof of the respect and dedication he quietly nurtured within him for Shakya Simha. The berating and admonishment he directed towards Shakya Simha is indeed only an "eye-wash" intended to hoodwink the public.

One may ask at this point, in which context did Sri Sankaracharya opine Shakya Simha Buddha (also known as Gautama Buddha [the human]) and Avatara Buddha to be the same personality? In response, I kindly request the learned readers to scrutinize Sri Sankaracharya’s commentaries. In his commentary to Brahma Sutra that I referred earlier, the word sugatena refers to Gautama Buddha, the son of Shuddhodana and Mayadevi, and not to the original Vishnu incarnation of Buddha [as the Srimad-Bhagavatam describes as the son of Anjana who appeared in the province of Gaya, or more specifically Bodhgaya]. While discussing Buddha’s philosophy, Sri Sankaracharya mentions his name in his commentary: sarvatha api anadarniya ayam sugata-samayah shreyaskamaih iti abhiprayaha. In this statement sugata again refers to Gautama Buddha, the son of Mayadevi [the person who appeared in the town now known as Lumbini in Nepal]. However, it is true that another name for Vishnu Avatara Buddha is Sugata, and thus Sankaracharya falsely interpolated Shakya Simha Buddha as if he were Vishnu Avatara Buddha. The use of the name Sugata-Buddha for Vishnu Avatara Buddha was already existing in Buddhist scriptures [so combing the two into one was not difficult]. This is substantiated in the book Amarakosha, an extremely ancient treatise written by the famous nihilist and atheist Amara Simha. It is believed that Amara Simha was born approximately 150 years prior to Sankaracharya’s birth. Amara Simha was the son of the brahmana Sabara Svami, who fathered a host of children with different mothers of different castes. The ancient verse about Amara Simha was well known in the learned circles of yore:

brahmanyam abhavad varaha mihiro jyotirvidam agranihi
raja bhartriharish cha vikramanripah kshatratratmajayam abhut
vaishyayam harichandra vaidya tilako jatash cha shankuh kriti
shudrayam amaraha shadeva shabara svami dvija sya atmajaha


"Varaha Mihira, foremost among the greatest astrologers, was born from the womb of a brahmana lady. King Vikrama and King Bhartrihari were born from a kshatriya mother. From a vaishya mother were born Harichandra, a vaidya tilaka – an excellent Ayurveda physician and Shanku; and from a maidservant (shudra) mother was born Amara Simha. These six were fathered by the brahmana Shabara Svami."

The Amarakosha Speaks of Two Buddhas

Amara Simha was the author of many books on Buddhism. By coincidence all these books came into the possession of Sri Sankaracharya, who subsequently preserved only the Amarakosha and burnt all the others. The following verses about Buddha are found in the Amarakosha:

sarvajnah sugato buddho dharmarajas tathagataha
samanta bhadro bhagavan marajil lokajij jinaha
shadabhijno dashabalo dvayavadi vinayakaha
munindra shrighanah shasta munihi


"All knowing, transcendental Buddha, king of righteousness, He who has come, beneficent, all encompassing Lord, conqueror of the god of love Mara, conqueror of worlds, He who controls his senses, protector of the six enemies, possessor of the ten powers, speaker of monism, foremost leader, lord of the ascetics, embodiment of splendour and teacher of the ascetics."

The above verse contains eighteen names of Vishnu Avatara Buddha including the name Sugato, and the verse below contains the seven aliases of Shakya Simha Buddha [the human] without any mention of Sugato.

Shakyamunis tu yah sa shakyasimhah sarvarthasiddha shauddhodanish cha
gautamash charkabandhush cha mayadevi sutash cha saha


"Teacher of the Shakyas, lion of the Shakyas, accomplisher of all goals, son of Shuddhodana, of Gautama’s line, friend of the entrapped ones, the son of Mayadevi."

In these verses, starting with sarvajnah and finishing with munih are eighteen names addressing the original Vishnu incarnation Lord Buddha. The next seven names beginning with Shakya-munistu to Mayadevi-Sutascha refer to Shakya Simha Buddha. The Buddha referred to in the first eighteen names and the Buddha referred to in the later seven names are clearly not the same person. [This clearly indicates that knowledge of the two Buddhas was well known long ago.] In the commentary on Amarakosha by the learned Sri Raghunatha Cakravarti, he also divided the verses into two sections. To the eighteen names of Vishnu Avatara Buddha he writes the words "astadash buddha", which clearly refers only to the Vishnu avatara. Next, on his commentary for the seven aliases of Shakya Simha he writes: "ete sapta shakya bangshabatirneh buddha muni bishete", meaning "the next seven names starting from Shakya-munistu are aliases of Buddha-muni [the human] who was born into the Shakya dynasty."

Thus from the above verses and their commentaries it is indeed transparent that Sugata Buddha [the avatara] and the atheist sage Gautama Buddha are not one and the same person. I take this opportunity to request the learned readers to refer to the Amarakosha published by the respected Mr. H. T. Colebrooke in 1807. 2 On pages 2 & 3 of this book the name ‘Buddha’ has been explained. The ‘Marginal Note’ on page 2 for the first eighteen names, states they are names of Ajina or Buddha and the ‘Marginal Note’ for the later seven states these are aliases of Shakya Simha Buddha. A further footnote is added to clarify the second Buddha, of the latter seven names – Footnote (b) "the founder of the religion named after him."

Mr. Colebrooke lists in his preface the names of the many commentaries he used as references. Besides Raghunatha Cakravarti’s commentary, he took reference from twenty-five others. It can be said with certainty that the propagator of Bahyatmavada, Jnanatmavada and Sunyamavada, the three pillars of atheism, was Gautama Buddha or Shakya Simha Buddha. There is no evidence whatsoever that Sugata Buddha, Lord Vishnu’s incarnation, was in any way connected with atheism in any form. Shakya Simha or Siddhartha Buddha, received the name Gautama from his spiritual master Gautama Muni, who belonged to the Kapila dynasty. This is confirmed in the ancient Buddhist treatise Sundarananda Charita: "guru gotrad atah kautsaste bhavanti sma gautamah" – meaning "O Kautsa, because his teacher was Gautama, they became known from his family line."

Other Buddhist Literatures Recording Two Buddhas

Besides the Amarakosha, so highly favored by Sankaracharya, there are other famous Buddhist texts like Prajna-Paramita Sutra, Astasahastrika Prajna-Paramita Sutra, Sata-shastrika Prajna-Paramita Sutra, Lalita Vistara, etc. Proper scrutiny of these texts reveals the existence of three categories of Buddha, namely:
Human Buddhas: like Gautama, who came to be known as Buddha after enlightenment.
Bodhisattva Buddhas: Personalities like Samanta Bhadraka who were born enlightened.
Adi (original) Buddha: the omnipresent Vishnu Avatara incarnation of Lord Buddha.

The Amarakosha states that Lord Buddha, Sri Vishnu’s incarnation, is also known as Samanta Bhadra, whereas Gautama Buddha is a human being. Other than the eighteen names of the Vishnu Avatara Buddha mentioned in Amarakosha, many names of Lord Buddha are recorded in the above mentioned Buddhist texts. In Lalita Vistara, Chapter 21, page 178, it is described how Gautama Buddha meditated on the same spot as the predecessor Buddha:

cha dharanimunde purvabuddhasanasthaha
samartha dhanur grihitva shunya nairatmavanaiha
klesharipum nihatva drishtijalancha bhitva
shiva virajamashoham prapsyate bodhim agryam


"The one seated on the hallowed earth of the previous Buddha’s birthplace is on the path of voidism and renunciation. With his weapon, the powerful bow, he vanquishes the enemies of distress and illusion. Thus with wisdom he will attain the auspicious state of grieflessness and worldly detachment."

It is transparent from this verse that Gautama Buddha, realizing the spiritual potency of the previous Buddha’s birthplace, chose to perform meditation and austerities in that vicinity, under a pipal tree. The ancient and original name of this place was Kikata, but after Gautama attained enlightenment there, it came to be known as Buddha Gaya (Bodhi Gaya) [now Bodhgaya]. Even to the present day, the rituals of worship to the deity of Buddha at Bodhi Gaya are conducted by a sannyasi (renounced monk) of the Giri order, belonging to the Sri Sankaracharya sect. It is commonly accepted amongst those monks that Buddha-Gaya (Vishnu Avatara Buddha) was a predecessor of Gautama Buddha, who came later to the original Buddha’s birthplace to practice meditation. Shakya Simha Buddha chose this place to attain liberation, knowing it to be saturated with immense spiritual power.

Lankavatara Sutra is a famous and authoritative Buddhist scripture. From the description of the Buddha, which is found in this book, it may be firmly concluded that he is not the more recent Shakya Simha or Gautama Buddha. In the beginning of this book we find Ravana, King of Lanka, praying first to the original Vishnu incarnation Buddha and then to the successive [and in this case the] future Buddha. A part of this prayer is reproduced here:

lankavatara sutram vai purva buddha anuvarnitam
smarami purvakaih buddhair jina-putra puraskritaihi
sutram etan nigadyante bhagavan api bhashatam
bhavishyatyanagate kale buddha buddha-sutas cha ye


"Ravana, the king of Lanka, at first recited in the Totaka metre, then sang the following – ‘I invoke in my memory the aphorisms known as Lankavatara-sutra, compiled and propagated by the previous Buddha (Vishnu’s incarnation). The son of Jina (Lord Buddha) presented this book. Lord Buddha and his sons, who will appear in the future, as well as Bhagavan, the Vishnu incarnation, will continue to instruct all from this book.’"

Anjana’s Son, Named Buddha, is Different from Shuddhodana’s Son

Some people may consider that it is not Sankaracharya but the Vaishnavas who demonstrate a greater degree of respect and sincere reverence towards Buddha, therefore, it is they who should also be known as Buddhists. In this regard my personal view is, according to the Linga Purana, Bhavishya Purana, and the ninth of the ten Vishnu incarnations mentioned in the Varaha Purana, the Buddha described therein is not the same personality as Gautama Buddha, [the person] who was the son of Shuddhodana. Vaishnavas never worship the nihilist and atheist (sunyavada) Buddha or Gautama Buddha, They only worship Lord Vishnu's ninth incarnation, Lord Buddha, with this prayer from the Srimad-Bhagavatam 10/40/22:

namo buddhaya shuddhaya daitya-danava-mohine

"O Supreme Lord Buddha! I offer my obeisance unto You, Who is faultless and have appeared to delude the demoniac and atheistic class of men."

Earlier in the Srimad-Bhagavatam 1/3/24, Lord Buddha’s advent is described in the following manner:

tatah kalau sampravritte
sammohaya sura-dvisham
buddho namnanjana-sutaha
kikateshu bhavishyati


"Then in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Buddha, son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist."

The Buddha mentioned in this verse is Lord Buddha, son of Anjana; also known by some as Ajina’s son. Sri Sridhara Svami writes in his authoritative commentary to this verse:

buddha avartaramaha tata iti anjanasya sutaha
ajina suta it pathe ajino’ pi sa eva kikateshu madhye gaya-pradeshe


"The words tatah kalau etc., describe Vishnu’s incarnation Buddha as the son of Anjana. Ajina in the word ajina sutaha actually means Anjana. Kikata is the name of the district of Gaya."

The monists, either by mistake or some other reason, regard Sri Sridhara Svami as belonging to their sect and persuasion. Be as it may, his comments however on this matter can easily be accepted by the Mayavadis as true without hesitation. The following quote is from the Nrisimha Purana 36/29:

kalau prapte yatha buddho bhavannarayana – prabhuh

"In Kali-yuga the Supreme Lord Narayana appears as Buddha."

A fair estimate of Lord Buddha’s appearance can be made from this verse; that He lived approximately 3500 years ago, or by accurate astronomical and astrological calculation around 4000 years ago. Regarding the astrological facts at the time of His birth, the treatise Nirnaya-sindhu states in the second chapter:

jyaishtha shuka dvitiyayam buddha-janma bhavisyati

"Lord Buddha will appear on the second day of the waxing moon, in the month of Jyaishtha."

Elsewhere in this book is described the procedure for Lord Buddha’s worship:

pausha shuklasya saptamyam kuryat buddhasya pujaanam

"Lord Buddha is especially worshipped in the seventh day of the waxing moon in the month of Pausha."

The rituals, prayers and procedures for worship mentioned in these scriptures all clearly indicate that they are meant for Lord Vishnu’s ninth avatara incarnation. Lord Buddha also finds repeated mention in many authentic Vedic scriptures like the Vishnu Purana, Agni Purana, Vayu Purana, and Skanda Purana. The Buddha mentioned in the Devi Bhagavat, a more recent text, and in Shakti Pramoda, refers to Shakya Simha Buddha – not the Vishnu Avatara Buddha.

The truth remains that there are many different demigods and demigoddesses who are worshipped by their respective devotees, in the same way that Shakya Simha Buddha (who was an atheist) is worshipped or glorified by his followers. However, this is all completely separate and unrelated to the path of Sanatana-dharma, which is the eternal religion of man enunciated in the Srimad-Bhagavatam.

According to the German scholar Max Mueller, Shakya Simha Buddha was born in 477 BC in the Lumbini gardens, within the city of Kapilavastu. This ancient and at that time well-populated city in the Terai region of Nepal was well known. Shakya Simha or Gautama Buddha’s father was known as Shuddhodana, while his mother was called Mayadevi, this is all accepted as historical fact. Although Anjana’s son and Shuddhodana’s son both share the name of Buddha, they are nevertheless two different personalities. One of them was born in Kikata – which is now famous as Bodhi-Gaya, while the second Buddha was born in Kapilavastu, Nepal. Thus, the birthplace, parents, and era of Vishnu Avatara Buddha and the birthplace, parents, era, etc., of Gautama Buddha are totally at variance.

We can therefore now observe that the famous personality generally referred to as Buddha is not the Vishnu incarnation, the original Lord Buddha and, hence, Sankaracharya’s views on this are completely unacceptable. It is not uncommon to find disagreements in matters of tradition and history, but in regards to important and significant issues an unbiased and objective discussion is imperative. Attracted by Buddha’s personality and fame, it is one thing to honor and respect him, but being impressed by his philosophy and teachings and reverentially surrendering to him is wholly another matter. Whatever the case may be, I am sure that the respected readers have grasped the crucial point that Buddha is not a single person, but at least two separate identities – Shakya Simha is not the same as Lord Buddha, Vishnu’s ninth incarnation. It is certainly undeniable that there are some similarities between these two Buddhas, yet it is incontestable that they are two different persons [with two different purposes].
Footnotes

1. Mleccha – derived from the Sanskrit root mlech meaning to utter indistinctly (Sanskrit) – a foreigner; non-Aryan; a man of an outcaste race; any non-Sanskrit speaking person who does not conform to the Vedic social and religious customs.

2. This book was published under the auspices of the Asiatic Society and can be referenced at it library. See http://www.indev.nic.in/asiatic/

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 26 Feb 2013 19:14

Rajesh ji, very nice find thank you very much for putting it here.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 26 Feb 2013 21:07

venug ji,

I think a new discipline would be needed to separate the teachings of Sri Sugata Buddha (Vishnu Avatara) and Sakya Simha Gautama Buddha (The Last of the Buddhas of Buddhism).

But it could be true that Sri Sugata Buddha introduced compassion as the central theme and started the line of Buddhas. So what the Aastikas/Vaidiks share with the Buddhists is the first Buddha, a whole lot of text which could be attributed to him, as well as the Line of Buddhas until Sakyamuni Gautama Buddha started his own tradition outside Aastika tradition.

Adi Shankaracharya lived 507 - 475 BCE. Sakyamuni Gautama was born around 560 BCE. Around that time Buddhism was already quite spread out, and Gautama simply joined this already established tradition. The Buddhism which was quite well spread in India was not the nihilist kind. Gautama may have introduced the nihilist variation of Buddhism. Adi Shankaracharya may simply have reacted to this new philosophy which had recently become popular in Buddhist circles based on the work done by Gautama who hijacked the pre-existing Vedas-consistent Buddhist tradition and took it in a Naastik direction possibly on his authority as a recognized Buddha.

Or Gautama may have been born even a couple of centuries earlier, because Amara Simha in Amarakosha speaks of two Buddhas and Amara Simha came around 150 years before Adi Shankaracharya.

So if Amara Simha wrote it at the age of say 25 i.e. ~632 BCE, it could be that Gautama Buddha too came around 750 BCE, considering that his teachings were still fresh and a subject of heated debate.

So we have Sri Sugata Buddha (Avatara of Vishnu) who introduced Compassion as a central theme: 1888-1807 BCE.
And we have Sakyamuni Gautama who introduced a break from Vedic Buddhism: ~750 BCE

So just because Gautama took Bauddhmat from Aastika into Naastika, it doesn't mean that the Buddhist corpus of scripture solely contains teachings of only Gautama Buddha.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 26 Feb 2013 21:23

Rajesh garu,
I agree with respect to Buddhist corpus doesn't solely contains the teachings of Gautama Buddha. In fact his own teachers were from Sanatana Dharma even before he attained Nirvana and propounded the middle way. Kumarila Argues that even Buddhism is not independent and that it doesn't have a source independent of the Vedas. If Gautama Buddha had chosen the Bodhi tree knowing fully well that It was the site where Avatara Buddha had once meditated, he is at one level following his predecessor in spirit and action.

And one thing about nihilism, Buddhism being nihilistic is a western perspective, for them shunyata/voidness were incomprehensible concepts as those two cannot be mapped into their philosophies or Christian thought, hence for them the closest they can get is nihilism. And I think Rajiv Malhotra explains that in his book Being Different too in his notes.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 26 Feb 2013 21:26

venug ji,

I will have to see why Buddhists are naastikas much more closely! So can't comment now!

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 26 Feb 2013 22:06

Rajesh ji,

From what I understand, this could be OT for this thread. As you know a nastikas is someone who doesn't take Vedas as pramaana. Buddhists argue that Gautama goes into meditation and through one of the sense organs(mind) discovers Dharma or to put vaguely the truth. So Buddhists hold that Dharma can be known through sensory perception. While Kumarila sets about disproving this in Slokavartika. He says that Gautama already had the bija for his enlightenment directly or directly in the vedas which he gains through his interaction with Sanatana Dharmics, even before sets about on his meditative quest for enlightenment and that knowing Dharma is beyond sensory perception. So he comes down very strong when they (Buddhists) assert that it is through perception that one can know the Dharma independent of Vedas. This could be one of the reasons why Buddhists are nastikas.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby johneeG » 26 Feb 2013 22:37

Stephen Knapp's article is nothing but a rehash of the old Dvaita(and Vishishta Advaita) attack on Advaita. It is the same old 'Prachchanna Buddha'(crypto-Buddha) charge on Adi Shankara. This charge was later adopted by Thaparites. Stephen Knapp is reproducing the same thing under a new name. His article is non-sense.

The number of Vishnu's avataras cannot be numbered, according to Bhagavatam. There is always some avatara or the other roaming the worlds. There may be more than one avatara roaming the world. Both, Arjuna(Nara) and Krishna(Narayana) are avataras of Lord Vishnu. Kapila(founder of Sankhya), born to Kardama and Devahuti, is an avatara of Lord Vishnu. He was alive even at the time of Arjuna and Krishna. Kapila was there at the time of Sri Rama also, according to the Valmiki Ramayana.

So, more than one avatara of Vishnu can roam the worlds simultaneously. There is no limit on the number of avatars of Lord Vishnu. The 10 avataras(dasha-avataras) that are popular are only that. Popular...!

But, many many avataras are taken by Lord Vishnu. Bhagavatam mentions 21 avataras of Lord Vishnu at one place. Similarly, Lord may have taken the avatara of Buddha more than once according to Hinduism. The Buddha avatara is taken to delude people. Traditionally, Buddha is not worshiped by Hindus, even though he is considered an avatara of Lord Vishnu. Because, Buddha is considered an avatara that seeks to delude the people.

It is only Dvaitas who seem to have developed this worship of Buddha. Other Vaishnavas(worshipers of Lord Vishnu) do not worship Buddha avatara even though it is acknowledged as an avatara of Vishnu. Because, it is an avatara whose purpose is not to enlighten but to delude.

Are the Puranic Buddhas same as Gautama Buddha(originator of Buddhism)?
According to Puranas, no. According to Buddhism, no.

Now, many moderners generally assume that Buddha figure was incorporated into Puranas after Buddhism was invented. This attitude was started by the colonial indologists. Later, it was inherited by all indians (including Hindus). Even, Vivekanada seems to hold the same view.

There is a reason for this confusion. Even in the past, the Puranic Buddhas are conflated with the so-called historical Buddha(Gautama Buddha). Stephen Knapp gave the example of Gita Govinda. Here, it seems Jayadeva is conflating the Puranic Buddha with historical Buddha(Gautama Buddha). Stephen Knapp is trying to add a new spin here. But, its quite clear that Jayadeva is acknowledging Gautama Buddha, who supposedly stopped slaughter of animals in vedic rites. BTW, Jayadeva asserts that Vedas do not allow slaughter of animals. This assertion may not hold scrutiny.

This conflation is not surprising. It is a common phenomenon. And it is one of the reasons for confusion. Ganapati Muni, the person who 'discovered' Ramana Maharshi, in one of his letters pays homage to various deities(Hindu). Interestingly, he included 'Jesus, son of Mary' in it. One does not know the authenticity of it, but such conflation of interpolations/extrapolations happen quite frequently. People are influenced by the reigning/popular ideology. Jayadeva shows the same attitude.

Actually, Rishabha is also mentioned in Bhagavatha as an avatara of Lord Vishnu. Rishabha is supposedly the first tirthanakara of Jainas. Is the Rishabha mentioned in the Puranas same as the Rishabha of Jains?

Since, the Buddha(Gautama) of Buddhism is popular, people assume that the Buddhas mentioned in Puranas may have been inspired by Buddhism. In fact, some people even try to find Buddha(or Buddhist teachings in Ramayana). Sri Rama, while answering Jabali talks about one who acts according to his own intellect(buddhi). Sri Rama uses the word 'Buddha' to describe such a person.

Buddhism itself contributed to confusion because according to Buddhism there are many Buddhas in the past and many more will be in the future. And not to mention, Bodhisattvas(potential Buddhas). (Gautama) Buddha had several past lives, according to Buddhism. These tales are told in Jatakas.

One would find that most of the Buddhist(and even Jain) literature is simply a pirate copy of Hindu literature. All the memes are copied. All the icons are copied. Even the personalities and biographies are copied. Buddha's biography is constructed from Ramayana and Bhagavatha. Memes and episodes of Ramayana and Bhagavatam are taken in bits and pieces and joined to create a 'new' narrative. This narrative is mixed in history(distorted history).

My personal view is that it was Hindu puranas that inspired Buddhism and Jainism. Buddhists never met Buddha and Jains never met Rishabha. These were initially simply sects of Hindusim like Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakteya...etc. It seems the initial break from Hinduism came due to the difference on animal slaughter in vedic rites. This triggered their opposition to Vedic authority. It seems initially, the Buddhists were not opposed to Vedas in entirety. From there it evolved further. Later, these sects developed into separate creeds. The whole history and genealogies are distorted in an effort to bolster their claims.

Did any real historical Buddha exist? One does not know. Did any real historical Rishabha exist? One does not know.

I think Buddha is as much a historical figure as Jesus is. A figure of Jesus was manufactured by creating a patchwork by combining bits and pieces motifs from Buddha's biography. Similarly, Buddha figure was manufactured by creating a patchwork by combining bits and pieces motifs from Sri Rama's and Sri Krishna's biographies(Ramayana and Bhagavatam). Of course, the historical figures are also added into these stories distorting the history. For example, Buddha's story contains Bimbisara and Ajathashatru, while Jesus' story contains Herod.

Did a real Buddha exist? Maybe, maybe not. But, his biography is definitely fiction. It is re-work of old narratives and motifs found in Hindu works. Buddha is presented as one of the avatars of Vishnu. Generally, people assume that this was inserted after the advent of Buddha. But, it seems to me that the reverse may have happened. That means, the fictional(or Puranic) Buddha was turned into a 'historical' figure by the Buddhists. And generally, the biographies appear a long time(at least 100 years) after the supposed birth of their hero.

It seems to me that Buddhism started off as just another school within Hinduism. In early Buddhism, it seems the words 'Brahmana' and 'Shramana' are used in respectful tones. The negative portrayal may have been a later development.

...
Anyway, initially, the contest seems to have been between Jains and Buddhists. Jains(Nirgranthas) are presented in a very disparaging manner.


It seems there was fierce competition between Jains and Buddhists.

There is another point here. Buddhism seems to always have had several schools with differing biographies and teachings of Buddha. Adi Shankara's principle criticism of Buddhism is that there is no common ground about the teachings of Buddha. Different Buddhist schools have different views on what the Buddha's teachings were.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 26 Feb 2013 23:27

venug ji, johneeG ji,

I am not too conversant in these matters so bear with my somewhat amateurish theories.

What I have always found confusing is why did Buddhism spread so far and wide within India without much of a reaction from Aastiks.

It is just a theory and I have to do much much more study on this. I think, Buddhism spread because it built upon on the increasing practice among the people for animal sacrifice which they thought went against Vaidik authority. Subhash Kak has somewhere written about the animal sacrifice even if alluded to mean something totally different - it can symbolize the death of some season for example or the death of the year - and that the yagyas were performed without really sacrificing any animals.

However the concept of animal sacrifice may have of course come into the Vedic lore from even an earlier time when humans in the Indian Subcontinent had not really gained the maturity of the Vedic era.

After the Vedic era with no real animal sacrifice had gone on for some time (a few thousand years), came a time when the practice of real animal sacrifice again crept in possibly through contact with Mlecchas during the Saraswati-Sindhu civilization period and the practice spread across India when the people of Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization migrated eastwards as the Saraswati started drying up.

This brought this practice of animal sacrifice in Vihara (Bihar) as well, and there sometime in 1860s BCE Sri Sugata Buddha, i.e. Lord Buddha (considered Avatara of Vishnu), who took birth in 1887 BCE in Kikata (now Bodhgaya) started a movement to cleanse society of this new "scourge" of animal sacrifices and to reestablish the original authority of the Vedas according to which there was no real animal sacrifice (only symbolic). He established "Karuna", compassion again in the world.

It was for this reason that Buddhism spread out in India, as it was considered as reestablishing the Vaidik spirit but perhaps separate from the Brahmanical order. So for a long time there Buddhism spread without much hindrance, for more than 1200 years. It did not challenge the Vedas, only the Brahmanical order, and yagyas being the sole way of living in the Vedic spirit. It was not the Vedas which were challenged by the Buddha and those who followed him, but the yagyas etc, and the Buddhists maintained they could achieve the same punya and dharma through meditation.

Now it is unclear whether Sri Sugata Buddha (who is considered Avatar of Vishnu) really meant Buddhism to develop in this direction, as a challenge to Brahmanical authority as the overseers of yagyas, but Sri Sugata Buddha was not a nastika. And other Vaidik paramparas accepted him as an Avataar of Vishnu considering his impact on society to show Karuna.

Gautama Buddha though born in a family (~700 BCE) which was immersed in Brahmanical customs chose to change his path and he chose the path of the Buddhas.

He may have exacerbated the divide between the Brahmanical path and the Buddhist path, and perhaps it was his decision to reject authority of the Vedas completely which gave Adi Shankaracharya the means, the arguments to put a stop to the expanding Buddhism in India.

Just a theory from what I have read.

But one needs to think about two things:
1) Why is Sri Buddha considered an Avataar of Vishnu?
2) Why did Buddhism expand between 1860s BCE to 490 BCE unchallenged?

It was probably Gautama Buddhas break with Vedas which triggered Buddhism's collapse in India, though it continued to flourish in the rest of Asia, as there Brahmanical presence was limited.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 26 Feb 2013 23:35

johneeG wrote:The number of Vishnu's avataras cannot be numbered, according to Bhagavatam.

True. But they fall into different categories.

johneeG wrote:So, more than one avatara of Vishnu can roam the worlds simultaneously. There is no limit on the number of avatars of Lord Vishnu. The 10 avataras(dasha-avataras) that are popular are only that. Popular...!

Not quite. Vishnu's incarnations are broadly divided into Amshavatara, Vibhutyavatara, Mahatmyavatara, Yugavatara, Mahavatara, Lilavatara and Poornavatara. Each has its own significance. Kapila's case is not in the same category as the 10 "popular" avataras.

johneeG wrote:It is only Dvaitas who seem to have developed this worship of Buddha. Other Vaishnavas(worshipers of Lord Vishnu) do not worship Buddha avatara even though it is acknowledged as an avatara of Vishnu. Because, it is an avatara whose purpose is not to enlighten but to delude.

This is mistaken info. Vaishnavas worship a Buddha that they say is different from Shakyamuni Buddha. There is kalpa-bheda. They consider Shakyamuni to be an impostor at worst or a provisional reformer at best. In the second half of your post you have written more about this quite correctly, but for some reason you say that "Dvaita nonsense" thinks all the wrong things! :)

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 26 Feb 2013 23:49

What I have always found confusing is why did Buddhism spread so far and wide within India without much of a reaction from Aastiks.

Rajesh garu,
If I am not mistaken, Ganganatha Jha or the author of the preface of his book gives the reason for the widespread of Buddhism in those days before the coming of Kumarila and Adi-Sankara. The reason was that, Buddhism always had the royal patronage. It was the religion of choice of the kings of those days, eg Asoka etc. It is they who more of less brought Buddhism into widespread circulation through royal decrees.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 27 Feb 2013 02:45

venug ji,

yes, you're right! In the context of the topic here, what interests me is

a) whether Gautama Buddha brought about any doctrinal change in Buddhism as it existed earlier?

b) whether it is possible to separate the teachings of the two Buddhas?

c) whether the Buddhists also attest to the Adi Buddha and if he is the same as Sri Sugata Buddha, the Avatar?

d) whether through this understanding what changes could we expect related to dates of our regal lines?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54684
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ramana » 27 Feb 2013 03:32

RajeshA, Some obscure book I read said that Bhagwan Buddha converted the rakshasas into non-violent people and thus completed the Vishnu mission.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 27 Feb 2013 05:02

a) whether Gautama Buddha brought about any doctrinal change in Buddhism as it existed earlier?
b) whether it is possible to separate the teachings of the two Buddhas?

Rajesh garu,
The following is conjectural. Buddhists themselves believe that Gautama was one of the Buddhas and he had many predecessors. What is the shape of Buddhism before him is difficult to say as Buddhism evolved over time and Gautama too added bits and pieces like middle path and Sunyata to the Buddhist canon. Being a dharmic school, like Sanatana Dharma, it too wasn't history centric, hence none of the teachers like Dharmakirti, Dignaga, Nagarjuna debated over who propounded what. But each Buddhist school maintains a long list of teachers which they recite everyday. The list starts with Gautama, and it doesn't include Avatara-Buddha in spite of their belief that Gautama had Predecessors, proto-Buddhas are limited to Buddhist mythology.

Immediately after enlightenment, Gautama Buddha falls into a dilemma, if what he discovered through his enlightenment will be understood by common man at all. This could mean that what he discovered is starkly different from other traditions of those times, something different from what is commonly believed then or what is commonly understood before his enlightenment. So if Avatara-Buddha had propounded a concept before him, it is either an unrelated concept or something completely different (antithesis) to what Gautama had discovered, else, he wouldn't have thought so much about whether he should teach others what he learnt. And his discovery wouldn't be revolutionary of his times if it followed astika school. And his teaching were in sharp contrast to other nastika schools like Carvaka. So it can be surmised that his teachings were very different from Avatara-Buddha.
Last edited by member_22872 on 27 Feb 2013 05:06, edited 1 time in total.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 27 Feb 2013 05:04

ramana wrote:RajeshA, Some obscure book I read said that Bhagwan Buddha converted the rakshasas into non-violent people and thus completed the Vishnu mission.

I've read this in commentaries too - that his mission was to tranquilize rakshasa mentality and open it up.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RamaY » 28 Feb 2013 01:54

The foreign Hindu monks at India's Kumbh Mela

It took the 46-year-old monk, who is the son of a Ukrainian typographer and Soviet Communist party member, another 10 years to "find the right words".

That was when he came upon the texts of Shankaracharya, an 8th Century Indian philosopher and Hindu revivalist.


Valery Mintsev met a Hindu monk in 2006 who reinforced his ideas
While studying Cold War politics at the Kiev Higher Naval Political School, a belief that Russians and Indians are descended from the same Aryan ancestors became stronger.

"Why else do we have old Russian places named after Indian deities - like Ram and Sita lakes or Narada mountain?" asks Mr Mintsev.

A 2006 meeting with Pilot Baba, a Hindu monk who got his name because of his former career as a fighter pilot in the Indian Air Force, reinforced his ideas.

Three years ago, Mr Mintsev was initiated into a Hindu order with the monastic name of Vishnu Dev.

Later this year the Russian monk is planning to put up a Chinese-made, 18m (59ft) bronze statue of Dattatreya, the presiding deity of his sect, at his 1,000-acre retreat situated 600km (373 miles) east of Moscow.

Why did he choose to be a Hindu monk? "I have searched for freedom all my life and I got it in Hindu philosophy. It must be a great connection from a past life," is his explanation.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 28 Feb 2013 22:17

Published on May 13, 2006
By Srila B.B. Tirtha Maharaja, President of the WVA
Modern Buddha and Vishnu Avatar Buddha Are Not the Same

The Vedas encode instructions according to the eligibility or qualification of various living beings, especially human beings. But in the course of time, ignorant men took the tamasika orders to be the only instruction of the Vedas and engaged in the extensive killing of animals, sometimes even sacrificing human beings during worship of the demigods. At that time, the Supreme Lord descended in the form of Buddha and outwardly rejected the teachings of the Vedas for the welfare of human beings incapable of comprehending the true teachings of the Vedas. This implies that He disputed and cancelled His own prior teachings, propounded the futility of belief in God and preached to human beings four noble truths, to free them from their violent practices. This act of Buddha provided instantaneous benediction to mankind of that period. As Lord Buddha was the Supreme Lord Himself, many people resolved to follow ahimsa-dharma—the path of non-violence, due to His influence. As a result of non-violence, the hearts of human beings became pious and their qualifications gradually increased, so Lord Siva appeared as Sankaracarya. He re-established the supreme authenticity and decorum of the Vedas, and founded the philosophy of ‘brahmakarana-vada’ (Brahman as ultimate cause). In later ages, the Vaishnava stalwarts built the philosophy of bhakti upon this same foundation stone. From the personal and aggregate point of view, these are the steps of progress.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who is the Lord Himself, removed the incompleteness of the previously propagated philosophies through His ‘acintya-bhedabheda-tattva’ philosophy (the principle of inconceivable simultaneous distinction and non-distinction).

It is said that Sakyasimha Buddha, the son of Suddhodana and Maya, and Buddha-avatara, the Vaishnavas’ object of adoration, are not one and the same person. Our Most Revered Nityalilapravishta Om Vishnupada 108 Sri Srimad Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada has clearly said, “Sakyasimha Buddha was merely a vastly learned person, so we cannot call him the original Buddha or Lord Buddha.”

Acarya Sri Sankara has by mistake referred to Maya’s son, Buddha, as ‘Sugata Buddha’ in the following commentary:

sarvatha api anadaraniya ayam sugata-samayah sreyaskamaih iti abhiprayah

Amarakosha-grantha (Sanskrit dictionary) states:

sarvajnah sugato buddho dharmarajastathagatah
samastabhadro bhagavan marajillokajijjinah
shadabhijno dasabalo ’dvayavadi vinayakah
munindrah srighanah sasta munih sakyamunistu yah


“All-Knowing, Transcendental, Buddha, King of Righteousness, He Who Has Come, Beneficent, All-Encompassing, Lord, Conqueror of the God of Love—Mara, Victorious of Three Worlds, He Who Controls His Senses, Protector from the Six Enemies, Possessor of the Ten Powers, Speaker of Monism (One Absolute), Teacher, Lord of the Sages, Embodiment of Splendor and Eminent Saint.”

In his commentary on the above verse, Srila Ragunatha Cakravarti has written:

“All eighteen names of Buddha from ‘sarvajna’ (omniscient) to ‘sakyamuni’, refer to Vishnu-avatara Buddha. Therefore, ‘Sugata’ clearly refers only to Vishnu-avatara Buddha.

sa sakyasimhah sarvarthasiddhah sauddhodanisca sah
gautamascarkabandhusca mayadevisutasca sah


“Teacher of the Sakyas, lion of the Sakyas, accomplisher of all goals, son of Suddhodana, of Gautama’s line, friend of scholars, son of Mayadevi.”

Here, Srila Ragunatha Cakravarti has written:

ete sapta shakyabangshabatirneh buddhamuni bisheshe

“The seven aliases from ‘sakyasimha Buddha’ down to ‘mayadevisuta’ (the son of Mayadevi) refer to monks belonging to the Sakya Dynasty.”

Thus, Sugata Buddha and Sunyavadi (Sakyasimha) Buddha are not the same person. Further evidence is found in Mr. H.T.Colebrooke’s Amarakosha, published at Ramapura in 1807. It is written in Chapter 21, Page 178 of Lalitavistara-grantha that Gautama Buddha performed penances at the same place as the previous Buddha (Vishnu-avatara Buddha). Maybe it is for this reason that in later ages he and Lord Buddha are considered as being one:

esha dharanimunde purvabuddhasanasthah
samartha dhanurgrihitva sunya nairatmavanaih
klesaripum nihatva drishtijalanca bhitva-siva
virajamsokam prapsyate bodhimagryam


Currently this place is known as Buddha Gaya but Srimad-Bhagavatam refers to it as Kikata Pradesa:

tatah kalau sampravritte sammohaya sura-dvisham
buddho namnanjana-sutah kikateshu bhavishyati

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.24)

“Thereafter, in the twenty-first manvantara at the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in Kikata Pradesa (the province of Gaya-Bihar), just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful demigods.”
According to Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Öhakura’s commentary:

anjana suto ’jina sutasceti pathadvayam
kikateshu madhye gayapradese


“The names Anjanasuta and Ajinasuta can both be found in the above verse. The province of Gaya has been called Kikateshu.”

Srila Sridhara Svamipada has written in his commentary:

buddhavataramaha tata iti
anjanasya sutah
ajinasuta iti pathe ajino ’pi sa eva
kikateshu madhye gayapradese


“Buddha-avatara refers to Buddha who is the son of Anjana, and also in another reading, the son of Ajina. In the above verse, the name is written as Ajina or Anjana, and Kikata refers to Gaya Pradesa.”

It is written in the 29th Verse, 36th Chapter of Sri Nrisimha Purana:

kalau prapte yatha buddho bhavennarayana prabhuh

“Lord Narayana appeared as Buddha when the age of Kali started.”

This clearly implies that Lord Buddha appeared five thousand years ago. The following verse can be found in the second paragraph of Nirnaya-sindhu:

jyaishtha sukladitiyayam buddhajanma bhavishyati

“Buddha will take birth on the 2nd day of the sukla-paksha of the month of Jyaishtha.”
Another part of this book describes the mode of worshipping Buddha:

pausha suklasya saptamyam kuryyat bhuddhasya pujanam

“Worship Lord Buddha on the 7th day of the sukla-paksha of the month of Pausha.”

This is the prescription for the worship of Buddha, the avatara of the Supreme Lord. The full moon day of the month of Vaisakha, known as ‘Buddha-purnima’, is to be celebrated for both Buddhas, subject to consideration of both Buddhas together.

In Sri Madhvacarya’s commentary on Verse 1.3.24 of Srimad-Bhagavatam, from his book Bhagavata-tatparya, the following quotation from Brahmanda Purana has been referred to:

mohanartham danavanam balarupi pathisthitah
putram tam kalpayamasa mudhabudhirjinah svayam
tatah sammohayamasa jinadyana suramsakan
bhagavan vagbhirugrabhirahimsa vacibhirharih

(Brahmanda Purana)

“In order to delude the demons, He (Lord Buddha) was present in the form of a child on the way while the fool, Jina (a demon), imagined Him to be his son. Later on, Lord Sri Hari (as avatara-Buddha) expertly deluded Jina and other demons by His strong words of non-violence.”

There is an authentic Buddhist book, Lankavatara-sutra, in which Ravana, the king of Lanka, prays to Jina’s son, the ancient Lord Buddha, and to all the Buddhas and Buddhas’ sons who would appear in the future, via this eulogy (stava):

atha ravano lankadhipatih gathagiten anugayati sma
lankavatarasutram vaih purvabuddhanuvarnitam
smarami purvakaih buddhairjinaputra-puraskritaih
putrametannigadyate bhagavanapi bhashatam
bhavishyantyanapate kale buddha buddhasutasca ye


Therefore, this source leaves no doubt that the ancient avatara-Buddha and the modern Gautama Buddha are not the same person.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54684
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ramana » 02 Mar 2013 09:43

Bji, Have you compared the statuary of the bearded priest figure of Harappa and ancient Persian King figures?

What if the Harappa people migrated westward and influenced what became Persian Empire?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 06 Mar 2013 05:47

http://www.donsmaps.com/sungaea.html
Spoked wheel model and horse figurine from Russia 28,000 years old

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 06 Mar 2013 06:23


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 06 Mar 2013 06:25

Lithuanian- Dievas dave dantis, Dievas duos ir duonas.
Sanskrit- Devas adat dantas,Devas dasyati dhanas.
English - God gave us teeth God will give us bread.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 06 Mar 2013 19:36

shiv wrote:Russian Sanskrit verb cognates
http://borissoff.wordpress.com/2012/11/ ... t-verbs-3/

Impressive List!

Makes it all the more regretful that we failed to adopt Sanskrit as our national language! With the help of Russians, one could have even made it into the primary international language! Instead we have English!


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests