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.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 19 Sep 2012 01:34

peter wrote:Question you have to ask is, what is the value, when a series of dates starting from Krishna's departure to Hastinapur to the demise of Bhishma match in Achar's methodology? Why this series of dates do not match in Vartak, Holay , Gupta and others?

Series of Dates according to Achar, Vartak, Holay, Gupta do match for their proposed chronologies. The problem is they DO NOT match/corroborate with descriptions of MBH text

Peter also wrote.
BTW dating of Mahabharata has a big impact on AIT/OIT debate and the dating of RgVeda and Brahamanas

Good to know. However I suggest that we wait until we clean up the mess we are in... i.e. Mahabharata War occuring in 3067 BC.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 19 Sep 2012 02:05

Peter wrote.....
Congratulations! I may have seen it today but did not realise it was written by you. Sorry my bad.

I suggest that we pause our discussion until you had a chance to read my book. The book will answer many of your questions. It will also pull you out of endless loops you getting stuck with Achar's work.
Let me know when you had an opportunity to read and analyze my work. I appreciate your interest in the dating of Mahabharata war.

Peter wrote...
I think Achar has defined a very clear methodology on how a series of dates need to be matched.

However so far you have failed to show that that is the case. Please don't repeat the same arguments. If you are convinced that Achar's date/methodology is very clear.. please write a book on it. I will be the first to provide critical feedback, if you request it.


Peter wrote...

My concern is why is there no convergence between your software and Dr Achar's? Have you tried reproducing the results on different softwares? Achar has.

I have NO CLUE what you are talking.. 'convergaence b/w my software/Achar?

Answer to second question is... Yes.

There is NO PROBLEM with the SOFTWARE....any of them. Problem is somewhere else. :wink:

Peter wrote...

Well understanding the limitation of Voyager would be a good idea.

I agree. Thank you for taking the lead. I look forward to the outcome of your investigation.

Peter wrote....

Here is the verse: ध्रुवं प्रज्वलितो घोरमपसव्यं प्रवर्तते । My question still stands.

I asked you to describe what R N Iyengar has done (since you raised the issue). That means, you are required to quote the complete reference(s).. note the plural please...as quoted by R N Iyengar, then his translation, then his interpretation. Then you can ask your question AGAIN! Also never quote MBH Text without referring to its location including which manuscript (e.g. BORI CE, Gita Press, Chitrashala Press, etc. Parva, Adhyaya and Shlok Number).

Nothing is casual about this research. Remember the implications it has for AIT/OTI and Rigveda/Brahmanas.

Let me know as soon as you finish reading my book. We will resume our conversation then....

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

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

Postby brihaspati » 19 Sep 2012 03:35

Nilesh Oak wrote:
ramana wrote:Bji, Klaus, Shiv, Nilesh and RajeshA,

So based on the Inst of Math Sciences presentation Indus script is word based or logograms. So trying to decipher the alphabets using cryptanalysis techniques ie statistical letter counting wont get us there.

According to Sue Sullivan, SSVC script is based on logograms, more appropriately -ideograms (similar to chinese).

My chinese friend told me, while traveling through rural china.. that "if you understand chinese language characters, you understand chinese culture" and gave me many illustrations of it. In fact it allowed me to start recognizing symbols.



Ideograms are also an encryption - here the encryption is based on curves and pixels. The relative features of the image [knots, crossovers, links] map to information. Since vocalization as a means of communication probably came before image construction as communication - all such imagifications one way or the other, ultimately is linked to phonation. Note that the Chinese not only use the ideolograms - a lot of it is actually pronounced and voiced. [Same wa strue of Egyptian hieroglyohs and hieratic]. In a way it is more fascinating than symbol arrangement structures - because it could be linke dto the way the human brain visually stores abstract information. I am involved in this subject so much that I cannot dismiss the sound angle so easily as linguists do - who have mostly been brought up on the phonetic symbolism onlee.

The physical presence of the hieroglyphs and later alphabetization in archeological records in the absence of people speaking a corresponding language - has somehow over-emphasized the role of scripts and symbols. Voiced communication is the key to understand human communication - and rules over both ideograms and alphabet.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2186
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 19 Sep 2012 03:59

Nilesh - the good news is that irrespective of whether we use your 5561 BC or the 3067 BC date for the War, it nukes AIT/AMT

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 19 Sep 2012 05:03

peter ji,

in case you think your discussion with Nilesh Oak ji would be a long discussion perhaps you two may like to take it elsewhere to another thread, for otherwise the discussion which can go into fine details of Mahabharata's archaeo-astronomical evidence, astronomical testing, etc. may take away too much bandwidth of this thread.

I personally find it interesting, but it may distract from the somewhat general perspective of this thread.

Thank you

P.S. If need be, you may consider starting a new "Archaeo-Astronomy and Dating of Texts" Thread in GDF! Just a suggestion!

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 19 Sep 2012 05:08

Prem Kumar wrote:Nilesh - the good news is that irrespective of whether we use your 5561 BC or the 3067 BC date for the War, it nukes AIT/AMT


That is really a key point. I support it 200%. As far as I am concerned, there is now no need to claim a "new and improved date" for the Vedic sounds at all, when the OIT can be established (as it should) based only upon analysis of authored works containing real chronological information.

I am glad to note (from the work of Nilesh Oak and others here, as well as the papers posted by Shiv yesterday) that there are more people with a real scientific background working on these problems now, rather than just quack linguists and dabblers of various kinds. In the papers posted, I was also glad to see very little mention of the Rg Veda, except in the context that its "date" of ~1500-1200 BCE as claimed by AIT/AMT peddlers is obviously a sham.

I have desisted from posting a detailed analysis/refutation of "river geography" in the RV, since the most detailed quackery on this aspect has unfortunately been from Talageri (an OITer) in addition to that of Witzel and Kochhar. I must also "agree", albeit regretfully, with Witzel's statement that analysis of the "date" of RV with Anukramani-based approaches (Talageri's game) is indeed nonsense and gives misleading results. Garbage in, garbage out.

I sincerely hope that OIT discussion of "history/geography/botany/zoology" etc in the RV will only be restricted to refuting the absurd historical claims of AIT/AMT, and not for the purpose of proposing "new and improved dates". If help on such matters is needed, I will gladly provide it, since I must refute such claims coming from any quarter. All such claims are unsupported by any rational analysis of the RV, and in India they have long been known to be nonsensical. This is the siddhanta, and the status quo position.

Namaskar,

KL

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Sep 2012 05:21

Shiv,
Given two words for horse, asa and aspa, which would be judged to be the earlier form, if we did not know the first to be Old Persian, and the second to be Middle Persian?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52528
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2012 05:37

I was advised the Math Science paper makes simple claims: the script is literate, it has bigrams. It does not claim to be logograms.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 19 Sep 2012 05:49

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv,
Given two words for horse, asa and aspa, which would be judged to be the earlier form, if we did not know the first to be Old Persian, and the second to be Middle Persian?


Pardon the interjection - if I had to guess purely based upon difficulty of pronunciation, I would say "asa" is "earlier" since it is obviously a more primitive attempt than "aspa" to articulate the correct word "ashva". However, these are all just guesses and there is no systematic pattern to be found here. It all depends on the type of interactions that the Indians had with the Iranians, and the type of speech defects/difficulties that existed/persisted in the early Iranian speakers.

Analysis of corrupted words has an obvious non-scientific/irrational basis. According to Kumarila (a man of exceedingly clear mind), the exact lineage and provenance of corrupted words can truly only be known by asking those who use such words. If the users of corrupted words themselves have no reliable testimony on this, the matter is entirely lost to any rational analysis. Our linguist friends do not understand this.

KL

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 19 Sep 2012 06:00

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv,
Given two words for horse, asa and aspa, which would be judged to be the earlier form, if we did not know the first to be Old Persian, and the second to be Middle Persian?

I would say aspa is older because asa could represent a loss of the "p" sound from a word that is more difficult to pronounce and requires more phonatory coordination and "work".

At a guess I would predict that as-sa is a more likely consequence of the loss of "p" from aspa as it retains the length of the word.

But these must remain guesses. It is still possible that
1. Two separate groups of related people used asa and aspa variably without one having been the other
2. There could have been a proto-word as-wa
3. There could even have been proto-words like kshaswa or shaspa or even dassa from which the initial consonant was lost. It will not be possible to know without finding some remnant in a dead/living language. Even then there may not be proof that it is not a local development of an added consonant.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 19 Sep 2012 06:19

shiv wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:At a guess I would predict that as-sa is a more likely consequence of the loss of "p" from aspa as it retains the length of the word.


A_Gupta was referring to the old Persian "asa" (it is not "assa").

But "assa" is also a well-known corrupted word. It is the Pali corruption of "ashva".

KL

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 19 Sep 2012 06:20

KLP Dubey wrote:
shiv wrote:At a guess I would predict that as-sa is a more likely consequence of the loss of "p" from aspa as it retains the length of the word.


A_Gupta was referring to the old Persian "asa" (it is not "assa").

But "assa" is also a well-known corrupted word. It is the Pali corruption of "ashva".

KL

And the Sumerian!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 19 Sep 2012 06:29

peter wrote:Ok. Why would a professor of physics do "hand waving" so that no one notices? Is'nt it being a bit disrespectful? He can be wrong. Fine. But why do you question his motives?


peterji, I do not wish to come between you and Nileshji in this fascinating discussion. I am sure the two of you will be able to explain your points to each other. However I have a quibble with the word "disrespectful" used above. I agree that a better word than hand waving could have been used.

In my world view, respect is earned, not bestowed by rank. This whole discussion went 100 plus pages because of our tendency to automatically give "respect" to people like Witzel who is a professor in Harvard. One person may respect physics professors more. Another may respect all professors. A third may respect all people from Harvard. So respect based on status is a different entity from respect earned by one's knowledge and ability to defend one's work.

I believe that we as Indians are taught to respect gurus (teachers/professors) blindly. However "teacher" is assumed to be a rank. "Professor" is definitely a rank. "Teacher" is not rank. Teacher is one who imparts knowledge. People on this thread have been my teachers in some ways.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 19 Sep 2012 06:40

RajeshA wrote:peter ji,
in case you think your discussion with Nilesh Oak ji would be a long discussion perhaps you two may like to take it elsewhere to another thread, for otherwise the discussion which can go into fine details of Mahabharata's archaeo-astronomical evidence, astronomical testing, etc. may take away too much bandwidth of this thread.

I personally find it interesting, but it may distract from the somewhat general perspective of this thread.

Thank you

P.S. If need be, you may consider starting a new "Archaeo-Astronomy and Dating of Texts" Thread in GDF! Just a suggestion!

RajeshA ji,

You have made an excellent suggestion and I am confident Peter ji will agree wholeheartedly. In any case, for now, he is committed to list 150+ MBH references employed by Achar and also read my book. At that point, he may start a new thread in GDF. If Peter ji initiates new thread in GDF, after he has ample opportunity to accomplish above tasks, Peter ji and I may begin with 'method of scientific process' and set some ground rules before jumping into the actual MBH evidence and specific effort of a researcher (e.g. Achar). It would assist us with efficient and effective discussion by sticking to one point at a time, until it is resolved.

Thank you and thank you all for your patience as you bypassed or stumbled over some of the tangential discussion, tangential to OIT.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 19 Sep 2012 06:44

KLP Dubey wrote:
A_Gupta was referring to the old Persian "asa" (it is not "assa").

But "assa" is also a well-known corrupted word. It is the Pali corruption of "ashva".

KL


Yes. I mentioned as-sa because the first time I heard it it seemed like it could be a corruption of aswa. I think asa too is a shortened assa. I suspect that "ass" and "horse" are cognates of assa/aswa.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 19 Sep 2012 07:02

If you look at the way cognates have been identified and used you start seeing that there is much that is unsatisfactory.

In general, if someone opines that a particular set of words are cognates, and someone else disagrees, both viewpoints may have some validity. It would remain a matter of opinion and dispute.

But when disputable cognates are "fixed and sealed" as established fact based on theories like "these people must have dropped a consonant while those people added a laryngeal" the whole business of linguistics is entering shaky territory especially if the original cognates selected for the application of these theories is itself unlikely or unconvincing, In the absence of proof that establishes a particular theory as something more than a simple empirical "on the spur of the moment" construct such theories cannot become law.

But when both the above steps are taken and then chronology is applied by simply assuming without any evidence that X area had Y language we are facing an enormous series of bluffs built up one on top of the other. The bluff is so huge that everyone I know faces cognitive dissonance when confronted with the enormity of the bluff. The only mitigating factor is that for us as Indians, somewhere deep down is a belief that our ancestral texts were not made up and passed down by complete "primitive" morons and liars and that their message is different from what we are hearing from current day theories.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 19 Sep 2012 07:11

shiv wrote:Yes. I mentioned as-sa because the first time I heard it it seemed like it could be a corruption of aswa. I think asa too is a shortened assa. I suspect that "ass" and "horse" are cognates of assa/aswa.


Indeed.

The pre-existing knowledge of the correct word (in this case "ashva") of course is essential to understanding the corrupted words. Now if one wants details of who started the corrupted words, which corrupted word is "older" than the other, etc., as quizzed by A_Gupta - one can only ask the people who use these words to see if they have some record of it.

Kumarila gives an illustrative example relating to counterfeit coins...while the government mint (which has the verifiable record and the status quo of "real" coins) can certainly tell you if a particular coin is fake, you can hope to gain reliable details of the fake coins (e.g., who started it, when, etc) only by apprehending the counterfeiters.

Also, it is impossible, given the collection of corrupted words, to reliably "reconstruct" the correct ancestor word. This is what the linguist fools do not understand. On top of that, the dullards go and include even the correct word in the list of corrupt words and then come up with a supposed "proto-"word which is claimed to be "more correct than the correct word itself".

KL

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Sep 2012 07:27

Thanks, my thoughts, we would need a whole series of words (well, perhaps three or four examples at least) showing the same pattern like asa to aspa; otherwise I cannot say which is closer to aswa or *ekhwos (or whatever).

Regarding the enormous bluff, it is established by layer upon layer of citation; and some correct stuff mixed with a lot of force fit "evidence" or flights of fancy.

One of the ideas to deal with it is to see how the theory deals with cases such as Paul Thieme on the Mitanni.

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

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

Postby johneeG » 19 Sep 2012 08:31

MurthyB wrote:
johneeG wrote:They may themselves formulate OIT:
India was the original homeland of humanity where humanity developed(or was born with) exceptionally high standard of civilization. Sanskrit is the most perfect language and mother of all other languages of the world. Vedas are epitome of knowledge.

These highly advanced people, later, migrated to Europe. The exact reason for migration is difficult to establish. Maybe a huge famine or floods. But, they migrated and the land was left empty.

Later, this land was occupied by barbaric people who migrated from other regions(say central asia or antartica). In short, Europeans are the descendents of Vedic people. And the present occupiers of India are strangers unrelated to those Vedic people.

Then, some kind of Vedic X-nity may be developed keeping in line with this theory. Needless to say that this theory will also find support in all branches of popular 'science'.


They already did this with Greek culture in the 19th century. At around the time that Lord Elgin was systematically relieving the Parthenon of its valuable marble frescos ("Elgin's marbles"), many British historians looked at the present day Greeks, who appeared swarthy and somewhat hideous looking to their eyes, and decided that the classical Greeks of Periclean Athens had, in fact, gotten on a boat and sailed around to England, and that the English were the real heirs of that Greece.


Wow! Really!

Nothing is beyond them. Like a fake prophet, they can immediately issue a new revelation and change the whole narrative to suit them. So, it is certainly not beyond them to make similar claims for Hinduism(or Vedic civilization).

But, one obvious glitch for trying to appropriate Vedic civilization(while keeping its antiquity intact) would be Darwin theory. Maybe they have a solution to that too. All they need is to create another theory. Like say:
"So far we believed that entire humanity is a result of biological evolution from a single source. This theory is now challenged by the recently revised antiquity(much older than previously believed) of Vedic civilization. This earth shattering discovery has now forced the scientists to admit that there previous assessment may need revision.

So, it is being proposed(and increasingly accepted) by the eminent scientists that there may have been two parallel genetically unrelated lines of human races. One is homo-sapiens that evolved from the apes. While, the other is homo-vedics whose origin is as yet unconfirmed. Homo-vedics had a already established a great civilization while homo-sapiens were still in primitive condition(essentially living like an ape).

It is known that the homo-vedics later migrated to Europe. So, the European races are homo-vedics while the rest of world are homo-sapiens. This theory also explains how India(the original homeland of homo-vedics before they migrated to Europe) came to be later occupied by the presently dwelling homo-sapiens(who evolved from the apes).

Ramayana(a vedic history) records this phenomenon of interaction of homo-vedics(Rama) and homo-sapaiens(Hanuman)."

Ek teer do nishaan,
ham vedic, tum vanar.

That means, Darwin is still valid, but only for others.

Saar,
I wanted to thank you for telling me about the search feature. :)
-------


[Note: A recent archeological find in Kuwait unearthed a gold-plated statue of the Hindu deity Ganesh. A Muslim resident of Kuwait requested historical research material that can help explain the connection between Hindu civilisation and Arabia.]

Was the Kaaba Originally a Hindu Temple?

By P.N. Oak (Historian)
Glancing through some research material recently, I was pleasantly surprised to come across a reference to a king Vikramaditya inscription found in the Kaaba in Mecca proving beyond doubt that the Arabian Peninsula formed a part of his Indian Empire.
The text of the crucial Vikramaditya inscription, found inscribed on a gold dish hung inside the Kaaba shrine in Mecca, is found recorded on page 315 of a volume known as ‘Sayar-ul-Okul’ treasured in the Makhtab-e-Sultania library in Istanbul, Turkey. Rendered in free English the inscription says:
"Fortunate are those who were born (and lived) during king Vikram’s reign. He was a noble, generous dutiful ruler, devoted to the welfare of his subjects. But at that time we Arabs, oblivious of God, were lost in sensual pleasures. Plotting and torture were rampant. The darkness of ignorance had enveloped our country. Like the lamb struggling for her life in the cruel paws of a wolf we Arabs were caught up in ignorance. The entire country was enveloped in a darkness so intense as on a new moon night. But the present dawn and pleasant sunshine of education is the result of the favour of the noble king Vikramaditya whose benevolent supervision did not lose sight of us- foreigners as we were. He spread his sacred religion amongst us and sent scholars whose brilliance shone like that of the sun from his country to ours. These scholars and preceptors through whose benevolence we were once again made cognisant of the presence of God, introduced to His sacred existence and put on the road of Truth, had come to our country to preach their religion and impart education at king Vikramaditya’s behest."
For those who would like to read the Arabic wording I reproduce it hereunder in Roman script:
"Itrashaphai Santu Ibikramatul Phahalameen Karimun Yartapheeha Wayosassaru Bihillahaya Samaini Ela Motakabberen Sihillaha Yuhee Quid min howa Yapakhara phajjal asari nahone osirom bayjayhalem. Yundan blabin Kajan blnaya khtoryaha sadunya kanateph netephi bejehalin Atadari bilamasa- rateen phakef tasabuhu kaunnieja majekaralhada walador. As hmiman burukankad toluho watastaru hihila Yakajibaymana balay kulk amarena phaneya jaunabilamary Bikramatum".
(Page 315 Sayar-ul-okul).
[Note: The title ‘Saya-ul-okul’ signifies memorable words.]


A careful analysis of the above inscription enables us to draw the following conclusions:
That the ancient Indian empires may have extended up to the eastern boundaries of Arabia until Vikramaditya and that it was he who for the first time conquered Arabia. Because the inscription says that king Vikram who dispelled the darkness of ignorance from Arabia.
That, whatever their earlier faith, King Vikrama’s preachers had succeeded in spreading the Vedic (based on the Vedas, the Hindu sacred scriptures)) way of life in Arabia.
That the knowledge of Indian arts and sciences was imparted by Indians to the Arabs directly by founding schools, academies and cultural centres. The belief, therefore, that visiting Arabs conveyed that knowledge to their own lands through their own indefatigable efforts and scholarship is unfounded.

An ancillary conclusion could be that the so-called Kutub Minar (in Delhi, India) could well be king Vikramadiya’s tower commemorating his conquest of Arabia. This conclusion is strengthened by two pointers. Firstly, the inscription on the iron pillar near the so-called Kutub Minar refers to the marriage of the victorious king Vikramaditya to the princess of Balhika. This Balhika is none other than the Balkh region in West Asia. It could be that Arabia was wrestled by king Vikramaditya from the ruler of Balkh who concluded a treaty by giving his daughter in marriage to the victor. Secondly, the township adjoining the so called Kutub Minar is named Mehrauli after Mihira who was the renowned astronomer-mathematician of king Vikram’s court. Mehrauli is the corrupt form of Sanskrit ‘Mihira-Awali’ signifying a row of houses raised for Mihira and his helpers and assistants working on astronomical observations made from the tower.
Having seen the far reaching and history shaking implications of the Arabic inscription concerning king Vikrama, we shall now piece together the story of its find. How it came to be recorded and hung in the Kaaba in Mecca. What are the other proofs reinforcing the belief that Arabs were once followers of the Indian Vedic way of life and that tranquillity and education were ushered into Arabia by king Vikramaditya’s scholars, educationists from an uneasy period of "ignorance and turmoil" mentioned in the inscription.
In Istanbul, Turkey, there is a famous library called Makhatab-e-Sultania, which is reputed to have the largest collection of ancient West Asian literature. In the Arabic section of that library is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry. That anthology was compiled from an earlier work in A.D. 1742 under the orders of the Turkish ruler Sultan Salim.

The pages of that volume are of Hareer – a kind of silk used for writing on. Each page has a decorative gilded border. That anthology is known as Sayar-ul-Okul. It is divided into three parts. The first part contains biographic details and the poetic compositions of pre-Islamic Arabian poets. The second part embodies accounts and verses of poets of the period beginning just after prophet Mohammad’s times, up to the end of the Banee-Um-Mayya dynasty. The third part deals with later poets up to the end of Khalif Harun-al-Rashid’s times.

Abu Amir Asamai, an Arabian bard who was the poet Laureate of Harun-al-Rashid’s court, has compiled and edited the anthology.
The first modern edition of ‘Sayar-ul-Okul’ was printed and published in Berlin in 1864. A subsequent edition is the one published in Beirut in 1932.
The collection is regarded as the most important and authoritative anthology of ancient Arabic poetry. It throws considerable light on the social life, customs, manners and entertainment modes of ancient Arabia. The book also contains an elaborate description of the ancient shrine of Mecca, the town and the annual fair known as OKAJ which used to be held every year around the Kaaba temple in Mecca. This should convince readers that the annual haj of the Muslims to the Kaaba is of earlier pre-Islamic congregation.

But the OKAJ fair was far from a carnival. It provided a forum for the elite and the learned to discuss the social, religious, political, literary and other aspects of the Vedic culture then pervading Arabia. ‘Sayar-ul-Okul’ asserts that the conclusion reached at those discussions were widely respected throughout Arabia. Mecca, therefore, followed the Varanasi tradition (of India) of providing a venue for important discussions among the learned while the masses congregated there for spiritual bliss. The principal shrines at both Varanasi in India and at Mecca in Arvasthan (Arabia) were Siva temples. Even to this day ancient Mahadev (Siva) emblems can be seen. It is the Shankara (Siva) stone that Muslim pilgrims reverently touch and kiss in the Kaaba.

Arabic tradition has lost trace of the founding of the Kaaba temple. The discovery of the Vikramaditya inscription affords a clue. King Vikramaditya is known for his great devotion to Lord Mahadev (Siva). At Ujjain (India), the capital of Vikramaditya, exists the famous shrine of Mahankal, i.e., of Lord Shankara (Siva) associated with Vikramaditya. Since according to the Vikramaditya inscription he spread the Vedic religion, who else but he could have founded the Kaaba temple in Mecca?
A few miles away from Mecca is a big signboard which bars the entry of any non-Muslim into the area. This is a reminder of the days when the Kaaba was stormed and captured solely for the newly established faith of Islam. The object in barring entry of non-Muslims was obviously to prevent its recapture.

As the pilgrim proceeds towards Mecca he is asked to shave his head and beard and to don special sacred attire that consists of two seamless sheets of white cloth. One is to be worn round the waist and the other over the shoulders. Both these rites are remnants of the old Vedic practice of entering Hindu temples clean- and with holy seamless white sheets.

The main shrine in Mecca, which houses the Siva emblem, is known as the Kaaba. It is clothed in a black shroud. That custom also originates from the days when it was thought necessary to discourage its recapture by camouflaging it.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Kaaba has 360 images. Traditional accounts mention that one of the deities among the 360 destroyed when the place was stormed, was that of Saturn; another was of the Moon and yet another was one called Allah. That shows that in the Kaaba the Arabs worshipped the nine planets in pre-Islamic days. In India the practice of ‘Navagraha’ puja, that is worship of the nine planets, is still in vogue. Two of these nine are Saturn and Moon.
In India the crescent moon is always painted across the forehead of the Siva symbol. Since that symbol was associated with the Siva emblem in Kaaba it came to be grafted on the flag of Islam.

Another Hindu tradition associated with the Kaaba is that of the sacred stream Ganga (sacred waters of the Ganges river). According to the Hindu tradition Ganga is also inseparable from the Shiva emblem as the crescent moon. Wherever there is a Siva emblem, Ganga must co-exist. True to that association a sacred fount exists near the Kaaba. Its water is held sacred because it has been traditionally regarded as Ganga since pre-Islamic times (Zam-Zam water).
[Note: Even today, Muslim pilgrims who go to the Kaaba for Haj regard this Zam-Zam water with reverence and take some bottled water with them as sacred water.]

Muslim pilgrims visiting the Kaaba temple go around it seven times. In no other mosque does the circumambulation prevail. Hindus invariably circumambulate around their deities. This is yet another proof that the Kaaba shrine is a pre-Islamic Indian Shiva temple where the Hindu practice of circumambulation is still meticulously observed.

The practice of taking seven steps- known as Saptapadi in Sanskrit- is associated with Hindu marriage ceremony and fire worship. The culminating rite in a Hindu marriage enjoins upon the bride and groom to go round the sacred fire four times (but misunderstood by many as seven times). Since "Makha" means fire, the seven circumambulations also prove that Mecca was the seat of Indian fire-worship in the West Asia.

It might come as a stunning revelation to many that the word ‘ALLAH’ itself is Sanskrit. In Sanskrit language Allah, Akka and Amba are synonyms. They signify a goddess or mother. The term ‘ALLAH’ forms part of Sanskrit chants invoking goddess Durga, also known as Bhavani, Chandi and Mahishasurmardini. The Islamic word for God is., therefore, not an innovation but the ancient Sanskrit appellation retained and continued by Islam. Allah means mother or goddess and mother goddess.

One Koranic verse is an exact translation of a stanza in the Yajurveda. This was pointed out by the great research scholar Pandit Satavlekar of Pardi in one of his articles.

[Note: Another scholar points out that the following teaching from the Koran is exactly similar to the teaching of the Kena Upanishad (1.7).

The Koran:
"Sight perceives Him not. But He perceives men's sights; for He is the knower of secrets , the Aware."

Kena Upanishad:
"That which cannot be seen by the eye but through which the eye itself sees, know That to be Brahman (God) and not what people worship here (in the manifested world)."

A simplified meaning of both the above verses reads:
God is one and that He is beyond man's sensory experience.]

The identity of Unani and Ayurvedic systems shows that Unani is just the Arabic term for the Ayurvedic system of healing taught to them and administered in Arabia when Arabia formed part of the Indian empire.
It will now be easy to comprehend the various Hindu customs still prevailing in West Asian countries even after the existence of Islam during the last 1300 years. Let us review some Hindu traditions which exist as the core of Islamic practice.

The Hindus have a pantheon of 33 gods. People in Asia Minor too worshipped 33 gods before the spread of Islam. The lunar calendar was introduced in West Asia during the Indian rule. The Muslim month ‘Safar’ signifying the ‘extra’ month (Adhik Maas) in the Hindu calendar. The Muslim month Rabi is the corrupt form of Ravi meaning the sun because Sanskrit ‘V’ changes into Prakrit ‘B’ (Prakrit being the popular version of Sanskrit language). The Muslim sanctity for Gyrahwi Sharif is nothing but the Hindu Ekadashi (Gyrah = elevan or Gyaarah). Both are identical in meaning.

The Islamic practice of Bakari Eed derives from the Go-Medh and Ashva-Medh Yagnas or sacrifices of Vedic times. Eed in Sanskrit means worship. The Islamic word Eed for festive days, signifying days of worship, is therefore a pure Sanskrit word. The word MESH in the Hindu zodiac signifies a lamb. Since in ancient times the year used to begin with the entry of the sun in Aries, the occasion was celebrated with mutton feasting. That is the origin of the Bakari Eed festival.
[Note: The word Bakari is an Indian language word for a goat.]

Since Eed means worship and Griha means ‘house’, the Islamic word Idgah signifies a ‘House of worship’ which is the exact Sanskrit connotation of the term. Similarly the word ‘Namaz’ derives from two Sanskrit roots ‘Nama’ and ‘Yajna’ (NAMa yAJna) meaning bowing and worshipping.
Vedic descriptions about the moon, the different stellar constellations and the creation of the universe have been incorporated from the Vedas in Koran part 1 chapter 2, stanza 113, 114, 115, and 158, 189, chapter 9, stanza 37 and chapter 10, stanzas 4 to 7.

Recital of the Namaz five times a day owes its origin to the Vedic injunction of Panchmahayagna (five daily worship- Panch-Maha-Yagna) which is part of the daily Vedic ritual prescribed for all individuals.

Muslims are enjoined cleanliness of five parts of the body before commencing prayers. This derives from the Vedic injuction ‘Shareer Shydhyartham Panchanga Nyasah’.

Four months of the year are regarded as very sacred in Islamic custom. The devout are enjoined to abstain from plunder and other evil deeds during that period. This originates in the Chaturmasa i.e., the four-month period of special vows and austerities in Hindu tradition. Shabibarat is the corrupt form of Shiva Vrat and Shiva Ratra. Since the Kaaba has been an important centre of Shiva (Siva) worship from times immemorial, the Shivaratri festival used to be celebrated there with great gusto. It is that festival which is signified by the Islamic word Shabibarat.

Encyclopaedias tell us that there are inscriptions on the side of the Kaaba walls. What they are, no body has been allowed to study, according to the correspondence I had with an American scholar of Arabic. But according to hearsay at least some of those inscriptions are in Sanskrit, and some of them are stanzas from the Bhagavad Gita.

According to extant Islamic records, Indian merchants had settled in Arabia, particularly in Yemen, and their life and manners deeply influenced those who came in touch with them. At Ubla there was a large number of Indian settlements. This shows that Indians were in Arabia and Yemen in sufficient strength and commanding position to be able to influence the local people. This could not be possible unless they belonged to the ruling class.

It is mentioned in the Abadis i.e., the authentic traditions of Prophet Mohammad compiled by Imam Bukhari that the Indian tribe of Jats had settled in Arabia before Prophet Mohammad’s times. Once when Hazrat Ayesha, wife of the Prophet, was taken ill, her nephew sent for a Jat physician for her treatment. This proves that Indians enjoyed a high and esteemed status in Arabia. Such a status could not be theirs unless they were the rulers. Bukhari also tells us that an Indian Raja (king) sent a jar of ginger pickles to the Prophet. This shows that the Indian Jat Raja ruled an adjacent area so as to be in a position to send such an insignificant present as ginger pickles. The Prophet is said to have so highly relished it as to have told his colleagues also to partake of it. These references show that even during Prophet Mohammad’s times Indians retained their influential role in Arabia, which was a dwindling legacy from Vikramaditya’s times.

The Islamic term ‘Eed-ul-Fitr’ derives from the ‘Eed of Piters’ that is worship of forefathers in Sanskrit tradition. In India, Hindus commemorate their ancestors during the Pitr-Paksha that is the fortnight reserved for their remembrance. The very same is the significance of ‘Eed-ul-Fitr’ (worship of forefathers).
The Islamic practice of observing the moon rise before deciding on celebrating the occasion derives from the Hindu custom of breaking fast on Sankranti and Vinayaki Chaturthi only after sighting the moon.

Barah Vafat, the Muslim festival for commemorating those dead in battle or by weapons, derives from a similar Sanskrit tradition because in Sanskrit ‘Phiphaut’ is ‘death’. Hindus observe Chayal Chaturdashi in memory of those who have died in battle.

The word Arabia is itself the abbreviation of a Sanskrit word. The original word is ‘Arabasthan’. Since Prakrit ‘B’ is Sanskrit ‘V’ the original Sanskrit name of the land is ‘Arvasthan’. ‘Arva’ in Sanskrit means a horse. Arvasthan signifies a land of horses., and as well all know, Arabia is famous for its horses.
This discovery changes the entire complexion of the history of ancient India. Firstly we may have to revise our concepts about the king who had the largest empire in history. It could be that the expanse of king Vikramaditya’s empire was greater than that of all others. Secondly, the idea that the Indian empire spread only to the east and not in the west beyond say, Afghanisthan may have to be abandoned. Thirdly the effeminate and pathetic belief that India, unlike any other country in the world could by some age spread her benign and beatific cultural influence, language, customs, manners and education over distant lands without militarily conquering them is baseless. India did conquer all those countries physically wherever traces of its culture and language are still extant and the region extended from Bali island in the south Pacific to the Baltic in Northern Europe and from Korea to Kaaba. The only difference was that while Indian rulers identified themselves with the local population and established welfare states, Moghuls and others who ruled conquered lands perpetuated untold atrocities over the vanquished.

‘Sayar-ul-Okul’ tells us that a pan-Arabic poetic symposium used to be held in Mecca at the annual Okaj fair in pre-Islamic times. All leading poets used to participate in it.

Poems considered best were awarded prizes. The best-engraved on gold plate were hung inside the temple. Others etched on camel or goatskin were hung outside. Thus for thousands of years the Kaaba was the treasure house of the best Arabian poetic thought inspired by the Indian Vedic tradition.

That tradition being of immemorial antiquity many poetic compositions were engraved and hung inside and outside on the walls of the Kaaba. But most of the poems got lost and destroyed during the storming of the Kaaba by Prophet Mohammad’s troops. The Prophet’s court poet, Hassan-bin-Sawik, who was among the invaders, captured some of the treasured poems and dumped the gold plate on which they were inscribed in his own home. Sawik’s grandson, hoping to earn a reward carried those gold plates to Khalif’s court where he met the well-known Arab scholar Abu Amir Asamai. The latter received from the bearer five gold plates and 16 leather sheets with the prize-winning poems engraved on them. The bearer was sent away happy bestowed with a good reward.

On the five gold plates were inscribed verses by ancient Arab poets like Labi Baynay, Akhatab-bin-Turfa and Jarrham Bintoi. That discovery made Harun-al-Rashid order Abu Amir to compile a collection of all earlier compositions. One of the compositions in the collection is a tribute in verse paid by Jarrham Bintoi, a renowned Arab poet, to king Vikramaditya. Bintoi who lived 165 years before Prophet Mohammad had received the highest award for the best poetic compositions for three years in succession in the pan-Arabic symposiums held in Mecca every year. All those three poems of Bintoi adjudged best were hung inside the Kaaba temple, inscribed on gold plates. One of these constituted an unreserved tribute to King Vikramaditya for his paternal and filial rule over Arabia. That has already been quoted above.

Pre-Islamic Arabian poet Bintoi’s tribute to king Vikramaditya is a decisive evidence that it was king Vikramaditya who first conquered the Arabian Peninsula and made it a part of the Indian Empire. This explains why starting from India towards the west we have all Sanskrit names like Afghanisthan (now Afghanistan), Baluchisthan, Kurdisthan, Tajikiathan, Uzbekisthan, Iran, Sivisthan, Iraq, Arvasthan, Turkesthan (Turkmenisthan) etc.

Historians have blundered in not giving due weight to the evidence provided by Sanskrit names pervading over the entire west Asian region. Let us take a contemporary instance. Why did a part of India get named Nagaland even after the end of British rule over India? After all historical traces are wiped out of human memory, will a future age historian be wrong if he concludes from the name Nagaland that the British or some English speaking power must have ruled over India? Why is Portuguese spoken in Goa (part of India), and French in Pondichery (part of India), and both French and English in Canada? Is it not because those people ruled over the territories where their languages are spoken? Can we not then justly conclude that wherever traces of Sanskrit names and traditions exist Indians once held sway? It is unfortunate that this important piece of decisive evidence has been ignored all these centuries.

Another question which should have presented itself to historians for consideration is how could it be that Indian empires could extend in the east as far as Korea and Japan, while not being able to make headway beyond Afghanisthan? In fact land campaigns are much easier to conduct than by sea. It was the Indians who ruled the entire West Asian region from Karachi to Hedjaz and who gave Sanskrit names to those lands and the towns therein, introduce their pantheon of the fire-worship, imparted education and established law and order.

It may be that Arabia itself was not part of the Indian empire until king Vikrama , since Bintoi says that it was king Vikrama who for the first time brought about a radical change in the social, cultural and political life of Arabia. It may be that the whole of West Asia except Arabia was under Indian rule before Vikrama. The latter added Arabia too to the Indian Empire. Or as a remote possibility it could be that king Vikramaditya himself conducted a series of brilliant campaigns annexing to his empire the vast region between Afghanisthan and Hedjaz.

Incidentally this also explains why king Vikramaditya is so famous in history. Apart from the nobility and truthfulness of heart and his impartial filial affection for all his subjects, whether Indian or Arab, as testified by Bintoi, king Vikramaditya has been permanently enshrined in the pages of history because he was the world’s greatest ruler having the largest empire. It should be remembered that only a monarch with a vast empire gets famous in world history. Vikram Samvat (calendar still widely in use in India today) which he initiated over 2000 years ago may well mark his victory over Arabia, and the so called Kutub Minar (Kutub Tower in Delhi), a pillar commemorating that victory and the consequential marriage with the Vaihika (Balkh) princess as testified by the nearby iron pillar inscription.

A great many puzzles of ancient world history get automatically solved by a proper understanding of these great conquests of king Vikramaditya. As recorded by the Arab poet Bintoi, Indian scholars, preachers and social workers spread the fire-worship ceremony, preached the Vedic way of life, manned schools, set up Ayurvedic (healing) centres, trained the local people in irrigation and agriculture and established in those regions a democratic, orderly, peaceful, enlightened and religious way of life. That was of course, a Vedic Hindu way of life.

It is from such ancient times that Indian Kshtriya royal families, like the Pahalvis and Barmaks, have held sway over Iran and Iraq. It is those conquests, which made the Parsees Agnihotris i.e., fire-worshippers. It is therefore that we find the Kurds of Kurdisthan speaking a Sanskritised dialect, fire temples existing thousands of miles away from India, and scores of sites of ancient Indian cultural centres like Navbahar in West Asia and the numerous viharas in Soviet Russia spread throughout the world. Ever since so many viharas are often dug up in Soviet Russia, ancient Indian sculptures are also found in excavations in Central Asia. The same goes for West Asia.

[Note: Ancient Indian sculptures include metal statues of the Hindu deity Ganesh (the elephant headed god); the most recent find being in Kuwait].

Unfortunately these chapters of world history have been almost obliterated from public memory. They need to be carefully deciphered and rewritten. When these chapters are rewritten they might change the entire concept and orientation of ancient history.

In view of the overwhelming evidence led above, historians, scholars, students of history and lay men alike should take note that they had better revise their text books of ancient world history. The existence of Hindu customs, shrines, Sanskrit names of whole regions, countries and towns and the Vikramaditya inscriptions reproduced at the beginning are a thumping proof that Indian Kshatriyas once ruled over the vast region from Bali to Baltic and Korea to Kaaba in Mecca, Arabia at the very least.


http://www.salagram.net/VWH-Kaaba.html

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52528
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2012 09:00

This thread is like an astavadhanam: many multiple conversations going on:genetics, Sanskrit, IVC, dating the Mahabarat. the AIT literature, the OIT rebuttal.

It sharpens the mind to keep track of all this.

RajeshA, Your garam dak is not working.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 19 Sep 2012 09:16

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".

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 19 Sep 2012 10:19

shiv wrote: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".


Ah.

First of all, as you know, it is "ji-hva" not "ji-hua" (or "ji-huva"). The compound consonant is "hva" not "hua", as observed from RV words such as "jihvA" and "hvaye".

It is indeed difficult to pronounce correctly. When reciting the RV at locations like, e.g., "agnijihvAmanavaH" or "savitAram upahvayE", one must be alert in order to ensure production of "hva" rather than "hua" or "huva". Exactly the correct proportion of "h-" and "va" is required. I have myself practised it many times to ensure I get it right.

A tendency for corruption in the sound "hva" has indeed been enumerated:

RV pratishakhya XIV.52: "Before ya or va preceded by h- or an aspirate, they (i.e., the producers of corrupted sounds) produce another breathing of their own". This is also mentioned in XIV.33.

Some examples given are: daghyA (mistakenly pronounced as "daghiyA"), and hvayE (corrupted as "huvayE").

The Buddhist fellows have also tried to corrupt "hva" by transposition of the h- and va-, to make it "vha" (pronounced as just "va"), i.e. jivha (Pali) instead of jihva.

In summary, the corruption of "hva" to things like hua/huva/vha/gua/ghua/kua/khua is quite likely and attested. The reverse is not.

Same with "hRd" ---> "kRd". Not the other way round.

KL

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

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

Postby peter » 19 Sep 2012 11:17

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:Ok. Why would a professor of physics do "hand waving" so that no one notices? Is'nt it being a bit disrespectful? He can be wrong. Fine. But why do you question his motives?


peterji, I do not wish to come between you and Nileshji in this fascinating discussion. I am sure the two of you will be able to explain your points to each other. However I have a quibble with the word "disrespectful" used above. I agree that a better word than hand waving could have been used.

In my world view, respect is earned, not bestowed by rank. [..]

My problem is this:
a) Achar gives his methodology clearly where he describes the MBh verses used over a ~2month long period. These verses contain astronomical information which is testable. His sequence of events starts at Krishna's arrival in Hastinapur and the associated astronomical data and ends at Bhishma's death on an ashtami.

b) *All* references given in a) above are searched by planetarium and they match perfectly with a Mahabharat starting on 22 Nov 3067 BC. He uses SkymapPRO10 and cybersky 4 software. (Discusses the limitations of these software and compares them to others in the market and why he rejected the other software. This is how a scientist works in callibrating his tools.)

c) An image of mars going retrograde is presented in one of the earlier posts to confirm that planetarium matches with shlokas presented in a). Nilesh is not even able to see Mars in it! When the retrograde path is clearly visible to one and all!

d) It is further pointed out that in Mahabharat Image
the thirteenth day becomes the fifteenth day.

E) Nilesh used Arundhati as a sole reference to date Mahabharat to ~4500 BC. Yet in the same Bhishma Parva there is reference about Pole star : ध्रुवं प्रज्वलितो घोरमपसव्यं प्रवर्तते (6.3.17) i.e pole star is moving. I asked him that was there any pole star even visible in 4500 BC and no answer from him.

So what Nilesh needs to do is test each reference given in A) and see if he can reproduce Achar's results using Voyager. If not then try the software(s) that Achar used. If he still cannot reproduce the results then makes sense to accuse the professor of "hand waving so that no one notices".

Achar also dates Shatapath Brhahman to ~3000 BC. SB mentions Janmajeya and not other pandavas! Further do consider that this text is attributed to yåjnavalka, a disciple of vaishampåyana!

Achar is a scholar of high integrity and amazing intellect. We should all learn from him.

He has dated verses from Vedas, in my opinion quite conclusively, to 5th millenium BC. There is just no comparison between Achar and Witzels.
Last edited by peter on 19 Sep 2012 14:27, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby peter » 19 Sep 2012 11:21

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv,
Given two words for horse, asa and aspa, which would be judged to be the earlier form, if we did not know the first to be Old Persian, and the second to be Middle Persian?


Do we know whether donkey or horse got domesticated first in India and the near east? Does it have any bearing on these words?

How does modern Ghoda emerge from Ashva?

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

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

Postby peter » 19 Sep 2012 11:24

KLP Dubey wrote:[..]

I have desisted from posting a detailed analysis/refutation of "river geography" in the RV, since the most detailed quackery on this aspect has unfortunately been from Talageri (an OITer) in addition to that of Witzel and Kochhar. [..]

Don't understand your point. How can the rivers be mentioned in the correct order?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 19 Sep 2012 12:21

ramana garu,

I sent you a garam dak. It should work.
Last edited by RajeshA on 19 Sep 2012 12:40, edited 1 time in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 19 Sep 2012 12:39

KLP Dubey ji,

Kota Venkatachelam in his book, "Age of Buddha, Milindia & Amtiyoka and Yugapurana", says that Sri Kumārila Bhaṭṭa was born in 557 BCE in Jayamangala, a village on the banks of Mahanadi somewhere on the boundary between Andhra and Odisha. (Ref: page 60 of the pdf file)

From the traditions you are aware of, would you consider that to be correct.

On Wikipedia, Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's age is given to be roughly 700 AD, born in Assam! There is some controversy surrounding his origins as suggested by this TOI article.

The article makes references to two books:

1) "Goalparar Puroni Biworon" by Assamese Poet Ananda Chandra Agarwala (1874–1939). There seems to be another book by this author, which is better known - "Aspects of history and culture".
2) "Oxford Students' History of India" (1920) by noted historian Vincent A Smith

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

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

Postby johneeG » 19 Sep 2012 15:54

RajeshA wrote:KLP Dubey ji,

Kota Venkatachelam in his book, "Age of Buddha, Milindia & Amtiyoka and Yugapurana", says that Sri Kumārila Bhaṭṭa was born in 557 BCE in Jayamangala, a village on the banks of Mahanadi somewhere on the boundary between Andhra and Odisha. (Ref: page 60 of the pdf file)

From the traditions you are aware of, would you consider that to be correct.

On Wikipedia, Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's age is given to be roughly 700 AD, born in Assam! There is some controversy surrounding his origins as suggested by this TOI article.

The article makes references to two books:

1) "Goalparar Puroni Biworon" by Assamese Poet Ananda Chandra Agarwala (1874–1939). There seems to be another book by this author, which is better known - "Aspects of history and culture".
2) "Oxford Students' History of India" (1920) by noted historian Vincent A Smith


Kota Venkatachelam's dates for Kumārila Bhaṭṭa(700 CE) and Adi Shankara(800 CE) are way off the mark. I suspect that the BC dates are given to support Kanchi mutt's claims. I don't know whether Kota Venkatachelam is related to Kanchi mutt or not.

Because of his faulty dates for Adi Shankara, I think his other dates(for other figures) should also be verified before accepting.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 19 Sep 2012 15:58

johneeG ji,

please read again what I wrote! You are ascribing something to Pandit Kota Venkatachelam, whereas he is the one contesting the same.

You may like to edit your post later on!

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1200
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 19 Sep 2012 16:46

Many of Kota Venkatachelam's books are at Jambudvipa's blog.
They're also available at Digital Library of India.

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

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

Postby johneeG » 19 Sep 2012 17:22

RajeshA wrote:johneeG ji,

please read again what I wrote! You are ascribing something to Pandit Kota Venkatachelam, whereas he is the one contesting the same.

You may like to edit your post later on!


Saar,
my understanding is that Kota Venkatachelam gives BC dates for Adi Shankara and Kumarilla. Is my understanding wrong?

I think the faulty BC dates are given to support the fraudulent claims of Kanchi mutt.

Wiki is quite correct in its biography of Kumarilla Bhatta. One small correction is:
Kumarilla Bhatta had defeated the Buddhist scholars again and again. And established the Karma path.

But, there was a glitch. He had originally become the disciple of Buddhists to learn their scriptures so that he could more effectively counter them. And he did do it in a spectacular manner. But, according to Vedas, one should not betray one's Guru. Since, Kumarilla had learnt the Buddhist scriptures from the Buddhists and then used that knowledge to counter them, he can be accused of betraying the Guru. To atone for this, Kumarilla created a pyre for himself, and immolated himself in it.

(Wiki says that Kumarilla could not bear the defeat so, he committed suicide. I think its wrong.)

Adi Shankara who was on a tour defeating the famous scholars of his time reached Kumarilla and found him in a pyre. Kumarilla directed Adi Shankara to Mandana Mishra(who was the foremost disciple of Kumarilla). Then, Kumarilla left the mortal coil after some time. Adi Shankara debated with Mandana and defeated him.

Mandana accepted sanyasa and was renamed as Sureshwara. Sureshwara was appointed as the first Pontiff of Sringeri.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 19 Sep 2012 17:39

johneeG ji,

johneeG wrote:Kota Venkatachelam's dates for Kumārila Bhaṭṭa(700 CE) and Adi Shankara(800 CE) are way off the mark. I suspect that the BC dates are given to support Kanchi mutt's claims.
johneeG wrote:my understanding is that Kota Venkatachelam gives BC dates for Adi Shankara and Kumarilla. Is my understanding wrong?

I think the faulty BC dates are given to support the fraudulent claims of Kanchi mutt.


First you write in your post that Kota Venkatachelam is proposing CE (AD) dates for Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (700 CE) and Adi Shankara (800 CE) which he is not. He proposed 557 BCE. That is 1257 years before what you suggested he did!

In your next post you say Pandit Kota Venkatachelam proposed B.C. dates, which is true, but according to you, there is something wrong with that, and you consider that suggestion to somehow be the same as what you had suggested in your earlier post!

Sorry, but there is some misunderstanding! For your information:

CE = Common Era = A.D. (Anno Domini) = In the Year of "Our Lord Jesus Christ"
BCE = Before Common Era = B.C (Before Christ)

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

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

Postby johneeG » 19 Sep 2012 18:08

RajeshA wrote:johneeG ji,

johneeG wrote:Kota Venkatachelam's dates for Kumārila Bhaṭṭa(700 CE) and Adi Shankara(800 CE) are way off the mark. I suspect that the BC dates are given to support Kanchi mutt's claims.
johneeG wrote:my understanding is that Kota Venkatachelam gives BC dates for Adi Shankara and Kumarilla. Is my understanding wrong?

I think the faulty BC dates are given to support the fraudulent claims of Kanchi mutt.


First you write in your post that Kota Venkatachelam is proposing CE (AD) dates for Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (700 CE) and Adi Shankara (800 CE) which he is not. He proposed 557 BCE. That is 1257 years before what you suggested he did!

In your next post you say Pandit Kota Venkatachelam proposed B.C. dates, which is true, but according to you, there is something wrong with that, and you consider that suggestion to somehow be the same as what you had suggested in your earlier post!

Sorry, but there is some misunderstanding! For your information:

CE = Common Era = A.D. (Anno Domini) = In the Year of "Our Lord Jesus Christ"
BCE = Before Common Era = B.C (Before Christ)


Ok, you thought that the dates(700 CE & 800 CE) that I put in brackets were my understanding of the dates given by Kota Venkatachelam. But thats not true. I put those dates in bracket that I thought are correct dates, not dates given by Kota Venkatachelam.

I posted the dates that I thought are correct dates, while you posted the dates according to Kota Venkatachelam.

In my second post, I clearly stated that I think Kota Venkatachelam's BC(BCE) dates are faulty. And I also mentioned that I agree with Wiki's date(700 CE or AD).

Lastly, I understand the Eras fine, thank you.



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

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

Postby member_23686 » 19 Sep 2012 18:23

I'm posting these links here because Dubey ji inspired all of us to preserve vedic sounds and also because the website don't allow direct download of recitations.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 19 Sep 2012 18:46

johneeG ji,

I am sorry for having misunderstood you! I wasn't aware that you agree with the Wikipedia dates!

Well I personally think the Wikipedia dates are a bunch of rubbish as far as Indian history is concerned. The dates of Adi Shankracharya and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa are derived from a wrong understanding of the "anchor sheet of Indian history", i.e. Megasthenes' Sandrokottus == Chandragupta Maurya rather than Chandragupta I Gupta! That is the second historical fraud committed on India, next to AIT, and both are connected. I have been writing about this earlier in this thread, and I thought you would be aware of it!

Pandit Kota Venkatachelam uses data from Kanchi Peetha, Dwaraka Peetha and Kamakothi Peetha, as well as from other sources to arrive at 509 BCE for Adi Shankaracharya's birth.

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

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

Postby johneeG » 19 Sep 2012 19:33

RajeshA wrote:johneeG ji,

I am sorry for having misunderstood you! I wasn't aware that you agree with the Wikipedia dates!


To be clear: I agree with Wiki's dates in this case and not all cases. I agree in this case because it gives the traditional dates. Personally, I don't much care for heterodox dates given by so-called experts. I generally accept traditional dates and views.

Well I personally think the Wikipedia dates are a bunch of rubbish as far as Indian history is concerned.

Yep, most of the time. But, in this case, it seems to be on the mark.

The dates of Adi Shankracharya and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa are derived from a wrong understanding of the "anchor sheet of Indian history", i.e. Megasthenes' Sandrokottus == Chandragupta Maurya rather than Chandragupta I Gupta!


Frankly, I don't know how Sheet anchor or anchor sheet is connected with Adi Shankara. I think the Adi Shankara's date is straight forward from the list of Acharyas of Sringeri.

That is the second historical fraud committed on India, next to AIT, and both are connected. I have been writing about this earlier in this thread, and I thought you would be aware of it!


I haven't seen your writings. But, I did post an article on the same topic. I'll quote that post:

johneeG wrote:Age of Pole Star or Dhruva according to Hinduism:

At the start of the present Kalpa, in 1st Manvantara, Krita Yuga: Swayambhuva Manu had two sons, Priyavrata and Uttanapada. Uttanapada was the King. He had 2 wives Suniti and Suruchi. Uttanapada had 2 sons, Dhruva from Suniti, and Uttama from Suruchi.

Dhruva, at the age of 5, performed a Tapas for about 6 months and obtained Dhruva Mandala(Pole Star) as a boon from Lord Vishnu. Then, Dhruva returned to his Kingdom and later succeeded his father as a King, while his step-brother Uttama died in youth. Dhruva ruled for 36,000 years. Then, Dhruva attained the highest celestial Dhruva Padam(or position of Pole Star). Lord Vishnu promised that Dhruva Mandala(Pole Star) will last for a time period of a Kalpa.

So, Dhruva was born in Krita Yuga of 1st Manvantara of present Kalpa. Presently, we live in 7th Manvantara, 28th Mahayuga, Kali(5112 years have passed).

(Bhagavatam and Vishnu Purana)

1 Mahayuga = 1 Krita + 1 Treta + 1 Dwapara + 1 Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 4*Kali + 3*Kali + 2*Kali + 1*Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 10*Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 10 * (4,32,000) = 43,20,000 yrs;

1 Manvantara = 71 Mahayugas.(There are also Sandhi periods).

1 Kalpa = 14 Manvantaras.
Or Alternatively, 1 Kalpa = 1000 Mahayugas.

Every Manvantara has a Manu, Indra and a set of Saptarishis. Or in other words the positions of Manu, Indra and Saptarishis have a term(allocated time period) of 1 Manvantara. So, a single Kalpa has 14 Manus(& 14 sets of Saptarishis).

The list of Manus from 1st Manvantara to present Manvantara(7th) is:
01)Svayambhuva Manu(The Dhruva/polestar episode happened in this Manvantara. Dhruva was a descendent of this Manu).
02)Svarocisha Manu
03)Uttama Manu
04)Tamasa Manu
05)Raivata Manu
06)Cakshusha Manu
07)Vaivasvata Manu (current Manu and Manvantara)

So, the present age of Dhruva/Pole Star would be:

Treta + Dwapara + Kali+ 70Mahayugas +2nd Manvantara + 3rd Manvantara + 4th Manvantara + 5th Manvantara + 6th Manvantara + 27Mahayugas + Krita + Treta + Dwapara + Kali(5112=3102BCE+2012CE);
=> 3*Kali + 2*Kali + Kali + 70*(10*Kali) + 71*(10*Kali) + 71*(10*Kali) + 71*(10*Kali) + 71*(10*Kali) + 71*(10*Kali) + 27*(10*Kali) + 4*Kali + 3*Kali + 2*Kali + 5112;

=> 3*Kali + 2*Kali + Kali + 700*Kali + 710*Kali + 710*Kali + 710*Kali + 710*Kali + 710*Kali + 270*Kali + 4*Kali + 3*Kali + 2*Kali + 5112;

=> (3*Kali + 2*Kali + Kali + 4*Kali + 3*Kali + 2*Kali) + (700*Kali + 710*Kali + 710*Kali + 710*Kali + 710*Kali + 710*Kali) + 270*Kali + 5112;

=> 15*Kali + 4250*Kali + 270*Kali +5112;

=> 15*Kali + 4520*Kali + 5112;
=> 4535*Kali + 5112; (1 Kali = 4,32,000yrs)
=> 1,95,91,25,112 yrs; Approx.
=> 1.95 * 10^9 yrs; or 1.95 billion yrs(195 crore yrs). Approx.

The total life-time of Pole Star or Dhruva Mandala is:
1 Kalpa = 1000 Mahayugas = 1000 * 10 * Kali;
=> life-time = 1000 * 10 * 4,32,000;
=> life-time = 4,32,00,00,000 yrs;
=> life=time = 4.32 * 10^9 yrs; or 4.32 billion yrs(432 crore yrs).

--------
Narayana Rao wrote:There are some common caliculations which many people accept -
First the starting period of Kali Yuga - This is fairly well known and has long standing tradition.
Kings list of Magadha - List of the kings is avaliable and period of rule of Magadha kings is avaliable and the periods can be fairly caliculated.
Major religious orders like Shakaracharya Mats, Jain and Budda Traditions have their own cronalogies and books which has their own dating system.

The main problem comes with the dates give my our frindly German/Brit "historian" Max Muller and the dating based on world created on Oct 23rd 4004 BC idea. Because of this idea we find most of our dating and history has no basis as per the Brits.

For example what is the date of Bhagavaan Budda? The buddist traditions do not agree with the dating we are giving. No Shankaramat agrees with the date we have givne AdiShankaracharya. There is endless list of difforences from traditional historical view and dating and what we have given.

We need more that just a adhoc review of our history and dating.


Adi Shankaracharya:
Madhaviya Sankaravijaya

The Madhaviya is the oldest available, and also the most authentic and widely known among the different Sankaravijayas today. It is certainly the most popular such text in the Advaita tradition, and is also known as the Samkshepa Sankarajaya. The popularity of this work derives from the fame of its author, Madhava, who is usually identified with Sri Vidyaranya, the 13th pontiff of the Peetham. Old manuscripts of this work are available from diverse places in India, and printed editions based on a comparison of various manuscripts are available from as early as 1863 CE. Two commentaries have been written on the Madhaviya Sankaravijaya, one titled Dindima, by Dhanapati Suri (composed in 1798 CE), and another titled Advaitarajyalakshmi by Achyutaraya (composed in 1824 CE). Contemporary accounts of Sankara’s life follow this text in most details, like birth in Kaladi, meeting with his guru on the banks of the river Narmada, writing of commentaries, debate with Mandana Mishra, establishment of the Sharada Peetha at Sringeri, Ascension of the Sarvajna Pitha in Kashmir and his last days in the Himalayas.

There has been some doubt in recent times about the date and authorship of the mAdhavIya Sankaravijaya, including charges that it was reworked extensively in the 19th century CE. Almost all of this criticism is baseless. If the author of this work is not identical with vidyAraNya, the latest date that can be put to it is 1798 CE, the year in which the DiNDimA commentary was completed. Moreover, another author, sadAnanda, who wrote a Sankaravijaya sAra in 1783, informs us that his source is mAdhava’s work. As such, the criticism that the mAdhavIya was written as late as the 19th century CE, or that portions of it were re-written recently, cannot be upheld. However, the earliest possible date of this work (14th century CE) is still several centuries later than Sankara’s own date.

http://www.sringeri.net/history/sri-adi-shankaracharya/biography

It is accepted that Adi Shankara appeared in 8th century(820) CE(or AD). He was born at Kalady in Kerala at bank of Poorna river(now named as Periyar river). He met His guru on the banks of Narmada. His guru was GovindaBhagavatpada(who was a disciple of GaudaBhagavatpada->Shuka->Vyasa->Parashara->Shakti->Vashishta).

At the age of 16, He authored commentaries on Brahma Sutras(authored by Badarayana/Vyasa) on the lined of Advaita Philosophy. This is a celebrated work. Later, He toured entire India 3 times on foot, refuting various other schools of philosophy in extensive debates.*

In these debates, He defeated the scholars of His time(including the famous Mandana Mishra who was the foremost disciple of illustrous Kumarilla Bhatta) and (re)established Advaita Philosophy firmly. He also authored several other works(based on Vedanta, Bhakti, Tantra, Mantra, ...etc). His works range from very short(Eka Shloki) to huge. The present day Hinduism is His heritage. Hew restored proper mode of worship in several Temples across India from Badri to Kalady. Unlike many self-styled philosophers(before and after Him), He acceded to the authority of Vedas(including Mimamsa part). He also upheld the validity of Upasana(worship) of Ishta devatas(favourite deity) and acknowledged shanmatas(6 paths/deities i.e. Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Skanda, Ganapati and Surya).

He ascended Sarva-agna Peeta in Kashmir. He established 4 monastries in 4 directions of India.*
a) East - Puri - Govardhan Mutt.
b) South - Sringeri - Sharada Mutt.
c) West - Dwarka - Kalika Mutt.
d) North - Badri - Jyothir Mutt.
http://www.sringeri.net/history/amnaya-peethams

(*This shows that Indians had a always clear understanding of whole of India as one cultural/civilizational entity long before the advent of Muslim invaders or colonial Brits).

Finally, at the age of 32, He retreated from the world from Badri.

This version is accepted and established.

--------
For example what is the date of Bhagavaan Budda? The buddist traditions do not agree with the dating we are giving.


True, saar.

There is an excellent article on this Issue:

Date of Buddha
Most of us are taught that Buddha was born around 560 to 550 B.C. However, once we start doing some research, we find evidence that this date may be too late. Buddha may have lived much earlier. Let us see how Buddha is dated.

Let us see the Traditional Theories at arriving date of Buddha.

1) Long chronology Based on the Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa accounts which state that 218 years difference between Buddha Death and Ashoka Conversion. Which put date of the Buddha’s death is 544/543 B.C.E.
2) Corrected chronology According to Richard Gombrich, Aśoka’s dates are approximately established by the synchronism between his 13th major rock edict, which is dated by scholars in the 13th year after his consecration, and the five monarchs of the Hellenistic world named therein as reigning at the time. The date of the edict must be 255 B.C., give or take a year; Aśoka’s consecration is accordingly dated 268 B.C. So the Date of Buddha's Death is 483BC
3) short chronology Many Sanskrit , Tibetan and chinese traditions say the difference between date of Asoka coronation and Date of Nirvana of Buddha to be 100 years and Chinese accounts say 116 years. So the date can be anywhere between 544BC to 440BC depending on which theory you are following.
4) Dot-ted record. This account, taken from Chi-nese sources and referred to initially by Tao-hsüan in the Ta t’ang nei tien lu, argues that when Upāli, first collected the Vinaya after the Buddha’s death, he marked a dot in the manuscript at the end of the pavarana, and continued the process in each year thereafter. His successors, Dāsaka, Sonaka, Siggava, Moggali-putta, Tissa, Caṇḍavajji, and so forth continued the process. Samghabhadra, who presumably translated the Samantapāsādikā into Chinese, is said to have put the 975th dot on the manuscript during a visit to Canton in 489 C.E., thus establishing the Buddha’s death in 486 B.C.E.

But we are not bothered by this relative chronology based on the date of Ashoka cornation. Since we have seen that Ashoka grandfather chandragupta Maurya is itself is not based on Solid evidence the article Did Megasthanese Meet Chandrgupta. We will go to the root of the evidences to see when he can be dated.

European Account
Since the records of ancient India give only the intervals between events but do not, like later records, date the events themselves, it is necessary in order to establish dates in Indian history to call on Greek historians. Indo-Greek relations developed as a result of the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great (327 BC). About 303 BC, the Indian Emperor Candragupta came to a territorial agreement and entered into diplomatic relations with Seleukos Nikator, Alexander's former general who ruled over Babylonia. Through the reports of the Greek ambassador Megasthenes, who was ambassador to the imperial court of palimbothra , Candragupta ( Sandrokottos ) became known to Greek historians, and through them we are able to date his accession to 321 BC. But this date is now disputed due to various reasons, Further Information on Chandgragupta and Alexander Date follow article Did Megasthanese meet Chandragupta Maurya. How Let us see

Purana Account
The Puranas provide a chronology of the Magadha rulers from the time of the Mahabharata war, Somadhi (Marjari) was the ruler. He started a dynasty that included 22 kings that spread over 1006 years.They were followed by five rulers of the Pradyota dynasty that lasted over 138 years. Then for the next 360years was the 10 rulers of the Shishunag family. Kshemajit (who ruled from 1892 to 1852 B.C.) was the fourth in the Shishunag dynasty, and was a contemporary of Lord Buddha's father, Shuddhodana. It was during this period in which Buddha was born. It was during the reign of Bimbisara, the fifth Shishunaga ruler (1852-1814 B.C.), when Prince Siddhartha became the enlightened Buddha. Then it was during the reign of King Ajatashatru (1814-1787 B.C.) when Buddha left this world. Thus, he was born in 1887 B.C., renounced the world in 1858 B.C., and died in 1807 B.C. according to this analysis.

Further evidence that helps corroborate this is provided in The Age of Buddha, Milinda and King Amtiyoka and Yuga Purana, by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam. He also describes that it is from the Puranas, especially the Bhagavat Purana and the Kaliyurajavruttanta, that need to be consulted for the description of the Magadha royal dynasties to determine the date of Lord Buddha. Buddha was the 23rd in the Ikshvaku lineage, and was a contemporary of Kshemajita, Bimbisara, and Ajatashatru, as described above. Buddha was 72 years old in 1814 B.C. when the coronation of Ajatashatru took place. Thus, the date of Buddha's birth must have been near 1887 B.C., and his death in 1807 B.C. if he lived for 80 years

Professor K. Srinivasaraghavan also relates in his book, Chronology of Ancient Bharat , that the time of Buddha should be about 1259 years after the Mahabharata war, which should make it around 1880 B.C. if the war was in 3138 B.C.

Astronomical Account
A search was made from 1900 BCE to 400 BCE for the sequence of events: winter solstice, lunar eclipse, solar eclipse, followed by Vaisakha poornima, the full moon day of Buddha nirvana. It is found that there are only 14 dates possible for this sequence of events to occur:1807 BCE, 1694 BCE, 1659 BCE, 1510 BCE, 1250 BCE, 1192 BCE, 1138 BCE, 1119 BCE, 1062 BCE, 1007 BCE, 765 BCE, 690 BCE and 560 BCE. If a time limit of about three months (the time that Buddha spends in sravasti before attaining his nirvana) is imposed, then the time interval between winter solstice and vaisakha poornima must be less than 90 days and that vaisakha poornima should occur before the vernal equinox, as winter solstice occurred after his arrival at sravasti. With this restriction, most of the dates do not qualify, leaving only two dates 1807 BCE and 1510 BCE as possible dates. It is interesting to note that the ‘traditionally’ accepted dates, 544 BCE, or 483 BCE, or any of the recently revised dates do not fit the picture. One additional piece of astronomical information is needed to fix the date.

The Samyutta Nikaya , Part I, sugatta Vagga, Book II, Chapter I, Devaputtasa yuttam,suttas contain ten units in all, two of them to relate to kassapa. The others are devaputtas who visit Buddha. Sengupta identifies kassapa with prajapati and hence with winter solstice. He regards the other deities as adityas The first devaputta to visit is to be taken as the lord of the month of the lunar eclipse. We take a hint from a listing of the sons of aditi in taittirya aranyaka dhata aryaman. If we assume as Sengupta did, kassapa as dhataa or prajapati, his visit would indicate the arrival of winter solstice. Aryaman would be the first ‘devaputta’ to visit as the deity of the month, i.e., the presiding deity of the nakshatra of the full moon, where the lunar eclipse occurs. In 1510 BCE the lunar eclipse occurs at uttaraphalguni, whose deity is bhaga. In 1807 BCE, the lunar eclipse occurs at purvaphalguni , with aryaman as the deity. So the year is 1807 BCE

Furthermore, astronomical calculations by astronomer Swami Sakhyananda indicates that the time of the Buddha was in the Kruttika period, between 2621-1661 B.C.

Pali and Ceylon Chronicles
Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa , give the traditional figure of 218 years between the death of the Buddha and the conversion of Asoka is best taken as conventional. It amounts to the claim that between the death of the Buddha and the conversion of Asoka, there intervened

#) A first major event occuring after 100 years, this being the standard conventional interval of prediction in the later Buddhist literature
#) A second major event, occurring after another 100 years, this event being the rise of the ruler patron, or the coronation of Asoka.
#) A third event, occurring after a further 18 years. We may note that according to his own inscriptions, it was in the 18th year of his reign that Asoka was persuaded to accept Buddhism.

The alternative interval of 256 years, is based on counting backward from a later date in Asoka's reign, namely, the year of his abdication to pursue a life of virtue. This is the information given by the chronicles , the western scholars have taken the difference in years between ashoka , buddha and Megasthanese – Chandragupta meeting to date Buddha.

The Ceylonese Pali traditions leave out the kings mentioned RockEdicts from list of Asoka’s kingdoms, whereas Rock Edict XIII includes them. In fact, as many scholars have noted, the character of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is precisely (as RK Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts. Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict, is identified as Asoka’s. It was, however, Samudragupta’s (Samudragupta was a great conqueror and a devout admirer of Asoka. He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the name Asokaditya. In his later life, he became a sanyasi).

Tibet Account
The Kalachakra tantra puts the life of Sakyamuni Buddha in the 9th. Century BCE William Jones, on the basis of Tibetan records infers that Buddha lived in the 11th century B.C. A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 BC.


China Account
Fa-hsien was in India and at Patliputra c. 410 AD. He mentions a number of kings, but makes not even a fleeting reference to the Gupta, even though according to European scholars he came during the height of their reign. Fa-Hien puts Buddha’s Nirvana at 1050 B.C.

Qin Shi Huang, who is said to have suppressed Buddhism, in the same way that he suppressed all other Chinese philosophy. His reign lasted from 246 BCE to 221 BCE. Han Wei, a noted researcher from the Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, found evidence in the Historical Records, which were written in 104 BC. Silk Road archaeologist WANG Jianxin said Han's research sounded "reasonable" .

The Weilüe reports a tradition that an envoy of the Yuezhi king who gave oral teachings on Buddhist sutras to a student in 2 BCE

Greek Accounts
Seven Sages of Greece (Dated 620-550 B.C ) surprisingly give the Buddhist Teachings.

Thyagaraja Aiyer in his book "Indian Architecture" observes," Here lies Indian Sramanacharya from Bodh Gaya, a Buddhist monk taken to Greece by his Greek pupils and the tomb marks his death about 1000 B.C." If the Buddhist monk went to Greece in 1000 B.C., then the Buddha must have lived at least a few centuries earlier.

Somayajulu places Chandragupta Maurya in the 14th century B.C. This puts the Buddha three centuries earlier, i.e., in the 17th century B.C.

Long before the word 'missionary' came to be synonymous with Christianity" Buddhist monks ('dharma-bhanakas') were traipsing across Asia. Travelling the Silk and Spice Routes they spread their doctrines all the way from Khotan in central Asia to Antioch and Alexandria in the west. One such visit is documented in 20 BC in Athens. A Buddhist philosopher, Zarmarus, part of an embassy from India, made a doctrinal point by setting himself alight. His tomb became a tourist attraction and is mentioned by several historians.

It seems the original Therapeutae were sent on an Indian embassy to Pharaoh Ptolemy II in 250 BC. The word 'Therapeutae' is itself of Buddhist origin, being a Hellenization of the Pali 'Thera-putta' (literally 'son of the elder.') Philo Judaeus, a 1st century AD contemporary of Josephus, described the Therapeutae in his tract 'De Vita Contemplativa'. It appears they were a religious brotherhood without precedent in the Jewish world. Reclusive ascetics, devoted to poverty, celibacy, good deeds and compassion, they were just like Buddhist monks in fact. From the Therapeutae it is quite possible a Buddhist influence spread to both the Essenes (a similar monkish order in Palestine).
(According to Lindter, New Testament books are also cryto-buddhist works. So, the phenomenon described in this para may be a data point to support that theory. Infact, this and the next para may be describing the early christianity i.e. cryptoBuddhism - johneeG)

Gnosticism is Influenced by Buddhism , which was a religion of quite a different order to earlier 'pagan' cults. It was a scriptural religion, making a strong appeal to the emotions. It offered a moral code – and hope. The Gnostic idea of liberating the soul from entrapment in matter is not dissimilar to the teachings embodied in the "4 Noble Truths" of the Buddha.The Greek details presented above are also sometimes dated before Alexander, so the argument that Buddhism came to Greece only after Alexander invasion does not hold water. Greek and some parts of then India like Bactria were part of Persian empire of Darius, so the exchange of ideas is not confined to Alexander era.

Korea Account
Hwanin or Divine Regent is a figure in Korean mythology. Hwanin is an alias of Indra. Hwanin is the name on Buddhism of Indra, this name is widely used in east Asia. We have evidences that Hwanin being used in 3rd Century BC in Korea.

South East Asia Traditions
Japan, Thailand, , Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia follow the Ceylon (Sri Lanka) date.

Christian Account
Apart from similarities between buddha and Jesus Christ, Most Important account has been the Barlaam and Josaphat story, which is the Christianized version of Buddha Story.

Max Muller stated that missionaries also were sent more than thirty years prior to Ashoka's reign

Philo noted the presence of Buddhists in Alexandria, Egypt.

Conclusion
The above accounts say that Buddha can be earlier than the said dates of 560BC and Western and Indology Scholars have not even explained the contradictions in their own calculations. The fundamental sheet Anchor theory (Megasthanese -Chandragupta Meeting) is itself not established. The Indian literary accounts are being dismissed summarily. And Western scholars themselves dont provide any evidence to backup their account. Since Chandragupta Maurya date by Western and Indology scholars is disputable, Buddha Date is also susequently disputable. Regarding what is being said in Ashoka Edicts and what are the claims made on the edicts , we will see in another article. For now Buddha date is nowhere settled. Date by Indian Literary sources and Astronomical calculations is 1807 BC.

Source

The Date of the Buddha by E Bruce Brooks
Re-establishing the Date of Lord Buddha by Stephen Knapp
A short note on the date of Buddha nirvana using planetarium software B. N. Narahari Achar
Indian Architecture by Thyagaraja Aiyer
Cooking the Buddhist Books by Charles S. Prebish

http://controversialhistory.blogspot.in/2009/08/date-of-buddha.html

Read it in full. It is very well written.

Infact, it seems the entire Indologist version of Indian history is based on Sheet Anchor Theory(which is dubious). Another very good article on that subject:

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. :shock:

Indian View Chandragupta Maurya did not meet Megasthenes

Megasthenes has nowhere mentioned the word Maurya

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

Indian historians have recorded two Chandraguptas, 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Asoka's empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta Maurya and he had sent missionaries to the so-called Yavana countries. But both of them are not mentioned. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkus though that was the flourishing religion of that time with the royal patronage of Asoka. Roychaudhari also wonders why the Greek accounts are silent on Buddhism.

The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthanese did not use this name and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.

To decide as to whether Pataliputra was the capital of the Mauryas, Puranas is the only source. Puranas inform us that all the eight dynasties that ruled Magadha after the Mahabharata War had Girivraja as their capital. Mauryas are listed as one of the eight dynasties. The name Pataliputra is not even hinted at, anywhere in the Puranas.

No Concrete Proofs:
The Western scholars and their followers in India have been all along insisting on concrete evidence for ancient Indian chronology but they themselves have not been able as yet, to furnish any such evidence for the sheet anchor.

http://controversialhistory.blogspot.in/2009/07/did-megasthenes-meet-chandragupta.html

-----
Nakul ji,
excellent points about unoversalism of west. The samples are very small and selective. Then, they extrapolate their conclusions based on these small and selective samples on to the entire human history. It is very much like quack exit polls...lots of speculation and guess work. At least, the exit polls talk about present, while these people talk about things that happened in great antiquity.

Actually, I find the whole idea of people able to guess the actual events(that happened long long ago) based on few scattered(in time and space) relics, preposterous. It is like reading Sherlock Holmes(very entertaining idea, but impractical).

The whole exercise is equivalent to connecting dots and find patterns in it. And, people can connect same dots in variety of ways to suit their tastes by omitting(and adding) some dots('data points').

In fact, I think the problem is the fundamental idea behind all these theories:'Linear model'. For example, according to linear model, if people hunted in 20 AD, then they must have hunted all the time before it. But, we know that it is not correct model. People can grow rich or poor, similarly civilizations can rise and fall. Knowledge/tech can be discovered/invented, lost and re-discovered/invented. Things work in cycles not linearly.

So, I think the whole of this 'field' is based on flawed fundamentals to start with it. Linear model must be rejected and cyclic model must be accepted.

Lastly, logic is not always followed in human interactions. Accidents or co-incidents can happen(it seems to me that they happen much more frequently than we people acknowledge). Then, there is also emotional angle. How one individual/group/society interacts with another is frankly very difficult to predict.
-----
Dharamraj ji,
thanks for posting the links. :)


In short, I agree that Sheet anchor or anchor sheet is a fraud.

Pandit Kota Venkatachelam uses data from Kanchi Peetha, Dwaraka Peetha and Kamakothi Peetha, as well as from other sources to arrive at 509 BCE for Adi Shankaracharya's birth.


Adi Shankara established 4 Mutts:
a) East - Puri - Govardhan Mutt.
b) South - Sringeri - Sharada Mutt.
c) West - Dwarka - Kalika Mutt.
d) North - Badri - Jyothir Mutt.

Of these four mutts, the Jyothir Math had long been vacant, till it was revived in 1940 CE. So, it does not have many ancient records. And Dwaraka and Puri maths have patchy histories, with periods when there were no presiding Sankaracaryas.

So, that leaves Sringeri which has had an unbroken succession of mathadhipatis. The records of Sringeri are corroborated by the Vijayanagara records.

As for Kanchi, its claims and records are bogus.

In article <31a8jt$21j@ucunix.san.uc.edu> sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K.
Sadananda) writes:
> In article <311hto$ni@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, editor.csm.uc.edu (digest
editor)
> wrote:
>
> > * Former President Inaugurates Celebrations
> > Kanchipuram, July 24 (PTI) The former President, Mr R
> > Venkataraman, today inaugurated the year long 60th centenary
> > celebrations of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, the head of the 2,500
> > year old Kanchi mutt, amidst religious fervour.
> > Sri Jayendra Saraswathi is the 69th pontiff of the mutt,
> > which was established here by Adi Sankara, who was the first
> > 'peedapathi' (head of the mutt) from 482 to 477 bc.

> SIR
> May I bring to your attention that by all accounts Adi Sankara time was
> some where around 8th to 9th century AD. And of the four Matts that he
> established Kanchi is not one of them. Either the Mutt is less than
> 1100 years old or if it is 482 B.C. as is claimed in the news then it
> must not have been established by Adi Sankaracharya. Please check the
> dates and the real history of the kanchi matt. Is there any one in the
> network that has better information about the Kanchi peetam? Sadananda


Both this post and a previous one by Bon Giovanni have raised questions of
historicity of Adi Sankaracharya and the Kanchi math. This is not a new
question. It is generally accepted as tradition that Adi Sankaracharya,
the famous Advaita philosopher, founded four maths (monasteries) at
Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka and Badrinath; that he ascended the famous
sarvagna-pitha in Kashmir, and finally passed away near Kedarnath. None of
the four recognized mathas claims jurisdiction over the other three. However,
the Kanchi math claims that Sankaracharya established a fifth math in
Kanchi, with jurisdiction over the recognized four mathas; that
Sankaracharya ascended a sarvagna-pitha not in Kashmir, but at Kanchi, and
that he passed away not in Kedarnath, but at Kanchi. These and other such
claims have been widely publicized by the followers of the Kanchi math
with the direct participation of and encouragement from the heads of the
Kanchi math, including the recently departed centenarian Sri
Chandrasekharendra Saraswati (C.S., for short) and his successor Sri
Jayendra Saraswati (J.S.).

In Tamil, we have a saying "Do not question the origins of rivers
(nadimoolam) and rishis (rishimoolam)." Still, in terms of answering some
basic questions regarding dates in Indian history, one has to perforce
look at these. C.S. had a commanding personality. He impressed people of
such wide interests as Mahatma Gandhi, Arthur Koestler, Paul Brunton,
Milton Singer etc. Some of his more ardent followers have gone to the
extent of deifying him as "Nadamadum deivam" - the deity who walks. People
compose and sing songs in his praise, and dancers stage dance-dramas on his
life - all of which are widely advertised and reviewed in the south Indian
press. However, while some people might respect the recently departed
acharya of Kanchi as a rishi or as a deity, there is no reason why a frank
discussion cannot be held regarding the origins of the Kanchi math, and
C.S.'s involvement in propagating a thoroughly revised history of that
math - so thoroughly revised as to be almost wholly falsified. I would
like to clarify at the outset that no disrespect is meant to the Kanchi
math or its heads, but while talking of some aspects of history, one has
to call a spade a spade.

Seven years ago, on August 22, 1987, Sri Jayendra Saraswati disappeared
from the Kanchi math. R. Venkatraman, an ardent devotee of the Kanchi math
was President of India at that time. A frantic search was held, with the
police of all four southern states, the CID and other agencies involved.
What made the disappearance more shocking to the orthodox followers of the
Kanchi math was that it was the period of chaturmasya, when a sannyasi was
not supposed to travel from his camping station. Sri Jayendra Saraswati
was finally traced to Talakaveri, the source of the Kaveri near Coorg in
Karnataka. Whatever else it accomplished, this episode created major stories
in the Indian media. Tthe Kanchi math came under the spotlight once again,
and it obtained wide publicity in the national media. I quote a few excerpts
(without permission) from the Sept. 13, 1987 issue of The Illustrated Weekly
of India, from a feature written by well-known journalist, K. P. Sunil. [1]

Under a box titled "Disputed Lineage," K. P. Sunil writes, (My comments
are in parantheses):

"On August 25, as speculation about the whereabouts of Jayendra
Saraswati mounted, the Sankaracharya of Dwaraka, Swaroopananda Saraswati,
camping at Pune for the Chaturmasya Vrata, while demanding a high level
probe into the mystery, asserted: "Sri Jayendra Saraswati cannot be
regarded as a Sankaracharya at all, because the Kanchi math is not one of
the four peethas constituted by Adi Sankaracharya. It is only a shakha
(branch) of the Sringeri peetham."
"Several years earlier, Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Iyer, who headed the
central commission on Hindu religious and charitable endowments, had
announced that `there is no such thing as the Kanchi Kamakoti peetham.'
..................
"Yet the Kanchi math has emerged as one of the most powerful
religious institutions in the country.
"Full credit for this should go to Chandrasekharendra Saraswati
himself, who lifted a math disintegrating in Kumbhakonam and
re-established it in Kanchipuram, according it a position of pre-eminence.
....................
"Legend has it that Sankara, at the age of 32, after having toured
most parts of India and after having established the four maths ........
"The turn of the present century saw a math claiming a lineage of
over 67 pontiffs in Kumbhakonam in Tanjore district."
..............
"It was only in the 20th century works, all compiled after
Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, the present Paramacharya ascended the
peetha, that the history of the Kanchipuram math has been rewritten.
Accordingly, it was established (by whom, may I ask?) that Adi
Sankaracharya had spent the last days of his life in Kanchipuram where he
attained samadhi, and not in the Himalayas as is generally believed. A
mandapam named after the father of the school of advaita philosophy, seen
in the Kamakshi temple premises, is cited as his samadhi. (The said
mandapam has been constructed very recently. It was originally called
`Sankaracharya samadhi', but when it was pointed out there could not be a
samadhi inside a Devi temple, the mandapam was renamed `Sankaracharya
sannidhi' - sanctum, not a tomb.)
"The twentieth century chronicles explain that before his demise,
Sankaracharya established a fifth math at Kanchi which he intended to be a
controlling centre of all the other maths. Sri Sureswaracharya, Sankara's
prime disciple was placed in charge of it. Interestingly, the Sringeri
math also claims Sureswaracharya as their first pontiff. (As an aside, the
tale of Sureswaracharya being in charge of the Kanchi math is pure
fiction. If Sankaracharya did not establish the Kanchi math at all,
where was the need to appoint a successor there?!! It is the Kanchi math
that "claims" Sureswara. The Sringeri math does not "claim" so. In fact, a
very old structure that is reputed to be Sureswara's samadhi is still
preserved outside the Sarada temple at Sringeri.)
"According to the Kanchi chronicles, the math in Kanchipuram had
to be shifted in the 18th century AD, in the face of opposition from local
kings and hence the shift to Kumbhakonam. (One does not know of any
Hindu-hating king near Kanchipuram from the 18th century.)
"Historians, however, hold that the Kumbhakonam math was in verity
a branch of the Sringeri math established in 1821 AD by the famous monarch
of Tanjore, Serfoji. (Mr. Sunil has a fact wrong here. The monarch of
Tanjore in 1821 was not Serfoji, but Pratap Singh Tuljaji. The
date 1821 is correct - it is the date of the oldest inscription found in
the Kumbhakonam math building.) Later, when a war broke out between the
kings of Tanjore and Mysore, the Kumbhakonam math proclaimed independence
from Sringeri and established itself as the Kamakoti peetham." (There is
no war documented between the Maratha rulers of Tanjore and the Wodeyars
of Mysore after 1821. By this time, both were more or less puppets of the
British. That the Kumbhakonam math proclaimed independence from Sringeri
however, is a fact. One does not have to explain it as a consequence of an
imaginary war that the maths had no connection with.)


Mr. Sunil captures the major facts regarding the Kanchi math correctly
though. Briefly,

1. A branch of the Sringeri math was established in Kumbhakonam, the
building for which was constructed in 1821 AD, with the help of the
Tanjore king. The seal of this math is in Kannada language, and refers to
it as a "Sarada math." Since Sarada is worshipped only at Sringeri, and
the Goddess at Kanchipuram is Kamakshi, not Sarada, it is seen at once
that the Kumbhakonam math did not originally come from Kanchipuram.

2. The Kumbhakonam math soon proclaimed independence from Sringeri. In
fact, this math went one step further. In addition to denying the
historical truth of its origin as a branch of the Sringeri math, the story
propagated was that it was originally established by Adi Sankaracharya
himself at Kanchipuram, with control over the recognized four maths.
Worse, a wholly fictitious story that Adi Sankaracharya ascended a
sarvagna-pitha at Kanchi and attained samadhi at Kanchi is propagated as
"tradition." The real problem though was that in the course of this
campaign, someone with more enthusiasm than scholarship, "fixed" the date
of Adi Sankaracharya as 477 B.C. and wrote up a continuous list of gurus
of the math from 477 B.C. to the present! This guru parampara is filled
with names of sannyasis taken at random, with no thought to chronology.

3. The Kumbhakonam math shifted to Kanchipuram in accordance with its new
story. In 1839 AD, the head of the Kumbhakonam math applied for permission
to the English Collector to perform the kumbhabhishekam of the Kamakshi
temple in Kanchipuram. In 1842 AD, he was appointed sole trustee of the
Kamakshi temple by the English East India Company Government. This is well
documented because the original priests of the Kamakshi temple, who were
thereby deprived of their rights, complained to whomever they could possibly
complain to. Numerous petitions, counter petitions, letters, and other such
documents are available from this period that allow us to piece together this
account. [2] Thus the Kanchi math as an institution dates from 1842 AD. The
headquarters continued to be at Kumbhakonam but the sannyasi head would
periodically visit Kanchipuram to assert his rights over the Kamakshi temple.

This math originally had a limited following in the Tanjore and Kanchipuram
areas, but soon embarked on a massive propaganda campaign that ensured it
prominence.

4. This propaganda campaign to disseminate disinformation received a major
fillip from the activites of C.S. As Mr. Sunil puts it, it is only in the
20th century, after C.S. took over as the head of the disintegrating math
at Kumbhakonam, that the accounts have been totally rewritten. Part of this
propaganda campaign includes a guru parampara that dates back to 477 BC.
One can go into great details to show that this guru parampara is false.
Suffice it to say however, that it is full of holes and is correct only in
the details given for the post-1820 period. Thus J.S. who is said to be
the 69th in direct succession from Adi Sankaracharya himself is actually
only the 6th or the 7th head of the Kumbhakonam/Kanchi math. C.S. and
J.S. have been extremely fortunate in favourably impressing people like
Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan, the famous philosopher, and Sri S. Ramakrishnan,
the executive secretary of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, not to speak of
influential journalists like Arun Shourie and Ram Nath Goenka, and
politicians like President R. Venkatraman. As an example, in recent years,
there has not been a single issue of the Bhavan's Journal without some
feature or the other on either C.S. or J.S. For example, when the Berlin wall
fell, the well-known guru, Sri Chinmoy, sent a piece of the rubble to the
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan as a souvenir. Sri Ramakrishnan immediately saw a
photo opportunity, took the rock to Kanchipuram, and featured a picture of
J.S. holding the rock on the cover of the Bhavan's Journal. Thus, Sri Chinmoy
sends a souvenir to the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and J.S. of Kanchi Kamakoti
Peetham gets photo credit! Sri Ramakrishnan apparently has no qualms in
converting a prestigious magazine like the Bhavan's Journal into yet another
propaganda pamphlet of the Kanchi math.


If I sound like I am fulminating unjustifiably against the propaganda that
the Kanchi math engages in, I assure readers here that I am in fact
perfectly justified. I can cite innumerable instances where the most
blatant lies have been made without any compunction. All with an eye at
enhancing the apparent prestige of the Kanchi math. What the Kanchi math
doen't realize however, is that such stories only weaken its own
credibility and the respect which people may have for its acharyas. Thus a
simple PTI news item about the 60th birthday celebrations of J.S.
necessarily has to state something about the "2500 year history" of the
math. If the news item had been silent about it, I would not have felt the
need to write this article debunking their myths. The following excerpt
from the same article in the Illustrated Weekly should show readers the
exact means which the Kanchi math propaganda adopts.

"The Vyasachaliya Sankara Vijayam, written by Maha Devendra
Saraswati, the 53rd acharya of the Kumbhakonam math in the 15th century,
makes no mention of the Kanchi math in his work. However, in a Tamil
translation of the work by Acharya Krishna Sastri, it is mentioned that
the then King of Nepal had accepted the acharya of Kanchi, located in
Kumbhakonam, as his Rajguru and was making a payment to the math every
year as guru dakshina.
"Researchers, who doubted the claim, referred the matter to the
royal family of Nepal. the reply dated May 13. 1940 read `...Nepal has
never recognized the head of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham as their guru.
Nor do we annually contribute any portion of our income as alleged by
Pandit Acharya Krishna Sastri.'"

Mr. Sunil who quotes this bit of history, seems to have overlooked one
minor point though. If the Kumbhakonam math was only established as a
branch math in 1821 AD, as he says in his article, the question of its
existence in the 15th century does not arise. Much less a name of its head
and a number to be attached to that name. Such "Pandits" as Acharya
Krishna Sastri who do not hesitate to blatantly lie, have been routinely
pressed into service by the Kanchi math for conducting its propaganda.
After all, who in south India would have thought of verifying his story
from such a distant place as Nepal? The technique of the Kanchi math has
been to lie left and right, with such thoroughness, that invariably some
part of its preposterous claims are accepted as truth by people.
Exactly
the same phenomenon has occured with Mr. Sunil. He does not question the
veracity of the claim that the Vyasachaliya Sankara Vijayam was written
by one "Maha Devendra Saraswati, the 53rd acharya of the Kumbhakonam
math in the 15th century." Nor does he particularly elaborate on the
strangeness of the fact that this fictitious author of this real book only
mentions the four traditionally accepted maths, and makes no mention of
"his own" math.

To sum up, the claims of the Kanchi math have been unprecedented in the
history of Hinduism. We have never had an organized structure comparable
to the Roman Catholic Church. In the event, a math in the remote south
claiming to be the central math of the Advaita sampradaya makes no sense.
Firstly, such centralized religious jurisdiction is alien to the spirit
and history of our culture. Secondly, even if Adi Sankaracharya did
establish a central math with jurisdiction over the recognized four, was
he so ignorant of India's geography that he bypassed all holy cities with
more central locations (Prayag/Kashi/Ujjain?) and chose instead Kanchi in
the extreme south? Thus, the idea of a central math is clearly pure myth.
The reality is that the Kanchi math is a relatively recent institution
with tall claims. That it has a large following is an undeniable fact.
Every saffron-robed person invariably attracts some following. Couple that
with the tremendous charisma that C.S. had, and a famous temple like the
Kamakshi temple in Kanchipuram - one has a ready-made formula for success
in attracting a following. The sad part is that the sannyasis involved
take advantage of the general reverence that people show them, for their
own ulterior motives.

In India, among south Indian Brahmin circles especially, when this topic
comes up for discussion, most people usually say something like, "The
Kanchi math is also doing so much for the cause of dharma. Why rake up
this issue?" My answer is that firstly it is the Kanchi math which forces
one to rake up the issue by ceaselessly continuing its propaganda of
disinformation. Secondly, and more importantly, an institution like the
Kanchi math which supposedly is doing so much for dharma, should not
forget the most basic dharma of all - satyam vada. People are free to choose
their gurus, but when the guru sets such a perniciously wrong example, by
not sticking to the truth, dharma itself is compromised.

S. Vidyasankar


1. The Illustrated Weekly of India, "The Weekly Cover Story" - K. P.
Sunil, September 13, 1987.


2 a. The Truth about the Kumbhakonam Math, - Sri R. Krishnaswamy
Aiyar and Sri K. R. Venkatraman, Sri Ramakrishna Press, Madurai,
1977.

b. Kanchi Kamakoti Math - a Myth - Sri Varanasi Raj Gopal Sarma,
Ganga Tunga Prakashan, Varanasi, 1987.
LC Call No.: BL1243.76.C62 K367 1987

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 19 Sep 2012 20:23

johneeG ji,

the story could be just the other way round! One would have to check up on the antecedents of these writers overall pertaining to how they look at the date of Buddha, Sheet Anchor of Indian History, AIT, Marxism, etc.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 19 Sep 2012 20:26

johneeG wrote:
As for Kanchi, its claims and records are bogus.

<snip>

1. The Illustrated Weekly of India, "The Weekly Cover Story" - K. P.
Sunil, September 13, 1987.


2 a. The Truth about the Kumbhakonam Math, - Sri R. Krishnaswamy
Aiyar and Sri K. R. Venkatraman, Sri Ramakrishna Press, Madurai,
1977.

b. Kanchi Kamakoti Math - a Myth - Sri Varanasi Raj Gopal Sarma,
Ganga Tunga Prakashan, Varanasi, 1987.
LC Call No.: BL1243.76.C62 K367 1987



What does all this have to do with this thread? This looks like an Inter-Hindu math disagreement between Brahmins of different maths in their usual cat-fight and that you are one one side. That is your prerogative but I believe you are needlessly taking a dump on this thread. This is like Deobandi saying Barelvi are munafiq.

If you think Sringeri Math is right it is enough for you to say that. No need to post the entire Ramayana and Mahabharata to support your personal opinion.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests