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

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

Postby RajeshA » 22 Oct 2012 14:33

Lalmohan wrote:another thought for you all to chew on

hanuman and the monkey army - if they hopped across the palk straits to lanka - say during a period of low sea levels (during the last ice age), could the distinction between humans and monkeys be a folk memory of the interaction/collaboration between homo sapiens and homo erectus?

Here we can only speculate. This is all speculation territory!

1) Earlier, there were people who used to have an ethnic identity symbolized by say some animal. For example, the Naga people. Were they snake people? I mean did they have any anatomical resemblance or origin with snakes? If that seems hard to believe, then one can also say that the Vanaras were also a tribe, which had a monkey for a symbol. Bali, Sugriva, Hanuman would have belonged to this tribe. The monkey was only the symbol.

2) Even today one has nations with animal symbols, e.g. the bald-headed eagle! Then one had Tamil Tigers! One has various teams in cricket, basketball, ice hockey, baseball who have animals as symbols, and they are called by various names.

Here from the top 30 NBA Power Rankings

Code: Select all

1) Memphis Grizzlies
2) Chicago Bulls
3) Atlanta Hawks
4) Minnesota Timberwolves
5) Toronto Raptors
6) New Orleans Hornets
7) Milwauki Bucks
8) Charlotte Bobcats


In NHL, one also has teams with animal names

Code: Select all

1) Pittsburgh Penguins
2) Phoenix Cayotes
3) Chicago Blackhawks
4) Florida Panthers
5) Anaheim Ducks
6) San Jose Sharks


etc. One gets the point! There is really nothing odd about calling some group of people by some animal designation.

3) It is also possible that in order to underline their affiliation to an ethnic group, people used to dress themselves accordingly, e.g. putting on facial makeup, say like a monkey, or fixing some little rope at the back for tail.

4) Or they could have been a different breed of Hominids.

As of now it is all speculation!

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 22 Oct 2012 14:41

rajesh, ofcourse it is - and frankly the animal totem tribal identity model is far more rational
however, the previous homind species have overlapped with homo-sapiens-sapiens and this period of overlap seems to suggest both conflict and collaboration. if we follow the logic that ancient india stretches back far into the mists of time, then we need to consider this possible overlap

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 22 Oct 2012 18:56

Books for the Library


Image


Publication Date: February 1, 2009
Author: Prof. Upinder Singh (daughter of P.M. Shri Manmohan Singh)
A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century [Google] [Amazon]

Page 64
More recently, hominid fossils have been found in central India. In 1982, Arun Sonakia of the Geological Survey of India made an important discovery near Hathnora village on the northern bank of the Narmada, about 40 km north-east of Hoshanabad. Here, embedded in thick, closely packed sandy, pebbly gravel he found a fossilized fragment of cranium (skull cap) along with some fossils of vertebrates (proboscideans and bovids) and a few late Acheulian tools. The skull fragment seems to have belonged to a woman about 30 years old. Sonakia suggested that she represented an advanced variety of Homo erectus - 'advanced' because of her larger cranial capacity range of 1155 to 1421 cc - and named her Homo erectus narmadensis. However, according to other scholars, the cranium belongs to an early (archaic) variety of Homo sapiens. Its date too is uncertain. One view is that it belongs to the early part of the middle Pleistocene, beginning about 500,000 BP.

Between 1983 and 1992, the Anthropological Survey of India launched an intensive search for human fossils and tools in the central Narmada valley. This led to the discovery of hundreds of paleolithic tools and some animal fossils. In 1997, A.R. Sankhyan announced important discoveries in the same boulder conglomerate deposit in Hathnora where the cranial fragment had been found some years earlier. These included a hominid clavicle (collar bone) along with animal fossils and several late or middle paleolithic tools. Estimated dates of these finds range between 0.5 to 0.2 mya. Sankhyan suggested that the two sets of human fossils found in Hathnora may well belong to the same woman.

In 2001, P. Rajendran, a teacher in the Department of History of Kerala University, found a complete fossilized human baby skull in Odai in the Villupuram district of Tamil Nadu. Rajendran was excavating a trench which had microliths in the upper levels and upper palaeolithic tools at the lower ones. At a depth of 6 m, just under the upper palaeolothic deposit, there was a ferricrete deposit (a mineral conglomerate consisting of sand and gravel, cemented into a hard mass by iron oxide). The skull was found close to this trench, embedded in a similar ferricrete deposit which was later dated 166,000 BP, placing it in the middle or upper Pleistocene.


I can't say whether she favors extending Indian antiquity or whether she is helping rubbish it. I really don't know about her position.

Lalmohan ji,

You are right. There is no need to discount the possibility that the Vanaras were some other hominid species.

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 22 Oct 2012 19:25

ah but think about it... imagine perhaps even as late as 12-15000 years ago, humans and hominids communicated in some way, undertook collaborative projects or allied against common foes... perhaps it was the time just before the retreating ice accelerated the humans into more efficient resource accumulators - and that perhaps finished off the less capable hominids

this tribal memory, told over campfires over generations may have evolved into a great saga that lived on and on

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

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

Postby member_22872 » 22 Oct 2012 19:41

Is it also possible that Ceylon was much closer to Indian main land at one point? if we can figure out when was the last time Ceylon was very close to Indian mainland that one can almost 'hop', perhaps it could give rough probable time line of Ramayana apart from Archeo-astronomy to cross verify?

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 22 Oct 2012 20:04

venug, in terms of being closer - its about changing sea levels exposing land bridges - afaik sri lanka and southern india are on the same tectonic plate jointly heading north to crash into the main asian plate

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

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

Postby peter » 22 Oct 2012 20:18

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Dr Abhyankar in his paper: Agastya a sage and a star has conclusively shown that Agastya (Canopus) became visible in the Vindhya around 4500 BC (Checked it in Stellarium and it jives). This could help date the travel of Agastya to South India and further help in dating the Vedas.

Oh good. Because this could mean that Bharatavarshis were producing Electricity in 4th millennium B.C.

http://cpdarshi.wordpress.com/2012/04/2 ... a-sanhita/
अगस्त्य संहिता में एक सूत्र हैः

संस्थाप्य मृण्मये पात्रे ताम्रपत्रं सुसंस्कृतम्‌।
छादयेच्छिखिग्रीवेन चार्दाभि: काष्ठापांसुभि:॥
दस्तालोष्टो निधात्वय: पारदाच्छादितस्तत:।
संयोगाज्जायते तेजो मित्रावरुणसंज्ञितम्‌॥

अर्थात् एक मिट्टी का बर्तन लें, उसमें अच्छी प्रकार से साफ किया गया ताम्रपत्र और शिखिग्रीवा (मोर के गर्दन जैसा पदार्थ अर्थात् कॉपरसल्फेट) डालें। फिर उस बर्तन को लकड़ी के गीले बुरादे से भर दें। उसके बाद लकड़ी के गीले बुरादे के ऊपर पारा से आच्छादित दस्त लोष्ट (mercury-amalgamated zinc sheet) रखे। इस प्रकार दोनों के संयोग से अर्थात् तारों के द्वारा जोड़ने पर मित्रावरुणशक्ति की उत्पत्ति होगी।
यहाँ पर उल्लेखनीय है कि यह प्रयोग करके भी देखा गया है जिसके परिणामस्वरूप 1.138 वोल्ट तथा 23 mA धारा वाली विद्युत उत्पन्न हुई। स्वदेशी विज्ञान संशोधन संस्था (नागपुर) के द्वारा उसके चौथे वार्षिक सभा में ७ अगस्त, १९९० को इस प्रयोग का प्रदर्शन भी विद्वानों तथा सर्वसाधारण के समक्ष किया गया।
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,
Virendra

What is the date of Agastya Samhita?

Do we have unimpeachable evidence for कॉपरसल्फेट and आच्छादित दस्त लोष्ट (mercury-amalgamated zinc sheet) in other Sanskrit works which agrees with what is mentioned in Samhita?

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

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

Postby peter » 22 Oct 2012 20:22

AntuBarwa wrote:
peter wrote:What is interesting is that Mahabharata mentions the visibility of Canopus (Agastya) in North India.

Where does Mahabharata mention the visibility of Canopus/Agastya? What North Indian location it alludes to? Kurukshetra?

Would appreciate specific Mahabharata text references.

TIA.


Here it is:
तपस्वी तत्र भगवानगस्त्यः प्रत्यदृश्यत। 5-17-2a
सोऽब्रवीदर्च्य देवेन्द्रं दिष्ट्या वै वर्धते भवान् ।। 5-17-2b

Yes the location should be Kurukshetra.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7022
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 22 Oct 2012 20:31

>>"Charobog" means black god. Now "char", "kar" etc seem to be related to Sanskrit "krishna" (black), Kannada too has "kari" meaning black, as Tamil has "karppu". Incidentally the Christian gilr name "kari" may be derived from Gaelic Ciardha (meaning black-haired one)

The word Kara to mean black is used across a range of countries in the area encompassing Turkey, Greece, East Mediterranean, Slavic zone. Most often found in names, like "Karageorghis" (Black George) in Greece for instance, or "Kara Aydin" (in Turkey)... Of course, it is the K in CYMK which will be familiar to Graphic Designers standing for the colour channel representing Cyan, Yellow, Magenta and "Kara" (for black).

Indeed, we have only just begun scratching the surface... only now are we really scratching our own collective heads and saying "wait a minute, WTF"? And when a bunch of Yindoos begin doing that, the world better watch out... The shite is really going to hit the fan in the next decade.

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

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

Postby shiv » 22 Oct 2012 21:03

Lalmohan wrote:venug, in terms of being closer - its about changing sea levels exposing land bridges - afaik sri lanka and southern india are on the same tectonic plate jointly heading north to crash into the main asian plate


Check sea depths between SL and India on Google earth along the path that Rama is supposed to have taken. It's really shallow. A seal level drop of 2 meters and you can practically wade across

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

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

Postby shiv » 22 Oct 2012 21:06

JE Menon wrote:>>"Charobog" means black god. Now "char", "kar" etc seem to be related to Sanskrit "krishna" (black), Kannada too has "kari" meaning black, as Tamil has "karppu". Incidentally the Christian gilr name "kari" may be derived from Gaelic Ciardha (meaning black-haired one)

The word Kara to mean black is used across a range of countries in the area encompassing Turkey, Greece, East Mediterranean, Slavic zone. Most often found in names, like "Karageorghis" (Black George) in Greece for instance, or "Kara Aydin" (in Turkey)... Of course, it is the K in CYMK which will be familiar to Graphic Designers standing for the colour channel representing Cyan, Yellow, Magenta and "Kara" (for black).



Great info. Interesting

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7022
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 22 Oct 2012 21:23

A lot of names in Turkic/Persian areas also have that prefix - Karakul (Black Lake), Kara Kum (Black Desert), Nagorno-Karabakh (or Karabagh - Black Garden - Lalbagh comes to mind? :D) ... and so on. Most interestingly there is a bunch of people called Karakalpaks (Black Hats) in Uzbek - living in the Amu Darya region.

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

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

Postby shiv » 22 Oct 2012 21:42

JE Menon wrote:A lot of names in Turkic/Persian areas also have that prefix - Karakul (Black Lake), Kara Kum (Black Desert), Nagorno-Karabakh (or Karabagh - Black Garden - Lalbagh comes to mind? :D) ... and so on. Most interestingly there is a bunch of people called Karakalpaks (Black Hats) in Uzbek - living in the Amu Darya region.


In fact I recall reading that Karo Kari too is "black man" and "black woman" who needs to be killed (honor killing)

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 22 Oct 2012 22:11

JE Menon wrote:
shiv wrote:Charobog" means black god. Now "char", "kar" etc seem to be related to Sanskrit "krishna" (black), Kannada too has "kari" meaning black, as Tamil has "karppu". Incidentally the Christian gilr name "kari" may be derived from Gaelic Ciardha (meaning black-haired one)


The word Kara to mean black is used across a range of countries in the area encompassing Turkey, Greece, East Mediterranean, Slavic zone. Most often found in names, like "Karageorghis" (Black George) in Greece for instance, or "Kara Aydin" (in Turkey)... Of course, it is the K in CYMK which will be familiar to Graphic Designers standing for the colour channel representing Cyan, Yellow, Magenta and "Kara" (for black).

Karakoram is a Turkic term meaning black gravel.

member_23700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23700 » 22 Oct 2012 22:30

peter wrote:Here it is:
तपस्वी तत्र भगवानगस्त्यः प्रत्यदृश्यत। 5-17-2a
सोऽब्रवीदर्च्य देवेन्द्रं दिष्ट्या वै वर्धते भवान् ।। 5-17-2b

Yes the location should be Kurukshetra.

Peter,

Your reference above has nothing to do with Star Canopus/Agastya.

You may be right about location..since Nahusha is said to be from Pratishthan (Prayag).. so similar lattitude as Kurukshetra. Of course location is only relevant if we are talking of star viewing. In this reference, Shalya is narrating to Yudhishthir, story of the past .. as relevant to condition of Yudhishthir.

Your quoted reference is in the context of Nahusha, son of Aila from Ayu (son of Pururava) dynasty) and thus long time before Mahabharata.

The reference still may be useful in general.. but has no relevance for Mahabharata itself. Many ancient stories are narrated in Mahabharata and this is one of them.

Thanks for trying.

PS: I thought you said 'Star Canopus/Agastya' is mentioned in Mahabharata? If so, where are those references?
Last edited by member_23700 on 22 Oct 2012 23:55, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 22 Oct 2012 23:51

Wild Speculation Cap On

Lalmohan ji,

actually there is another "possibility", and that is that the Vanaras being referred to are either Gigantopithecus or some huminoid descended from it.

The Gigantopithecus were large apes, upto 3 meters high, which may have coexisted with homo erectus in Asia in the Early and Middle Pleistocene.

Here is a comparison of sizes:

Image


A paper:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), USA, Vol. 93, pp. 3016-3020, April 1996

Dated co-occurrence of Homo erectus and Gigantopithecus from Tham Khuyen Cave, Vietnam
Authors: Russell Ciochon*, Vu The Long†, Roy Larick‡, Luis González§, Rainer Grjun¶, John de VosII, Charles Yonge**, Lois Taylor¶, Hiroyuki Yoshida††, and Mark Reagen§

* Departments of Anthropology and Pediatric Dentistry, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242;
§ Department of Geology and Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242;
† Institute of Archaeology, National Center for Social Sciences, Hanoi, Vietnam;
‡ Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003;
¶ Quaternary Dating Research Centre, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia;
†† Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia;
II National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands;
** Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary AB T2N 1N4 Canada


Abstract
Tham Khuyen Cave (Lang Son Province, northern Vietnam) is one of the more significant sites to yield fossil vertebrates in east Asia. During the mid-1960s, excavation in a suite of deposits produced important hominoid dental remains of middle Pleistocene age. We undertake more rigorous analyses of these sediments to understand the fluvial dynamics of Pleistocene cave infilling as they determine how skeletal elements accumulate within Tham Khuyen and other east Asian sites. Uranium / thorium series analysis of speleothems brackets the Pleistocene chronology for breaching, infilling, and exhuming the regional paleokarst. Clast analysis indicates sedimentary constituents, including hominoid teeth and cranial fragments, accumulated from very short distances and under low fluvial energy. Electron spin resonance analysis of vertebrate tooth enamel and sediments shows that the main fossil-bearing suite (S1–S3) was deposited about 475 thousand years ago. Among the hominoid teeth excavated from S1–S3, some represent Homo erectus and Gigantopithecus blacki. Criteria are defined to differentiate these teeth from more numerous Pongo pygmaeus elements. The dated cooccurrence of Homo erectus and Gigantopithecus blacki at Tham Khuyen helps to establish the long co-existence of these two species throughout east Asia during the Early and Middle Pleistocene.

_______

Okay, the above paper tells about a very early date, so we have to watch out for some more recent dates. But one can take something from it and that is that the Gigantopithecus blacki used to co-exist with Homo erectus in Asia.

May be Gigantopithecus blacki survived in various forms, Sasquatch, Yeti, Vanaras, etc. May be the Vanaras were some hybrid form of Homo sapiens and Gigantopithecus blacki, and Cupid had more success than Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov had in 1926, when he tried to make a Human-Chimpanzee hybrid.

Here is a model

Image Image

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

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

Postby peter » 23 Oct 2012 00:06

AntuBarwa wrote:
peter wrote:Here it is:
तपस्वी तत्र भगवानगस्त्यः प्रत्यदृश्यत। 5-17-2a
सोऽब्रवीदर्च्य देवेन्द्रं दिष्ट्या वै वर्धते भवान् ।। 5-17-2b

Yes the location should be Kurukshetra.

Peter,

Your reference above has nothing to do with Star Canopus/Agastya.

You may be right about location..since Nahusha is said to be from Pratishthan (Prayag).. so similar lattitude as Kurukshetra. Of course location is only relevant if we are talking of star viewing. In this reference, Shalya is narrating to Yudhishthir, story of the past .. as relevant to condition of Yudhishthir.

Your quoted reference is in the context of Nahusha, son of Aila from Ayu (son of Pururava) dynasty) and thus long time before Mahabharata.

The reference still may be useful in general.. but has no relevance for Mahabharata itself. Many ancient stories are narrated in Mahabharata and this is one of them.

Thanks for trying.

PS: I thought you said 'Star Canopus/Agastya' is mentioned in Mahabharata? If so, where are those references?

This is about Agastya and no one else. Have you thought about translating the word प्रत्यदृश्यत? What do you think it means? Why would the author of MBh use this word?

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

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

Postby peter » 23 Oct 2012 01:18

Arjun wrote:[..]

I posted a picture of Vedic rishis and their creation of Mandalas as claimed by Talageri. Did you see that? Are you convinced that Talageri is right? If so please do tell us why. And why do you have to compare him with Witzel? Can't we discuss him standalone?

Your question requires time to be devoted to it - maybe over the weekend, but no promises.

It absolutely has to be compared to Witzel. Witzel also came up with a chronological listing of Mandalas. Are you saying that you agree with the Witzel chronology, but not with Talageri? Do let me know.


Where does the forum stand on Talageri? Are people still convinced that he has a water tight case?

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 23 Oct 2012 07:07

peter wrote:Where does the forum stand on Talageri? Are people still convinced that he has a water tight case?


peter ji,

please refine your question further. Please specify the issues to which your question pertains, something like, "Where does the forum stand on Talageri with respect to issue xyz", "water tight case with respect to issue xyz". Only then can one know what you mean.

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

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

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2012 10:58

peter wrote:Where does the forum stand on Talageri? Are people still convinced that he has a water tight case?

This forum consists of hundreds of individuals and no single person can speak for the entire forum.

On forum like this the easiest tactic for a troll to upset your viewpoint would be to simply say "I think Talageri has a watertight case" and then simply refuse to argue with you. That would throw any attempt at consensus for a six. You could spend weeks and weeks and thousands of post arguing but you would only get accused of cluttering this thread as you have been accused before.

Please start a separate thread with a poll in the GDF and see where forum members stand on the issue and please, pretty please do not continue this here. This is a request. If you do not do that I will start the thread myself and direct everyone there.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7115
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 23 Oct 2012 11:55

shiv wrote:Check sea depths between SL and India on Google earth along the path that Rama is supposed to have taken. It's really shallow. A seal level drop of 2 meters and you can practically wade across


Lalmohan, venug, shivji., a simpler theory - pumice stone.

1. Pumice stone does float on water., in fact there is an entire island the size of israel floating in pacific now!
http://www.livescience.com/22268-huge-pumice-island-floats-in-pacific.html

2. India itself had huge volcanic activity and Andaman islands are currently on volcanic hotbeds. What does it mean - pumice is not hard to find in southern India. It could even wash up on the beaches of southern India from the currents.

3. Ramayana attests that the vanara sena put the name "rama" on the stone and it floated and they could build a bridge. To think it reverse, it would have been a quality control measure by the chiefs of the vanaras to ensure that the "monkeys" do not dump the wrong stone in the pathway. Attesting the stone with the name ensures that the stone is sorted out easily from other stones.

4. And Rama Setu from Dhanuskodi to Mannar is a land connection visible from space clearly.
Image

And another aerial image - far more beautiful :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Adams_Bridge_aerial.jpg

So what will it take for a determined army to dump some stones bound with vines and plugged with trees as boundry to build a bridge to Sri Lanka? In fact it is mentioned in Mughal chronicals that the bridge was in use in 15th century as "foot traffic".

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

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

Postby peter » 23 Oct 2012 12:21

RajeshA wrote:
peter wrote:Where does the forum stand on Talageri? Are people still convinced that he has a water tight case?


peter ji,

please refine your question further. Please specify the issues to which your question pertains, something like, "Where does the forum stand on Talageri with respect to issue xyz", "water tight case with respect to issue xyz". Only then can one know what you mean.

I think you missed the point which is easy to do in 170+ pages. Arjun was commenting on the picture I had created of Rg Vedic Rishis especially Angiras's family. It is here: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1349718#p1349718

The idea was to debate the central thesis of Talageri's book that relationships amongst the rishis children can somehow be used to order the mandalas of Rg Veda.

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

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

Postby peter » 23 Oct 2012 12:24

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:Where does the forum stand on Talageri? Are people still convinced that he has a water tight case?

This forum consists of hundreds of individuals and no single person can speak for the entire forum.

On forum like this the easiest tactic for a troll to upset your viewpoint would be to simply say "I think Talageri has a watertight case" and then simply refuse to argue with you. That would throw any attempt at consensus for a six. You could spend weeks and weeks and thousands of post arguing but you would only get accused of cluttering this thread as you have been accused before.

Please start a separate thread with a poll in the GDF and see where forum members stand on the issue and please, pretty please do not continue this here. This is a request. If you do not do that I will start the thread myself and direct everyone there.
Poll is not the issue. I am trying to figure out how Talageri is right. In earlier pages of this thread people have asked specifically about holes in Talageri's analysis and I feel I pointed one. I was just poking Arjun to come back to the debate. And I don't think he is a troll.

Have you looked at Talageri's argument? Are you convinced it is correct?

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 23 Oct 2012 12:26

rajesh - spot on; it is likely that tales of the yeti come from exactly that route

disha - its a long distance and will take a lot of stones - UNLESS it was shallow waters with land being exposed by the tides (e.g. haji ali in mumbai). so some combat engineering to make a series of bridges across a range of islands and an underwater ridgeline does make sense

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7115
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 23 Oct 2012 12:29

Lalmohan wrote:rajesh - spot on; it is likely that tales of the yeti come from exactly that route

disha - its a long distance and will take a lot of stones - UNLESS it was shallow waters with land being exposed by the tides (e.g. haji ali in mumbai). so some combat engineering to make a series of bridges across a range of islands and an underwater ridgeline does make sense


Lalmohan, check out Florida Keys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Keys. Modern engineering has made them permanently connected. Even if they were not, one would walk all the way to Cuba from key west. Yes, just walk across wading in water!

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 23 Oct 2012 12:31

disha - been there, done that :)

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7115
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 23 Oct 2012 12:41

RajeshA wrote:Here is a model

Image Image


Rajeshji, how come G. Blacki is assumed to have hair? If the theory is that G. Blacki is upright like h. erectus or h. sapien, can it not be less hairy as well? At least 2.5M year ago humans lost most of the body hair., would not a similar process worked for G. Blacki - earlier?

Anyway, vanara need not be G. Blacki., but G. Blacki and other G. species co-existing with homo sapiens would have left an imprint (the yeti story) and also intermixed with the tribal affiliations for their respective animal mascots. The need for animal mascots itself lends credibly to vanaras.

(edited to correct the dating)

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 23 Oct 2012 12:48

peter ji,

relevant to this thread, Shrikant Talageri provides arguments within the same framework of thinking about the Rigveda (historical, geographical) as many AIT-Nazis, but in fact proves the AIT-Nazis wrong.

As you may have noted from earlier discussions in this thread, there are different opinions on the nature of Rigveda, so it becomes important to define in which framework one is making a certain argument.

Within the AIT-Nazi framework of assumptions about the nature of Rigveda, Talageri comes out tops. If you think, that that is not the case, then one would have to give counter-arguments while staying in that framework.

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 23 Oct 2012 13:59

disha wrote:Rajeshji, how come G. Blacki is assumed to have hair? If the theory is that G. Blacki is upright like h. erectus or h. sapien, can it not be less hairy as well? At least 2.5M year ago humans lost most of the body hair., would not a similar process worked for G. Blacki - earlier?

Gigantopithecus blacki belongs to family Hominidae but sub-family Ponginae. Humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc. also belong to family Hominidae, but sub-family Homininae. The only extant species of the sub-family Ponginae are the Orangutans, and since Gigantopithecus blacki and Orangutans share a single sub-family, the Gigantopithecus have been modeled on Orangutans.

disha wrote:Anyway, vanara need not be G. Blacki., but G. Blacki and other G. species co-existing with homo sapiens would have left an imprint (the yeti story) and also intermixed with the tribal affiliations for their respective animal mascots. The need for animal mascots itself lends credibly to vanaras.

Gigantopithecus blacki is supposed to have existed till 100,000 years ago, but who can really tell when they went extinct.

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

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

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2012 14:06

peter wrote:Have you looked at Talageri's argument? Are you convinced it is correct?

Which specific argument are you asking about? His book is full of arguments that disprove Witzel's arguments. I am convinced 100% about every argument in which Talageri has refuted Witzel.

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 23 Oct 2012 16:52

Indian history is quite a labyrinth! There are 3 Asokas

a) Ashoka Maurya (1472-1436 BCE) [Maurya Dynasty of Magadh, turned Buddhist]....... Known from Buddhist inscriptions
b) Dharma-Asoka (1448-1400 BCE) [Gonanda Dynasty of Kashmir, Jain]........Built Srinagar
c) Samudragupta aka Asoka Priyadarshi (320-269 BCE) [Gupta Dynasty of Magadh, turned Buddhist]......Known from the Edicts on Pillars of Asoka, Made War with Kalinga

Now I read there were also 2 Buddhas. Now some may have known this earlier, but I have been ignorant. I produce the paper below:

By Stephen Knapp
Were There Two Buddhas?

In the following material, we will look at the evidence that seems to indicate that there was first the Avatara Buddha, the incarnation of Lord Vishnu who appeared near 1800 BCE, and then there was another person who became known as Gautama called Buddha, born around 560 BCE.

1. The first Avatara Buddha established the philosophy of Ahimsa, nonviolence, and convinced those followers of Vedic customs who had become bent toward animal sacrifice to give up such rituals and simply follow him, and become kind to animals. Being an avatara of Vishnu, He did not establish any godless or monist philosophy.

2. The Avatara Buddha was also born of his mother Anjana in what became known as Bodhgaya.

3. The second Buddha known as Gautama, Siddhartha, or Shakyamuni – sage of the Shakyas – was born in Lumbini, now in Nepal, with Mayadevi as his mother. He is the one we often hear about, the prince who left home to do austerities to find enlightenment. He went to Bodhgaya to meditate because of its spiritual potency as the birthplace of the avatara Buddha. Then he became enlightened to the reasons for suffering in this world, and developed a godless way of becoming free from suffering. From that point he established the monist and godless philosophy of Buddhism, which became named after him.

Of course, the Theravadin texts refer to six preceding Buddhas (those who have awakened) as Vipasyin, Sikin, Krakuccanda, Konagamara, and Kashyapa, and Maitreya as the Buddha of the future. But we are not talking of any of these.

4. The reason why these two Buddhas became merged into one identity was partly because Adi Sankaracharya, in discussions with others, related them as one person and did not discriminate between the purpose of one or the other. Sankaracharya developed his own sunya philosophy, which was very much like the Buddhist philosophy, replacing the Buddhist nirvana with his Vedic Brahman, to defeat Buddhism and drive it out of India. He succeeded most effectively. At that time many were leaving Vedic culture altogether and converting to Buddhism. But with this new Mayavadha philosophy from Sankaracharya, Buddhism bowed and the conversions stopped, and Buddhism itself started to decline.
However, those important acharyas who followed Sankaracharya defeated his monist or impersonalist Mayavada philosophy and more clearly defined the Vedic view, such as:
Sri Vishnuswami with his Suddha-advaita-vada,
Ramanujacharya with his Vasistadvaita-vada,
Nimbarkacharya with his Dvaita-advaita-vada,
Madhvacharya with the Dvaita-vada,
Sri Chaitanya with his Acintaya-bheda-bheda-vada,
with further commentary and arguments against Sankaracharya’s impersonalist philosophy by Srila Baladevavidyabhushana and others.

Therefore, no matter how much some schools of thought have clung to the Mayavada philosophy of Sankaracharya, it has been defeated and dismissed many times over. Yet, Sankaracharaya played an important part in paving the way for protecting the Vedic culture by using his own imagined philosophy, based on his own interpretation of some of the Vedic stanzas, to defeat Buddhism at the time.

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

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

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

Reestablishing the Date of Lord Buddha
(Excerpt from Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence)

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 been born much earlier.

For example, in Some Blunders of Indian Historical Research (p. 189), P. N. Oak explains that the Puranas provide a chronology of the Magadha rulers. During 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 360 years 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 Shishunag 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 Bhagavata 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 (Part Four, Chapter Two), 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. Furthermore, astronomical calculations by astronomer Swami Sakhyananda indicates that the time of the Buddha was in the Kruttika period, between 2621-1661 B.C.

Therefore, the fact that Buddha lived much earlier than what modern history teaches us has a number of ramifications. First, the time of the Buddha’s existence is underestimated by about 1300 years. Secondly, this means that Buddhism was in existence in the second millennium B.C. Thirdly, we also know Buddha preached against the misused Vedic rituals of animal sacrifice. Such misuse or misinterpretation of something in a culture generally only happens after a long period of prominence. So the purer aspect of Vedic culture must have been around for many hundreds if not thousands of years before its tradition began to be misused. Therefore, this pushes the Vedic period to a much earlier time from that of Buddha than originally figured, and much earlier than many people have calculated. And lastly, everything else we have figured according to the time frame of the appearance of Buddha now has to be re-calculated. Again we find that history has to be adjusted away from the speculations of modern researchers, and that many of the advancements in society and philosophy, as outlined in the Vedic texts, had taken place much earlier than many people want to admit.

* * *

However, now with new evidence, we can begin to see that the above information may be quite right for the timing of the Buddha Avatara, but the later birth figure of 560 BCE may also be correct for the second Buddha. The first Buddha avatara established a form of Buddhism by revolting against those rituals that accepted animal sacrifice and emphasized the godly principles of ahimsa, nonviolence based on recognizing the Divine in all beings, and divinity of all souls, arousing compassion for all. The second Buddha styled what became Buddhism that was known for its monist or impersonalistic philosophy (that God, the Absoute Truth, is inert, nonactive, and without any characteristics) and that reaching the same inert and non-active state of nirvana is the goal for attaining freedom from all suffering.

To give further information in this regard, I will now simply include the second chapter of Beyond Nirvana: The Philosophy of Mayavadism: A Life History, as follows, with my own few comments in brackets:

Two Buddhas
Shakya Simha Puddha and the Vishnu Avatara Buddha

It may be observed in different places in the Puranas that Mayavadism had been referred to as Buddhism [or "covered Buddhism". It is this "covered Buddhism" that is described in the Puranas as being the major religion after 10,000 years of Kali-yuga have passed, and when the world will have forgotten all information about the personal form of God.]. It is therefore necessary in this context to briefly discuss Buddhism. Sri Buddha’s philosophy or views is Buddhism. Hence, it is imperative that readers become acquainted with scriptural facts about Lord Buddha, who is declared by scripture to be one of the ten incarnations (avataras) of the Supreme Lord, Sri Vishnu. This is described in Srila Jayadeva Gosvami’s composition "Gita Govinda": {Sarga 1, Verse 5}

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

The Amarakosha Speaks of Two Buddhas

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Other Buddhist Literatures Recording Two Buddhas

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

namo buddhaya shuddhaya daitya-danava-mohine

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

kalau prapte yatha buddho bhavannarayana – prabhuh

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

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

jyaishtha shuka dvitiyayam buddha-janma bhavisyati

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

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

pausha shuklasya saptamyam kuryat buddhasya pujaanam

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

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

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

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

We can therefore now observe that the famous personality generally referred to as Buddha is not the Vishnu incarnation, the original Lord Buddha and, hence, Sankaracharya’s views on this are completely unacceptable. It is not uncommon to find disagreements in matters of tradition and history, but in regards to important and significant issues an unbiased and objective discussion is imperative. Attracted by Buddha’s personality and fame, it is one thing to honor and respect him, but being impressed by his philosophy and teachings and reverentially surrendering to him is wholly another matter. Whatever the case may be, I am sure that the respected readers have grasped the crucial point that Buddha is not a single person, but at least two separate identities – Shakya Simha is not the same as Lord Buddha, Vishnu’s ninth incarnation. It is certainly undeniable that there are some similarities between these two Buddhas, yet it is incontestable that they are two different persons [with two different purposes].
Footnotes
  1. Mleccha – derived from the Sanskrit root mlech meaning to utter indistinctly (Sanskrit) – a foreigner; non-Aryan; a man of an outcaste race; any non-Sanskrit speaking person who does not conform to the Vedic social and religious customs.
  2. This book was published under the auspices of the Asiatic Society and can be referenced at it library. See http://www.indev.nic.in/asiatic/

_____________________________________________________________________________

Frankly speaking, I don't know how it affects the dating. Somehow this looks like something that comes out of a compromise. I take my Buddha, you take yours. I have my date, you can keep yours.

I would think, that with this "compromise", Indians could reinstate our line of kings as per tradition.

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

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

Postby peter » 23 Oct 2012 18:13

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:Have you looked at Talageri's argument? Are you convinced it is correct?

Which specific argument are you asking about? His book is full of arguments that disprove Witzel's arguments. I am convinced 100% about every argument in which Talageri has refuted Witzel.


RajeshA wrote:Within the AIT-Nazi framework of assumptions about the nature of Rigveda, Talageri comes out tops. If you think, that that is not the case, then one would have to give counter-arguments while staying in that framework.


Talageri builds his entire argument on the ordering of Mandalas. He orders the Mandalas based on the family of Angiras. I quote (From: http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch3.htm):
2. MaNDala VI is the oldest of the Early Family MaNDalas, since descendants of its RSis are composers in two of the Later Family MaNDalas: IV and II.


With the picture linked above which contains Angiras' family do you both agree that Talageri's argument about Mandala 6 being the oldest is kosher?

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

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

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2012 18:39

peter wrote:With the picture linked above which contains Angiras' family do you both agree that Talageri's argument about Mandala 6 being the oldest is kosher?


I agree with Talageri without even looking at the picture. I have made a deliberate decision to say that Talageri is right and will not debate it further. I currently have no interest in debating it further either on this thread or any other thread.

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

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

Postby peter » 23 Oct 2012 19:15

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:With the picture linked above which contains Angiras' family do you both agree that Talageri's argument about Mandala 6 being the oldest is kosher?


I agree with Talageri without even looking at the picture. I have made a deliberate decision to say that Talageri is right and will not debate it further. I currently have no interest in debating it further either on this thread or any other thread.

Well I see no chance for OIT ever getting on a firm footing if the work of OIT scholars is not open to critical questioning.

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 23 Oct 2012 19:51

peter wrote:Talageri builds his entire argument on the ordering of Mandalas. He orders the Mandalas based on the family of Angiras. I quote (From: http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch3.htm):
2. MaNDala VI is the oldest of the Early Family MaNDalas, since descendants of its RSis are composers in two of the Later Family MaNDalas: IV and II.


With the picture linked above which contains Angiras' family do you both agree that Talageri's argument about Mandala 6 being the oldest is kosher?


Talageri also writes in chapter 3:
Talageri wrote:DivodAsa is referred to as a contemporary only in MaNDala VI (VI.16.5; 31.4; 47.22, 23). In all other references to him, he is a figure from the past.


This also pushes Mandala VI to an earlier time.

In addition Talageri says:
Talageri wrote:1. The two oldest MaNDalas VI and III do not refer to a single composer from any other MaNDala.


As for GRtsamadas, in chapter 3 Talageri says
Talageri wrote:2. MaNDala II does not refer to any composer from any other MaNDala, earlier or later. And, for that matter, no other composer from any other MaNDala refers to the GRtsamadas of MaNDala II.

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

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

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2012 22:12

peter wrote:Well I see no chance for OIT ever getting on a firm footing if the work of OIT scholars is not open to critical questioning.

Everyone is entitled to his viewpoint.

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

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

Postby Virendra » 23 Oct 2012 22:29

Apologies for ramming in my naive question here. I had no where else to go.
So I was looking for Vedic recitations and texts recently.
First, there are chanting mp3 available on net but the audio quality (clarity) was not the best for a first timers needs.
Second, is there a way to read/download the original text (of RV specially). Meaning, not the ones done by Griffith or Muller. Authentic text with translation, so I could relate to what is being chanted?
Can someone please help me with these?

Regards,
Virendra

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

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

Postby member_22872 » 23 Oct 2012 22:39

Rajesh ji, thanks for the article on the two Buddhas, I came to know about the existence through one of the mimamsakas. He used to argue that there is no way Buddha venerated by Hindus is sakya muni. For Thatagata was a nastika and Vedics would not take him to be an incarnation of MahaVishnu. But since they consider Buddha to be mahaVishnu incarnation, then it could only mean that there should be another Buddha who got eclipsed by Thatagata.
Last edited by member_22872 on 23 Oct 2012 22:43, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby member_22872 » 23 Oct 2012 22:42

Virendra ji, please try this:
http://vedamu.org/Veda.aspx

I don't see accents marks though. But still is readable but sorry it is not translated, I didn't see that.

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

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

Postby peter » 24 Oct 2012 00:59

peter wrote:Talageri builds his entire argument on the ordering of Mandalas. He orders the Mandalas based on the family of Angiras. I quote (From: http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch3.htm):
2. MaNDala VI is the oldest of the Early Family MaNDalas, since descendants of its RSis are composers in two of the Later Family MaNDalas: IV and II.


With the picture linked above which contains Angiras' family do you both agree that Talageri's argument about Mandala 6 being the oldest is kosher?

RajeshA wrote:[..]

In addition Talageri says:
Talageri wrote:1. The two oldest MaNDalas VI and III do not refer to a single composer from any other MaNDala.

But what about the composer of M3_62 who might be a Bhrigu? Bhrigu Rishis descendants also helped develop Mandal 2

RajeshA wrote:As for GRtsamadas, in chapter 3 Talageri says
Talageri wrote:2. MaNDala II does not refer to any composer from any other MaNDala, earlier or later. And, for that matter, no other composer from any other MaNDala refers to the GRtsamadas of MaNDala II.

What is the implication of this? Sorry I did not follow.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests