Quote:In his [Adi Shankara's] BrahmasUtra BhAShya, after giving the position of the four systems of Buddhist philosophy, inculcating realism, idealism, and nihilism, and after refuting them, he concludes that the TathAgata [Buddha] who indulged in such mutually contradictory teachings must have been either a fool or a knave -- a fool in case he unknowingly preached contradictions or a knave if he preached these purposely to confuse people and send them to their doom.

Quote:The VedAnta SUtras themselves mention three traditions of VedAnta -- those of Audalomi, Ashmaratya and KAshakR^itsna. ...



Even according to Vedic savants, the Veda can be interpreted from three standpoints -- the Adhibautika, Adhidaivika, and AdhyAtma. Regarding VedAntic traditions also, mention is made of three teachers whose theories of relation between Brahman and JIva are very much like those of the three great AchAryas. Audalomi holds that the soul is different from Brahman in the state of bondage, but becomes one with Him [Brahman] in liberation as the water of a river becomes one with the ocean when it flows into the sea. According to Ashmaratya even in bondage the soul is different and non-different from Brahman, as a ray of light is in relation to the sun. KAshakR^itsna is of the view that Brahman residing in the heart is the controller and the soul is the controlled.

[color="#800080"](Related to stuff in post 162[/color])

Quote:Brahmā (Buddhism)



Brahmā in Buddhism is the name for a type of exalted passionless deity (deva), of which there are several in Buddhist cosmology.





Origins

The name Brahmā originates in Vedic tradition, in which Brahmā appears as the creator of the universe. By contrast, early Buddhist texts describe several different Brahmās coexisting in the same universe; some of them think they are "all powerful" creators of the world, but they are corrected by the Buddha. The myths, characters, and functions of these Brahmās are distinct from those of the Vedic Brahmā.[1] However, at least one of the Buddhist Brahmās is identified as being the object of worship of pre-Buddhist brahmins. The Buddha described the Vedic Brahmā as a misunderstanding, or mistaken remembrance, of one or more of the Buddhist Brahmās, as explained in the Brahmajāla-sutta (Digha Nikaya 1).



There is no identity between the Buddhist Brahmās and the Hindu conception of brahman as an all-encompassing divine force.



[...]



Non-Buddhist views refuted in early texts

The old Upanishads largely consider Brahman in the masculine gender (Brahmā in the nominative case, henceforth "Brahmā") to be a personal god, and Brahman in the neuter gender (Brahma in the nominative case, henceforth "Brahman") to be the impersonal world principle.[3] They do not strictly distinguish between the two, however.[4] The old Upanishads ascribe these characteristics to Brahmā: first, he has light and luster as his marks; second, he is invisible; third, he is unknowable, and it is impossible to know his nature; fourth, he is omniscient. The old Upanishads ascribe these characteristics to Brahman as well.[3] In the Buddhist texts, there are many Brahmās. There they form a class of superhuman beings, and rebirth into the realm of Brahmās is possible by pursuing Buddhist practices.[5] In the early texts, the Buddha gives arguments to refute the existence of a creator.[6]



In the Pāli scriptures, [color="#800080"]<... snipped further such Buddhist notions.>[/color]

Quote:Åšakra (Buddhism)



Jump to: navigation, search For other uses, see Sakka.

For the Vedic god, see Indra.

Śakra (Sanskrit: शक्र) or Sakka (Pāli) is the ruler of the Trāyastrimśa Heaven according to Buddhist cosmology. His full title is Śakro devānām indraH (शक्रो देवानं इन्द्रः; Pāli: Sakko devānaH indo "Śakra, lord of the devas".[1] In Buddhist texts, Śakra is the proper name and not an epithet of this deity; conversely, Indra in Sanskrit and Inda in Pali are sometimes used as an epithet for Śakra as "lord".





Indra (alias Sakra) and Shachi Riding the Divine Elephant AiravataIn East Asian traditions, Śakra is known as Dìshìtiān (帝釋天) or Shìtí Huányīn (釋提桓因) in Chinese, and also as Taishakuten (帝釈天) in Japan. In China, Śakra is sometimes compared to the Taoist Jade Emperor (Yùhuáng dàdì 玉皇大帝 often simplified in Yùhuáng 玉皇); both share a birthday on the ninth day of the first lunar month of the Chinese calendar (usually in February).

(True that this was yet another occasion when Buddhism tried to misuse *Hindu* religion to encroach on Daoism and subvert it. But Buddhism never succeeded in this particular instance: the Jade Emperor is one of the Daoists Gods that Buddhism burnt its hands on when Buddhism tried to subjugate him to their religion, in order to subjugate I mean convert Daoists to their religion.

In any case, as Daoists continue to point out, Buddhism does not have and never had the Jade Emperor, and therefore Buddhists do not worship him. A further comment after this wacky excerpt.)



The name Åšakra "powerful" as an epithet of Indra is found in several verses of the Rigveda. In Buddhist texts, Åšakra's myth and character are very different from those of the Vedic Indra. According to G.P. Malalasekara, "Sakka and Indra are independent conceptions. None of the personal characteristics of Sakka resemble those of Indra. Some epithets are identical but are evidently borrowed, though they are differently explained."[1]

(:handig: Hindus may -should- hold Buddhism to it.

Note that the Buddhist "borrowing" of personal names and epithets of Hindu Gods as well as of matching surface but *defining* descriptions, followed by Buddhist reinventions of their characters admits to Buddhist *fictions* based on real Hindu originals.

But that's not all that Buddhism sto... I mean "borrowed" from Hindu's religion and then utterly reinvented for Buddhism: mark how the following para mentions not just the area of Vasava's rule and of Sumeru/Meru - cloned again for Buddhism - but that Buddhism even encroached on all of the Vedic tridasha: again, cloning them for Buddhism - aka obvious fictions created by Buddhism - all while Buddhism hypocritically hissed at the pre-Buddhist Hindu=Vedic religion. In other words, when Daoist and Hindu Gods can be undermined to Buddhism - by being placed in Buddhist cosmology/theology - they become acceptable to Buddhism. But as long as these same Gods are viewed from the original [i.e. traditional] Daoist, Shinto and Hindu perceptions respectively, the Gods are deemed unacceptable to Buddhism. This is *why* Buddhism encroaches on and subverts others' Gods. As also observed by non-Hindu heathens.)



The Trāyastriṃśa heaven that Śakra rules is located on the top of Mount Sumeru (cf. Meru), imagined to be the polar center of the physical world, around which the Sun and Moon revolve. Trāyastriṃśa is the highest of the heavens in direct contact with Earth. Like the other deities of this heaven, Śakra is long-lived but mortal. When one Śakra dies, his place is taken by another deity who becomes the new Śakra. Buddhist stories about Śakra (past or present) are found in the Jātaka stories and in several suttas, particularly in the Saṃyutta Nikāya.



Śakra is married to Sujā,[2] daughter of the chief of the Asuras, Vemacitrin (Pāli Vepacitti). Despite this relationship, a state of war generally exists between the thirty-three gods and the Asuras, which Śakra manages to resolve with minimal violence and no loss of life.



Śakra is mentioned in many Buddhist sūtras, and is often shown consulting the Buddha on questions of morality. Together with Brahmā, he is considered a protector of the Buddhist religion.

Quote:There is evidence of sects devoted to Brahma in the 4th century BC.

Quote:[The Satapatha Upanishad] says that Brahma is Swayambhu or self-existent: he had no beginning and no end. Brahma and the gods rose out of the waters before the creation of the world as it is now. From him descended all the rishis (sages).

[...]

The older part of the Mahabharata describes him [BrahmA] as the original deity from whom all the world is born. He is the all-inclusive Being ' the Source of the Universe, presiding over all Creation, preserving like Visnu, destroying like Shiva' (Markandeya Purana).

Quote:A Rejoinder to Hoole: Tamil Hinduism and Arumuka Navalar

01/05/2013 00:05:59





Romesh Jayaratnam

Kandy





I respond to the three opinion pieces of Samuel Ratnajeevan Herbert Hoole namely



(i) "Arumuka Navalar: Fake Images and Histories" published in the Colombo Telegraph on March 30, 2013 and in the Sunday Leader and Sri Lanka Guardian;

(ii) "The Jaffna Version of the Tamil Bible: By Peter Percival or Arumuka Navalar" published in the Colombo Telegraph on April 5, 2013 and in the Sunday Leader and Sri Lanka Guardian; and

(iii) "Heritage Histories: What They Are and How They Operate Through Jaffna" published in the Colombo Telegraph on April 6, 2013 and in the Sunday Leader and Sri Lanka Guardian.



Mr. Hoole asserts that Arumuka Navalar was built up by "ill-educated" "Tamil Saivite extremists" and that everything about Navalar was "fake" be it "his portrait, caste and name, and perhaps religion..". He alleges that Navalar, a "high school dropout", had 'tiny ears and a big forehead on a huge head, thin hands and legs, strong facial hair, and huge body without any strength". Hoole explains that Navalar was unable 'to complete high school after 6 years in Tamil school and 13 years under Percival". He adds that Navalar had a multitude of names each spelt differently and that he was but an "unpaid" "menial assistant" to the missionary Percival!



Hoole similarly claims that the Tamils "were Buddhist and Jain before Saivism took root after the seventh century AD". He adds that 8,000 Jains who refused to convert to Saivite Hinduism were impaled in the 7th century. He asserts "that many Hindu temples today were once Buddhist and Jain", agreeing with a Sinhala Buddhist nationalism that is eager to plant Buddha statues in places of old Hindu worship in Sri Lanka.[color="#800080"](*)[/color] He ends by asserting that "Christians live in fear - living oppressed and as the the oppressed'.

(* Such SL Buddhists didn't restrict themselves to rewriting the history of SL Hindus: some SL Buddhist monks have since at least the 70s been actively peddling deliberate lies about TN's Hindu religion and history, and even that of the rest of India. All for the purpose of missionising on the population their religion was never able to conquer.)



I will be brief as I respond. In the interests of brevity, I will focus on just two subjects i.e. (i) the roots of Tamil Hindu tradition prior to the period of Jain and Buddhist literary influence; and (ii) Arumuka Navalar. Hoole needs to verify his information. His is a highly selective and wishful narrative with numerous errors. Little of what Hoole says is credible. Its time to set the record straight in the interests of a more nuanced interpretation.





Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism in early Tamil history



If one were to appraise the religious character of early Tamil society, one will need to refer to the earliest specimens of Tamil literature that exist today i.e. the Sangam-era work. The Sangam works consist of two literary compendia namely the Ettutogai or Eight Anthologies and the Pattu Paatu or 10 songs. Both are dated to between the 1st and 3rd centuries of the Common Era (CE). It is also important to cite the earliest Tamil grammar in existence today i.e the Tol-kaapiyam. The latter text is usually dated to the early centuries CE. There is an academic debate on the internal consistency and date of the Tol-kaapiyam.



The Sangam compendia I refer to excludes the 18 later works or the Pathinen-keezh-kannaku nool which subsumes the Silapadikaram, the Manimekalai, the Tirukural and other later texts. Those are post-Sangam works.



If one were to explore the Sangam-era, one finds a bardic tradition interspersed with references to the veneration of the Hindu gods Seyon or Murukan, Maayon or Vishnu, Venthan or Indra, Korravai or Durga and Varuna. These were the patron deities of the Tamil land. Seyon or Murukan was the benefactor of the hill tribes while Venthan or Indra was the God of Rain and the protector of the fertile agricultural tracts. Varuna, the God of the Sea, was the guardian of the maritime tracts and all those whose livelihood depended on the sea. Korravai or Durga was the patron of the fierce tribes of the arid tracts. Maayon or Vishnu, also known as the lotus-eyed or Taamarai Kannanaar, protected the herdsmen. The Sangam literature refers to the mighty womb of Korravai that gave birth to Seyyon. There are allusions to the three-eyed God, Siva.



(1. About that last line: they're not allusions, they're direct references to Shiva. These references in Tamizh tend often to have one-to-one correspondences to his many descriptive Vedic names [true for many a Hindoo God, not just Shiva], and are hence actually his Tamizh names. Can see descriptives being personal names in other heathenisms also, including in their sacred and epic texts.

2. The above just underscores that, as far back as you look, Tamizh Hindus' Murugan was always the same as the one known throughout the subcontinent by his other names like Kartikeya. But countless Tamizh Hindus already know this identity-relationship from their own first-hand knowledge. Every Hindu God has Tamizh names also, after all. (Actually, every Hindu God manifest in every Tamizh Hindu Kovil has both Skt and Tzh names. Sometimes these are translations of each other, where they're not, they are descriptives of different parts of the activities of those Gods at the Kovil/kShetra - i.e. descriptives from the same Sthala Puranam. Or otherwise, they're just famous descriptives of the Gods' appearance/identifying features.)

3. Who's betting the peddlers of the ur-Shramanism fiction and the Shramanic missionaries - neo-Budddists, other assorted Buddhists and Jain Minority Forum types - will next start writing propaganda about how the Vedic Gods were "originally Shramanic" too? How else can they otherwise still pretend, as they do at present, that the ancient Tamizhs - who worshipped the Vedic Gods - and even the ancient inhabitants of all of India, were [to have been] Buddhist/Jain "originally"?)



There are references to the Brahmins who tended the sacred fire and studied the four Vedas or Naan Marai. Several Brahmins contributed to the corpus of early Sangam literature. This included Kapilar, Uruttira-kannanaar, Nakeerar, Paalai Kauthamanaar and Perum Kausikanaar to mention just a few. There were several others. Several of the Chera, Chola and Pandya monarchs performed the Vedic sacrifice as documented in the Sangam corpus. The practice of suttee existed. This inheritance is what we today call Tamil Hinduism. The literary allusions to the Jains and Buddhists were far fewer in the Sangam-era.[/color]



(Again, no surprises there. As was common knowledge until the recent history rewriting/falsification started:

- Buddhism and Jainism arrived in the south quite late. Not to mention they never had much success - contrary to modern theorising - even when they exerted themselves. It remained predominantly the settlers who were of those religions; and the few converts they did manage to make they [deliberately made] among the ex-kShatriyas and ex-brAhmaNas among the region's native Hindus. The new religions fortunately didn't bother about the laity - who were not interested - right until the new religions obtained political power and tried to press their interests on all.

- In contrast, go back as far in the historical record as you will, and you find an intrinsicly Hindu character to the south, one that is inseparable from the region's native Hindus. Also seen in the very pantheon of - the very noticeably Vedic - Gods that the ancient Tamizh Hindus interacted with and hence worshipped, not just the ones listed above (the famous example again: during the sacred southern Hindu religious festival called Pongal, the Hindus worship some further Gods of their pantheon like Surya, Lakshmi and the Go. Hindu fishermen have since time immemorial seen and hence worshipped Varuna plus entourage of Samudra devargaL). Apparently even the old GrecoRomans wrote of Tamizh Hindus worshipping Kanyakumari (sister of the Padmanabha and eternal-intended of her eternal-husband the NilakaNTha) in that ancient Tamizh region named after her. That just shows how even ancient heathens of other parts of the world have left behind documentation of the south's Hindu religion, all well before the 7th century CE. So it's not just TN's native internal Sangam literature that provides documented evidence of the ancientry of Hindu religion in the south. But Sangam literature is handy as proof in this case precisely because from the Tamizh POV itself, it shows that Hindu religion is the native - not to mention most ancient - religion of the south).

Hindu - aka Vedic religion - is the native religion of the south of India, just as it is the native religion of all the other directions of the subcontinent. The ancientry of the Hindu religion there - to borrow a phrase from today's Hellenes - is lost in the mists of antiquity.

Proselytising religions have these days resorted to wishful rewriting and outright lying about the subcontinent's history in order to lay claims to a greater originality for their own ideologies in a region/the whole country, and to simultaneously eject the actually ancient and indeed *ancestral* religion (i.e. a heathenism) of the region as being "foreign/not native" and/or as mere "latecomer" instead. Which is exactly why the ur-Shramanism fiction was concocted: to implement the same India-wide. But their elaborate lying is not going to change the *facts* of the past, no matter how many dweebs get brainwashed into believing their missionary lies and for however long. Like how, despite millions of christos in Europe believing the world was flat for centuries on end - some christians still do, apparently - this never actually succeeded in *making* the world flat.)





The pottery and stone inscriptions in Tamil Brahmi dated to the decades before the dawn of the common era offer insights as well. The potsherd inscriptions linked to a megalithic culture contain references to Murukan while the few early rock inscriptions document individual donations to itinerant Jain monks.

(That reminds me again of some stuff to post that I keep putting off.)



The more copious literary record that has survived to date reflects a Hindu folk idiom linked to the rural populace, chieftains and the priesthood while the rock inscriptions suggest individual traders sponsoring Jainism. Buddhism in that early era was numerically less significant. Hoole's point that Hinduism influenced the Tamil land only in the 7th century is therefore false.

(Bold bit -> shows again that Hindu religion is the ancestral religion of the natives - being therefore especially the ancestral religion of all the population/laity - despite the missionary competition always calling Hindus' religion "brahminism" in the hopes that this will lead people to imagine it is peculiarly the religion of brahmanas.)



Buddhism emerged in a significant manner in the Tamil land with the later Kalabhras. The Kalabhra dynasty had invaded and ruled Tamil Nadu between the 4th and the 6th centuries CE. Inscriptional and literary evidence indicates that the Chola, Chera and Pandya kings were ruthlessly suppressed. The Kalabhras patronized Buddhism and used Prakrit. Buddhism remained an urban phenomenon. Most Tamil Buddhist monks of this period chose to write in Pali, not Tamil. [color="#800080"](The modern dawaganda is that Tamizh Hindus hardly contributed anything in Tamizh, all while ancient known Hindu works nowadays get passed off as "Either Buddhist or else Jain". Actually, mustn't forget that christians are trying to claim Tirukkural as christian - after having first wrested it from Hindus by donating it to Jainism - while when it comes to the Tiruvachakam on Shiva they're still in the phase of trying to "secularise" it as a 'General Tamizh work that could be and therefore is about any random Divine, hence it is also about jeebus' before declaring 'it is about jeebus and hence written by a christian' as they always do in these very cases.)[/color] This included Buddhadatta Thera from Uragapura (Uraiyur) and Dhammapala Thera from Tambarattha (Tirunelveli) who traveled to Sri Lanka to translate the proto-Sinhalese language commentaries into Pali. The celebrated Buddhist commentator Buddhaghosha lived for a while in Madhura-sutta-pattana (Madurai) en route to Sri Lanka to study the proto-Sinhalese texts. Hoole's contention that Sinhalese literature is a 9th century phenomenon linked to the suppression of Buddhism in the Tamil land is therefore flawed!



(Christians/neo-Buddhists etc do look particularly foolish accusing Hindus of having had to suppress Buddhism, when even SL Buddhists monks writing as late as the 1970s still admitted to Jainism having been the active cause of Buddhism being suppressed in TN - and IIRC the rest of the south - and which drove out Buddhism from TN/south to SL. Note these were not just any average SL Buddhist monks confessing this, but the particular kind that peddled anti-Hindu tracts about against the entirety of the subcontinent's Hindu religion (i.e. not just against SL Hindus): tracts containing deliberate fictions of the kind that's today popularly parroted by neo-buddhists/christians/brainwashees in India as "history". Note these SL Buddhist monks were most willing to lie about Hindu religion and its history in India. That even they were unable to spin absurd fables writing out Jainism's key involvement in Buddhism's finally being packed off from the south, shows how undeniable and unassailable even *they* think that fact is. In other words, said Buddhist monks were *forced* to admit it.

And by the way, it's not like Buddhism was all innocent and hadn't tried to do get rid of the other Indic religions: it had. Desperately. And it lost. Deservedly.)



The Buddhist zeal of the Kalabhras triggered a home-grown Saivite and Vaishnava revival in the 6th century. This in turn saw the eclipse of Pali scholarship in the Tamil land and a renewed pride in the Tamil language.



Buddhism however continued in urban Tamil Nadu until the 14th century. The Culavamsa describes Sinhalese kings inviting Tamil monks from South India to visit Sri Lanka between the 12th and 14th centuries CE. The Tamil grammar, the Vira-choliyam, was authored by a Buddhist in the heyday of Chola rule in the 10th century CE. The Saivite Hindu Cholas sponsored this Buddhist author. Meanwhile, the Jain center of Sittanavaasal continued to flourish between the 7th and 9th centuries. Saivite Hinduism did not annihilate Buddhism or of Jainism in 7th century Tamil Nadu as Hoole writes. The Buddhist presence in Tamil Nadu ended with the establishment of the Madurai Sultanate in the early 14th century. Tamil Jainism continues to exist to this day.



Hoole highlights the alleged impalement of 8,000 Jains in 7th century Tamil Nadu and cites Nambi Aandaar Nambi, an early medieval Saivite scholar, in support of his claim. This was a literary allusion with no independent evidence. The Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas ruled in neighboring Karnataka. Several of the near contemporary Chalukya and Rashtrakuta monarchs, not to mention the Pallava kings in Tamil Nadu were Jain. There is no corroborating Jain literary or inscriptional evidence of any such impalement. The inquisition was a Christian instrument of persecution, not Hindu.



Hoole is likewise dishonest in selectively quoting Nilakanta Sasti's History of South India to extrapolate that Buddhist and Jain temples were converted into Hindu places of worship ignoring the extensive evidence provided by Professor Sastri on the Brahmanic and Vaishnava presence in the earliest period of Tamil history.

(Just for the record: the ancient Vaishnava presence in TN included Brahmanas also.)



In conclusion, what we now designate as Hinduism was pre-eminent in the earliest years of recorded Tamil history. The Jains did extensively contribute to Tamil literature at a subsequent date. (While Tamizh Hindus had since ancient times contributed extensively to Tamil literature, since it is after all Tamizh Hindus' ancestral language and the local language of Hinduism. Tamizh is known to predate the arrival of Jainism and Buddhism in the south. But Tamizh is *not* known to predate Hindu religion, because in tthe most ancient documented Tamizh, the Tamizh language - as also the Tamizh identity - always appears joined with the religion of the Hindu Gods, since ancient times.)

To argue that we were Jains and Buddhists before we became Hindu is simply incorrect.



(It's not merely incorrect - as if such arguments were no more than an "innocent" mistake - it is a deliberate lie by the christo Samuel Herbert Hoole.

Yet it's not just christians claiming this. Various Buddhist groups - not just neo-Buddhists - and the Jain Minority Forum types are regularly claiming that theirs is the "original" religion of S India - or at least 'ought to be' (with special pleading) - with a particular green eye they cast on TN for some reason. (Probably each imagines the current volatile situation is ripe for a harvest in their favour at last.) And in fact, the same groups have invented the increasingly popular "ur-Shramanism" falsehood specifically in order to launch the same claim for all of India, not just the south.

But the fact is that the Reverse of their absurd claim is the real truth: the oldest religion - and ancestral religion of all the subcontinent's teeming millions - is actually Hindus' religion of the Vedic/Hindu Gods. <- When the self-perceived competition can lie and say everyone was originally Buddhist/Jain - or else, even more desperately, "ur-Shramanist" - onlee [the underlying intention is to insinuate "convert 'back' already"], then Hindus are surely allowed to respond by referring to self-evident *facts*?)





Arumuka Navalar



Let me now turn to the subject of Arumuka Navalar. Whether Navalar had any input in the translation of the Bible into Tamil, how he looked, how he spelt his Tamil name in English in a era where such spelling had not been standardized and where births and marriages were unregistered, what caste he belonged to and whether his father was baptized is irrelevant to his legacy as a pioneer who recognized the importance of the media, print technology and western education to the dissemination of Tamil Hindu learning.



Mr. Hoole has had a 15 to 20 year track record of attacking Hinduism and individuals linked to the Hindu revival in Sri Lanka. I had rebutted an earlier article of his dated May 14, 2010 where he had attacked Arumuka Navalar and Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan. "In Defense of the Sri Lankan Hindu of Yesteryear: Arumuka Navalar and Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan" was published in the Sri Lanka Guardian on May 20, 2010 and in the HaindavaKeralam and LankaWeb. What I stated there still holds. Let me repeat what I said there rather than reinvent the wheel.



One needs to revert to primary sources if one is to accurately describe Arumuka Navalar. Navalar lived between 1822 and 1877 CE. His works include the 'Prabandha Thirattu', 'Saiva Thooshana Parihaaram', 'the Prohibition of Killing', and his classic deconstruction of the Bible. These texts help one to understand him better.



One discovers herein an astonishing man who grasped the imperative to establish Hindu primary and secondary schools in the 19th century, modernize and broadbase Hindu education, use simple Tamil prose to disseminate Saivite Hindu doctrine and leverage the printing press to republish the Tamil classics and Saivite Hindu scripture. Navalar made it a point to study Christianity to more effectively combat the white missionary enterprise. Navalar worked in Jaffna and Tamil Nadu. He established schools in Jaffna and in South India of which the Saiva Prakasa Vidyalayam was the first. Arumuka Navalar's emphasis on a modern Hindu education in Sri Lanka was the prelude to the later Hindu Board of Education in Sri Lanka.



He was the first person to avail of the modern printing press to publish rare Tamil classics in the mid-1800s anticipating the subsequent seminal work of U.V. Swaminatha Iyer and the other Sri Lankan Tamil Hindu stalwart C.W. Thamotherampillai.Navalar established a printing press in Sri Lanka and in Tamil Nadu. The one in Jaffna was called the Vidyanubalana Yantra Sala. Professor Dennis Hudson of the State University of New York has chronicled Navalar's use of the printing press on both sides of the Palk Straits in the 19th century. Navalar published 97 Tamil language documents. He published rare works of Tamil grammar, literature, liturgy and religion that were previously unavailable in print. For instance, the first ever Sangam text that saw the light of print was the Tiru-murukaatru-padai of the Pattu Paatu. Navalar brought this out in 1851.



Noted Czech scholar of Tamil, Kamil Zvelebil, demonstrated that Navalar was the first author to use modern Tamil prose in a manner understandable to the layperson. Professor Meenakshisundaram echoed this view when he reiterated that Navalar was the first to use simplified and unadorned lay Tamil. He had adopted a highly effective and unadorned preaching style borrowed from the missionaries that consisted of five steps to quote Hoole i.e. (i) preface; (ii) exposition; (iii) doctrinal analysis; (iv) applying the interpretation; and (v) conclusion. So yes, Navalar made stellar contributions to Hinduism, the Tamil language, Tamil prose and Sri Lankan Tamil identity.



The Hindu revival preceded the Buddhist revival in Sri Lanka by a full generation. As Bishop Kulendran of the Church of South India in Jaffna conceded, it was Navalar's Saivite Hindu revival that stemmed the conversions to Christianity in northern Sri Lanka in the 19th century. It was Navalar likewise who first articulated in modern times that the Sri Lankan Tamil identity was parallel to and not the same as the South Indian Tamil identity.



Navalar, like almost all in the mid-1800s, suffered from caste prejudice. The 1800s was an unenlightened age where the Christian missionaries in India and Ceylon exemplified a deep religious bigotry, the Sri Lankan Tamils exemplified a hateful caste prejudice while the Europeans were busy enslaving or exterminating the Black population in America, Australia and South Africa often in the name of Christianity. Navalar can not be absolved on the issue of caste. This said, a critical interpretation of history forces one to acknowledge his other accomplishments.



Bibliography



(i) K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar, Oxford University Press, 1955;

(ii) V.R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, Studies in Tamil Language and History, University of Madras, 1936;

(iii) Vaiyapuri Pillai, History of Tamil Language and Literature, Chennai, 1956;

(iv) George Hart, The poems of ancient Tamil, their milieu and their Sanskrit counterparts, 1975 (University of California, Berkeley);

(v) Takanobu Takahashi, Tamil love poetry and poetics, 1995;

(vi) Kamil Zvelebil, The Smile of Murukan on Tamil literature of South India, 1973; and

(vi) V.S. Rajam, A comparative study of two ancient Indian grammatical traditions: The Tolkapiyam compared with Sanskrit Rk-pratisakhya, Taittriya-pratisakhya, Apisal siksa, and the Astadhyayi, University of Pennsylvania, 1981.

Quote:Wednesday, May 08, 2013



what a strange piece on dravidian languages!

http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/05/english-and-dravidian





this kannada gent is going off on odd tangents. and the fact is that southern languages have 1-1 correspondence with devanagari (*not* with hindi).





hindi is an awkward language, as it is essentially urdu written in devanagari (which is not an appropriate script for urdu -- devanagari is vowel rich, whereas arabic-derived languages are vowel-poor, and in old arabic, the vowels are often missing altogether. this is why you have this debate about whether it is actually 72 virgins or 72 white raisins -- the word is 'hr', and if you say it is 'houri' it is the virgins; if you put other vowels in there it is white raisins). the vowel-poverty is what makes hindi speakers do abrupt endings, eg bhim for bhima. this sounds very rough to a sanskrit (or south indian language) speaker.





--

sent from samsung galaxy note, so please excuse brevity Posted by nizhal yoddha at 5/08/2013 09:52:00 AM 1 comments Links to this post

Quote:eg bhim for bhima. this sounds very rough to a sanskrit (or south indian language) speaker.

Quote:southern languages have 1-1 correspondence with devanagari (*not* with hindi).

Quote:Wednesday, May 26, 2004



Skeletons, script found at ancient burial site in Tamil Nadu

By T.S. Subramanian





An urn containing a human skull and bones unearthed by the Archaeological Survey of India at Adhichanallur, near Tirunelveli town in Tamil Nadu. Twelve of these urns (below) contain human skeletons. Three of them, which may be 2,800 years old, bear inscriptions that resemble the early Tamil Brahmi script. -- Photos: A. Shaikmohideen



CHENNAI, MAY 25. In spectacular finds, the Archaeological Survey of India, Chennai Circle, has unearthed a dozen 2,800-year-old human skeletons intact in urns at Adichanallur, 24 km from Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu. Three of these urns contain writing resembling the early Tamil Brahmi script. The dozen urns containing the skeletons form a part of about 100 fully intact urns unearthed in various trenches at the site, where excavation is under way. The urns were found at a depth of two to three metres. The finds may revolutionise theories about the origin of ancient culture in Tamil Nadu and the origin of writing in South Asia.



T. Satyamurthy, Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, Chennai Circle, the director of excavation at Adichanallur, said: "People generally think that megalithic culture is the earliest culture in South India, especially in Tamil Nadu. In our excavation [at Adichanallur], we have come across a culture earlier than the megalithic period." The megalithic period in South India ranges from 3rd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.



Dr. Satyamurthy called Adichanallur "the earliest historical site in Tamil Nadu." The ASI would conduct "a thorough exploration of the area" to find out whether there had been any habitation nearby. If such a site was found, it would be the first discovery of its kind in Tamil Nadu. So far, no habitation belonging to this period had been found in the State. He described the discovery of writing resembling the early Tamil Brahmi script on the urns as "very important."



Samples of the skeletons have been sent to the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, for carbon-14 dating.



Along with the skeletons, husks, grains of rice, charred rice and neolithic celts (axe-like instruments used in agricultural operations) have been found.



The skeletons found in two or three urns show that prior to the megalithic period, these people used to inter the dead in urns along with the items they had used. Early Tamil Sangam works contained elaborate descriptions of the urn-burial custom. At Adichanallur, pottery belonging to the early historic period, which stretches from 3rd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D., was found on the upper layers of the trenches and the urns were found below. So the discoveries at Adichanallur may go back to 7th or 8th century B.C., probably earlier than the Sangam period, Dr. Satyamurthy said.



He said that since the Brahmi script was found together with the skeletons, the date of the script could be determined if they could fix the date of the skeletons. "So far, we have been doing it on palaeographic grounds. Now, we will get a scientific date." He said that the script might refer to names.



Dr. Sathyamurthy said that the Brahmi script of around 500 B.C. had been found in Sri Lanka. Dr. S.U. Deraniyagala, former Director-General and now Consultant to the Archaeological Survey Department, Sri Lanka, called the discovery of the writing on the urns at Adichanallur "fantastic" and "very, very important." The evidence of writing on more than 75 pieces of pottery had been found in Sri Lanka and radio-carbon dating had established that they belonged to the period between 600 B.C. and 500 B.C. This discovery "sheds a completely new light on the origin of writing in South Asia," said Dr. Deraniyagala. Interestingly, there has been no evidence of habitation close to the cemeteries (burial sites) discovered there.



(hock: What, there's presence of Brahmi in SL before Buddhism had enough time to travel to Sri Lanka?! (The earliest date officially assigned for the Buddha that I've come across is circa 585 BCE, and for Buddhism the assigned date is naturally a little later than that). Plus take into account that a baby Buddha couldn't have been preaching Buddhism yet... let alone inventing the Brahmi script - which he's not credited with either - and unlikely too is his/his contemporary disciples jetting straight to SL just in time to create pottery with the writing on it.



But I forgot to explain the link I made between these points just now. Ok, the relation is this: Buddhism-peddlers - not all of them are Buddhists, note, so I can't say "Buddhists" - claim *Buddhism* invented Brahmi. And whenever there are archaeological finds that predate the official date for Buddhism - since they can't move Buddha's birth date back merely because there exist Brahmi finds predating the date assigned the Buddha - the peddlers resort to declaring semi-grudgingly that "Then Jainism must have invented Brahmi". Anything but Hindus. But I'm not aware of any record of Jainism in Sri Lanka, and neither do others seem to be, so that doesn't explain the SL finds. Nor would anyone accept that any Brahmi finds in TN at a 7th/8th century BCE strata would be a reason to push *Jainism* backwards in time: no one has *established* a causative link between either Buddhism OR Jainism and Brahmi, after all. And when last I had a look, Jainism was still dated by encyclopaedias to "around 6th century BCE", but some time before Buddhism.



So the next thing the peddlers resort to is the "ur-Shramanism of the IVC" routine (a topic already covered in previous posts on this thread). If all else fails, they then plead for the theology of multiple Buddhas/Jain Tirthankaras and the Invention Of Everything by one of these. It's amazing.



The reason they insist that Hindus *couldn't* - or rather aren't allowed to - have given rise to Writing, is the following "logic": a. Only the Vedas and nothing else mattered to the Brahmins. And Brahmins have an oral-only tradition. c. Therefore Brahmins have no use for writing. (Not to mention the insistence by the dravoodianists etc that "there are no Hindus except the Brahmins"/aka "there's no such thing as Hinduism", only "brahminism" or something.) e. Conclusion: only Jainism or Buddhism can have invented any writing system in India.

1. Except that most of the Daoist religion is oral: sacred materials for reciting and ritual practice were originally mostly passed down orally.

2. Yet the ancient native Chinese - who were a population of the Daoist religion - developed the Chinese script.

The answer to reconcile 1 and 2: Daoists had other uses for writing - as did ancient and modern Hindus. They wanted to write down non-ritual materials etc. And even Taoists *did* eventually decide to write down some of their ritual stuff, same as Hindus decided quite some time back.



Soon the Dravoodianists will try to claim Brahmi as a "Dravoodian Tamil" accomplishment since it's been found so early in TN and SL, earlier than any evidence of Brahmi having been found in the rest of the subcontinent. Tragically for the dravoodianists, they *can't* claim it - not with the available evidence at any rate. But see the next news item for why that is.)



According to G. Thirumoorthy, Assistant Archaeologist, ASI, Chennai Circle, many artefacts had been found along with the skeletons at Adichanallur.



They included miniature bowls made of clay that were used in rituals, black and red wares of megalithic period ranging from the 7th century B.C. to 2nd century A.D., potsherds with graffiti marks, iron spearheads, knife-blades and hopscotches of various shapes including those in perfect circles. These hopscotches were used as weights, he said.

Quote:Palani excavation triggers fresh debate

T.S. Subramanian



Chennai, August 29, 2011



Did the Tamil-Brahmi script originate in the post-Asokan period, that is, after the 3rd century BCE, or is it pre-Asokan? A cist-burial excavated in 2009 at Porunthal village, on the foothills of the Western Ghats, 12 km from Palani in Tamil Nadu, has reignited this debate because of the spectacular variety of grave goods it contained.



One of the two underground chambers of the grave was remarkable for the richness of its goods: a skull and skeletal bones, a four-legged jar with two kg of paddy inside, two ring-stands inscribed with the same Tamil-Brahmi script reading “va-y-ra” (meaning diamond) and a symbol of a gem with a thread passing through it, 7,500 beads made of carnelian, steatite, quartz and agate, three pairs of iron stirrups, iron swords, knives, four-legged jars of heights ranging from few centimetres to one metre, urns, vases, plates and bowls. It was obviously a grave that belonged to a chieftain ( The Hindu , June 28, 2009 and Frontline , October 8, 2010).



When K. Rajan, Professor, Department of History, Pondicherry University, excavated this megalithic grave, little did he realise that the paddy found in the four-legged jar would be instrumental in reviving the debate on the origin of the Tamil-Brahmi script. Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating of the paddy done by Beta Analysis Inc., Miami, U.S.A, assigned the paddy to 490 BCE. “Since all the goods kept in the grave including the paddy and the ring-stands with the Tamil-Brahmi script are single-time deposits, the date given to the paddy is applicable to the Tamil-Brahmi script also,” said Dr. Rajan. So the date of evolution of Tamil-Brahmi could be pushed 200 years before Asoka, he argued.



This dating, done on the Porunthal paddy sent to the U.S. laboratory by Dr. Rajan, took the antiquity of the grave belonging to the early historic age to 490 BCE, he said. It held great significance for Tamil Nadu's history, he added. This was the first time an AMS dating was done for a grave in Tamil Nadu.



There are two major divergent views on the date of Tamil-Brahmi.



While scholars such as Iravatham Mahadevan and Y. Subbarayalu hold the view that Tamil-Brahmi was introduced in Tamil Nadu after 3rd century BCE and it is, therefore, post-Asokan, some others including K.V. Ramesh, retired Director of Epigraphy, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), consider it pre-Asokan.



According to Dr. Rajan, the AMS dating of the Porunthal paddy grains has the following implications: the context of the Tamil-Brahmi goes back to 490 BCE and it is, therefore, pre-Asokan; Tamil Nadu's ancient history can be pushed back to 5th century BCE and it was contemporary to mahajanapadas (kingdoms) such as Avanti, Kosala, Magadha and so on; paddy cultivation goes back to 5th century BCE; and it establishes that the megalithic graves introduced in the Iron Age continued into the early historic times.



When contacted, Mr. Mahadevan, a leading authority on the Tamil-Brahmi and Indus scripts, and Dr. Subbarayalu, Head, Department of Indology, French Institute of Pondicherry, said it was difficult to reach a conclusion on the basis of one single scientific dating.



Mr. Mahadevan described the dating as “interesting” but said “multiple carbon-dates are needed” for confirmation. “If there are several such cases, history has to be re-written because up to now, the scientifically proved earliest date is from Tissamaharama in southern Sri Lanka, where a Tamil-Brahmi script is dated to 200 BCE.” If there is scientific evidence that the paddy is dated to 490 BCE, “we have to sit up and take notice, and wait for confirmation,” Mr. Mahadevan said.



The Asokan-Brahmi is dated to 250 BCE. Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya, Emperor Asoka's grandfather, had stated that the people of Chandragupta Maurya's kingdom did not know how to write and that they depended on memory. Besides, there is no inscription of the pre-Asoka period available. Mr. Mahadevan said: “Supposing a large number of carbon-datings are available from various sites, which will take us to the period of the Mauryas and even the Nandas, we can consider. But to push [the date of the origin of the Tamil-Brahmi script] a couple of centuries earlier with a single carbon-dating is not acceptable because chances of contamination and error are there.”





Dr. Subbarayalu also argued that on the basis of one single scientific dating, it was difficult to reach the conclusion that Tamil-Brahmi was pre-Asokan. There should be more evidence to prove that Tamil-Brahmi was earlier to the time of Asoka, in whose time was available the earliest Brahmi script in north India.



Mr. Mahadevan's conclusion that Tamil-Brahmi is post-Asokan and it had its advent from about the middle of the third century BCE is based on “concrete archaeological as well as palaeographical grounds” and this date is as yet the most reasonable one, in spite of minor points of difference on his dating of individual inscriptions, said Dr. Subbarayalu.



The date of the Tamil-Brahmi script found at Porunthal, on palaeographic basis, could be put only in the first century BCE/CE and “cannot be pushed back to such an early date [490 BCE].”

(Note typical circular reasoning of Mohadevan, who's apparently famous for it: 1. There's no such thing as pre-Asokan Brahmi in India. 2. Since Porunthal find is dated to 490 BCE, it MUST be wrong and must therefore be 1st century BCE or preferrably CE, since rule 1 always applies. But the real reason he's angry is the dating - pre-Asokan and pre-Buddhist introduction into TN or south AND the revelation of the text being "Vaira" which is the Tamizh equivalent of Skt Vajra (at 490 BCE), and which Mohadevan MUST fit into a Buddhist framework quickly, else it spells doom and gloom



The three letters “va-y-ra” found on the ring-stands were developed and belonged to the second stage of Mr. Mahadevan's dating of Tamil-Brahmi. “It is premature to revise the Tamil-Brahmi dating on the basis of a single carbon date, which is governed by complicated statistical probabilities,” Dr. Subbarayalu said. The word “vayra” is an adapted name from the Prakrit or Sanskrit “vajra” and it is difficult to explain convincingly the generally dominant Prakrit element in Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions found on rock and pot-sherds if Tamil-Brahmi is indigenous and pre-Asokan and transported from south India to north India, he says.



(NO. The find says nothing about whether the ancestral *Brahmi* was developed in TN. Or direction of its travel or anything. We don't know *how* it came to be based on these finds. We only know that a form of Brahmi - called Tamizh Brahmi based on locus of discovery and perhaps similarity to other Tamizh Brahmi finds - existed at the plausible dates given in the 2 news items.



Let's get it clear what one can work out from such a find as this particular one: What it says is that in 490 BCE - before any evidence of Buddhism coming south - the Tamizh Hindus had a form of Brahmi that they were obviously familiar enough with to start comfortably using and moreover used it to write a word that spells VAIRA(M) - e.g. vaira toDu - which is the *TAMIZH* WORD for diamond DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE SKT WORD Vajra for diamond. There's no actual reason to insist it "must" be a Prakrit (capital P) word as Mohadevan presumes, as Skt Vajra naturally/prakritically (small p) turns to Vaira in Tamizh without external help. Because it's exactly how Tamilisation of such Skt words works too.



Back to the matter of the find of vaira in Tamizh Brahmi and what this *does* tell us.

Repeat: by 490 BCE - that's before the Sangam era is currently dated to - there were already Skt-related words in Tamizh that Tamizh people were using with the kind of ease that comes from familiarity. That means that it's not likely they came across the word Vajra in 500 BCE to have the word Vairam in common use by 490 BCE. It also means it's not likely that Tamizh Brahmi only started to be used for the very first time ever in 500 BCE in order to have become an easy part of life in 490 BCE. <- It means, there was at least some significant time - how long??? - that Tamizh Hindus were familiar with both Tamizh Brahmi and the word Vaira - a Tamizh word with Skt connections. So now do the math and work out when the natives of TN first came into clearly-influential contact with Skt speaking natives of the subcontinent. The answer is unknown: you don't know. At least, you can't tell from the above archaeological find. It could have been a 100 years, 200 years, 400 years before that. Far longer even. You don't know. But clearly, what you do know, is that by 490 BCE neither (a form of) Brahmi nor the word Vaira was a novelty in TN: both were then used with a ready ease.

No wonder Mohadevan is not happy. No wonder Buddhism peddlers who were seen implying even declaring that Buddhism invented Brahmi are less Ra-Ra about it now. <- The only proof the latter had offered for their Mere Assumption is that for some time Asokan edicts in Asokan-Brahmi were the oldest Brahmi finds in the country, from which innocuous data they *chose* to magically conclude that Buddhism "must" have invented Brahmi. After all, as I mentioned above, they insist on the blind assumption that Hindus - by which Buddhism always points only to "Brahminists" - had "no use for writing" and "hence" would never have invented a script. Megasthenes' observation - even if taken as literal truth by someone who had absolute and total knowledge on the matter, something which he isn't at all guaranteed to have had - said nothing about the whole of Bharatam, recall: it says only something about the *Mauryan* empire as at the time.)



On the other hand, Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Emeritus Professor, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, called the Porunthal Tamil-Brahmi script “an epoch-making discovery in the archaeology of Tamil Nadu” and said there “is no doubt” that Tamil-Brahmi belonged to the pre-Asokan period. In two of his books — “An Oxford Companion to Indian Archaeology” and “India, an Archaeological History” — he had written that the evolution of Tamil-Brahmi should go back to circa 500 BCE.



He refuted the theory that Tamil-Brahmi was post-Asokan.



Dr. Ramesh, who retired as the ASI's Joint Director-General in 1993, said the Porunthal scientific dating strengthened the argument that Tamil-Brahmi was pre-Asokan. He dismissed the assessment that Tamil-Brahmi was post-Asokan as “the argument of people who say that there cannot be pre-Asokan inscriptions.” (He too appears to have noticed the unavoidably-obvious circular reasoning used by the Dravoodianists.) “How can you question the scientific dating given by an American laboratory?” Dr. Ramesh said the Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions found at Mankulam, near Madurai, were pre-Asokan. [The Mankulam inscriptions are the earliest Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions and they are dated to second century BCE]. “The consonants in the Mankulam inscriptions do not have vowel value attached to them. They are pre-Asokan and the script is more rudimentary than the Asokan-Brahmi,” he claimed.

(Chindu felt it necessary to insert the stuff in the square [] brackets there, was it done by the Chindu editors? It seems to be to pre-emptively negate in readers' minds the line Dr Ramesh is quoted as saying thereafter: that the inscriptions in Mankulam were also pre-Asokan. Which they can't be, surely, if they're 2nd century BCE, since pre-Asokan was explained at the start of this news piece as being before 3rd century BCE or at least before 250 BCE? Would like to know what date Dr Ramesh and others of his view assign to these Mankulam inscriptions.)





The date given by the American laboratory was “a wonderful result,” said M.R. Raghava Varier, former Professor, Department of History, Calicut University, “because the earliest date given so far to a south Indian site was 300 BCE.” The archaeological sites of Uraiyur in Tamil Nadu and Arikkamedu in Puducherry fell within the time-limit of 300 BCE and Arikkamedu belonged to a later period than Uraiyur. While the [pre-Asokan] date given to a Tamil-Brahmi inscription found at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka “has not been proved convincingly,” there was “a convincing date” at Porunthal and it was based on a scientific dating system, said Professor Varier, who was the honorary Editor of Kerala Archaeological Series. Its importance lay in the fact that while the Asokan-Brahmi began in the 3rd century BCE, the Porunthal script could be dated to 5th century BCE, he says. “But we cannot argue that Brahmi was invented by the southern people. That is a different issue.”

Quote:The Asokan-Brahmi is dated to 250 BCE. Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya, Emperor Asoka's grandfather, had stated that the people of Chandragupta Maurya's kingdom did not know how to write and that they depended on memory. Besides, there is no inscription of the pre-Asoka period available. Mr. Mahadevan said: “Supposing a large number of carbon-datings are available from various sites, which will take us to the period of the Mauryas and even the Nandas, we can consider. But to push [the date of the origin of the Tamil-Brahmi script] a couple of centuries earlier with a single carbon-dating is not acceptable because chances of contamination and error are there.”

Quote:VAIRA(M) - e.g. vaira toDu - which is the *TAMIZH* WORD for diamond DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE SKT WORD Vajra for diamond. There's no actual reason to insist it "must" be a Prakrit (capital P) word as Mohadevan presumes, as Skt Vajra naturally/prakritically (small p) turns to Vaira in Tamizh without external help. Because it's exactly how Tamilisation of such Skt words works too.

Quote:Anyway, it's amazing how Hindus get dismissed out of hand.

Quote:What is Brahmi?



Brāhmī refers to the pre-modern members of the Brahmic family of scripts. The best known inscriptions in Brāhmī are the rock-cut edicts of Ashoka, dating to the 3rd century BC. These were long considered the earliest examples of Brahmi writing, but recent archeological evidence in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu (*) may push back the date for the earliest use of Brahmi to the 5th or 6th century BC. Thus, this script was probably already in use during Buddha's lifetime although religious dialogs were considered "too sacred" to write them down (they were memorized instead until 80 BC when they were written down for the first time in Sri Lanka based on the Sinhala script, itself a descendant of Brahmi).

Quote:In the year 1011 AD, at a place which is now known as Purasamantiga… there was the first interreligious conference of three religions: Shaiva Agama, Bauddha Agama and Baliyaga, the traditional pre-Buddhist, pre-Hindu, Balinese religion. The scholars and the leaders sat down and worked out a system by which the three religions should work together and exchange forms with each other and that is the religion of Bali today.

Quote:Vedas mention 22 Jain Tirthankaras.

− Of Rishabha (1st Tirthankara Rishabha) is written:

− ::"''But Risabha went on, unperturbed byr anything till he became sin-free like a conch that takes no black dot, without obstruction ... which is the epithet of the First World-teacher, may become the destroyer of enemies''" (Rig Veda X.166)

Quote:There is mention of Rishabha in Hindu scriptures. He finds some references in Veda. However, its meaning is not clear and has different interpretations.

Quote:...

Neminatha, the 22nd Tirthankara of the Jains, was the son of Samudra Vijaya and grandson of Andhakavrishni. Jains and some Hindus consider Neminath to be the cousin of Krishna..[3][4](Krishna was son of Vasudev who was brother of Samudra Vijaya i.e. father of Neminath)

(The reference given is Jain sources like the late Jain rewrite of the original Hindu MBh and the multiple Jain rewrites of the original Hindu Harivamsha. Perhaps more about this later.)



According to both religions, Krishna negotiated his marriage with Rajamati, the daughter of Ugrasena, but Neminatha, empathizing with the animals which were to be slaughtered for the marriage feast, left the procession suddenly and renounced the world. Some writers of the Jain scriptures say that Tirthankara Neminatha was the master of Krishna.

(Reminiscent of how IIRC Bahai - a spin off of various monotheisms including islam - believe that the future Maitreya Buddha has already been and was their prophet or something. And IIRC islam lists the pre-islamic Hellenistic Alexander [the Great] as a prophet of islam. All being examples of one religion invoking an earlier one for validity/authority/popularity/for better establishing themselves/to obtain a longer pedigree.)



The Andhakavrishnis of Dwaraka in Kathiawar Region of present Gujrat state of India, as a republic is referred to in the Mahabharata, Arthashastra and Ashtadhyayi of Pāṇini.

The name of the Vrishni corporation is also found on a coin which on paleographical grounds dates to the 1st or 2nd century BCE. It seems that the republic was named after Andhakavrishni, the grandfather of Neminatha. If Andhakavrishni is a real person, there seems to be little doubt that his grandson Neminatha was real.



It is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishads III, that the sage Ghora Angirasa imparted certain instructions of the spiritual sacrifice to Krishna, the son of Devaki. The liberal payment of this sacrifice was austerity, liberality, simplicity, non-violence and truthfulness. These teachings of Ghora Angirasa seem to be the tenets of Jainism. Hence, Ghora Angirasa seems to be a Jain sadhu. The word Ghora Angirasa seems to be an epithet given to him because of the extreme austerities he undertook. It may be possible to suggest that Neminatha was his early name and when he had obtained Nirvana after hard austerities, he might have been given the name of Ghora Angirasa[citation needed].

(Will get to these ridiculous Jain claims on ghorAngirasa and the Chandogyopanishad in some much later post. BTW, the above is *also* parroted by Hindu sites on the web. :Eek



In fact, the Jaina traditions about Neminatha or Arishtanemi as incorporated in the Harivamsha, Arittha Nemi Cariu and other works may be corroborated to some extent by the Brahaminical traditions. He is mentioned in some of the hymns of the Vedas but their meaning is doubtful.

In the Yajurveda, he seems to be clearly mentioned as one of the important Rishis[citation needed]]. He is described as one who is capable of crossing over the ocean of life and death, as the remover of violence, and one who is instrumental is sparing life from injury. The Yajurveda probably belongs to the 12th century BCE. This indicates that Neminatha was known at this time and flourished even before.

The Rig Veda mentions Aristanemi (Tirthankara Neminatha) as:

"So asmakam Aristanemi svaha Arhan vibharsi sayakani dhanvarhanistam yajatam visvarupam arhannidam dayase" (Astak 2, Varga 7, Rig Veda)

(The next posts are specifically about this.)



Neminatha was a cousin of Krishna.[5]

...

(und so weiter.)

Quote:1. RSabha m. (fr. 2. %{RS} Un2. ii , 123) , a bull (as impregnating the flock ; cf. %{vRSabha} and %{ukSan}) RV. AV. VS. ChUp. BhP. &c. ; any male animal in general S3Br. ; the best or most excellent of any kind or race (cf. %{puruSarSabha} , &c.) MBh. R. &c. ; the second of the seven notes of the Hindu1 gamut (abbreviated into R2i) ; a kind of medicinal plant Sus3r. Bhpr. ; a particular antidote Sus3r. ii , 276 , 7 ; a particular Eka7ha (q.v.) Ka1tyS3r. ; the fifteenth Kalpa ; N. of several men ; of an ape ; of a Na1ga ; of a mountain ; of a Ti1rtha ; (%{As}) m. pl. the inhabitants of Kraun5ca-dvi1pa BhP. v , 20 , 22 ; N. of a people VarBr2S. ; (%{I}) f. a woman with masculine peculiarities (as with a beard &c.) L. ; a widow L. ; Carpopogon Pruriens Car. ; another plant L. ; [cf. Zd. {arSan} ; Gk. $.]

Quote:1 ariSTanemi (%{a4riSTa-}) mfn. the felly of whose wheel is unhurt (N. of Ta1rkshya) RV. , (%{is}) m. N. of a man (named together with Ta1rkshya) VS. xv , 18 , (said to be the author of the hymn RV. x , 178) RAnukr. ; N. of various princes MBh. VP. ; of a Gandharva BhP. ; of the twenty-second of the twenty four Jaina Tirtham2karas of the present Avasarpin2i.

Quote:So asmakam Aristanemi svaha Arhan vibharsi sayakani dhanvarhanistam yajatam visvarupam arhannidam dayase" (Astak 2, Varga 7, Rig Veda)

Quote:सवस्ति न इन्द्रो वृद्धश्रवाः सवस्ति नः पुषा विश्ववेदाः ।

सवस्ति नस्तार्क्ष्यो अरिष्टनेमिः सवस्ति नो बृहस्पतिर्दधातु ॥ (1.89.6) [The usual shanti mantram. To Vishwe. Here ariShTanemi is used as descriptive for TaarkShya, it seems]



6 Illustrious far and wide, may Indra prosper us: may PÅ«Shan prosper us, the Master of all wealth.

May TārkShya with uninjured fellies prosper us: BRihaspati vouchsafe to us prosperity.



तं वां रथं वयमद्या हुवेम स्तोमैरश्विना सुवितायनव्यम् ।

अरिष्टनेमिं परि द्यामियानं विद्यामेषं वृजनं जीरदानुम् ॥ (1.180.10) [To Ashvins] (ariShTanemi used as descriptive here too)



10 With songs of praise we call to-day, O Aśvins, that your new chariot, for our own well-being,

That circles heaven with never-injured fellies. May we find strengthening food in full abundance.



स्थिरौ गावौ भवतां वीडुर् अक्षो मेषा वि वर्हि मा युगं वि शारि ।

इन्द्रः पातल्ये ददतां शरीतोर् अरिष्टनेमे अभि नः सचस्व ॥ (3.53.17) [To several named Gods, starting with Indran]



17 Strong be the pair of oxen, firm the axles, let not the pole slip nor the yoke be broken.

May Indra, keep the yoke-pins from decaying: attend us, thou whose fellies are uninjured.



त्यमू षु वाजिनं देवजूतं सहावानं तरुतारं रथानाम् ।

अरिष्टनेमिं पृतनाजमाशुं स्वस्तये तार्क्ष्यमिहा हुवेम ॥ (10.178.1) [To TaarkShya] (ariShTanemi used as descriptive here too)



1. This very mighty one whom Gods commission, the Conqueror of cars, ever triumphant,

Swift, fleet to battle, with uninjured fellies, even TArkShya for our weal will we call hither.

Quote:इमं स्तोममर्हते जातवेदसे रथमिव सं महेमा मनीषया ।

भद्रा हि नः प्रमतिरस्य संसद्यग्ने सख्ये मा रिषामा वयं तव ॥ (1.94.1 - To Agni)

1 FOR Jātavedas worthy of our praise will we frame with our mind this eulogy as ’twere a car.

For good, in his assembly, is this care of ours. Let us not, in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. (1,94)



स हि शर्धो न मारुतं तुविष्वणिरप्नस्वतीषूर्वरास्विष्टनिरार्तनास्विष्टनिः ।

आदद्धव्यान्याददिर्यज्ञस्य केतुरर्हणा । [search result included because arhaNa also means worthy/entitled to, as well as worship]

अध समास्य हर्षतो हर्षीवतो विश्वे जुषन्त पन्थां नरः शुभे न पन्थाम् ॥ (1.127.6) [To Agni]

6 He, roaring very loudly like the Maruts’ host, in fertile cultivated fields adorable, in desert spots adorable,

Accepts and eats our offered gifts, ensign of sacrifice by desert;

So let all, joying, love his path when he is glad, as men pursue a path for bliss.



तवं नो वायवेषामपूर्व्यः सोमानां परथमः पीतिमर्हसि सुतानां पीतिमर्हसि । उतो विहुत्मतीनां विशां ववर्जुषीणाम् ।

विश्वा इत्त ते धेनवो दुह्र आशिरं घृतं दुह्रत आशिरम् ॥ (1.134) (To Vayu) [arhasi. Verb? Seems related anyway.]

6 Thou, Vāyu, who hast none before thee, first of all hast right to drink these offerings of Soma juice, hast right to drink the juice out-poured, [has the right => is deserving/worthy of]

Yea, poured by all invoking tribes who free themselves from taint of sin,

For thee all cows are milked to yield the Soma-milk, to yield the butter and the milk.



समिद्धो अग्निर्निहितः पृथिव्यां प्रत्यङ् विश्वानि भुवनान्यस्थात ।

होता पावकः प्रदिवः सुमेधा देवो देवान्यजत्वग्निरर्हन् ॥ ...

ईळितो अग्ने मनसा नो अर्हन्देवान्यक्षि मानुषात्पूर्वो अद्य ।

स आ वह मरुतां शर्धो अच्युतमिन्द्रं नरो बर्हिषदं यजध्वम् ॥ (2.3.1 and 2.3.3, from suktam on AprIs)

1. AGNI is set upon the earth well kindled; he standeth in the presence of all beings.

Wise, ancient, God, the Priest and Purifier, let Agni serve the Gods for he is worthy. (2.3)

...3 Adored in heart, as is thy right, O Agni, serve the Gods first to-day before the mortal.

Bring thou the Marut host. Ye men do worship to Indra seated on the grass, eternal.



अध्वर्यवो यो अपो वव्रिवांसं वृत्रं जघानाशन्येव वृक्षम् ।

तस्मा एतं भरत तद्वशायँ एष इन्द्रो अर्हति पीतिमस्य ॥ (2.14.2) [To Indra]

2 Ye ministers, to him who with the lightning smote, like a tree, the rain-withholding VR^itra—

Bring it to him, him who is fain to taste it, a draught of this which Indra here deserveth. [is deserving=> is worthy of]



बृहस्पते अति यदर्यो अर्हाद्द्युमद्विभाति क्रतुमज्जनेषु ।

यद्दीदयच्छवस ऋतप्रजात तदस्मासु द्रविणं धेहिचित्रम् ॥ (2.23.15) [To bR^ihaspati I think. Marked "brahmaNaspati".]

15 BRhaspati, that which the foe deserves not which shines among the folk effectual, splendid,

That, Son of Law I which is with might refulgent-that treasure wonderful bestow thou on us.



अर्हन्बिभर्षि सायकानि धन्वार्हन्निष्कं यजतं विश्वरूपम् ।

अर्हन्निदं दयसे विश्वमभ्वं न वा ओजीयो रुद्र त्वदस्ति ॥ (2.33.10) [To Rudra]

10 Worthy, thou carriest thy bow and arrows, worthy, thy manyhued and honoured necklace.

Worthy, thou cuttest here each fiend to pieces: a mightier than thou there is not, Rudra.





इन्द्रश्च वायवेषां सोमानां पीतिमर्हथः ।

युवां हि यन्तीन्दवो निम्नमापो न सध्र्यक् ॥ (4.47.2) [Indra, Vayu]

2 O Vāyu, thou and Indra are meet drinkers of these Soma-draughts,

For unto you the drops proceed as waters gather to the vale.



देवैर्नो देव्यदितिर्नि पातु देवस्त्राता त्रायतामप्रयुच्छन् ।

नहि मित्रस्य वरुणस्य धासिमर्हामसि प्रमियं सान्वग्नेः ॥ (4.55.7) [Vishwe] Note: not sure if this is a different verb/word, but included the shlokam for completion.

7 May Goddess Aditi with Gods defend us, save us the saviour God with care unceasing.

We dare not stint the sacred food of Mitra and VaruNa upon the back of Agni.



कुत्रा चिद्यस्य समृतौ रण्वा नरो नृषदने ।

अर्हन्तश्चिद्यमिन्धते संजनयन्ति जन्तवः ॥ (5.7.2) [To Agni]

2 Him in whose presence, when they meet in full assembly, men rejoice;

Even him whom worthy ones inflame, and living creatures bring to life.



इन्द्रश्च वायवेषां सुतानां पीतिमर्हथः ।

ताञ्जुषेथामरेपसावभि प्रयः ॥ (5.51.6) [To Vishwedevas again]. Again, not sure if arhathaH is related arhata, which means deserving/worthy. But the translation certainly mentions it.

6 Ye, Indra, Vāyu, well deserve to drink the juices pressed by us.

Gladly accept them, spotless Pair come to the food.



अर्हन्तो ये सुदानवो नरो असामिशवसः ।

प्र यज्ञं यज्ञियेभ्यो दिवो अर्चा मरुद्भ्यः ॥ (5.52.5) [Suktam to Maruts]

5 Praiseworthy, givers of good gifts, Heroes with full and perfect strength -

To Maruts, Holy Ones of heaven, will I extol the sacrifice.



एतावद्वेदुषस्त्वं भूयो वा दातुमर्हसि ।

या स्तोतृभ्यो विभावर्युच्छन्ती न प्रमीयसे सुजाते अश्वसूनृते ॥ (5.79.10) [To UShas Amman]

10 So much, and more exceedingly, O Dawn, it suits thee to bestow,*

Thou Radiant One who ceasest not to shine for those who sing thy praise, highborn! delightful with thy steeds!

[*Assuming* this verse is relevant here. Looks like a verb? "suits thee" is perhaps the part that translates it, in terms of it's "your right to do/you are worthy to do" hence "suits you to do"?? Don't know. But nothing Jain certainly.]



ता वृधन्तावनु द्यून्मर्ताय देवावदभा ।

अर्हन्ता चित्पुरो दधेऽम्शेव देवावर्वते ॥ (5.86.5) [Suktam to Indra and Agni.] (Converted bindu to allow display)]

5 These who give increase day by day, Gods without guile for mortal man,

Worthy themselves, I honour most, Two Gods as partners, for my horse.





द्वे नप्तुर्देववतः शते गोर्द्वा रथा वधूमन्ता सुदासः ।

अर्हन्नग्ने पैजवनस्य दानं होतेव सद्म पर्येमि रेभन् ॥ (7.18.22) [Suktam labelled as being generally to Indra, but verse seems to address Agni]

22 Priest-like, with praise, I move around the altar, earning Paijavana's reward, O Agni,

Two hundred cows from Devavan's descendant, two chariots from Sudās with mares to draw them.





वेषि होत्रमुत पोत्रं जनानां मन्धातासि द्रविणोदा ऋतावा ।

सवाहा वयं कृणवामा हवींषि देवो देवान्यजत्वग्निरर्हन् ॥ (10.2.3) [Agni again.] (Arhan has something to do with worship here perhaps?)

3 To the Gods’ pathway have we travelled, ready to execute what work we may accomplish.

Let Agni, for he knows, complete the worship. He is the Priest: let him fix rites and seasons.





नृचक्षसो अनिमिषन्तो अर्हणा बृहद्देवासो अमृतत्वमानशुः ।

ज्योतीरथा अहिमाया अनागसो दिवो वर्ष्माणं वसते स्वस्तये ॥ (10.63.4) [Vishwe]

4 Looking on men, ne’er slumbering, they by their deserts attained as Gods to lofty immortality.

Borne on refulgent cars, sinless, with serpents' powers, they robe them, for our welfare, in the height of heaven.





अभ्रप्रुषो न वाचा प्रुषा वसु हविष्मन्तो न यज्ञा विजानुषः ।

सुमारुतं न ब्रह्माणमर्हसे गणमस्तोष्येषां न शोभसे ॥ (10.77.1) [To Maruts]

1. As with their voice from cloud they sprinkle treasure so are the wise man's liberal sacrifices.

I praise their Company that merits worship as the good Maruts' priest to pay them honour.



तृष्टमेतत्कटुकमेतदपाष्ठवद्विषवन्नैतदत्तवे ।

सूर्यां यो ब्रह्मा विद्यात्स इद्वाधूयमर्हति ॥ (10.85.34) [Marriage rites? Addresses many, especially Surya.]

34 Pungent is this, and bitter this, filled, as it were, with arrow-barbs, Empoisoned and not fit for use.

The Brahman who knows Surya well deserves the garment of the bride.



जोषा सवितर्यस्य ते हरः शतं सवाँ अर्हति ।

पाहिनो दिद्युतः पतन्त्याः ॥ (10.158.2) [To Surya]

2 Thou Savitar whose flame deserves hundred libations, be thou pleased:

From failing lightning keep us safe.