Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

Dhu (assuming he ever reads this),



Regarding post 179.

To avoid taking too long, will just state stuff matter-of-factly:



1. On samurai: even Japanese Buddhist authors on the subject explain that, upon entry into Japan, Buddhism converted the existing warrior classes* [along with the government and administration. <- This was part of the usual top-down replacement/conversion process which Buddhism used frequently in Asia, after which the government/admin/military would "trickle down" the new religion onto the laity. A feature of missionary religion.]



* That is, Buddhist historians admit the martial caste pre-existed (in the pre-existing status-quo of Shinto society), and that Buddhism drew its converts from there.

And in the last major re-take for Shinto, it was again Samurai professing Shinto who retook the Japanese government.



If Buddhism is to be specifically related back to Samurai, then so can christianism be: Portuguese catholic priests in the 16th or so century converted a significant number of Japanese Samurai too (and admin and local retainer), and these subsequently became catholic Samurai marching under a christian banner upon Buddhist and Shinto warriors.



But by definition and origin, they were Shinto. That is why there are no *Samurai* (not to be confused with "any" type of warrior/martial caste) in Indian Buddhism, Sri Lankan Buddhism, Chinese or other Asian Buddhisms.



Ninjas are Shinto too in origin and derivation.

And so was another famous Japanese martial caste, except that this last got infiltrated by one Bauddhified clan trying to bauddhify the remaining 5 or 6 staunchly Shinto ones. (The arguments of the Shinto side are very instructive, especially the degree of Immunity to subversion exhibited.)





2. Yuddhisthira (in the MBh) says that the veda is seen in all the Varnas. And this goes all the way back to before.

The underlying "self-evidential" nature of the matter can be phrased as a predicate:



(Kshatriyas | Shudras | Vaishyas | Brahmanas) <---> Vedic



where the double-headed arrow is supposed to be the logical equivalence operator.

That is, kShatriya (etc) implies Vedic and vice-versa (i.e. Vedic likewise implies any of the varnas). They're all *defined* by the Vedic religion.

It's more than merely a community identifier: it's tied to religion.



People who convert out to other religions either howl at varNas - treating it as a crime for which Vedic religion is to blame, which is then often reduced to "brahminism" exclusively (conveniently forgetting that kShatriyas, for example, were no less Vedic, e.g. the solar and lunar dynasties from the 2 Itihasas) - while at times still hanging on to their own pre-conversion identity for superficial self-identification (where in the new religion it's reduced to ethnicity or mere ancestry, since they're no longer Vedic), seeing no hypocrisy in this. But that's part of the Replacement procedure: superficial identity terms and forms kept intact, and even *transferred* into becoming "ties" to the replacement religion. The same is apparent still: apparent in many ex-Hindu converts to christianism who hang on to not just their jatis after conversion, but also Varnas: e.g. Mangalorean catholics meaninglessly calling themselves brahmins. I suppose christians must argue to themselves that if the nastika religions can get away with it - and that "therefore" such identities could not be directly related to Vedic religion, and would apply to "any and all Indians" - so should christianism.

[Husky]

The above is separate, but this post belongs with the next 3.



1/4



1. Found some handy and to the point quotes to back up stuff I had merely stated earlier about

- how Adi Shankara can't be accused of Buddhism and

- how the 3 Vedantic views were established before the 3 Vedantic acharyas who famously espoused them again in a later age. (Not that this is surprising: e.g. before any of the 3 Vedantic acharyas, the 3 traditional POVs concerning (a)dvaitam were already part of Vaishnavam, Shaivam and Shaktam.)

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.

I.e. Shankara can hardly have been a Buddhist since he thought Buddha [that is, Buddha's teachings which started from considering but then specifically broke away from the Upanishads etc] was unwittingly or deliberately wrong.

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])

(Both the above quoteblocks are stolen from a book by a Hindu. I.e. not an alien. <- It matters to me, which is obviously why I mention it.)





2. Also relevant is the following essay by a Japanese author, taken from a book of essays by different - non-Hindu and definitely foreign I think - writers. Fortunately, no scanning's even needed as it's on Googlebooks, providing easy screengrabs. The pages of the essay are put up in the next 3 posts below.

It's from pages 18-29 of: books.google.com/books?id=JugqR3unjB4C

(Note that a direct translation of Shankara's comment described in the first quoteblock of this post is also found on the screengrab of p. 22 in post #184 below)





Disclaimers:

- While the Japanese author doesn't seem offensive, I *don't* recommend the book: e.g. the very next essay is by the insidious inculturating Jesuit Francis Clooney. (Those who don't know who he is, search IF for "clooney".) Clearly Clooney's writing in the book for a reason - christianism - and that renders the entire book suspicious, not to mention that it's mostly by a bunch of aliens writing about an aspect of Hindu religion, like dabblers like to do.



- And I don't agree with all of the essay by the Japanese author either, but if I had to go over all the points of contention using extracts from elsewhere I'll be here till the cows come mooing home. :pass:



For one thing, there are several people who aren't alive to defend themselves/defend those they knew in person from suppositions made.



Further, while the article acquits Shankara of the invalid "hidden Buddhist" accusation, it does bring to fore more serious problems/suppositions/projections that have been waiting in line, and which will thus now be up front for needing tackling in future. They concern [Advaita] Vedanta, naturally (and its relation with the rest of Hindu religion). They will therefore easily affect self-subversionists among those Hindus of the New-age "Let's Vedanta" kind. (They can not remotely affect the traditional views of traditional Advaitic Hindus, who never separated Vedanta from the Vedas and don't remove the Gods from Hindu religion either.) But alien dabblers in Vedanta are those who find these problems most useful in order to do what many a dabbler usually does: try to cut out Hindu religion piecemeal for "universal" appropriation. (But alien dabbling is a direct product of christoconditioning: were it not for christianism, there would be no alienated hence no dabblers. Christianism generally uses the "piecemeal" approach too to forcibly separate what it can from theistic Hindu religion, but applies the procedure in order to graft those same things onto the inverted-theism of christianism instead - e.g. Yoga, Vedanta, etc.) Anyway, western literature has been cutting deep into the issue for a long time, creating a whole class of problems that will avalanche eventually or else subtly subvert widely, though they are at present usually directed most verbosely and fearsomely at Hellenismos.



+ The essay is reposted here only to show up the invalidity of accusing Adi Shankara of "hidden (or any) Buddhism". Though he didn't "defeat" Buddhism - since that was something Hindus before him had already accomplished - he *was* setting Hindu religion internally in order, particularly the Vedanta aspect and its relation to the rest. His adversaries were therefore mainly internals. E.g. the primary being the late (non-theistic) Samkhyans (Adi Shankara appears to have no issue with the general Samkhyan enumeration or its earlier explications such as in the Gita and the Upanishads). But as part of the process of setting the Hindu religion internally in order, it also required refuting the external stuff/external wrong views on Hindu materials. Which particularly included keeping the Vedantic POV away from any bauddhifications encroaching on it (bauddhification is what seems to be referred to in the Japanese writer's essay as "buddhicisation" or something), something Other Heathens elsewhere had to do in different ways. It's at this point - of considering Buddhism's views where they touch on Upanishadic thought - that Shankara also turned to refute Buddhist misinterpretations of the Vedanta, which essentially means refuting *Buddhism* itself, since Buddhist speculations proceed entirely from Upanishadic precursors (that is, there's no Buddhism without pre-existing Vedic religion, specifically Upanishadic thought). Adi Shankara wasn't the first or only Hindu to do such refutation of external views on Hindu matters for internal/housekeeping purposes, but he was certainly one of those who's rightfully credited with doing this.



The article also indicates that - what it calls "orthodox" - Hindus viewed Buddhist interpretations of Vedic religion (specifically of the Vedanta aspect, since that's the area Buddhism concerned itself with) as mistaken*, and that this necessarily extends to Buddhism's continuing to conveniently misread its own ideas, views and conclusions into the Bhagavad Gita and other mainstream *Hindu* materials: Buddhist views on these materials remain mistaken from the so-called "orthodox" Hindu [rather plain Hindu] POV. And the Hindu POV matters, since the very materials in consideration *are* Hindu and not Buddhist: Buddhism merely seeks self-vindication in such Hindu materials as they form the backdrop and originating train of thought from which Buddhism diverged.

* And in this respect too, Adi Shankara was merely one of a great many precursors and successors, yet "curiously" he keeps getting singled out for it.



+ The article further states in passing (i.e. self-evidentially) what's well-known: that the "popular Hinduism of the masses" - that is, the Piety to the Hindu Gods, which exists in the Vedas itself - naturally preceded the Adi Shankaracharya too. [<- This is generally denied only by opportunistic missionary ideologies like christianism, neo-Buddhisms etc, seeking to divorce the Hindu laity from their ancestral religion and hoping to claim a greater ancientry for their own ideologies.] Obvious. But still, worth observing.

[Husky]

2/4



The source for the following is mentioned in #182 above.

(Note: the book wherein this essay is found is not recommended, plus I don't agree with everything in the essay posted here itself.)



Note there's no point reading only the first few pages. If you're going to read it, read it until the pages posted in 4/4.











Cont. in next

[Husky]

3/4



Again: the source for the following is mentioned in #182 above.

(Note: the book wherein this essay is found is not recommended, plus I don't agree with everything in the essay posted here itself.)











Cont. in next again

[Husky]

Post 4/4



Once more: the source for the following is mentioned in #182 above.

(Note: the book wherein this essay is found is not recommended, plus I don't agree with everything in the essay posted here itself.)











(C'est tout.)

[Husky]

ravilochanan.blogspot.com/2007/05/tirupati-is-not-buddhist-shrine-answer_05.html

Tirupati is not a Buddhist Shrine - An Answer to Dr. Jamanadas



Wish I'd found this earlier, would have saved so much trouble.



It's very long. But some stuff in it is definitely worth reading.



I don't agree with everything--e.g. the writer continues the assumption that Ilango Adigal who authored Cilappadikaram was a Jain. Ironically some of the reasons he cites to prove various Hindu kings wrongly claimed for Buddhism were actually Hindus, is exactly true for Ilango Adigal too: attends a Vedic yagnya.



And at least the article doesn't shy away from noticing Buddhist inculturation on/usurpation from Hindu religion.



Note also how neo-Buddhists don't just identify the fictive Potalaka (of the very much invented Avalokiteshwara) in Shabari to claim the Ayyappa Kovil+land (and Hindus) there, and elsewhere also identify Potalaka with Potiyil (to claim the obvious), but have also been claiming Tiruvenkata hills area as "Potalaka" apparently. I'm surprised the Hindus who so readily donated Ayyappa to Buddhism didn't donate Tirupati to Buddhism with as great an ease. Or maybe they'll try that in some nearby future?

[Husky]

Two excerpts relevant to a matter I was trying to bring up recently. Seems that - for now at least - even wacky admits to some basics:



1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_(Buddhism)

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]

2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakra_(Buddhism)

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.

1. Note that while I do consciously bring up Indra - the devaraja of Hindu Swarga - when mentioning the Jade Emperor of Daoist Heaven, clearly I would only ever do this to a Hindu audience in case they may not already be familiar with the Jade Emperor. And I *only* do so in order to (hopefully) convey the sort of exalted and central position that the Jade Emperor has in Daoism and among Daoists. That is, Hindus know who Indra is to Hindus. If Hindus have not heard of the Jade Emperor, you can sort of "explain" to Hindoos what he means to Daoists by saying superficially-acceptable - because relatable - things like "the Jade Emperor is to Daoists 'sort of' what Indra is to Hindus".

But - like Daoists - of course I certainly don't confuse the *Hindu* Indra aka Shakra (one of his titles in the Vedas, I imagine hearing) with the Daoist Jade Emperor.

And I most certainly don't believe in the Buddhist invented clone called Shakra, which Buddhism used to encroach not just on the Hindu Indra but also on the Daoist Emperor. Fortunately they failed, but the Daoists explain this better.



Hmmm. That just reminded me of some rather interesting stuff on Daoism that I still need to post.





2. The reason for posting the above excerpts, from wackypedia though they be, is that they are very convenient: they admit to the Buddhist cloning process, which consists of Buddhism often copying the names and titles and even primary descriptions of Hindu Gods and then using these to construct/invent Buddhist fictional characters which diverge from the Hindu orignals. (And to be clear: these Buddhist clones *are* fiction. <- That's what the admission in the reference to Buddhist 'borrowing' from pre-Buddhist religion is all about.)

Most importantly the two excerpts above - the one on BrahmA and the other on Indra (and the rest of the tridasha) - admit that the Buddhist clones are not the same as the Hindu originals which they were based on. I.e. the Hindu brahmA and indra are NOT the same as the false Buddhist copies of these. The very characters were changed: they were turned into upholders "protectors" of Buddhism, instead of being upholders of the Vedic religion, which is what the originals by the name of Brahma and Indra are. (Though obvious, it is even more important to state vehemently that the Jade Emperor - one of the core Gods of Daoism - is an upholder of the Daoism. He is not remotely a "protector of the Buddhist religion" - being indeed in no way related to Buddhism - and therefore can't be confused with the fictional Buddhist "Shakra" cloned from the original Hindu Indra aka Shakra.)



[color="#0000FF"]INSERT x-post:[/color]

The Hindu Maara aka Manmatha, the PuShpabaaNa, is obviously also unrelated to the Buddhist Maara who is likewise said to be with Pushpabaana:

[quote name='Husky' date='22 December 2012 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1356191879' post='116358']

These original Hindu Gods have as much in common with the Buddhist pseudo-copies made from them, as the original Hindu God Manmatha has to do with his Buddhist cloned "counterpart" - who also retains the name Maara and who is also still described as puShpabaaNa (e.g. in the Dhammapada, IIRC), but who has been dubbed Da Evil One of Buddhism. <- Buddhism doesn't just mean this theoretically/symbolically (though even dubbing him "evil one" for symbolic reasons just because his work/ways were then seen as an impediment to [Buddhist] nirvaNa is still going too far IMO), but it also additionally promotes a literal view on the matter.

In contrast, the Hindu Maara is of course not remotely evil, but is in fact praised in various stotras ...[/quote]





If there were no Hindu, Daoist, Shinto etc originals <=> there'd never have been Buddhist clones of these. <- Take away the LHS and there IS NO RHS, thus showing that the RHS is an invention dependent on LHS.

What is it about missionary religions that they always have to either/or 1. encroach on pre-existing religions (Gods and practices) and 2. at best can only invent further fictions of their own. That is, why do they never seem to have *real* Gods of their *own*?

E.g. Buddhism tries such tricks on Daoist and Shinto Gods in China and Japan, and the only actually Buddhist 'novelties' tend to be of the obvious fictional types such as Avalokiteshvara (though itself a Buddhist clone of and replacement for the Hindu Maheshwara, hence dependent on pre-existing Hindu religion for fashioning the Avalokiteshwara concept too) and Vajrapani (partial replacement for the real i.e. Vedic Indra, e.g. seen in the transfer of Indra's famous Ayudha).





So what was that about the Vedic religion and those who would preserve it being a "swindle" again?

When clearly Buddhism stole Hindu (not to mention Others') Gods - after hissing at Hindus etc for these very things - and then Buddhism spun Buddhist inventions off these (and Buddhism *knows* very well they were spin-offs) only to next peddle these fictions on lay heathen populations in order to make converts using their pre-existing attachments.



I note the shoe fits the accusers: *Swindlers*.



"Oeeeeee.... Dat gaf groot gedonder!

't Werd haast 'n handgemeen

Maar ik bleef er nuchter onder

en ik riep er dwars doorheen:

Hou maar op, ik blijf erbij!"

<rest is N/A>





Anyway, at the least: the Hindu brahmA and indra (and Manmatha and all of the Hindu tridasha/koTi) are not be mistaken for their Buddhist copies. -> Different characters, different cosmologies = different identities, even for those Hindus who wish to believe in the existence of the late, quaint Buddhist clones of the real Hindu originals.

Oh and shouldn't forget the tiny print: the *Hindu* stotras, mantras and ritual practices on these and all *Hindu* Gods are exclusively about the *Hindu* Gods (and not about the Buddhist clones), therefore. These things being *Hindu* not Buddhist religion. Meaning: non-shareable/non-transferrable. <- Actually, I like how the Daoists draw that line: thick, dark, unmistakeable, non-negotiable...





ADDED:

Though this next is taken from a book I wouldn't otherwise ever have chosen to grab quotes from, this bit seems relevant to the matter of there having existed a dedicated following for (the Hindu) BrahmA among Hindus:

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

I guess that means it's known that *at least* as late as the 4th century BCE (and probably for some time later, even though no specific evidence is mentioned), the *Hindu* Brahma had specifically *dedicated* followers among Hindus, the way there are still dedicated followers for the other 2 Gods of the Trimoorti (Vaishnavas and Shaivas).



Also from the same source, which shows the sort of important Hindu texts from which Hindus' ongoing perception of the Hindu brahmA derives:

[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).

There's a rather interesting question that can be posed from some of the stuff pasted in this post. (<- Ooo, accidental alliteration. Gah, it's becoming terminal.) Where was I? Oh yes: 'interesting' question. Or rather, interesting direction of inquiry off a commonly-asked question.

[Husky]

In the rather late Chinese Buddhist fictional novel (JttW), Buddhism repeated the same behaviour pattern: it decided that Daoist characters would accompany a bodhi-something (bodhidharma?) to India, and that they needed bauddhification. One of these is a very famous and well-loved Daoist God, who's highly placed in the Daoist pantheon.



Buddhism conspired that this God (as other Daoist characters) would need a great fall from grace. So the Buddhist novel declared he was lecherous and had intimidated a Daoist Goddess, who had appealed to Daoist Heaven for help, and that he was thereupon punished for his lecherous pursuit of the Goddess by Daoist Heaven with a reduction in his status (no longer a God) and kicked out of Heaven. (This is why Buddhism started representing this God with the head of a pig.) Having thus written him out of the Daoist pantheon, Buddhism's next lie was to make it so that some Buddha entity got all compassionate about him and redeemed him, and that he thus became a Bauddhified bodhisattva type character. Buddhism's great hope was to thus subvert the Chinese laity (who were always Daoist) into seeing their great Daoist God as a lecherous entity that needed Bauddhistic "salvation" (i.e. conversion) in order to still be respectable. In essence Buddhism, with its lying (sorry, fictionalising) scored for itself moral points: apparently Daoism could not prevent lechery, not even in the ranks of Daoist Gods. Daoist Gods did not have the compassion of the (many fictional) Buddhas and hence could not redeem those who turned out subpar. That Buddhism had what it took to create divinity. Thus finally leading to the false Buddhist conclusion that Buddhism, and not Daoism, is what generates and possesses Divinity. The other false notions that Buddhism wanted to instill into the Chinese populace was that this Daoist God (whom the Buddhist cloning-and-mangling process reinvented as lecherous) was not worthy of popular worship.



Note the 'cleverness': it was *Buddhism* that implicated Daoist Gods and Heaven using fictions that never took place. It was then Buddhism that declared itself superior. These are not 2 subsects of the same native religion trying to outdo each other. It's an alien, invasive religion, attacking the native religion of a populace, trying to replace it (or its head) with itself.



The prequel to the novel, using typical Buddhist techniques of using consciously-invented fiction* as propaganda against native religion, had already declared Buddha superior to the Jade Emperor and all of Daoist Heaven.

[* Note: not even pseudo-history, but openly-acknowledged fiction. This is a unique feature of Buddhism. Christianism pretends its propaganda against other religions is history, i.e. fact. Buddhism never bothered. It churned out openly fantastical and implausible stories, which it never pretended were history but admitted were mere parable containing moral lessons - usually on the superiority of Buddhism 'compassion' - but nevertheless deliberately created and used these parables/fictions as propaganda against native heathen religions.]



Despite Buddhism's desperate attempts at subverting the heathen perceptions of the Chinese laity in this matter, it only partially succeeded in its aims.

Buddhism did not manage to de-popularise worship of the Daoist God despite its desperate tactics, but succeeded in another - unexpected aspect - the laity (subverted by such Buddhist lying) do indeed continue to worship the God despite Buddhism's scheming against him, but some laity now worship him as having the head of a pig: something which he does not have and never had, apparently. Traditional Daoists have been working hard to rectify the error. IIRC, I recently even read that Daoists are ensuring the elimination of the false statues where he is represented with the head of a pig, so that Daoists aren't duped by the Buddhist lies into buying those anymore, but would instead acquire (or create) the correct vigrahas: where he has the original head of the God. Note that it's not that Daoists have anything particularly against pigs, but this God simply does not have the head of one.

(As I understand, it seems even the confused laity didn't accept that he ever chased after the Moon Goddess. Rather they appear to read this as a fantastical 'feature' of the Buddhist novel.)





IN REALITY - i.e. beyond the late, fraudulent Buddhist lying against Daoism (and the Buddhist author very much had it in for Daoism) - it turns out that, as traditional Daoists explain:



- the Daoist God was never lecherous, he was ever of noble and perfect character (in case you couldn't work that out)

- never had the head of a pig

- these Gods never got kicked out of Daoist Heaven, but remain part of it still

- they never met any Buddha - not the historical one or fictional ones - never learnt the 'compassion' of Buddha and never became bodhisattvas

- they have nothing to do with Buddhism



The lesson that the Chinese laity should have learned (and many did indeed learn - even before these late novels, which is why in early centuries, the Chinese had tried to kick Buddhism out of their country) is not that their native religion had any faults, but that Buddhism has a tendency to lie damnably against other religions. Buddhism couldn't catch on in a population as much as its peddlers wanted it to (or pretended it could). So Buddhism latched onto popular Gods, and tried to claim them for Buddhism (often by mangling them first).



Just like the Hindu Indra and BrahmA are real and have nothing to do with their fictional, bauddified 'Buddhist' clones, the original Daoist Gods alluded to in this post are real and have nothing to do with their late, fictional, bauddified 'Buddhist' clones either. No matter that late Buddhist fictionalising tried to project its narrative into earlier Daoist history.



The moral that Hindus - and everyone heathen really - can take from this, is that if Buddhism ever describes a heathen God as behaving unGodlike, it must be Buddhist fictionalising at work again, rather than taking the Buddhist spin at face value. (Same conclusion as when Buddhism declares a heathen God is magically a bodhisattva/part of Buddhist cosmology.)





On another matter, but still concerning the same geography, Buddhism had invented a special Buddha (i.e. one of the many fictional Buddhas) which it declared was appointed specifically for the conversion - I mean (bauddhific) salvation - of the Chinese*. Sort of like how christianism had invented the fictional santa thomas and declared said fiction was appointed specifically for the conversion of Asians like Indians and Chinese. Buddhism had written this role for their character for the same reason that christianism wrote the same sort of role for thomas: as a banner (and excuse) for conversion to the new religion.

This Buddha and the purpose conveniently invented for him were yet another Buddhist Swindle <- to use that common Buddhist accusation against others. Not my words, right? They started it. And they knew exactly what they were doing. (But heathens are going to finish it - the difference is that heathens don't need to lie against Buddhism, the way Buddhism has continuously lied against its perceived competition, in order to reveal the real swindling. No, it's not okay. If it had stopped centuries ago, it might have been forgivable. But it keeps going and going and going, since people never actively put a stop to it. Instead silly Indians in love with the notion that Buddhism=compassion - and nothing else is - peddle even the most frightful Buddhist fables about as fact: down to anti-heathen fables, including even ones that encroach on heathenisms to donate these to Buddhism. This has to stop.)



[* I could be confusing myself with other buddhist characters, but I think this particular concocted Buddha was called Manjushri?]

[Husky]

The following is relevant in this thread. I'm pleased someone wrote it. :at last: It's actually much needed.



My profuse comments are all over the place but are at least demarcated by being in purple again.

But better yet is that my comments can be easily avoided by reading the article at the link:



haindavakeralam.com/HkPage.aspx?PAGEID=17262

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.

Note how Hoole - whose claims are being refuted above - is typically some SL christo. I'm sure that we'll start seeing even more of SL christoism openly putting their claws into SL's native Hindus soon, since the christian LTTE has been decommissioned and so christinanity no longer has any real use for SL Hindus. Hoole - who has parroted fables in line with those spun by some SL Buddhist monks - also shows another pattern that we're not unlikely to see in future: SL christos sidling up to SL Buddhism and hoping the SL Buddhists are stupid enough to overlook that the whole LTTE terrorism thing was a christian op (with brainwashed once-Hindus as mere footsoldiers) and christian eelam remains a christian project (though no doubt they'll expand that last to a larger "christian SL + christian India" enterprise in sufficient time, which also happens to be in line with Papal commandments too).

Christianism slowly trying to cosy up with SL Buddhism would certainly parallel its larger game in the subcontinent: in India, christists are roping in neo-Buddhists in their efforts to rewrite Hindu history. I've noticed examples of this in matters India-wide, but it's especially steaming up in TN (as part of the whole "christo eelam" project). Anyway, it's not like they're going to leave out the rest of the nation: that's what the whole ur-Shramanism concoction is for. Eventually it will be developed even further to come to the same point as the history rewriting has come to in the south (i.e. christianisation/shramanisation of Hindus' history).





The above article can come in handy for Hindus who wish to tell the Replacement Theologies which keep rewriting the history of the south (in order to write out Hinduism from it and write themselves in) that the Hindu Dharmic Religion - aka "Vedic Religion", usw - is the ancestral religion of the natives of the south. It's also handy in enlightening Hindus from more distant parts of the subcontinent about how Tamizh Hindus [and TN for that matter] were NOT "originally" (nor even ever significantly) Buddhist/Jain/ur-Shramanic/Dravoodian-religion/what-have-you type nonsense, despite all the relentless propaganda these days. While the article speaks largely about Hindus of the Tamizh regions of the subcontinent, the history follows largely the same pattern for all of the south of the country. And indeed, for all of the regions of the subcontinent: Hindus' religion/the Sanatana Dharma *is* the ancestral religion of the natives of the subcontinent, after all. (And this would be, I think, at least part of the reason why IIRC that old Japanese scholar identified Shintoism with Hinduism - and in direct distinction from Buddhism. Oh, but I forget, I haven't put that cute little statement up yet.)

[Husky]

Set of posts go here because they're about how history keeps becoming controversial. The first post is very loosely related to the next two so it also goes here.

Might repost (free of my comments) in a more relevant thread, if I can find one and remember to.



Post 1/3



[color="#0000FF"]This is not the important post. The next one is.[/color] But the following item is posted partly because the linked article by "Johnson" mentions something about "Pure Tamil" which in typically-christist parlance has the connotation of "Tzh With No Skt=no Skt influences". The reason why that is an impossible statement to make - at least based on available evidence - is what the *next*, more important, post is about. (I.e. show me a time, but provide documentation, outside of the modern dravoodian purges of course, when there was *no* Skt influence on/connection to Tzh. Note that even one Tzh word with known Skt connection is sufficient to disprove the existence of a "Pure Tamizh" for that entire historical period.)





rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/what-strange-piece-on-dravidian.html

Wednesday, May 08, 2013



what a strange piece on dravidian languages!

http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2...-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

The "kannada gent" seems to refer to the "Johnson" character who wrote the original article. That makes it a christoconvert. And *that* explains the moronisms of the article being referred to.



But Rajeev is dismissing Hindi unfairly. Bollywho's so-called "Hindi" may be turning more and more Urdu everyday (it certainly sounds uncouth enough to make me think it can't be Hindi), and bollywho's insipid audiences may be starting to speak less Hindi and more Urdu in connection with this (whether it's a cause or effect I don't know: "are they insipid *because* they watch Bollywho, or is a natural insipidity causing them to watch it?"), but that doesn't make Hindi itself "essentially Urdu" the way Rajeev claims. What absurdity.

It is Urdu that was concocted as a mixture of -NOTE- pre-existing Hindi with dollops of Persian and Arabic. As opposed to Hindi being a supposed "offshoot" of Urdu or even forming a "syncretism" with Urdu. Urdu's existence is dependent on Hindi, not the other way around. Hindi could have done entirely without Urdu, and gone on developing naturally without Urdu's unnatural interference.



While the widely-heard Hindi does have a tendency to lop off the inherent vowel in Skt consonants, especially on endings, only bad logic could force the conclusion that this makes Hindi itself "essentially Urdu".

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

It sounds abrupt. Indeed, it sounds wrong to Hindus not used to hearing this, because the original Bhima is a Skt name.

BUT, Bhim IS a valid form in *Hindi*, as far as I understand. I don't know that it is the *only* form of pronouncing it in Hindi, and I suspect that "Bhima" may still be - or, at least, may once have been - a valid pronunciation of the name in Hindi (while it remains the only correct pronunciation in Skt). Perhaps the earliest Hindi dialects pronounced it as "Bhima"? Still, you don't need Urdu to explain why Bhima may have become Bhim in Hindi. It could just be a natural process of simplification, the way Skt tended to get simplified into various Prakrits, including Hindi.

You don't see Hindus taking offence (or at least I hope not) that Tamizh Hindus at times may refer to "Sudarshanam" for Sudarshana, the way any number of Hindi speakers may refer to the same as Sudarshan. Sure yes, Sudarshana is the original Skt name. But Sudarshanam and Sudarshan are the valid local variants of it, and my money's on him answering to all three.





I'm not sure how to construe this sentence though:

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

He appears to be comparing languages with a script...? That makes the statement confusing. Because:



- If he meant that the southern languages have no *full* correspondence with Hindi, well, they don't have full correspondence with each other either or with Skt. There are sounds in Tzh that don't exist in Telugu, Kannada and Skt (and at least one Tzh sound is deprecated in Malayalam. The Malayalam script at least is a superset covering both Skt and Tzh sounds: i.e. the traditional unmodified Malayalam script - perhaps uniquely - can represent all the sounds in both Tzh and Skt. DevanAgarI has been expanded artificially - for data representation purposes, not for natural usage - to allow it to represent sounds unique to southern Indian languages, but that's using the dot to extend the character set, and the resulting compound characters don't appear to be traditionally in use in devanAgarI.) All southern languages have 2 additional hrasvas not in Skt (but which yet exist in every European language I'm familiar with).



- If he meant that you can write the southern languages in devanAgarI, you can equally write Hindi in devanAgarI (well, obviously). Rajeev can't have meant that devanaagari is *more* suitable for representing southern languages than it's suitable for representing Hindi - even *had* he also intended to imply alongside that southern languages have a 1-1 correspondence with Samskritam - because devanAgarI can represent Hindi completely and, with the extension feature, can therefore represent Southern languages completely too.

And despite (some) Hindi speakers not voicing the inherent vowel in some parts of some words, I am sure that when reading through the basic akSharas they would voice it: that is, they wouldn't be saying "k, kh", but would say it with the vowel. This shows they *know* the vowel is present there by default. It's just that (some dialects?) of Hindi may not always make pedantic use of the same in actual words of speech.



- If he meant that the southern languages have significant correspondence with Samskritam (i.e. all the akSharas of Skt), then Hindi does too. Perhaps the La is depecrated in some northern tongues, whereas it is actually a key sound of Tamizh at least (and gets as good a workout as in the Rig). But then, most native languages miss out on many sounds of Skt: the R^I, L^i, L^I type vowels don't get used as much in any of them I imagine. Then again, Skt doesn't appear to use L^I for many words at all, I could be wrong, and even R^I isn't the most common vowel.





So if he had intended to say that the sounds of southern languages can't be respresented fully in Hindi ("but they can in Skt"), well much of the Tamizh language can fairly be represented by Hindi sounds. Not all, admittedly, but then, the same is true for Skt.

In fact, I could argue with reason that the sounds of spoken Hindi give a decent coverage of the sounds in Tamizh: Hindi has all the varga sounds that are made in sounding Tzh (Tzh script may not distinguish between d and t etc, and between k and g etc, and at times even between ch and s/sh, but spoken Tzh does mostly: at least we can hear the difference between when someone says a ka or a ga and the like, even if sometimes people choose to interchange them. And unlike some French people, Tamizh Hindus can easily say the "ha", but we sometimes choose to write and even say ga or ka instead).

Next, while Tzh doesn't have mahaapraaNas (either in script or pronunciation) - unlike Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam and Skt, where I still hear native speakers faithfully pronounce things correctly - Hindi speakers seem to be more lax/relaxed with mahapraaNas: to my ear, I hear them say "dukka" rather than what's written. And that's *exactly* what Tamizh Hindus say (except if they were pronouncing Skt, of course, in which case they'd say what's written). The difference is that in Tzh you also *spell* it that way. Not surprising, both being prakrit (lowercase p). So in some respects, Hindi speakers are a lot like Tamizh speakers. In other (many) respects, Malayalam speakers are a lot like Tamizh speakers. And sometimes Tamizhs do the v -> b thing that the Bengalis do. Etc.



A sidenote: one entire varga sets all the many official Indian languages as a group apart from all the European languages I've ever heard: (W) Europeans don't make *those* sounds. Not even by accident.







Also the usage of "devanAgarI" in Rajeev's statement seems misleading. It is after all only one of numerous scripts for representing Skt (and not even the earliest one among those still in use at present).

+ Kashmiris, Punjabis and other Hindus, I think upto Afghanistan, used their SiddhamAtrika aka Sharada script for Skt - named after Saraswati again - from which the more recent Gurmukhi script was derived (if you can read Siddhamaatrika, it looks to me like you can easily read Gurmukhi, it seems that similar to my otherwise untrained eye). Kashmiri Hindus still use Sharada for Skt.

+ Tamizh [and also Malayali] Hindus have a special and ancient script for Skt, though Malayalis on first glance don't need it as much as the Tamizh Hindus do, as the Malayalam script perfectly suffices for Skt AND all the southern languages. However, this Skt-specific script has support for Veda notation from the ground up, which is why I think Malayali Hindus use it for Vedic Skt too. I prefer to read Skt either in this script or devanAgarI (and Tzh in Tzh script of course), rather than itrans which I don't seem to compute too well. An extended character set version of the script - historically in use, hence not artificial/not invented for modern data representation - supports both Tamizh and Skt.

+ Balinese Hindus use their Akshara Bali which appears to have most everything in Skt - it certainly covers all the akSharas - and further looks to my ignorant eye like it even supports in-built veda marks. Curiously, the Bali Hindus' OM looks like it's composed of their number 3 (which is also their o) combined with their chandrabindu. The number 3 I suppose stands for the Trimoorti then, which would be appropriate. The Sadaashiva/shivalingam is after all composed of the Trimoorti + nAdabindu represented by the chandrabindu. Or something approximately like that. You know what I mean, it's described in our Stuff. <- Ooh, great use of the word Stuff there. tuff:

[Husky]

Post 2/3



2 items. Related. On what's a fascinating topic IMO, but one which is marred by that death of all accurate Indian history telling: deliberate controversy.



My comments are inserted in purple.



1. hindu.com/2004/05/26/stories/2004052602871200.htm

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.

[Husky]

Post 3/3



2. thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article2408091.ece

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.”

So, the oldest (in terms of confirmed date) legibly written word found in TN - and it predates Sangam, going by how Sangam works are *currently* dated (though the statement in the 1st news piece that the Tamizh Brahmi finds from possibly-7th/8th century BCE could therefore be from "probably earlier than the Sangam period" -

again: so the confirmed-oldest legibly written word found in TN is a Tamizh word with definite connections to Samskritam? Brilliant. Yes no wonder Mohadevan etc can't allow it.

Sure, in itself it doesn't reveal anything much about the origin of Tamil Brahmi: was it developed locally or shared from/shared among another part of the country? (Clearly Tamizh is at that point in contact already with Skt, so can't rule out that it was shared, but can't make out the direction of sharing either.) But finding the word Vaira around 500 BCE in TN says something about the chase for "Pure Tamizh": that it's still on. Because the oldest Tamizh word found certainly isn't the so-called "Pure Tamizh" of wackypedia that the christist Johnson brought up. So where's the "Pure Tamizh"? Go back as far as you will in the record, and we *still* haven't got past the close - and, by 500 BCE already, well-established - connection with Samskritam.



After reading the first news item above, Hindus could wait years and years for more news on the subject: the news that was promised the readers was to be about the further investigation that would confirm/deny whether the dates for the first find really were 7th/8th centuries BCE.

Of course nothing much has turned up, not much for public consumption anyway. It's a touchy subject after all. (Perhaps the christians and neo-Buddhists, currently mangling Indian archaeology in favour of their agendas, jumped onto the scene too as they have elsewhere in the state? And joined the dravoodianists already busy on the subject.)

Because if I've learnt one thing on the matter of Indian history it is this: *everything* is made controversial. In fact, not just Indian history. The Indian present too. Indian scripts even. Dravoodianists and their western handlers were all sour about letting the script that Tamizh Hindus use for Skt get the Unicode treatment. The Unicode consortium doesn't seem to be the sort to be made up of ideological/political nutcases, so maybe the Dravoodianism-peddling gang had no influence on them? Leastways, hope not. (But Hindus appear to still be waiting for Unicode to come through on the matter.)



In any case, when there were gangs a-stir for even *that*, imagine the controversial nature of any Brahmi finds - in India a.o.t. SL, in TN moreover - that predate not just Asoka but Buddhism (and possibly Jainism too, depending on the outcome of the discoveries in the news item of the previous post).

You can see how the matter doesn't even enter into the heads of the more sensible people quoted in the news items: they are still only debating about the "controversiality" of the finds being pre-Asokan and Tamil Brahmi. Not about what this means in terms of Buddhism etc, the way the brain of everyone scrambling to claim the script for Buddhism etc works.



Because, as long as the only finds discovered were "Asokan Brahmi", Buddhism was happy to claim Brahmi. At the very least, they would claim this as Buddhism being the [first] one to peddle it in India and propagate proper Indic writing (because the west - ah yes the west - did not allow Brahmi to even be Indian, as everyone knows, but I'll get back to this for another reason). Jainism invented one or two origin theories:

1. IIRC some female Jaina character has the name Brahmi and was rather loosely associated with the origin of the script via a light mythological motif, in order to claim it for Jainism. Whether she was invented for the purpose or the purpose got attached to her, don't know. (But either way, in that case, brAhmI is certainly an ancient Hindu Goddess name too, nah: brAhmI=Saraswati as all Hindus know, plus the word itself is *Skt*, being specifically the female variant for BrahmA, not to mention that Saraswati is the mother of/identical to the akSharas of Skt as well as of the many Indian languages which all share the same askSharas.)

2. as people may know, the Jains assigned a teerthankara as having given rise to writing (all writing) in the world (plus also conveniently all the 64 kalaas which were first enumerated by - and directly associated with - *Hindu* religion, BTW).

So that means they claimed the Chinese script too, backwards in time and entirely ignorant about the existence of the Chinese and countless other ancient scripts around the globe. Nice one. The 2nd story says nothing particular about Brahmi however, but just about general writing and about all the till-then 64 *Hindu* kalaas. Both stories are the most vague and non-commital ever, and yet they are offered up as "proof" via "seed of origin theory", though no one - as far as I can work out - appears to have tried to peddle them publicly, until the more recent finds that started indicating the ancientry of the script within India, when there appears to have started yet another scramble for a piece of Indian history - this time to claim originating writing. (Sort of like the scramble in India to make gradual ideological claims on the IVC after its first discovery.)



But theologies aside, and to get back to the point: as long as the only finds were still "Asokan Brahmi", in India at least, Buddhism was informally advertised as the driving (even gestational) force behind [all Indian] Brahmi. Where that failed, Jainism would do in a pinch, though promoters of "Either way, it was anything but Hindu" were less comfortable with appealing to Jain theology for proof: at least Asoka was known for tangible edicts that were (until more recently) the oldest evidence of the use of Brahmi in India and the subcontinent.



So then, by that same logic that they used to pounce on Brahmi (or even "The Origin of Indian Writing"), when Brahmi finds predate Buddhism (and even Jainsm), Hindus are surely allowed to claim Brahmi, no? The answer - and every Hindu knows this - is No. It will be secular onlee. If it is found in Dravoodistan - i.e. the territory earmarked by the Dravoodians for themselves, specifically as being "not Hindu originally" - then it will be declared dravoodian onlee (except the very word discovered is "Vaira" which is a Tzh word that has undeniable ties to Skt.*) However, since the 490 BCE find is obviously not tied to dravoodianism, but shows such undeniable connections with :gulp: Skt, the answer is (you guessed it): the IVC. The "IVC" - contrary to Hindus appealing to it for their indigenousness - is now actually turning into a catch-all "Not Hindu" clause. It's being connected to the concocted ur-Shramanism. If ur-Shramanists were to be compared to the Indo-Europeans, then IVC is like to ur-Shramanism what the urheimat is to the "original Indo-Europeans".



Whenever anything can't be donated to Buddhism & Jainism proper, it is declared "IVC" connoting ur-Shramanist. This places it beyond Hindus' reach you see. "Yes but", say the Hindus, "What about the Pashupati seal? That's so obviously a Shiva? Doing Yoga. And the Mahishasuramardini etc?"

But haven't you heard, it's now to have been some Teerthankara. Magically, backwards in time, with all the features of Shiva, backwards in time. And have you never come across some - not looney-fringe but more mainstream - Jains declaring that 'Shivalingas are actually Hindus worshipping Kailasa which is the home of a Teerthankara'? (Meru and Kailasa and even several Hindu Gods having been magically copied into the other Indian religions from Hindu religion. But in order to claim originality, they then then have to resort to claiming Hindus copied *them*.) And of course Yoga is declared ur-Shramanist onlee and hence "Jain (& Buddhist) originally" but not ever - oh anything but that - Vedic. So no, no use pointing at the Pashupati I mean teerthankara seal etc.

In a way the ur-Shramanism theory is more foolproof - less dependent on actual evidence - than even PIE and AIT. It's the other half of PIE actually... Where PIE/AIT tells the story about the Oryan invaders, the "ur-Shramanism of the IVC" (ur-Shramanism has become equated with the IVC) conveniently fills in the story about the "original inhabitants" (who further got oppressed/disenfranchised/more sobstories invented backwards in time).



[* BTW, even if definitely and distinctly Prakrit words *were* to be found in these early time ranges, Prakrits are not peculiarly owned by Buddhism and Jainism, not even the 2 specific types of Prakrits they ended up primarily employing (being Pali and Ardha-Magadhi): Prakrits were merely the state of the popular languages in the parts of India including when & where Buddhism and Jainism arose and developed. *As a consequence* - and only as a consequence - to their [specific Prakrits'] then-current existence, they became the languages used and later promoted by the two respective religions. It doesn't say they weren't equally Hindu: since the then pre-existing society clearly used Prakrits.]





And the final point, then:



- For a long time, the ancestral Brahmi script (the "one script" from which the Tamil Brahmi, Asokan Brahmi and the Brahmi that the Siddhamatrika derived from, and all other Brahmis) was declared to NOT be Indian in origin but influenced by Phoenician script. I.e. had there been no Phoenician script, Indians would never have been able to develop their Brahmi since it was supposedly based off it, so we were told. And it was a story that stuck hard and fast. Only a small part of the excuse was that Vedic Hindus, being Vedic, had no need for writing (hence reading) and therefore wouldn't invent writing. Despite Phoenician being the primary argument, a part of the thrust was to deny Hindus the ability to come up with a script. Sort of like denying that Skt could be, let alone is, native to Hindus.

- Now (somewhere under the last decade, this being as far as I have noticed), even *western* sites discussing languages and scripts have this to say about Brahmi: that there are two plausible theories as to its origin. External Phoenician again, being theory 1. And, after admitting that there are now more ancient finds of the script in India (implying earlier local development), there comes the magic word: "IVC". (That the origin of Indian writing - leading to Brahmi and its descendants - had indigenously developed after all, since the dawn of known Indian civilisation, equated with the IVC)

There you have it, then:

So even when the script (its origins) is at last allowed to become native to the land, they have only allowed it *because* they know sufficient theories have now been advanced concerning the IVC so as to disallow the Hindus access to it. :grin:



Apparently it's inconceivable for a bunch of people possessed of a marvellously-grammatically sensible spoken language with near mathematical properties to ever conceive of coming up with a writing system.





I'm surprised that Buddhism & Jainism haven't lobbied to have more accurate dating done for their founders, the 2 confirmed-historical founders I mean. But then, since every major milestone in ancient Indian history, at least prior to Alexander, was assigned arbitrarily (but relative to the previous ones at that hazier point in time), wouldn't that push everything earlier somewhat further back in time? Like the Itihasas all the way right up the chain to the Vedas? I doubt the west and the state of "Indian history" as it is studied there would allow that.





Anyway, it's amazing how Hindus get dismissed out of hand. But it is deliberate, of course. Hindus are not allowed to exist in the present (e.g. aparently the recent report by the USCIRF -sp?-, on the various religious communities persecuted by islam in TSP-E & W, deliberately makes no mention of Hindus, though they're the majority victims). And Hindus are gradually erased from history too.

[Husky]

Already went on too long about it, but still, some further things to expand on, so I can -hopefully- feel completely done with this topic.

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.”

Chindu's introduction to Mohadevan's statement seems to imply that he wishes to insist that Tamil Brahmi must somehow be a Mauryan-derived product or related back to it. Such an expectation is unnecessary. It's faulty logic.

Even if we allow for Megasthenes being accurate concerning this detail and assuming the statement attributed to him is correctly presented, his statement only says something about Writing not being known in the *Mauryan* kingdom, which was certainly not all of old Bharatam. That leaves it open, by the time Ashoka rolled along, for the latter's kingdom to finally have learnt to import Brahmi from elsewhere in the country. The story would still fit.



Naturally, Ashoka and his context would get less of the credit, of course - as 490 BCE for Tamizh Brahmi predates Ashokan Brahmi. As there's no evidence of Buddhism entering into TN/the south of the subcontinent at that early time, it takes away the link to Buddhism that was assumed by the presence of Asokan Brahmi as being the earliest Brahmi. (This was only originally a working assumption anyway, it's just that the idea has become entrenched.) However, eager Buddhism-peddlers hope to reinterpret such finds exactly as that, that is, as being earlier proof of Buddhism in the south, by inverting what the find guaranteeably means. I.e. they insist that the [only] conclusion to be drawn from these developments is that Buddhism "must have" arrived in the south earlier than so far supposed, even though there's no evidence of *Buddhism* in TN at 490 BCE and before, nor even as far as I'm aware for it setting off for the south at that time. <- There is moreover an ideological need among SL Buddhists to launch this theory concerning the finds in their own backyard, as otherwise the matter becomes especially controversial for them from their POV. Which is also why every [pre-Ashokan] Brahmi find in SL that is called "Tamizh Brahmi" is immediately contested for its being dubbed "Tamil" at all, although whether it's Tamil Brahmi or not is actually a secondary issue to the larger revelation of pre-Ashokan Brahmi (pre-Ashokan by quite a number of centuries possibly).



Note: a tie between Brahmi and Buddhism/Jainism has not been established, not even one between Brahmi and Prakrits. And, as briefly mentioned before, there is factually no absolute connection to even be made between Buddhism/Jainism and Prakritas - i.e. can't find something ancient written in Prakrit in North India and leap to the conclusion that "only some Buddhist or Jain could have made it" without the text indicating that it's Buddhist/Jain in intention - since Prakrits were pre-existing dialects and languages spoken by a decent majority of inhabitants of a certain region of India within a certain time frame of the subcontinent's history. These inhabitants were by no means exclusively Buddhists and Jains, which last were only starting out when these languages were predominant in their locus of origin (there's no evidence the two then-new religions invented the Prakritas, and indeed, there's every indication they *didn't* invent them), and who moreover would definitely have been small in number when their respective groups did first start out.



Just like Hindi or Tamizh or other local language literature does not imply that Hindus could not have written any old literature existing in these languages (as is nevertheless frequently assumed because of the ridiculous imputation that Sanskrit is suposedly the only language Hindus were to have been interested in employing). After all, historically there were Hindus of each region writing in both Skt and the local language(s). Likewise, the use of Prakrits was not [remotely] restricted to non-Hindus, as Hindus could and did easily employ both Skt and Prakrits where necessary. Certainly Hindu society/the laity in most places has been seen historically using the local languages in everyday life.







To add to this statement:

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.

"Because it's exactly how Tamilisation of such Skt words works too." And it does so independent of Prakrit presence or mediation. The old example: just like Agastiyar => Agattiyar is a change Tamizh itself makes. Yet this last is sort of close to how Prakrit would change the word, too. That's why the usual silly arguments of "Shaastaa => Satta *must* be owing to Pali" are flawed: because that's exactly how Tamizh would naturally change it, not just Pali or some other Prakrit. Because there exist certain 'common' ways - or common to Indian populations, that is - of simplifying/localising Skt, and so that's how many regional languages even if not all could and would have simplified/localised it. Like I brought up a few posts earlier: many of today's Hindi speakers often say "dukka" when speaking Hindi casually, even though most of these know quite well how to pronounce this originally-Skt word the Skt way when reciting *Skt*. But "dukka" is exactly how Tamizh Hindus would *also* say the word if they were to voice it out casually, such as when coming across the word for the first time and/or if having only a passing familiarity with Skt. I.e. dukka is the natural Tamizh way of pronouncing the word and so also happens to be the way the Skt word in Skt stotras gets transliterated into unmodified Tamizh script. So both Hindi and Tamizh are "prakritising" the same Skt-origin word along similar and expected lines, but without Hindi speakers having had to influence Tamizh Hindus in this, or vice-versa. Not all possible simplifications made by Indians are the same of course, but some tend to be noticeably so. The point: Skt vajra into Tzh vayra is *quite* how Tamizh changes the word into Tzh naturally without the need for introducing extra variables and intermediaries like Prakrits, nor for claiming that it "can and must only" represent a Prakrita word.

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

From everything. As seen in the many weird imputations/predicates invented against them and passed about as fact: "Predicate: Hindus had no interest in writing Tamizh works, because their only interest must have been to write in Sanskrit alone. Hence all old Tamizh works are Jain/Buddhist/not Hindu". "Predicate: Vedic religion can't have known ascetism. So Yoga to Vedaanta are actually Ur-Shramanic in origin or at least influence." "Predicate: Vedic Religion is Oryan/Alien AND Vedic Religion is the only Oryan/Alien. IVC is native, therefore IVC is non-Vedic=ur-Shramanic/Jain[/Buddhist theology]." "Predicate: Hindus could not have come up with writing, they had no need for writing. They must have only cared about divine parrotting.* Therefore writing and Brahmi must be Buddhist/Jain/ur-Shramanic again".



* Yet, at most/even at its worst, this accusation can only be directed at Vedabrahmanas and not at the rest of Vedic=Hindu society: no one else is expected to divine-parrot from the Vedas 24/7 - even where these do carry out or take part in Vedic rites. That is, the rest of Hindu society are at least known to have other work/professions/daily life to get back to. And even were it true - but it isn't - that that's indeed all *brahmanas* were concerned with (though actually, it's been a stipulation for brahmanas to devise and preserve Hindu sciences, skills and arts, by learning these and teaching them to Hindu society), still, every other type of Hindu from the king to your everyday householder certainly does have uses for writing at work and in daily life and is well-capable of seeing a need for it and seeking to devise it. Clearly writing could be of great use for everything from royal decrees to ledgers and manuals and to-do lists, novels/poetry to love-letters.

But then, that's where it comes in handy yet again to de-recognise the existence of the Hindu laity (all of Hindu society actually), you see: so any deficiencies that can be exagerrated and stereotyped onto brahmanas - such as their alleged disinterest in writing - must now become the shared lot for every other type of Hindu, who were first made invisible under the ridiculously false "There's no such thing as Hindu laity" rule and next have to suffer mass self-enforced illiteracy by assocation - i.e. for being Vedic Hindus like Veda brahmanas are.

It's beyond daft. I can't believe people don't complain.

[Husky]

1/2



1. Still on ^that topic.



sites.google.com/site/brahmiscript/

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).

(Just to state the obvious, but it's worth doing and isn't mere pedantry: the statement that the "[Brahmi script-family] was probably already in use during Buddha's lifetime" should actually be phrased as "[Brahmi script-family] was probably already in use before Buddha's lifetime". The latter is more accurate - as a description of the same (class of) data they base their statement on - and is inclusive of the former.)





It's a curious thing that it's long been general knowledge - as even seen in the Encarta extracts on Buddha/Buddhism posted on this or last page of the thread - that [color="#0000FF"]the early Buddhist development of the Buddhist canon was not written down and was consciously maintained as an oral tradition (even for some time after it became more formalised/fixed), and yet Buddhism has frequently been credited - directly else indirectly - with having been the architect of Brahmi in the subcontinent, even if not always in the world, all because of the attested existence and employ of "Asokan Brahmi".

Meanwhile ancient Vedic society (i.e. Hindus) - who only held that their *Vedic* rites/recitations were for performing and not for writing down - are considered forever mutually exclusive from being able to develop a writing system. And they are particularly rounded out to be censured in this for what's to all intents and purposes the same crime: for considering religious stuff not matter for writing down, but just meant for oral transmission instead (as well as oral/active performance in the Hindu case). And this biased assumption continues *even* after Brahmi in India is shown to predate Buddhism - and practically Jainism.[/color]



A strange partiality is always apparent in the two different treatments meted out. Essentially the enforced assumption is that Vedic society *could* not (and basta); whereas Buddhism etc surely *could* but chose not to "until later".







2. Speaking of oral traditions entering writing.

Briefly, but not a smallish matter, though it now seems to be no more than a footnote to Others' history. People probably know, but this is for those that don't:



[color="#0000FF"]The Tibetan “Book of the Dead" is the name given to more than one collection.[/color] What's important is that, despite the title being impressed in the popular mind as "Buddhist", the original work that goes by the name is Bon. I.e. there's [color="#0000FF"]the Bon Book of the Dead[/color], based off an oral Bon tradition of unknown age (concerning their sacred death-related rites, as far as my poor understanding goes), which the Bon heathens eventually wrote down. [color="#0000FF"]And several centuries after this - after the Bon literature of this name was finally written down - Buddhists bauddhified the Bon original to produce the "Buddhist" version[/color], such plagiarism being a practice that usually goes hand-in-hand with the attempt by missionary religions at trying to extinguish the native religion (as is precisely what happened in Tibet, BTW).



So, even as the Buddhists there were actively trying to wipe out Tibet's native Bon religion, they were not above stealing/inculturating (whatever you want to call it) on Bon sacred religious works on Ritual Practices. [color="#0000FF"]Apparently the two works are quite alike that with the usual difference owing to typical Bauddhification: Bon Gods replaced by Buddhist placeholders (Buddhist characters if not the Bauddhified Gods of Others), as well as Buddhisms - Buddhist justifications for/interpretations of stolen rites - being spouted here and there.[/color]



[color="#0000FF"](So if anyone ever wondered why the Tibetan Book of the Dead is not present in other Bauddhified geographies, it's for the usual reason: because the so-called Buddhist Book of the Dead is hardly Buddhist, and is peculiarly Tibetan, being in fact Bon. Though perverted by the widely-applied process of bauddhification.)[/color] But hey, just 'cause Buddhism wasn't original in Tibet either - let alone "eternally true"- doesn't mean people should overlook such a grand accomplishment of plagiarism, another in a long line.

Gee, where did I see that before? Oh yeah. The Bauddification of Shinto Ritual Practices. And of Taoist Ritual Practices.



More excitingly for groupies, [color="#0000FF"]the alleged author of the celebrated Buddhist[/color] and more (internationally) popular work going by the name [color="#0000FF"]"Tibetan Book of the Dead"[/color] is one who's apparently famous for being a scourge of Bon religious beings: [color="#0000FF"]Padmasambhava[/color] (was that not his name?). So next to being credited with/fondly remembered for chasing off Bon beings/persons, he's also a famous Plagiarist, to put it secularly. [Though the actual crime is that Buddhism once more stole another religion's rituals/stuff and passes this of as Buddhist and forcefits it into Buddhist cosmology.] That makes *two* great achievements that Tibetan Buddhism crowned him with (though whether he was factually the plagiarist behind this particular work, or whether other, still later, Buddhists did the actual plagiarising and merely attributed it to his more famous and earlier personage, still seems to be somewhat of an uncertainty in academe). I guess that's the cue for the applause. But I'll sit this one out. Still, mustn't be too hard on Padmasambhava - after all, he's not even the least admirable among the most widely-respected Buddhists of yore. Besides, the Tibetan Bon Book of the Dead wasn't the only Bon thing Buddhism plagiarised/bauddhified, even while killing Bon off.

[Husky]

2/2



3. HK had an article on Bali Hinduism where some Indian swami (from somewhere in the Himalayas?) visiting Bali decided to commend the way the extant religions in Bali live in harmony.

The relevant statement was this:

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.

(Buddhism plagiarised the word Agama from Hindus' religion too, as others had done. Eventualy they will invert the direction of travel of this too and declare Hindus copied the concept of Agamas from Buddhism/Jainism and that anything deemed "Agamic culture" must "therefore" be originally Jain/Buddhist instead. I shouldn't wonder. <- And if that sounded far fetched, it's nothing compared to the far more absurd claims getting peddled about, which forms a rather unpleasant topic that still needs to be posted on, because all the lying is becoming too much, especially as Hindus now have imbibed these claims and are peddling the same about ignorantly too. It's embarrassing. But that's for another day. Ugh. Yuck.)





Anyway.

I've not bothered (yet) to look at the history of Buddhism in Bali. But I do note that:



* in Bali - where Buddhism failed to eclipse Hindu religion (compare with how Buddhism succeeded in overriding Hindu religion in most every other SE Asian nation) - the native Balinese religion survived. This is because of Hindu religion being a majority and not Buddhism. It's because Hinduism - like Greek and Daoist religion - co-exists with native religions and the native heathens merely expand their pantheons to include Greek/Daoist/Hindu Gods and practices (depending on the country in question). Everywhere else in SE Asia where Buddhism overtook Hindu religion, Buddhism merely wiped out pre-existing religion else bauddhified the remnants (it had already Bauddhified Hindu religion there). Quite like Tibet actually.



* surely the fact that an interreligious conference on “working togeether” was even necessary in Bali in 1011 CE implies that there must have been some religious strife that resulted in a need for such a meeting on such a topic in the first place? I wouldn't be surprised if it was owing to Buddhism encroaching on native Balinese religion. I mean, where were such conferences in Thailand or Cambodia (or Tibet) etc to preserve the native religions or even the pre-Buddhist Hindu religion? Buddhism lost in Bali to Hinduism and hence was no doubt ready to come to the table for a compromise that would allow it to survive in *any* capacity rather than none: it got to keep something, rather than walk away with nothing. (Whereas, where Buddhism won, it left barely anything untouched/unbauddhified of the Hindu religion that preceded it, nor a trace of the native religions of the converted geographies.)



Despite the examples of other countries where Buddhism was victorious, one could argue my uneducated take on the "interreligious conference" amounts to no more than speculation (but then, why be so uneven-handed? others speculate with far less data and even less common-sense not to mention 0 logic). *But* the fact that, as most Indian Hindus would know, Bali consists of the 4 varnas of Vedic society and Buddhists clearly happily slinked in here under the special (oxymoronic and elsewhere non-existent) category "Buddhist Brahmins" shows that they were willing to settle for a good deal and were forced into a situation they don’t choose to get into when the odds are in their favour. I mean, most everywhere else they hissed at Brahmins, not to mention continue to project themselves as the bringers of a casteless egalitarian society, though some did that in early centuries too. (As a famous example of Buddhism hissing at Brahmins, even carrying this outside India for as far as it can travel: the earliest Buddhists that invaded I mean entered China left behind graffiti/"wall paintings" of Buddhist dawaganda - self-professedly fictitious - against Brahmanas. To this day, the Chinese - being innocent of this Buddhist concoction - have no idea how to read those wall paintings and merely carefully reproduce it in art work, without even knowing who the villains represent. The Chinese had remained clueless even when Buddhism later - briefly and unsuccessfully - tried to retell the same dawaganda fictions locally with IIRC *Daoist* priests as the main villains replacing the Hindu brahmanas. In Thailand however, centuries later when the Buddhist fable made its way here and is known as a sutra, Buddhists couldn't badmouth the Hindu class that crowned the king, and the villain is therefore made into some native unspecified but lay Indian instead. Sort of sounds like the evolving Thomas fable of christianism, except that Buddhists never pretended that their own fable had any historical truth. They merely intended it to be perceived by society as possessing allegorical "truth": not only as to the moral of Buddhist "compassion" etc, but - at one point in time - quite as much about who the good guys and who the bad guys of society were: who all are not to be trusted by "lay Indian society", a point quite lost on the Chinese. It was originally a missionising fable, a PR promotion for the "compassion of Buddhism" explicitly meant to be contrasted with the villains, the greed of wily brahmoons. It's one of many such Buddhist fables. Like I said, christianism didn't invent anti-brahminism. Or anti-Daoist-priesthood. Let alone anti-native-heathenism in general. It's a feature of all missionary religions. They compete with the status quo, with extant religion. There will be no takers unless people are brainwashed into dissatisfaction with the status quo. Hence the need for propaganda.



For all too obvious reasons, I choose not mention the name of the primary fable mentioned above. Wouldn't want daft Buddhism-peddling loonies getting a whiff of it and then trying to pretend that the "Chinese of old disliked brahmins (or even Hindu religion) too". The fact is actually the opposite: no E Asian heathen - nor even SE Asian heathen as far as I'm aware - has registered any complaint about Hindu religion encroaching on their native religion. Whereas Chinese and Japanese had long documented Buddhist encroachment and attempts to wipe out their native religions and had long-standing fights with Buddhism. Not to mention that a specific subset of Japanese Shinto heathens exasperated Buddhism in not allowing Buddhism to confiscate said Shintos' so-called "brahminical" [=Buddhist word for Hindu] literature for bauddhification. But no amount of propaganda and sneaking and then threatening by the Buddhists would convince said Shintos, whose response remained that it was their duty to not let this powerful literature nor their own Shinto Ritual Practices fall into Buddhist hands and get Bauddified (and hence subverted). Clearly these Shintos knew Hindu religion to be anything but swindle - from practice. They rather knew enough about Buddhism to suspect foul-play on behalf of Buddhism (which eventually followed/was attempted, BTW, so it merely proved the Shintos right).



Also, add to this the fact that even as late as the 1960s or so, there was still a remnant of this ongoing identification with Hindu religion among Shintos: when IIRC a Japanese scholar even declared, after stating the well known fact that Shinto was the pre-Buddhist religion of Japan (Shintos don't confuse their religion with Buddhism after all), that "Shintoism was brahminism". Though said scholar was -from memory- a student of advaitam (ooh, that gives me a lead on tracking down the quote), I still think he actually means Sanatana Dharma/Vedic religion, since "brahminism" is what Buddhism calls Hindu religion in E Asian countries. (It's also how Hindus' religion gets projected in India, in order to pretend there's no such thing as Hindu laity, and so that missionary religions can claim all the other Vedic varnas as "unaligned" to any religion and hence open to conversion.) To be fair, Buddhism doesn't just do this to brahmanas but also attempted this against the priesthoods of Daoists and against the preservers of Shinto religion, and other such cases. It's a feature of missionary religion: they try to convert the heathen priestly classes first; and whenever they fail, they get angry and try to console themselves with trying to convert the rest of the populace next and do so by badmouthing the priestly classes and by projecting the native religion as an unnatural edifice of the priests and the priests alone. But heathenism, not being a missionary religion, is by definition the [native, ethnic] religion of all of heathen society.

[Husky]

Post 1/?



Successive posts concern the following excerpts from Wacky pages. The topic's important because various unfounded statements are now being parroted blindly on *Hindu* sites. They don't even bother to substantiate things for themselves first before trying to sell it off to their Hindu audience.



1. Wacky history of Rishabha page:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&title=Rishabha&diff=556147431&oldid=522685544

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)

Hindu sites continue to parrot the above as fact (google the above alleged RV statement and you may still see evidence of Hindu sites advertising it), even though the wacky page has instead been changed to the following conveniently vague-er statement (claims they don't feel the need to reference at all now):

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

2. The following on the Neminatha wacky page is relevant to Hindus. It's apparently not enough that Hindu wacky pages (e.g. on Patanjali/Yoga sutras, on Upanishads, on Hindu cave temples, on Hindu persons for example) get vandalised by not just neo-Buddhists and get the glorious Bauddhification/Jainisation treatment, but Hindu religion (and even history) has to get dragged into pages on other Indic religions and mangled to provide the "proof of historicity" so sorely lacking in those other Indic religions themselves.



The 2nd case in point then:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neminatha

...

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.)

There's more weird stuff going on in the above 2 wackypedia pages. But for now leaving it at that.



The stream of posts to follow is going to be about what the Hindu texts being referred to above - like the Rig Veda, Harivamsha, Chandogya Upanishad - have to say for themselves about these things.

[Husky]

Post 2/?



Am pasting from the Monier-Williamws (MW) Skt dictionary in that it is useful in this matter: the MW lists the source/use of Skt words as well as the approximate meanings (in said sources). The following gives a summary of what these two words meant/who they referred to in the various contexts of their uses:

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. $.]

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.

This much becomes apparent even from the various meanings given in the entries:

- can see how in Vedic Skt, which is the original source of these words, both RiShabha and ariShTanemi have a basic meaning ("bull" etc, and "the felly of whose wheel is unhurt", respectively), can be used as descriptives, as well as [consequently] being epithets/proper names of several Vedic personages.

- can also note how in the, much later, Jain uses of these original Vedic Skt words, these become names for Jain characters. Characters distinct from the Vedic persons and epithets who since much earlier had possessed of/been referred to by these names and epithets.



Can work out from this that Jain references to Jain teerthankaras called Rishabh(a) and Neminath(a) "aka the Jain Arishtanemi" are simply speaking of entirely different entities to what the Vedic Hindus (and Hindu works like the MBh~Harivamsha) spoke of. Moreover, the very Vedic texts - the very ones which use the Vedic meanings of R^ishabha and [edited typo] ariShTanemi to refer to Vedic persons or as Vedic descriptives - do not know of the Jain Teerthankaras that would later be given these names. (Same as how Vinayaka and Heramba were originally Hindu epithets/proper names for Ganapati and which names were later incorporated by Buddhism as epithets for Buddhism - which is an example already covered in an earlier post somewhere in this thread.)



Further, the Vedic - i.e. original - meanings of the Vedic Skt words arhat, arhanta, arhasi, arhaNa and arha are apparently related, meaning: deserving/worthy, as well as worship and the like. (Being descriptives, they are therefore also famous personal names and epithets of the Hindu Gods: IIRC, arha is a name of Indra, arhanta is a name of Shiva.) And "deserving/worthy" and "worship" etc are the meanings in which this set of words - the ones prefixed above on arha* - is used in the Vedas.



However, Jainism tries to retrofit Vedic references to words like "arhan/t" (like Buddhism nowadays does with other Hindu texts) as being a reference to the later Jain/Buddhist meaning of Arha(n)t - capital A for distinction. I.e. they choose to read it as being a reference ShramaNas (capital Sh).



But that is beside the point, as the next few posts go through all the occurences of the words Rishabha, Arishtanemi and arha* in the Rig Veda Samhita (there aren't that many references) and so can make up one's own mind.

[Husky]

Post 3/?



This and the next couple of posts are on the Rig Veda.





Full quotes (with Griffith's translations) from the relevant passages from the R^ig will follow in the next post, but first the summary of the results from searching in the Rig (numbering is in Mandala form) :



1. In all the Rig Samhita, there are 4 occurences of R^iShabha: 6.16, 6.28, 10.91, 10.166.



+ The first 3 of these are all references to the animal called bull (including a subset of the bull).

+ The 4th reference uses that other Vedic meaning of Bull, which is a descriptive that's used as a superlative. The superlative descriptive use of the word is also seen in that YV (?) mantra on Indra as being "the Bull of the Chandas", where it meant that he it was who is the Dharma running through the entire Vedam, being the very Pranava Mantram that finds repeated invocation in the Vedam.





2. In all the Rig Samhita, there are 4 occurences of ariShTanemi: 1.89, 1.180, 3.53, 10.178.



+ All 4 are utterly unambiguous references to Tarkshya with ariShTanemi as his descriptive.

+ And not one of these references says anything even like the verse that the Jains have claimed was to be found in the Rig:

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

That line isn't in the Rig. See also note 3.



Note: The concordance of the Rig Samhita (the searchable index of the full text of all the shlokas in the RV Samhita) on which the searches were performed, lists in mandalas not ashtakams. So searching for the given reference by the numbering provided ("Astak 2, Varga 7, Rig Veda") was not possible. The division into aShTakas instead of maNDalas is more prevalent in the south it seems, but as the Shakala Shaka of the Rig is apparently the prominent southern version - which Shaka I think this concordance would certainly cover, since it was IIRC originally compiled by at least 1 southern Hindu in the team - searching for *all* occurrences of ariShTanemi in this concordance should cover all bases anyway.



[color="#0000FF"]3. Also searched the Rig concordance for all occurrences of "arha", since it covers arha, arhas*, arhan* which includes arhant*, arhat*, arhaN*.[/color] (And I think the search's stemming capabilities covered an avagraha prefix. Certainly seemed to cover sandhis)

Found some 20 uses of the search term rooted on "arha", plus 2 or so I wasn't too sure of (as to their relevance), but included them anyway in the search results in the next post.



[color="#0000FF"]+ All are references in the original vedic meaning of arha(n/t/N)* as "deserving/worthy" or "worship" (and related).[/color] Contrary to the claims seen on the wacky page, there is no ambiguity as to their meaning, because it is mostly used as descriptives with direct reference to the Hindu God(s) being invoked in the mantras.

+ Again, not one of the search results remotely resembled the line that Jainism alleges as existing in the Rig: "So asmakam Aristanemi svaha Arhan vibharsi sayakani dhanvarhanistam yajatam visvarupam arhannidam dayase" (Astak 2, Varga 7, Rig Veda)



No RV verse had the two words - ariShTanemi and arhan - together.



Though it must be noted that even if one were ever to find such a line as is claimed (i.e. with both ariShTanemi and arha*) - in any part of the entire chaturvedam - it still will never be a reference to the Jain Neminatha: it will firmly remain a reference to the Vedic Hindus of that name, while arhan/t* variants would likewise remain Vedic words with Vedic meanings in the Vedas even when refererring to any person there by name ariShTanemi. (By simple logic: if arhan/t* can retain its Vedic meaning when referring to Agni et al - as it does - why should it suddenly acquire the late Jainist/Buddhist meaning of Arhan/t - capital A - when referring to the Vedic ariShTanemi?)





[color="#0000FF"]EDITED:[/color] To include 3.53 reference

[Husky]

Post 4/?



The included translations are credited to Ralph (?) Griffith of the British Imperial era. These translations aren't pasted here for accuracy to the Hindu POV, but because they were easily accessible for copying and pasting, and more importantly, because even Griffith's translations more than suffice to show that the words in question can't ever be *made* to have Jainist meanings in these shlokas: since the words used are direct descriptives of the Hindu Gods being addressed/invoked, or else refer to one type of animal in a list of animal species, etc.



Will start with all references in the Rig Samhita to "ariShTanemi" and "arha*", and end with all its refs to "R^iShabha".



(Shloka number from each Mandala also given below. There may be typoes in the Devanagari.)





All (=not 3 but 4) occurrences of ariShTanemi in the Rig Veda Samhita

(substring *riShTanem*)

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.

Can note that in all three instances above, the word ariShTanemi seems to take on its literal meaning rather than as a full name. Even otherwise, (a) Tarkshya - alongside The GaruDa - is IIRC said to be brother to a well-known Vedic/Hindu ariShTanemi (in the Harivamsha, for instance). That means that even if it did refer to a separate person in the 4 RV entries above, the references still wouldn't have been to the Jain Neminatha.





[color="#0000FF"]EDITED:[/color] To include the 3.53 reference

[Husky]

Post 5/?



All occurrences of arha* in the Rig Veda Samhita

- covers arha, arhas*, arhan* which includes arhant*, arhat*, arhaN*,...

(substring *arha*)

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.