2. Indologicals were previously (elsewhere) seen divorcing Patanjali from Adishesha and even from Shaivam ["these were traditions Hindus concocted later", "Adishesha was demoted to Patanjali by Tamizh Hindus who influenced the Kashmiri Hindus" etc] in order to donate Patanjali or at least the background to his Yoga to an "All Indian Yoga" club.
The same Indologicals have been hard at work on Panini too. Not content with donating Tolkappiyar (and hence his Tolkappiyam, early work on Tamizh Grammar) to Jainism with a mere "probably" as all the evidence they will supply, they are after Samskritam Grammar too.
a. Divorce from Hindu religion - "Panini didn't get inspired by Shiva, this was a later tradition"
b. Gift to Buddhism - "Buddhism has equal claims to inspiring Panini (never mind for now that Panini predated Buddha)" and "possibly Buddhist claims are older"
You see, to make Panini a secular Indian - as opposed to Hindu - must remove him from Hindu religion, make him just part of some generic culture (as it existed at that time) and then declare him as belonging to all Indian religions equally/to none in particular.
An Indological of the Indian sepoy variety - Madhav Deshpande - does the honours in the following article almost 1.5 decades old by now (but I only noticed some sort of indological trend forming around Patanjali, never what was going on with Panini which slipped me by completely):
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2081/is_n3_v117/ai_n28696610/?tag=content;col1
On p.9 comes the argument for why it is all "[at least] equally Buddhist" (depending on if the Buddhist claims can be made to look older):
- considering that the claim about Shiva is submitted above as "almost entirely unknown to the Paninian tradition itself"
- AND that Buddhists made counter-claims that also "are essentially unknown to, or at least unrecorded by, the Paninian grammatical tradition"
Ergo: "Buddhists have equal claim to Panini as today's Hindus do". *
Otherwise ("in reality") Panini is just a product of some generic "Vedic culture" (and "Vedic" only by virtue of him having been a product of the end of that era, no other reason allowed.)
* Note in particular that the genius in this indological argument lies in the indologist not having to prove Panini came after Buddhism at all, since it has nothing to do with linear history as much as it has to do with who first made claims to having inspired Panini (since the indologist Deshpande has kept Panini himself hence the origins of his grammatical tradition itself divorced from/immune to the effects of either). I.e. it is the "the two sides have equally false claims; either has As Much Validity As The Other" argument, in particular if Buddhists can be projected as having a possibly older claim (using the excuse of the blurried haze of Buddhism's one-way syncretism - called inculturation, at least if christianism did it - on Shiva), then that makes Buddhism have a more antique (but still false) claim to Panini. And that means another strike against Hindu religion.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2081/is_n3_v117/ai_n28696610/pg_9/?tag=content;col1
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2081/is_n3_v117/ai_n28696610/pg_10/?tag=content;col1
Actually, do I need to say it.
But then, when people can gift Ayyappa to Buddhism/Avalokiteshwara, why not Panini too? Right? I mean, the old Buddhist claims to Panini should carry *equal* authority to the current Buddhist claims to Ayyappa, all else being equal. Let's see people wriggle out of that one: most especially as indology has chosen to throw its weight against the Panini matter [and Patanjali too, by the way, but it will take too long to point that one out] (compared to mainly neo-Buddhists and Sinhalese Buddhists/monks antagonising on the Hindu identity of Ayyappa).
The indologicals of course won't let go of Panini (nor of their aims behind divorcing Patanjali from [Tamizh] Shaivam - or as they have projected/legitimised this process: "demythicising" the Shaiva claims to Patanjali), since the indological purpose is much greater (the indological eye is on his Yoga work; the Mahabhashya was already divorced).
Well, the Avalokiteshwara fiction is never-ending. It was (and continues to be) back-projected, was deliberately merged into local Gods by Buddhism (and Buddha keeps being identified in Hindu Gods to this day with "it must have been Buddhist"), and is deliberately reintroduced into many current discourses on the history of Hindu religion in order to blur identification on where native religion ended and subversive syncretic Buddhism began, etc.
The same Indologicals have been hard at work on Panini too. Not content with donating Tolkappiyar (and hence his Tolkappiyam, early work on Tamizh Grammar) to Jainism with a mere "probably" as all the evidence they will supply, they are after Samskritam Grammar too.
a. Divorce from Hindu religion - "Panini didn't get inspired by Shiva, this was a later tradition"
b. Gift to Buddhism - "Buddhism has equal claims to inspiring Panini (never mind for now that Panini predated Buddha)" and "possibly Buddhist claims are older"
You see, to make Panini a secular Indian - as opposed to Hindu - must remove him from Hindu religion, make him just part of some generic culture (as it existed at that time) and then declare him as belonging to all Indian religions equally/to none in particular.
An Indological of the Indian sepoy variety - Madhav Deshpande - does the honours in the following article almost 1.5 decades old by now (but I only noticed some sort of indological trend forming around Patanjali, never what was going on with Panini which slipped me by completely):
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2081/is_n3_v117/ai_n28696610/?tag=content;col1
Quote:Reference / Journal of the American Oriental Society, The / July-Sept, 1997
Who inspired Panini? Reconstructing the Hindu and Buddhist counter-claims
by Madhav M. Deshpande
The tradition of Paninian Grammar as it has reached us clearly believes that Panini was inspired by Mahesvara/Siva to write his grammar, and that he received at least the first fourteen sutras, which are traditionally called Sivasutrani or Mahesvarasutrani, from Mahesvara/Siva. While for the tradition as it has survived into the present time, this belief is axiomatic, and hardly ever questioned, the history of this belief has not been fully explored in modern scholarship.(1) In this paper, I propose to bring together material that allows us to envisage the vicissitudes of this belief, which are almost entirely unknown to the Paninian tradition itself.
[color="#800080"](AKA: "The later Hindus Hinduised Panini.")[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]Panini's grammar itself gives us no indication of any particular religious belief attached to this grammar[/color], except that the grammar was situated firmly within the [color="#0000FF"]Vedic culture.[/color] The grammar as it is incorporated in the Astadhyayi is integrally connected to the lists of sounds as formulated in the so-called Sivasutras. This relationship is so strong that George Cardona (1969: 3), who has "omitted any discussion connected with the question of the authorship of the sivasutras," makes it clear that "the sivasutras and the corpus of rules in which they are used definitely were composed in one school." Going a step beyond Cardona, Kiparsky (1991: 257) asserts: "It is said that god Siva revealed these fourteen classes of sounds to Panini to get him started on the Astadhyayi. We might now want to see a deeper point in this legend.
[...]
On p.9 comes the argument for why it is all "[at least] equally Buddhist" (depending on if the Buddhist claims can be made to look older):
- considering that the claim about Shiva is submitted above as "almost entirely unknown to the Paninian tradition itself"
- AND that Buddhists made counter-claims that also "are essentially unknown to, or at least unrecorded by, the Paninian grammatical tradition"
Ergo: "Buddhists have equal claim to Panini as today's Hindus do". *
Otherwise ("in reality") Panini is just a product of some generic "Vedic culture" (and "Vedic" only by virtue of him having been a product of the end of that era, no other reason allowed.)
* Note in particular that the genius in this indological argument lies in the indologist not having to prove Panini came after Buddhism at all, since it has nothing to do with linear history as much as it has to do with who first made claims to having inspired Panini (since the indologist Deshpande has kept Panini himself hence the origins of his grammatical tradition itself divorced from/immune to the effects of either). I.e. it is the "the two sides have equally false claims; either has As Much Validity As The Other" argument, in particular if Buddhists can be projected as having a possibly older claim (using the excuse of the blurried haze of Buddhism's one-way syncretism - called inculturation, at least if christianism did it - on Shiva), then that makes Buddhism have a more antique (but still false) claim to Panini. And that means another strike against Hindu religion.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2081/is_n3_v117/ai_n28696610/pg_9/?tag=content;col1
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2081/is_n3_v117/ai_n28696610/pg_10/?tag=content;col1
Quote:Was this Saivite claim the only religious claim in relation to Panini, [color="#0000FF"]or was this even the oldest claim?[/color] In this connection, we now need to explore the materials provided by the Buddhist tradition. The Buddhist claims are essentially unknown to, or at least unrecorded by, the Paninian grammatical tradition, since none of the commentators, including the Buddhist writers, make any reference to it.(11) However, within the Buddhist tradition, there is considerable material relating to Panini and the Buddhist interaction with the Saivites and their claims.Why Hindus should be worried:
We shall begin our consideration of the Buddhist materials with the reports from the History of Buddhism in India written by the Tibetan Lama Taranatha, who completed this work in A.D. 1608. Taranatha is aware of the Saivite claims that Panini was inspired by Siva and that Patanjali is viewed as Sesanaga (Taranatha, 203). However, he clearly opposes the first of these claims. Here is Taranatha (p. 83):
The brahmana Panini was a friend of king Nanda. He was born in the Bhirukavana in the west. He asked the palmist whether he was going to be an expert in grammar. The prediction was in the negative. With a sharp knife, he changed the lines of his own palm, studied grammar under all the grammarians of the world, worked hard and acquired great proficiency. Yet he remained dissatisfied. By intense propitiation, he received the vision of the tutelary deity. The deity appeared before him and uttered a, i, u, and he acquired knowledge of all words in the three worlds.
The "outsiders" [bahyas or tirthikas] consider him as the isvara. But the "outsiders" have no basis for this. The "insiders" [= Buddhists] consider him as Avalokitesvara. This is based on the prophecy of the Manjusri-mulatantra: "Panini, the son of a brahmana, will certainly attain the sravaka-bodhi. I have predicted that he would be the great lokesvara (Avalokitesvara) by his own words."
The same passage of the Mahjusrimulakalpa is referred to by the Tibetan historian Bu-ston, and Obermiller (vol. II, p. 167) translates the passage as:
Panini, the brahmana's son, Has been prophesied by me To attain the enlightenment of the sravakas And he shall likewise secure the charm For propitiating the High Lord of the Universe.
[color="#800080"](Avalokiteshwara - invented after Mahayana Buddhism (itself developed after early Buddhism) - projected Backwards in time and inspired Panini.... Where have I heard this before. Oh yeah, E Asia.)[/color]
Here is the Sanskrit text as given by P. L. Vaidya in his edition of the Manjusrimulakalpa (Mahayanasutrasamgraha, cb. 53, vv. 404-5; II: 478):
tasyapy anyatamah sakhyah paninir nama manavah niyatam sravakatvena vyakrto me bhavisyati so 'pi siddhamantras tu lokisaya mahatmanah
Lama Chimpa and Alaka Chattopadhyaya, the translators of Taranatha's work, note (p. 83, note 10)' "Interestingly, Panini's grammar, as preserved in Tg (mDo cxxxv.1) is mentioned as being revealed by Arya Avalokitesvara to Panini." It is important to note that the Hybrid Sanskrit of the Manjusrimulakalpa uses the word lokisa[[less than] loka isa] as the name of the inspiring deity, which is interpreted by the Buddhist tradition as referring to Avalokitesvara. As one can begin to see, the common element of isa or isvara in the names Avalokitesvara and Mahesvara provides for a possibility of interpreting some older beliefs in two alternative ways. [color="#800080"](That's what Buddhist inculturation was for and is being used for today. A LOT related to Shiva is being claimed for Buddhism now - using precisely the Avalokiteshwara blur as the foot in the door.)[/color] We shall explore this relationship between Avalokitesvara and Mahesvara later in greater detail. But first, it is important to review Hiuen Tsang's account of his travels in the northwestern part of the subcontinent, written around A.D. 629.
Hiuen Tsang provides us some invaluable information, both regarding the religious practices and beliefs relating to Avalokitesvara and Mahesvara in this region, as well as to the disputes over who inspired Panini. [color="#800080"](Buddhism has this habit of turning established tradition into "disputes" *all* over. In E Asia this happened all the time. Not just the rest of Asia though. However, to simplify the choice: one notes that Buddhism invented Avalokiteshwara quite late (and Buddha is himself dated after Panini IIRC), while Rudra Pashupati and his worship pre-existed Panini. In any case Buddhism - specifically the fictitious Avalokiteshwara - could NEVER have inspired Panini. Full Stop.)[/color] Referring to the region of Kapisa (in modern Afghanistan), Hiuen Tsang says (Beal 1884: 60): "At 2 or 3 li to the west of the stone chambers, above a great mountain pass, there is a figure of Kwan-tsz'-tsai Bodhisattva (= Avalokitesvara); those who with sincere faith desire to see him, to them the Bodhisattva appears coming forth from the image, his body of marvelous beauty, and he gives rest and reassurance to the travellers." In his footnote (n. 210, p. 60), Beal points out: "He is generally described as 'the god of mercy,' because he hears the cries of men. Probably a relic or revival of the old worship of hill-gods. Hence his figure placed on this mountaintop." Referring to a close-by region of Po-lu-sha (near Puskalavati), Hiuen Tsang says:
To the north-east of the city of Po-lu-sha 50 li or so, we come to a high mountain, on which is a figure of the wife of Isvara Deva carved out of green stone. This is Bhima Devi (= Durga). . . . It has the reputation of working numerous miracles, and therefore is venerated by all, so that from every part of India men come to pay their vows and seek prosperity thereby. . . . Below the mountain is the temple of Mahesvara Deva; the heretics who cover themselves with ashes come here to offer sacrifice. (Beal 1884: 113-14)
[color="#800080"](Buddhists calling Hindus heretics. Fresh.
Love how the worshippers of "Maheshwara Deva who cover themselves with ashes" are "heretics", yet - elsewhere - the Buddhist imposition of Avalokiteshwara onto Shiva etc is to be read as ... "syncretic" religion.)[/color]
It is clear that Hiuen Tsang is referring to a prominent cult of Siva in the general vicinity of the region of Salatura, Panini's home, which he visits next. Hiuen Tsang narrates the stories he heard about Panini in the town of Salatura:
Referring to the most ancient times, letters were very numerous; but when, in the process of ages, the word was destroyed and remained as a void, the Devas of long life descended spiritually to guide the people. Such was the origin of the ancient letters and composition. From this time and after it the source (of language) spread and passed its (former) bounds. Brahma Deva and Sakra (Devendra) (as in Hindu usage) established rules according to the requirements. Rsis belonging to different schools each drew up forms of letters. Men in their successive generations put into use what had been delivered to them; but nevertheless students without ability were unable to make use. And now men's lives were reduced to the length of a hundred years, when the Rsi Panini was born; he was from his birth extensively informed about things. The times being dull and careless, he wished to reform the vague and false rules - to fix the rules and correct improprieties. As he wandered about asking for right ways, he encountered Igvara Deva, and recounted to him the plan of his undertaking. Isvara Deva said, "Wonderful! I will assist you in this." The Rsi, having received instruction, retired. He then laboured incessantly and put forth all his power of mind. He collected a multitude of words, and made a book on letters which contained a thousand slokas. . . . It contained everything known from the first till then, without exception, respecting letters and words. . . . And so from that time masters have received it and handed it down in its completeness for the good of the world. Hence the Brahmanas of this town are well grounded in their literary work, and are of high renown for their talents, well informed as to things, and of a vigorous understanding. (Beal 1884:114-16)
This report informs us of a belief, around A.D. 600 in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent, that it was Siva who inspired Panini. It also has echoes of Patanjali's Mahabhasya (I: 5) about the age of men having become one hundred years and the consequent necessity of an abbreviated formulation of grammar. It further indicates continuity of the study of Panini's grammar in the region of Salatura. Then comes a Buddhist response to Panini:
In the town of So-lo-tu-lo [= Salatura] is a stupa. This is the spot where an Arhat converted a disciple of Panini. Tathagata had left the world some five hundred years, when there was a great Arhat who came to the country of Kashmir, and went about converting men. Coming to this place, he saw a Brahmacarin occupied in chastising a boy whom he was instructing in letters. Then the Arhat spoke to the Brahmana thus: "Why do you cause pain to this child?" The Brahmana replied, "I am teaching him the Sabdavidya, but he makes no proper progress." The Arhat smiled significantly, . . . (and said". . . No doubt you have heard of the Rsi Panini, who compiled the Sabdavidya Sastra, which he has left for the instruction of the world." The Brahmana replied, "The children of this town, who are his disciples, revere his eminent qualities, and a statue erected to his memory still exists." The Athat continued: "This little boy whom you are instructing was that very [color="#0000FF"](Panini)[/color] Rsi. As he devoted his vigorous mind to investigate worldly literature, he only produced [color="#0000FF"]heretical[/color] treatises without any power of true reason in them. His spirit and his wisdom were dispersed, and he has run through the cycles of continued birth from then till now. Thanks to some remnant of true virtue, he has been now born as your attached child; but the literature of the world and these treatises are only cause of useless efforts to him, and are as nothing compared to the holy teaching of Tathagata, which, by its mysterious influences, procures both happiness and wisdom. . . . But now, O virtuous one! permit your pupil to leave him home. Becoming a disciple of Buddha, the merits we secure are not to be told." . . . The Brahmana was deeply affected . . . and permitted the child to become a disciple of Buddha and acquire wisdom. Moreover, he himself changed his belief, and mightily reverenced the three precious ones. The people of the village, following his example, became disciples, and till now they have remained earnest in their profession. (Beal 1884: 117-18)
[color="#800080"](Typical: "evil brahmana - abusive to boot" compared to "peaceloving Buddhist, converts all to True Religion. Happy End." It's like several stories in the Jatakas all over again, except that those had given up on converting brahmanas - maybe they appeared late? - and focused instead on divorcing the Hindu laity from adherence to the "brahmanical religion", such as by presenting brahmanas out to be charlatans duping the Hindu laity. Using *stories* and no more. It's factually worse than dawaganda: it's fiction that doesn't even purport to be fact, yet still works as brainwashing against ancestral religion.)[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]This account is most interesting in indicating a localized Buddhist response to Panini. On the one hand, the Buddhists had great admiration for his accomplishments in grammar, and yet they wished he were not associated with the "heretical" Vedic/Brahmanical tradition.[/color] [color="#800080"](Yes, like christianism: admiration for all things heathen, but needs to divorce them from heathen religion and claim them for itself. Appropriation aspect of inculturation.)[/color] Here, by a belated conversion of Panini reborn as a boy, the Buddhists tried to accomplish both tasks: acceptance of Panini within Buddhism, and rejection of his Brahmanical connection. [color="#800080"](=Replacement Theology using Inculturation to take what they want. Well, when christianism does the same, that's what it's called.)[/color] While the tradition recorded in the Manjusrimulakalpa directly attributes Panini's inspiration to Avalokitesvara (viz, Lokisa) and awards a lower form of enlightenment (= sravakabodhi) to him, it still hints at Panini's incorporation into the Buddhist tradition. A prophecy about Panini becoming a leading grammarian (paninim sabdanetaram) is also found in the Sagathaka section of the Saddharmalankavatarasutra (10.813; p. 160). While some portions of this Buddhist sutra predate A.D. 443, and perhaps even go to the "beginning of the Christian era or probably before it" (P. L. Vaidya, Lahkavatarasutra, xv), the Sagathaka section along with the Mamsabhaksana section are believed to be relatively later additions.(12)
[...]
Actually, do I need to say it.
But then, when people can gift Ayyappa to Buddhism/Avalokiteshwara, why not Panini too? Right? I mean, the old Buddhist claims to Panini should carry *equal* authority to the current Buddhist claims to Ayyappa, all else being equal. Let's see people wriggle out of that one: most especially as indology has chosen to throw its weight against the Panini matter [and Patanjali too, by the way, but it will take too long to point that one out] (compared to mainly neo-Buddhists and Sinhalese Buddhists/monks antagonising on the Hindu identity of Ayyappa).
The indologicals of course won't let go of Panini (nor of their aims behind divorcing Patanjali from [Tamizh] Shaivam - or as they have projected/legitimised this process: "demythicising" the Shaiva claims to Patanjali), since the indological purpose is much greater (the indological eye is on his Yoga work; the Mahabhashya was already divorced).
Well, the Avalokiteshwara fiction is never-ending. It was (and continues to be) back-projected, was deliberately merged into local Gods by Buddhism (and Buddha keeps being identified in Hindu Gods to this day with "it must have been Buddhist"), and is deliberately reintroduced into many current discourses on the history of Hindu religion in order to blur identification on where native religion ended and subversive syncretic Buddhism began, etc.