Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

Post 15/?



Agastya's association with Potiyil AND with Shiva of the Vedas in the Silappadikaaram



Tamil/Kerala Hindus - like ethnic Hindus all over the subcontinent are a very Vedic population. As other Hindus have long explained - by pointing to ancient Tamil literature - among the many Hindu Gods worshipped in TN, Indran used to be one of the Vedic=Hindu Gods who was quite central in southern Hindus' conscious lives too. (And then Buddhist use of Indra - like with Brahma - gradually increased to encroachment and inculturation. I suspect a Certain correlation with another trend. But will leave that for now.)



The Vedic-ness of the Tamil/Kerala Hindus since ancient times is why the Hindu Tamil-language work Silappadikaaram too was very familiar with the Hindu Pauranic narrative concerning Agastya's shaapam on Urvashi and Indran's son Jayanta to incarnate on earth (mentioned in the previous post). Consequently, Silappadikaaram went on to recount how its 2nd heroine, Madhavi, was the re-incarnation of or descendant of Urvashi, upon the shaapam taking effect.



+ The Silappadikaaram summarises this event from Hindus' Vayu Purana (or any other equally old/er Hindoo source) and explains how Madhavi is related to Urvashi. In doing so, the Silappadikaaram naturally also mentions how the Vedic Rishi Agastya came to visit Indran and thus came to pronounce the shaapam.



+ In another section, Silappadikaaram mentions Agastya as the Rishi of the Potiyil Malai and in that very same set of verses also mentions Agastya's affiliation with "Shiva of the Vedic scriptures".



+ The Tamil-language Hindu text also mentions that Potiyil is sacred to Agastya, implying its knowledge that it had been sacred well before he came there and also why it should be sacred to him. As brought up in Post 11 (the very first post in this spam series), that's because his deva-gurus Murugan and Dakshinaamoorti-Shiva reside there: that post (#11) already contained a quote from even older Tamil literature that showed how Dakshinamoorti-Shiva was known to and hence worshipped by a Hindu chieftain of Potiyil in that ancient time.





In short: the Silappadikaaram knew the Agastya of the Hindu Puranas as the Vedic Shaiva (and also generally Hindu) muni who lived at Potiyil. The text is likewise familiar with the ancient sacredness of Podigai Malai/Potiyil.

I will paste quotes - English translations from Silappadikaaram - that support the above.



But as for Silappadikaaram's date:



Until recently (just a few decades back at most), TN used to date Silappadikaaram to the 2nd century CE. Of course the missionary Caldwell wanted to have it appear only in the 6th or 7th century (since he didn't want Vedic religion to have been ancient in TN, so that he could argue that Tamil grammar and culture and history had no historical relation at all to Skt and to Hindu religion in specific, in order to push his missionary AIT agenda). And because the Hindu literary work goes on and on about Vedic religion in Kerala and TN, and because Silappadikaaram can't be christianised, christianism's desperation has only increased with time: they want Hinduism to be dated to no earlier than 8th century CE in Kerala/TN (so that christianism can claim all of the history of southern and esp. Tamil/Kerala Hindu culture for itself), and as a result of demonstrable christianist machinations at online reference sites, Silappadikaaram sometimes even gets pushed down to 8th century CE these days. Although only christians like to fall for that one.

Silappadikaaram knows of the presence of Jainism and Buddhism in the south at that time and mentions them respectfully, trying to give some details on them too, as Hindus do even today, but it is the work by a Hindu and about Hindu religion - this being the native religion of the southern countryside in that age (as is clearly evident in the text itself).



In reality, the Tamil Hindu text is likely to be several centuries older than Hsuan-Tsang. In any case, Silappadikaaram mentions not just Agastya's shaapam of Urvasi (=the Vedic Rishi Agastya, since it's referring to the pauranic account), but also how the same Vedic Rishi Agastya is the muni of Potiyil AND associated with Shiva of the Vedas. But Silappadikaaram does not know of any Avalokiteshwara/Buddhism associated with Potiyil. (<- This point matters.)





From English translations of Silappadikaaram, taken from the viewable pages on Google Books (or searchable via Google Search):



a. From S.Krishnamoorthy's translation of "Silappadikaram",

books.google.co.uk/books?id=STbMzFKaxcQC

p.37

"Once the dance of Urvasi, accompanied by a girl singing the varam tune and Narada on his veena at the court of the thousand-eyed lord Indra, faltered and the veena sounded discordant; the music and dance failed to please Indra. Thereupon Agastya cursed Urvasi and the discordant veena to be born on the earth. It was thus that Urvasi was born on earth with the name of Madhavi.

Let us enjoy the dance of her descendant who is also named Madhavi with alkul like a cobra's hood and also pay our homage to Indra who is worshipped there."

That clearly identifies the *Vedic* Rishi Agastya.

And it is the same Rishi Agastya described on p.74:

23. "The Pandian is the ruler of the glorious Podiyil hill where dwells the sage Agastya, the descendant of the Lord who gave the scriptures. Let him [the Pandian king] wear the garland of scarlet ixora to the ruin of the habitations of his enemies and their cattleherds.

The "Lord" in the above reference is the Vedic God Shiva and the "scriptures" mentioned are the Vedas onlee - referred to repeatedly throughout the translation as "the scriptures"/Vedas etc.

(The "descendant of Shiva" bit may refer to the lineage of Shaiva Siddhars of Shaiva Siddhaantam, of which Agastya was the first and Shiva the originator/progenitor.)





But so as to leave no doubt, here follows a translation of the same verse as above but by an anti-Hindu, wannabe-feminist speaking of "the patriarchy" [though not of his own of course, patronising], who is predictably a close friend of that lame AK Ramm-anujan. Look how even this next guy - who readily donated Ilango Adigal and his work to Jainism and said mean things about Hindu religion and Hellenismos all while praising the Gospels and other christianisms (cryptochristo alert) - is nevertheless still forced to confess that the Agastya/Podiyil Malai known in Silappadikaaram's era can't be donated to Buddhism even under the Buddhist Avalokiteshwara-inculturation, as it's all exclusively Vedic Hindoo only in the text:



The Introduction is signed "R. Parthasarathy" - who appears to be the translator, as he talks about this in the intro - and dated to "Aug 20, 1992", but Googlebooks has the book at "2004". So it may be a re-publication.



From: "Cilappatikaram : The Tale Of An Anklet"

books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0143031961



Have reconstructed the full version of the following quoted section by combining Google search with Googlebooks search:

p.129

POSTLUDE 2.4

May the Pandyan, eager for victory,

Wear the vetci flower that spells ruin

For his enemy's forest and rescue of cattle.

For he [Pandya king of Madurai] is the lord of the Potiyil with lofty peaks

Where lives the sage Agastya, born

After Siva who knew the Vedas well.

From the same anti-Hindu translator, comes also the following which he was forced to admit. It's another reference in the Silappadikaaram to Agastya's curse of UrvashI to be born on earth, and the derivation of MadhavI therefrom. Note particularly how the verse directly ties the Agastya of the Vayu PuraaNa (i.e. Vedic Rishi Agastya) to Potiyil, making it clear it's one and the same person onlee, AND also that Potiyil was already considered divine at Silappadikaaram's era (and who knows for how long before that):



p. 34

Agastya of the divine Potiyil had once

Cursed Indra's son Jayanta, and UrvashI.

That curse he graciously revoked

As UrvashI displayed her talent for the dance

On the stage. And from that exalted line

Of heavenly nymphs was MAtavi descended.

...

Further relevant occurrences of Potiyil in the last translation admits to:

p. 204

"Be gracious enough to listen

To listen to the reason why

I came here, O king of kings

Of the resplendent spear!

I had gone round

The Potiyil hills, sacred to Agastya,

And bathed in the renowned waters of the Kumari.

[...]



p.150

After going round the Potiyil,

Sacred to the great sage Agastya,

And bathing on the ghats of the

Kumari, he was returning

To his own family.

[...]



p.82

Rising from the lush Potiyils hills

Of the illustrious sage Agastya,

the herald South wind breathed the coming of spring.



p. 199

The Godddess of Maturai was the family deity

Of the king who ruled over the cool port

Of Korkai, the port of Kumari, and Mount Potiyil.





p.377 (Excerpt looks like it's from Glossary section

Malaya Potiyil, a mountain in the Pandya kingdom famous as the dwelling of seer Agastya

[If someone wants to read Silappadikaaram in English, S. Krishnamoorty's version appears to be the better of the two, from my sampling via Googlebook search. But I didn't read the introduction, so I can't confirm. In any case, the 2nd English translation mentioned is by an anti-Hindu of 'subaltern studies' type.]



Mark how the extracts say not only that Potiyil is divine and the dwelling place of Agastya muni, but it is stated twice above that the Potiyil Malai is also *sacred to Agastya*. The sanctity would be because the Potiyil malai is Murugan's and Shiva's abode, where Agastya had made his southern home.

Silappadikaaram is already familiar with Hindu Puranas, and the association of Agastya with Potiyil and Shiva is already made directly in Silappadikaaram, so the Silappadikaaram's familiarity with the other relevant Hindu puranas and traditions about the Vedic Rishi & Shaiva Siddhar Agastya's association with the Vedic=Hindu Shiva and Murugan seems quite likely.



Note the Pandyan kings are said to rule Podiyil, besides Madurai and Kumari and Korkai ports in the Silappadikaaram. That the Pandya dynasty at this stage are still Vedic=Hindu* is made clear from the fact that Madurapati - clearly described as an Ardhanaareshwara but referred to as a She because it is the Amman Ardhanaree (every description given of her is directly that of Shiva-Shakti from the Vedas, Upanishads and Pauranic stotras) - Madurapati, the God/dess of Madurai is the patron deity of the Pandya lineage. Making the Pandya kings Vedic=Hindus still at this time. Just like Cenguttuvan, the Hindu king who becomes important in another section of the Silappadikaaram: he performs a rAjasUya yagnya, as admitted even by the anti-Hindu translator.



The objective here is not to point out the Vedic Hinduisms in the text - because Silappadikaaram's mostly about Vedic religion=Hinduism, with bits of Jainism and Buddhism mentioned, sort of like how Hindus today write articles about Jainism and Buddhism (and often christianism and islam etc) too.



The objective in mentioning all the above is to make it clear that at least in the time Silappadikaaram was written* (and probably also in any earlier time it was set), it was known that:

- the Vedic Rishi Agastya, who is mentioned as being closely associated with "the Lord Shiva who gave the Vedas", i.e. the same Rishi Agastya mentioned in our Puranas, IS the one who dwells at the "divine Potiyil".



* Even the anti-Hindu translator tentatively dates the Silappadikaaram to the 5th century CE. I.e. he hadn't bothered making it more recent still, back in 1992 or 2004 when his book got published, and many other recent writers too have similarly latched onto 4th or 5th century CE instead of 2nd century CE (which was still the norm a few decades back).



Further, just to make it clear that the Potiyil Malai of Agastya in Silappadikaaram is quite the same as the Podigai/Agastyar Malai I've been talking about in my posts:



From S.Krishnamoorthy's English translation of "Silappadikaram", p.114

"Once Parasaran, a learned brahmin, belonging to the grain-rich land of the king of Puhar--rich in water-filled fields--who wields the sceptre of justice and the formidable, long sword and who belongs to the line of the king who ascended the scales of the balance for the sake of a dove and the king who dispensed justice to a cow, heard of the munificence of the bright-lanced Chera king who fed vast armies2 and presided over a glorious assembly. Desiring to meet the Cheran wielding the long, mighty spear, who helped a brahmin, a great Tamil scholar, to attain heaven3. he crossed the forests, the countryside and towns and left behind him the tall Malaya, namely the Podiyil, mountains.

[...]

To repeat, the Rishi/Muni Agastya of Potiyil known to the Silappadikaaram, is the Rishi Agastya known from the Puranas and Vedas et al - e.g. the Rishi who pronounces a Shaapam on Urvashi et al, as even recalled in the Silappadikaaram itself -

and who is:

+ therefore famous himself: described in a translation above as "the illustrious sage Agastya"

+ famously associated with the Shiva of the Vedas onlee ("the Lord Shiva who gave the Vedas")

+ famously associated with Potiyil Malai, already considered his dwelling place and divine. Agastya moreover finds the malai sacred, because his Gurus, the Hindu Gods are there: the Silappadikaaram already betrays a knowledge of the Puranas and old Hindu oral traditions in recognising that Agastya is an ancient dweller on Potiyil. And these sources are the ones that mention how Agastya had been initiated by Murugan into Tamil there (Murugan is known as Tamil Devam).



The above is really important to the points I want to make in the next post.





As a sidenote, in the last blockquote above, notice how it mentions the king of Puhar as a descendant of the Vedic king Shibi:

the king of Puhar--rich in water-filled fields--who wields the sceptre of justice and the formidable, long sword and who belongs to the line of the king who ascended the scales of the balance for the sake of a dove and the king who dispensed justice to a cow

The King of Puhar is clearly not Buddhist, and the Silappadikaaram cannot be written by a Buddhist either: because the Shibi described above is King Shibi of the Hindu ithihaasas/shaastras onlee, not the Bauddhified clone "Shibi" from the Buddhist Jatakas:

- there are no scales and no dove involved in the act for which the Bauddhified clone Shibi was made famous in Buddhism. He had an eye operation done to remove his eyes and give it away to Sakka in disguise. (wisdomlib.org/definition/sivi-jataka/index.html)

- Silappadikaaram knows onlee of the original=authentic Hindoo King Shibi:

Repeating the MW dictionary entry again, but just the relevant portion that relays the Hindu version:

1 zibi m. (also written %{zivi}) N. of a king (renowned for his liberality and unselfishness , and said to have saved Agni transformed into a dove from Indra transformed into a hawk by offering an equal quantity of his own flesh weighed in a balance) MBh. Hariv. Pur.

The fact that the Silappadikaaram doesn't know of/doesn't give recognition to the Bauddhified clone Shibi means that the Silappadikaaram's author is not Buddhist. A Buddhist is unlikely to have recognised the Hindu original, as the Buddhist version of the original Hindu Shibi narative was specifically meant to replace the Hindu version among followers of Buddhism.





This post contains relevant quotes from Silappadikaaram.



Spam-series to be continued.