11-10-2014, 05:35 PM
Post 19/?
(Post 18 was actually a two-parter, so this follows on from previous.)
To return to this again, then:
+ NO. The matter concerns a logical predicate. It's FALSE (= a lie) the way it's written now. According to Buddhist tradition, the mythical Mount *Potalaka* is The seat of Bodhisattva Avalokiteswara. [See Avatamsaka Sutra. And repeated by Taranath.]
+ By 7th century Hsuan-Tsang's time, his Buddhist sources alleged an Avalokiteshwara at what could conceivably be Podigai. But there's no evidence they - or anyone else - called Podigai Potalaka, though HT certainly transcribed the location he identified as such. 11th century Tamil Buddhist did not mention either Podigai or Potalaka, he's mute on the matter (else Vijayavenugopal and others would have pounced on his statement); can only infer.
+ BTW according to other scholars, the origins of the Avalokiteshwara character do Not lie in Potiyil. (E.g. Dhanyakataka was one of the places hypothesised.) As long as any of those possibilities remain, it directly follows that Avalokiteshwara's "original seat" - the place where he was first invented/name-dropped - can not lie in Podigai. And - if any identification with a physical locality is to be done - the place of his invention is what must be identified with a physical Potalaka. Logically speaking. And regardless of whether said physical place where he got invented was called Potalaka or not, since Avatamsaka's "Potalaka" is myth anyway (and was a flourish added to his mythology later than his own conception); otherwise every place that got associated with Avalokiteshwara becomes "equally" likely as Potalaka: Buddhists all over Asia have already randomly identified different parts as Potala/Potalaka [even though many were heathen sites first]. So it doesn't matter whether the physical place where the Avalokiteshwara notion was first conceived was called Potalaka or not, it is the real seat of Avalokiteshwara (OR the spiritual "Potalaka" of the Avatamsaka, since that is the first known mention of the place and in assocation with Avalokiteshwara).
BECAUSE: all they've been able to prove is that the FIRST mention of Potalaka is exclusively as a mythical place and in the Avatamsaka. To repeat, had they actually found historical Buddhists saying that Podigai was Potalaka, that would have been something. But they haven't. Not even historical Tamil Buddhists apparently - else Vijayavenugopal would have held that up as evidence, instead he had to resort to Beal and Hultzsch for authority. They all want Hsuan-Tsang to be the lynch pin, except that if he actually meant to describe Podigai, then the timing of Buddhist encroachment on Podigai was too late to associate the locale with the formation of either the Avalokiteshwara character or Avatamsaka's Potalaka. So, while Podhigai may potentially be the place Hsuan-Tsang described from hearsay, there's a whole lot of other things it isn't.
Again: that does not discount the fact that Buddhists have encroached on Podigai for Avalokiteshwara using their usual inculturation tactics (which they clearly did). But it does not make Podigai equal Potalaka "in Buddhist tradition", as Vijayavenugopal had claimed. (He hasn't proved that. But he has given more evidence of encroachment on Hindu religion that directly or indirectly concerns Podigai.)
What there IS proof for is - even if by some great Bauddhific miracle they found historical evidence of Indians Buddhists saying Potigai=Potalaka of Avatamsaka Sutra and at the time of its composition or before (But note: not a "dakshina Potalaka" or some obviously latter-day excuse like that; since Podigai is Dakshina Meru of Hindu religion, and so that would just be Buddhism cloning the idea) -
Again: even IF historical evidence were found of Indian Buddhists saying Potigai=Potalaka, THEN:
There is still proof that Podiga/Potiyil remains in origin (as it also does now) a Hindoo heathen sacred site, and that Buddhism would only have encroached on it as Avalokiteshwara's place ("Potalaka") afterward, using Buddhism's usual inculturation tactic. <- Obviously, since Podigai has been associated with the Vedic Rishi (and Shaiva Siddhar) Agastya since ancient times and with his God Dakshinaamoorty-Shiva since even more ancient times. Plus the 7th century Hsuan-Tsang can't deny Agastya association with Potiyil AND the silly 11th century Tamil Buddhist "evidence" cannot deny Agastya's assocation with Tamil. More importantly, HT - who preceded the 11th century Puttamittiran and his claims by 4 centuries - couldn't deny that Agastya was a "PAshupata Yogin"=Hindoo Shaiva onlee. And it is only in the intervening centuries that Agastya evolved from being a PAshupata Yogin=Hindoo to suddenly being of Avalokiteshwara's troupe instead. <- Showing proof of development of Buddhistic encroachment.
And everyone already knows that - not all that long ago - Buddhism did try to encroach on Dakshinamoorty at Potiyil too. Using Avalokiteshwara.* (Though it was still called Podigai/Potiyil and not Potalaka.) Again, an occurrence that got euphemised to "syncretism" by modern Indian Hindus who don't want to see longer than their nose is and who probably think that had India been Bauddhised like say once-Hindu Thailand and Cambodia, then it would all be the "same-same".
* There were a few other places where the Buddhist sangha tried to inculturate on Dakshinamoorty (with padmam in hand) too, fortunately Hindus stopped making the Hindu vigrahas of Dakshinamoorty-Shiva with padmam in his hand, so that the Buddhists ran out of excuses: the Buddhists didn't know what to do with their whole "Padmapani=Shiva, Hindus please submit to Bauddhification" routine anymore, since that Shiva form didn't get depicted with Padmam anymore. Besides, only some of the forms of Dakshinaamoorti ever got depicted with padmam. Others were with Veena etc or with his wife (also easily identifiable as Uma onlee and not some lame invented Buddhist generic 'goddess' or knock-off <- great word, even better than clone), so they couldn't be encroached upon by Buddhism.
If it turns out that Hsuan-Tsang's description was referring to Podigai - certainly more likely than Lokesh & parrots' Ayyappa Shabarimalai insinuations/bauddhifications - then
Shu was right about:
- it having been a sacred site to the locals (i.e. Hindus) since "ancient times" [before Buddhism came there]
- and that despite the Buddhist inculturation on Dakshinaamoorti-Shiva there via Avalokiteshwara, the "locals remained followers of the Hindu religion".
Shu was wrong about:
- the etymological derivation of Potiyil
- that the Buddhist encroachment on Dakshinaamoorti-Shiva there (or in a few other places) was "syncretism". It was inculturation - an attempt at takeover/replacement and missionising - on Hindudom and nothing more. "Avalokiteshwara" has taken over lots of heathen (incl Hindu) temples in many parts of Asia.
Shu missed out on (or wasn't quoted by others as referring to):
- Hindoo bhaktas still seeing Rishi Agastya ("pAshupata yogin") manifest at Podiyil
Anyway, Shu's errors notwithstanding, it does prove that Japanese, though they present their findings in understated manner (not being loud or bombastic or sensationalist about their investigations) are more sane and clever - and more willing to be impartial, and less motivated, i.e. actually scholarly - than ... a whole of other lame people who were looking into the Potalaka thing.
I suspect Shu even knew about what Buddhism was attempting with Dakshinamoorti-Shiva there.
So, if Buddhists/Bauddhified Hindus/dravoodianists etc want to claim Podigai IS
+ the location where the Avalokiteshwara character was first created and developed, (i.e. the origin locus of Avalokiteshwara)
THEN they have to prove the existence of Avalokiteshwara's beginnings at Podigai before or at 1st century BCE-1st century CE (but remember: since the Avalokiteshwara cult was already known to exist somewhere between 1st century BCE-1st century CE, any evidence of Avalokiteshwara's origins being at Podigai have to be of a date *before* any evidence of Avalokiteshwara anywhere else);
or, foregoing that, then at least
+ the physical origin of the "Potalaka" myth (i.e. a physical place that could over time have germinated into the supernatural Potalaka mentioned in Avatamsaka)
THEN need to prove that Avalokiteshwara was worshipped at Podigai before Gandayvuha Sutra (i.e. before 1st-3rd century CE) AND that Podigai was called Potalaka in a contemporaneous Buddhist text
NO "re-interpreting" of Hindu texts allowed of course.
[And remember: anything that mentions Rishi "Potiyil Muni" Agastya is *automatically* referring to Hindoo-dom onlee. Don't go there.]
And if Buddhists/Bauddhified Hindus/dravoodianists/other assorted want to claim
+ that Avalokiteshwara at Podigai preceded Dakshinaamoorti,
THEN need evidence of Avalokiteshwara worship from at minimum before 1st cent BCE-1st cent CE (though Dakshinaamoorti-Shiva worship at Podigai seems to have even older references, so actually need earlier references than 1st century BCE. Except that Avalokiteshwara may not yet have been invented at such an early date... So it's not looking to too good for planting an original 'Avalokiteshwara' at Potiyil. "Sorry")
+ that Agastya is originally a Buddhist,
THEN:
Sorry. Can't be done.
(Post 18 was actually a two-parter, so this follows on from previous.)
To return to this again, then:
Quote:According to the Buddhist tradition this Mount Potikai is the seat of Bodhisattva Avalokiteswara.
+ NO. The matter concerns a logical predicate. It's FALSE (= a lie) the way it's written now. According to Buddhist tradition, the mythical Mount *Potalaka* is The seat of Bodhisattva Avalokiteswara. [See Avatamsaka Sutra. And repeated by Taranath.]
+ By 7th century Hsuan-Tsang's time, his Buddhist sources alleged an Avalokiteshwara at what could conceivably be Podigai. But there's no evidence they - or anyone else - called Podigai Potalaka, though HT certainly transcribed the location he identified as such. 11th century Tamil Buddhist did not mention either Podigai or Potalaka, he's mute on the matter (else Vijayavenugopal and others would have pounced on his statement); can only infer.
+ BTW according to other scholars, the origins of the Avalokiteshwara character do Not lie in Potiyil. (E.g. Dhanyakataka was one of the places hypothesised.) As long as any of those possibilities remain, it directly follows that Avalokiteshwara's "original seat" - the place where he was first invented/name-dropped - can not lie in Podigai. And - if any identification with a physical locality is to be done - the place of his invention is what must be identified with a physical Potalaka. Logically speaking. And regardless of whether said physical place where he got invented was called Potalaka or not, since Avatamsaka's "Potalaka" is myth anyway (and was a flourish added to his mythology later than his own conception); otherwise every place that got associated with Avalokiteshwara becomes "equally" likely as Potalaka: Buddhists all over Asia have already randomly identified different parts as Potala/Potalaka [even though many were heathen sites first]. So it doesn't matter whether the physical place where the Avalokiteshwara notion was first conceived was called Potalaka or not, it is the real seat of Avalokiteshwara (OR the spiritual "Potalaka" of the Avatamsaka, since that is the first known mention of the place and in assocation with Avalokiteshwara).
BECAUSE: all they've been able to prove is that the FIRST mention of Potalaka is exclusively as a mythical place and in the Avatamsaka. To repeat, had they actually found historical Buddhists saying that Podigai was Potalaka, that would have been something. But they haven't. Not even historical Tamil Buddhists apparently - else Vijayavenugopal would have held that up as evidence, instead he had to resort to Beal and Hultzsch for authority. They all want Hsuan-Tsang to be the lynch pin, except that if he actually meant to describe Podigai, then the timing of Buddhist encroachment on Podigai was too late to associate the locale with the formation of either the Avalokiteshwara character or Avatamsaka's Potalaka. So, while Podhigai may potentially be the place Hsuan-Tsang described from hearsay, there's a whole lot of other things it isn't.
Again: that does not discount the fact that Buddhists have encroached on Podigai for Avalokiteshwara using their usual inculturation tactics (which they clearly did). But it does not make Podigai equal Potalaka "in Buddhist tradition", as Vijayavenugopal had claimed. (He hasn't proved that. But he has given more evidence of encroachment on Hindu religion that directly or indirectly concerns Podigai.)
What there IS proof for is - even if by some great Bauddhific miracle they found historical evidence of Indians Buddhists saying Potigai=Potalaka of Avatamsaka Sutra and at the time of its composition or before (But note: not a "dakshina Potalaka" or some obviously latter-day excuse like that; since Podigai is Dakshina Meru of Hindu religion, and so that would just be Buddhism cloning the idea) -
Again: even IF historical evidence were found of Indian Buddhists saying Potigai=Potalaka, THEN:
There is still proof that Podiga/Potiyil remains in origin (as it also does now) a Hindoo heathen sacred site, and that Buddhism would only have encroached on it as Avalokiteshwara's place ("Potalaka") afterward, using Buddhism's usual inculturation tactic. <- Obviously, since Podigai has been associated with the Vedic Rishi (and Shaiva Siddhar) Agastya since ancient times and with his God Dakshinaamoorty-Shiva since even more ancient times. Plus the 7th century Hsuan-Tsang can't deny Agastya association with Potiyil AND the silly 11th century Tamil Buddhist "evidence" cannot deny Agastya's assocation with Tamil. More importantly, HT - who preceded the 11th century Puttamittiran and his claims by 4 centuries - couldn't deny that Agastya was a "PAshupata Yogin"=Hindoo Shaiva onlee. And it is only in the intervening centuries that Agastya evolved from being a PAshupata Yogin=Hindoo to suddenly being of Avalokiteshwara's troupe instead. <- Showing proof of development of Buddhistic encroachment.
And everyone already knows that - not all that long ago - Buddhism did try to encroach on Dakshinamoorty at Potiyil too. Using Avalokiteshwara.* (Though it was still called Podigai/Potiyil and not Potalaka.) Again, an occurrence that got euphemised to "syncretism" by modern Indian Hindus who don't want to see longer than their nose is and who probably think that had India been Bauddhised like say once-Hindu Thailand and Cambodia, then it would all be the "same-same".
* There were a few other places where the Buddhist sangha tried to inculturate on Dakshinamoorty (with padmam in hand) too, fortunately Hindus stopped making the Hindu vigrahas of Dakshinamoorty-Shiva with padmam in his hand, so that the Buddhists ran out of excuses: the Buddhists didn't know what to do with their whole "Padmapani=Shiva, Hindus please submit to Bauddhification" routine anymore, since that Shiva form didn't get depicted with Padmam anymore. Besides, only some of the forms of Dakshinaamoorti ever got depicted with padmam. Others were with Veena etc or with his wife (also easily identifiable as Uma onlee and not some lame invented Buddhist generic 'goddess' or knock-off <- great word, even better than clone), so they couldn't be encroached upon by Buddhism.
If it turns out that Hsuan-Tsang's description was referring to Podigai - certainly more likely than Lokesh & parrots' Ayyappa Shabarimalai insinuations/bauddhifications - then
Shu was right about:
- it having been a sacred site to the locals (i.e. Hindus) since "ancient times" [before Buddhism came there]
- and that despite the Buddhist inculturation on Dakshinaamoorti-Shiva there via Avalokiteshwara, the "locals remained followers of the Hindu religion".
Shu was wrong about:
- the etymological derivation of Potiyil
- that the Buddhist encroachment on Dakshinaamoorti-Shiva there (or in a few other places) was "syncretism". It was inculturation - an attempt at takeover/replacement and missionising - on Hindudom and nothing more. "Avalokiteshwara" has taken over lots of heathen (incl Hindu) temples in many parts of Asia.
Shu missed out on (or wasn't quoted by others as referring to):
- Hindoo bhaktas still seeing Rishi Agastya ("pAshupata yogin") manifest at Podiyil
Anyway, Shu's errors notwithstanding, it does prove that Japanese, though they present their findings in understated manner (not being loud or bombastic or sensationalist about their investigations) are more sane and clever - and more willing to be impartial, and less motivated, i.e. actually scholarly - than ... a whole of other lame people who were looking into the Potalaka thing.
I suspect Shu even knew about what Buddhism was attempting with Dakshinamoorti-Shiva there.
So, if Buddhists/Bauddhified Hindus/dravoodianists etc want to claim Podigai IS
+ the location where the Avalokiteshwara character was first created and developed, (i.e. the origin locus of Avalokiteshwara)
THEN they have to prove the existence of Avalokiteshwara's beginnings at Podigai before or at 1st century BCE-1st century CE (but remember: since the Avalokiteshwara cult was already known to exist somewhere between 1st century BCE-1st century CE, any evidence of Avalokiteshwara's origins being at Podigai have to be of a date *before* any evidence of Avalokiteshwara anywhere else);
or, foregoing that, then at least
+ the physical origin of the "Potalaka" myth (i.e. a physical place that could over time have germinated into the supernatural Potalaka mentioned in Avatamsaka)
THEN need to prove that Avalokiteshwara was worshipped at Podigai before Gandayvuha Sutra (i.e. before 1st-3rd century CE) AND that Podigai was called Potalaka in a contemporaneous Buddhist text
NO "re-interpreting" of Hindu texts allowed of course.
[And remember: anything that mentions Rishi "Potiyil Muni" Agastya is *automatically* referring to Hindoo-dom onlee. Don't go there.]
And if Buddhists/Bauddhified Hindus/dravoodianists/other assorted want to claim
+ that Avalokiteshwara at Podigai preceded Dakshinaamoorti,
THEN need evidence of Avalokiteshwara worship from at minimum before 1st cent BCE-1st cent CE (though Dakshinaamoorti-Shiva worship at Podigai seems to have even older references, so actually need earlier references than 1st century BCE. Except that Avalokiteshwara may not yet have been invented at such an early date... So it's not looking to too good for planting an original 'Avalokiteshwara' at Potiyil. "Sorry")
+ that Agastya is originally a Buddhist,
THEN:
Sorry. Can't be done.