Post 9/?
([color="#FF0000"]Continued from previous:[/color] occurrences of AriShTanemi in the Harivamsha)
+ But it is HV chapters 1.34 and 1.38 that are relevant to the topic.
In this context, need to recall that the Jain narrative concerning their teerthankara Neminatha's lineage is (as stated in the Wackypedia entry):
[color="#0000FF"]Both Harivamsha chapters 1.34 and 1.38 explicate (along the same lines, as far as I can tell by scanning through the translated text) the Yadava lineage to which kRiShNa/Balarama belong. In doing so, mention is made of one Chitraka in their family tree. The very many children of this Chitraka are enumerated briefly by name in both 1.34 and 1.38, one of whom is an ariShTanemi. While this ariShTanemi is indeed a cousin of KriShNa, he is an nth degree cousin (i.e. same generation in the family tree but they're not children born of siblings).[/color]
But:
1. [color="#0000FF"]this ariShTanemi is merely named, as being the son of Chitraka (in both 1.34 and 1.38) after which no more is said about him in the Harivamsha text.[/color] I.e. nothing at all from the Hindu side here to corroborate anything about the life-story of the Jain teerthankara Neminatha, let alone in the specific relative of kRiShNa in question. Instead, this particular Harivamsha ariShTanemi's life is left as is - other than stating his lineage down from Yadu and his many siblings' names. Harivamsha knows nothing more remarkable about him than it knows about his siblings, who (like many others in the family tree) are merely named in the text. No interaction of this ariShTanemi with kRiShNa is mentioned at all, let alone the Harivamsha corroborating any Jain story involving him.
The status quo is therefore that, the Yadava dynasty being a very *Vedic* dynasty of kShatriyas, ariShTanemi lived the average life of a kShatriya doing nothing to particularly distinguish himself from the rest (i.e. as heroic as the average Yadava).
(Can compare with - though also a point of interest in its own right - Ekalavya's mention in the Harivamsha 1.34.33 as "rumoured" to be of the same family tree as kRiShNa, indeed a direct cousin of kRiShNa: being born of his direct uncle. That would make Ekalavya a Yadava by birth, though the HV records this hearsay as him having been abandoned by his dad for unknown reason and having been instead brought up by the Nishada clan whose king he became under the name Ekalavya.
So when the HV knows to mention even a rumour about Ekalavya, why no mention of the alleged remarkable infamously anti-Vedic life of AriShTanemi who supposedly grew up right under the Yadavas' noses? There's an obvious answer to this question.)
[color="#0000FF"]2. The father of this HV AriShTanemi is not called Samudravijaya anywhere in the Harivamsha text.[/color] (The Jain Neminatha's father is called Samudravijaya.)
[color="#0000FF"]3. Indeed the term "samudravijaya" (also tried searching "samudra vijaya") does not occur anywhere in the Harivamsha text.[/color]
4. [color="#0000FF"]While Jain texts do refer to Neminatha as also being called AriShTanemi, it appears that even the Jains never historically claimed that Neminatha's father Samudravijaya was ever "also called Chitraka".[/color]
[For someone so prominently (and exclusively) known as Samudravijaya by Jains to not be known at all as Chitraka by them - and vice versa: for someone to be known exclusively as Chitraka in HV but not as Samudravijaya at all - says something. If both names were equally popular, surely that would have been documented. C.f. many a son and daughter born in the Yadava lineage - and other lineages - is mentioned in the HV by the multiple names they were known under, even when thereafter no more is said of them either.]
The fact that older Jain writings don't seem to have known to conflate the two names is further underlined when comparing the MW dictionary entries for both the names Samudravijaya and Chitraka. Again: doing so is useful *because* MW gives you an index into all major occurrences/sources of words and names:
Can see that the MW entry for Chitraka above does not know of any established Jain claims made to equate that name with Samudravijaya. I.e. it doesn't say anything along the lines of "Citraka N. of Samudravijaya father of 22nd Jain Arhat" in its list of meanings/sources/occurrences of the word, and definitely not to equate it with the Chitraka of HV.
5. And it appears [color="#0000FF"]Jains have now also -lately/at last- noticed the gaping hole, confirming that there is indeed no established/historical Jain literature forcing the connection between the two names (or 2 persons, rather):[/color]
In all of the web indexed by your famous search engine, there are only 2 relevant (i.e. Jain) search results mentioning both the names Samudravijaya and C(h)itraka together. The 2nd one doesn't appear to know/try to connect the two names at all, and seems to just list a Chitraka separate from a Samudravijaya. The first search result is what's interesting though, in that finally someone - the only person in all of the searchable internet - has decided it's time to force-fit the two names together using a "possibly" since otherwise the gaping hole (which exists only on their side of the story, since Hindus see no need - and have no actual evidence - to make the connection and have no need - and no evidence - to prove Neminatha's historicity) is too wide for all to see:
So even after all these centuries, having now finally realised it, they only got as far as "Possibly" - thus admitting they have no actual literary "proof" even from their own end for actually equating the two names.
And this despite their writers having made apparently more than one Jain clone of the (original, Hindu) Harivamsha for Jainism, all for the purpose of inserting Neminatha/Jainism in there. Bad job. That it was indeed a poor job is further underscored by that other error they made:
6. The Jain narrative concerning their Neminatha's ancestry has one "andhakavrishni" as the name of Neminatha's grandfather.
[color="#0000FF"]But "Andhakavrishni" in Harivamsha~MBh period/context refers to the 2 houses/dynasties called Andhaka and Vrishni, which are lineages descended from the 2 brothers called Andhaka and Vrishni/Prishni. Chitraka is the son of Vrishni (also written Prishni) not of Andhaka. (I.e. there is no ariShTanemi known to the Harivamsha - and related to kRiShNa, or even not - who has a grandfather called Andhakavrishni.)[/color]
This last point is important because it reveals how Jain writers - writing their story much later to retrofit Neminatha into the earlier Mahabharata/kRishNa context - confounded Andhaka and Vrishni. They made this mistake because it is not really their 'history': as in, it's apparent they didn't know what they were talking about when they tried to involve themselves in other people's ancient 'history'-writing (as in: they weren't actually around then).
They just borrowed the MBh context for background/context and establishing their character (Neminatha), for giving it external authority and establishing their teerthankaras in history (and earlier history). The error comes from retrofitting, and a poor job at that.
I have no problem with people following their respective theologies. But they have no right to attempt to "prove" the historicity thereof by mangling (in order to piggyback on) other people's religio-history and religious texts. Actually, no illegal piggybacking full-stop.
[color="#0000FF"]In any case, the (implicitly Hindu) Harivamsha does not confirm either any ariShTanemi with a parent called Samudravijaya or one with a grandparent called Andhakavrishni, and it hardly need be added that the Harivamsha doesn't know of the Jain teerthankara or Jainism.[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]ADDED:[/color] On this again:
About the final line in the above: No. Let's be clear: an ariShTanemi is indeed cousin to kRiShNa as per HV. But nowhere in the HV - forget the MBh proper - is there any evidence about this cousin ariShTanemi being anything to do with Jainism let alone being the Jain teerthankara Neminatha. So there are indeed two views about kRiShNa concerning ariShTanemi: the original epic's Hindu view is no more than that kRiShNa had an nth degree cousin called ariShTanemi - with nothing more remarkable or memorable to be said about the matter. The Jain view is to forcibly conflate this Vedic epic ariShTanemi with the Jain teerthankara Neminatha in order to establish the latter's historicity in other people's religious-history, one that doesn't even know of any Jainism at that early point (of the MBh context).
Also, don't know wherefrom they got "Citraratha" as an alias for Chitraka. There are certainly Citraratha-s in Hindus' religion - e.g. the King of the Gandharvas whose name is Chitraratha (he appears in MBh IIRC) and viewed as an incarnation of Virinchi (brahmA) in Hindu temples. Persons Chitraratha by name are consequently also mentioned in the HV and MBh (or addressed with the descriptive in the Vedam) but none of these appear to be identified with Chitraka , see MW entry for the name:
MW entry for andhakavrishni confirms:
([color="#FF0000"]Continued from previous:[/color] occurrences of AriShTanemi in the Harivamsha)
+ But it is HV chapters 1.34 and 1.38 that are relevant to the topic.
In this context, need to recall that the Jain narrative concerning their teerthankara Neminatha's lineage is (as stated in the Wackypedia entry):
Quote:[color="#0000FF"]Neminatha, the 22nd Tirthankara of the Jains, was the son of Samudra Vijaya and grandson of Andhakavrishni.[/color]
[color="#0000FF"]Both Harivamsha chapters 1.34 and 1.38 explicate (along the same lines, as far as I can tell by scanning through the translated text) the Yadava lineage to which kRiShNa/Balarama belong. In doing so, mention is made of one Chitraka in their family tree. The very many children of this Chitraka are enumerated briefly by name in both 1.34 and 1.38, one of whom is an ariShTanemi. While this ariShTanemi is indeed a cousin of KriShNa, he is an nth degree cousin (i.e. same generation in the family tree but they're not children born of siblings).[/color]
But:
1. [color="#0000FF"]this ariShTanemi is merely named, as being the son of Chitraka (in both 1.34 and 1.38) after which no more is said about him in the Harivamsha text.[/color] I.e. nothing at all from the Hindu side here to corroborate anything about the life-story of the Jain teerthankara Neminatha, let alone in the specific relative of kRiShNa in question. Instead, this particular Harivamsha ariShTanemi's life is left as is - other than stating his lineage down from Yadu and his many siblings' names. Harivamsha knows nothing more remarkable about him than it knows about his siblings, who (like many others in the family tree) are merely named in the text. No interaction of this ariShTanemi with kRiShNa is mentioned at all, let alone the Harivamsha corroborating any Jain story involving him.
The status quo is therefore that, the Yadava dynasty being a very *Vedic* dynasty of kShatriyas, ariShTanemi lived the average life of a kShatriya doing nothing to particularly distinguish himself from the rest (i.e. as heroic as the average Yadava).
(Can compare with - though also a point of interest in its own right - Ekalavya's mention in the Harivamsha 1.34.33 as "rumoured" to be of the same family tree as kRiShNa, indeed a direct cousin of kRiShNa: being born of his direct uncle. That would make Ekalavya a Yadava by birth, though the HV records this hearsay as him having been abandoned by his dad for unknown reason and having been instead brought up by the Nishada clan whose king he became under the name Ekalavya.
So when the HV knows to mention even a rumour about Ekalavya, why no mention of the alleged remarkable infamously anti-Vedic life of AriShTanemi who supposedly grew up right under the Yadavas' noses? There's an obvious answer to this question.)
[color="#0000FF"]2. The father of this HV AriShTanemi is not called Samudravijaya anywhere in the Harivamsha text.[/color] (The Jain Neminatha's father is called Samudravijaya.)
[color="#0000FF"]3. Indeed the term "samudravijaya" (also tried searching "samudra vijaya") does not occur anywhere in the Harivamsha text.[/color]
4. [color="#0000FF"]While Jain texts do refer to Neminatha as also being called AriShTanemi, it appears that even the Jains never historically claimed that Neminatha's father Samudravijaya was ever "also called Chitraka".[/color]
[For someone so prominently (and exclusively) known as Samudravijaya by Jains to not be known at all as Chitraka by them - and vice versa: for someone to be known exclusively as Chitraka in HV but not as Samudravijaya at all - says something. If both names were equally popular, surely that would have been documented. C.f. many a son and daughter born in the Yadava lineage - and other lineages - is mentioned in the HV by the multiple names they were known under, even when thereafter no more is said of them either.]
The fact that older Jain writings don't seem to have known to conflate the two names is further underlined when comparing the MW dictionary entries for both the names Samudravijaya and Chitraka. Again: doing so is useful *because* MW gives you an index into all major occurrences/sources of words and names:
Quote:1 samudravijaya m. N. of the father of the 22nd Arhat of the present Avasarpin2i1 L.
Quote:1 citraka m. a painter L. ; = %{-tra-kAya} MBh. vii , 1320 (%{cillaka} , C) Pan5cat. ; a kind of snake Sus3r. v , 4 , 33 ; (in alg.) ; the 8th unknown quantity ; Plumbago zeylanica , i , 38 ; iv ; Ricinus communis L. ; N. of a son (of Vr2ishn2i or Pr2is3ni Hariv. ; of Dhr2ita-ra1sht2ra MBh. i , 2740) ; of a Na1ga L. Sch. ; (pl.) of a people , ii , 1804 ; n. a mark (only ifc. `" marked or characterised by "' TBr. i , 1 , 9 , 5 Sch..) ; a sectarial mark on the forehead L. ; a painting Hariv. 7074 ; a particular manner of fighting (cf. %{-tra-hasta}) , 15979 (v.l. %{cakraka}) [397,3] ; N. of a wood near the mountain Raivataka , 8952.
Can see that the MW entry for Chitraka above does not know of any established Jain claims made to equate that name with Samudravijaya. I.e. it doesn't say anything along the lines of "Citraka N. of Samudravijaya father of 22nd Jain Arhat" in its list of meanings/sources/occurrences of the word, and definitely not to equate it with the Chitraka of HV.
5. And it appears [color="#0000FF"]Jains have now also -lately/at last- noticed the gaping hole, confirming that there is indeed no established/historical Jain literature forcing the connection between the two names (or 2 persons, rather):[/color]
In all of the web indexed by your famous search engine, there are only 2 relevant (i.e. Jain) search results mentioning both the names Samudravijaya and C(h)itraka together. The 2nd one doesn't appear to know/try to connect the two names at all, and seems to just list a Chitraka separate from a Samudravijaya. The first search result is what's interesting though, in that finally someone - the only person in all of the searchable internet - has decided it's time to force-fit the two names together using a "possibly" since otherwise the gaping hole (which exists only on their side of the story, since Hindus see no need - and have no actual evidence - to make the connection and have no need - and no evidence - to prove Neminatha's historicity) is too wide for all to see:
Quote:[PDF]Volume 1 - International School for Jain Studieswww.isjs.in/sites/all/themes/school/images/book1.pdf
Possibly, Citraka (Citraratha) was. Samudravijaya's other name. But in both traditions there are no two views about Kà âà Ÿà â a and Arià Ÿà £anemi being paternal cousins.
[PDF]22-Neminath Charitra.pdf - Jain24.orgwww.jain24.org/Tirthankaras/.../22-Neminath%20Charitra.pdf
Tejahsena, Jaya, Megha, Citraka, Gautama, Svaphalka, Sivananda, and Visvaksena, great warriors. Samudravijaya's younger brother, Aksobhya, who was not ...
So even after all these centuries, having now finally realised it, they only got as far as "Possibly" - thus admitting they have no actual literary "proof" even from their own end for actually equating the two names.
And this despite their writers having made apparently more than one Jain clone of the (original, Hindu) Harivamsha for Jainism, all for the purpose of inserting Neminatha/Jainism in there. Bad job. That it was indeed a poor job is further underscored by that other error they made:
6. The Jain narrative concerning their Neminatha's ancestry has one "andhakavrishni" as the name of Neminatha's grandfather.
[color="#0000FF"]But "Andhakavrishni" in Harivamsha~MBh period/context refers to the 2 houses/dynasties called Andhaka and Vrishni, which are lineages descended from the 2 brothers called Andhaka and Vrishni/Prishni. Chitraka is the son of Vrishni (also written Prishni) not of Andhaka. (I.e. there is no ariShTanemi known to the Harivamsha - and related to kRiShNa, or even not - who has a grandfather called Andhakavrishni.)[/color]
This last point is important because it reveals how Jain writers - writing their story much later to retrofit Neminatha into the earlier Mahabharata/kRishNa context - confounded Andhaka and Vrishni. They made this mistake because it is not really their 'history': as in, it's apparent they didn't know what they were talking about when they tried to involve themselves in other people's ancient 'history'-writing (as in: they weren't actually around then).
They just borrowed the MBh context for background/context and establishing their character (Neminatha), for giving it external authority and establishing their teerthankaras in history (and earlier history). The error comes from retrofitting, and a poor job at that.
I have no problem with people following their respective theologies. But they have no right to attempt to "prove" the historicity thereof by mangling (in order to piggyback on) other people's religio-history and religious texts. Actually, no illegal piggybacking full-stop.
[color="#0000FF"]In any case, the (implicitly Hindu) Harivamsha does not confirm either any ariShTanemi with a parent called Samudravijaya or one with a grandparent called Andhakavrishni, and it hardly need be added that the Harivamsha doesn't know of the Jain teerthankara or Jainism.[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]ADDED:[/color] On this again:
Quote:[PDF]Volume 1 - International School for Jain Studieswww.isjs.in/sites/all/themes/school/images/book1.pdf
Possibly, Citraka (Citraratha) was. Samudravijaya's other name. But in both traditions there are no two views about Kà âà Ÿà â a and Arià Ÿà £anemi being paternal cousins.
About the final line in the above: No. Let's be clear: an ariShTanemi is indeed cousin to kRiShNa as per HV. But nowhere in the HV - forget the MBh proper - is there any evidence about this cousin ariShTanemi being anything to do with Jainism let alone being the Jain teerthankara Neminatha. So there are indeed two views about kRiShNa concerning ariShTanemi: the original epic's Hindu view is no more than that kRiShNa had an nth degree cousin called ariShTanemi - with nothing more remarkable or memorable to be said about the matter. The Jain view is to forcibly conflate this Vedic epic ariShTanemi with the Jain teerthankara Neminatha in order to establish the latter's historicity in other people's religious-history, one that doesn't even know of any Jainism at that early point (of the MBh context).
Also, don't know wherefrom they got "Citraratha" as an alias for Chitraka. There are certainly Citraratha-s in Hindus' religion - e.g. the King of the Gandharvas whose name is Chitraratha (he appears in MBh IIRC) and viewed as an incarnation of Virinchi (brahmA) in Hindu temples. Persons Chitraratha by name are consequently also mentioned in the HV and MBh (or addressed with the descriptive in the Vedam) but none of these appear to be identified with Chitraka , see MW entry for the name:
Quote:1 citraratha (%{-tra4-}) mfn. having a bright chariot (Agni) RV. x , 1 , 5 ; m. the sun L. ; the polar star (Dhruva). BhP. iv , 10 , 22 ; N. of a man RV. iv , 30 , 18 ; the king of the Gandharvas AV. viii , 10 , 27 MBh. Hariv. Vikr. Ka1d. BhP. ; N. of a king Ta1n2d2yaBr. xx , 12 Pan5cat. ; of a king of the An3gas MBh. xiii , 2351 ; of a descendant of An3ga and son of Dharma-ratha Hariv. 1695 ff. BhP. ix , 23 , 6 ; of a snake-demon Kaus3. 74 ; of a son (of Gada or Kr2ishn2a Hariv. 9193 ; of Ushadgu or Rus3eku MBh. xiii , 6834 Hariv. 1971 BhP. ix , 23 , 30 ; of Vr2ishn2i , 24 , 14 and 17 ; of Gaja , v , 15 , 2 ; of Supa1rs3vaka , ix , 13 , 23 ; of Ukta or Ushn2a , 22 39) ; of a prince of Mr2ittika1vati MBh. iii , 11076 (cf. BhP. ix , 16 , 3) ; of a Su1ta R. ii , 32 , 17 ; of an officer Ra1jat. viii , 1438 ; of a Vidya1-dhara L. ; (%{a}) f. N. of a river MBh. vi , 341 ; (%{I}) f. a form of Durga1 Hariv. ii , 109 , 48 ; cf. %{caitraratha} ; %{-bAhlika} n. sg. g. %{rAjadantA7di}.
MW entry for andhakavrishni confirms:
Quote:1 andhakavRSNi %{ayas} m. pl. descendants of Andhaka and Vr2ishn2i.