The Greater Indic Civilization

[acharya]

This is from the other forum

Vedanta & Hindu Philosophy
By: Veera Vaishnava
Veera_vishnu@rediffmail.com


I. Introduction

Vedanta, meaning “the end of the Veda,” is one of the six schools of traditional Hindu philosophy. It is the basis of Hinduism. Vedanta in principle based on summary of teachings of Brahma sutras.

The main schools within Vedanta are Advaita (Non-Dualism or monism), Vishishtadvaita (Qualified Non-Dualism or qualified monism) and Dvaita (Dualism). These three different schools of thought deal with the relationship between world, selves and Brahman and the nature of Brahman, and how to achieve liberation. Brahman is asserted as the universal soul and the absolute truth. Brahman plays multiple roles: creator, maintainer and the destroyer, all in one (Trinity). All three schools maintain the individual human soul (jiva-atma) originates and merges with the Brahman (Parama-atma), however the viewpoints and approaches on achieving the same is different.

Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya expounded the Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita philosophies respectively. In this article, as this is an effort to keep the study of Vedanta readable and understandable to a lay reader, a brief and short overview of three schools of thought and their similarities and differences are presented. Through out the article, Brahman and God are used interchangeably, but for subtle differences between the definition of Brahman and God, refer to [1].

The distinct features of Hindu philosophy/Vedanta is the unwavering focus on the spiritual realm. Except Carvaka and related schools, Hindu philosophy has always been interested in the spiritual destiny of an individual soul, and the relationship between the universe and the soul, which is also spiritual in nature. Philosophy in India was never considered as a mere intellectual exercise. The relationship between philosophical thoughts, theory and practice, has always been the focus of Hindu thought. Every hindu system seeks the truth, and not just an “academic knowledge”, as it is believed that truth shall set one free. It was and is never enough just to know the truth, but to “live” the truth. In the pursuit of truth, Hindu philosophy has always turned inward “Aatma vidya”, and not on the external, physical manifestations of the world. This does not mean, that external world was ignored, Hindus achievements in the realm of science, mathematics, medicine, architecture, astronomy, geometry and application of such knowledge to different phases and aspects of human activity is very well known, documented and acknowledged.

Hindu philosophy was not oblivious to materialism. In fact, Hindu thought knew it and has overcome it. Hindu philosophy makes extensive use of reason and intellectual knowledge but intuition is accepted as the only method through which the ultimate truth can be known. Reason and intellectual knowledge has been considered as insufficient, as to know the reality, one must have an actual experience of it [Darsana]


II. Evolution – Vedas to Vedanta

The Vedas are the oldest scriptures of India as well as the world. Vedas are not written by anyone, but is “experienced” knowledge. The Rishis or the seers of the Truth visualized the mantras or the text of the Vedas and stored for the benefit of the world by oral and later written tradition through the tradition of Guru and disciples (Guru-parampara). Vedas are personification of Brahman as words. Vedas are divided into two portions: Karma-kanda and Jnana-kanda. While Samhitas, Brahmanas, and Aranyakas form the Karma kanda, Upanishads form the Jnana Kanda. The essence of the knowledge of the Vedas is called by the name Vedanta, which comprises the Upanishads.

Hindu philosophy is highly complex and over a period of few thousands of years has gone through similarly complex developmental phases. The literature of the first period -“Vedic period” - are the above mentioned texts.

The second period - “Epic period” -saw the indirect presentation of philosophical doctrines through a medium of non-systematic and non-technical literature such as Ramayana and Mahabharata. This period also gave rise to Buddhism, Jainism, Saivism and Vaishnavism. Bhagavad-Gita, part of Mahabharata ranks among the most authoritative texts in Hindu Philosophical literature. During this period, along with Buddhism and Jainism other unorthodox philosophies such as skepticism, materialism, naturalism etc arose along with other heterodox systems. Because of this later arrival into Hindu philosophical school the earlier thoughts were labeled orthodox philosophical systems.

The third period – “Aphorism period” – is during the early centuries of Christian era, where systematical treatises of various schools of thought were written and preserved. They were preserved in the form of aphorisms, hence this period can be called Sutra period. The six systems that are presented in sutra form are: Vaisheshika, Nyaya, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, and Vedanta. Rishis Kanada, Gautama, Kapila, Patanjali, Jaimini, and Vyasa are the earliest exponents of these systems respectively.

There are certain common features to these six systems of thought; first and foremost is that they accept the authority of the Vedas, distinguishing them from philosophical schools of Buddhism and Jainism. Second important feature is that, although superficially these systems seem to have contradictions amongst them, they in fact represent a progressive development from lower to higher truth. All the six schools believe in the 'Law of Karma', rebirth, and attainment of Moksha/Liberation as the highest goal of human struggle. All the systems are concerned with the nature of true Self, the realization of which through Yoga and other spiritual disciplines makes one free.

The fourth period - “Scholastic period” - saw the advent of scholars, philosophers and commentators such as Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Kumarila, Sridhara, Vacaspati, Udayana, Bhaskara, Jayanta, Vijnanabhikshu and Raghunatha.

The three major forms of Vedanta [2] espoused by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva although are distinct and elaborate systems, they all stem from “Vedanta Sutra” of Badarayana. This is a characteristic of Hindu philosophy in which, the exponents while maintaining respect for the past and without breaking the tradition, and recognizing the authority in philosophy, continued the development of thought as their insight, intuition and reason directed. This is quite a unique feature in Hindu philosophy.

Nyaya and Samkhya are studied widely for their powerful system of logic and reasoning. Yoga deals with disciplined meditation. Purva Mimamsa mostly deals with earlier interpretive investigations of the Vedas, relating to conduct, while the Uttara mimamsa deals with later investigations of the Vedas, relating to knowledge, also called Vedanta, the end of the Vedas. In the context of modern times, Yoga and Vedanta have caught the attention of students of religion, scholars, as well as lay people for their practicality, rationality, and scientific basis. All Hindus now accept Vedanta as their 'living faith'.


III. Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita

Advaita – The quintessence of Shankara’s Advaita is: “Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah—Brahman alone is real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.” Shankara believed that Brahman which is pure, eternal and absolute. Anything other than the Absolute including the manifested world, and the individuals themselves was an illusion (Maya). The Brahman seen by the devotee as Saguna Brahman is illusory and imaginary and seen only through Maya. The day to day mundane activities such as worshipping etc although seems real, ultimately there is only one reality, the Brahman, who is the impersonal God (nirguna Brahman or Brahman without any attributes), with which the individual soul is identical. Nirguna Brahman is also nirvishesha or without any characteristics and nirakara or without any shape and form. It is this recognition of nirguna Brahman that leads one to salvation, which can be obtained by meditation and knowledge.

Vishishtadvaita - Ramanujacharya proposed that the road to salvation was through Bhakti yoga, devoted to a personal God, namely Narayana or Vishnu. Unlike Nirguna Brahman of Advaita, Ramanuja’s Narayana/Vishnu is a complex organic whole of soul and matter in one. Soul and matter constitute the body of the Lord and they are his subordinates. Further Vishnu has attributes (vishesha), hence Savishesha Brahman is the fundamental belief of Vishishtadvaitins. Matter forms the non-conscious form of the Lord, while the soul is the conscious form. Saguna Brahman is omnipotent, omniscient and all pervasive Reality. All living beings have originated from Brahman, the origin of reality but are temporarily separated from Him. The individual soul, having origin in Brahman however was always distinct from Him. And the soul is always conscious of itself, otherwise it would cease to exist. It was one with God, but yet separate, and for this reason the Ramanuja’s school of thought is called Vishishtadvaita.

Dvaita - Madhvacharya preached that God, individual soul and matter were eternally and completely different. Liberation is the individual soul’s innate bliss and this is the final emancipation (Moksha or mukti). Madhva’s school of thought was called sad-vaishnavism as it belonged to the Vaishnava School but was different from Ramanuja’s school of Sri- Vaishnavism.


IV. Main Differences and Similarities

Upanishads are basically of three types” -Bheda, Abheda and Ghataka shrutis. Bheda shruti shows the difference between Paramatma and Jivatma: “I belong to the Brahman and I will not leave him”, Abheda shruthi, the opposite says Brahman and Paramatma are one and the same: “I am Brahman”, Ghataka Shruti describes the relationship between Paramatma and Jivatma and Body/Soul relationship: Antaryami (Iswara being the soul of Jivatma and controls from inside) Brahmana of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Subala Upanishad are examples of Ghataka Shruti. Ghataka Shruti reconciles and harmonizes the apparently contradictory passages in the Vedas. Without Ghataka approach it would be hard to interpret Abheda Shrutis. Ghataka shruti achieves that by explaining the body and soul relationship. Taken all together, the basic principle is Brahman or Iswara is the soul of Jivatma and matter and all its variations. This is the basis of Vishishtadvaita philosophy.

Advaita means “Not Two”. The advaitins say that Jivatma and Paramatma are One and identical. The father of this philosophy is Shri Adi Shankaracharya. Vishishtadvaita means “Not Two – in a special way” or “Only one – in a special way”. It maintains that Jivatma and paramatma are different, yet not different. They are different as (based on Bheda Shruti) body and soul are different, but based on Ghataka’s explanation of body/soul relationship, they are not different – they are one.

Advaitins cannot explain bheda shrutis entirely, and Dvaitins cannot explain abheda shrutis properly. Vishishtadvaita system is the only one which explains both Bheda and Abheda with the help of Ghataka Shrutis.


A. Maya and Reality

Advaitins believe everything is “Maya” except Paramatma. This means even the whole world is an illusion. To explain this, advaitins have three types of reality. They are
Apparent Reality (Pratibhasika Sat) – Example: Mistaking rope for a snake.
Relative Reality (Vyavaharika Sat) – Example: World, Sky, Water, Fire, Earth etc
Absolute Reality (Paramarthika Sat) – Brahman

Vishistadvaitins believe exactly the opposite. Every object, Jivatma, and the world are and even dreams very much real. Mistaking a rope for a snake is just an illusion, but the rope exists and real and so does the snake. Vishistadvaitins interpret Maya as matter (prakriti) and not as an illusion. Upanishads explain at great lengths the creation of cosmos and the coming about of the matter from Mahat. Upanishads say the Brahman created the world out of Maya. Some people interpret Maya as an illusion and some as matter. The reasons given by vishistadvaitins for considering the world is real are
Vedas describe Brahman as: Brahman is that, from whom all these beings are born, by whom all these beings live, in whom all these beings rest, after death.
Brahman is the material cause of the world. He therefore evolves into the world. So, how can the world, which has evolved from Brahman, be unreal?
Brahman is also instrumental cause of this world, he creates the world. So, how can a thing, which has been created by Brahman, be unreal?

Dvaitins believe that the world is real and the manifest world is real and eternal too, unlike Shankara’s world which is Maya. Dvaitins subscribe to five eternal differences in relationship between jiva-atman, Brahman and the world. The differences are
between Brahman and the individual soul
between soul and matter
between one soul and another soul
between the soul and matter
between one piece of matter and another.

This is the important distinction between Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita.


B. Characteristics of Brahman

There are several passages in Vedas declaring that there is only one Supreme Lord or Brahman. The advaitins also agree there is only one Brahman, Parabrahman. However, for the purposes of worship and rituals, they accept a lower Brahman. This lower Brahman again, according to advaitins, is not real; as it is only “Vyavaharika Sat”.

According to Advaitins, Parabrahman has no attributes or qualities (Nirguna) and has no form (Niravayava or Nirakara Brahman). The lower Brahman (Apara Brahman) has qualities (Saguna Brahman) and has a form. The lower Brahman can be worshipped in any form. After worshipping the lower Brahman, they contend that a person develops maturity of knowledge (Viveka) which will enable the person to understand the real Brahman – Para Brahman. With this viveka, the person will also realize that there is no difference between the lower Brahman and the Paramatma. Thus the person ultimately realizes that Jivatma and paramatma are the same.

Vishistadvaitins do not accept two Brahmans. They believe there is only one Brahman and this Brahman has a form (Narayana/Vishnu). Further, the Brahman has Jivatma and matter as his body. Thus Brahman as divine and auspicious body as well as the entire world, jivatmas and the matter as his body is what vishistadvaitins believe. Although there is no question that jivatma is identical to paramatma, jivatma has paramatma as Soul, and jivatma is the body of the paramatma.

Vedas as several places mentions the Brahman with good qualities and without any qualities or attributes. While advaitins talk about Nirguna Brahman, vishistadvaitins interpret this lack of attributes to, lack of sattva, rajas and tamas that is Suddha sattva. Suddha sattva is outside the three qualities, which is a quality in itself and a matter of interpretation with respect to qualities of Brahman.

Dvaitins believe that Vishnu is the Brahman (Vishnusarvothamattva) and Vayu is the supreme among the Jivas (Vayusarvothamattva). Knowledge can be obtained through perception, inference and the Vedas. (Pratyaksha, Anumana and Pramana). The universe is as real as God. Difference and diversity are the central characteristics of Reality. Maha Vishnu is the Supreme Being and the Brahman. Vayu is the mediator between God and individual souls.


C. Moksha – Salvation/Liberation

According to Advaita, liberation finally comes when Jivatma realizes that is identical with Brahman – paramatma. So it is the knowledge that leads to the salvation. Although upanishads do talk about the jivatma’s journey to ultimate salvation (paramapada) advaitins do not believe in Paramapada. They call paramapada as Krama mukti which is partial salvation. For Vishistadvaitins, ultimate salvation is to reach Sri Vaikunta and enjoy being in service to Lord Sriman Narayana and Sri Lakshmi.

In practice however, a practitioner of Jnana Yoga would experience Brahman in its non-qualified aspect, swhile a practitioner of Bhakti Yoga would perceive the same reality as Brahman with attributes of love and compassion. But when one attains highest level of Bhakti, para-bhakti as it is called, then (s)/he also becomes a Jnani. Similarly a Jnani becomes a Bhakta. Thus Jnana and Bhakti are two sides of the same coin, as eloquently expressed by Adi Shankara in Bhaja Govindam.

In Dvaita Most of the beliefs are the same as Vishishtadvaita except that they consider Lakshmi as Jivatma and do not subscribe to the concept of body/soul relationship. Devotion (Bhakti) is a sure route to God, to attain liberation (Moksha). The main belief is that each soul is a unique spiritual entity and retains its individuality forever. Each soul has its own unique karmic history and the difference among the souls is fundamental and permanent. Salvation is to be attained through rigorous study of scriptures, performance of scriptural rites in a selfless manner, good deeds and devotion to God. In the state of salvation all the souls are eternally under the protection and care of God and forever free from the worldly miseries. However they do not merge with God and they retain their individuality from each other and Brahman.


V. Conclusion

Although the three schools of thought, on the surface, appear to have opposing views a closer inspection shows they are just different ways of achieving the same aim and objective(s). There are further nuanced differences and view points, but this article’s effort is to present the basics of Vedanta school and Hindu philosophy.


VI. References
1.Is God a good translation for Brahman - http://www.faithnet.org.uk/Articles/articles2.htm
2.The three great Acharyas - http://www.indianest.com/hinduism/030.htm

[acharya]

http://www.indianest.com/hinduism/index.htm

THis is a good collection for the basics.
It is short and simple for every concept.

[Guest]

Thanks to Ramana, BR.

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/india.html


Objective and open-minded scholars long ago conceded that Christianity is at heart a revamped form of Judaism. In the process of its development as something distinct from its mother religion, it became hybridized with so much pagan influence that it ultimately alienated its original Jewish base and became predominantly Gentile. The source of this pagan influence is varied and vague in the minds of most advanced Bible critics, but it may owe more to Hinduism than most people suspect.

The average person does not connect India with the ancient Middle East, but the existence of some trade between these two regions is documented, even in the Bible. Note the reference to spikenard in the Song of Solomon (1:12 ; 4:13-14 ) and in the Gospels (Mark 14:3 ; John 12:3 ). This is an aromatic oil-producing plant (Nardostachys jatamansi) that the Arabs call sunbul hindi and obtained in trade with India.

It is axiomatic that influence follows trade, and the vibrant culture of India could not help but impact on anyone exposed to it. The influence on Judaism came for the most part indirectly, however, via the Persians and the Chaldeans, who dealt with India on a more direct basis. (Indeed, the Aryans, who invaded and transformed India over 1500 years before Christ, were of the same people who brought ancient Persia to its greatest glory. Persia's name today--Iran--is a corruption of Aryan.) The ancient Judeans absorbed much of this secondhand influence during the Babylonian captivity of the sixth century B. C., and during the intertestamental period, when Alexandria became the crossroads of the world, intellectuals both Jew and Gentile were exposed to a variety of ideas, some of which originated on the subcontinent.

The precise pattern of influence was neither observed nor documented, but it can be inferred from the numerous uncanny similarities in concept and expression, not all of which can be coincidental. Let us examine the telltale evidence (none of which, it may be added, depends upon any apocryphal account of the alleged "lost years" of Jesus in India).

Most Christians are familiar with Galatians 6:7 , "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Less known is Proverbs 26:27 , "Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein, and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him." Both express the Hindu principle of karma (the sum and the consequences of a person's actions during the successive phases of his existence), but since no direct connection can be deduced, we'll merely consider it an interesting coincidence and move on.

The concept of a soul that is distinguishable from the body and can exist independently of it is alien to Judaism. It is first known in Hinduism. Only after the Babylonian captivity did any such concept arise among the Jews, and it is in the epistles of Paul, the "debtor to both the Greeks and the Barbarians," that the notion receives its first clear expression. (See 2 Corinthians 5:8 and 12:3 .)

The Brahmin caste of the Hindus are said to be "twice-born" and have a ritual in which they are "born in the spirit." Could this be the ultimate source of the Christian "born again" concept (John 3:3 )?

The deification of Christ is a phenomenon often attributed to the apotheosis of emperors and heroes in the Greco-Roman world. These, however, were cases of men becoming gods. In the Jesus story, the Divinity takes human form, god becoming man. This is a familiar occurrence in Hinduism and in other theologies of the region. Indeed, one obstacle to the spread of Christianity in India, which was attempted as early as the first century, was the frustrating tendency of the Hindus to understand Jesus as the latest avatar (incarnation) of Vishnu.

It is in the doctrine of the Trinity that the Hindu influence may be most clearly felt. Unknown to most Christians, Hinduism has a Trinity (or Trimurti) too: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, who have the appellations the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer (and Regenerator). This corresponds to the Christian Trinity in which God created the heavens and the earth, Jesus saves, and the Holy Spirit is referred to as a regenerator (Titus 3:5 ). It is interesting to note, furthermore, that the Holy Spirit is sometimes depicted as a dove, while the Hebrew language uses the same term for both "dove" and "destroyer"!

The Trinity was a major stumblingblock for the Jews, who adhered to strict monotheism. The inherent polytheism in the Trinity doctrine cannot be explained away with the nonsensical claim that three is one and one is three. Besides, Jesus himself undermined any pretense of triunity (or omnipotence, for that matter) in Matthew 19:17 , "And he said unto them, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God...." Matthew 20:23 ; Mark 14:32 ; John 5:30 ; 7:16 and 14:28 also contradict the Trinitarian concept. ...

Then there is the Hindu epic, the Bhagavad-Gita, a story of the second person of the Hindu Trinity, who took human form as Krishna. Some have considered him a model for the Christ, and it's hard to argue against that when he says things like, "I am the beginning, the middle, and the end" (BG 10:20 vs. Rev. 1:8 ). His advent was heralded by a pious old man named Asita, who could die happy knowing of his arrival, a story paralleling that of Simeon in Luke 2:25 . Krishna's mission was to give directions to "the kingdom of God" (BG 2:72), and he warned of "stumbling blocks" along the way (BG 3:34; 1 Cor. 1:23 ; Rev. 2:14 ). The essential thrust of Krishna's sayings, uttered to a beloved disciple, sometimes seems to coincide with Jesus or the Bible. Compare "those who are wise lament neither for the living nor the dead" (BG 2:11) with the sense of Jesus' advice to "let the dead bury their own dead" (Matt. 8:22 ). Krishna's saying, "I envy no man, nor am I partial to anyone; I am equal to all" (BG 9:29) is a lot like the idea that God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11 ; see also Matt. 6:45 ). And "one who is equal to friends and enemies... is very dear to me" (BG 12:18) is reminiscent of "love your enemies" (Matt. 6:44 ). Krishna also said that "by human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration of Brahma's one day" (BG 8:17), which is very similar to 2 Peter 3:8. ...

{end quote}

Jim Dew's comments on the above article: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/...1/1hindu96.html

[Hauma Hamiddha]

<b>A brief history of the Vijayan rule of Khotan</b>

Nilakantha Shastri brings attention to the Indian rulers of Khotan and has attempted to reconstruct their chronology from various sources.

Map of Khotan

In period that followed the death of the great emperor lalitAditya, and the confusion during the reign of saMgrAmapIDa, the Chinese generals Yao Yao and Wei-ch'ih-Sheng devised a daring plan to take Khotan. With the help of the internal Sinitic population they engineered a revolt and suddenly appeared at the head of a massive Chinese army of 80,000 to beseige and conqueror the kingdom. First Sheng and there after Yao declared themselves rulers of Khotan. Alarmed at this advance the descendent of lalitAditya, jayAditya, son of saMgrAmapIDa who ascended the throne in 751 CE assigned general vijaya vikrama a descendent of the original Hindu royal family of Khotan to wrest it back from the chinas, hUnas and "mlecchas". With a mobile calvary force he cut off the supply line of the chinas and then luring them into an ambush in narrow escape route he destroyed the china army completely.

In late 756 vijaya vikrama was crowned rAja of Khotan. His dynasty as currently reconstructed:

vijaya nakshatra early 800's
vijaya kIrti aroun 820-40's
vijaya vikrama II mid 800's
vijaya saMgrAma late 800's
vijaya sambhava the great 912-966

Till vijaya saMbhava lived he stood like a pillar of the dharma in the midst of the turushkas. He place a wall of steel in the path of the three Qarakhanid Sultans: Abd al Karim, Musa Bughra Khan and Suleyman Arslan Khan and defeated each one of them on multiple occasions in fierce cavalry engagements, even though he was entirely cut off from receiving aid from the Hindu rulers of Gandhara and Kashmir. He also routed the Moslem army from Bokhara, which was led by Ahmed ibn Ismail. Subsequently he defeated another Arab army of Abd al-Malik I from Bokhara. As a victorious ruler and builder of many temples (of which fragmentary ruins still survive) he was like the last flash of Indic glory in Central Asia.

vijaya surapati 967-977
vijaya dharma 978-982
vijaya dharma faced invasion from Sultan Noah ibn Mansur from Bokhara and the Qara Khan turks from Kashgar. vijaya dharma fought off the attack and repulsed the Sultan but died shortly there after. He was succeeded by vijaya kumAra who immediately resumed the struggle against the Moslem hordes. Noah ibn Mansur and the other Turkic and Arab armies formed a pact for surrounding the Kaffr kingdom. The Hindu king was give the choice between his foreskin and his head. Though having no Hindu allies anywhere near him, he and his people decided to uphold the dharma or die in an attempt. He gathered all his troops and staved of the Moslem hordes which were pouring ceaselessly from all directions. He single-handed kept the terrible war raging despite the numerically superior foes and better horsepower of the enemy.

The Moslems erected huge Majiqs (mangonels) and sarakels (trebuchets) all around Khotan and bombarded it. But the heavy fortification still held on. After 10 years of continuous fighting the Hindu kingdom was entirely shorn of its resources, reduced in man and horse power, and denuded in defences. Finally, the fortifications were breached and the Mohammedan armies poured in. The king and his army died fighting the invaders. The city was looted and the idols of gold with gems studded in them were melted down. The male population was massacred and the women taken. Thus ended last Hindu kingdom in Central Asia the final blaze.

Ruins of Khotan

[Guest]

<b>Sarasvati Sindhu </b>(Vedic / Indus) Civilization, Language and Script

[Hauma Hamiddha]

One of the unusual tantra inspired texts from Japan that shows the origin of the Japanese gANapatya cult from the uchChiShTa gaNapati stream is the kangiten kOshiki, which was composed by the Japanese sage Kakuban, who lived between 1095-1143. gaNapati is called kangiten in the Japanese pantheon. The great Japanese hero Sugawara Michizane was an ardent worshiper of gaNapati and is said to have attained his "siddhis" through the invocation of the Japanese equivalent of uchChiShTa gaNapati. An annual grand abhishekam to kangi with thousand oil pourings was performed by the imperial palace of Japan.

From Kakuban's description of gaNapati (kangiten kOshiki=the ritual of deva gaNapati):
-The merits of the Lord kangiten reach higher than the heavens, the profit he gives is broader than the earth is wide. He defends dharma in every direction.
-His root nature is that of the lord of universal and wondrous enlightenment, rank that is concealed as if hidden in a spotless moon.
-The manifest form of kangi is that of a male and female deva.
-By performing the vow (from vrata in saMskR^ita ) of kangi, which benefits all creatures, wealth, wisdom, courage and love can be obtained. With it one can subjugate demons, dispel disease and extend life.
-Lord kangiten is the root of yin and yang. From him the 10,000 objects of the universe emerge. He is the Lord who has founded the teaching lineage of the garbha and vajra maNDala from which all buddhas are born.
-In the Mitsugon heaven he appears as vairochana
-The male deva is an emanation of the lord maheshvara. He drives away celestial and earthly demons and distributes profit in this world and next.
-The female devI is an emanation of the 11-headed form of avalokiteshvara, and it the most potent of her 33 forms.
-The two are standing in conjugal embrace representing the union of yin and yang.
-That they have elephant heads and human bodies is to show the co-penetration of all ten realms.

The accessible material of this text suggests a rather simple process by which the uchChiShTa gaNapati from the mahAchinAchAra tantras was first "colored" by Taoist material in the land of the chInas where it first took root. From China it was then transmitted to Japan and presented in canonical form by Kakuban.

The clear evidence for this incorporation into Taoist-Hindu fusion texts that were inspired by the Sanskrit tantras in the chIna country is provide by an obscure text of the chInAchArya Po-jo-je Chieh-lo. This text date to AD 861 and is found in both China as : Sheng Huan-hsi T'ien shih-fa and in Japan as: shO kangiten shikihO (meaning the rituals of gaNesha). This text describes the construction of the gaNesha maNDala with gaNesha and his shakti in the center and idols of indra, agni, yama and kubera placed around the dual gaNesha idols and then other devatas in the AvarNas around this center square. Many special dhyAna-s are given for attainment of wealth, vashikaraNa of women, and mAraNa of enemies. The text also depicts two amulets that contain twelve squares are are common in Taoism. This text provides evidence for how the Hindu material penetrate the ritual setting in the far East by way of centra Asia.

[Guest]

<b>New discoveries halt Harappa swings</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ISLAMABAD: Top heads of the Ministry of Culture and Archaeology Department are set to roll after a report that <b>fresh digging at the site proposed for electronic swings at Harappa on Thursday resulted in new discoveries of 5,000-year-old priceless objects of the Indus civilisation, like mother goddess, statues of countless gods, bulls, toys for children, wheels, pottery and bangles.</b>

<b>These discoveries might give new insight and meaning to the modern archaeologists about the nature, environment, thinking, living style and approach of those who lived in the ancient civilisation.</b>

A source has confirmed that the historical stuff has been found in good condition, and has been preserved at the Harappa Museum. Work on the proposed site to install electronic swings has been stopped forthwith till a final decision about this project is taken.

The report about new discoveries at one of the first ancient cities of the world in the wake of resurvey of the site before allowing setting up of electronic swings is being presented to Minister for Culture Ajmal Khan today (Monday). A source said the minister is expected to order a full-fledged inquiry against his own ministry officials and Archaeology Department for issuing NOC to an MNA to install electronic swings there.

A source in the Ministry of Culture confirmed that disciplinary action against the relevant officials is imminent, as they violated the government’s policy to conduct a survey of the site before issuing NOC for any project. None of them bothered to conduct the survey before approving the project to appease the ruling party MNA, Rai Azizullah Khan, who is also chairman of the Standing Committee on Culture and Tourism.

The source confirmed that following new discoveries, the digging has been stopped at the site forthwith. He said the fresh discovery of mother goddess and statues give a clear idea about the ancient men, their religious affiliation and how they used to live.

Meanwhile, talking to ‘The News,’ renowned archaeologist Dr Ahmed Hassan Dani appealed to the government to immediately stop work at the site. He said only experts should be allowed to restart digging at Harappa to discover the ancient remains.

Dr Dani also called an emergency meeting of his Association of Asian Civilisation to pass a resolution against the setting up of electronic swings at Harappa. He said the government should send a team of experts to monitor digging and discover new things at the site. He said Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz should rather himself inaugurate the excavation and announce some monetary assistance for the purpose.

Dr Dani lamented that the Archaeology Department violated its own law of conducting a survey of the historical site before issuing NOC for any project. He said the government should preserve this national heritage by ordering digging at the site in presence of experts.

Earlier following publication of reports, the minister had ordered resurvey of the site to determine whether the project was being executed on some ancient ruins? Consequently, Director General Archaeology Department Dr Fazal Dad Kakar was deputed to visit the site. He went there and supervised digging for two days. He will submit his findings to the minister today. A source said that Kakar has formally confirmed recovery of ancient objects from the site.

Earlier, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz had approved Rs 10 million for the establishment of a park in the constituency of MNA Rai Azizullah Khan at this historical site. Following the consent of Secretary Culture Jalil Abbas, the department bosses including Director Archaeology Lahore Salimul Haq had issued an NOC to the MNA to set up a park at the Harappa site.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>Harappan find</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Muzaffarnagar, Aug. 25 (PTI): A mummified body, wearing copper bracelets, some pottery and other artefacts dating back to the Harappan civilisation 3,000 years ago, have been found at a village in Baghpat district.

The body, caked in mud and dirt, was found by the Archaeological Survey of India during an excavation at Sinoli.

Archaeologist Dharamveer Sharma, who is supervising the dig, said t<b>he shape of the artefacts and the inscriptions they bore indicated that they could be 3,000 years old,</b> though tests like radio-carbon dating had yet to be conducted.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Hauma Hamiddha]

This year marks the 600th anniversary of the death of the great Islamic hero Timur-i-leng. I had long wanted to prepare a document regarding his death, because it led to the most profound inequities of Asia. Many people these days are in the business of comparing the old civilizational powers of Asia: Iran, India and China. But they typically forget the most important normalization factor in these comparisons. Iran is the most decadent having borne the brunt of Islam's violence since the Arabs invaded the great Sassanian empire and has become a slave of the dismal ideology of Islam. India, was seriously damaged by Islam and to some extant by Christianity, but the Hindu core kept fighting allowing it to attain moderate success in modern times. China escaped the assault of Islam and was finally overrun only by most concealed of all Abrahamistic ideologies i.e. communism. These differences of history are crucially related to Timur-i-leng and affected the course of Asia to the modern times.

Having routed the Ottomans and captured their sultan Bayazed Timur dispatched his grandson Abu Bakr to enter Nicaea to spread the fear of Allah. He marched on fiercely destroying and looting the towns and settlements on the way. Timur himself decided to wage Jihad on the Christians by taking Smyrna. Smyrna was ruled by the order of the knights of Rhodes under governor Guillaume de Munte. The Ottoman Turks had besieged Smyrna for seven years and yet failed to capture it due to the spirited defense of the Christian knights. Timur now decided to show the Christians the true might of real Central Asian armies. de Munte was asked to submit and become a Mohammedan or else face action from Timur. de Munte scornfully refused and was besieged by the armies of Ghazi Timur on December 2, 1402. Two weeks later the Timurid armies heavily assailed the city with mangonels and trebuchets and then stormed it by breaking down the walls. Every knight including the governor was beheaded and their heads were offered to Allah in thanks giving. The general population was asked to convert to Islam, failing which they were put to death. Thus, Timur achieved in two weeks what the Ottomans had failed to achieve in 7 years.

Then Timur besieged Phocaea, but the city ransomed itself by paying a heavy fine. The Byzantine regent John VII accepted Timur's suzerainty promptly thereafter. Then Timur ceremonial reinstalled various Turkic Amirs under his control all over the Ottoman empire. Finally in 1404 Timur returned to Samarkand and installed himself as the exalted Sultan. The Ming emperor of China had believed that as a successor of Chingiz Kha'Khan empire he was entitled to tribute from Timur. He sent ambassadors to Timur to demand tribute, but the ambassadors were arrested in Samarkand and Timur did not sanction their release until the Chinese had to beg for their return. Towards the end of 1404 Timur decided to lead a Jihad on China and convert its population forcibly to Islam. With this intention he started gathering a large army in Utrar. To regale the army he ordered a month of continuous celebrations beginning in 1405. A huge hunt was organized and the slain animals were feasted upon. There was also tremendous drinking with the feast and Timur drank voluminously. On the 21st day of the celebrations in the midst of the drinking Timur took seriously ill and called his sons and grandsons and gave each of them a fiefdom. He named his grandson Pir Muhammad bin Jahangir the governor of Kandahar as his over-all successor. Then he died on Jan 19th 1405 aged 71.

The results of his death were striking. Iran ruined by his campaigns, lost nost elements of it true ancestral culture. However, its language Persian was patronized by the Timurids and soon overtook Chagadai Turki in central Asia. The reign of Shah Rukh in particular was a memorable in strengthening the Islamic effloresence of the Timurids and subsequently led to the Timurid re-invasion of India, which forced Persian administrative constructs on the Hindus. India was serious damaged by Timur and his successors starting from Babur. This resulted in the reinstatement of Islam, which was at that point being put on the retreat in India by the campaigns of Maharana Sanga. This delayed India's recovery from Islamic violence by another 300 years. China escaped and was thus the least damaged of all Asian polities.

[Hauma Hamiddha]

Dialogue January - March, 2004 , Volume 5 No. 3

Central Asia: Indian Literary Perception
B.B. Kumar

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, in a
letter to his father written on 1st September 1922 from the Lucknow
District Jail, wanted to have books on Central Asia for the
fulfillment of his "desire to pay a visit by thought and fancy" to
this area. He also wrote about his plan "to undertake a long
pilgrimage as soon as swaraj self-rule is attained to the
neighbouring areas including the "famous cities of Central Asia".
Nehru has written about the history of the region also in his
Glimpses of the World History.

India and Central Asia have long tradition of socio-
cultural, political and economic contact since remote past. The two
regions have common and contiguous borders, climatic continuity,
similar geographical features and geo-cultural affinity. There has
been uninterrupted flow of men, material and the ideas between the
two. The Indian and foreign literary sources attest to the fact.
According to Zend Avesta, the ancestors of Iranian, Indian and
Turanian people were the three sons of Tratoria, namely, Arya,
Sairimia and Tura respectively. The two brothers, namely, Turk and
Mansak, were the ancestors of Turks and Mongols. Abu Qasim Farishta
gives a very interesting account of the geneology of the Indians and
the Central Asians.

The excavations in Southern Uzbekistan in the Amu Darya
valley, in Afrasiab in the north-eastern edge of Samarkand and
elsewhere in Uzbekistan, in Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and in the Tak-
mak region of Kyrghyzstan provide ample proof of Indo-Central Asian
links from ancient days. Extensive excavations have been done with
remarkable findings at Kara Tepa, Fayaz Tepa, Dalverzin Tepa, Yer
Kurgan, Ak-Beshin, Kranayerezka and Isyk-Ata. Sakas, Kushanas, Hunas,
Turks and Mughals came from Central Asia to India. India had very
intimate historic, cultural links with eastern Central Asian regions
of Xinjiang and Tibet also. Findings of the excavations and the
discovery of manuscripts in Xinjiang and Tibetan literary documents
provide enough material to establish our links. India had rulers of
Central Asian origin. Dynasties of Indian origin ruled Khotan and
elsewhere in Central Asia.

The Indian epics and Puranas mention about the earth
consisting of seven dvipas the number varies in some cases. Dvipa,
ordinarily, means island. Panini derives it from dvi + ap,
meaning `land between two arms of water'.

However, the Puranic dvipas stand for continents or tribal or
national territories. It signified' all types of natural or human
regions � big or small.The barriers may be water, sand, swamp, high
mountains or thick forests. Jambudvipa is at the centre of all. Mount
Meru is at the centre of the Jambudvipa. It needs mention that India
and Central Asia form part of the Jambudvipa. Mount Meru is the Pamir
knot.

Details of the mountains, rivers, vegetation, climate, etc of the
dvipas have been given in most of the Puranas, and some scholars
tried to identify specific geographical region basing on the same. Al-
Beruni, as for example, located Pushkardvipa between Cina and Mangala
(perhaps China and Mongolia).Jambudvipa, also known as
Sudarshandvipa, is said to be circular in shape and surrounded by the
sea in all the sides. It has six mountain ranges � Himalaya,
Hemakuta, Nishadha, Nila, Sveta and Shringavat � and nine zones
(varshas) � Hari, Bhadrashva, Ketumal, Bharata, Uttar-Kuru, Sweta,
Hiranyaka, Airavata and Ilavrita. According to the Markandeya Purana,
Jambudvipa is depressed on the south and north and elevated and broad
in the middle. The elevated region is known II avrita or Meruvarsha;
mountain Meru is at the centre of the same. The nine divisions of
Jambudvipa according to different Puranas, such as Matsya Purana are:
Ilavrita, Ramyaka or Ramanaka, Hiranmaya or Hiranyaka, Uttara-Kuru or
Shringashaka, Bhadrashva, Ketumal, Hari, Kimpurusha and Bharata. The
first division, as mentioned above, is centrally located, the next
three and the last three in the north and south respectively, and the
remaining two, Bhadrashva and Ketumala to the east and west
respectively. The geographical detail of the region is given in the
Mahabharata's Bhishma parva in detail and in other puranas also.
Markandeya and Brahmand Purana divide jambudvipa into four regions
shaped like four petals of a lotus. From Dialogue Four rivers flow
from mount Meru; namely Sita, flowing to the east through mountains
to the Badrashva region to the sea; Alakananda flowing to the south
through India to the sea; Chakshu (or Vakshu or Oxus) flowing through
the mountains towards west to the Ketumal region, and Bhadra flowing
through northern mountains and Uttar Kuru region to the sea.

Vayu Purana details the mountain ranges, valleys river
systems, etc of the geographical region of Jambudvipa making it
possible to identify some of their geographical features. The
description of the northern regions of Jambudvipa, according to S.M.
Ali, `covers a very vast area, from the Urals and the Caspian to the
Yenisel and from the `Turkestan, Tien Shan ranges to the Arctic. It
describes topography of the whole land very accurately and in some
cases picturesquely �..' Bhadrashva, in the east, is identical with
the basins of Tarim and Hwangho rivers, i.e., the whole of Singkiang
and northern China'. Ketumala to the west of Meru, through which
river Chakshu (Oxus) flows, corresponds to western Turkestan. It is
believed to cover `practically the whole of the ancient Bactria which
included the whole of the present Afghan Turkistan (north of
Hindukush), the lower Harirud valley, the basin of Murkhab Kashka
system (all south of the old bed of Amu Darya) and the basins of the
Surkhan, Kafirnigan, Vakhsh and Yaksu rivers�' Hari and Bharata
represented western Tibet and India respectively. The area around
Meru, the mountaneous region, was Meruvarsha or Ilavrita. The area
across the Himalayas and Hindukush from Pamir up to Arctic was known
as Uttar Kuru. Arctic was known as Somagiri. There is numerous
mention of the region in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the two
Indian epics.

Valmiki, in the Ramayana, gives graphic picture of Uttar
Kuru and Somagiri. Sugriva, while sending the monkeys to the north
for searching Sita describes the route and the countries in that
direction. Among others, he commands them to search Sita in the lands
and towns of the Dardas, Kambojas, Yavanas and Shakas. He describes
Uttar Kuru and Somagiri (the arctic region). There is the sea and the
Somagiri in the extreme north. The route is extremely difficult one.
The region is without the sun and yet very much lighted. There are no
national boundaries there. Arjuna brought water from the northern sea
for the coronation of Yudhisthira.

Mahabharata describes Meru (Pamir), Meruvarsha around it,
Ketumala to its east, and Uttar Kuru to its north. Meru, according to
the Indian classical literature, is located at the centre of the
earth. The conference of the Devas (gods) was held at mount Meru to
Java decide about the churning of the sea.

Central Asian People in Indian Classical Literature
There is numerous mention of the people of the Central
Asia in Indian literature, especially in the Ramayana, as stated
above, and the Mahabharata and the Puranas. Shaka, Darada, Pahlava,
Kirata and Parada are said to be Kshatriyas of good birth. It was
suggested to invite Shaka, Pahlava, Rishik and Darada kings in the
Mahabharata war from Pandava side. Mahabharata mentions that Arjuna
brought tribute from Uttara Kuru and another Pandava hero, Nakula
defeated Hunas, Pahalvas, Yavanas and Shakas. Yudhisthira received
tribute from Uttar Kuru. Shakas, Hunas and Tusharas also paid tribute
to him. It needs mention that Tusharas are also known as Yueh-chi (in
Chinese language) and Kanishka belonged to that community. Tusharas
were present in the Rajasuya Yajna of Yudhisthira. They participated
in Mahabharata war from the Kaurava side. They were ferocious
warriors. The name of Tushara-Giri (Tushara mountain) finds mention
in Mahabharata, Harshacharita and Kavyamimansa. Chakshu river (Oxus
or Amu Darya) flows through Tushara, Lampak, Pahlava, Parada and
Shaka countries, according to the Vayu Purana and Matsya Purana. It
shows that these countries belonged to the Central Asia.

India's contact with Central Asia is ancient one. The
inhabitants of Uttar Kuru seem to be legendary fellows in the epics
and latter literature, but as historic ones in the Aitereya Brahmana
according to the author of Vedic Index. Uttar Kuru is the Divine land
(region of Devas) for Vasistha Satya Havya, but Atyarati wants to
conquer it. Indians remember jambudvipa during their daily worship
which includes Central Asia.

Immigration of the people from Central Asia to India is a
well-known fact of history. Shakas, Yavanas Hunas, Turks, Mongols and
Pathans came to India. Most of the immigrants were absorbed in Indian
society. Yavanas and the Maga Brahmanas came from the north-west.
Patanjali's Mahabhashya and Gargi Samhita echo frequent incursion of
the Greek chiefs from Bactria to India. Varahamihira, the famous
astronomer, was a Maga Brahmin. Here, it needs mention that Indian
tradition, says about out-migration of Shakas, Yavanas, etc from
India.

Sagara was an ancient Indian king. His father was
defeated and humiliated by some Kshatriyas. He was forced to live as
an ascetic in the forest. Sagar regained his kingdom in due course
and wanted to take revenge and kill his enemies. His priest Vashishta
intervened to save their lives. He persuaded Sagara to spare them.
They were forced to abandon their religiously ordained duty and
declared dead while living (Jivanmrita, a man abandoning his ordained
duties and considered dead while living). Brahmana priests abandoned
them as they stopped performing their religious duties. They were
degraded socially; became Vrishal/Vratya/Shudra/Kshatriya Shudra.
Sagara killed Haihayas and Talajangha Kshatriyas. Shakas, Yavanas,
Kambojas, Pardas and Pahlavas became Vrishala (Kshatriya Shudras)
According to Mahabharata, Shakas, Yavanas, Kambojas and Mahashakas
were Kshatriyas. They became Vrishala due to not availing the
benefits of the contact of the Brahmanas. Lack of proper conduct is
also said to be the reason for such degradation for Tushara and
others. Anushasan Parva of Mahabharata, further says that some,
kshatriya communities - Mekal, Dravida, Lat, Paundra, Kanvashira,
Darad, Darva, Chaur, Shabar, Barber, Kirat, and Yavana � were
degraded due to their envy for the Brahmanas. Manu Smriti regards
Shakas, Yavanas, as degraded Kshatriyas reduced to the status of
Vrishalas.

According to Sagara legend mentioned above, Shakas,
Yavanas, Kambojas, Pardas and Pahlavas were the inhabitants of India.
In historic time, they were mostly settled in the Central Asia and
the countries west of India. This phenomenon pre-supposes their out-
migration from India. Patanjali, in his Mahabhashya, considers
Shakas, and Yavanas to be the migrants from India.

As discussed above, considerable geographical information
about India and its neighbourhood in Central Asia is available in the
Puranas and the Indian epics. The same is the case with medieval
Indian literature. Kavyamimamsa of Rajshekhara, Kalhan's
Rajatarangini, some lexicons, Sanskrit and Buddhist prose narratives
and fables, etc provide valuable information in this direction.
Gunadhya's Brihatkatha, Somdeva's Katha-Saritsagar, Kshemendra's
Brihat-Katha-Manjari and its Jaina adaptation, Vasudeva-Hindi provide
valuable information and insight for understanding the geography and
other information about India and its neighbourhood. Kalidasa's epics
and dramas provide graphic picture of the northern mountain region of
India. This is especially so in the case of Meghdoota, and
Vikramorvashiam. He brings refreshing reference of Uttar Kuru.

The fables and narratives in the books mentioned above
provide valuable information based on the experiences of the
travellors. It needs mention that Central Asia was frequently visited
by Indian traders, monks and scholars. Ruling dynasties, such as that
of Khotan claimed Indian origin. Shakas, Hunas, Kushanas of Central
Asian origin ruled parts of India. Monarchs of Turk and Monghol
origin ruled India and continued to have Central Asian links to some
extent. The knowledge about the region was reflected in the classical
and medieval literature of India. In this connection, it needs
mention that perceptional haziness has developed due to change in the
names of regions, places, mountains, rivers and the people. There
have been shifting frontiers. One group of people have often replaced
the others. However, many names, items of trade, the geographical
features, etc have not changed considerable, Kubha, Gomati, and
Vakshu and Gandhar have become Kabul, Gomal, Oxus and Kandahar. The
community names of Shaka, Huna, Kushana have not changed. The items
presented to the Mahabharata hero/monarch Yudhisthira are still known
to be produced in the region. This has led many scholars to identify
the names of the Central Asia and co-relate them with those mentioned
in the Indian literature.

Tashkent, the capital city of Uzbekistan, and Samarkand,
the ancient capital of Sogdiana and that of Timur and Babar, are
ancient cities. The old name of Tashkent is Chach. Pulleyblank wanted
to connect it with Yenisseian word for `stone': Ket. Tyes, Kot.
shish, Pumpokolsk cys. He sees it as a relic of the Huna occupation
of the Sogdiana in the fifth and sixth centuries. However, as the
word finds place in the inscriptions of Shapur I (240-272 A.D.) and
therefore it had earlier currency. In the old Chinese records,
Tashkent is transcribed with the hieroglyph `shih' that is stone. The
name is linked with Turkic tash, `stone' and may be considered a
translation of the older names of the city. It is pointed out that
the older names of the city before `Chach' also had the
meaning `stone'. The inhabitants of the area, according to Chinese
sources were Ch'iang chu or K'ang chu, very likely of Tukharian
origin. K'ang may mean some kind of stone in Tokharian. In
Hindi, `kankar is pebble. According to Sutralamkara, a painter of
Pushkalawati visited the country Ashmaka (meaning stone or stoney)
and out of his piety decorated a Buddhist monastery. The place is
identified with Tashkent. There was a tradition that Sutralamkar was
written by Ashvaghosha. Others attribute its authorship to Kumarlat,
the founder of Sautrantika school of Buddhism. Ashmak, was the name
of a north-western country, according to the Brihatsamhita of
Varahamihira. Kumarajiva knew the great cities of the North like
Alasanda and Tashkent. The Name of Tashkent). It needs mention that
the word Tashkent first appears in Ta'rikh al-Hind of al-
Beruni.

The name Kanka appears in Mahabharata with the
names of other tribes of Central Asia. It is the same as Kang
mentioned earlier. At one place, it comes with Shakas and Tukharas
(Shakas tusharah kankascha; Mahabharata.At another place, it comes
with Shakas, Tusharas and Pahlavas (shakas tusharah
kamkashch.pahlavashcha. Kankas are mentioned twice in Bhagawata
Purana, together with the Kiratas, Hunas, Andhras, Pulindas,
Pukkasas, Abhiras, Yavanas and Khasas; and then again with Kiratas,
Hunas, Yavanas, Andhras, Khasas and Shakas. A point which needs to be
kept in mind here is that the names of the neighbouring communities
are often clubbed together in the classical Indian literature.
However, this is not done if the social factor, such as the mobility
in the social frame, is discussed.

Panini in his Ashtadhyayi has mentioned the word kantha.
The word in Kashika Sutra denotes `town' or `city'. The `kand'
or `kent'of Tashkent, Samarkand Yarkand, etc is the same as the
above-mentioned kantha. Tashkent and Yarkand, I am told, were also
known as `Dakshikantha' and `Yahvarkantha' respectively. The Sanskrit
word for `Turk' is Turushka. The first syllable of the name is found
in the name of `Turvasu' in classical Indian literature. The second
syllable `shka' is a superlative suffix found in the name of
Kanishka; the meaning of `Kanishka' is the youngest son.

The last syllable of the Central Asian nations is `stan'. It
is related to the Sanskrit `sthan` and Persian `stan', denoting land
or place. Kasyapa was a seer and progenitor of the living world
according to the Indian mythology. Phrigia is called Phrugia in
Greek. Indian literature has Bhrigu, a seer. I am not sure
whether `Phoenic" of the word `Phoenician' can be derived from
Semitic roots. Sanskrita has the word "Banik', the traders. I feel
the deep study of the languages and cultures of Central Asia may help
Indians in understanding themselves better. The reverse may be
equally true.

Babar was the founder of his own empire in India. He came
from Farghana valley. He has written much about his native place,
about the wars he fought in his native place, in his Babarnama. He
compares and contrasts, gives massive information about the land, the
climate, and the people, their way of of living, housing, village
settlement pattern, vegetation, fruits, etc. He detests India's heat
and dust; nostalgically remembers Central Asian melons. Abul Fazal
mentions about the cultivation of melons in India. Not only Babarnama
and Ain-e-Akbari, but the memoirs of other of Delhi Sutanate and
Moghal kings also provides information about Central Asia, the Sufis
and others coming from there.

Many travelers from India have written there accounts of
the land and the people of Central India. M.N. Roy, Raja Mahendra
Pratap, Rahul Sankrityayan and others visited the region and have
written about the same. Raja Ranjit Singh of Punjab sent his envoys
there. Mohan Lal's wrote his travel accounts. Iqitidar Sidiqi was
there. Tarikhe Munajile Bukhara by Fazil Khan is a well written book.
Unlike Britishers, who had the tendency to denigrade, the Indian
travellors wrote about the region and the people with warmth and as
they saw it.

In Hindi language, the history of Central Asia by Rahul
Sankrityayan is published in two volumes (Madhya Asia ka Itihas).
Sarthavah (in Hindi) by Dr. Motichandra provides valuable information
about the trade routes between India and Central Asia. However, much
more need to be done by Indian and Central Asian scholars to re-
discover their links from the ancient days to the present. The works
of some of the scholars in this case needs mention, which are: The
geography of the Puranas by S.M. Ali Cunningham's Ancient geography
of India, edited by S. Majumdar Shastri, N.L. Dey's The Geographical
Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval India and D.C. Sirkar's
Cosmography and Geography in Early Indian Literature.

http://www.asthabharati.org/Dia_Jan.04/cen...sia%20kumar.htm

[Hauma Hamiddha]

Su-lu Khan's heroic struggle against the army of Islam
When one glances at the map of central Asia one sees Samarqand, Khorezm, Khorasan, Khotan and Bokhara, all once great centers of Indo-Iranian culture, now civilizational tragedies under the mushroom cloud of the Islamic terror. The Turkic struggle against Islam is one of the forgotten chapters of history that needs to be repeatedly brought home. We had earlier seen how the Kha'khans of the Turkic tribes like the Uighur and Blue Turks had fought various Islamic Ghazis. But one of the most heroic struggles of the Central Asian Turks against the terrifying atrocities of Islam was due the Tuergish Turks under their great Khan Su-lu.

In 715 CE the armies of the fierce Chinese general Liu Hsiu-Ching attacked the city of Ferghana and Khujanda and exterminated the population of the city by systematically decapitating them. This was the opening of the war between the Chinese, Arabs and Tibetans, in which the Chinese had asserted their aggressive expansionist intensions in Central Asia. But just then an unexpected factor enter the picture. The Tuergish Turks who had been feudatories of the great Blue Turk Khans like Qapaghan Kha'khan and Kuel-tegin were unified and reorganized militarily under Khan Su-lu. He had unified two divisions known as the Yellow Bone and Black Bone clans. The Arabs called him the "Father of the strife" as he stood in the path of their great expansion. He sent an embassy to the Chinese emperor stating that the was a free ruler now who no longer acknowledged Chinese or Blue Turk rule and that he had organized an army of 200,000 horsemen to challenge their power if required. The Chinese emperor to avoid a sending a new army westwards, accepted their independence. In 717 CE Su-lu declared himself Kha'Khan of the Turks and began espionage operations in Chinese territory.

The Arabs under the Kalif Umar bin Abd al-Aziz sent a message to all central Asian territories under the Arab control or their neighbors that all Kafirs should forthwith forfeit their foreskins or else they will be killed. Those who had accepted Dhimmi status by paying up Jaziya will be further tormented unless they accepted Islam when they would freed of all these disadvantages. The neighbors who would not submit to Islam were threatened with immediate Jihad. This clearly shows that the Moslems were primarily aiming to force Islam on the people, not just raid them for monetary gains. The Arabs sent bands of Islamists under Abdullah al Hanafi to subvert the Tibetans an spread Islam in their midst and another Arab army attacked the Uch-Turfan. This latter army was beaten back by the Qarluq Turks and forced to retreat. At the same time Su-lu led his hordes to seize the major central Asian outpost of the Chinese, Suyab. The pagan Indianized inhabitants of Central Asia- Turks and Iranians, as well as surviving Zoroasterians and Sogdhians were alarmed at the Arab call for conversion to Islam and the threat of Jihad and turned to China for help. But typical to the Chinese attitude no help was forth coming. Instead Su-lu came to their aid. In 719 the Arab raiders entered Sogdiana and forcibly converted several Bauddha Turkic chiefs of the province to Islam under swordpoint. When the Kalif died in Arabia, the Turkic chiefs and a local Hindu chief named Devasti renounced Islam and drove out all Mullahs and Fuckihs operating in their territory. They soon spread the word that people who had been forced into the terrible delusion of the Arabs should forsake it an return to the dharma. The Mullahs declared that the apostates must be brutally done to death and incited a huge ghazi army to attack Sogdiana. Su-lu the lord of the Tuergish Turks came to the aid of the dharma and the sangha, he collected a major army of Turks under his general Kuel Chur and dispatched him to support the Kafirs against the Army of Islam, in spring 721 AD. Kuel Chur cut down an advancing Jihadi division at Qasr al-Bahili and cut off the supply routes for the Arabs from Samarqand. The Tuergish general then laid the classical Turk-Mongol trap for the main Arab army using the feigned retreat. The Arabs fell in to ambush when from the side suddenly a hail of arrows rained on them destroying the army of Islam. Thus the Moslems faced their first major defeat against the pagan Turks and the Moslem Dayis were rounded up and put to death.

The territory upto the fortified Samarqand was liberated of Moslem terror by the action of Khan Su-lu by the end of 721 CE. The Kalif dispatched the Ghazi Amr al-Harashi and an army of Mujahidins to kill the Bauddha and Hindu chiefs in the regions and destroy Khan Su-lu. Seeing the Moslem storm on the horizon the Zoroastrian chiefs Kaarzang and Jalang, the Bauddha Turk Kasshin and the Hindu chief Devasti decided to defend from the fort of Khujanda. Al-Harashi's Jihadis swarmed the region in Middle of 722 CE. Another local chief aluTAr who was defending the region betrayed the other chiefs to the Moslems. Knowning that there was not much of a chance the they entered battle with the Jihadis in 722AD. The Moslem general immediately opened negotiations to reach a settlement. The unsupecting chiefs came down for the negotiations and as they were taking place, al-Harashi gave the signal to his Mujahids to kill the Kafirs. The Moslems pounced on them right away, brutally murdered them and then of the 7000 of their followers. The merchants with them were captured and tortured till they gave up all their possessions. The savgery of the slaughter in this treacherous assault sent a terrifying message to the non-Moslems of the region. They learnt that they were dealing with an enemy like none before-- one whose word coould not trusted and who was exceedingly cruel. The Islamic records gloat over the killing of he Kafirs in Khujanda (see TabarI 2.1446 for a poetic account for the massacres).

Several survivors among Devasti's, Kasshin's and Kaarzang's people fled to Khan Su-lu with the news of the new Moslem invasion. Su-lu organized them into a special corps, which greatly distinguished itself in the subsequent battles against the Moslems. He immediately decided to take retaliatory steps to stop the Jihad from blowing over the entire area. In 723 CE, Khan Su-lu was sent an ambassador by the Moslems with the message: convert to Islam, hand over the idols of deities and the survivors of the Khujanda massacre or face war. He did not reply anything to the ambassador and asked him to retire to his tent. Next day at dawn the Moslem ambassador was woken up and asked to ride with the Khan to a mountain top in a forested zone in his territory. There Khan Su-lu signaled to one of his body guard. He immediately unfurled a flag and immediately 10,000 men fully armed cased in armor came out assembled with their horses. They then unfurled a flag each. For each flag that was unfurled 10 fully armed horsemen emerged and 100,000 horsemen assembled in the plains below and raised the Turkic war cries. Su-lu then asked his guards to dismiss the Arab ambassador. The message was clear, though the Khan had not opened his mouth.

In spring 723 with the first notice of the thaw in winter the Arabs initiated the Jihad. The Moslems were ambushed by the Tuergish Turk army under Su-lu close to the Oxus. The Turks soon surrounded them on three sides and pinned them against swelling river on fourth. The Moslems came under severe fire from the Turkic archers who harried them with fire-tipped arrows and used whistling arrows to signal their movements. In desperation the Jihadis tried to ford the river at wide point and many were drowned. The rest on the banks were mopped up by the Turkic cavalry charge ordered by Su-lu. The Kalif in fury over this defeat ordered a new army to conduct the Jihad of extermination against the Kafirs of Central Asia. For this he chose the notorious Ghazi Muslim bin Sayyid and sent him at the head of a huge army to devastate the region.

In 724 CE the Jihadis attacked the city of Akshikath in Ferghana and plundered it after slaughtering the inhabitants. They take considerable pleasure in narrating how they destroyed the idols and burnt down the temples ("Bhutkhanas"). The Moslems marched into the countryside and ransacked it by cutting down trees and burning everything on their path. Alarmed at their aggressive response, the Tuergish Kha'khan took immediate action. Su-lu personally lead a major division of his army while another army under his son constantly harried the Arabs by a series of hit and run raids. The objective of these attacks was to force the Army of Islam to march in the direction of the other Tuergish division waiting in ambush. This proved a successful move; Su-lu kept avoiding any direct encounter with Moslems till they were sufficiently harried by the division under his son to the point of exhasperation. At a well-timed moment he moved a branch of his army to cut off the water supply to the Moslems from the Arab-held stronghold of Khujanda. This set the resulted in the great defeat of the Arabs, remembered by the Moslem chronicles as the "Battle of the Day of Thirst". As they were desperate without water, Su-lu swooped in striking hard with his well armed cavalry. The Jihadis fought frantically, but a Turkic archer shot a well-aimed arrow to knock-down their general Muslim bin Sayyid. With that the Tuergish completely routed them and only a small number of survivors escaped to make it alive to the fort of Khujanda. This battle was a turning point in the control of Transoxiana ot the Tuergish had become the dominant force and the Arabs were clearly on the defensive. This halted the frenetic spread of Islam through central Asia an gave brief breathing space for the pagans of the land.

But the Tuergish faced a new danger from the East in the form of the aggressive Chinese imperialism, which was equal religiously intolerant. The wife of Khan Su-lu sent an ambassador to China to stop persecution of pagans and various streams of the Bauddha matas different from those of the Chinas. Hsuan-Tsung, the imperialist Chinese emperor asked his favorite general Tu to kill the envoy and destroy a Tuergish trading party and called the Tuergish Kha'Khan a bandit. This duly sparked of a conflict with between the Turks and the Chinas. The Chinas moved armies rapidly to the West to first attack Tibet and thereby outflank the Turks. The Tibetans suffered heavily at the hands of the Chinese and formed an alliance with the Tuergish. Su-lu hatched a plan to seek revenge for the Chinese actions and dispatched an army to raid the Chinese territory and draw the Chinese general I-chen into an ambush. He was also attacked simultaneous by the Tibetan army under their resourceful commander Chog-ro-Manporje. The Chinese were beaten back and at the same time one of their greatest generals, Wang Chun Cho was killed by the Uighur Turks. In 730 AD realizing that the war in the West was not favoring the Chinese, Hsuan Tsung diplomatically entered into peace negotiations with the Tuergish. However, this was only on the surface, because he was hatching a secret strategy to destroy them completely. Hsuan Tsung sent envoys to the Arabs, asking them to ally with the Chinas against the Tuergish. The Kalif had now sent Ashras al Sulami to strengthen the Moslem force and avenge the old defeats. Al Sulami was particularly violent on the people of Sogdhiana and persecuted non-Moslems and tortured them in numerous ways.

In the mean time a band of Parsis along with their last ruler in absentia, Kushraw, a descendent of the last Sassanian emperor Yazdigird III who were in Tukharistan also appealed to Khan Su-lu to help them against the eternal enemies the Arabs who were bent on destroying him. Su-lu acted decisively, by gathering his Turkic hordes as well as other pagan chiefs and the Parsis under Kushraw attacking al Sulami. The Moslems were worsted and driven out almost entirely from Sogdhiana. The Moslem armies were put to sword in various encounters and the temples broken by them were revived. Only the fortified city of Samarqand and the Kamarja fort remained in Moslem hands. However, Turko-Mongols were far from state they achieved under Chingiz Khan, to storm heavily fortified strongholds. Still Su-lu besieged Kamarja and during the siege the Moslems made many attempts to kill him using marksmen on the walls. Though most attempts failed as he was well-protected by strong armor except for his eyes, Su-lu was finally shot on his arm in course of he conflict and injured. Kushraw the Parsi prince was also killed by an arrow. Disheartened by these the Tuergish failed to take Kamarga. Despite these setbacks Su-lu still controlled practically all of Transoxiana and restored peace and religious freedom which had been shattered by the Moslems. The Tibetans and Tuergish sealed an alliance through the marriage of Su-lu with the Tibetan princess Dron ma lod. Tuergish then aided he Tibetans in inflict a series of defeats on Chinese armies harassing the Tibetan troops and conquered the Wakhan corridor. The Arabs and Chinese met in 735 to destory the Tuergish through a combined attack. The Chinese first invaded the Tibetans to block them from aiding the Tuergish, and inflicted heavy losses on them. Su-lu sent a division to aid the Tibetans but Chinas crushed that division, with the Moslems sending the Chinas reinforcements. But the Tibetan general Chog-ro-Manporje combined with Su-lu's second division to attack the Jihadis under Assad bin Abdullah the new Ghazi sent by the Kalif to destroy the Kafirs. The Arabs were defeated and the Chinese without aid from the Western front ceased operations after devastating northern Tibetan territories.

Bin Abdullah then waged a Jihad on the pagan city of Navakath and started slaying the inhabitants. Su-lu in a hasty march from Suyab arrived. He at first deftly cut the Arab supply line from Navakath. Without supplies for a while they started crossing the Oxus, to replenish their stores and forces. Su-lu set a trap for them and the second time attacked them while crossing the river and destroyed the flotillas and pontoon bridges used by the Moslems. The Arabs sustained heavy losses and fled in disarray. Su-lu then attacked bin Abdullah's camp and plundered it, even as the Ghazi barely escaped with life. Bin Abdullah sent another army force against the Turks, but Khan Su-lu ambushed it and wiped it out. bin Abdullah retreated to Balkh and left Khorasan undefended. Su-lu fiercely attacked Khorasan with the aim of driving out the Arabs for good. However, they again proved pretty ineffective in taking the highly fortified citadel of Khulm from where the Moslems were defending. Su-lu with a small mobile force of just 4000 men tried to launch a surprise attack on Balkh and take it in the height of winter, when the Arabs rarely fought. However, sadly for him the Chinese agents figured out his plan and informed the Moslems well in advance. The Moslems were ready for the small mobile force of Su-lu as it by-passed Balkh and try to take it in the rear. bin Abdullah kept a large army waiting for the Turks at Kharistan. With the element of surprise gone, Su-lu was totally out of wind and had to fight desperately for survival against the numerically superior motivated Jihadi army. He barely cut his way out of their cordon and retreated with heavy losses to Tukharistan. There he started regrouping his hordes for a renewed campaign when unexpected events transpired.

Kuel Chur, the general of the Tuergish army and Khan Su-lu were playing a game of back-gammon with the stake being a pheasant. Su-lu won the stake but Kuel Chur refused to give him the bird. A fight broke out between them in which Kuel Chur and his men killed Su-lu.

This was not just the death of one man but the death-blow to the Tuergish nation, and any possibility of a defense against Islam's oppressive spread into central Asia. With that the Tuergish nation and the many pagan states of Transoxiana and Sogdiana were open to the imperialist China and Moslem troops that poured in for the final contest.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Hindi language, the history of Central Asia by Rahul
Sankrityayan is published in two volumes (Madhya Asia ka Itihas).
Sarthavah (in Hindi) by Dr. Motichandra provides valuable information
about the trade routes between India and Central Asia.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Any information on Rahul Sankrityayan?
Who is he?

His last name seems to be derived from Sankrti gotra (my gotra).

[Hauma Hamiddha]

Any information on Rahul Sankrityayan?
Who is he?

He was Marxist historian but quite different from the rest of that group. Rahul Sankrityayan was an adopted name of his not his original one-- yes he was of the same gotra as you.

Rahul

Some of his books in Hindi have useful information, usually neglected by other Marxist historians. He is more sympathetic to Indic issues than them.

[acharya]

Dr. Jack Wheeler: Will Indonesia Save Islam?
© October 27, 2006, ToThePointNews.com





<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->




There are 245 million folks in Indonesia.  88% of them, or 215 million, are Moslem, comprising the largest Moslem population on earth.  Just 8% of Indonesians are Christian, 2% are Hindu, and only 1% are Buddhist.

Yet the most famous landmark of Indonesia - the archaeological wonder of Borobudur - is Buddhist.  In fact, it is the world's largest Buddhist monument.  Indonesia's most famous tourist destination and most famous culture is the island of Bali.  The people of Bali are not Moslem.  They are Hindu.

Indonesia used to be Buddhist and Hindu, and is a long ways from Arabia.  How did this place become Moslem?

People have been living in Indonesia since before they were people.  "Java Man," so-called because his 500,000 year-old bones were first discovered on Java, belonged to humanity's evolutionary precursor, Homo erectus.

By around 200 BC, Hindu kingdoms had emerged on Indonesia's two largest islands, Java and Sumatra.  They co-existed with Buddhist kingdoms such as the Srivijaya thalassocracy (sea-based trading empire) that rose around 200 AD, and the Sailendra kingdom in central Java that built Borobudur between 778-824 AD.

They were all subsumed by the Majapahit empire, a Hindu kingdom that ruled over Java, Bali, Sumatra, Borneo, and much of the Malay Peninsula from 1300 to 1500.  Then came the Moslems.

Islam in Indonesia begins with an eccentric Javanese adventurer named Parameswara, who lived from 1344 to 1424.  He claimed he was a Hindu prince and a descendant of Alexander the Great.  In 1402, he was able to establish a small trading town on the Malay Peninsula right across from Sumatra, calling it Malacca.  Then he sailed off to China to make a deal with the Ming Emperor, Yongle.

Every trading ship from India and Arabia on its way to China had to sail through the narrow straits between Sumatra and Malaya - the alternative was a huge detour around Sumatra.  Yongle was happy to support Parameswara in securing protection and control of the passage, which to this day is called the Strait of Malacca.

Now in his 60s, Parameswara became rich and powerful - but he proved no match for the charms of a young lady from Pasai.  About a hundred years before, Moslem traders from Gujarat on the west coast of India had built a trading post on the northwest tip of Sumatra that had grown into a small Sultanate called Pasai.

In 1414, Parameswara met a girl whom the chronicles describe as "young," "beautiful," and a "princess."  The 70 year-old man was a goner and begged for her hand.  She was a Moslem, she said, so the only way for her to accept would be for him to convert to Islam.

He did, they were married, he renamed himself Raja Iskander Shah ("Iskander" is the Arabic name for Alexander), declared his kingdom to be the Sultanate of Malacca, and demanded all his subjects become Moslem.  Then he decided to go on Jihad against the now idolatrous Hindus of the Majapahit Empire.

The Majapahits finally succumbed to Parameswara's successors, and by 1500 the Majapahit aristocracy, artisans, and followers fled to Bali establishing a Hindu redoubt that has resisted Islam right up to now.

In the wake of the Hindu retreat came a flood of Moslem missionaries demanding the Hindus and Buddhists of Java and Sumatra convert.  This resulted in ambitious warlords-to-be constructing Islamic kingdoms such as the Sultanate of Mataram in central Java, which under its Sultan Agung (r. 1613-1645) controlled almost the entire island.

By the time the traders of the Dutch East India Company arrived in the mid-1600s, attracted by the spice trade in the archipelago, most of what was to become Indonesia had been Moslemized.

Far from being Christian Crusaders, the Dutch were only interested in creating a commercial empire in the "East Indies," monopolizing the spice trade, and keeping competitors like the Portuguese and British out.  They made minimal attempts at converting the Javanese or Sumatrans to Christianity.

With Islam forced upon them and the Dutch offering no enthusiastic alternative, the Indonesians coped by adopting a variant of Islam known as Sufism.  They deeply resented the imposition of a foreign faith, and for over a century referred to Islam not by name but only as "the Arab religion."  Sufism was their way out.

Sufis (sue-feez) - the People of the Platform (named after disciples of Mohammed who met on the platform -- suffe in Arabic -- of the first Moslem mosque at Medina) - were Moslems who rejected Jihad and Islam as a Religion of the Sword.


<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/oth...ck/061027.shtml

[Guest]

[quote=acharya,Jun 22 2007, 04:58 AM]
Dr. Jack Wheeler: Will Indonesia Save Islam?
© October 27, 2006, ToThePointNews.com


In Indonesia was some jihad?Anywere i read it was about peaceful conversion of Indonesia to islam.Even more, in the books i read it ,Indonesia was show as a great land that wasnt converted by the usual sword methode but by peacefull sufis.
I read some books about history of religions and all talk about islam in a very positive light.I wonder how so ,the writers of these books are not muslims them selfs.

[shamu]

I have some issue with the arguments in the article that Acharya posted. The author tries to see the developments in Indonesia in isolation, which I think is incorrect. Indonesia had strong cultural link with India till colonial rule broke that. In my opinion, Indonesia adopted the cultural trend that was happening in India. When they became muslim, India was under Islamic rule. That may be the reason why Islamic conquest of Malaysia and Indonesia were not violent.

What we need to do is to re-establish the lost cultural links with Indonesia and Malaysia.