Post 10/?
[color="#0000FF"](This post is a mere addendum to the previous one.)[/color]
One more post dedicated to covering the wackypedia paragraph concerning andhakavrishni. Because it is a case of logic so terrible that it provokes one into saying something about it. And hence it deserves its own post.
Wacky's Neminath page makes the following leaps of logic that make you question the sanity of whoever wrote it (my inserts are in purple and are actually relevant for once, and I did the numbering to show where the pretence at a logical argument/structure just collapses):
As stated before, the Harivamsha references to andhakavR^iShNi are to two distinct houses/lineages. Not just according to the traditional translations of Harivamsha, but even as per MW (as seen at the end of the previous post), the word "andhakavR^iShNi" refers to 2 houses:
- The Houses (dynasties...) of Andhakas and Vrishnis are mentioned together regularly in the MBh context (including MBh's appendix Harivamsha and IIRC Gita too).
- The House of vRiShni is certainly connected to kRiShNa - famously so - in the very texts that mention andhakavrishni. But that doesn't prove that the vRiShNi dynasty is connected to the Jain Tirthankara Neminatha. Let's be clear: no one is claiming that Andhakas and vRiShNis are not mentioned in the MBh or connected in some manner with Krishna. Simply that the historicity of the dynasty and historicity of any "Andhakavrishni" republic does not prove the existence of Neminatha (or even his grandfather Andhakavrishni).
"It seems the republic was named after" => they admit it has not been proven - let alone conclusively - that Andhakavrishni is named after a person and not simply named after the joint ancient clans of Andhaka and Vrishni, which is their original and established meaning. The Mahabharata context only knows of 2 brothers by name of Andhaka and Vrishni, from whom the Andhakas and Vrishnis descended, jointly called "andhakavrishni".
So all that the above statements can *conclusively* tell us is that an ancient republic by name AndhakavRiShNi was confirmed in 3 separate historical Hindu sources (and its name bears some relation to the Vedic andhaka and vRiShNi dynasties). As also seen in the MW dictionary entry above, at least in the MBh/HV - which is one of the 3 sources cited as "evidence" for attesting to the ancient "Andhakavrishni republic" - the references to "andhakavrishni" particularly means the *two* houses derived from Andhaka and Vrishni. Not anything derived from a single person called "Andhakavrishni". So the claimants can't invoke MBh/HV as proof for the name deriving from a single person called "Andhakavrishni" nor can they even invoke it as proof for the existence of a person by that name.)
Repeat: So all that the above wacky statements can *conclusively* tell us is that an ancient republic by name AndhakavRiShNi was confirmed in 3 separate historical Hindu sources (and its name bears some relation to the Vedic andhaka and vRiShNi dynasties).
=> Clearly the claimants haven't been able to confirm either a person called "Andhakavrishna" from those sources, else they wouldn't have used the word "seems" in the peculiar way they did ("it seems the republic was named after [their Andhakavrishna]" - they only *assumed* that the republic must be named after him), nor could they confirm teerthankara Neminatha from those same sources (and there's certainly no confirmation for him in the MBh among the listed sources), otherwise they wouldn't have had to resort to special pleading like "If Andhakavrishni is a real person, there seems to be little doubt that his grandson Neminatha was real".
Finally - because this type of bad argumentation grates:
(when trying to prove the historicity of a person B) -
proving a person A existed (assume for the moment a person called andhakavrishni existed in the necessary timeframe/geography) does not prove that a proposed character B is indeed his grandson unless B can be proven to have existed, firstly, and to indeed be the grandson of that particular person A (and not someone else by that name, say). That's why you can't make idiotic "conclusions" like "If Andhakavrishni is a real person, there seems to be little doubt that his grandson Neminatha was real." Let alone make the conclusion by pulling in the MBh/Panini/Arthashastra's "witness" for (nothing more than) Andhakavrishnis existing as a republic/dynasty. They don't remotely follow.
(BTW The Jain claims to the Vedic AndhakaVrishni/Vrishni dynasty are rather reminiscent of how they elsewhere claimed that Jainism gave rise to the ikShvaku dynasty too, despite this dynasty too being Vedic in origin and not Jain. Whether the matter concerns merely characters or actually historical persons is beside the point here. The point is that either way: originally Vedic, and not Jain, which only claimed it after the fact. Sort of like both Buddhism* and Jainism claim - mutually exclusively - to having instantiated/innovated/instituted the 4 varnas. The fact is, the 4 Varnas' origins are in the pre-existing Vedic religion, while the Buddhist/Jain claims were never launched until later. Indeed, not until much after Jainism/Buddhism appeared on the scene.
*Apparently, [late] Buddhism came up with a theology of Buddhist kings - stretching all the way back to 'The Beginning' whenever that is supposed to have been - one of whom was to have instituted the 4 varnas.)
[color="#0000FF"](This post is a mere addendum to the previous one.)[/color]
One more post dedicated to covering the wackypedia paragraph concerning andhakavrishni. Because it is a case of logic so terrible that it provokes one into saying something about it. And hence it deserves its own post.
Wacky's Neminath page makes the following leaps of logic that make you question the sanity of whoever wrote it (my inserts are in purple and are actually relevant for once, and I did the numbering to show where the pretence at a logical argument/structure just collapses):
Quote:1. The Andhakavrishnis of Dwaraka in Kathiawar Region of present Gujrat state of India, as a republic is referred to in the Mahabharata, Arthashastra and Ashtadhyayi of PÃâÃÂáùââ¬Â¡ini. [verifiable predicate.]
2. The name of the Vrishni corporation is also found on a coin which on paleographical grounds dates to the 1st or 2nd century BCE. [Verifiable predicate.]
3. It seems that the republic was named after Andhakavrishni, the grandfather of Neminatha. [Mere speculation/leaping to conclusions. 2 baseless assumptions: that a person by name Andhakavrishni is "therefore" verified AND that it must be he who lent his name to the region/dynasty that 3 Hindu sources confirmed as being a republic called Andhakavrishni. I think the reference is to the Andhakavrishni dynasty rather than any geography by that name, because the ~first word in point 1 is "Andhakvrishnis" - which implies the reference is to a people.]
4. If Andhakavrishni is a real person, there seems to be little doubt that his grandson Neminatha was real. [Bad logic that doesn't even follow from the assumptions made in 3, forget 1 and 2.]
As stated before, the Harivamsha references to andhakavR^iShNi are to two distinct houses/lineages. Not just according to the traditional translations of Harivamsha, but even as per MW (as seen at the end of the previous post), the word "andhakavR^iShNi" refers to 2 houses:
Quote:1 andhakavRSNi %{ayas} m. pl. descendants of Andhaka and Vr2ishn2i.
- The Houses (dynasties...) of Andhakas and Vrishnis are mentioned together regularly in the MBh context (including MBh's appendix Harivamsha and IIRC Gita too).
- The House of vRiShni is certainly connected to kRiShNa - famously so - in the very texts that mention andhakavrishni. But that doesn't prove that the vRiShNi dynasty is connected to the Jain Tirthankara Neminatha. Let's be clear: no one is claiming that Andhakas and vRiShNis are not mentioned in the MBh or connected in some manner with Krishna. Simply that the historicity of the dynasty and historicity of any "Andhakavrishni" republic does not prove the existence of Neminatha (or even his grandfather Andhakavrishni).
"It seems the republic was named after" => they admit it has not been proven - let alone conclusively - that Andhakavrishni is named after a person and not simply named after the joint ancient clans of Andhaka and Vrishni, which is their original and established meaning. The Mahabharata context only knows of 2 brothers by name of Andhaka and Vrishni, from whom the Andhakas and Vrishnis descended, jointly called "andhakavrishni".
So all that the above statements can *conclusively* tell us is that an ancient republic by name AndhakavRiShNi was confirmed in 3 separate historical Hindu sources (and its name bears some relation to the Vedic andhaka and vRiShNi dynasties). As also seen in the MW dictionary entry above, at least in the MBh/HV - which is one of the 3 sources cited as "evidence" for attesting to the ancient "Andhakavrishni republic" - the references to "andhakavrishni" particularly means the *two* houses derived from Andhaka and Vrishni. Not anything derived from a single person called "Andhakavrishni". So the claimants can't invoke MBh/HV as proof for the name deriving from a single person called "Andhakavrishni" nor can they even invoke it as proof for the existence of a person by that name.)
Repeat: So all that the above wacky statements can *conclusively* tell us is that an ancient republic by name AndhakavRiShNi was confirmed in 3 separate historical Hindu sources (and its name bears some relation to the Vedic andhaka and vRiShNi dynasties).
=> Clearly the claimants haven't been able to confirm either a person called "Andhakavrishna" from those sources, else they wouldn't have used the word "seems" in the peculiar way they did ("it seems the republic was named after [their Andhakavrishna]" - they only *assumed* that the republic must be named after him), nor could they confirm teerthankara Neminatha from those same sources (and there's certainly no confirmation for him in the MBh among the listed sources), otherwise they wouldn't have had to resort to special pleading like "If Andhakavrishni is a real person, there seems to be little doubt that his grandson Neminatha was real".
Finally - because this type of bad argumentation grates:
(when trying to prove the historicity of a person B) -
proving a person A existed (assume for the moment a person called andhakavrishni existed in the necessary timeframe/geography) does not prove that a proposed character B is indeed his grandson unless B can be proven to have existed, firstly, and to indeed be the grandson of that particular person A (and not someone else by that name, say). That's why you can't make idiotic "conclusions" like "If Andhakavrishni is a real person, there seems to be little doubt that his grandson Neminatha was real." Let alone make the conclusion by pulling in the MBh/Panini/Arthashastra's "witness" for (nothing more than) Andhakavrishnis existing as a republic/dynasty. They don't remotely follow.
(BTW The Jain claims to the Vedic AndhakaVrishni/Vrishni dynasty are rather reminiscent of how they elsewhere claimed that Jainism gave rise to the ikShvaku dynasty too, despite this dynasty too being Vedic in origin and not Jain. Whether the matter concerns merely characters or actually historical persons is beside the point here. The point is that either way: originally Vedic, and not Jain, which only claimed it after the fact. Sort of like both Buddhism* and Jainism claim - mutually exclusively - to having instantiated/innovated/instituted the 4 varnas. The fact is, the 4 Varnas' origins are in the pre-existing Vedic religion, while the Buddhist/Jain claims were never launched until later. Indeed, not until much after Jainism/Buddhism appeared on the scene.
*Apparently, [late] Buddhism came up with a theology of Buddhist kings - stretching all the way back to 'The Beginning' whenever that is supposed to have been - one of whom was to have instituted the 4 varnas.)