Post 7/?
Tangential: Kalidasa got randomly assigned a date after Ashvaghosha. With as consequenece that everyone now suddenly pretends that "therefore" Kalidasa copied from Ashvaghosha.
Did find something most peculiar and interesting though. Most predictable too: how aliens (followed by Buddhist and Bauddhified parrots) having randomly assigned a late date to Kalidasa have turned him into a plagiarist of Ashvaghosha.
- Ashvaghosha's time of late 1st century to mid 2nd century is pretty well established, because of the Kushana king he lived under.
- The west has decided that too little is known of Kalidasa's time, and has chosen to identify a 5th century king (dubbed a Vikramamaditya) with the particular Vikramaditya that's associated with Kalidasa.
On the basis of the above two points, they conclude that the direction of copying - seen in the similarities between Kalidasa and Ashvaghosha - is that Kalidasa must have copied Ashvaghosha "because Ashvaghosha is 2nd century and Kalidasa is 5th century".
Except that by ancient long-established Indian tradition, Kalidasa preceded Ashvaghosha and should be in the 1st century BCE - associated with the rule of a Vikramaditya of that period. And even in a late stage of the era of British rule in India, the colonial Brits still argued for Kalidasa as 1st century BCE (had long ago posted an IIRC googlebook excerpt showing an instance of this in some IF thread).
It is only very recently that Kalidasa has been (deliberately) shifted down in time [there's a recognition hence of evidence of a pan-subcontinental Hindooism in Kalidasa's era, there is also bhakti and elements of SV/tantra in Kalidasa and the west can't have that existing in Hindoo religion in the 1st century BCE, now can they?].
And so now everyone - and every site visible online - is going around pretending how it has supposedly "always been the case" that Ashvaghosha preceded Kalidasa and that "Kalidasa copied Ashvaghosha/Kalidasa took a lot from Ashvaghosha". <- Which is yet another thing reminiscent of how everyone including many Tamil Hindus have just internalised the whole "Thiruvalluvar was a Jain or secular (or christian)" claptrap and the "Ilango Adigal was a Buddhist/Jain/anything except Hindu" nonsense.
It is interesting to note that people didn't seem to much bother noticing the similarities between Ashvaghosha and Kalidasa before, that is, not until Ashvaghosha had been made to precede Kalidasa. And now everywhere where Ashvaghosha is mentioned, it is only to insist that his writing style had inspired and been copied by Kalidasa. It is yet again an alien attempt or a Buddhist attempt to steal the natural credit from Hindu religion to donate to Buddhism. What religion *devised* the allegedly "secular" arts of Indian poetry? Vedic religion. And it wasn't secular, it was there in the Vedam (where the Hindoo Gods/Parabrahman are even called Kavi apparently). As for classical Skt, defined as it already was by Panini, it is *Hindus* that practised poetry therein. Buddhists were usually mentally focused on their afterlife and looked down on the "secular" arts. Their Sanskrit was more Prakrit than actually Skt (even admitted in wackypedia, but anyone could have noticed this in the allegedly "ancient" so-called "Skt" of Buddhist texts, many of which were not so much Skt at all), until Buddhism converted Hindu brahmanas to Buddhism. And then most of them turned into all-Hindoos' worst nightmare, by harrassing Hindoos with their sophistry and subverting Hindoo religion better using their detailed inside-knowledge. Brahmanas (and kShatriyas) make the greatest traitors once converted. Although, nowadays, every community can and does cut heathenism and the heathen homeland of the Hindoos like a knife upon conversion.
Anyway. For those who wish to know that there are Hindus who haven't rolled over to the modern take on Kalidasa vis-a-vis Ashvaghosha, and to know that Hindus are still arguing for the traditional Indian chronology of events and more acceptable dates for Kalidasa, here are some links:
+ controversialhistory.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Kalidasa
+ exoticindiaart.com/book/details/raghuvamsa-of-kalidasa-with-sanskrit-text-english-translation-detailed-notes-and-introduction-IDJ377/
+ trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.co.in/2010/01/vikramaditya-of-first-century-bc.html
+ swamiindology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/kalidasas-age-tamil-works-confirm-1st.html
The last link, which seems to belong to the owner of the TamilAndVedas site and may be a mirror of the same, gives an additional viewpoint on the matter, in that it uses ancient Tamil works to adduce how Kalidasa lived in an earlier period (also 1st century BCE I think) than currently assigned.
This series of spam was about Buddhism starting to claim that their cloned copy is the original Ramayanam. Jains have done the same too, already discussed in an earlier post in this thread.
The important parts are the 2nd quoteblock in post 270 further above, the large quoteblock in post 268 above that, and finally, the *title* (in bold) of post 271. The rest of these posts are comments regarding these, and further observations surrounding the matter.
Tangential: Kalidasa got randomly assigned a date after Ashvaghosha. With as consequenece that everyone now suddenly pretends that "therefore" Kalidasa copied from Ashvaghosha.
Did find something most peculiar and interesting though. Most predictable too: how aliens (followed by Buddhist and Bauddhified parrots) having randomly assigned a late date to Kalidasa have turned him into a plagiarist of Ashvaghosha.
- Ashvaghosha's time of late 1st century to mid 2nd century is pretty well established, because of the Kushana king he lived under.
- The west has decided that too little is known of Kalidasa's time, and has chosen to identify a 5th century king (dubbed a Vikramamaditya) with the particular Vikramaditya that's associated with Kalidasa.
On the basis of the above two points, they conclude that the direction of copying - seen in the similarities between Kalidasa and Ashvaghosha - is that Kalidasa must have copied Ashvaghosha "because Ashvaghosha is 2nd century and Kalidasa is 5th century".
Except that by ancient long-established Indian tradition, Kalidasa preceded Ashvaghosha and should be in the 1st century BCE - associated with the rule of a Vikramaditya of that period. And even in a late stage of the era of British rule in India, the colonial Brits still argued for Kalidasa as 1st century BCE (had long ago posted an IIRC googlebook excerpt showing an instance of this in some IF thread).
It is only very recently that Kalidasa has been (deliberately) shifted down in time [there's a recognition hence of evidence of a pan-subcontinental Hindooism in Kalidasa's era, there is also bhakti and elements of SV/tantra in Kalidasa and the west can't have that existing in Hindoo religion in the 1st century BCE, now can they?].
And so now everyone - and every site visible online - is going around pretending how it has supposedly "always been the case" that Ashvaghosha preceded Kalidasa and that "Kalidasa copied Ashvaghosha/Kalidasa took a lot from Ashvaghosha". <- Which is yet another thing reminiscent of how everyone including many Tamil Hindus have just internalised the whole "Thiruvalluvar was a Jain or secular (or christian)" claptrap and the "Ilango Adigal was a Buddhist/Jain/anything except Hindu" nonsense.
It is interesting to note that people didn't seem to much bother noticing the similarities between Ashvaghosha and Kalidasa before, that is, not until Ashvaghosha had been made to precede Kalidasa. And now everywhere where Ashvaghosha is mentioned, it is only to insist that his writing style had inspired and been copied by Kalidasa. It is yet again an alien attempt or a Buddhist attempt to steal the natural credit from Hindu religion to donate to Buddhism. What religion *devised* the allegedly "secular" arts of Indian poetry? Vedic religion. And it wasn't secular, it was there in the Vedam (where the Hindoo Gods/Parabrahman are even called Kavi apparently). As for classical Skt, defined as it already was by Panini, it is *Hindus* that practised poetry therein. Buddhists were usually mentally focused on their afterlife and looked down on the "secular" arts. Their Sanskrit was more Prakrit than actually Skt (even admitted in wackypedia, but anyone could have noticed this in the allegedly "ancient" so-called "Skt" of Buddhist texts, many of which were not so much Skt at all), until Buddhism converted Hindu brahmanas to Buddhism. And then most of them turned into all-Hindoos' worst nightmare, by harrassing Hindoos with their sophistry and subverting Hindoo religion better using their detailed inside-knowledge. Brahmanas (and kShatriyas) make the greatest traitors once converted. Although, nowadays, every community can and does cut heathenism and the heathen homeland of the Hindoos like a knife upon conversion.
Anyway. For those who wish to know that there are Hindus who haven't rolled over to the modern take on Kalidasa vis-a-vis Ashvaghosha, and to know that Hindus are still arguing for the traditional Indian chronology of events and more acceptable dates for Kalidasa, here are some links:
+ controversialhistory.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Kalidasa
+ exoticindiaart.com/book/details/raghuvamsa-of-kalidasa-with-sanskrit-text-english-translation-detailed-notes-and-introduction-IDJ377/
+ trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.co.in/2010/01/vikramaditya-of-first-century-bc.html
+ swamiindology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/kalidasas-age-tamil-works-confirm-1st.html
The last link, which seems to belong to the owner of the TamilAndVedas site and may be a mirror of the same, gives an additional viewpoint on the matter, in that it uses ancient Tamil works to adduce how Kalidasa lived in an earlier period (also 1st century BCE I think) than currently assigned.
This series of spam was about Buddhism starting to claim that their cloned copy is the original Ramayanam. Jains have done the same too, already discussed in an earlier post in this thread.
The important parts are the 2nd quoteblock in post 270 further above, the large quoteblock in post 268 above that, and finally, the *title* (in bold) of post 271. The rest of these posts are comments regarding these, and further observations surrounding the matter.