Fwd: Archeological Proof of Historical Krishna pt1

[Guest guest]

VFA-family, "kishore mohan"

<kishore_future@i...> wrote:

There was often an attempt in the last centuary to deny the

antiquity

of Indian history. The vedas are supposed to be placed after gathas

and there was a thesis on the influence of bauddhism on Bhagavad

gita.

 

Obviously, there should be some link between Gita and Bauddhism coz,

Gita tries to, inter alia, find to mix vedanta and sankhya. And of

course, it is very yogic in nature. Bauddhism has both these two

concepts in its practice- sankhya and yoga. And hence,

buddhism,though independent of gita, did attain some similiarities

with gita. Since it has never talked of gita, the leftist historians

misplaced gita after buddha.

 

The endeavour to place vaisnavism after christ is obviously points

to

a futile attempt of fitting evry known time frame into that of

biblical genisys.

 

Personally, i do not believe in existence of a historical christ and

almost all the stories of jesus christ resemble one or other

miraculous men of the east, mainly of shri krishna. The pointers can

be found in your story, where in you have listed some of these

instances where Krishna's story resembles that of jesus christ. All

that you need to look at it is they are instances how jesus christ's

story resembles that of the Lord.

 

Seconldy, a tablet of krishna as a child image has been found ,

which

pertains to 2600 bce(Agrawal, V.S., "India in the days of Panini",

1953 )

 

 

I remember reading about finding such an image even in the

pyramidical excavations in egypt.

 

 

In any case, Panini talks of vasudeva (500 bce)( see the second

article below)

 

Further , I have a very good article on vasudevakas posted in a

compendium of indology. vasudevakas means the devotees of vishnu or

vasudeva.

 

meanwhile, i am posting another article found from the web, which

gives the history of vaishnavism.

 

i give kudos to ur post once more n remain,

regards

 

kishore

 

 

 

 

http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/vaish.html

History Vishnu is a solar deity in the Vedas, but the origin of

Vaishnavism is not Vedic. It comes more from the pre-Vedic, non-

Aryan

bhakti, devotional cult. As Vedism declined, this cult emerged

strongly, and was centred on Vasudeva, the deified Vrsni hero. There

is evidence that worship of Vasudeva and not Vishnu came at the

beginning of Vaishnavism. This earliest phase was established from

the sixth to the fifth centuries BCE at the time of Panini, who in

his Astadhyayi explained the word vasudevaka as a bhakta, devotee,

of

Vasudeva. Another cult which flourished with the decline of Vedism

was centred on Krishna, the deified tribal hero and religious leader

of the Yadavas. The Vrsnis and Yadavas came closer together,

resulting in the merging of Vasudeva and Krishna, This was as early

as the fourth century BCE according to evidence in Megasthenes and

in

the Arthasastra of Kautilya. Vasudeva-Krishna liberates the throne

of

Mathura from his evil kinsman Kamsa, travels to the city of Dvaraka

on the Arabian Sea to establish a dynasty, and in the Mahabharata he

counsels his cousins the Pandavas in their battle with the Kauravas.

This then took sectarian form as the Pancaratra or Bhagavata

religion. A tribe of ksatriyas, warriors, called the Satvata, were

bhagavatas and were seen by the Greek writer Megasthenes at the end

of the fourth century BCE. This sect then combined with the cult of

Narayana, a demiurge god-creator who later became one of the names

of

Vishnu.

Soon after the start of the Common Era, the Abhiras or cowherds of a

foreign tribe, contributed Gopala Krishna, the young Krishna, who

was

adopted by the Abhiras and worked as a cowherd and flirted with the

cowherdesses. Only as a mature young man did he return to Mathura

and

slay Kamsa.

The Vasudeva, Krishna, and Gopala cults became integrated through

new

legends into Greater Krishnaism, the second and most outstanding

phase of Vaishnavism.

Being non-Vedic, Krishnaism then started to affiliate with Vedism so

that the orthodox would find it acceptable. Vishnu of the Rg Veda

was

assimilated into Krishnaism and became the supreme God who

incarnates

whenever necessary to save the world. Krishna became one of the

avataras of Vishnu.

In the eighth century CE the bhakti of Vaishnavism came into contact

with Shankara's Advaita doctrine of spiritual monism and world-

illusion. This philosophy was considered destructive of bhakti and

important opposition in South India came from Ramanuja in the

eleventh century and Madhva in the fifteenth century. Ramanuja

stressed Vishnu as Narayana and built on the bhakti tradition of the

Alvars, poet-saints of South India from the sixth to the ninth

centuries (see Shri Vaishnavas).

In North India there were new Vaishnava movements: Nimbarka in the

fourteenth century with the cult of Radha, Krishna's favourite

cowgirl (see Nimavats); Ramananda and the cult of Rama in the same

century (see Ramanandis); Kabir in the fifteenth century, whose god

is Rama (see Kabirpanthis); Vallabha in the sixteenth century with

the worship of the boy Krishna and Radha (see Vallabhas); and

Caitanya in the same century with his worship of the grown-up

Krishna

and Radha (see Gaudiya Vaishnavas). In the Maratha country poet-

saints such as Namdev and Tukaram from the fourteenth to the

seventeenth centuries worshipped Vishnu in the form of Vithoba of

Pandharpur (see Vitthalas).

 

&&&&&&

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/radha/p_a045.htm

 

SOME OBSEREVATIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PANINISUTRA

VASUDEVARJUNABHYAM VUN AND THE ANTIQUITY OF THE BHAGAVATAS

 

 

Regarding the antiquity of the Bhagavatas we derive some valuable

information from Panini's grammer. Panini in his sutra iv, iii, 95

says that an affix comes after a word in the first case in

construction in the sense of "this is his object of bhakti". As for

example, one can say : Srughnabhaktirasya Sraughnah. Further, in the

sutra iv, iii, 98 (Vasudevarjunabhyam Vun) he says that the affix

Vun

is added to the words Vasudeva and Arjuna in the above sense. The

words formed according to the Sutra would be vasudevaka and Arjunaka

(not Arjunaka because of the prohibition of Chha and an). An object

of bhakti, similarly Arjunaka would refer to him to whom Arjuna was

an object of Bhakti. Without going into controversies regarding

Panini's date we can accept for him a central date in C.500 B.C. and

hold that Vasudeva was regarded as a divinity at least a century

before Panini's time, i.e. C.600 B.C. Mr. Umesh Chandra

Bhattacharya1

is of the view that Bhakti is the sutras iv, iii, 95ff can hardly

denote religious bhakti as according to the sutra

achittadadesakalatthak it has been applied even to cakes (apupikah,

etc.,) According to him Bhakti here stands for `fondness' simply.

Jayaswal holds that Panini used the term in the sense of `political

or constitutional allegiance!1 In support of his argument he

observes, "Take for instance the bhakti owed to the holders-of-the

Janapadas in iv.iii.100. The hodlers-of-the Janapadas were certainly

not worshipped. Take again the preceding sutra iv, iii, 97 where

bhakti to Maharaja is stated. Nobody would contend that Maharaja

either as a man or a country was worshipped. Agin, the scholars have

taken note of Vasudeva, while Arjuna who is placed along with

Vasudeva in the same sutra has been ignored. There is no evidence

that Arjuna was deified. Bhakti to these two Kshatriyas is the

political bhakti1." We admit that bhakti referred to in the sutras

iv, iii, 95ff has been used in a wide sense. But whatever may be the

interpretation of this term with reference to Arjuna and Maharaja

etc., we have no doubt that Bhakti applied to Vasudeva in the sutra

iv, iii, 98 cannot be taken in any sense other than that of

religious

adoration as shown below. In other words, Vasudeva here is implied

as

a divinity and not in the sense of Vasudevadapatyam as under the

sutra Rishyandhakavrishnikurubhyascha, iv, i. 114. If Vasudeva was

regarded as a human being, then he being a Kshatriya could have been

included in the sutra iv, iii, 99; Gotrakshatriyakhyebhya bahulam

Vun

which also comes under the adhikara of bhakti. Patanjali while

commenting on the sutra iv, iii, 98 rightly raises the question as

to

why Vun is prescribed for Vasudeva though the affix Vun comes

diversely after the words denoting gotra and Kshatriya. He suggested

that the sutra iv,iii,98 has been devised to show the Purvanipata of

Vasudeva(i.e., to show that Vasudeva being more revered should be

placed before Arjuna in a compound though the latter begins with a

vowel and has also fewer vowels than Vasudeva) or Vasudeva here is

not the designation of a Kshatriya but a designation of

Tatrabhagavat

or tatrabhavat2. Keilhorn says that tatrabhagavat is found only in

Banaras edition of the Mahabhashya and it is wrong reading, the

actual word which Patanjali used it tatrabhavat as found in dozen

other manuscripts1. According to Keilhorn the tatrabhavat by

which `Samjnaisha' is followed `does not in the least suggest that

the personage denoted by the proper name is a divine being, the word

indeed conveys an honorific sense, but it would be equally

applicable

to a human being2. Though tatrabhavat in applicable both to a divine

being and a human being, yet from the trend of his arguments it

appears that he is inclined to consider Vasudeva as a human being

rather than a divine one. The above theory of keilhorn has been

controverted by Keith and R.G. Bhandarkar in whose opinion

tatrabhavat as used by Patanjali in his commentary on the sutra iv,

iii, 98 has been used to signify Vasudevaas a divinity and not as a

human being3. Further, keilhorn himself has pointed out that the

precise phrase samjnaisha tatrabhavatah which occurs with regard to

Ka (in the sense of Prajapati and not sarvanama) in the Mahabhashya

(J.R.A.S., 1908, p.503) So his own views i.e., the example of ka as

a

tatrabhavat, go to prove that mortal. Thus Kaiyata (though a later

authority, 11th century A.D.) who describes Vasudeva of the sutra in

question on the basis of Patanjali's commentary as

nityahparamatmadevata-Visesha iha Vasudevo grihyate is precisely

accurate in equating Paramatmadevata with tatrabhavat when he finds

Prajapati also so described. Now we may refer in brief to the

opinions of other grammarians on the point. The authors of Kasika

(Jayaditya and Vamana) lay down; Vasudevarjunasabdabhyam Vun

pratyayo

bhavati so'sya bhaktirityetasmin vishaye. Chhanorapavadah,

Vasudevobhaktirasya, Vasudevakah. Arjunakah. Nanu Vasudevasabdad

gotrakshaatriyakhyebhya iti vunastyeve… Kimartham Vasudevagrahanam,

samjnaisha devata-viseshashya, na kshatriyakhya, alpachtaramaja

dyadantamiti, varjunasabdasya purvanipatamakuryan jnappayatya-

bhyarhitam purvam nipatatiti. From the above it si clear that

Vasudeva if treated as human being could have come under the sutra

iv, 3, 99 (gotrakshariyakhyebhyo bahulam vun, as vun makes no

difference in form or accent of the word Vasudeva). So the very fact

that he has been included in sutra iv, 3, 98 shows that he was

regarded as a divinity in Panini's time. Again this is to be noted

that Vasudeva precedes Arjuna in the sutra though according to

grammatical rules, `Alpachataram', `Ajadyadantam', Arjuna should

have

come first. This also implies that Vasudeva was considered to be

more

revered than Arjuna and consequently came to be placed first.

Further, that Vasudeva was more revered than Arjuna just on the

ground of his divinity and not on any other reasons (i.e., age or

other consideration ) has been fully brought out in Jinendra

buddhi's

Nyasa (abhyarahitatvam tu Vasudevasaabdasya devata-viseshatvad).

This

latter grammarians hold that from all points of grammatical

consideration vun or vun makes no difference in case of Vasudeva.

They further observe that the maxim of Abhyarhitava is not alsways

strictly maintained. According to them Abhyarhitatva has been

otnroduced by way of discussion. The real reaosn why Vaudeva has

been

included in the sutra iv, iii, 98 and placed before Arjuna is that

Vasudeva has been taken for a divinity and not as a human being.

They

place reliance on Patanjali's suggestion: "Samjnaisha bhagavatah

iti"

and explain the word Vasudeva as below: "Sarvatrasau samastamcha

vasatyatreti vai yatah | tato `sau Vasudeveti vidvadbhih parigiyate

|| Iti smriteh paramatma iha vasudevaha, Sarvatrasau vasali

sarvamatra Vasaaliti va vyulpatya Vasuh, Bahulakadun Vasuschasau

Devascheti vigrahah/Tatha cha neyam Gotrakhya, napi Kshatriyakhyeti

Yukta eva vunvidhih From the preceding it is clear that the authors

of the Kasika, and Kaiyata, and the latter grammarians regard

Vasudeva as a divinity and leave no doubt a sto correctness fo their

interpretation, though they are much later in time. They have fully

established the point that Panini used and could have used Vasudeva

here only in a sense of a divine being. Regarding Arjuna one notices

that from the very beginning he was regarded as an incarnation of

Nara who is often mentioned in the Mahabharata along with Narayana

as

double divinity1. In Book I of the epic it siad that Narayana took

away the nectar from the Danavas accompanied by Nara and

consequently

there was an encounter between the gods and Danavas for it. Narayana

came to the battle-field, with Nara possessed of a heavenly bow.

Nara

defeated the Asuras and he was entrusted with the nectar for its

preservation. In Book iii Nara and Narayana are represented as two

divine sages in whose Asrama at Badari the sons of Pandu liven for

sometime. Vasudeva has been identified with Narayana and Arjuna has

been regarded as an incarnation of Nara in the epic2. The

association

of Arjuna with Vasudeva in the sutra iv, iii, 98 may have bearing on

this fact, buyt we are not sure. To explain the significance of the

sutra it is not necessary to attribute divinity to Arjuna, as to

Vasudeva, though the former is regarded in the Mahabharata as an

incarnation of Nara and a constant associate of Narayana. The

grammarians, such as, the authors of the Kasika and others consider

Arjuna as a Kshatriya and offer very cogent reasons to account for

his inclusion in the sutra iv, iii, 98. They say that as a Kshatriya

Arjuna ought to have come under th sutra iv, iii, 99

(gotrakshatriyakhyebhvobahulam vun), but it has not been so because

the addition of vun would have given rise to an undesirable form

such

as Arjunaka (as vun is bound to cause vriddhi of the first vowel of

the word Arjuna). Thus the Nyasa on Kasika lays down Nanu ….

Arjunasabda Kshatriyakhyaah Tasmaduttarasutrene preptasya vuno

pavado

yuktah etc. In summing up we may say: (I) if the word Vasudeva is

treated as a Kshatriya, there is no difficulty in including him in

iv, 3, 99 as Vasudeva being already in adyodatta word, the addition

of vun would have made no difference in regard to its form or

vowels.

His inclusion in iv, 3, 98 shows that he was regarded by Panini as a

divinity as Patanjali supposes, and other grammarians fully assert.

(ii) Arjuna, though he is Kshatriay as a Kasika hold cannont come

under the sutra iv, 3, 99 as the addition of vun would have given

rise to the form Arjunaka which is undesirable. (iii) Whether we

regard Arjuna as a divine being or not, the Vasudeva of the Sutra

iv,

3, 98 can on no ground be regarded as one other than a divine being.

In other words, while explaining the sutra iv, 3, 98 it is not

necessary to regard Arjuna also as a divinity (as it is in the case

with Vasudeva) though from other sources we know that Arjuna too was

looked upon as divine being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VFA-family, "vrnparker" <vrnparker>

wrote:

> NOT WRITTEN BY VRIN

> Vedic Archeology

> Part 1: The Heliodorus Column

> Most Vaisnavas refer to Krishna as having appeared 5,000 years ago

> and generally credit Vedic civilization and Vaisnavism with great

> antiquity. But what hard, empirical proof do we have for this

> assertion? Certainly some archeological or other evidence must

exist

> to confirm or deny these claims. Herein, we shall survey the most

> prominent archeological discoveries that clearly demonstrate the

> antiquity of Krishna worship and Vaisnavism.

>

> CLICK LINK FOR ARTICLE WTH IMAGES

> http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-

upanisads/vedic-

> archeology.html

>

> First of all, detailed historical evidence of Vedic civilization

is

> not that easy to come by, since the Vedic culture itself seems to

> have not valued the keeping of histories. In his book Traditional

> India, O. L. Chavarria-Aguilar writes of Indians: "A more

> unhistorical people would be difficult to find." Vedic

civilization

> believed in recording the eternal and infinite. The ephemeral

> details of daily life (so much the concern of contemporary people)

> need not be recorded, since they had so little bearing on the

> larger, more significant goals of human life. Leisure time was to

be

> used for self-realization, cultural pursuits, and worship of God–

not

> rehashing current events or the past. Therefore, practically no

> histories, according to the Western concept of history, exist

today

> about ancient India, because none were written.

>

> Into this vacuum of historical data on India's past stepped the

> European scholars during the last several hundred years, and it is

> interesting to note how they first dealt with what they found.

> Religious scholars were especially shocked to observe the

remarkable

> similarities between the lives and philosophies of Krishna and

Jesus

> Christ. As a defensive reflex they automatically assumed that

> Indians must have come across Christianity in the early centuries

> after Christ's ministry and had assimilated much of it into their

> own religious tradition. This slant on Vaisnavism was called "the

> borrowing theory" and gained many adherents in the West.

Concerning

> this viewpoint, Hemchandra Raycaudhuri in his book Materials for

the

> Study of the Early History of the Vaisnava Sect writes, "The

> appearance in India of a religion of Bhakti [devotion] was, in the

> opinion of several eminent Western scholars, an event of purely

> Christian origin. Christianity, according to these scholars,

> exercised an influence of greater or less account on the worship

and

> story of Krishna."

>

> In 1762 in Rome, P. Georgi was the first Western scholar to

propound

> this theory. In his Alphabetum Tibetanum he wrote that "Krishnu"

is

> only a "corruption of the name of the Saviour; the deeds

correspond

> wonderfully with the name, though they have been impiously and

> cunningly polluted by most wicked imposters." The extreme

fanaticism

> of Georgi's position was soon repudiated by other Western

scholars.

> Even pro-Christian researchers admitted that the name Krishna

> existed before the birth of Jesus, but they still maintained that

> the life of Krishna and the philosophy of Vaisnavism had undergone

> major transformations because of Christian influence.

>

> In his monograph Uber die Krishnajanmasthami, Albrecht Weber

pointed

> out the many and striking similarities between the birth stories

of

> Krishna and Jesus. The following quote from his work notes many of

> these similarities:

>

> Take, for example the statement of the Vishnu Purana that Nanda,

the

> foster-father of Krishna, at the time of the latter's birth, went

> with his pregnant wife Yasoda to Mathura to pay taxes (cf. Luke

II,

> 4, 5) or the pictorial representation of the birth of Krishna in

the

> cowstall or shepherd's hut, that corresponds to the manger, and of

> the shepherds, shepherdesses, the ox and the ass that stand round

> the woman as she sleeps peacefully on her couch without fear of

> danger. Then the stories of the persecutions of Kamsa, of the

> massacre of the innocents, of the passage across the river

> (Christophorus), of the wonderful deeds of the child, of the

healing-

> virtue of the water in which he was washed, etc., etc. Whether the

> accounts given in the Jaimini Bharata of the raising to life by

> Krishna of the dead son of Duhsala, of the cure of Kubja, of her

> pouring a vessel of ointment over him, of the power of his look to

> take away sin, and other subjects of the kind came to India in the

> same connection with the birth-day festival may remain an open

> question.

>

> Weber even contended that the whole Vedic system of avatars, or

> incarnations of God, was "borrowed" from the "Incarnation of Jesus

> Christ."

>

> Dr. F. Lorinser translated the Bhagavad-gita and compared it

> scrupulously to the New Testament. He concluded, writes

> Raychaudhari, "that the author of the Hindu poem knew and used the

> Gospels and Christian Fathers." According to Lorinser, continues

> Raychaudhari, the similarities were "not single and obscure, but

> numerous and clear …" There was no doubt in Lorinser's mind that

the

> Bhagavat-gita had been largely "borrowed" from the New Testament.

>

> Other Western scholars disputed the borrowing theory. Sir William

> Jones' studies found Krishna to be one of the more ancient gods of

> India, who Vaisnavas asserted was "distinct from all the Avatars,

> who had only [a]…portion of his divinity …" In his fascinating and

> provocative work, On the Gods Of Greece, Italy, And India, Sir

> William Jones writes that "in the principal Sanskrit dictionary,

> compiled about two thousand years ago, Krishna, Vasudeva, Govinda,

> and other names of the Shepherd God, are intermixed with epithets

of

> Narayana, or the Divine Spirit." Following in the direction of Sir

> Jones' research, Edward Moore even went so far as to say that the

> popular Greek myths had some basis in real life and could be

traced

> ultimately to India. However, solid proof for either side escaped

> their grasp, and the scholars theorized and debated the issue back

> and forth. Literary evidence did exist in India to prove that

> Vaisnavism predated Christianity, but this evidence was brushed

> under the rug and given little credence until a Western literary

> source decided the issue once and for all.

>

> The most important and earliest non-Indian literary record of

> ancient India is found in the book, Indica, written by

Megasthenes.

> Sometime in the third century BC, Meghastenes journeyed to India.

> The King of Taxila had appointed him ambassador to the royal court

> at Pataliputra of the great Vaisnava monarch, Chandragupta.

> Evidently while there, Megasthenes wrote extensively on what he

> heard and saw. Unfortunately, none of Megasthenes' original book

> survived the ravages of time. However, through Megasthenes' early

> Greek and Roman commentators, like Arrian, Diodorus, and Strabo,

> fragments of his original work are available to us today, as well

as

> Megasthenes' general message. Dr. Hein reports that

> Megasthenes "described Mathura as a place of great regional

> importance and suggested that it was then, as now, a center of

> Krishna worship."

>

> Christian Lassen was the first Western scholar to bring

Megasthenes

> into the debate on the "borrowing theory." He noted that

Megasthenes

> wrote of Krishna under the pseudonym of Heracles and

> that "Heracles", or Krishna, was worshipped as God in the area

> through which the Yamuna River flows.

>

> A respected Indologist, Richard Garbe, agreed with Lassen's

analysis

> and called the testimony of Megasthenes indisputable. Soon,

scholars

> like Alan Dahlquist, who had formerly supported the "borrowing

> theory," changed their minds and admitted, in Dahlquist's words,

> that Garbe had "exploded Weber's theory once and for all." The

life

> of Krishna and the religion of Vaisnavism had not been influenced

by

> Christianity, but had appeared autonomously on Indian soil and was

> already well-established by at least the third century BC.

>

> With Megasthenes' proof in hand, the credibility of Indian

literary

> sources became enhanced. The great grammarian and author of the

Yoga

> Sutras, Patanjali, who lived in the second century BC, wrote that

> Krishna had slain the tyrant Kamsa in the far distant past.

> Raychaudhari tells us the exact words were "chirahate Kamse' which

> means that Kamsa's death occurred at a very remote time." In the

> fifth century BC, the greatest Sanskrit grammarian, Panini,

mentions

> that Vaisnavism "was even in the fifth century BC a religion of

> Bhakti," writes Raychaudhari. The Artha-shastra of Kautila, from

the

> fourth century BC, also refers several times to Krishna, while the

> Baudhayana Dharma Sutra of the same century gives twelve different

> names for Krishna, including popular ones like Keshava, Govinda,

and

> Damodara.

>

> Since Krishna is mentioned in the pre-Buddhistic Chandogya

Upanishad

> we must conclude that Krishna lived before Gautama Buddha (563?-?

483

> BC). The scriptures of the Jains push Krishna's life back farther

> still. Raychaudhari writes, "Jaina tradition makes Krishna a

> contemporary of Arishtanemi… who is the immediate predecessor of

> Parsvanatha…. As Parsvanatha flourished about 817 B.C., Krishna

must

> have lived long before the closing years of the ninth Century

B.C."

> Of course, the Srimad Bhagavatam and Mahabharata themselves place

> Krishna's life at about 3000 BC. Still, whatever the exact dates

of

> Krishna's earthly appearance and disappearance, because of the

> abundance of evidence of Krishna's antiquity, The Cambridge

History

> of India definitely states that Krishna worship predates

> Christianity by many centuries.

>

> Let us now turn our attention to the earliest archeological

> discoveries regarding Krishna's antiquity. By far the most

important

> discovery was made by the indefatigable General Sir Alexander

> Cunningham in 1877. During an archeological survey of Beshnagar in

> central India, he noted an ornamental column. The shape of the

> column caused Cunningham to attribute it erroneously to the period

> of the Gupta Dynasty (AD 300-550). Thirty-two years later,

however,

> a Mr. Lake felt he saw some lettering on the lower part of the

> column in an area where pilgrims customarily smeared it with a

lead,

> vermilion paint. When the thick, red paint was removed, Lake's

hunch

> was proven correct.

>

> Dr. J. H. Marshall, who accompanied Mr. Lake on this

investigation,

> was thrilled at the find's significance. In the Journal of the

Royal

> Asiatic Society in 1909, he described his conclusions. Cunningham

> had dated the column far too late and

>

> could little have dreamt of the value of the record which he just

> missed discovering…. A glance at the few letters exposed was all

> that was needed to show that the Column was many centuries earlier

> than the Gupta era. This was, indeed, a surprise to me, but a far

> greater one was in store when the opening lines of the inscription

> came to be read.

>

>

>

>

>

> The following transliteration and translation of this ancient

> Brahmi inscription was published in the Journal of the Royal

Asiatic

> Society (London: JRAS, Pub., 1909, pp. 1053-54.

>

> 1) Devadevasa Va [sude]vasa Garudadhvajo ayam 2) karito i[a]

> Heliodorena bhaga- 3) vatena Diyasa putrena Takhasilakena 4)

> Yonadatena agatena maharajasa 5) Amtalikitasa upa[m]ta samkasam-

rano

> 6) Kasiput[r]asa [bh]agabhadrasa tratarasa 7) vasena [chatu]dasena

> rajena vadhamanasa

>

> "This Garuda-column of Vasudeva (Visnu), the god of gods, was

> erected here by Heliodorus, a worshipper of Visnu, the son of

Dion,

> and an inhabitant of Taxila, who came as Greek ambassador from the

> Great King Antialkidas to King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, the Savior,

> then reigning prosperously in the fourteenth year of his kingship."

>

>

>

> The column had been erected in BC 113 by Heliodorus, a Greek

> ambassador to India. He, like Megasthenes, hailed from Taxila in

the

> Bactrian region of northwest India, which had been conquered by

> Alexander the Great in BC 325. By Heliodorus' time Taxila covered

> much of present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Punjab.

Taxila's

> king, Antialkidas, had sent Heliodorus to the court of King

> Bhagabhadra, but while Megasthenes had only written about Krishna

> and Vaisnavism, Heliodorus had found them so attractive that he

had

> adopted the practice of Vaisnavism for his own spiritual

advancement!

>

> Heliodorus' Column recognized Vasudeva, or Krishna, as the "God of

> gods."

>

> 1) Trini amutapadani‹[su] anuthitani 2) nayamti svaga damo chago

> apramado

>

> "Three immortal precepts (footsteps)... when practiced lead to

> heaven‹self-restraint, charity, consciousness."

>

> From this inscription it is clear Heliodorus was a Vaisnava, a

> devotee of Visnu.

>

>

>

>

> Raychaudhuri maintains that Heliodorus most probably was already

> acquainted with Vaisnavism in Taxila, even before he went to India

> proper, since, "It was at that city that Janamejaya heard from

> Vaishampayana the famous story of the Kurus and the Pandus [the

> Mahabharata]." Furthermore, Raychaudhuri then

suggests, "Heliodorus

> of Taxila actually heard and utilized the teaching of the great

> Epic, " since we know from Panini that the Epic was "well known to

> the people of Gandhara [Taxila]" long before the time of the Greek

> ambassador.

>

> In any case, by BC 113 Heliodorus publicly acknowledged in the

most

> conspicuous way that he held Vasudeva, or Krishna to be the "Gods

of

> all gods." He also had written on his column's inscription

> that "Three immortal precepts when practiced lead to heaven–self-

> restraint, charity, and conscientiousness." These three virtues

> appear in the exact same order in the Mahabharata, which makes

> Professor Kunja Govinda Swami of Calcutta University conclude that

> Heliodorus "was well acquainted with the texts dealing with the

> Bhagavat [Vaisnava] religion." Raychaudhuri concurs that "there

was

> some close connection between the teaching of the Mahabharata and

> that of the Besnagar Inscription," proving that Heliodorus was a

> knowledgeable devotee of Vaisnavism.

>

> The Heliodorus Column also struck down the myth that the Vedic

> religion never condoned the conversion of non-Indians to its fold.

> While this exclusionary tendency has been manifest here and there

in

> India (although much less so in Vaisnavism), the Islamic

historian,

> Abu Raihan Alberuni, maintains that it was not practiced until

> sometime after the Muslim incursions into India, which started

> around AD 674. Alberuni went to India to study in AD 1017 and

> published his findings in his book Indica (not to be confused with

> Megasthenes' work of the same title). He concluded that the

violent

> conflicts and forced conversions of Indians into Muslims made

> Indians adopt an exclusionary policy, more out of self-defense

than

> religious principle. He discovered that, for many centuries prior

to

> the Muslim invasions, there was no bar to conversions, and the

> Heliodorus Column certainly attests to this fact.

> --- End forwarded message ---

--- End forwarded message ---