Guest guest Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 , " kishore patnaik " <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: > > However, there is another name Puloman which is attested by Chinese > chronology. > > The name Puloma (fem.) or Puloman occurs in scriptures and almost always > denoted Demons i.e. tribes which were opposing Indra. > > In Mbh, they are associated with Nivata Kavaca , the Asuric tribes of South > India annihilated by Agastya. These Pulomas were conquested by Arjuna. > Thus, we can say that Pulomas are a " non Aryan " South Indian tribe. > > That Indra has come to South India from Iran , before he made his progress > towards Sapta Sindhu also is supported by this attestation of Pulomas. > Indra has married Saci by force and her father was an Asura by name > Puloma. Indra has killed him so that he can marry Saci. > What confusion. As plentifuly discussed on this list, " Arya " has gone through several changes of meanings, including in the time lapse considered here. Which non-Aryan were those Pulomas? Indra was out of fashion by the age of the MBh, you're talking of a Vedic situation concerning Indra, a pre-Vedic peregrination of Indra from Iran through South India to Sapta Sindhu, a post-Vedic conquest by Arjuna, and all this gets " attested " by Chinese sources from after 648 CE: > > Pouloumein of Chienese annals (Ho-lo-mien) died in 648 CE, according to De > Guignes (A.R. IX.87) . There is a further identification in the case of > Ho-lo-mien, which makes it certain that a prince of India was intended, as > he was called by the Chinese Potoli-tse-Ching (son of Potoli) . While some > have tried to identify this with Pataliputra, especially in view of the word > son, it is clear that Pataliputra has lost its fame by then and in any > case, was not ruled by any South Indian at that time. ( Magadha was being > ruled by One Purnavarman, who called himself a heir to Priyadarsi ; he was > a v assal of Harsha) > > Thus, it is clear that Pulomein of Chinese annalas was of Potali , Bodhan > in Andhra Pradesh. > At this point I must repeat: When a Hindutva history-rewriter says " Thus, it is clear that... " or any similar logical connector ( " so " , " therefore " , " now you can no longer deny that... " ), you'd better reach for your gun. A fallacy is coming. Why should Po-to-li be Bodhan? > Bodhan was traditionally connected to the kingdom of Asmaka or Assaka , who > have later ruled Magadha, before Andhra bhrityus for 442 years. They were > replaced by their own servants but continued to be a powerful kingdom in > the South as attested by Megasthanese. > who wrote in ca. 300 BC, yet in your account manages to confirm a Chinese account thousand years younger about a king who died in 648 CE. This is a pretty dramatic illustration, yet one more, of the Hindu lack of any sense of history, i.c. of time depth. For you, history is a canvas without depth, with all events from all ages at the same distance. Kind regards, KE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 >You people have been call the Devas as Aryan and Asuras as Nonaryan >hich is wrong.According to Vedas and allied Literature Both the >Devas and Asuras are ARYAN since they are born of same Father >Prajapati Maharshi KASHYAPA but different mothers.The Daityas and >Danavas are together called ASURAS .The sons of Diti are called >Daityas and the sons of Danu are called Danavas.The Devas , son s of >Aditi are called Adityaas. How can brothers of same fathers be >differentiated culturally? Dear VK, Aryans do not specify a race. It points more to culture than to race. Truly speaking, we (at least me) only intuitively understand this word and as such, the sociologists have failed to define it accurately. I considered the alternatives as Non Vedic etc but most of them will become misnomers. For e.g., Asuric Brahmins such as Bhrigu followed Vedic rites (as did Vritra and Ravana) but Rakasasas did not follow the same. We understand from texts that there is cultural difference between Asuras (more civilized) and Raksasas, the Daityas often pointing to the kings of these tribes. Yet, Asuric Brahmins were as opposed to Indra as were Raksasas. On the other hand, the historical times saw " Aryans " such as Buddha rejecting Vedic Rituals. Btw, Ravana was addressed as Aryans a couple of times by his wife Mandodari in Valmiki Ramayan. Thus, these Asuras can not be denoted as Non Aryan or non Vedic. Vipracitti is certainly Daitya and a vedic seer(as mentioned in Br Up) .. RV attests that mother of Vrtra is also Diti and she was felled by Indra. Here, Vrtra was certainly not a son of Kasyapa whereas Indra was. The basic definition, as I understand it, of Asuric Brahmins go to the listing of Navabrahmas. We can broadly vivisect them into asuric Brahmins (Bhrigu, Vasistha, Agastya, Pulastya, Pulaha etc) and non Asuric Brahmins (Angiras, Narada etc). As always, Kasyapa is a general Janata group - perhaps created for 'adjustment of ambiguity' (The word Kasyapa itself means a tortoise, adjusting itself to two kinds of living environs,land and water) and thus created space for both Devas and Asuras. In my note earlier, I have not talked of Asuric Brahmins but Demons which has to be differentiated. Demons are less civilized tribes from various areas of India and Pulomas (read Andhras) are one such tribe. The ancient Andhras are not confined to Pulomas alone. For e.g,you would see that Vanaras and Mallas are Andhras. Similarly, you have ascetic group " Pisacas " belonging Andhra area. No doubt, all these concepts have to evolve more precisely but for that, the social scholars need to be more India centric than PIE. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 They just keep on coming. Here's another example of Hindutva incompetence regarding historical depth: , venkata krishnan <bcvk71 wrote: > > Dear All, > I would like to make one important clarification rather correction of blunder committed by all historians and archaeologists.You people have been call the Devas as Aryan and Asuras as Nonaryan which is wrong.According to Vedas and allied Literature Both the Devas and Asuras are ARYAN since they are born of same Father Prajapati Maharshi KASHYAPA but different mothers.The Daityas and Danavas are together called ASURAS .The sons of Diti are called Daityas and the sons of Danu are called Danavas.The Devas , son s of Aditi are called Adityaas. How can brothers of same fathers be differentiated culturally?< Originally, Deva and Asura both meant " god " and were worshipped by the same people, both Indians and Iranians. Later they were ethnically appropriated, Deva Indian and Asura Iranian. Since both called themserlves Arya and their neighbours Anarya, you could say they both turned the other's family of gods into Anarya. Devas and Asuras " existed " prior to the fabrication of a genealogy for them involving Kashyapa. If you want to resolve these questions with Puranic fairy-tales as authority, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. And of course, brothers, meaning sons of the same father, can very well be differentiated culturally. Thus, a Hindu converting to Christianity differs culturally from his still-Hindu brother. Why don't you do some thinking before claiming our attention for your outpourings? KE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:58 PM, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: " That you have not done your home work here is clear. Potali is Bodhan is long accepted. Assakas hail from Potali (and hence, Bodhan) is also accepted from Buddhist literature and Mbh. What is new in my thinking is only connecting Puloman to Potali instead of Pataliputra. " Long back in Indology Listserv (not Indology Group) I have on the basis of various factors identified it with ettipotala near Nagarjunakonda. Those who are interested can go through those archives. regards, Sarma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 [if Arya is a PIE or atleast IIr word, then how come the word across the countries came to develope the same kind meaning over the centuries, " especially in the absence of a parellel Varna system in Iran " ? Al Birunu in his book on India mentions that besides India Iran was the only other place where they had four classes, which came to an end with the advent of Islam. Ravindra , " kishore patnaik " <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: > > Thank you for the post, very patiently explained. I know what kind of head > aches you have to face > to post such a long message. > > All your understanding is correct if you simply look at only PIE and IIr > linguistics. > > In fact, I had long discussions over this and scores of linguists tried to > explain to me their stand on Arya. > > Need less to mention, I am not convinced about the derivation of the > meanings. > > The very primitive meaning seems to be 'stranger' or perhaps, " guest; > Chronologically where this stands I don;t know but I remember that this is > the most primitive meaning we can think of Arya. > > Some of the schools try to distinguish between lingusitc Arya ( " Aryan " as > used in , say, Indo Aryan languages) with the word Arya. > > While Arya could be mentioning a " respectable " person, (used as an address, > equivalent to " sir " in English. If I were to be writing a letter in Telugu > to President of Zambia, still my letter will start with " Arya " !), there is > absolutely no doubt that this must be a later attestation, used in late > epics such as Ramayan and Mbh. However, I do not remember seeing this > attestation in any of the classical works, though I remember someone > mentioning that Sakuntala calls Dushyant an " Arya " , In fact, if I get > myself to believe wikipedia, it mentions the meaning of Arya from Amara > kosa, certainly a late (and standard) Dictionary on Sanskrit, as a > Respectable person. In the same breath, it mentions that Iranian cognate > Airya also means the same. > > [if Arya is a PIE or atleast IIr word, then how come the word across the > countries came to develope the same kind meaning over the centuries, > especially in the absence of a parellel Varna system in Iran? In other > words, it is only possible that the word Arya is autochthonous to India with > its primitive meanings such as stranger, our guy, guest, agriculturist and > so on and Iran borrowed the word, along with a corpus of other linguistic > elements, in the late 10 th C. Apparently, the word Arya has come to mean a > respectable person by then and hence, the chronology of what all you have > written has to be advanced by centuries. > > My two cents. > > Kishore patnaik > > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elstwrote: > > > <% 40>, > > " Kishore patnaik " > > <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote: > > > > > > Aryans do not specify a race. It points more to culture than to > > race.< > > > > " Arya " / " Airiia " /Ara " , from PIE to Vedic, Avestan c.q. Hittite, > > means " fellow tribesman " , " one of us " . It is not racial in the modern > > sense (unlike in the 19th-century understanding, when " race " had all > > the meanings of " jati " , from " family " to " the human race " and all > > genetic groupings in between, apart from non-genetic groupings > > like " the Muslim race " ), but it is ethnic. > > > > In the Vedas, the Pauravas referred to themselvces and to their own > > creation, the Vedas and the Vedic culture, as " Arya " . Later, in the > > time between Krishna and the Buddha, when the Vedas became the > > standard for people across India, most of them non-Pauravas, and the > > Paurava identity dissolved, " Arya " came to mean " Vedic " and > > everything connoted by " Vedic " , including later accretions to Veda- > > based tradition that were not extant in the original Vedas > > (prudishness, vegetarianism, belief in reincarnation, perhaps cow > > worship). It retained this meaning in post-Buddha centuries in > > circles ideologically attached to the Hinduism developed in the post- > > Vedic age and symbolized by Krishna and the Gita. Thus, as the Vedic > > tradition became more casteist, caste observation was deemed an > > essential part of being Arya, viz. in the Manu Smrti. > > > > However, meanwhile, " Arya " had acquired a vaguer meaning as well, > > expanding from " Vedic " specifically to " civilized, noble " generally. > > When the Buddha used the term in his Catvari-Arya-Satyanai and his > > Arya-Ashtangika-Marga, he may have meant it in this general sense > > (that's how most modern translators understand it) but equally > > possibly, he may have meant that his teaching was essentially Vedic. > > The Vedas were already a distant memory then, incorporated into > > totally un-Vedic teachings, such as the Mimansa (Islamic avant la > > lettre) doctrine that the Vedas had been divinely revealed or were > > even eternal, an incrustration that must have been conspicuous even > > to non-scholars like prince Siddhartha Gautama. While the Vedas had > > already been dusted over, they certainly had the aura of higher > > truth, so the Buddha,without knowing much about their exact contents, > > confidently asserted the authenticity of his own teaching by linking > > it to the original and authetic authority of the Vedas, as against > > the mediocre and contrived understanding and application given to the > > Vedas by contemporaneous Brahmins. > > > > > Truly speaking, we (at least me) only intuitively understand this > > > word and as such, the sociologists have failed to define it > > > accurately.< > > > > Not only the sociologists. Many devout Hindus have tried to > > incorporate the Vedic notion of " Arya " into their non-Vedic Puranic > > belief system or more recently even into borrowed modern liberalism > > (the Vedas as egalitarian and feminist, Swami Agnivesh's " Vedic > > socialism " ). Thus, they claim that " Arya " means " good " (or more > > trendily, " spiritual " ) and Anarya means " bad " ( " unspiritual " ). In > > reality, it simply means " Paurava " and " non-Paurava " , and in both you > > find people who by objective standards are good or bad, spiritual or > > non-spiritual. > > > > > For e.g., Asuric Brahmins such as Bhrigu followed Vedic rites (as > > did > > > Vritra and Ravana) but Rakasasas did not follow the same. We > > > understand from texts that there is cultural difference between > > Asuras > > > (more civilized) and Raksasas, the Daityas often pointing to the > > kings > > > of these tribes. Yet, Asuric Brahmins were as opposed to Indra as > > were > > > Raksasas.< > > > > As soon as " Asura " acquires an ethnic connotation in the late-Rg- > > Vedic period, it refers to Iranians, Ahura-worshippers. Later, > > like " Yavana " and " Mleccha " , it loses its specific ethnic meaning and > > comes to mean " foreigners " or " barbarians " in general. Of course, the > > first big job will now be to make you understand this chronological > > difference: the word did not have the same meaning at every point in > > history. Asura-priests, if meaning post-Sudas and esp. post- Rjashva > > Iranians, would be not merely without Indra, as many non-Paurava and > > non-IE peoples would have been, but even anti-Indra. The Zoroastrians > > rejected Indra, threw him out of their pantheon at one point and > > turned him into a devil. > > > > > On the other hand, the historical times saw " Aryans " such as > > > Buddha rejecting Vedic Rituals.< > > > > Like all Hindus on this list, the Buddha probably attributed to the > > Vedas his own beliefs. He often speaks of the " true Brahmin " > > contrasting him with the Brahmins he encountered, apparently positing > > as the " true Brahmin " 's doctrinal basis a " true Veda " different from > > the so-called Vedic traditions of his own age. Therefore he could > > reject the " Vedic " rituals he saw around him, of which he, hazily but > > correctly, surmised they were something different from what the > > idealized original Vedas must have meant. > > > > If we moderns place ourselves in his position, we would say that at > > any rate, the Buddha was right to reject rituals, even true and > > original Vedic rituals, because the latter's purpose was wholly > > different from his own. The Vedic rituals were not " spiritual " , they > > were quite worldly, serving to enhance people's worldly success, > > whereas the Buddha rejected the world and spurned worldly success as > > but a temporary sweetener keeping us attached to the predominantly > > miserable world. This is hard to explain to modern Hindus, who are in > > their doctrinal professings crypto-Buddhists, believing in a wheel of > > reincarnation tying us to this vale of tears from which me must > > escape,-- a wholly un-Vedic notion which they constantly try to > > impute to the Vedas. > > > > > Btw, Ravana was addressed as Aryans a > > > couple of times by his wife Mandodari in Valmiki Ramayan. Thus, > > these > > > Asuras can not be denoted as Non Aryan or non Vedic. > > > > > > > " Thus " here presupposes that the terms concerned can only have one > > meaning. Again, as ever, a Hindutva lack of logic and/or a lack of > > historicity. If taken in its later ethical meaning, perhaps Ravana > > could be judged " Anarya " . But in its Gita-age meaning of " Vedic " , > > Ravana was an " Arya " , a Brahmin of the Pulastya lineage practising > > Vedic rituals. And in its original PIE and Rg-Vedic meaning > > of " Paurava " , whether Ravana was an " Arya " only depends on whether > > the Pulastya clan belonged to the Paurava tribe. > > > > > Vipracitti is certainly Daitya and a vedic seer(as mentioned in Br > > Up) > > > . RV attests that mother of Vrtra is also Diti and she was felled by > > > Indra. Here, Vrtra was certainly not a son of Kasyapa whereas Indra > > was. > > > > > > > Look at this, 21-st-century people arguing history but using > > scirptural arguments. And this in a childlike manner, taking these > > Puranic names at face value, not understanding that, among other > > things, they may have symbolic meanings, personalizing astronomical > > or ethical or other ideas, or that two names may refer to the same > > character (Manu's father was Surya, but it was " also " Vivasvat), or > > that one name may refer to different people, in different ages or > > traditions of writing, or even simultaneously. When you read the very > > first PIE theorists, they are so funny because they try their hand at > > the embryonic historical and philological method yet also still > > thinking in Biblical terms, with the " Aryans " being descendents of > > Jafeth, son of Flood survivor Noah, the Asuras being the Assyrians > > etc. You people are still in that stage, mixing modern archaeology > > etc. with literalist reading of the Itihasa-Purana. It's really quite > > comical. > > > > Cheers, > > > > KE > > > > > The basic definition, as I understand it, of Asuric Brahmins go to > > the > > > listing of Navabrahmas. We can broadly vivisect them into asuric > > > Brahmins (Bhrigu, Vasistha, Agastya, Pulastya, Pulaha etc) and non > > > Asuric Brahmins (Angiras, Narada etc). > > > > > > As always, Kasyapa is a general Janata group - perhaps created for > > > 'adjustment of ambiguity' (The word Kasyapa itself means a tortoise, > > > adjusting itself to two kinds of living environs,land and water) and > > > thus created space for both Devas and Asuras. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I have only one reference to Sriparvata, it is always given as Srisailam. {Hist. Atlas of South Asia, UChicago Press, 1978} Kathie B. Parvata means mountain. Usuallly, Malai or Giri or Sailam (crest) are taken its equivalent words. Thus, Sri Sailam is taken as equivalent to Sri parvata. Similarly, Thiru (sacred or Tamil equivalent of Sri) Maai (mount) is also taken equivalent to sri parvata. While Srisaiam is largely accepted as Sriparvata, tirumalai as Sriparvata is not accepted. Literature or inscriptions in and around Tirumalai dating from 8th C. (or probably, even 6th C) do not allow us to equate Sriparvata as one of the names of Tirumalai, though both Sriparvata and Tirumalai mean the same. On the other hand, Srisailam could not be the Sriparvata of Satavahanas since , as I have mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Srisailam is specifically mentioned as Sritana. Now, coming ot Sarma's Potali = Ettipotala and hence, Nagarjuna hill = Sri Parvata. This is largely accepted not because there is any incriptional evidence but because Nagarjuna is widely associated with Satavahanas and said to be their contemporary, with Dhanyakataka is taken as Amaravati. Yet, I am not really inclined to accept because I think Sriparvata is situated somewhere in Maharashtra and Andhra border. There is one more Sriparvata and Potala mentioned by one chines traveller Hiuen Tsang " The description of Potalka in Hiuen Tsang's own words, is as follows.: " To the east of the Malaya mountaains is Mount Po-ta-lo-kia (Potalaka). The passes of this mmountain are very dangerous; its sides are precipitous, and its valleys rugged. On the top of the mountain is a lake; its waters are clear as a mirror. From a hallow proceeds a great river which encircles the mountain as flows down twenty times and then enters the southern sea. By the side of the lake is a rock-palace of the Devas. Here Avalokitesvara in coming and going, takes his abode. Those who strongly desire to see this Bodhisattva do not regard their lives, but, crossing the water (fording the streaams), climb the mountain forgetful of its difficulties and dangers, of those who make the attempt there are very few who reach the summit. But even of those who dwell below the mountain, if they earnestly pray and beg to behold the god, sometimes he appears as Tsz'-tsai-t'-ien (Isvara-deva), sometimes under the form of a Yogi (a Pamsupata); he addresses them with benevolent words and then they obtain their wishes according to their desires. Going north-east from this mountain, on the border of the sea, is a town; this is the place from which they start for the Southern sea and the country of Sang-Kia-lo (Ceylon). It is said commonly by the people that embarking from this port and going south-east about 3000 li we come to the country of Simhala. " [samuel Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, pp. 233 ff.] " Again, I am not incllined to accept that Potali and Potalokia are same - for a very simple reason that Chinese Annals mentioned earlier mention about Potali to be a capital of king and hence, it certainly could not be a remote place. On the other hand, Potallokia is sought to be connected with Tiruumalai but it is not possible since inscriptions of kings exist atleat around the same time as that of Hiuen Tsang or even little earlier. In sum, while Sriparvata of Satavhanas is yet to be identified, we can not equate it with either Tirumala or Srisailam though I am still open about Nagarjuna hill. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 , " Dr. Rabinder K. Koul " <arrk00 wrote: > > From Shrikant Taalagiris work , RigVedic History, it seems that it > is only Pururavas who call themselves " Arya " and no one else. In the > same way it is Persians who call themselves Arya, and none else. It > seems that calling " Arya " implied to be some one having desirable > attributes. And that may be why both the " Pururavas " and the > Persians used this name only to themselves or may be occasionaly to > some one who they really liked. > No, not even someone they liked. They kept the term " Arya " exclusively for themselves, including fellow tribesmen whom they did not like (e.g. traitors) and excluding foreigners they did like (e.g. military alllies like Mandhatr). Only when non-Pauravas massively adopted thev Paurava Vedic culture as their cultural standard did the meaning shift from ethnic Paurava to cultural Vedic. KE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 SriparvataA reference of Sriparvata comes from the times of the Kadambas of Banavasi, who ruled in the fifth and sixth century. Early scholars, including M.H. Krishna,M.Govinda Pai, K.P. Jaiswal, S.Srikantha Sastry, and P.B.Desai, had suggested different Hills and tried to identify Srishaila with-- i.Srishaila of Andhra Pradesh. ii.Halebidu in Karnataka iii.Ucchangi in Chitradurga Dt.( Karnataka) iv.Muragodu in Belgaum Dt. v.Shishila in South Kanara vi. Shringeri in Chikkamagalur Dt. vii. Nallamalai Hill range. etc. The earliest reference of Sriparvata, and not Triparvata which was a misreading, comes from the TAlagunda Inscription of the sixth century CE. But recent research has clearly established that the area in and around the modern Dhavalappana Gudda or the Hill of Dhavalappa, on the outskirts of Chitradurga ( a District Head Quarters in Karnataka) is the ancient Sriparvata. An inscription( popularly referred as the Chandravalli inscription) in Sanskrit, of Mayuravarma ( C. 4th century CE) found at the site states that Mayuravarma of the Kadambas renovated an existing tank here. Astonishingly the age old tank continues to be in tact at the spot !.Added to this , burnt bricks of the Satavahana epoch are extant at the spot.Besides one more inscription of 400CE has come to light at the same place. Thus the above Sriparvata is of historical importance. Dr. Hampa.Nagarajaiah Emeritus Professor --- On Thu, 9/10/08, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09Re: Re: Difference between Puloman and Pulomavi , dvnsarmaDate: Thursday, 9 October, 2008, 2:33 PM I have only one reference to Sriparvata, it is always given as Srisailam. {Hist. Atlas of South Asia, UChicago Press, 1978}Kathie B. Parvata means mountain. Usuallly, Malai or Giri or Sailam (crest) are taken its equivalent words. Thus, Sri Sailam is taken as equivalent to Sri parvata. Similarly, Thiru (sacred or Tamil equivalent of Sri) Maai (mount) is also taken equivalent to sri parvata. While Srisaiam is largely accepted as Sriparvata, tirumalai as Sriparvata is not accepted. Literature or inscriptions in and around Tirumalai dating from 8th C. (or probably, even 6th C) do not allow us to equate Sriparvata as one of the names of Tirumalai, though both Sriparvata and Tirumalai mean the same. On the other hand, Srisailam could not be the Sriparvata of Satavahanas since , as I have mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Srisailam is specifically mentioned as Sritana. Now, coming ot Sarma's Potali = Ettipotala and hence, Nagarjuna hill = Sri Parvata.This is largely accepted not because there is any incriptional evidence but because Nagarjuna is widely associated with Satavahanas and said to be their contemporary, with Dhanyakataka is taken as Amaravati. Yet, I am not really inclined to accept because I think Sriparvata is situated somewhere in Maharashtra and Andhra border. There is one more Sriparvata and Potala mentioned by one chines traveller Hiuen Tsang" The description of Potalka in Hiuen Tsang's own words, is as follows.: "To the east of the Malaya mountaains is Mount Po-ta-lo-kia (Potalaka). The passes of this mmountain are very dangerous; its sides are precipitous, and its valleys rugged. On the top of the mountain is a lake; its waters are clear as a mirror. From a hallow proceeds a great river which encircles the mountain as flows down twenty times and then enters the southern sea. By the side of the lake is a rock-palace of the Devas. Here Avalokitesvara in coming and going, takes his abode. Those who strongly desire to see this Bodhisattva do not regard their lives, but, crossing the water (fording the streaams), climb the mountain forgetful of its difficulties and dangers, of those who make the attempt there are very few who reach the summit. But even of those who dwell below the mountain, if they earnestly pray and beg to behold the god, sometimes he appears as Tsz'-tsai-t'-ien (Isvara-deva) , sometimes under the form of a Yogi (a Pamsupata); he addresses them with benevolent words and then they obtain their wishes according to their desires. Going north-east from this mountain, on the border of the sea, is a town; this is the place from which they start for the Southern sea and the country of Sang-Kia-lo (Ceylon). It is said commonly by the people that embarking from this port and going south-east about 3000 li we come to the country of Simhala." [samuel Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, pp. 233 ff.]" Again, I am not incllined to accept that Potali and Potalokia are same - for a very simple reason that Chinese Annals mentioned earlier mention about Potali to be a capital of king and hence, it certainly could not be a remote place. On the other hand, Potallokia is sought to be connected with Tiruumalai but it is not possible since inscriptions of kings exist atleat around the same time as that of Hiuen Tsang or even little earlier. In sum, while Sriparvata of Satavhanas is yet to be identified, we can not equate it with either Tirumala or Srisailam though I am still open about Nagarjuna hill. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 > As I have mentioned in my initial postings to the >group with concrete evidences, which you have not approved to the >group still, the word Arya was used only Culturally and never racially >and I again agree with you over this. I did not reject any of your posts nor do I think there is anything pending. Please confirm. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 SriparvataA reference of Sriparvata comes from the times of the Kadambas of Banavasi, who ruled in the fifth and sixth century. Early scholars, including M.H. Krishna,M.Govinda Pai, K.P. Jaiswal, S.Srikantha Sastry, and P.B.Desai, had suggested different Hills and tried to identify Srishaila with-- i.Srishaila of Andhra Pradesh. ii.Halebidu in Karnataka iii.Ucchangi in Chitradurga Dt.( Karnataka) iv.Muragodu in Belgaum Dt. v.Shishila in South Kanara vi. Shringeri in Chikkamagalur Dt. vii. Nallamalai Hill range. etc. The earliest reference of Sriparvata, and not Triparvata which was a misreading, comes from the TAlagunda Inscription of the sixth century CE. But recent research has clearly established that the area in and around the modern Dhavalappana Gudda or the Hill of Dhavalappa, on the outskirts of Chitradurga ( a District Head Quarters in Karnataka) is the ancient Sriparvata. An inscription( popularly referred as the Chandravalli inscription) in Sanskrit, of Mayuravarma ( C. 4th century CE) found at the site states that Mayuravarma of the Kadambas renovated an existing tank here. Astonishingly the age old tank continues to be in tact at the spot !.Added to this , burnt bricks of the Satavahana epoch are extant at the spot.Besides one more inscription of 400CE has come to light at the same place. Thus the above Sriparvata is of historical importance. Dr. Hampa.Nagarajaiah Emeritus Professor --- On Thu, 9/10/08, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09Re: Re: Difference between Puloman and Pulomavi , dvnsarmaDate: Thursday, 9 October, 2008, 2:33 PM I have only one reference to Sriparvata, it is always given as Srisailam. {Hist. Atlas of South Asia, UChicago Press, 1978}Kathie B. Parvata means mountain. Usuallly, Malai or Giri or Sailam (crest) are taken its equivalent words. Thus, Sri Sailam is taken as equivalent to Sri parvata. Similarly, Thiru (sacred or Tamil equivalent of Sri) Maai (mount) is also taken equivalent to sri parvata. While Srisaiam is largely accepted as Sriparvata, tirumalai as Sriparvata is not accepted. Literature or inscriptions in and around Tirumalai dating from 8th C. (or probably, even 6th C) do not allow us to equate Sriparvata as one of the names of Tirumalai, though both Sriparvata and Tirumalai mean the same. On the other hand, Srisailam could not be the Sriparvata of Satavahanas since , as I have mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Srisailam is specifically mentioned as Sritana. Now, coming ot Sarma's Potali = Ettipotala and hence, Nagarjuna hill = Sri Parvata.This is largely accepted not because there is any incriptional evidence but because Nagarjuna is widely associated with Satavahanas and said to be their contemporary, with Dhanyakataka is taken as Amaravati. Yet, I am not really inclined to accept because I think Sriparvata is situated somewhere in Maharashtra and Andhra border. There is one more Sriparvata and Potala mentioned by one chines traveller Hiuen Tsang" The description of Potalka in Hiuen Tsang's own words, is as follows.: "To the east of the Malaya mountaains is Mount Po-ta-lo-kia (Potalaka). The passes of this mmountain are very dangerous; its sides are precipitous, and its valleys rugged. On the top of the mountain is a lake; its waters are clear as a mirror. From a hallow proceeds a great river which encircles the mountain as flows down twenty times and then enters the southern sea. By the side of the lake is a rock-palace of the Devas. Here Avalokitesvara in coming and going, takes his abode. Those who strongly desire to see this Bodhisattva do not regard their lives, but, crossing the water (fording the streaams), climb the mountain forgetful of its difficulties and dangers, of those who make the attempt there are very few who reach the summit. But even of those who dwell below the mountain, if they earnestly pray and beg to behold the god, sometimes he appears as Tsz'-tsai-t'-ien (Isvara-deva) , sometimes under the form of a Yogi (a Pamsupata); he addresses them with benevolent words and then they obtain their wishes according to their desires. Going north-east from this mountain, on the border of the sea, is a town; this is the place from which they start for the Southern sea and the country of Sang-Kia-lo (Ceylon). It is said commonly by the people that embarking from this port and going south-east about 3000 li we come to the country of Simhala." [samuel Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, pp. 233 ff.]" Again, I am not incllined to accept that Potali and Potalokia are same - for a very simple reason that Chinese Annals mentioned earlier mention about Potali to be a capital of king and hence, it certainly could not be a remote place. On the other hand, Potallokia is sought to be connected with Tiruumalai but it is not possible since inscriptions of kings exist atleat around the same time as that of Hiuen Tsang or even little earlier. In sum, while Sriparvata of Satavhanas is yet to be identified, we can not equate it with either Tirumala or Srisailam though I am still open about Nagarjuna hill. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Katherine Brobeck <sivadasi wrote: I have that Potali is PAITHAN, Paithan Dist., Maharashtra. KathieCertainly I doubt that. Without proof, this must have been a result of confusion due to wrong mix up of Andhras, Andhra bhrityus and Satavahanas. We have seen earlier that Pulomans and Pulomavis are different who are mixed up by the historians. No wonder they wrongly identified Potali with Paithan, which is totally unrelated. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Dear Kathie, An older text book http://tinyurl.com/3tflo9 identifies Potali with Paithan. But there are articles to suggest the contrary. Please refer http://www.jstor.org/pss/600650. There are other references also available towards this. There is one Potali putta (or Potaliya) who was among the Parivrajakas contemporaneous to Buddha. His ancestry is unknown. A conversation he had with the Buddha is recorded in the Anguttara Nikâya. At the end of the discussion he declared himself the Buddha's follower.Hope this helps, regards, Kishore patnaik P.s : However, I am open to what you have to say further. On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:43 AM, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Katherine Brobeck <sivadasi wrote: I have that Potali is PAITHAN, Paithan Dist., Maharashtra. KathieCertainly I doubt that. Without proof, this must have been a result of confusion due to wrong mix up of Andhras, Andhra bhrityus and Satavahanas. We have seen earlier that Pulomans and Pulomavis are different who are mixed up by the historians. No wonder they wrongly identified Potali with Paithan, which is totally unrelated. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.