Difference between Puloman and Pulomavi

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

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

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

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.

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.

> > >

> >

>

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

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

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

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

October 11, 2008