Greater Magadha: Evaluation and Retrospective An online symposium to discuss the Greater Magadha hypothesis of Johannes Bronkhorst
285 views
Skip to first unread message
Nagaraj Paturi
Apr 28, 2021, 12:38:48 PM4/28/21
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Was shared on Indology list:
Greater Magadha: Evaluation and Retrospective
An online symposium to discuss the Greater Magadha hypothesis of Johannes Bronkhorst
May 6 - 9, 2021 · University of Alberta (online)
In his 2007 book Greater Magadha, Johannes Bronkhorst proposed a new theory for the historical formation of Indian culture in the mid-first millennium BCE. The theory proposed that a cultural and geographical area, Greater Magadha, was settled by an early wave of Indo-European speakers. A second wave of Indo-European speakers, carriers of Vedic culture, subsequently encountered the Greater Magadhans to the east and the resultant cultural meeting gave rise to the main features known in later Indian history. The Greater Magadha theory addresses many deep problems about the early formation of Indian culture that have long puzzled historians. It has been widely accepted, but has also given rise to serious criticism. This symposium will bring together some of the principal scholars who have engaged with the theory to discuss and retrospectively evaluate the theory just over a decade after it was proposed.
This symposium is hosted by Prof. Dominik Wujastyk at the Department of History, Classics and Religion at the University of Alberta and with the financial support of the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
The symposium will be conducted online as a Zoom Webinar.
Full details of the symposium and registration are available at this website:
Best wishes,
Dominik Wujastyk
Bijoy Misra
Apr 28, 2021, 1:06:26 PM4/28/21
to Bharatiya Vidvat parishad
This is so circuitous! People who have little to do with India can create hypothesis on India!
Let Rajiv Malhotra respond.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/8f1da9a3-fe9d-4d3f-915a-efc5f976a3bdn%40googlegroups.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
Apr 28, 2021, 1:10:27 PM4/28/21
to Bharatiya Vidvat parishad
It is a good practice to first attend and see.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjVoYpXXtLcSB3rWjfLsUpmuyPFGXVhVp4B9in4keU2J9w%40mail.gmail.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
Director, Indic Academy
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra
BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala
BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.
Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru
BoS Rashtram School of Public Leadership
Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership
Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies,
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
Bijoy Misra
Apr 28, 2021, 1:19:33 PM4/28/21
to Bharatiya Vidvat parishad
I have read the papers. No merit!
The premise itself has no basis!
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZ3Ref0C-30oD1mZAE4errOVTxB3fRf3JpN5tDpYat9YA%40mail.gmail.com.
Ram Sury
May 4, 2021, 3:32:31 PM5/4/21
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namas Sarvebhyaḥ,
Prof. Bronkhorst's theory of Greater Magadha is a rather baseless theory - it relies on the stale Victorian era presumption (which is still being thrown around as some kind of incontrovertible fact) that Magadha itself was located somewhere in Bihar with its headquarters at Patna - and Greater Magadha (according to Prof. Bronkhorst) was the region in and around Magadha conquered and dominated by a society that had very less to do with the Vedic Brahmins (who he thinks, were living west of his fictional Greater Magadha region).
So he postulates in his book that Greater Magadha in the north-eastern part of India was the home of prakrit, Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivikism, and other non-Brahmanical religions opposed to Vedic Brahmins, and they had their royal patrons (like the Mauryans, Ajatashatru, Bimbisara etc who were also similarly opposed to Vedic brahmins) etc.
It can be proved beyond doubt that much of modern-Western Indology is in caught in hopeless net of paradoxes due to these kinds of wild Western hypotheses ruling the roost (and this theory of Prof. Bronkhorst will do nothing to alleviate the confusion, it merely adds to it). It has been a decade since the book was published and I have not seen anyone pointing out the obvious absurdity of his theory convincingly. So here let me point out one fact that I think will debunk his hypothesis. It is about the location of Girivraja - the capital of Magadha.
It has already been conclusively proved that Pali is a western-Indo-Aryan language (not an Eastern-Indo-Aryan language) very close to (and seems to be modelled on) the language of the Girnar edicts of Ashoka. We also know for a fact that before Pataliputra became the capital of the Mauryans, the capital of the Magadha janapada was Girivraja (also called Rājagṛha). As the name Girivraja itself indicates, it was a location encircled by mountains (and was unique enough to get that name and therefore could not be confused with any other hilly location in the area). As we can see on the Google Terrain Map of Girnar ( https://www.google.com/maps/@21.5227483,70.5575434,12z/data=!5m1!1e4 ), it clearly shows a place that is encircled by hills, and since we know for sure that is an important place is associated with Ashoka as he has left his 14 major rock edicts at this location. Also the king Rudradāman I (ruled 130–150 CE) has mentioned in his inscription at Girnar right next to Ashoka's inscriptions that this place was associated with Chandragupta Maurya as well. So Girnar has a history that is pre-Ashokan and clearly fits the name of Girivraja. Its current name Girnar (< Girinagara) is also close to Girivraja.
Also in Girnar Major Rock Edict 5 - Ashoka says in one of the lines: Pāṭalipute ca bāhiresu ca nagaresu
The same line of the same RE5 in Kalsi, Uttarakhand reads: hid[ā] bā[h]ilesu cā naga[l]esu
The same line of the same RE5 in Shahbazgarhi (near Peshwar) reads: ia bhahireśu ca nagareśu
The same line of the same RE5 in Mansehra (near Abbotabad & Muzaffarabad, Kashmir) reads: hida bahireṣu ca nagareṣ[u]
The same line of the same RE5 in Dhauli (in Odisha) reads: hida ca bāhilesu ca nagalesu
So we see that only at Girnar is the name Pataliputra mentioned (in all other places of the subcontinent, it is replaced by hida i.e. iha) - which certainly means that only the people around Girnar were expected to know the location of Pāṭaliputra (as it was close to that location). At the other places where the name Pāṭaliputra would not be recognized (as it was a new city built in the Mauryan era) unlike Girivraja, the edicts did not mention the name. But the people of Magadha living at Girivraja were expected to recognize and know Pataliputra.
So he postulates in his book that Greater Magadha in the north-eastern part of India was the home of prakrit, Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivikism, and other non-Brahmanical religions opposed to Vedic Brahmins, and they had their royal patrons (like the Mauryans, Ajatashatru, Bimbisara etc who were also similarly opposed to Vedic brahmins) etc.
It can be proved beyond doubt that much of modern-Western Indology is in caught in hopeless net of paradoxes due to these kinds of wild Western hypotheses ruling the roost (and this theory of Prof. Bronkhorst will do nothing to alleviate the confusion, it merely adds to it). It has been a decade since the book was published and I have not seen anyone pointing out the obvious absurdity of his theory convincingly. So here let me point out one fact that I think will debunk his hypothesis. It is about the location of Girivraja - the capital of Magadha.
It has already been conclusively proved that Pali is a western-Indo-Aryan language (not an Eastern-Indo-Aryan language) very close to (and seems to be modelled on) the language of the Girnar edicts of Ashoka. We also know for a fact that before Pataliputra became the capital of the Mauryans, the capital of the Magadha janapada was Girivraja (also called Rājagṛha). As the name Girivraja itself indicates, it was a location encircled by mountains (and was unique enough to get that name and therefore could not be confused with any other hilly location in the area). As we can see on the Google Terrain Map of Girnar ( https://www.google.com/maps/@21.5227483,70.5575434,12z/data=!5m1!1e4 ), it clearly shows a place that is encircled by hills, and since we know for sure that is an important place is associated with Ashoka as he has left his 14 major rock edicts at this location. Also the king Rudradāman I (ruled 130–150 CE) has mentioned in his inscription at Girnar right next to Ashoka's inscriptions that this place was associated with Chandragupta Maurya as well. So Girnar has a history that is pre-Ashokan and clearly fits the name of Girivraja. Its current name Girnar (< Girinagara) is also close to Girivraja.
Also in Girnar Major Rock Edict 5 - Ashoka says in one of the lines: Pāṭalipute ca bāhiresu ca nagaresu
The same line of the same RE5 in Kalsi, Uttarakhand reads: hid[ā] bā[h]ilesu cā naga[l]esu
The same line of the same RE5 in Shahbazgarhi (near Peshwar) reads: ia bhahireśu ca nagareśu
The same line of the same RE5 in Mansehra (near Abbotabad & Muzaffarabad, Kashmir) reads: hida bahireṣu ca nagareṣ[u]
The same line of the same RE5 in Dhauli (in Odisha) reads: hida ca bāhilesu ca nagalesu
So we see that only at Girnar is the name Pataliputra mentioned (in all other places of the subcontinent, it is replaced by hida i.e. iha) - which certainly means that only the people around Girnar were expected to know the location of Pāṭaliputra (as it was close to that location). At the other places where the name Pāṭaliputra would not be recognized (as it was a new city built in the Mauryan era) unlike Girivraja, the edicts did not mention the name. But the people of Magadha living at Girivraja were expected to recognize and know Pataliputra.
So Magadha was somewhere in Gujarat, not near Patna or Bihar. This one single fact is enough to dump much of modern Western Indology into the trash and restart looking afresh at the location of Magadha being located in South-Western Āryāvarta (in or around Girnar).
Add to this the fact that the Jains have always been thickly concentrated in Western India (particularly, Gujarat, Rajasthan & Western Maharashtra), and Girnar itself is a very important Jain pilgrimage site, while they are nowhere to be found in Patna - the ostensible capital of the Mauryans. Thus Magadha is located in and around Gujarat, not anywhere near Bihar.
So Buddhism is not a religion of the eastern-India but originally a religion of Western-India - and Prakrit first arose in the Western India after the Achaemenid (Sakyan) empire had invaded the Indus valley in the 5th century BCE.
There is also evidence that the janapadas of Kāśi, Videha & specifically Kosala (and its capital Śrāvasti which is described as being on the banks of Ajiravatī) was located closer to Punjab and not in Eastern UP. Ajiravatī is called Hydraotes in Greek records in the accounts of Alexander, and is also mentioned by Panini as a north-western river. Further Patañjali mentions in the 2nd century BCE that the Yavanas had attacked Sāketa in his time, which could have been the invasion of Demetrius II (as Sāketa was located somewhere close to Punjab in his time) and Demetrius never ruled eastern UP as per available evidence. All Indo-Greek kingdoms were based only in the North-West.
Regards,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
There is also evidence that the janapadas of Kāśi, Videha & specifically Kosala (and its capital Śrāvasti which is described as being on the banks of Ajiravatī) was located closer to Punjab and not in Eastern UP. Ajiravatī is called Hydraotes in Greek records in the accounts of Alexander, and is also mentioned by Panini as a north-western river. Further Patañjali mentions in the 2nd century BCE that the Yavanas had attacked Sāketa in his time, which could have been the invasion of Demetrius II (as Sāketa was located somewhere close to Punjab in his time) and Demetrius never ruled eastern UP as per available evidence. All Indo-Greek kingdoms were based only in the North-West.
Regards,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjUTyf5e4x71fLS3x%3Dw8jSD5oZh3QHoWnTiNsQ-nPq5w0Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Deepro Chakraborty
May 5, 2021, 4:17:45 PM5/5/21
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
This is so weird. We know from the inscriptions themselves that Girnar was called 'Girinagara' and not 'Girivraja'. On the other hand, you are saying Girivraja is also known as 'Rājagṛha'. And we do know that we have ancient remnants of Rājagṛha in Rajgir.
Moreover, Śrāvastī is not located on the bank of Airāvatī (Ravi) as you mentioned. It is on the bank of Acirāvatī (Rapti) which is in Eastern UP.
Ram Sury
May 5, 2021, 10:52:40 PM5/5/21
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste,
Thanks for your opinions. There is nothing specifically found in Rajgir or Patna that is more certainly associated with Magadha or Mauryans than the Girivraja-Pataliputra-Maurya-Magadha connection we see at Girnar. The only unambiguous refereñce to Pāṭaliputra by Ashoka is in the Girnar edicts (specifically the Major Rock Edict 5), nowhere else. Why does the Girinagara topography match the descriptive name of Girivraja?
That Rājagṛha and Girivraja are both used for the name of the early capital of Magadha is well known and accepted from both the early Buddhist and Hindu literature (and is not my finding - I just mentioned it as a passing remark). You may have a look at Rājagaha & Giribbaja in the pāli canon and allied literature.
Also as I mentioned Girnar is close to (and is itself the site of) a number of early Buddhist and Jain holy sites/caves even from Ashoka's times until now. No such luck for Rajgir. As I said Pali is conclusively a western language and has been for quite some time compared with the language of the edicts at Girnar.
Mauryas are called மோரியர் (Moriyar) or its lexical variant ஓரியர் (Oriyar) in early Tamil literature and they have the epithet சக்கரவாள சக்கரவர்த்திகள் (cakravāla cakravartin-s) - the cakravāla of course referring to their rule from the circular mountains at Girivraja (Girnar) which functioned as their natural fortress. [In later literature, the name cakravāla is mythologized as the name of a similar circular cosmic mountain range that surrounds the entire world but originally the Mauryans are specifically associated with the cakravāla/girivraja mountains that are naturally shaped round like a chakra]
We know for a matter of fact that Girnar was a major political center for Ashoka, he has left the best preserved copy of all his major rock edicts there, the language looks very stable and clear here and seems to be the first recorded site of those edicts (as Pataliputra has been removed at the other sites and replaced with hidha/idha(=iha). As I mentioned also, Pataliputra was a new city/capital established in Mauryan times, it would not have been well known in the other janapadas except in Magadha during the Mauryan era. So it makes sense to leave the name of the new city Pataliputra where it would be recognized easily, whereas in the later copies of the same edicts (located at other places across the subcontinent, the name has been removed). Is this all not common-sensical enough?
Pāli Aciravatī (mentioned as river on whose banks stood Śrāvastī, the capital of Kośala janapada as per the Pāli canon) is Sanskrit Ajiravatī (mentioned by Pāṇini - A6.3.119, as the name of a north-western river), I am not equating it with the name of Ravi Irāvati (although it may be possible that they were the same river), I am simply saying that Ajiravatī was a north-western (Punjab) river and not anywhere close to eastern-UP. You may already know that there is a belief associated with Lahore and Kasur in Punjab (i.e. Śrāvastī and Kuśavatī) being considered the capitals of Lava & Kuśa. Lahore (if it was indeed Śrāvastī) is indeed located on the banks of the Ravi (Ajiravatī) - so Kosala in/near the Punjab is not so far-fetched an idea as it may appear. As I also mentioned, the name of this north-western river is preserved as Hydraotes in greek accounts of Alexander's visit of North-western India. It is easy to mispronounce (or mishear) ajira as hydra so I am pretty sure the river that Alexander saw is the same as the Ajiravatī of Pāṇini & the Pali canon. Vitastā similarly gets recorded as Hydaspes, and Asiknī is mentioned as Acesines, Vipāś is named Hyphasis. Moreover there is a king named Ambhi or Ambisares ruling in Punjab in the Alexander accounts which reminds of a similarly named earlier king Bimbisāra (the patron of Buddhism in the Pali canon). Alexander after crossing the Hydraotes and advancing east came across the Malloi/Mallians which can be interpreted as the Malla janapada who are described as fierce warriors. The Alexander records also mention Sisicottus, ruler of the Assaceni in North-West India who met Alexander - and I believe this was perhaps Śaśigupta (a variant name for Chandragupta) and perhaps he was already a ruler/governor commanding the Aśvakas/Aśvakāyanas in the time of Alexander (around 325 BCE).
Regards,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/2ac8c685-647d-4593-8197-76e028bd1231n%40googlegroups.com.
Bijoy Misra
May 6, 2021, 8:59:07 AM5/6/21
to Bharatiya Vidvat parishad
Dear Sri Suryanarayanan,
What happens to Kalinga war and Buddhism in this new scenario?
Have you documented this thought in detail?
Regards,
Bijoy Misra
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAAmPQAojGx%3DxJ_XbJ2BdcvnWq82%2BK%2B%3Dd5V192D8-A_gKHmTT2g%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudarshan HS
May 6, 2021, 9:37:22 AM5/6/21
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Namaste Ramakrishna ji,
You said that:
> ..preserved as Hydraotes in greek accounts... It is easy to mispronounce (or mishear) ajira as hydra
However, the word in Greek sources Ὑδραώτης (en: Hydraotes) is actually ऊʰद्राओतूस् or यिद्राओतीय्स् during different periods. No idea how it is close to अजिरा || अचिरा !
Regards,
Sudarshana
--
Center for Ancient History & Culture
JAIN University, Bengaluru
Ram Sury
May 6, 2021, 7:18:37 PM5/6/21
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Mishra,
As far as the Kalinga war is concerned, if Magadha was headquartered in Bihar then Kalinga was already right next to it - we dont find any mention of it as bordering or close to Magadha in any literary source, nor do we even hear of the Magadhan/Mauryans attacking or seeking to annex it anytime before Ashoka, and even for Ashoka it was perhaps his last war (after which he had nothing left to invade in Northern India) - so Kaliṅga must have been located far from his initial base in Western India in my understanding. Also we dont find any reference to Buddha's visit to Kalinga (or even the name of the Janapada mentioned in the Buddhist canon) even though he spent a great deal of time in Magadha [and a few times even visited far off Vairantī/Vairantya (Pāli Verañja) in the extreme northwest which lay on the uttarāpātha and bordered the region of uttarakuru near the HinduKush]. In fact the Alexander accounts even mention Alexander's visit to Mount Meros (Meru) in the extreme North-Western India close to the Cophen river i.e. Kubha/Kabul river (in the region of Nysa i.e. Niṣadha janapada) before reaching Peucelaotis (Pushkalāvatī/Peshawar). Meru/Sumeru is very prominent in the Early Buddhist literature (Pali canon etc) - this would not be the case if Early Buddhism was based in Bihar.
Also there are several references in the Pāli canon to trade and business visits of Brahmins and others arriving from Vairantya/Verañja to Śrāvasti/Sāvatthī (one such example https://suttacentral.net/mn42/pli/ms) which makes more sense if we assume that Śrāvasti and Vairantya were 350 kms away from one another and not 1500 kilometres away from each other (i.e. if we assume Śrāvasti was in the Punjab and not in Eastern UP). If we take another example, https://suttacentral.net/mn140/pli/ms the Buddha once stays with a Kumbhakāra named Bhārgava in Rājagṛha (Girivraja) and one of his disciples say to him "atthāvuso, uttaresu janapadesu sāvatthi nāma nagaraṁ" (asti āyuṣmān uttareṣu janapadeṣu śrāvastī nāma nagaram) - so to a person of Girivraja, they counted themselves as a southern janapada of Āryāvarta and considered Śrāvastī as a northern janapada - which makes sense as Āryāvarta's southern boundary was the vindhya range (pāriyātra/pāripātra mountains) so Girivraja (Girnar was at the southern end) while Śrāvasti (in/near Punjab) was close to the northern mountains (please see map below). It would not make sense if we consider the current Bihari Rajgir and UP Shravasti - as Rajgir is relatively not really much south of this UP Shravasti.
Also there are several references in the Pāli canon to trade and business visits of Brahmins and others arriving from Vairantya/Verañja to Śrāvasti/Sāvatthī (one such example https://suttacentral.net/mn42/pli/ms) which makes more sense if we assume that Śrāvasti and Vairantya were 350 kms away from one another and not 1500 kilometres away from each other (i.e. if we assume Śrāvasti was in the Punjab and not in Eastern UP). If we take another example, https://suttacentral.net/mn140/pli/ms the Buddha once stays with a Kumbhakāra named Bhārgava in Rājagṛha (Girivraja) and one of his disciples say to him "atthāvuso, uttaresu janapadesu sāvatthi nāma nagaraṁ" (asti āyuṣmān uttareṣu janapadeṣu śrāvastī nāma nagaram) - so to a person of Girivraja, they counted themselves as a southern janapada of Āryāvarta and considered Śrāvastī as a northern janapada - which makes sense as Āryāvarta's southern boundary was the vindhya range (pāriyātra/pāripātra mountains) so Girivraja (Girnar was at the southern end) while Śrāvasti (in/near Punjab) was close to the northern mountains (please see map below). It would not make sense if we consider the current Bihari Rajgir and UP Shravasti - as Rajgir is relatively not really much south of this UP Shravasti.
Besides, most of the excavated personal relics of the Buddha until date are from sites in the Gandhara region between Taxila and Peshawar, not from UP.
If we consider Girnar as the earlier capital of Magadha, it explains why Pali (as a western-Indo-Aryan language close to the language of the Girnar Ashokan edicts) is described by the Theravadins as being based on Magadhabhāṣa.
Coming back to the information we can gather from other Ashokan edicts, at Dhauli (Orissa) he made two separate edicts which are not found outside the Kalinga region. In one of these edicts he makes a promise to the people of Kalinga that he will send out periodically his officers from Ujjayini and from Takshashila - to Kalinga to check about the people's welfare. This is very important - why are these Mauryan royal officers despatched by Aśoka from the Western Janapadas i.e. Ujjayini (Avanti) and Takṣaśila rather than coming to Kalinga from Patna or Rajgir if the Mauryans ruled from Bihar? It would rather make sense if his royal base was mainly in the Western part of the country.
If we consider Girnar as the earlier capital of Magadha, it explains why Pali (as a western-Indo-Aryan language close to the language of the Girnar Ashokan edicts) is described by the Theravadins as being based on Magadhabhāṣa.
Coming back to the information we can gather from other Ashokan edicts, at Dhauli (Orissa) he made two separate edicts which are not found outside the Kalinga region. In one of these edicts he makes a promise to the people of Kalinga that he will send out periodically his officers from Ujjayini and from Takshashila - to Kalinga to check about the people's welfare. This is very important - why are these Mauryan royal officers despatched by Aśoka from the Western Janapadas i.e. Ujjayini (Avanti) and Takṣaśila rather than coming to Kalinga from Patna or Rajgir if the Mauryans ruled from Bihar? It would rather make sense if his royal base was mainly in the Western part of the country.
[[The relevant text from the edict: Ujenite pi cu kumāle etāye va aṭhāye nikhāmayisa . . . . . . hedisameva vagaṃ no ca atikāmayisati tiṃni vasāni hemeva Takhasilāte pi adā ......]]
Regards,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
Regards,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjU37g7%3Dsinof7fJ%3DRySXChGpHarJ652m9qsG4asSO7FVQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Ram Sury
May 6, 2021, 7:31:19 PM5/6/21
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Sudarshan ji,
Similar to the two river names in Sanskrit अजिरवती (not अजिरावती) & इरावती - in greek also two names are recorded Ὑδραώτης (romanized as Ὑthraotes, appearing to correspond to ajiravatī) and Ὑαρῶτις (romanized as Ὑarῶtis, and appearing to correspond to irāvatī). Both these names are associated with accounts of Alexander's invasion, but could have perhaps meant different parts of the same river, or perhaps it was known by both names.
As I mentioned earlier Pāṇini is specifically aware of this river name (as it flows in his region) and Ashtadhyayi 6.3.119 specifically names this river to highlight an exception to the general rule where the final syllable is short when followed by matup pratyaya (matau bahvacaḥ anajirādīnām), hence ajiravatī not ajirāvatī. As we know rivers flow fastest near their hilly origin and the current slows as they flow further away towards the sea, so the name ajiravatī (meaning fast-flowing) may have been used to refer to the same river in its northernmost parts as it flows down from the Himalayas towards Lahore.
Similar to the two river names in Sanskrit अजिरवती (not अजिरावती) & इरावती - in greek also two names are recorded Ὑδραώτης (romanized as Ὑthraotes, appearing to correspond to ajiravatī) and Ὑαρῶτις (romanized as Ὑarῶtis, and appearing to correspond to irāvatī). Both these names are associated with accounts of Alexander's invasion, but could have perhaps meant different parts of the same river, or perhaps it was known by both names.
As I mentioned earlier Pāṇini is specifically aware of this river name (as it flows in his region) and Ashtadhyayi 6.3.119 specifically names this river to highlight an exception to the general rule where the final syllable is short when followed by matup pratyaya (matau bahvacaḥ anajirādīnām), hence ajiravatī not ajirāvatī. As we know rivers flow fastest near their hilly origin and the current slows as they flow further away towards the sea, so the name ajiravatī (meaning fast-flowing) may have been used to refer to the same river in its northernmost parts as it flows down from the Himalayas towards Lahore.
Regards,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/250da23a-ab0b-4e4b-a777-a076c457a7c1n%40googlegroups.com.
Darshat Shah
May 7, 2021, 12:55:46 AM5/7/21
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Dear Suryanarayanji,
I'm reading the thread with interest. I'm neither a scholar nor a professional historian so do take my opinion FWIW. My reference comes from reading BC Law's voluminous compendiums - Tribes of Ancient India and Historical Geography of Ancient India (both on archive.org)
Wrt what you mention, let us consider separately Magadha at time of Buddha/Bimbisara/Ajatsatru and Magadha of Asoka (in case there was later shift)
Magadha during Buddhist times - my rebuttal to your arguments.
Magadha during Buddhist times - my rebuttal to your arguments.
1) Sravathi is pretty far to north of Rajgriha/Pataliputra. So it is not at all inconceivable that it is referred to as being in the North.
2) Relics of Buddha are actually pretty concentrated in Bihar-Nepal region. Consider all the stupas and places like Gaya, Pava, Kusinara, Vaishali, Piprawa, Jetvana that are associated with his lifetime and death. Each of this is described in detail in BC Law's books.
3) You claim Veranjya was in northwest near Taxila and hence proceed to argue it is closer to Girnar. As per BC Law's references this city is near Mathura, and Buddha did venture into the Vedic heartland at least once.
"was a place near Mathura was visited by the Buddha at the invitation of some Veranjya Brahmana....The Master spent the rainy season at Veranjya. At the and of the rainy season he left It And reached Banaras " . We would need comprehensive evidence to refute this
4) Further regarding distances and travel possibilities to Sravathi - Sravathi was known to well connected via highway to Kousambi linking it down further south. So travel between Rajgriha and Sravathi is not as difficult as you point out.
Magadha wrt Asoka:
As far as Ashoka's conquest goes, it appears Kalinga is not very near to Magadha, and he may have been directed westwards because traditional rivalries between Magadha were to the west. By the time of Asoka, Kosala, Vatsa and Avanti were already under the Mauryan empire. So it is not inconceivable that he proceeded further west first, before going south. It does not seem to make a compelling argument for Magadha to be in Gujarat.
Finally the edict issue. I find it more logical that if Pataliputra is not well known it *would be* mentioned far and wide to make it well known! Still your reading of it is curious and I admit I cannot explain very well the difference though I disagree with the interpretation. Is that the only difference in all sentences between all the edicts?
Also refer to comprehensive writeup of Magadha in BC Law's Tribes of Ancient India and cross references to it in Historical Geography of Ancient India. Its an amazing wealth of data with very rich cross referencing.
For example, in Ramayana Sugriva sent search parties for Sita beyond his boundaries. Here Magadha is mentioned as country to the east. https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.238086/page/194/mode/2up?q=magadha
Regards,
Darshat
Ram Sury
May 7, 2021, 3:26:13 PM5/7/21
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Sri Darshat Shah,
Thank you for your interest and response. I've seen the pages relating to Magadha in BC Law's book that you have kindly provided a link for - and I don't see anything much of relevance in terms of arguments about Magadha's location or about the possibility of Greater Magadha - I will study the book more carefully and comprehensively to see if it offers any new perspectives beyond simply claiming that Magadha lies to the east or that Vairantya lies near Mathura.
Regarding your specific points:
Regarding your specific points:
1. I have already shown (with a map) how Śrāvastī can be accurately described as being a far-northern city compared to Girivraja (if we take Girnar as Girivraja and Śrāvasti as the town popularly associated with Lava (i.e. Lahore) - or some such prominent place in northern Punjab.
The UP Kosala is not north of Bihari Magadha, it is right adjacent to it, and the UP Śrāvasti is more west than it is north of Rajgir. Besides that, as I said, there is nothing excavated in Patna and Rajgir (or even the UP Shravasti) that more securely and conclusively connects Magadhans, Mauryans, Girivraja & Pāṭaliputra than the direct words of Aśoka at Girnar, and the words (at the same location) of Rudradāman-I a few centuries later connecting Girnar to the administrative work of Chandragupta Maurya as well. Clearly therefore Girnar was a well known place known to (and being the site of activity of) several generations of Mauryan and post-Mauryan rulers. But here is a map of Rajgir/Patna to Shravasti which shows more of a west-east than a north-south relation between UP Kosala & Bihari Magadha (and the cities as well)
2. Buddhist reliquary sites are not concentrated to the same extent in UP & Bihar as they are in the North-Western region (or even the Gujarat, Western-Maharashtra, Sindh region). For example, we already know of Sanchi, Bharhut etc in Central India (although these are not located in the UP & Bihar regions associated with Kosala and Magadha). The Punjab region on the other hand (both east and West) has so many early excavated Buddhist sites. In and around Takshashila alone, I've identified about 20 sites connected to early-Buddhism, many of them stupas, as shown by the blue pins on the map below.
We cannot use stupas alone as conclusive evidence, as there are stupas even in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand etc - but have to consider their earliness and concentration at a single site to decide what the site meant to early Buddhism (along with other evidence).
3. No - Verañja (Vairantya in Sanskrit) is described as being right next to uttarakuru in the North-western India in the Pali canon - please read the links I posted earlier. In one of the suttas whose links I posted earlier, of the Buddha's prominent Brahmin disciples known only by his gotra name Maudgalyāyana (Moggallāna), suggests to the Buddha that since Verañja was facing a famine at that time, and most of the monks could find no one to spare them alms of food, that they all cross over to neighbouring uttarakuru for alms. The Buddha tells him to drop the idea of visiting uttarakuru for begging. Uttarakuru was located nowhere near Mathura, so if BC Law opines that Verañja was near Mathura, I wonder what evidence he offers. I searched the books you mentioned at archive.org but couldn't find anything in them about Verañja. However this article mentions something about the NW-location of Verañja in the Pali canon but it is using the same reference as I have mentioned above.
I did not claim that Verañja was closer to Girnar, I said it would have been close to Śrāvasti as the Pali canon talks of common people from Verañja visiting Śrāvasti, so since Verañja is located next to Uttarakuru, it is in the extreme North-west - and Śrāvasti must have also been somewhere that is not too far from Verañja.
3. No - Verañja (Vairantya in Sanskrit) is described as being right next to uttarakuru in the North-western India in the Pali canon - please read the links I posted earlier. In one of the suttas whose links I posted earlier, of the Buddha's prominent Brahmin disciples known only by his gotra name Maudgalyāyana (Moggallāna), suggests to the Buddha that since Verañja was facing a famine at that time, and most of the monks could find no one to spare them alms of food, that they all cross over to neighbouring uttarakuru for alms. The Buddha tells him to drop the idea of visiting uttarakuru for begging. Uttarakuru was located nowhere near Mathura, so if BC Law opines that Verañja was near Mathura, I wonder what evidence he offers. I searched the books you mentioned at archive.org but couldn't find anything in them about Verañja. However this article mentions something about the NW-location of Verañja in the Pali canon but it is using the same reference as I have mentioned above.
I did not claim that Verañja was closer to Girnar, I said it would have been close to Śrāvasti as the Pali canon talks of common people from Verañja visiting Śrāvasti, so since Verañja is located next to Uttarakuru, it is in the extreme North-west - and Śrāvasti must have also been somewhere that is not too far from Verañja.
4. Śrāvasti is not recorded as being close to Rājagṛha anywhere that I have seen. Magadha and Avanti are in/near Dakṣiṇapātha, while Kāśi/Kośala/Videha which are closer to the Śibis/Uśinaras etc are closer to Uttarapātha (both with respect to Āryāvarta/Madhyadeśa whose southern boundary was the pāriyātra/vindhya range).
5. Let me draw your attention to Major Rock Edict of Ashoka 1 - his very first order in his very first edict is to ban animal slaughter in his kingdom (idha na kiṃci jīvaṃ...) and commit himself to vegetarianism - and the grammarian Kātyāyana in his vārttikas refers to devānāṃpriya (the title of the Mauryan kings) as an exception to Pāṇini's sūtra 6.3.21 and mentions of him as the vegetarian king (śāka-pārthiva) while commenting on sūtra 2.1.69. We have to see where Aśoka's ban had the most effect - in Magadha itself surely? Do you think Bihar (or the eastern janapadas) became predominantly vegetarian - or does vegetarianism fit the description of Gujarat/Rajasthan etc? Here is a map which makes the answer easy.
You say "I find it more logical that if Pataliputra is not well known it *would be* mentioned far and wide to make it well known!"
If Ashoka's intention was to make the name of Pāṭaliputra more popular, he would have mentioned Pāṭaliputra everywhere else except in the capitals i.e. Pāṭaliputra / Girivraja - but why do you assume that that was his intention? He does not use Pāṭaliputra in all other copies of his edicts and avoid using it in one edict - in fact the reverse. He mentions the name only in one copy of the (otherwise identical) edicts - which shows that that location would not have any difficulty in understanding its meaning and the other regions would not recognize it. My interpretation appears to make better sense to me and I am not able to think of a more plausible alternative explanation.
If Ashoka's intention was to make the name of Pāṭaliputra more popular, he would have mentioned Pāṭaliputra everywhere else except in the capitals i.e. Pāṭaliputra / Girivraja - but why do you assume that that was his intention? He does not use Pāṭaliputra in all other copies of his edicts and avoid using it in one edict - in fact the reverse. He mentions the name only in one copy of the (otherwise identical) edicts - which shows that that location would not have any difficulty in understanding its meaning and the other regions would not recognize it. My interpretation appears to make better sense to me and I am not able to think of a more plausible alternative explanation.
As you can see from the arguments I am making, knowing the facts and being able to connect them with logic are two different things. Many scholars know a lot of facts, all the facts are already out there in the public domain. It's how we connect them together that makes all the difference.
I hope to present other arguments in support of my facts if the need arises. Greater Magadha is not a terribly intelligent proposition I am afraid.
Thanks,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
I hope to present other arguments in support of my facts if the need arises. Greater Magadha is not a terribly intelligent proposition I am afraid.
Thanks,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/d9cb3cd4-9b68-419c-9687-8fb445626505n%40googlegroups.com.
Darshat Shah
May 8, 2021, 3:52:21 AM5/8/21
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Namaste Ramakrishnan ji,
Couple of questions:
Why is your vegetarian map limited to current day India boundaries? What conclusions could you draw if you extend the vegetarian map to present day locations in north Pakistan which as per you might be much more Buddhist than Bihar?
Why is your vegetarian map limited to current day India boundaries? What conclusions could you draw if you extend the vegetarian map to present day locations in north Pakistan which as per you might be much more Buddhist than Bihar?
Also do read up translations of Huein Tsang's travel. Which way did he go in search of Buddhism's origin, and where did he report seeing ruins of Asoka's palace?
Great to see your confidence in inference capability, but I'm afraid you have provided so far is very tenous and hand waving e.g. Lahore could be Sravati then where is Jetvana and what do you find wrong with current archeological evidence for places on the Buddhist circuit? Do provide concrete data and definitive mapping of each of locations in Buddha's lifetime, if Magadha were to be located in Gujarat. That could make it more credible.
Thanks,
Darshat
Ram Sury
May 8, 2021, 9:45:45 AM5/8/21
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Shri Darshat ji,
I do not claim omniscience, please take my arguments if you find them logical, and point out my mistakes if I go wrong.
I just gave a map that I found on the internet - besides we do not have a demographic and cultural continuity with regards to Pakistan and hence pointing to modern eating habits of Pakistanis may not be a reliable indicator of what the majority of them used to eat even a few hundred years ago. In Akbar's time most of Pakistan was still a Hindu majority area. As late as the 1881 census, the Muslim population of the subcontinent is estimated at 20% in the census - now it is 35% of the subcontinent's population. Eating habits change with a change of culture, more so with foreign influence.
Yes I have read some of Xuanzang's writings (in translation). But the problem is his visit was about a 1000 years after the Buddha's death, and while he may (or may not) have faithfully described the situations in his time, we can't use much of it (or at least I don't find all of it useful) as evidence for the political and social situation of a 1000 years before him. In my understanding, he entered India through the north-west from Afghanistan (where he reports seeing a community of monks following the Hinayana (i.e. Sautrāntika) Buddhism, perhaps the Sarvāstivādins or Dharmaguptakas - and also the Bamiyan Buddhas that the Taliban demolished). Anyways I am reluctant to use this as evidence that this was always the case even in the Buddha's own time, so while it is interesting to consider what India may have looked like in his own time, I am talking of a different period - the period starting with the Vedic Brāhmaṇa period... such as the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (which mentions Ajātaśatru and his son Bhadrasena Ājātaśatrava by name and to that extent we can be sure that they are the same people as Ajātasattu and his son Udāyī-bhadda in the Pali canon) - and Aśoka/Patañjali at the lower end i.e. about 2nd century BCE. The more we move to the works of more recent authors (Xuanzang, Bhartṛhari, Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Kumārila, Abhinavagupta etc), the more is the risk we may be relying on changed situations to prove something about early Buddhist period.
With the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Pāli canon, we are on much firmer ground for comparison, and they appear to be located in the same Kāśi-Kosala-Videha territory and pertain to the same periods of time. So we can use the ŚB to independently validate what is said in the Pāli canon (as both are very voluminous works and have some level of overlap). But neither the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa nor the Pāli canon consider Magadha to be an immediate neighbour of Kosala, or that Kosala was located immediately west of Magadha - so the idea of eastern-UP and Bihar located (side by side) being the locations of Kosala and Magadha is very unlikely as them neighbouring each other has no historical/literary evidence.
I do not consider everything in the Pali canon to be identifiable now. For example you ask about where Jetavana (the woods/parkland where the Buddha used to reside as mentioned in the Pali canon) is now located. Jetavana may not be the proper name of any place, it may have been something like Sankrit *jaitra-vana (where jaitra or its Pāli form 'jeta', means something like the victor/winner - and may be an early epithet used to the Buddha himself i.e. the woodland that the jaitra used to usually spend time in). So we will not (if my understanding is right) find a place named "jetavana" anywhere in a map as it is sort of an adjective. The later theravādins claimed that the Jeta (victor) being referred to in this word was a prince (rājakumāra) named jeta but very suspiciously he doesnt appear at all anywhere else in the Pali canon nor in any other literature, so searching for prince Jeta in history may end up as a wild goose chase.
You might even ask where is Isipatana Migadaya located and claim that it could be nowhere other than at Sarnath which is where it is currently identified to be. Prof. Collette Caillat has convincingly argued (a translation of her french paper is available at Isipatana Migadaya) that the Theravāda tradition has understood the name of this place name all wrong from ancient times. For example the Theravāda commentator Buddhaghoṣa (5th/6th century CE) explains that it is called Isipatana because Ṛṣis (i.e pratyekabuddhas in his language) used to fall/descend from the sky there (ākāsena āgantvā nipatanti). So it apparently functioned as some sort of an airport for them. However what Prof. Caillat has explained is that Isipatana was not the name of a place but a common noun i.e. it corresponds to Ṛśya-vṛjana (and therefore means the same as the other word Mṛga-dāva with which it is always found together). It means that Isipatana (or isipadana, isipaṭana, isipaṭṭana, isivadana as found in some manuscripts) was not the proper name of a place, and no wonder such a name is not found in any other non-buddhist literature except the Pali canon - i.e. not even in Ashokan edicts. So we should not expect to find any town or name of a location called Isipatana or jetavana on the map.
Yes I have read some of Xuanzang's writings (in translation). But the problem is his visit was about a 1000 years after the Buddha's death, and while he may (or may not) have faithfully described the situations in his time, we can't use much of it (or at least I don't find all of it useful) as evidence for the political and social situation of a 1000 years before him. In my understanding, he entered India through the north-west from Afghanistan (where he reports seeing a community of monks following the Hinayana (i.e. Sautrāntika) Buddhism, perhaps the Sarvāstivādins or Dharmaguptakas - and also the Bamiyan Buddhas that the Taliban demolished). Anyways I am reluctant to use this as evidence that this was always the case even in the Buddha's own time, so while it is interesting to consider what India may have looked like in his own time, I am talking of a different period - the period starting with the Vedic Brāhmaṇa period... such as the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (which mentions Ajātaśatru and his son Bhadrasena Ājātaśatrava by name and to that extent we can be sure that they are the same people as Ajātasattu and his son Udāyī-bhadda in the Pali canon) - and Aśoka/Patañjali at the lower end i.e. about 2nd century BCE. The more we move to the works of more recent authors (Xuanzang, Bhartṛhari, Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Kumārila, Abhinavagupta etc), the more is the risk we may be relying on changed situations to prove something about early Buddhist period.
With the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Pāli canon, we are on much firmer ground for comparison, and they appear to be located in the same Kāśi-Kosala-Videha territory and pertain to the same periods of time. So we can use the ŚB to independently validate what is said in the Pāli canon (as both are very voluminous works and have some level of overlap). But neither the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa nor the Pāli canon consider Magadha to be an immediate neighbour of Kosala, or that Kosala was located immediately west of Magadha - so the idea of eastern-UP and Bihar located (side by side) being the locations of Kosala and Magadha is very unlikely as them neighbouring each other has no historical/literary evidence.
I do not consider everything in the Pali canon to be identifiable now. For example you ask about where Jetavana (the woods/parkland where the Buddha used to reside as mentioned in the Pali canon) is now located. Jetavana may not be the proper name of any place, it may have been something like Sankrit *jaitra-vana (where jaitra or its Pāli form 'jeta', means something like the victor/winner - and may be an early epithet used to the Buddha himself i.e. the woodland that the jaitra used to usually spend time in). So we will not (if my understanding is right) find a place named "jetavana" anywhere in a map as it is sort of an adjective. The later theravādins claimed that the Jeta (victor) being referred to in this word was a prince (rājakumāra) named jeta but very suspiciously he doesnt appear at all anywhere else in the Pali canon nor in any other literature, so searching for prince Jeta in history may end up as a wild goose chase.
You might even ask where is Isipatana Migadaya located and claim that it could be nowhere other than at Sarnath which is where it is currently identified to be. Prof. Collette Caillat has convincingly argued (a translation of her french paper is available at Isipatana Migadaya) that the Theravāda tradition has understood the name of this place name all wrong from ancient times. For example the Theravāda commentator Buddhaghoṣa (5th/6th century CE) explains that it is called Isipatana because Ṛṣis (i.e pratyekabuddhas in his language) used to fall/descend from the sky there (ākāsena āgantvā nipatanti). So it apparently functioned as some sort of an airport for them. However what Prof. Caillat has explained is that Isipatana was not the name of a place but a common noun i.e. it corresponds to Ṛśya-vṛjana (and therefore means the same as the other word Mṛga-dāva with which it is always found together). It means that Isipatana (or isipadana, isipaṭana, isipaṭṭana, isivadana as found in some manuscripts) was not the proper name of a place, and no wonder such a name is not found in any other non-buddhist literature except the Pali canon - i.e. not even in Ashokan edicts. So we should not expect to find any town or name of a location called Isipatana or jetavana on the map.
Similar to the Pali tradition getting the above names all misunderstood, they (the authors of the Pali canon) even call the old king Ikṣvāku as Okkāka - how could this be? Could he have been called Okṣavāka (>Okkāka) by some people in the Buddha's time and Ikṣvāku by others? Kharoṣṭhi script (and specifically Prof. Harry Falk's excellent documentation of the early inscriptions at http://www.indoskript.org/) came to my rescue.
इ is written like this in Kharoṣṭhī:
This is the vowel ओ in the same script:
Also this is ku
and this is ka
So that shows the Pali canon's authors would have been reading a name starting with i and ending with ku (*ikṣvāku) from a pre-existing Buddhist text written in early Kharoṣṭhī as a name ending in o and ending in ka (okkāka).
It also in my understanding points to something else - that the authors of the Pali canon were most probably relying on pre-existing early Gandhari texts as their sources of authentic Buddhism - because the north-west was where the earliest forms of Buddhism originated - which fits my impression of a North-western Śrāvastī and a South-western Girivraja.
You have also asked what I find wrong with the current archaeological evidence of the places in the Buddhist circuit. I find they are not based on sound evidence. I think Alexander Cunningham's (the victorian era chief of the ASI) identification of these sites in eastern India as being the sites of the old janapadas to be a shoddy piece of work. We have since then not challenged his suggestions much, and are continuing to mislead ourselves by pretending that the sites he identified as being Kosalan and Magadhan cities are nothing more than fantasy.
Coming back to BC Law - He has said in Tribes of Ancient India, pg 161 "The distance and direction of Kausambl from Sarnath as given by Fa-Hien may be taken as fairly correct." - so you can see he takes Sarnath as Isipatana Migadaya (which Prof. Caillat has convincingly later proved as being based on a misunderstanding of the word Isipatana) - this is one example where BC Law makes unsubstantiated claims, and he put his own misunderstanding in the mouth of Fa-Hsien/Faxian.
Regards,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/d4d1a6d4-3726-4697-992f-92cc3dfb5c5an%40googlegroups.com.
Ram Sury
May 8, 2021, 11:06:25 AM5/8/21
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
I wanted to mention one more point from the Arthaśāstra (but hit 'send' too soon in my last email).
The Arthaśāstra (2.30.29) classifies horses based on the places in the western border regions from which they are imported as follows:
The Arthaśāstra (2.30.29) classifies horses based on the places in the western border regions from which they are imported as follows:
prayogyānām uttamāḥ kāmboja.saindhava.āraṭṭa.vanāyujāḥ
madhyamā bāhlīka.pāpeyaka.sauvīraka.taitalāḥ
śeṣāḥ pratyavarāḥ
- Best horses are from : Kāmboja (realm of Cambyses i.e. Persian), Sindhu, Āraṭṭa and Vanāyu (i.e. Arabia)
- Middle-quality are from: Bahlika (Bactria), Pāpā, Sauvīra & Titala
- Rest are poor quality.
Almost all of these are either other countries to the west & north-west - like Persia, Arabia, Bactria etc - or western & northwestern janapadas. Sindhu & sauvīra were located next to each other, and are usually mentioned together as Sindhu-sauvīra.
What interested me is that apart from some locations outside India proper, like Kāmboja, Vanāyu & Bahlika, there are some relatively rare places like Pāpā that are mentioned in the Arthaśāstra. Pāpā of the Arthaśāstra is Pāvā of the Pali canon, the capital of one of the two Malla janapadas, Kusināra being the capital of the other Malla janapada.
As I pointed out from the Alexander accounts earlier, he found the Malloi/Malli (Malla-janapada) between the Hydaspes (Vitastā/Jhelum) and Acesines (Asikni/Chenab) - and found them fierce and warlike. Their neighbours the Oxidraci (i.e. Kṣudraka, about which in Pāṇini's opinion sūtra 5.3.114, they are āyudhajīvis i.e. professional warriors) joined with the Mallas to oppose Alexander. The Kṣudrakāḥ are named khuddakā in the pāli canon but not very frequently). We dont know which Mallas these are who are located between the Vitastā and Asikno - the Pāpa mallas or the Kuśinagara mallas. But it gives further evidence of the Mallas also being a north-western janapada.
As an aside, the usual sanskrit name of wrestlers is 'Malla' and wrestling is commonly called malla-yuddha.
Best regards,
As an aside, the usual sanskrit name of wrestlers is 'Malla' and wrestling is commonly called malla-yuddha.
Best regards,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
Bijoy Misra
May 8, 2021, 12:49:31 PM5/8/21
to Bharatiya Vidvat parishad
Dear Sri Suryanarayanan,
While I have not not analyzed the details, I do notice that you have a contrary view to a two-thousand year old
record. Not that the record must be true, but many serious historians have worked on it in the past. I would
suggest that you write up your observation as a full document such that one can deal with it in a single dedicated
session. Since you seem to be confident in your convictions, it may not be a large effort. With such a documented
story, it could be an addition to the historical literature. You should also take into account of the literary references
from Bhasa and the Jaina Agamas.
Best regards,
Bijoy Misra
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAAmPQAoeE62dDhy3vMW00RtugUObwi0JOZGELxmRataw51x_hQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Ram Sury
May 8, 2021, 2:32:40 PM5/8/21
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Miśra,
Thanks for the suggestion, I will do so - as I do have much more to say on this topic and have to collect my thoughts together into a single book.
Regards,
Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjWXdjzMBBnKVVZ57xgzMLMECv93Uujvzr3JROdq0tGF%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages