Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Who was Śabarī

[विश्वासो वासुकेयः]

अन्यथा शोभने लेखे ऽस्मिन्, 

कुशाग्रो लिखति - 

कालिदास ने भी अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तल में इसका उल्लेख किया है। (अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तल १.२०)

किन्तु तत्र तादृशं न किमपि दृश्यते। मूलम् अधः संलग्नम् । 

एवञ्च श्रमण्य्-उच्चिष्ट-भक्षणं धर्मम् इव भणति, यत् तु परिहास्यम् - 

किंतु यदि हम इस कथा को सत्य भी मान लें, तब भी इससे शबरी का ब्राह्मणी होना सिद्ध नहीं होता। पक्षियों के द्वारा खाए गए फल को स्मृति-ग्रंथों में पवित्र माना गया है।[^42] कालिदास ने भी अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तल में इसका उल्लेख किया है।[^43] अतः शबरी के द्वारा चखे गए फल को श्रीराम ने ग्रहण किया, इसमें कोई आश्चर्य नहीं।


अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तल १.२०

अनसूया \- हला शकुन्तले !

इयं स्वयंवरवधूः सहकारस्य

त्वया कृतनामधेया "वनज्योत्स्ने"ति नव-मालिका ।

एनां विस्मृतासि ?

शकुन्तला \- तद् आत्मानम् अपि विस्मरिष्यामि । (लताम् उपेत्यावलोक्य च ।।)

हला ! रमणीये खलु काल एतस्य लता-पादप-मिथुनस्य व्यतिकरः संवृत्तः । नव-कुसुम-यौवना वनज्योत्स्ना स्निग्धपल्लव-तयोपभोगक्षमः सहकारः ।

प्रियंवदा \- अनसूये ! जानासि किं शकुन्तला वनज्योत्स्नाम् अतिमात्रं पश्यतीति?

अनसूया \- न खलु विभावयामि । कथय ।

प्रियंवदा \- यथा वनज्योत्स्नानुरूपेण पादपेन सङ्गता, अपि नामैवम् अहम् अप्यात्मनोऽनुरूपं वरं लभेयेति ।

शकुन्तला \- एष नूनं तवात्मगतो मनोरथः । (इति कलशमावर्जयति । ।)

राजा \- अपि नाम कुलपतेरियमसवर्णक्षेत्रसम्भवा स्यात् ? अथवा कृतं सन्देहेन ।

> असंशयं क्षत्रपरिग्रहक्षमा

यदार्यमस्यामभिलाषि मे मनः ।

सतां हि सन्देहपदेषु वस्तुषु

प्रमाणमन्तःकरणप्रवृत्तयः ॥२०॥

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kushagra <Unknown>
Date: Saturday, 19 July 2025 at 1:45:21 pm UTC+5:30
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Who was Śabarī
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <Unknown>
Cc: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <Unknown>

Sarvebhyo namaḥ,

I am happy to report that a slightly shorter version of this article has now been published in the well-known Hindi e-magazine Samālocana:

शबरी कौन थीं : कुशाग्र अनिकेत

samalochan.com

My intention was to put this view on record.

Regards,

Kushagra

On Jul 8, 2025, at 11:47 PM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:



Apropos, and akin to, the statement of Sri Nityananda Misra:

" Most forewords, sammatis, and praśastis are written without thoroughly reading the text and manuscript."

I once heard a remark made of a critic:

"Oh, your review looks like that of a person  who has actually read the book!"!

Many Hindus have unfortunately taken a leaf blindly from Christian Creationism.

A pity that Karapatra Swamiji forayed into unexamined territory, 

and made/allowed to be made in his name, pronouncements  on issues he had no direct knowledge of.

The real tragedy is that so many get misled thereafter, owing to the standing and stature of a renowned figure.

Rightly did Shakespeare's Fool said:

"Speak less than thou knowest."

On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 7:06 AM Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste, Kushagra Ji

On Tuesday, 8 July 2025 at 9:31:48 pm UTC+5:30 Kushagra Aniket wrote:

Nityananda Ji, thank you for your comments. I did cite the Premapattana of Rasikottaṃsa on p.33 of my (original) article. Interestingly, Karpatri Ji wrote a "sammati" to the 1972 edition of this book!

I may have missed that page while glancing through the article. I am not surprised that Karapātra Svāmī Jī wrote a sammati to the book, which contains a verse that contradicts his position. Most forewords, sammatis, and praśastis are written without thoroughly reading the text and manuscript. 

 

Furthermore, in my study of the writings of Svami Karpatri Ji, I have discovered several other statements which are inconsistent with the shastras. For example, he has claimed that Shudras do not have the adhikara to speak Sanskrit. Worse still, his positions are now cited by activists to denigrate Sanatana Dharma.

The amount of evidence against these positions of Karpatri Ji is simply voluminous. It is imperative that a critical review of his works is conducted.

Yes, and a critical review should also explore in detail the possibility that a significant part of the books of Karapātra Svāmī Jī was written by his disciples and not by the guru himself. I strongly believe that some works attributed to Karapātra Svāmī were written by a group of scholars (called ghostwriters in modern parlance) and solely attributed to Karapātra Svāmī. 

Karapātra Svāmī Jī did not have the knowledge of foreign languages and the training in specialised disciplines (Western philosophy, comparative anatomy, evolutionary biology, etc.) to understand, let alone critique, the works of Hegel, Kant, Huxley, Darwin, etc. How was Karapātra Svāmī then able to read, understand, critique, ridicule and mock the works of these authors and many other foreign authors quoted and critiqued in the Hindi book ‘Mārksavāda Aura Rāmarājya’ (“Marxism and rule of Rāma”, मार्क्सवाद और रामराज्य, 1957)? It is unlikely he was reading Hindi or Sanskrit translations because many works (e.g., John Dawson’s “Modern Ideas of Evolution”) cited in the book were never translated into Hindi or Sanskrit. The obvious explanation is that other scholars were reading, summarising and also ghost-writing for Karapātra Svāmī. Rahul Sankrityayan, the Marxist scholar and polyglot who knew thirty languages, wrote that the study of works and literature referenced in the book ‘Mārksavāda Aura Rāmarājya’ was beyond the capabilities of Karapātra Svāmī, and it was clear that Karapātra Svāmī’s disciples had helped him wholeheartedly in this endeavour. Like Karapātra Svāmī, Sankrityayan was also a tall scholar with his flaws. However, this particular observation of Sankrityayan was spot on.

The above paragraph is from a small article I wrote last year on Karapātra Svāmī falling for an American creationist hoax in his book ‘Mārksavāda Aura Rāmarājya’.

When Karapātra Svāmī fell for an American creationist hoax

Karapātra Svāmī was undoubtedly a great scholar of Sanskrit, Sanātana scriptures and Vedānta. His works in these fields are an invaluable addition to the Indic knowledge traditions. However, outside these fields, his knowledge was quite limited. He had no training or specialised knowledge in non-Indic languages, history, science, anthropology, etc. This, per se, is not a problem; there are limits to every human mind. But it becomes a problem when a scholar ventures way out of their areas of scholarship, not knowing where to stop, and starts speaking or writing about things they have zero idea about. This was a big problem with Karapātra Svāmī (or his ghostwriters, more on this later); he did not know where and when to stop.
The same Karapātra Svāmī who would astonish and inspire readers by writing on topics he specialised in would almost always reduce himself to a laughing stock by writing tomes with supreme confidence on topics outside his expertise. For example, he would confidently date Pythagoras, who lived in the sixth century BCE, to the thirteenth century CE. He would mock and chide great minds like Āryabhaṭa, Kepler and Newton for believing in the earth’s rotation and then establish with his ‘arguments’ and ‘proofs’ that the earth does not rotate. He would emphatically declare that scientists measuring the speed of light means nothing, adding that only the astronomical bodies mentioned in the Sūrya-Siddhānta move; other stars and comets are stationary. He would derive the Hebrew names Shem and Ham (names of two of the three sons of Noah in the Hebrew Bible) from Sanskrit ‘soma’ and ‘hema-garbha’ and thus ‘prove’ that Noah of the Bible was Manu and his sons Shem and Ham were Candravaṃśī and Sūryavaṃśī kings Soma and Hemagarbha. He would venture into biology and state that an amoeba is a more complex life form than all plants and trees because it can form a hole (referring to the food vacuole) in its body. He would quote from the many works of Christian creationists (of all people!) of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to ‘disprove’ the theory of evolution and then go on to establish, with his own ‘arguments’ and ‘proofs’, his theory of ‘devolution’. This is just a sample of his writings outside his areas; there are hundreds of pages filled with such preposterous nonsense. Thankfully, these writings of Karapātra Svāmī are still in Sanskrit or Hindi. If they, or extracts from them, are translated into English, the whole world will laugh at how out-of-date and ridiculous Hindu traditional thought was as of the late 20th century. Sanātana/Hindu tradition believes in acquiring knowledge from everybody. The Hindus of yore learned a lot from the Greeks and the Romans: Sanskrit texts like the Yavanajātaka and the Pañcasiddhāntikā (with its Romakasiddhānta and Pauliṣasiddhānta) were the results of assimilating knowledge from foreigners. They had an open mind, unlike Karapātra Svāmī..
Many modern scholars believe that the Vedic commentaries attributed to Sāyaṇa are the work of many people, not one. Similarly, several people, including me, believe that some works attributed to Karapātra Svāmī were written by a group of scholars (ghostwriters) in addition to Karapātra Svāmī. Karapātra Svāmī did not have advanced knowledge of foreign languages and the requisite training in specialised disciplines (Western philosophy, comparative anatomy, evolutionary biology, etc.) required to understand, let alone critique, the works of Hegel, Kant, Huxley, Darwin, etc. How was Karapātra Svāmī then able to read, understand, critique and mock the works of these authors and many others quoted in the Hindi book ‘Mārksavāda Aura Rāmarājya’ (“Marxism and rule of Rāma”, मार्क्सवाद और रामराज्य, 1957)? It is unlikely he was reading translations because many works (e.g., John Dawson’s “Modern Ideas of Evolution”) cited in the book were never translated into Hindi or Sanskrit. Surely, other scholars were reading, summarising and also ghost-writing for Karapātra Svāmī. Rahul Sankrityayan, the Marxist scholar and polyglot who knew thirty languages, wrote that the study of works and literature referenced in the book ‘Mārksavāda Aura Rāmarājya’ was beyond the capabilities of Karapātra Svāmī, and it was clear that Karapātra Svāmī’s disciples had helped him wholeheartedly in this endeavour. Like Karapātra Svāmī, Sankrityayan was also a tall scholar with his flaws. However, this particular observation of Sankrityayan was spot on. Karapātra Svāmī was indeed helped by ghostwriters in writing this book.

Now we come to the topic alluded to in the title of the post: the Nevada shoeprint hoax. In the early 1920s, some American creationists, including the Catholic creationist Alfred W. McCann, claimed that a “Triassic shoe sole fossil” had been found in Nevada. McCann and others claimed that the ‘fossil’, which looked like a partial shoeprint to them, was proof that humans walked around with shoes in the Triassic age and thus ‘disproved’ the theory of evolution. While the current location of the ‘fossil’ is unknown, the photos of the same were published in the 1920s. From the photos, the object looks like a rock concretion. In 1922, McCann published an anti-evolution book peddling this shoeprint hoax. The book was slammed by both atheists and creationists for various reasons (a rebuttal was printed in the same year), and the hoax was never taken seriously by geologists, even though some other conspiracy theorists and creationists have brought up the Nevada shoeprint hoax now and then. By the early 1950s, the hoax had been debunked thoroughly. In a book published in 1952, science writer Martin Gardner dismissed McCann’s work in just two lines. But none of this mattered to Karapātra Svāmī (or his ghostwriters) writing in 1957. He (or they) presented the Nevada shoeprint as further ‘evidence’ and used it to build another ‘argument’ to ‘disprove’ evolution in ‘Mārksavāda Aura Rāmarājya’. Karapātra Svāmī neither understood the writings of Huxley and Darwin nor their arguments and theories. But he built up his case against their sound theories with such laughable titbits, including discredited hoaxes popularised by Christian creationists in the 1920s. Sankrityayan rightly said that Karapātra Svāmī relied on a gossipmonger to publish this claim.
This is not to discredit Karapātra Svāmī or praise Sankrityayan. Karapātra Svāmī remains relevant for Sanskrit and Vedānta studies and is an ācārya/guru worth honouring. But not everything he wrote was correct. By venturing into areas outside his expertise, he made himself (and Hindu intellectuals) an object of ridicule. 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/187e1223-18e2-41db-81dd-7e6e4a885760n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

​Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Chair Professor (Retd.), IIT-Madras.

Member, Advisory Board, "Prof. A K Singh AURO Chair of Indic Studies", AURO University, Surat.
Member, Expert Committee for Review of Criticism of Indian Knowledge Traditions, Central Sanskrit University (under MoE, GoI), Ganganath Jha Campus, Prayagraj.
Adjunct Faculty, Dept of Heritage Science and Technology, IIT Hyderabad.

Nominated Member, Academic Committee, Kavi Kula Guru Kalidasa University, Ramtek.
Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.
Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.
Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.

Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.

Former Head, Dept. of Sanskrit, The National Colleges, Bangalore.

https://sites.google.com/view/kskannan

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7FhBfQRzg1NAGAUNQpf8xR35%2B%3DcCjDRtNXELuVQkoGyA%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

क्षम्यताम् - उच्छिष्ट इति पाठ्यम्. 

शबरी कौन थीं : कुशाग्र अनिकेत

samalochan.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hindu-vidyA हिन्दुविद्या" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hindu-vidya...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hindu-vidya/bec5bf70-3ba9-4226-8f0b-fb744d7998a5n%40googlegroups.com.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

Thanks - my fault indeed for trusting gemini AI to give me a plain text version of the article.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 at 10:45, Kushagra Aniket <ka...@cornell.edu> wrote:

There might be some problem in your display because I am not seeing that sentence anywhere: "कालिदास ने भी अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तल में इसका उल्लेख किया है." The word Kalidasa itself is not mentioned. It may be due to parsing of the pdf or some other error. Or you might have access to an older version from somewhere (surprising).

Kindly refer to this published version as the final: 

https://samalochan.com/shabari/

Even the other sentence that you have quoted seems to be incomplete. The Smriti reference is cited to explain the words of Sri Rama in the Bhushundi Ramayana, not as standalone acceptance.

Kushagra Aniket

New York, NY, U.S.A.

ka...@cornell.edu

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:39 AM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

अत्रोच्चिष्टभक्षणे यद् कालिदासः प्रमाणीकृतः, तत्र कश्चन् सन्देहः - https://groups.google.com/g/kalpa-prayoga/c/WPM8QV5wV7Q । सन्तो निवारयन्तु तत्रैव। 

On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 at 13:45, Kushagra <ka...@cornell.edu> wrote:

Sarvebhyo namaḥ,

I am happy to report that a slightly shorter version of this article has now been published in the well-known Hindi e-magazine Samālocana:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/ar9cPTC0rKA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/EF31F1BA-21C6-437D-90EA-BB10E57B9ADC%40cornell.edu.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFY6qgH61jC5tKSi87O_VZg7HtvqHcW4krh8cLgSykvoS0rBNg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/ar9cPTC0rKA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADrasQrY9QJ9t9m561-QNfJsgtK8gMvkOA4oTEQfxLVv2hvfmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

प्रधानतात्पर्ये साधुन्य् अपि, अत्र टिप्पनीद्वयम् - 

न ही जीवन्मुक्त शबरी उच्छिष्ट-निवेदन के प्रत्यवाय से प्रभावित हो सकती हैं।

यह दुरुक्त है।
जीवन्-मुक्त भागवत को भगवद्-आज्ञा का उल्लङ्घन हि नरक के समान होता है।
और, बद्ध-दशा मेँ भगवद्-आज्ञा शास्त्र से हि जाना जासकता है,
प्रत्यक्ष नहि।
और यहाँ कोई प्रमाण नहि है कि
राम ने अपने मानुष-भाव-छोढकर
शास्त्रोँ के उल्लङ्घन करने का प्रत्यक्ष प्रेरणा दिया ।

शास्त्रोँ का निष्कर्ष यह है -
बुद्धि-पूर्वक-भगवत्-प्रातिकूल्य का प्रत्यवाय होता हि है - वह शबरि जैसे अत्युत्कृष्ट व्यक्ति हि क्योँ न हो।
अन्यथा शास्त्रोँ मे ब्रह्मज्ञानियोँ के लिए भी विहित, और उन से आचरित, रहस्य और प्रसिद्ध प्रायश्चित्त व्यर्थ होजाएँगे।
यह प्रत्यवाय भगवद्-अनुभ-विच्छेद-रूप भी होसकता है,
इस कारण हि यह भक्तोँ का अत्यन्त अनिष्ट माना जाता है।

भुशुण्डि-रामायण का यह प्रसंग आर्ष-रामायण के शबरी प्रसंग के विरुद्ध नहीं है, अपितु उसका उपबृंहण है।

वाल्मीकीय का आशय को भुषुण्डिरामायण के आशय से भिन्न रखना हि वर है। वल्मीकीय का इष्ट सदाचार का भुशुण्डि-रामायण मेँ उक्त उच्छिष्ट-भक्षण से विरोध है हि -
यतः - वाल्मीकीय मे राम ने एक तिल-मात्र-स्थान पर भी सदाचार और धर्मशास्त्र का उल्लङ्घन नहि किया।

इस विरोध का समाधान यह है कि
भुशुण्डि-रामायण का तात्पर्य
भक्ति-विवश-महाभागवत-कृत अबुद्धि-पूर्वक-दोष की उपेक्षा मेँ लेना है, अन्यथा नहि।
और यह क्षमा (जन्मान्तर मेँ भि) गृहीतोपाय भक्तोँ मेँ हि प्रामाणिक है।

ऐसा स्पष्ट समाधान और विवेक
उक्त विरोध का स्पष्ट अङ्गीकार के बाद हि होसकता है,
पूराणान्तरोक्त का वाल्मीकि पर आरोपण कर विरोध का निगूहन से नहि।
यदि वाल्मीकीय मे भी यह दुराचार आक्षिप्त होजाए
तो वाल्मीकीय का धर्मबोधकत्व घट जाएगा,
और “यान्यस्माकं सुचरितानि तानि त्वयोपास्यानि नो इतराणि” जैसे उपदेशोँ का शरण लेना पडेगा।
ऐसे वाल्मीकीय का धर्म मेँ प्रमाण अन्य-सापेक्ष होजाएगा।
अथवा भक्त लोग बुद्धिपूर्वक अपचार भी वाल्मीकीय-सम्मत मानने लगेङ्गे।
एसे, वेद-तात्पर्य-बोधक पूर्णता और स्पष्टता की रक्षा के लिए, आर्ष-कवि वाल्मीकि का आशय को प्रामाणिकता से समझना चहिए।

और आस्तिकोँ के लिए प्रयोजन को छोढकर,
केवल वाल्मीकि के प्रामाणिक आशय को समझने का साधारण सौजन्य भि
परप्रबन्धाक्षेप का सहन नहि करेगा।