I have to make a field trip to all these sites. Have seen some of the Ashokan inscriptions but not all. By the way, have you come across the interesting theory that Ashokan pillars were not Ashokan at all but much more ancient structures with a ceremonial/ ritual/religious significance which were co opted by Samrat Asoka? I think there may be a point in that.

Always open to learn and unlearn....

Who took away the capital? Hope it surfaces in some auction soon...

@ sumedha...yes i see a point in your adopatation of ritual piller by Asoka...in JUNAGADH in surashtra you can the rock edicts ...inscribed on a rock..very much readable...another one u can see in the compund of the national Museum delhi just in the front of main entrance steps..

Why was Ashoka called devAnAmp(r)iya?(= fool)?

@ MSS Not a Sanskrit expert but doesn't Devanampiya mean beloved of the Gods? Why do you say it means fool? @ Anup Dave. Yes I have hainted the National Museum when I was in Delhi and seen the edicts there. Of course they have very few Mauryan artefacts. Most of the them including the Didarganj Yakshi are in Patna. Just saw Sarnath in Jan this year. The edicts were readable but of course I do not understand the script.

@SVO: That is the "straight" (= literal) meaning, but it is meant to refer to what we call mUrakh in Hindi. Similarly the word "paNDitaputraH" also meas a Dud.These are what could be called Euphemisms in Sanskrit. The question is who called Ashoka this name esp in the days when Sanskrit was being spoken or should it be inferred that such euphemism became part of language "after" th time of Ashoka. Or is it that it never had that connotation in Pali/Prakrits of the time? I was just wondering? I did ask this question ofmy Sanskrit teacher? First he wasn't aware that Ashoka had that title? He was clueless as to how a powerful monarch would have let go anyone who conferred such a title on him!?!

In the book Buddhism and the Sahibs there were some very nice pictures of Ashokan Edicts. I was surprised that I could decoipher some of 'em. The ones that were close t Devanagari script o course... But the Brahmi Script needs some struggle.

@ MSS That is such an interesting insight! You know, I feel some of Ashoka's policies and actions specially towards the end of his reign must have inspired this double meaning name! He had really gone gaga by the end of his long reign.

In Dehi near the Qutub Minar there is an Iron Pillar that has not rusted over the centuries. On that there are some inscriptions. The ASI has done the service of reproducing the original Sanskrit text of the inscription. I had copied down the same in full once when I accompanied my son on a day's tour of Dehi. My idea of doing that was to study the "kind" of Sanskrit that was used in those days esp. in edicts and inscriptions. Do they use an ornate and stylish language or were they using plain and easy understandable Sanskrit? I found that the languge was failry simple.

@ MSS What does it say?

@ Sumedhaji...MSS is right about the Title of FOOL for ashok..it was a brahminical Revenge over the Shraman parampara..and the title was offered as -King who is loved by God - but actuall it meant FOOL..they made him feel good with title .. but for brahimns ..ashoka was a fool as he embraced Buddhism and rejected Brahmins..

In Hindi when one dies, they say "bhagwan ko pyare ho gaye".

My apologies - but I find this a bit over the top that Devanampiya was a euphemism for fool!! Ashoka wasn't exactly a puppet king!

@Rohini: Anup sort of put it down to the reaction of the Brahmin priests for having forsaken the Vedas...We know from history that post-Ashoka there were weaker kings and then the kingdom broke down exposing the country to attacks from outside all due to overstressing Ahimsa...that could also be the reason...

"When the Greek Gods decide to destroy somebody, they first make him mad". The story of eradication of Buddhism from India has never been told objectively and truthfully; all that I have read was that some important religious shrines of today have the remains of Buddhist temples underneath them. Some of the main religious centers of today also are the same as Buddhist centers of the past. Thus, it may be that the process of elimination (destruction) of Buddhist sites and extinction of the Buddhist faith in India was accompanied by massive propaganda such as calling Ashoka the Great a "fool' (as Anup has rightly pointed out). Ashoka was no fool - he was one of greatest Emperors of India with a great philosophy of non-violence, and Buddhism did not extinguish from its land of birth on account of 'ahimsa' but violence from without. I may have hurt the feelings of some, but to quote A. Camus "I like to love my country - and still be able to love justice". There is much that we can still learn from the life of this great Emperor.

That Buddhism was eradicated from India, there is no doubt. In all likelihood, such eradication may have been violent. However it must be noted that violence does not take place in a vacuum. There must have been socio-cultural and economic foreground which not only engendered the violence but also justified it to sustain a proposed new order. One cannot look at the events of a different era through the lens of values and understanding of another such as Albert Camu's. Ashoka undoubtedly was the greatest king; among other things, also because he left or caused to leave behind irrefutable records of his reign. I too do not think that he was a "fool" or was even described as a "fool". The adjective Devanampiya was preceded by another adjective (or name) "piyadasi". I gather that in all edicts it always went as "piyadasi devanampiya". This calls for deeper inquiry as both these adjectives are not the commonly used adjectives such as 'samrat' 'bhupati', 'rajadhidhraj' etc. which should naturally have been chosen as evocative of political power. That the edicts themselves should be there inscribed on stone or on pillars itself should have some practical significance. It is suggested that those were intended for the administrators - bureaucrats of a centrally administered far-flung empire laying down the rules of governance (not merely moral principles adopted by a king.) Ashoka may have adopted Buddism, but he was also the King - of an emerging or already emerged central power. A mere political structure may not succeed in creating a new and lasting political order. The varnas and castes based on them was a fact of life then trying to deal with increasing economic activity (agriculture and trade) and a rapidly growing population. Rise of political aspirations too must have been inevitable outcome (as it is today).

@Asad: The indigenous method of establishing religion was through polemical debates. By the time Shankara appeared on ths scene "to re-establish Vedic Religion on firm foundation of pursuasive Logic and reasoning, Buddhism had spread widely in the common populace by virtue of its simpler philosophy, and non-existence of textual authority as a must. That was because Buddha questioned textual authority and established one's own inner authority in its place. In this sense Buddhism was scientific and novel in its approach. Though it is considered as a "nastika-mata"[loosely translated as atheistic religions] and lumped along with Jainism and Charvaka philosophies, there was a moral/ethical code that underpinned this religion, unlike the Charvakas. Thus Shankaracharya engaged, the Buddhist scholars of his day in debates, placing the defeated one's conversion to Vedic Faith as the "bet". Such debates were standard in those days. But before he engaged the Buddhists, he consolidated Vedic Religion more on the basis of he Philosophy espoused by the Upanishads, as against the then prevalent ritualism [which had only alienated the majority from the Vedic Religion]. With this task accomplished Shankara took on the Buddhists. Of course by the time of Shankara Buddhism had split into factions with fewer morally sound intellectusl leaders.Decadence had set in. But the fact that the one principle of Buddhism that had considerably weakened the political set up of the times was ahimsa that is stressed too much in Buddhism and Jainism. This made for a very weak army and with weak successors India was sitting duck for military conquest. Had pure Vedic Religion continued there would have been a better organization of an army since the Vedic Religion was/is more discreet on the principle of ahimsa. You must remember that it was a time of might is right with very little place for any other peaceful diplomacy or dialog. Thus under Buddhism practically invited external aggression. It was in this sense that Ashoka would have been euphemistically named a fool, yeah for having paved the way for the conquest of India by anyone. This country had two great unifiers in its history one was Acharya Chanakya who unified the country under a single political authority- Chandragupta Maurya. The other one-Shankara- united the people under religious authority.Both were purportedly to defend the country against external aggression. I do agree that Buddhism and Jainism are excellent religions with all that non-violence as the bedrock of their thinking, but it is only in a very futuristic time when war as the basis of problem solving is eliminated! Till then being prepared is an essential part of survival!

@Mahadeva S Sarma: There was no such thing as "Vedic Religion" in the first place. I think if it all it exists today, it is the contribution of Sankara. The adoption of the principle of non-violence by a state was possible only because there was a relative period of stability during the seeding and growth of Buddhist philosophy. Barbaric practices of the Vedic religions (cults) may have prompted the need for alternate philosophies but may not have been the only cause of their sustenance. Sankara did win over the brahmans who were at sixes and sevens due to the fissiperous influences of a multi-god, multi-ritualitic pantheon struggling to seek legitimacy in a rapidly evolving society. Sankara in a sense provided that and revived the aspirations of the Kshatriyas and brahmans who had by then gone to seed in widespread communities across wide territories (pushed by a new central power starting with Chandragupta).

@Sekhar: I am afraid I cannot agree with you Sekhar. The right name for the religion that was practiced before the advent of wide spread image worship in the present form of "Hinduism"--egged on by the simple symbols that Buddhism(post-Buddha's Nirvana and long after the First few Buddhist Sanghas were convened and the principles of Buddhism were codiified into canons) and in similar lines Jainism.... could only be what is called Vaidika Dharma = Vedic Religion. The ancient Vedic Religion was based on the texts of the Vedas where the Mantras were to be used for the various rituals that were to permeate the life of a Brahmin particularly, and in a sort of reduced intensity... the other trivarnas. The "Hinduism" of today is more Puranic with all the imagery that is typical of the Puranas that emerged as Scripture following the, or, as per some religious historians, parallel to the Vedic System; to cater to the needs all the varnas and those outside the varnas, may be...was certainly preceded by the advent of imagery based on the legends of Buddha and the Bodhisattvas of the Jataka tales and Mahavira and the other tirthankaras... as an easy concept for the laiety to hang on to. Once you take to teh study of the Vedas and the religion that the Vedas spawned, it would not take much imagination to understand that the imagery of the Puranas is an incorporation of Veda Vyasa. Yeah, the highly picturesque expression of the Vedas did help in the composition of Puranas. But what I do not like about the Puranas is the deities fighting against each other in a game of one-upmanship...

@Mahadeva S Sarma: Your difficulty will lessen if you accept that the vedas as well as the puranas reflect not the ideals of our mind in today's times but the social reality of those times as embodied in the literature. What eludes us are the details of the actual way of life and the spread of the society. (paurva janapadas, janapadas, vanapadas etc.). It was during the post Buddhist era (or as part of the bahmanical resurgence to re-establish their superiority that was becomin obsure that we see a grand unification of the Hindu religious fragments eg the dashavatars, bhagwat gita, concept of trinity and a common canvas for the deities constantly at loggerheads with each other. Asad Ahmed's limited point is that a religion (Buddhism) which has gained acceptance for a few centuries as a unified view of life cannot get overthrown without some kind of violence. I wonder more about why Buddhism survived in other parts of the world (except Tibet - which was immune from foreign aggression till ecent times). How come the imperial Japan is still Buddhist. China has its own brand of the religion just as the other countries of the far East (and of course Sinhala). The other thread containing Telang's refutation of Homeric origins of Ramayana contains a very interesting philological dicsuccion in the respect.

Mahadeva may be right that decadence may have set in towards the decline of Buddhism in India as was the case with Catholicism in the middle ages before Martin Luther stood up. But the external invaders (the Muslims) confronted Hindu armies in India, not Buddhist rajas. Hence, the non-violent practises of the Buddhists did not really matter. Shekhar has already pointed out that Buddhism did survive in Central Asia (but overcome by Islam later), China, Korea, and Japan. In addition, it survived in Southeast Asia despite its 'unworkable' philosophy of ahimsa. So it seems that the extermination of Buddhism from its land of birth - India - was probably not on account of either decadence or ahimsa. This together with the archaeological evidence suggests that there may have been widespread violence. As regards the impracticality of non-violence, see how Gandhiji was able to liberate India from the clutches of colonialism! "Sabarmati ke sant tu ne kar diya kamaal." In my 20 years in India, I saw only one Buddhist - a saffron clad monk with a shaven head - who wandered aimlessly in our garden compound one day. What happened to the rest of them since they were part of a glorious Indian empire in the past? I have been interested in the messages inscribed on Ashoka's pillars and the Iron pillar as amazingly translated by British antiquarians. It is disappointing that they generally talk about the extent of kingdoms, major wars, and the grandeur of the rulers, but give no advice to future generations.

this is still almost in the same shape, though now a modest fencing is done... and at the highway..

@Asad: The concept of Ahimsa dominating the scene was evident that the later shape of Hinduism the Puranic kind that is popular now had absorbed this principle and "naturalized" it to the Hindu thought as seen in the various shades of Viashnavism esp. after the Bhagavatam and the general spread of the Bhagavata Philosophy as the dominant Bhakti cult with the other systems trying to copy it in one form or the other. Now it is with these new Hindu armies, with "Ahimsa paramo dharmaH" (= Non-violence is the greatest Dharma) lurking in the background that we find have faced the invading Muslims fired with a zeal to expand politically and for the spread of religion. Left to original Vedic Principles there could never have been a possibility of Ahimsa taking an upper hand in common man's life. For the Vedas insist on all the Purusharthas being given the right emphasis. And Asad you referred Mahatma Gandhi and his use of Ahimsa as the "weapon". I feel it worked because British were pretty sophisticated and hadinitiated the Parliamentary form of democracy ..so had the propensity to listen to the voice of reason. Do you think, he would have seen an equal measure of success had the Germans under Hitler had captured India in the bid for colonizing? I don't.

Most interesting discussion! May I jump in and contribute my two bits worth? Buddhism was the ultimate nouveau riche religion of its time, growing to accommodate the aspirations of the slowly rising class of Setthis or traders who had little socio-religious prestige in a discourse dominated by either religious power ( Brahmins) or temporal ,military power ( Kshatriyas). You will note that the important converts to the new religion were the rich Setthis who immediately provided the Buddha with the money, land and resources to expand his cult. ( Apart from the rulers of the important Janpadas of the time who gave him the power backing needed) The background was the changeover of the sub structure from the pastoralism of the early Aryan tribes to a settled agricultural way of life. The emphasis on sacrifice by the Vedas was no longer widely acceptable, it entailed the loss of valuable resources and the heavy cost of paying the Brahmins involved in the ceremonies, Buddhism is a low maintenance religion emphasising individual enlightenment. Again by the time of Shankaracharya's arrival on the religious scene, the Buddhists had moved far away from many of the original tenets of Buddhas preachings, had split into different cults, had started image worship ( forbidden by the Buddha) and taken Buddhist theology into areas he had not wanted explored. The monasteries of the Buddhists can be understood to be similar to the decadent Catholic monasteries before the Christian Reformation. The time was ripe for another reform and Adi Shankaracharya was the catalyst. It was done at the level of ideas and ideology as pointed out by MSS but there were also wars. Of course the Turkish invasion was the death knell of the monasteries. And , with respect, Asad Ahmed I dont buy the Sabarmati ke sant bit. It was untenable after the debacle of the Second World War and the worldwide crumbling of the British Empire for the UK to hold on to its colonies which were clamoring to be let go. The Brits had been forced to ask for help during WW 2 from the US and public as well as government opinion there was absolutely against colonies. The Brits were not going to get any help from the US in maintaining their colonies and could not manage them in their severely weakened state.The colonies themselves were increasingly assertive and vociferous about getting back their independence. MSS, what happened to the voice of reason of the british in 1857 when the country showed them they were not wanted? A brutal regime of killing, revenge and suppression was unleashed because at the time they had the wherewithal to maintain it. MSS I completely second you about the Purusharth element in the Vedas, take the Bhagwat Geeta , foe example, where else would you get such an eloquent exhortation to action...Karmayoga. Buddhism is in a sense a nihilistic ideology with a negation of life rather than a celebration or a call to action. Ashoka was already a successful Samrat at the time of his conversion on the backs of Chanakya and Chandragupta who established the political unity of the sub continent and set the administrative machinery in place. had he embraced ahimsa before sitting on the throne perhaps he would never have got it! h He proceeded to disperse the Empire , of course, but that is another story.

When it comes to Vedas why do intellectuals tend to idealize? Where is the Purushartha in the Vedas? There is no doubt that the Bhagwat Gita is a beautiful composition but that beauty does not negate its function of glossing over the fissiperous religious beliefs and the internecine wars and conflicts in the belief systems represented by the many Gods. It is generally accepted that the Bhagwat Gita is a much later addition to the Mahabharata and there was yet another one called Anu-Gita which has faded away. It is erroneous to believe that the Ahimsa as a tenet of a religion left nations without the ability to fight. Its like saying vegetarians make weak fighters or meat eaters make a marshal race. Buddhism or no Buddhism, wars have been fought not only in India but everywhere else where that religion was adopted. Look at Christianity. That religion does not preach wars. Yet wars are there. And the fiercest of them all (beyond what anybody could imagine) were the WW I and WW II. The Indian states fell in the face of muslim aggression for different reasons all together. I recently came across an interesting passage from Marco Pols travelogue where he describes the King of Malabar and his kingdom. "The King imports horses by the thousand every year and the Arabs merrily supply them. Where was the need to import so many horses? The reason was most of them used to die because the King did not know how to maintain and raise the horses. The King's men fed cooked food and meat balls to the horses. What do you expect?" (I have paraphrased this passage). Quite interestingly elsewhere I came across a prescription in the arthshashtra about feeding horses which was cooked food and meat balls and milk! Unlike in the West and Central Asia, India had fairly stabilised agricultural and self contained village clusters. The bulk of the population was unarmed and was largely indifferent to who they were ruled by.

The Vedas emphasize(if you take away the Upanishads as jnAna-kANDa, meant for Sannyasis to meditate)the gR^ihasthAshrama. The chAturvarNya(= the system of the four-fold division of society on the basis of karma= the occupation adopted by a person in society) which in the BG became "guNa-karma vibhAgashaH" which b itself could be an addition of the Natural Proclivities of a person in terms of preponderant sattva-rajas-tamogunNas in a person-only that the Gita's interpreters had attributed previous lifetime's karma unlike the Vedas. The Vedas are more practical about life- I am alluding the first three portion of the Vedas saMhitas and brAhmaNas on the one hand and the AraNyakas for the upAsanA-kaNda. The ritualism is just a regulation of the daily life of a person with a corresponding Vedic karma(=ritual) attached so that it served a dual pupose-<1> maintenance of the correct rendition of The Vedas(the textual preservation) and <2> regulation/disciplining of one's life through the rituals in the brAhmaNas. I do feel ther is mre to the ritual than meets the eye but that is a subject of great research. That a person's life must be directed to the attainment of Dharma-artha-kAma and mokSha and these be adhered ti in the different stages of life namely brahmacharya-gArhasthya-vAnaprastha- and sanyAsa and this was for every person was very much folowed as the Vedic dictum right upto the Mahabharata days. These are ony the puruSharthas. No puruShartha must be given up. Even in the upaniShads a reminder to follow the proper Ashrama is very well stressed. I don't see any glossing over of the differences in the Gita. If at Sri KriShNa was one of the best samanvayAcharyas we have had. I will continue ... further

I did make a very elaborate reply but "lost" it while trying to post because I wasn't "logged in". I do not have the patience to retype in that reply. So, let that be as it is.

I have doubts about the statement by Sumedha that "the time was ripe for another reform and Adi Shankaracharya was the catalyst". The eradication of Buddhism from India was not a 'reformation' comparable to Martin Luther's actions in Europe towards Catholicism, but a far more aggressive and violent elimination that seems to have involved widespread destruction. As far as I know, Martin Luther did not destroy Catholic churches in Europe. Also we should not underestimate the contribution of Gandhiji towards Indian independence. He was a saint, a pacifist, and a unique blend of idealism and pragmatism. It is true that the British were in dire economic trouble at the end of WWII, and there was some pressure from the Americans, but these were not sufficient reasons for giving up the jewel in the crown. The reason was that the British were 'enlightened' colonials and could not figure out how to deal with this diminutive, western-educated leader. We are fortunate that the colonizing power was Britain - not Portugal or France, as that would have meant brutal suppression of the independence movement. Gandhiji was also aware of the undercurrents of violence that existed (and exist) in Indian society and that is why he protected the minorities, except that it cost him his own dear life. I sometimes wonder if the tragic partition of India with its savage brutalities was brought about by Mr Jinnah, as commonly believed, or by the Sangh Parivar. Whatever the correct answer may be, only Gandhiji had the astute sense of politics and high moral stature to reverse that tragedy - had he been allowed to live longer.

There is nothing timeless and invariable in this world. We have to see things for what they were and not how we would like to them to be. The dashavtaras were never part of the Vedas. Neither was the Gita; nor the trinity. It is the result of subsequent masterful additions. What does samnvaya ean if not glossing over? Krishna is the most controversial figure for the immorality of his actions and his exhortation for indelible belief in him. Poor Yudhistira could not ascend to heavens for a small ambiguity he committed on advise of Krishna who however has gone scot free for all the lies and kapats (conspiracies) he authored. However, that is besides the point for all these people are after all, ancient fictional characters over which we need not break our heads today. The limited point is that Hinduism is a result of the grand unification and gloss provided by the Brahmans and their leader Sankara to a highly fragmented and archaic scriptured history. It will be wrong to say that Buddhism or Ashoka facilitated the Muslim invasions and that the Hindus would have prevented it had they ruled instead of the Guptas and Mauryas. Equally wrong is the presumption that religion is more powerful than the State.

The Guptas were Hindus and had come and gone by the time Shankara had appeared on the scene to unify the country on the basis of religion. Denying religion its power and prevalence over people in its hey day would be closing the eyes to the obvious. Religion had lot of role to play in keeping together a people in the Old World. How much of it will survve in the distant future is anybody's guess. In the Complete works of Swami Vivekananda the swamiji summarizes the average Hindus concerns. It is not a verbatim quote but a paraphrasing.A Hindu may not be politically aware but his knowledge about his religion was very much more accurate than his western counterpart in those days and we are talking about times much older than this. So, religion was one of the topmost concerns in the days of Shankara. There was thought ferment and utter confusion as to the true direction of religion. The study of history is meant to understand why certain events happened. Otherwise what useful pupose would history serve? What is very sacrosanct about the dates or personae? It is the only the sequence of events and why, say, in the present case India, became vulnerable to external aggression.Questions like<1> Was a central authority consolidating power and military might missing? Was a fragmented society responsible? These are tht historical facts if had correctly could help answer. Otherwise we should rather lead some literature.

I agree with Shekhar. Religion should have nothing to do with the State. It should be kept as a personal belief, to be respected by all, but should not be considered "more powerful than the State". Historically, this principle was first introduced by the Mongols and is still good today.

The eradication of Buddhism from the sub-continent was a violent affair.Shrines like Saabrimala have survived to this day in a different avatar. A generation back of Kerelites tell me how the devotees used to go singing abuses to the diety. The fantastic story of Ayappa (unknown in the north) is a later invention.Ayappa was the son born to the union of Shiv and Vishnu ( in her Mohini avatar).No Hindu religious text mentions Ayappa's name at all.It was most certainly a Buddhist shrine with tremendous following that was re-invented as a Hindu pilgrimage destination. Thrice Hinduism came under severe threat but bounced back miraculously. First when Ashoka with his relentless efforts was successful in converting almost the entire country to Buddhism. The Brahmins of Mithila invented the technique of 'navya nyaya' and challenged the Buddhist monks into shaastraartha (religious discourse) and defeated them repeatedly and thus prevented Buddishm from spreading in the place of it's birth 9Bihar and upper UP).Hinduism then received a great fillip and unprecedented revival under the Gupta period Second time in the initial stages of the Muslim conquest of the sub-continent ,Shankaracharyas were created for safeguarding the faith from an 'alien' religion of iconoclasts who went on an idol-breaking spree.Later during the 'Bhakti kaal' there was awesome cultural synthesis and the sheer number of saints that were around that period was amazing.Tulsidas Dubey created the Ramcharitmans in Awadhi and also the Hanuman Chalisa. It was a mahakavya (treatise) par excellence that could be sung and easily understood as it was in the most popular vernacular of the times.That time the benefits of converting to Islam were many. Ramcharimans freed Hindus from the clutches of Brahmins and excessive ritualism.Saints like Kabir, Meerabai, Rahimdas, Raskhan etc sustained Hinduism by creating immortal poetry in easy language as distinguished from the difficult Sanskrit. Third time after the fall of the Mughals and when the British (read English) star was on the ascendent. Macaulay's education began to create a class of Indians who looked towards the west for glory and looked down upon indiginous culture replete with superstition and excessive ritualism. Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the Arya samaj, Brahmo samaj movements started to simplify Hinduism and create a sense of pride among Hindus about their past and history.The biggest exponent was Swami Vivekanamda .The Deoband came into being and so also the progressive Aligarh Muslim University under the auspicis of Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan.This again at a time when converting to Christianity had tremendous benefits.These movements and were able to sustain a sense of pride in being an Indian. Sadly we are aping the west now much more than when we were under foreign domination.

The new militant Hinduism is most certainly not a new invention. It has kept on manifesting itself periodically as when when 'supposedly' the need so arose

Digvijay: I have a question about your comment: "Second time in the initial stages of the Muslim conquest of the sub-continent, Shankaracharyas were created for safeguarding the faith from an 'alien' religion of iconoclasts who went on an idol-breaking spree." The question is: Were there several Shankaracharyas or just one? If there was just one, then he was there about two centuries before the first Muslim invasions. So his actions could not have been in response to the idol-breaking habit of the Muslim invaders. The what was it?

Asad, you have raised a very important issue. There is no explanation why there is no reflection in contemporar Sanskrit literature of Islam's march (which must have been violent physically as well as psychologically - proselytizing and breaking idoals) in India. Even prakrut (provincial) literature hardly reflects the prevailing social and political reality. The literature of that extended period is full of other non-consequential issues. None of the contemporary events appear to have made the slightest impression upon the mannerisms or complacency of local intelligentsia. Look at some examples: 1. Sri-Harsa of Gahadwala court wrote a beautiful poem on Nala-Damayanti romance; 2. Dhoyi of Laxmanasena's court wrote an imitation of Meghdoota called Pawandoota. 3. Ramacharita written by Sandhyakarnandin of the Pala court was nothing but an acrostic (each line had double meaning) just praise of Rama at the same time praise of his Pala master Rampal. 4. Jayadeva's Gita-Govind was a beautiful musical, mystical drama On the whole, Sanskrit literature does not seem to have been aware that there were Muslim invaders in the country. Besides, the numerous bhakti-marga poets who wrote outstanding and pioneering stuff about bhakti - devotion as the only way of attaining moksha or reaching God also did not seem to be agitated about the advance of Islam. When the country was being marauded by armed and ruthless aggressors, our exalted brahmans Ramanuja and Madhva were engaged in an acrid and bitter fight between Vaishnavites (followers/worshippers of Vishnu) and Shaivites (followers/worshippers of Shiva). Ironically, people who bet every strand of their sacred hair (on their tonsured scalp) to defeat Buddhism had already co-opted Buddha as the ninth incarnation of Lord Vishnu! Islamic raids had started within a hundred years of birth of Islam. Hiuen Tsang's record points out (Beal's translation) that Brahmans went around villages preaching submission to the invader Muhammad ibn-al-Kasim in Punjab. This was in complete contrast to the Brahmans (centuries earlier) instigating total resistance to the last man against the invading Macadonian phalanx (Shikander). The Muslim invaders received support from the Muslim traders who had deep penetration in Indian towns as also patronage of the local Hindu kings who derived substantial revenues from the astute and high risk taking muslim traders (later also the European traders). On the whole it appears that as the "Bharat Varsha" burned, the Neroic Hindu leaders played their religious fiddle and were busy defeating Buddhism. One conclusion we can draw is perhaps the common people were indifferent to who ruled and in reality preferred to embrace Islam just as they had preferred Buddhism centuries ago.

@Asad: The Adi Shankaracharya was born and lived in the 8th century A.D. At the close of his 32 year of life he had estblishes an "Order of Shankaracharyas" at the four quarters of the country namely, Joshi Mutt(North- at the base of Badarinath), Jagannath Puri-East, Dwaraka in the West and Sringeri in South and instituted one each of his four disciples at the head of these Mutts. They were all known by the name of Shankaracharya. They will however have an individual name rechristened at the point of acceding to the order of sannyasins. Since they are renunciates they are to oversee the upkeep of the religion mainly in the form of maintaining the Vedic Recensions that were ordained as their duty by Adi Shankaracharya. It is only in this sense that the plural form of Shankaracharya has any meaning. The discipline followed, by them is exemplary in thet even through turbulent times that followed Shakara's liberation, they had served as beacon lights. All Hindus irrespective of their affiliations must be thankful to this institutions of Shankaracharyas for maintaining the purity in recensions of Vedas. Even today the trained personnel from these rather than elsewhere are the best exponents of The Vedas. The duty of S~s is not to wage any religious wars but to serve as reference for the Scriptural Study and practices.

Shekhar and Mahadeva: Thank you. The early raids by Mohammad bin Qasim were of a localized nature, and remained confined to the Thatta (Sind) up to Multan (Punjab) but no further. Even there the invaders were gradually cleared from some areas. The main thrust that provided a foothold for Islam in India came from the north after the Arabs had conquered Afghanistan and Central Asia (where they were checked at the Battle of Tlas by the Chinese with an amicable settlement). This expansion towards Punjab from the north was at least one (or probably two) centuries later - so it must have been after Adi Shankaracharya. Thus, it must be the subsequent (subordinate) Shankaracharyas that Digvijay is referring to. Shekhar's comment "On the whole it appears that as the 'Bharat Varsha' burned, the Neroic Hindu leaders played their religious fiddle and were busy defeating Buddhism" reminds me of a similar story elsewhere. I was told that while the Ottoman armies were scaling the walls of Constantinople from all sides (A.D.1453), the Greek monks in St. Sophia's ancient church were busy debating whether the angels were male or female.

Shekhar and Mahadeva: Thank you. The early raids by Mohammad bin Qasim were of a localized nature, and remained confined to the Thatta (Sind) up to Multan (Punjab) but no further. Even there the invaders were gradually cleared from some areas. The main thrust that provided a foothold for Islam in India came from the north after the Arabs had conquered Afghanistan and Central Asia (where they were finally checked at the Battle of Tlas by the Chinese after an amicable settlement). This expansion towards Punjab from the north was at least one (probably two) centuries later - so it must have been after Adi Shankaracharya. Thus, it must be the subsequent (subordinate)Shankaracharyas that Digvijay is referring to. Shekhar's comment "On the whole it appears that as the 'Bharat Varsha' burned, the Neroic Hindu leaders played their religious fiddle and were busy defeating Buddhism" reminds me of a similar story elsewhere. I was told that while the Ottoman armies were scaling the walls of Constantinople from all sides (1453), the Greek monks in St. Sophia's ancient church were busy debating whether the angels were male or female!

Islam and Sanatan Dharma certainly never existed as a strict Hindu Muslim binary in those times as it does today.The rise of Wahabism and the resultant terror which it has unleashed has enveloped the world in Islamophobia and India is no exception. The Indian sub-continent already was multi-religious at the time of the early Muslim raids.The oft repeated contention/cliche that "had we been united the Muslims would have never been successful in annexing India" sounds farcical because India as we know it today as a political entity never existed then.Repeatedly the blame is put squarely on the Rajputs that their in-fighting led to the Muslim conquest of india. Prithviraj Chauhan is hailed as a hero because he was able to repulse the early raids.Nobody cares to notice that the combined forces of almost all the north indian Rajputs had gathered under Rana Sanga and offerred a stiff resistence to Babur.Babur however had brought something that changed war-fare forever : gunpowder.... which was no match for the chaturangi forces of the Rajputs or for that matter Ibrahim Lodi before them. The post of the shankaracharyas were purely religious and never political.They never waged wars against Islam as popes had led crusades during the medieval times. The militant wing of Hinduism have been the numerous akhaaras which were created to safeguard the faith if it ever came under severe threat.To the best of my knowledge these akharas only descend upon the plains at the time of the kumbh mela or the ardh kumbh.The age old bickering of who should get precedence in taking a holy dip was admirably settled forever during Pandit Nehru's premiership. Prior to that they used to have constant violent clashes amongst themselves. They certainly never made their presence felt during the latter part of Aurangzeb's reign when 'supposedly' Hinduism came under tremendous stress. @ Mahadev: Many thanks for pitching in with the valuable information about the creation of Shankaracharya peethams on all the four peripheries of India. @ Asad Uncle: I stand corrected Adi Shankaracharya was a 8th century phenomena not in the 11th. You are right. Shankaracharyas were created on account of threat to the sanatan dhrama from Buddhism not Islam.Maybe it was occassioned by King Harshvardhan and his support to Buddhism. I have a query gere were'nt the Christian monks of St Sophia adherents of the Greek Orthodox church as distinguished from the Roman Catholics ? The co-existance of the two principal faiths has not been violent ALL along these one thousand years. Through-out rural india the drinking wells of the two communities have been seperate just as those of the upper and lower castes.The Muslims and Hindus have been intermingling without the exchange relation of roti and beti. Brahmins have traditionally been preparing kheer in the houses of the erstwhile nawabs to be distributed to their subjects on Eid-ul-Fitrr because no upper caste Hindu would ever touch something prepared in a Muslim kitchen for fear of losing his caste as beef is cooked there. Mysteriously the greatest conversions to Islam have happened in the latter part of the 18th and the early part of the 19th century while Aurangzeb died in 1707 A.D.Proselytisation had never been a part of state policy under the Mamluke Sultans or the Mughals just as missionary activity existed in India irrespective of the British rule. In fact the British were predominantly Protestant while almost all missionaries are essentially Roman catholics. Shekhar has raised several good points and it is always a delight to read his posts given that they are balanced and erudite.Yes the dashavtar never really comprised of Gautam Buddha. He has been added as a 9th incarnation much much later.Ramanuja and Madhavacharya were in the deep south and were very far removed from the turmoil of the north .The deep animosity between Shaivaites and Vaishnavites was a real and present cause of constant conflict there.North Indian Hindus may today find it hard to believe that the Shaivaites were not even allowed in Vaishnav temples just as a Sunni cannot enter a Imambargah and vice versa in several parts of the Muslim world to this day. Pandit Nehru's relentless efforts led to the opening up of the doors all shrines to all castes across India. The Priests then erected a railing in the sanctom sanctorum beyond which no one could venture to supposedly prevent the shrine from losing it's purity /sanctity ! The saints of the Bhakti kaal do not mention anything untoward about Islam as rightly pointed out by Shekhar.Their efforts were in fact in the direction of assimilation of the two communities just as those of the Sufis. Islam as it has evolved in the Indian sub-continent in tyhe last one thousand years is very different from the Arab world or Persia.The taking out of taazyias on the day of Ashura in the month of Moharram, offering of nazrr , preparation of tabarrukh at the Sufi shrines,S

@Digvijay: Srimad Bhagavatam mentions about 22 avatars of Vishnu whereas I have read in vernacular literture that Vishnu’s avatars are 24 in number of which the Dashavatars are the most important. The Buddhavatara mentioned in the Dashavatars is confused with Gautama Buddha the founder of Buddhism , with a lesser known one, who is mentioned in Puranic lore in connection with bringing down the pride of RiShis and RiShi-patnis. But before getting into Puranic lore one must be advised that while The Vedas make only a mention of an idea/concept in as abstract terms as possible with anecdotal supporting information supplied in some of the cases. The Puranas on the other hand develop the ideas with an excellent story plot so that the ideas could be held in mind by the common populace. So, when one is looking at Puranic Lore one must develop the necessary discretion to extract the essence of the idea being presented. I would like to state here that we find it widely said in Sanskrit Religious literature "vedopabR^imhaNAni hi purANAni" (= the Puranas are meant to detail out the ideas presented in the Vedas). MaharShi Veda Vyas at the close of Dwapara Yuga is said to have composed the Puranas to address the coming generations of "feeble-minded" people of Kaliyuga incapable of keeping pace with the Vedic Practices and people of all castes with or without access to comprehend the ideas expounded in The Vedas! But the kind of mutual contradictions that we find in the Puranas make us even doubt that they were compositions of one mind. We know that the Vedas are mediated by several RiShis and for a Hindu they are apaureSheya vAk (=Scriptures of Divine Origin). If a non-Hindu refuses to take it as such, then even a Devout Hindu would have no objection to it as this only "defines" who is a Hindu(preferably better to be called a Sanatana Dharmavalambin) is. Since this allowance is there within Hinduism, an average Hindu would not only tolerate a person from another faith, but can also, accept any religion's claim for its Book being of Divine Origin. The idea has been very beautifully explained by Swami Vivekananda in his Complete Works. I have never come across a Hindu who denigrates or even compares belittlingly any religion's Scripture to their own. All the above I had to state because I wanted to emphasize that the Puranic Form of Hinduism that is popular now, is in most part responsible for the schisms that you notice in the Sanatana Dharma. A kind of unification could be expected, may be, as ushered in by the march of Science. Returning to the Buddha as the 9th Avatar: To rein in the RiShis and RiSh-patnis who had powers over the trimurthis, Lord ViShnu took the avatar of a “Buddha” who was so convincing with his unassailable logic in the condemnation of The Vedic Practices, which, incidentally were the source of the Immense Pride of the RiShis[Creative Power in the hands of RiShis] enhanced by, the Devotion to their husbands and the Sacred Fire, of the RiShi-patnis . The parallel avatar as the young and handsome bhikShuka by Lord Shiva, broke the satItva [which is a great tapas] of the RiShi-patnis that together they lost the “near-equality” to the trinity of Gods! Thus the Buddhavatar was to decapitate the RiShis of their Special Powers sourced from The Vedas directly. The RiShis had “forgotten” the Lord Himself was The Veda. The confusion of Gautama Buddha with this Buddhavatara arises because of the similarity of their approaches: Condemnation of The Vedas as extra-temporal authority and the Vedic Fire Sacrifices as a source of Power.

Veda Vyas really means expander of the vedas just as the expander of the Bharata into Mahabharata. That the vedas are apaurusheya does not mean they are or were considered by the Rsihis to be of divine origin. A-paurusheya simply means not born of a purusha i.e. a single man. The puranasa were subsequent additions by different gotras i.e. lineages of brahman rishis. Therefor you find numerous versions of same stories and different interpretations of the germinal seeds in the vedas. The brahmins in their own ways tred to inerpret the the vedas to suit the new emerging social realities and to preserve their own hegemony over the religious custom, mainly the sacrifices. Buddhism was the serious-most challenge to this hegemony hence the deep animosity of brahmins to Buddhism. The common people mainly of the two lower varnas and the numerous artisan castes evolving under them as trade and other economic production processes were largely indifferent. The Kshatriyas - the kings supported both Buddhists and the brahmans to ensure a functioning social order which would pay the state its revenues and support the armies for conquest and defense of the territory. The edicts on stones, iron pillars and later tamrapats (copper plates) supports these hypotheses. It will be wrong to believe that the brahmins existed and functioned in their philosophical and religious cuccoons without regard to what was happening in their daily lives for the had to earn their bread to live. My main proposition is not about the vedas but about how and why the literature and the brahmins as a community were indifferent to the advance of Islam whereas they decimated Buddhism with all their might. I will go a step further and argue that the common people, the vaisyas and shudras welcomed first buddhism, next islam and then christianity and ultimately the British rule. Unfortunately one can largely argue by circumstantial evidence as direct evidence is scant thanks to our criminal disregard for history.

@ Mahadev:You have nicely illustrated the gist of the Puranas and how they contradict themselves. Does it not appear that they have been tampered with at a later date to suit someone's selfish purpose or personal agenda ? Surely they are supposed to be cumalative wisdom of the saints over centuries just as the Vedas are. Puranas are in fact an explanation in detail of what the Vedas are a condensed form.But then what is vedanta? In Vishnu Purana "We have fantastic stories like how a man who drinks liquor shall be re-born as a dog ! Surely more people can be talked into virtue than can be bullied out of vice. Vedas are doubtlessly the oldest written records of humanity. I remember a Sanskrit saying that goes "There is no faith outside of the vedas"Now that is akin to the Shahada of the Muslims that "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet" I am sorry but I do not agree with either. Vedas contain only vedic practices and codes , yajnas and the benefits that accrue from them for humanity.Atharva Veda describes medicinal cures in detail while Rig Veda is essentially full of devotional hymms. Where and how do you accomodate tantra, and Aghor ? The belief that Vedic hymms have divine powers just as Quranic aayats do is something i cannot comment upon. That is strictly a matter of faith. Among Muslims a Hafiz is one who has memorised the entire Quran which is not to say that he understands it too. There are kids who have been made to learn it by heart by rote. There is a belief that God's mercy and blessings are upon a family that produces a Hafiz. Similarly tremendous blessings accrue upto 5-7 generations upon a family that produces one who can interpret the Quran other than being a Hafiz too. My line of thinking and faith is more in tune with the Bhagwad Gita where Krishna says that " Whatever form or without form you may worship ME but you shall all eventually come to ME " Just as Sufism advocates the path of devotion to achieve HIM.Most Sufis did not frown upon idol worship of their Hindu adherants so long as their followers were on the path of righteousness while idol worship is anathema to Islam. Highest conversions in india have happened as a result of Sufi activity in India and not owing to the supposed dreaded Aurangzeb's sword as is the popularly held myth. Nirgunn Niraakaar Brahmm ki upaasna (God being formless) is a path to realise HIM as described in the vedas.We have stories that talk of Nachiketa and examples like : " Kaali gaai (cow) hari ghaas kha karr safed doodh deti hai .hari ghaas ka safed doodh (amrit tulya) mein parivartan hee Brhamm hai " Shaaktt as a path to acheive HIM also accrues from the Vedas where God is worshipped as an invisible energy that permeates the universe "Omityaykaashram Brhamma" : Om ek akshar mein Brahmm hai The Bhagwad Gita puts forth Primarily three unions (yog) to realise Him : Gyan Yog : The path of knowledge Bhakti Yog : The path of devotion Karm Yog : The path of service While north india is Bhakti and Tantra pradhan South is Gyan margi predominantly.Aghnihotra and trikaal Sandhya are activities which continued well into the 20th century in the south while they have all but vanished in North India.

very poignant question Shekhar: Why did the Brahmins not channelise their energies in the direction of saving Hindus from converting to Islam ? While with Buddhisnm they had fought tooth and nail? We must me mindful that Hinduism is essentially a Brahmanical religion where at every stage/ life's passsage the aid of Brahmins has to be sought...birth, marriage , death and coming of age (upanayan sanskar / yagyopaveet) So much so that 'Bramhmm hatya' is the greatest sin of all. You cannot sentence a Brahmin to death howsoever gruesome his sin/ crime ! He can utmost be given desh-nikaala (exile) This battle to defeat Buddhism was always a question of survival for Brahmins and continuance of their hegemony over Hindu society. I ahve attempted to answer your question here with my limited knowledge: (A) with Buddhism their battle was on an ideological level but with Islam it was more about physical destruction of shrines and loss of life and limb.Brahmins could challange and defaeat a Buddhist monk in a verbal duel on religious discourse but a Muslim he could not because Islam alongwith all Abrahmanic faiths ( Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are at ABSOLUTE cross purposes with Indic faiths (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism ) on what happens to the soul after death. There is no meeting ground whatsoever except in Sufism where the concept of Fanaa is loosely like moksha and it also has a rich murshid / murid (guru/shishya) parampara ( tradition) (B)Buddhists could revert back to being Hindus but no Muslim or Christian can be accepted back into the Hindu fold after he has allegedly consumed beef. 'Shuddhi movement' of the 19th century was an effort in that direction and so also the recent efforts in Chattisgarh of bringing the tribals back to Hinduism who had converted to Buddhism and Christianity but these were feeble attempts with very limited success and have always been in vain. (C)As I have stated above there never was any state patronage to convert as existed under emperor Ashoka the great, King Bimbisara and Harshwardhan.Proselytisation was never an instrument of state policy under the Muslim rulers whether Mamluke, Mughal, Bahamani kingdoms , Lucknow or Hyderabad.Had it been so under the mughals the areas around the imperial capitals of Agra and Delhi would have been teeming with Muslims which never was a case at all. Pre-partition demographic statistics do not indicate that either.In fact the highest concentration of muslim populations have been on the peripheries of the Mughal empire : Kashmir, Bengal, Deccan and what is now Pakistan. Highest exodus to both the Pakistans (east and west) has been from eastern UP and Bihar/ Bengal and the erstwhile Muslim kingdoms (pl read as British India) as distinguished from Princely India. The migration from princely India was the least. We must be mindful of the fact that even at the height of British Imperialism in India , the British directly ruled over only 3/5th of India. (D)The highest conversions can be traced to the 18th and 19th centuries which were a period of slow decline of the Mughal rule in india and were essentially 'dark ages' with no significant renaissance or revival of Hinduism strangely as it suddenly bounced back in the 19th century. regds etc.

@Shekhar: apauruSheya means: not of human origin i.e. to mean not a composed work but one "Intuited" in trance by the RiShis. Now don't start applying Principles of Science and say how something can come in writing or even into an oral tradition without falling out of the mouth of some human being. This is the same with any Scripture, whether it is the Holy Koran orthe Holy Bible. Any religious arrangement needs an authority to which logic need be adjusted. IOW,within the framework of the religion in question and in this case Sanatana Dharma, RiShis are not supposed to have used their conscious thinking intelligence[because that is supposed to be subject to error and always in need of correction] in the composition of The Vedas. This position is not given to any other Scripture in Sanatana Dharma. The word PuruSha that way has the meaning "man" as well as "The Primordial PuruSha" (read: God or anything of that sort) when dealing with, say, the Vedic R^ik called PuruShasUktam which is supposed to describe the Universe in the form of the virAT PuruSha. Such picturesque descriptions or imagery is common in The Vedas. Now, a denial of this amounts to Atheism, whichever religion you take to discuss. In my present and previous expositions of The Vedas or for that matter any religion, I begin with accepting that Religious Scripture as sacrosanct. If you are looking for a scientific appraisal of religion, then one need not take a stand at all. Simply dump religion as pre-historic man's imperfect concoction and forget all about it. With that line of argument we are not on the same frequency or track at all Shekharji.

@ Digvijay Singh Kushwaha : Bhai, the history does not have always very clear and straight answers. Before 10-11 centuries Buddhism and Jainism were the two most powerful religious sects originating from India itself to challange the core of Shashwat Hindu Dharma divided into several sects such as Sakta, Shaiva, Vaishnava, etc. Mithila has always been a centre of learning and Bengal emerged as another centre equally powerful, working in tandem - both were dominated by Shakta, Shaiva and Vaishnava. You can see a very peculiar feature - women folk being dominated by Tantra and Men folk dominated by Vedic Cult. They fought a very vigorous battle at intellectual level to defeat the Buddhists and Jainism so much so that the Hindu gods and Goddesses got assimilated into them and their Gods and Goddesses got recognition in Hinduism. The fight was not much with swords. A new science - Navya Nyaya was invented to defeat them. By the end of 10th century the process was complete with formation of Hinayaan and Vajra Yaan. Buddha and Mahavir got recognition in the Dasavtaar. As far as Islam is concerned, it was a Raj Dharma till the arrival of Colonial powers. Due to politics and governance, the castes other than Brahmins were more prone to conversion and protection of Brahmins was gone. So who was there to encourage the intellectual fight. Besides, Islam would never participate in intellectual debates. And Mithila got isolated without any effective interference in terms of conversion or administration. Even if we discount these factors, you can see the effect of Hinduism. Where it could not defeat them it assimilated them and thus emerged a new sect of Sufism, Ahmedias, etc. Caste got into the monolithic religion of Islam and all this happened in India alone.

@Digvijay: You have raised a few good questions regarding the relation of Veda/Vedanta/Tantra that I feel encouraged to answer. I will do so presently.

So much has been written during the last 10 hours (...while I slept) that it is difficult to read and assimilate all, but it is a most enlightening discussion. We have definitely corrected the notion that eradication of Buddhism from its land of birth, India, was not exactly a picnic. Can someone who understands it all please summarize as to what can we learn for the future? That is what really matters. In the words of Iqbal: "aasmaan, doobay huay taron ka maatam kub talak?" Translation: How long should the sky moan over its fallen stars?

@Asad: Again I am you have asked the right question. Where do we go from here? What do we learn from history? True. If we do not learn anything from History, even if the content of it is highly suspect for accuracy, then as a subject of human intellectual engagement it is a waste. In that case it is better we spend that time S&T or may be literature. Here is my summary: <1> To understand the drift of historical events, the initai conditions must be understood well. <2> Religion had a predominant role(whether one likes to admit it or not in the Old World. <3> That the Old Order changeth yielding place to new, is a truism with respect to humanity. <4> That every stream of human thought arises in response to the dangers posed to survival of an existing thought. If the old thought assimilates the need for change it survives else it perishes. Buddhism, looking back and looking at it in terms of its principles was a great thought advance in religion. For that matter Buddhism and Jainism provided a God-free religion, an alternative that retains the essential goal of the Vedic Religion or what could be rightly called the Dharma- which crosses the confines of inviolable religious ideas, to explore other purposes of religious life. Buddhism and Jainism are religions that would be very much the way of thinking in a futuristic time when wars would cease to be the way to determine the right way forward. Till such time one has to bide time and accommodate some form of self-defence. Buddhism and Jianism had provided the right climate for developments in Science (in India in Medicine and Logic of Discourse) - technological advances were still not there in India because the culture in this country was - non-materialistic essentially- whether it was H,B or J, the national predilection remained non-materialistic.There was materialism at least in the earlier part of The Vedas but that had to be pushed to the background to counter the advancement of "atheistic" faith of B & J, in the process H lost a lot of verve and vitality, but all the same, Vedanta as the one and only surviving Philosophical School emerged as the Unifying Idea. Vedanta( ina all its myriad varieties) would continue to be the Intellectual face of H. The battle with B wasn't settled when H that had been by then modeled on B, was facing the onslaught of Islam and Christianity which had materialism alongside spirituality. The later Vedanta variations of Ramanujacharya's VishiShtadvaita and Madhvacharya's Dwaita were more modeled after/to counter or show the existence of similar thought processes of Islam and Christianity. The inaccessibility of all ideas in the Vedic Religion to every member of society, I mean, across the castes remains as the Achilles heel of Hinduism.Yes, the Puranas were made so that The Vedas' concepts could be accessed by all, but they are so full of contradictions that the average man is still confused. One thing stands out about H. Despite the attack from social reformers and reformist thinkers and the general non-availability of state patronage, the religion has survived as a faith, followed by millions by this intrinsic property of continual revision and restructuring and adaptability. Why Buddhism survived in other lands? For them it was an imported faith; China or Japan had a rich culture with the necessary amount of materialism as part of their pre-Buddhist origins and therefore they were militarily/for day-to-day life better prepared.To accommodate materialism as an integral part of life, has been the emphatic teaching that H has received from Abrahamic faiths. If only India was concerned with materialism as much as it has been stressed in the beginning portions of The Vedas then for one thing we would have had better records of history at the very least. Then there would have been better Scientific Progress in Ancient India, also. The obsession with ritualism-without even attempting an inquiry into their raison d'artre and the hidebound casteism shrinking the talent pool must be sadly admitted. Looking back we must hold that violently or otherwise India has been taught repeatedly to reconstruct its social structure on a more equitable basis. That has been truly possible only after the march of Science as learnt by us with a brush with the West, and the advent of should we say, Democarcy?

Thank you. I like your concluding statement that "Looking back we must hold that .... India has been taught repeatedly to reconstruct its social structure on a more equitable basis." Personally, I find the philosophy of non-violence attractive since great minds in all ages and all walks of life (whether Ashoka the Emperor, Beethoven the Composer, or Gandhi the Moralist) opted for pacifism and non-violence as a way of life. We can dream of a world free of violence. In our country, we see billions of dollars being spent on war weaponry - jet fighters, missiles, drones, bombs, and that kind of garbage. On the other hand, I can never forget the face of the poor woman who was eating boiled rice from a filthy rag spread on a grimy, wet sidewalk in the midst of chaotic Calcutta traffic. We must ask what is more important? It is only a matter of priorities.

I don't know how exactly Paganism,subsequently Jews,subsequently Christians were eradicated from Arabic Peninsula ?? I don't know how exactly Zoroastrianism was eradicated from Iran ?? I don't know how exactly Coptic Christians were eradica......ted from Egypt ?? I don't know how exactly Buddhism,Hinduism was eradicated from Indonesia ??I don't know how exactly Orthodox Christians were eradicated from Kosovo ??I don't know how exactly KP's were eradicated from Kashmir?? I don't know how exactly Hinduism was eradicated from Pakistan,Afghanistan (& ongoing in Bangladesh too) ?? Maybe the answer to all these questions are same ...!!!

@Mahadeva S Sarma: Your summary was longer than the thesis and as usual was interspersed with some gems. Your argument about the "given divine status" of the Vedas (but not the Puranas including Bhawgat Gita) seems too idealist to me and therefore unacceptable to me. It is not that we are arguing at different levels and therefore each of us may have merits at our each respective levels. You are committing a fallacy called "argumentum ad vericundum" - a reliance on "authority" - divine at that. The historical perspective of Vedas is not based on any premise of atheism. The proposition is very simple. Human though is a product of human mind which is the result of his social milieu (baggage and gems). Ancient scriptures are coveted not because they hand down sanatan (invariable) truths but because they tell us how our minds evolved and maybe there are some seeds which can be useful to us in our never ending quest and conquest of the world around us. Your suggestion that to understand drift of history we should understand initial conditions well is an "addhah shakha urdhva moolah" kind of an argument. 1. It is by looking at scriptures, their authorship supported by other evidences such as the one embodied in the picture of this thread, other archaeological tell-tale discoveries that we try to understand the initial conditions. 2. No body denies that religion played a major role in historic times and perhaps some role in prehistoric times. Why, religion plays a major role even for the present and unfortunately may keep playing a divisive role (in a globalising world) going into future. The point is that religion does not operate in a vaccuum. It has always had specific reference point of economic and political reality. 3. Your point number 3 is a fallacy called begging the question. 4. This statement as a generality is not true. Humans are known to resist change and succeed in such resistance. The recent huge example of this is the defeat of Nazism in the last century. So I don't think we are arguing at two different levels. It is just that you disagree with me in this matter which is fine. I admire your zeal in defending the indefensible. :)

@Shekhar: BG has been taken as SmR^iti by Adi Shankaracharya.Traditionally it is considered as a part of itihAsa i.e Mahabharata. While looking for a canonical basis for the Vedanta Philosopny AS' starting point was BG. Even there AS holds Sri KriShna in a position of Authority as BhagavAn NarayaNaH swayam...[ apUrNavatAra]. I am not denying the authority of Puranas as illustrating the Vedic concepts. Since that has been the stand in the smArta scheme also, as it is called. Whereas the other Acharyas seemed to have accepted the scheme where the Puranas are given a greater emphasis than even the Upanishads or the Vedas one finds their schema promoting the sectarian idea of VaiShnavism- evoking a sense of exclusivity. In this sense the Universality and the Unity that Shankara strived to achieve is not reflected in the other Acharyas is my point. As insependent systems bringing up a cogent construction of a Vedanta based on the Upanishads is accomplished in equally beautiful way by the other two Acharyas i.e. Bhagavan Ramanujacharya and Sriman Mandhvaacharya. Shekharji when dealing with religion, we are expected to "bend our logic" to admit the truth of the authortarian pronouncements of the Scriptures. If one applies plain Aristotlian[Classical] Logic[on which Mathematics and other Rational Sciences are based] to them, one will end up in such contradictions that one may have to give up the inqiry altogether. Like non-contradiction is a necessary requirement for the acceptance of a thesis in Formal Logic. In the kind of "logic" used in religion this would defeat the purpose of inquiry itself, is the point I wanted to make. Let's say you wanted to look at The Vedas as hsitorical/cultural record of a "pastoral people'" as the British Indologists havwe handed down to us and have successfully had several of our own joining their band, well, there cannot be any logical objection to it. Yes every written word has a human author[one or many, as in the case of the Vedas] behind it. All I have tried to express was as a committed SD-ite[my preferred term for what is popularly called Hindu] to me The Vedas are sacrosanct. Historical data is the last thing I would look for in The Vedas. I would prefer to search for archeological evidence and other corroborative evidence from the Classics when trying to search for the historical roots of our traditions. I give the same reverence to any Scripture say, The Holy Quran or the Holy Bible or the OT and the Talmuds and so on. This is because I hold that Relgions' search is something that crosses the confines of Time itself. And I like this search. For me it is different from say my interest in String Theory. For me they are at different levels. Both engage my attention, however. I switch between thinking modes when I am engrossed in the connected thought process. P.S. Today, we had a very interesting discussion following our Veda Class- not in the presence of our Veda Teacher however :). He would have been annoyed may be. But a young S/W Professioanal who was questioning the time-invariability of Scriptural Pronouncements. I had to tell him the same thing. Without the doctrinnaire acceptance of the time-invariability of Scriptural Pronouncements one is not on a religious path or "mode of thinking". The choice is always ours. The workaround for this difficulty is what is called "re-interpretation" of the Scriptural Texts, without altering the text one wee bit. This has been achieved by and permitted in SD.

Sri Krishna was a pUrNAvatAra = a full descent of the Lord unlike say in the parashurAmaavatAra, which is called an amshAvatAra.

Just to think that one pole that looks like some Qutub Minar has sparked such a long-winding, protracted and often digressing(esp. due to me) discussion.... invokes a chuckle, why, some good laugh at myself..! *laughs out loud* [to the surprised looks thrown at me by dear wife and daughter...! ]

On RBSI threads, O don't know if there is such a thing as the last word. So, Mahadeva, the dashavtaras are a puranic figment. The contradictions with counterarguments get so involved that some even composed whats called as the "Bhavishya Purana" (literally translated means futuristic antiquity). Our learned pandits fail to notice the oxymoron.

This is Freedom of Speech in its fullest expression.

BhaviShya PurANa- an Oxymoron---why, WOW, how I failed to notice it!

@MSS, Asad Ahmed, Shekhar Sathe and Digvijay Singh Kushwaha, thank you for an elaborate, interesting and wide ranging discussion!( I kind of jumped in and out for which apologies but all for the good, there was no dearth of material:) @Shekhar Sathe there are some issues in connection with your understanding of the BG which I must write on later, maybe as a note. @ Asad Ahmed. I really have issues with your perception of Gandhi as a saint. Another discussion , perhaps?! Thanks to all!

P.S. MSS Am I jealous of you! here I am struggling away alone, reading the Rigveda ,getting precisely no where and you attend Veda Class!! Not fair!

@ Mahadeva: I can well understand and appreciate your view that in matters of religion logic cannot and should not be applied.All my attempts at learning the Vedas have left me perplexed. The Guru always insisted upon the correct pronounciation and discouraged me from practicing the chanting at home for making the mistake which he will have to spend time making me un-learn.For the guru the correct pronounciation was more important than the meaning contained therein.I think he believed that the meaning will dawn upon me on it's own ! @Shekhar:You throw up thought provoking stuff always. Bhavishya Purana is interesting .But pls share the basis of your belief about the Bhagwad Gita being a later concocted treatise.I tend to agree with Mahadeva that Krishana is a Purnaavtar.I believe that the teachings of Krishna are timeless whether we are a pastoral people or an industralised lot.HE gives the irrefutable teaching that all is fair in love and war.That a thorn can be extracted by another thorn only. How else do you explain the following events of the Mahabharata? Krishna exhorted HIS cousin cum friend (Arjun) to elope with HIS sister? Krishna induced Yuddhisthir to speak an untruth that Ashwathama the elephant was dead. Krishna gave the tip to Bheem how to tear apart Jarasandha ? Krishna used his divine powers to stop the rotation of the Earth (Jaidrath vadh) ? Krishna resorted to strategem and ridiculed Duryodhan to at least wear a loin-cloth and not go naked before his mother ,Gandhari ? Krishna killed Barbareek when HE was non-partisan in the Mahabharata? There is a long winding monologue of Arjun on the issue of Varnasankara (people of mixed-parentage /cross-breed ). "When women in a society become corrupt varnasankara is born. Even the Shraadh karma and tarpan as performed by these Varnasanka progeny do not provide any benefit to their ancestors" Krishna is strangely quiet on that. HE neither supports nor denies that.

Digvijay's comment that "in matters of religion logic cannot and should not be applied" is a problem that is common to all religions. A mathematician friend used to tell me that "Faith tends to dampen reasoning". So, one has to decide which comes first: Faith or Reasoning?

The BG is an interesting document and just as its contents, its historicity also needs to be analysed. Krishna too is an interesting character. As Sumedha suggests, may be we can discuss it on another occasion. If you start with the premise that Krishna is a purnavtar, then you will find some mysterious and ethically good meaning in his acts (mentioned by Digvijay above: there are many more!). But if you look at his acts first, then you will find a different reason for his being declared a Purnavtar. The whole fiction of avatars is absent in the Vedas and is a subsequent creation, most likely, by the brahmins who authored the puranas. The brahmins also were a fragmented (in Gotras) and geographically separated community hence the many versions of the stories inspired by the Vedas. See it is difficult to restrain oneself on this topic and I am no expert. I started my reading thanks to RBSI and I will be happy to discuss. It is a good idea for Sumedha to lead the discussion at her leisure.

What we need is a new thread. A picture of Krishna uploaded by RBSI can be the catalyst! This thread has become really long....

RBSI...a post on the BG to start us off?

@SVO: What I am doing is what could be called as rote learning, in keeping with the "injunction' given in Patanjali's Mahabhashyam. That doesn't much help when one needs to "understand" the content. For that, one has to plod alone(g) with the BhaShayas in hand, which is what perhaps what you are doing. That stage will come to me too. Here I am using this opportunity of rote learning to get through one reading of the whole text of TaittirIya KR^iShNa yajurveda saMhitA. Thereby I will have some partial understanding of the contents. It is like reading a very tough prose as a one-run.To cite an example, it is like reading Chaucer or Benjamin Disraeli(my favorite), without annotations. Some understanding will be gained, that definitely will not be total. Our Veda Teacher is not a BhaShya trained person. He is rote trained, so he is initiating us into that level. For the BVhaShyas, strictly speaking, we need to approach a suitably trained and experienced guru. Since it would be difficult to find one and if we do find one, the first Q he would ask is "Are you rote-trained already?" Thus I am following a two step procedure. 1. Go through a thorough rote traing. 2.Use that opportunity to get a compulsory read of the Original Texts. 3.Get as much of the meaning as you can muster by using my Classical/Modern Sanskrit knowledge. Strictly speaking this[extrapolating from Classical Sanskrit to Vedic is not the right thing to do; but some parts of the text, where there are similarities with the current language can be understood, and then the whole thing would be with a lot of holes. We can at leisure fill these holes by going through the Bhashyas assiduously] @Digvijay: Exactly. See a good Veda teacher would not permit unsupervised learning at all. It is so because, in the Vedic Passages every letter and every swara counts. In a formal Vedic School the students get even beaten/slapped/ears boxed etc., to get the pronunciation and the swaras right. This our teacher keeps repeating. Having been blessed to find a teacher why did you not continue Digvijay? Perhaps this is excessive discipline. But this discipline is what has kept the Vedas intact for generations!

@Mahadeva S Sarma: Please do post a picture of the teacher boxing your ear. That should start us off on a new thread. :)

@ Asad Uncle: With due respect to that mathematician friend of yours I can add that "Romance clouds once judgement" just as his contention that Faith throws a wet towel on reasoning. Pukhta hoti hai agar maslahat andesh ho aql Ishq ho maslahat andesh to hai khaam abhie Be khatar kud para aatash-e-namrod mein Ishq, Aql hai mahv-e-tamasha -e-lab--e-bam abhi Ishq farmuda-e-qasid se sabk-e-gaam-e-amal, Aql samjhi he nahin maani-e-paighaam abhi ! That God is ....cannot be established in a scientific experiment in the laboratory. Total surrender (the litral meaning of Islam) is a pre-requisite to realise HIM on this earth. Unless the devotion is absolute we cannot fathom anything whatsoever.The world is not at all as it seems or appears. @Shekhar:Pls do not presume that my belief about Krishna being a poornavtar is a hindrance and hence I shall not be open to even entertain new thought processes.Sanatan Dharma is a combination of several philosophies that run parallely and hence it is not strictly a religion because we have no founder, no one holy book and no strict sets of do's and don'ts. There are Hindus who traditionally consume beef and those that traditionally bury their dead.The vedic religion is different from Tantra and Aghor. Vedas have no provision for the same. The excavation at Meerat suggest that it could have been the Hastinapur of yore and those in Delhi of the same period point in the direction of Indraprastha (capital city of the Pandavas) founded by Sri Krishna. Krishna is the only God for whom we now have archaeological evidence.The excavation at Bet Dwarka off the coast of Dwarka and inside the Arabian sea. The carbon-dating suggests that it is dates from 5000 BC. You might say that "the devil will quote scripture to his purpose" but then these are hard tangible realities we cannot deny. @ Sumedha: I second what you are saying....Subbiah request you to post Krishna in a Tanjore style painting or as painted by Raja Ravi Verma on a diff thread to enable us all on our interesting discussion on the Bhagwad Gita

@ Mahadeva:I did find a very good teacher but I found the pronounciation of Sanskrit different in the north and South. I did not want to learn by rote the sanskrit pronunciation of south given my north Indian back-ground because some-where deep down I felt i am doing in-justice to my north-Indian roots. You might find that absurd but that is the way I am.It is only much later that I learnt that unless i memorise it all i cannot really graduate to the second level of meemansa. BTW my foray was into the Yajur Veda Sadly Veda teachers of the north are few and far between. Unless I find one soon I shall revert back to my old one reluctantly. Yes indeed Vedas have been handed down from one generation to the next strictly by the rote system ,and through administration of corporal punishment, given that they are four thousand years old and the oldest written records of humanity.

@Shekhar: Alas that is an "honor" reserved for the young 'uns. We are all past the age of correction. Ours isbasically an Adult Education Class. For this very reason, the one under 13 student that we have in our group keeps taking the brunt of the teacher's anger. Even he is not being as much as touched. But the teacher is hurting this boy in words quite a lot and is talking of sending him on a summer camp to a traditional school where he would be getting that treatment :)

@Digvijay Singh Kushwaha: The sense in which you have explained Sanatan Dharma, the word should always be used in its plural form. By the way I find it difficult to understand concepts of purnavatar and amshavatar. These are expositions of convenience ulrimately amounting to arguing that "you must exerience to believe it" else, you poor soul, though shall not be enlightened.....Were you studying Krishna Yajurveda or the Shukla Yajurveda? What were the reasons for the preference given that those sripts belong to a later period?

Yes indeed ,sadly shekhar that is the way it is. you have to 'experience' it firsthand .That enlightenment of realisation emanates from supreme devotion and unquestioning faith.Then you are hooked for life. I hate to sound cliched but it impossible to tread on that path as a result of efforts of one 'janam' only. It attracts those 'whose time has arrived'. Just as you do not search your guru but vice versa Do you think God is in a temple or a shrine? It is your devotion only that you have concentrated in a statue or a picture or an image.It only helps you focus and channelise the energies of your devotion in one particular direction nothing more. The fantastic stories of the puranas, fables of Aesop ,Hitopadesh Panchatantra, stories from the Quran etc are required at a very preliminary stage to initiate the un-initiated and kindle interest. Just as existence of Jibreel (Gabriel) is for the early learner, the day he realises the 'Jabaar' aspect of God, Sarosh becomes in-consequential. That these matters enchant you and you apply reasoning to them is proof enough of your avid interest.Application of logic is the first stage .....questions vanish when faith moves in. I am most certainly not suggesting that you throw the baby out with the bath-water.

btw i did not really understand your question "what were the reasons for the preference given that those scripts belong to a later period ?"

That is adhyatma Digvijay (Adhi Atman - me first.) Anyway, each to her/his path. I expected someone wanting to learn Vedas would begin with the rigveda which got composed first. The three other vedas were composed later perhaps over a period of a couple of thousand years. One problem with history and historians is that they treat eons in a single paragraph and imagine things happen in a jiffy out of an idea. People need to live life daily for life times and generations and centuries to make history (social change). Please see my post about "Kautilya" on another thread with the same picture. RBSI did that perhaps because this thread was getting too long.

@Digvijay: You said it. In the North the pronunciation of Sanskrit it self is different. Further, if it were Shukla Yajurveda that you needed to learn, but could only find a KR^iShNa YajArveda- whose schools are available all over in the South up to and including MahAraShTra, then it would be tough. There are Shukla Yajurved down South also, like there is one school of the same in Bangalore itself. But we have in our calss SY and Rigvedis who are learning KY because as you must be knowing before Veda Vyas did the Classification of The Vedas in to four they were one mass of Scritural Material. Any good luck to you in finding a suitable teacher. And Digvijay, you seem to be well-read in Qur 'An and may be Sufism. That is really interesting. I have procured copies of The Qur'An with tafseer-e- Hussain but am not getting the time to even glance at them.I sometimes take a sneak peek at an English translation that is available. All the best to you.

@Shekhar: Jokes apart, the analysis of the word purANa is given as "purA api navaM" which will "shrink" to purANam as per shabda-vyutpatti rules. Thus Puranas are supposed to a record of Old Tales but which have a current appeal or relevance. My main objections to the Puranas are two fold: <1> The gods as depicted n the purANas keep fighting among themselves for"supremacy" which mimics our own schisms. <2> They have been the cause for vertical divisions withing Sanatana Dharma, being dedicated to one or the other Gods of SD and each one painting a glorious picture of the particular "God" that it is dedicated to while "belitling" some other. Thus the P~ somehow force on the discerning individual to do "sAr sAr ko gahi rahai, thothaa deya uDAya", which again will not be in keeping with the need for Scriptural Authority being adopted without residue. Adhi-Atma = pertaining to the Atman (= the ever effulgent, self-luminous, All-knowledge "entity" that is the substratum all experience if one goes by Advaita). The word adhyAtma by Sanskrit grammatical classification is an avayaya(= Indeclnable, hence of neuter gender). It is used as an adjective like in say adhyAtama-vidyA. Strictly speaking in correct Sanskrit Atmavidya would be sufficient to refer to the "Learning connected with the Atman and its attributes andthe means of attaining what iscalled as Atma-jnAna. Unless you wnat to engineer a joke , adhyAtama by no stretch of the rules of grammar does it mean "me first". If only Indians of yore not today's that selfish we would have been more successful as a Nation in the worldly materialist sense.