At 2007-07-14 23:11:22 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Let me get this straight... Your conjecture is [...]
Bzzt.
Just because I made a somewhat-related conjecture in the same thread
does not make what I said about pilgrims a conjecture.
Quoted from "Somanatha, The Many Voices of a History", Thapar 2004,
pp.24-25:
«Saurashtra had a scatter of chieftains and minor rulers who were
heads of clans and governed small principalities. A ninth century
Saindhava chieftain records a grant that he gave to a brahman who
was a resident of Someshvara.[21] A reference is made to the
Pratihara king Nagabhatta II, ruling in the ninth century, having
visited the tirthas in Saurashtra, including Someshvara.[22] These
references do not imply the existence of a temple but that Prabhasa
could have been a pilgrimage centre focusing on the triveni.
Hemachandra, in a much later account, says that the raja of
Junagadh, Ra Griharipu, obstructed pilgrims from going to Prabhasa
-- perhaps because it was in the hands of a rival chieftain -- and
is also said to have killed brahmans, attacked sacred places and
eaten beef.[23] This was almost a formulaic description of an enemy.
Tradition has it that the god, Soma, appeared to the Chaulukya king,
Mularaja, and ordered him to defeat Graharipu and free Prabhasa
which Mularaja did, and then came to Prabhasa to worship Someshvara
before returning to Anahilavada.[24]»
Footnotes:
20. Chinchani grants, Epigraphia Indica, XXXII, pp.45 ff; pp.55 ff;
pp.61 ff; pp.68 ff.
21. Ibid., XXVI, p.185.
22. Prabhachandracharya, "Prabhavaka-charitra" quoted in M.A. Dhaky
and H.P. Shastri, "The Riddle of the Temple at Somanatha", p.32
fn. 27.
23. Hemachandra, "Dvyashraya-mahakavya", 20. 91-94, quoted in Dhaky
and Shastri, op.cit., p.16 n. 58 and 59.
24. A.K. Forbes, "The Ras Mala", p.39 ff.
And again from pp.26-27:
«Lesser patrons in the form of local princelings, governors and
feudatories, of whom some claimed to being Rajput and others who
were content to be just clan chiefs, played a contradictory role,
some exploiting the temple and the pilgrims and some protecting
them. Among the earlier ones were the Vaghelas, Abhiras, Chudasamas
and Chavdas, and later times saw the rise of the Jethvas, Jhalas,
Gohels, Jadejas, and still later the Mers and Bhils. The local
rulers of Kathiawar were often hostile to the Chaulukyas and some of
the hostility is captured in the story of how Ranakadevi became a
sati at Vadhavan.[29] [...]
The lesser rulers were bent upon deriving an income from the major
pilgrimage centres. The looting of pilgrims going to Somanatha was
one source of income for many of these.[30] The Abhira king is
called a mlechcha because he consumes beef and plunders the pilgrims
visiting Somanatha.[31]»
Footnotes:
29. Gujarat State Gazetteer, Junagadh District, Ahmedabad 1975,
p.127 ff; H. Wilberforce-Bell, "The History of Kathiawar", p.69;
A.K.Forbes, "The Ras Mala", pp.122-131.
30. H. Cousens, "Somanatha and Other Mediaeval Temples in
Kathiawar", p.3.
31. H.C. Ray, "Dynastic History of Northern India", p.941.
And yet again, from pp.29-30:
«Brigandage and piracy, virtually normal to the area, was gradually
controlled.[38] Attacks by local chiefs such as the Abhiras on rich
commercial towns such as Somanatha Pattana were frequent and the
Chaulukyas were constantly running into problems with these rajas on
this count.[39] Pilgrims to Somanatha had to pay a tax and this
together with other valuables carried by them for making donations,
was looted by local rajas. Customs duties could be exorbitant and
should have sufficed as a tax income from commerce. But presumably
the rajas were used to obtaining coerced presentations as gifts. Sea
piracy was common and Al-Biruni refers to the pirates as the
bawarij. Piracy remained a lucrative source of income even into
British times and sea piracy is an indicator of successful maritime
trade.»
Footnotes:
38. Al Biladuri writing in the ninth century refers to piracy.
Elliot and Dowson, "The History of India as Told by its Own
Historians", I, p.118.
39. Prachi inscription of Kumarapala, Poona Orientalist, 1937, I,
No. 4, p.38; 1938, V. p.123; V.K. Jain, op.cit., p.48.
> What a vivid imagination.
I'll leave it to your -- no doubt cautious and restrained -- imagination
to fill in the blanks. Should you wish for further examples, read about
the Shaivite and Vaishnavite opposition to both Jainism and Buddhism in
their early stages in the South, or a little later, Shaivite (among
others) persecution of Buddhists in the North.
> > So the nature of pilgrimages cannot necessarily be used to infer
> > anything about the existence of a nation.
>
> I agree with this and I have not disputed this.
Oh, good.
Then I won't need to provide references to the fact that pilgrims from
outside the subcontinent (notably China and SE Asia) did travel in the
subcontinent, or that people from India did travel to many other places
under conditions not wildly different from those they were subject to in
travelling within the subcontinent (both of which I thought were always
well-known facts).
> You would not believe the theory of evolution, the big bang theory,
> string theory, membrane theory then? What about the general theory of
> relativity? Is that better? Please answer the question now...
I meant the names of the theories, not just Darwin. But I suspect that I
misunderstood your point then, and that I don't understand now what your
question is, so I don't know how to answer it.
How is what I think of evolution or the general theory of relativity
relevant to (in the sense of your "then?" above) what I think of the
theory that the Mahabharata is not a work of fiction because it may
contain references to real astronomical events. Is there some link
I'm missing here?
Are you implying that I "would believe" these theories because they are
from outside India? Or what?
> I don't see a reason to belittle a person or his opinions because you
> do not have a high opinion of that person,
That isn't what I'm doing. I have no idea who this person is, so I did
not have any opinion of him before I read what he said. Based on that,
I have *formed* the opinion that he is an idiot. I would form a similar
opinion about anyone else who thinks we should perceive truth "in terms
of our national heritage", and who speaks about trashing the work of
"motivated" westerners, and who subscribes to the theory that because
Hindu chronology was based on "natural astronomical cycles", the
Mahabharata is "demythologised".
> Would you have believed it if that statement was made by someone else?
No. I have no more love for, say, the Erich von Danikens of this world,
than its Kalyan Ramans.
-- ams
