The pAshupata-tantra is notable in providing a full uddhAra of the famed vyomavyApin mantra. It is mostly thought to be a unique mantra of the saiddhāntika-s. One could argue that the pAshupata-tantra being a late expression of the pAshupata-s borrowed this mantra from the
saiddhAntika-s. However, we believe it emerged among the later pAshupata-s (i.e., subsequent to their Vedic representatives) but prior to the branching off of the streams of the mantra-mArga like the saiddhAntika-s. Our main reasons for holding this view are: 1. Within the
saiddhāntika tradition it is remarkable in showing some diversity suggesting that emerged from the pre-saiddhāntika ``atimArga'' matrix. This means it had already diversified within the prayoga traditions from which the siddhAntAgama-s inherited it. 2. In terms of its structure
it is more removed from the later bIja-rich mantra and closer to the mantra-s of the transitional mantrashAstra, viz., at the junction between the vaidika- and the full-blown tAntrika mantramArga. 3. Its dhyAna-s describe a 14- and 10- handed rudra distinct from sadAshiva
the devatA of the saiddhAntika version. The core without the kavacha & aghorAstra- sampuTikaraNa-s is said to follow the 14 handed dhyAna:
With the kavacha & astra the dhyAna is the fierce 5-headed 10 handed rudra:
The core mantra (i.e., without kavacha &astra) is exactly 365 syllables. The versions from saiddhAntika texts from South India have more than 365 -- 368-374 typically. We believe the pAshupata versions is close to the original as the old saiddhAntika text described rudra embodied
by this mantra as "saMvatsara-sharIriNaH". This would also be consistent with 9-fold maNDala taught by the Kashmirian mantravAdin bhaTTa rAmakaNTha-II & followed by his southern successors: this would imply 40 syllables along each spoke & the pa~ncha-praNava at the nave.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
TLDR: A speculative hypothesis: Turkic language originated in the Eastern BMAC populations. Warning: what follows is a long thread on this matter
What was the origin of the Turkic languages? In the early days, buoyed up by the success of Indo-European it was proposed that Turkic, Mongolic & Tungusic were a monophyletic language family -- Altaic -- which originated somewhere close to the Altai region. The early formulations
also unified it with Uralic making the large Uralo-Altaic grouping. Since then, Uralo-Altaic has been seen as an artificial group, perhaps with some similarities arising from borrowings. However, Altaic was still believed to hold and even expanded into a ``Macro-Altaic''
I did look at the pa~nchanetraka-s comparatively: clearly the antipodal "moated" states fared better than the parent island or the continental land masses.
There could be many factors: 1. the moat; 2. the draconian lockdowns; 3. vaxx enforcement; 4. population density. To tease
these apart, we have to look more closely. Of the 5, Canada, like NZ & Aus was heavy on lockdowns & vaxx enforcement. However, it fared worse, though better than USA & UK. Canada has some densely populated centers close to the US border and is sparse elsewhere. Australia also has
a biased distribution of population to dense & spare zones. The fact that Aus still did better and is with NZ on the lower band of the case/death plot suggests that the moat effect was a big factor for the antipodean states. They shut themselves off from the rest early & got some
The homecoming of Wuhan shows the ultimate failure of the lockdown strategy against a highly infectious pathogen. I doubt anyone really understood the best way to handle it from the beginning. Some countries which did well in the start ultimately succumbed to the newer strains.
But a few things might be worth looking at with the retrospective lens:1. Most of us bought into the chIna canard of fomite spread in the beginning: buying up disinfectants etc. (wonder if they did it deliberately)
2. Italy & Iran: caught by surprise nothing much could be done.
Being the first to be hit in an information-poor environment did not help; 3. The Swedish & original English approach of "herd immunity": many say retrospectively it was good but it was certainly not handled well by English& I doubt by the Swedes either. 4. Some epidemiologists
The archaic skandapurANa lists the daitya dynasty & the order of incarnation-s differently from the narratives of other purANa-s: 1. hiraNyakashipu: slain by viShNu (nR^isiMha) 2. hiraNyAkSa: slain by viShNu (varAha) 3. andhaka: slain by rudra 4. prahlAda: slain by indra & viShNu
5. virochana: slain by indra 6. bali: trampled by viShNu
The archaic skandapurANa places the battle between daitya-s led by prahlAda & the gods occurs during the churning of the world-ocean.
The archaic skandapurANa has a 3 three-way sectarian spat in the varAha episode. 1. The shaiva assertion is seen in the form of the claim that varAha was able to kill hiraNyAkSha only with rudra's chakra. 2. After killing hiraNyAkSha, varAha mates with his consorts in his porcine
chANakya-sUtra: prakR^iti-kopaH sarva-kopebhyo garIyan |
This might be interpreted in 2 ways by itself: of all the insurrections the uprising of the <ministers | of the masses> is the most serious.
bhAravI expands on the same in a verse thus:
aNUr apy upahanti vigrahaH prabhumantaH prakR^iti-prakopajaH |
akhilaM hi hinasti bhUdharaM taru-shAkhANta-nigharShajo .analaH ||
Here it is clear that he likens the prakR^itikopa seizing a kingdom to the forest fire arising from the friction among the terminal branches of a tree
The terminal branches of the tree = the terminal branches of the state -- i.e., the masses. Hence, the sUtra indicates that the most serious uprising is that of the masses. This illustrates an example of how the sUtra-s of the arthashAstra tradition likely had a bhAShya which was
Certain white indologists have interpreted the structural similarity between the kauTilIya arthashAstra & the kAmasUtra as evidence for the latter being modeled after the former. They also want to see both as gupta era texts. We see that as a tenuous claim. While both texts were
redacted multiple times after their original composition, their core material is essentially that of their original composers. We believe they simply represent text lying at the junction of the older sutra & new classical era. The older sUtra-s going back to the gR^ihya& shrauta
texts of that genre were primarily composed for memorization & were expanded by the student using the oral commentaries received during his training. Some of those commentaries from a later age were written down. By the end of the sUtra period writing was more in vogue even for