[world-vedic] When was "the Agastya Samhita" written?

October 28, 1999

Namaste my dear Srivatsa: jay sri Krsna bhagavan!

Thanks very much for sendme your letter. It is truth, the Agatsya-samhita show

how make batteries long time before of Volta. There are many books that where

researchers show many machines and other sophisticate devices in the ancient

India. You can read the Sada-puta das, Dr. Richard L. Thompson book called

Alien Identities, and you can found many answers. The wesnters scholars they

have very bad and nasty vision of vedic history, but you can read the book

Vaisnavism, for Dr. Srinivasachari, of Motilal editors, and you can found how

the pancharatras samhitas are very old. Remember, the extrapolations are the

baseds of the Indology wesnter datation.

Hare Krsna Das.

Preciado in the Sophistic Cycle.

Contracritique to: Firsts historical evidences of Krishna.

Primeras Evidencias Históricas Sobre Krishna"

Estudios de Asia y África, Vol. XV; #4

Benjamín Preciado Solís

By Hare Krishna Das, Who is student of the BA degree in the Education sciences

and Humanities faculty in the U A de C, Round Campus and Priest of Radha

Govinda Mandir of ISKCON in Saltillo City, Northeast in Mexico

One indologist Benjamin Preciado Solis, published a lectured in l980, where try

of dazzle the first historical evidences about Sri Krishna Vasudeva

( c. 3200-·3175 B. C.), the magnanimous Yadava prince, identified like Godhead

incarnate in the Indian culture. Like a good expert, tentatively drives puzzle

concepts, supported in the Christian borrowinist like Lessen, Weber, E.

Hopkins, etc. He, besides bowdown before other British imperialist scholar,

passed away a little while ago; obsessed with the same thought, A. L. Bhasam.

Preciado was so honest in recognising his inability to arrive to a conclusion on

the topic, creating a trinket hypothesis. Where He adulteres the age of Ghata

jataka and the Puranas where He transfers them to the Christian era. This has

been a bogus thing, because the Ghata jataka date of the III century B.C., and

the Puranas are mentioned in the old Upanishads like Chandogya 7.1.14,

Brhat-Aranyaka 2.4.10 and others archaic texts.

Although he said many incongrouences, the worst was, when he referred to the

evidences: "We can count those evidences with the fingers of our hands". And

after he stated: "The evidence is obtained from fourteen sources—eight

literary and six archeological". At this moment we should point out, that any

child in the kindergarden (unless he has learning problems) can count that in

every hand He has five fingers or ten as a total. Also we can denote how

nowadays, the deaf-mute language is thought to the simians like chimpanzee and

gorillas and they know very well how to count up to five in each hand, or ten

on total. Therefore it’s amazing, how in this sense, Dr. Preciado asserts

such thing.

However, a close study of his own evidences, that he mentions, shows us that

they are more than fourteen:

1.-Chandogya 3.17: Krishna Devakiputra.

2.-Astadyayi de Panini. Mentions of Krishna .

3.- Niruty of Yaska: Krishna and his wives Jambavati and Satyabhama.

4.-Bhaudayana-dharma-Sutra, where tree names of Krishna are mentioned: "Kesava,

Govinda and Damodara".But in this quote there are more than that: "Madhva,

Madhusudana, Hrsikesha, Padmanabha and Vishnu", usually mentioned to describe

Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita as well as Srimad Bhagavatam; and the book makes

reference to "the servants of Vishnu".

5.-Preciado quoted the Indica of Megastenes, where we can see: Surasena, the

Yadus’s King, Mathura,the birth city of Krishna, Krishnapura o Kampura,

Yamuna river, Krishna like Hari.

6.-Quinto Curcio, who mentioned the "Poros" (Purus), with a deity of Krishna

Hari, in front of the battle with Alexander the great.

7.-Artha-sastra of Chanakya, gives the following references: Krishna and Kamsa,

the birth history of Krishna, the Vrishnis, Dvaipayana or Vyasa, Balarama and

devotees of Krishna, shave which braid (sika).

8.-Mahanarayana Upanisad, that mentions Krishna Vasudeva, recognised as Vishnu-Narayana.

9.-Mahabharata, where Krishna is mentioned everywhere.

10.-Bhagavad-gita, Krishna teachings.

11.-Grammatical Patanjali where he explains: Krishna is not an ordinary king;

but the supreme, Krishna the enemy of Kamsa, Balarama, Janardana (Krishna), one

temple of Balarama and Kesava (Krishna), Akrura the uncle, Svapalka the

granduncle, Ugrasena his grandfather, Vasudeva, Balarama, Andhakas, Vrishnis,

Kurus.

12.-Maitreniya samhita of Yajur Veda, makes allusions to Krishna in the Narayana

gayatri similar to Mahanarayana Upanisad quoted before, but according to him,

without the name Vasudeva.

13.- Nidesa, a Buddhist book, shows Krishna and Balaram.

14.-Ghata jataka, refering to Krishna as Vasudeva.

Among archaeological:

15.-Heliodoro column, mentions Vasudeva, God of gods.

16.- Ghosundi inscription about Bhagavan Sankarshan and Vasudeva.

17.- Hathibada inscription, about Bhagavan Sankarshan and Vasudeva too.

18.-Other column of Garuda in Besnegar, of such a king Bhagavata, dedicated to Bhagavata (Vasudeva).

19.-The cave of queen Nagnika in Decan, it has inscriptions of Sankarshan and Vasudeva.

20.-Mora inscription makes reference to Krishna and Balarama, also to

Krishna’s sons: Pradyumna, Samba, Aniruddha.

21.-The inscription of Sodasa in Mathura, makes references to Krishna Vasudeva.

In the foot page notes:

22.-One stamp of Gopal, gopalasya from Kumrahar.

23.-The coins ofAghatocles indo-greek king with Krishna and Balarama, (6 pieces).

..

As we can see, he gives the impression that simians know how to count better.

Then Dr. Preciado states that there were fourteen sources, but he points

out 21, and two more in his note 43 pp.782. In other words, 23 with at least 40

historical references about Krishna. And the Mahabharata with 100,000-verses,

that talk about Krishna in his majority also. Therefore, his study is

incompatible and it would be good that he take an elemental garden-arimetical

course.

On the next step, he shows a puzzle tactic to confuse the validity of the

proofs. In the epistemology of Dviatavedanta philosophy, it is called

anvaradhana-jñana, doubt or uncertainty of knowledge. how is this created? A

cause is called vipratipatt, conflictive testimony by jati-futils objections.

Because, he puts the distorted concoctions from the borrowinists, who had as a

motive the conversion of the Hindus into Christians, imposing them that Krishna

was a hinduized Christ. The problem, like he admitted—pp.796—is that

such thesis resulted bogus, and accepted as such by the Christian themselves.

Therefore, his fallacies don’t come to the case. It’s like if we

want to demonstrate the hypothesis of Dr. Bill kissing, "They Never Went to the

Moon", creating doubts about the Apollo travels, beginning by the skeptical

claims of Ticinelli against the airship of Da Vinci. Later, to quote the

Astronomer that opined about the impossibility that heavy machines could fly.

Or Bicker, who considered the stupidity of space travel, also Wooley and

Wulton, with his skeptical claims against the astronauts, etc; up to Kissing.

What happened? All this presuppositions demonstrated to be the falsest, because

they defended a mistake, an illusion corroborated. Therefore, his arguments has

resulted a fallacy, consequently they are equal in value. For example:

x+y+d+b=O/ O=x+y+d+b. In other words, Preciado’s so called objections are

worthless, as well as, whoever takes support on them (pure sophistry). Besides

how Dr. Vogel, one borrwinist, attempted to distort Mora’s ephigraphical

inscription, to don’t change his paradigm (AV. pp. 28). He sustains his

thesis with opinions of others like Müeller, etc.. When all the British

indologists, had been probed, they were arbitrary and had political and gospel

purposes by part of English Empire, many specialists had been speaking about

that. Concerning this, some authors wrote: "The Max Müeller thesis evidently

endure of systematisation excess that carried him to fix some arbitrary periods

without fundament. The unsupportedness of his presupposition is so obvious that

many orietalists had already appointed it". (RV pp 46).

About the culture approach: "His preoccupation was not the knowledge of a

culture and his literature, but the desire to spoil and refute whatever they

considered superstition, to annullate the Hindu believes or to find

concordances in those texts with the exigencies in the Christian dogma" (Idem).

And the Hindu scholars that he quotes like Raychaduri, Pulsaker, Majumdar, etc.;

Were programmed people by the English influence, as Dr. Thomas Hopkins spoke,

that the Britishs with his systematic degrination (INODOFISTIC), gave up an

inferiority cultural complex (HK, pp. 111). Therefore, suchs Sirs adopted, in

great part; the British indosophistic paradigm. Some of them, like Mr. S.K. De,

deride his own culture. But, the majority can not be so deviated, because, even

though they didn’t defend the Krishna’s divinity; but the

historicity, from there the paradox arises: "A deified Vrishni prince called

Vasudeva; and a tribal hero Krishna, religious lider of the Yadavas". pp.795.

We could extend this topic; but let us leave this nonsense for some other time.

..

.. We can sintetize in this paper, all of this as an strategy to artificially

cloud the proofs in the most virulent, acid, ambiguous way, in such a way, that

my words appear like praises compared to his. The good thing about his work, is

the affirmation that Krishna’s name is as ancient as Rig-Veda, pp.811;

but He didn’t show any direct quote. As Sanatan Goswami quote in the

Krishna Upanisad or Nilakantha, in the Rig 1.21.154.6, 8.96.13-15 etc. Or at

least, other Upanisads, direct parts of the Vedas, like Vasudeva, Narayana,

Gopala; besides of Mahanaraniya in his small booklet.

In very dignus and accurate way to be laureate, he discovers that the idea of a

separation of personalities is: "Speculations that are condemned to remain

without proofs", pp. 814. Eventhough brilliantly affirmed: "In the VI BC

century, the histories of the Krishna’s facts were already known, as the

recount of Syamantaka jewel,... a record of Krishna’s life unified with

other features of the life of the hero (Krishna) trough this epoch already

existed", pp.815. However, he tries of use the same criterion of improbability

for the historical proof about Krishna; which is absurd. Because if we apply

the strictness of verification of mathematical theorem to his postulate, it

should be truth in some cases like a possibility, in many cases as a

probability and in all cases like an approbation. When it is said an

asseveration so emphatic like his, it means a demonstration. Therefore, it

cannot exist any case or opposed evidence. At that time, if he states that the

historicity of Krishna is condemned to remain without proofs or evidences that

are synonymous (SA. pp. 285), and in his same book he shows 23 evidences, with

at least 40 historical references about Krishna and his history, automatically

his concoction is discarded. In other words, with only one existing evidence,

his postulated is demolished. Furthermore, the evidence has more validity than

the proof. Just as it is defined: "Evidence is a clear manifestation of

something, that no one would rationally doubt. (Idem.)

Also, we can add, how some prestigious archaeologists have found more historical

proofs about Krishna: Dr.. S.R. Rao, Emeritus scientist, with a commission of

specialists, using the Mahabharata as a map, rediscovered the City of Dwarka

where Krishna lived, in the harbour of Gujarata, and confirmed the existing

cities in the area mentioned in the biographies of Krishna, even the

Janma-bhumi in Mathura U.P. (AV pp. 31). In the sixties, Dr. Gancully

discovered artefacts that corroborate the Kuruksetra battle in the place (VE

pp.86). Dr. Alan Entwistle who worked with the International Association of

Vrindavanan Research Institute, Professor of Washington University in this

area, in his research, together with others scholars, confirmed the historicity

of Krishna in Mathura and Vrindavana (V pp. 189). Dr. Mohan Gautam, Chairman of

South Asian Research Centre and member of the International Union of

Antrophological Sciences, since l960 started his investigation in Vrindavan

grounds, specifically Radha-kundha demonstrating the genuinity of this place.

(Idem. pp.199).

Other very important point, the proofs that Preciado maltreated for

disapproving; go on quite accepted by the specialists, and they are a caution

reading at the end of his paper; he accepts them also pp. 811-8113. Actually,

he said many incongruences and falses claims, for instance: Megastenes mentions

to Heracles, but he isn’t Krishna pp.796. However the Eminent Andrew

Rosanen of Harvard, stated: "Meghastenes mentions the god "Heracles"

(Hari-kul-eesh), who was worshiped as the Supreme Lord in the district around

Mathura where Krishna originated and whose name (Hari) is one commonly used for

Krishna".( AVp.x.) Even though in posterior lines, in very tacit way, Preciado

accepts it. In fact, one of the more right critics in his work, consists in the

cover up of Mr. Dahlquist pp.796. But we appointed like false, his asseverations

like; "In the VI century BC or before, some compilators, felt the necessity of

inserting the Devakiputra Krishna", pp. 815. Here, the question is, ¿how did he

travel to the past for know the literary necessities (inside of the mind) of

unidentified authors that he never observed?__ Like the farce of unknown genius

author of Gita___. May be, he can give us the secret formula of past travels to

verify his claims.

More nonsense like this exells his ponency (perhaps imprudence), let us end

saying that he edited a booklet and was printed in India. however, when I asked

to the Dr. Ram-Krishna Rao, a friend of Preciado, about this in l994, he said to

me, " I have never heard or known any work of Him, in the scholarly circles of

India called, "Krishna in the Puranic cycle", (after ten years of editions).

Other scholar, the Dr. Rajiv Bihari, teacher in the same College, who performed

archaeological studies in Java, was questioned for me, what is his opinion of

the Preciado work, and he showed a face of dislike and nausea claiming: "So

called Indology".

In l989 Roseanne wrote: "A compilation of archaeological and textual data that

summarizes the earliest record history of Vasudeva Krishna. Although much of

this historical information is available elsewhere in widely scattered form, it

has no to my knowledge been brought together in so comprehensive and carefully

researched a manner at it is here." (AV. pp. ix) Referring to the Steven Rosen

book, who is a Vaisnava. Therefore, this shows that the Preciado’ booklet

is no considered in the academical community of Harvard, because he edited this

in l984 and till to day, never we had looked any quotation among American

scholars, only Rosen quotes him in two tiny notes.

Furthermore, in the beginning he asseverates: ".........the Krishna problem has

already confused many generations of indologists". pp.771. ¿Would this be

conceit? Because, after deeply dennying and condemning the idea of two separate

personalities of Krishna, he finishes with the following words: "Perhaps this

fact was due to the similitude in the Krishna heroic figure with other popular

god, may be tribal, in that such features pose with special significance",

pp.815. It is one sophism of tautology, then he repeated the same fallacy that

condemned; but with other words.

Dr. Thomas Hopkins said: "Krishna the historical prince and charioteer of

Arjuna." (HK pp.144). "Krishna had been reveled as the Supreme Lord, identified

with vedic Brahman and Purusa and with the universal form of Visnu. He is the

culmination of the all religious forms of the Vedas." (HT pp. 94)

For finish, as this analysis shows, Preciado prevails limited in the

Indosophistic Cycle of the British, whose laberint overcome that of the

Minotaurus.

(VE) Dasa, Hare Krishna, Vaisnavismo, estudio histórico y confrontación de la

doctrina esencial del Hinduismo.

(HK), Hompkins, Thomas Ph D, interview with in Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Five

distingue scholars on Krishna movement, Groves Prees, N:Y: 1983.

(HT) Hopkins, Thomas, The Hindu Religious Tradition. Dickenson Publish Company, 1952.

(AV) Rosen, Steven, Archeology and Vaisnava Tradition, Firma KLM Private.1989.

(V) Rosen, Steven, Vaisnavism, Folks Books, 1992.

(RV) Mora, De, Juan Miguel y Jarocka, Ludwika, El Rig Veda, Editorial Diana, 1974.

(SA) OCEANO CONCISO, Diccionario de Sinónimos y Antónimos, Ediciones Océano,

España, l994.

De: Kailash Srivastava <SE224141 (AT) HotMail (DOT) Com>Para:

vediculture <vediculture >Fecha: 27 October 1999

21:32Asunto: [world-vedic] Re: When was "the Agastya Samhita" written?

Thanx for your reply. I had posted this message on another list and got a response as follows:

"Hans Bakker in his AyodhyA (Egbert Forsten, Groningen, 1986, pp. 68-70)reckons

it to have been composed in 12th century (CE) Benares."

This Samhita talks about making electricity and dry battery cells. As an

electrical engineer, I was curious of the purpose for making "the battery"

Any educated guess!!!!!

Regards/Kailash

-

Radha Govinda Mandir

vediculture

Friday, October 22, 1999 10:04 PM

[world-vedic] Re: When was "the Agastya Samhita" written?

My dear kailash Srivatsa:

Namaste, HARE KRISHNA!, let TRY OF ANSWER ABOUT YOUR QUESTION. Yes the

Agatsya samhita, is a book of the pancharatra vaisnava school that date

before of puranic compilation. But by the dostortion of British scholars,

the modern wensters Indologist believe very recent dates.,around 8 century D

A, but the Mahabharata and the Vedanta-sutra make references about them. The

Agatsyas were a dynasty of brahmans, and probably the author of this samhita

was the same Agatsya sage that appear in the Bhagavatam, one comtemporany of

Lord Krishna, because in this book makes reference to the Krsna worship in

the Temple. Probably, was compiler after of Mausala lila of Krishna, due

that the Krishna worship was stated by Vajranabha yadava king, the son of

Anirudha the great son of Lord Krishna, in all India.