[Advaita-l] dakSiNAmUrti stOtra from sUta saMhita

[Shrisha Rao]

El jun 16, 2012, a las 12:39 p.m., Jaldhar H. Vyas escribió:

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Shrisha Rao wrote:

>> I find it strange that Schrader would conjure up a theory proclaiming a "widely spread opinion that Mahomedans are skilled in the Atharvaveda."
> 
> If Atharvaveda = tantra = "black magic" then it might be plausible.  

The word tantra is used in multiple settings other than black magic, e.g., also with the Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa canon which is concerned with Vaishnava theology and worship rituals; in my personal opinion, equating tantra with black magic is unfortunate, sort of the way the swastika has come to be associated with the Nazi hakenkreuz ("hooked cross").  However, I am not aware that there is any connection between the AV and tantra (in any manifestation), and it is questionable how the AV can be reasonably associated with black arts.  Certainly such a view would not be "widely spread" and would be strenuously objected to by Vaidikas and Vedantins.

> If you remember over a decade ago there were a number of ritual child murders in UP which led to widespread panic about "tantrikas"  If I recall correctly the chief culprit arrested was a Muslim.

Let us refrain from Muslim-bashing or associating their entire community with the despicable, ghoulish acts of a few.  This has no scholarly relationship with the claim "Mahomedans are skilled in the Atharvaveda."  The AV is not about child murders!

>> It is quite a ridiculous theory for various obvious reasons, and is not supported by any evidence save this very assertion of Schrader.
> 
> Did Schrader ever even visit India?  I think he was one of that old fashioned breed of Indologist who did all his research in Sanskrit from a desk in Germany.  Most of these comments seem to be based on garbled gossip he might have heard or read about from people who actually had been to India.

No, he very much did visit India and spend time here; after all, he could hardly have drawn up a catalogue of unpublished manuscripts in the Adyar Library while sitting in Europe.  It also stands to reason that early Indologists like Max Mueller, Oppert, Keith, and Schrader had to be in India to carry their interest forward, as communication links (esp. between India and elsewhere) were quite poor then, and no primary textual sources from India had been published in Europe for them to use.  It was only later that a few like Jan Gonda (middle and late 20th century) could sit in Utrecht or wherever, and theorize without first-hand knowledge.

>> The other footnoted claim that the Atharvaveda is "nearly unknown in Southern India" is perhaps more true though gratuitous and unnecessary to state as a cause of the lack of acceptance of the अल्लोपनिषद् in the South -- why not grant that people there (like the unnamed former librarian of the Adyar Library) do not accept the text because they consider it spurious, a view held by Schrader himself?
> 
> Having "established" that it was accepted in North India there had to be some explanation right?

Not sure.  Perhaps some of the reform movements like the Arya Samaj may have recited this text?  It is difficult for me to understand how a classical traditionalist in Kashi, Prayag, or wherever, would include it.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>_______________________________________________