Regarding Kalidasa and Panchatantra

Wed Aug 16 21:52:50 UTC 2000

Hello.

Greetings.

I am a history teacher and most recently as I was teaching Indian history to
my class, I realised that
the textbook mentions the panchatantra being composed by Kalidasa. Is this
factual and correct ?
What we know is that Kalidasa wrote Shakuntala and Kumara Sambhava. But his
writing panchatantra
does not seem to be correct. Could someone confirm the validity of this
statement ?!

We know that the panchatantra was popularised during the Gupta period. But
did the panchatantra emerge only then
or did it exist even before but was merely codified during this period ?

Thanks in advance,

R. Jai Simman
Singapore

----- Original Message -----
From: "Automatic digest processor" <LISTSERV at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
To: "Recipients of INDOLOGY digests" <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 7:00 AM
Subject: INDOLOGY Digest - 14 Aug 2000 to 15 Aug 2000 (#2000-110)

> There are 9 messages totalling 354 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. SV: Rajaram's bull (2)
>   2. Yoga in Early Thailand
>   3. bull on brahmanism
>   4. Hinduism and Colonialism. Was: Rajaram's bull/Hindutva (response to
BhG)
>      (3)
>   5. Locutions
>   6. SV: Witzels's scholarly translations
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:11:33 -0700
> From:    Srini Pichumani <srini_pichumani at MENTORG.COM>
> Subject: Re: SV: Rajaram's bull
>
> Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:
>
> > If some people go berserk with their Occidentophobia, it looks like
others
> > have a deep case of Brahmanophobia.
>
> As tomorrow's version control hurrees towards us,  I find that the
> Brahmanophobyness of the esteemed list members is indeed getting to be
> terrific.
>
> -Srini.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:05:32 -0700
> From:    "Ven. Tantra" <troyoga at YAHOO.COM>
> Subject: Yoga in Early Thailand
>
> Could any list members offer clues of direct reference
> to yoga in early Thailand/Siam? I have only "heard"
> that there were relations between yogis/rishis and the
> early Thai/Siamese courts.
>
> So far, Kamaleswar Bhattacharya's essay "The Religions
> of Ancient Cambodia" (1997) has proved invaluable in
> establishing the existence of yoga in Cambodia in the
> ancient period.
>
> With gratitude.
>
> Ven. Tantra
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:27:35 -0400
> From:    Rajarshi Banerjee <rajarshi.banerjee at SMGINC.COM>
> Subject: bull on brahmanism
>
> NG> The result is that the governing class in India today is a
Brahmin-Bania
> instead of Brahmin-Kshatriya combine as it used to be."
> RB> This is is out-dated. The banias were responsible for raising money
for
> campaigns for the BJP in the late eighties and early nineties. Right now
in
> the very states where this applied there is no BJP govt in power or is
> barely surviving. What has worked out recently for the ruling party are
> strategic regional alliances and the stability card. People in tamil nadu
> voted for the BJP even though they would not have them at the state level.
> In any case the BJP is not a bastion for brahmanism.
> NG> Mr. Gandhi is a Bania and also because he has realized that money
> invested in Politics gives large dividends.
> RB> Sure it shows he was pragmatic and interested in real results. One
would
> hope the "non brahman / brahman ruling elites would understand such
things.
>
> NG> .......What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables"
> (published in 1945), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar writes, "History shows that the
> Brahmin has always had other classes as his allies to whom he was ready to
> accord the status of a governing class
> RB> Oh come on " ready to accord the status....indeed " be realistic The
> muslims did not ask the brahmans for permission. Shivaji used brahmans as
a
> means of  social and political recognition. Tell me who used who. A
brahmans
> role is to sanctify things and conduct ceremonies. For instance a pandit
> ofifciating at a mariage ceremony does not say that he is against the
> marriage. His permisson is not asked for...
> Lets ask ourselves how the brahman came to acquire such so called power in
> the first place. Dr. Ambedkar married a brahmana therby exhibiting a great
> solidarity towards his own community. In any case why are his views the
last
> word. He was capable of being as biased and immature as anyone else and
need
> not always have been infallible.
> I would like to point out that recent outbursts against brahmanism border
on
> ethnic slurs.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 15 Aug 2000 01:10:04 -0700
> From:    Luis Gonzalez-Reimann <reimann at UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>
> Subject: Hinduism and Colonialism. Was: Rajaram's bull/Hindutva (response
to
>          BhG)
>
> >> At 04:35 PM 08/06/2000 +0000, Bharat Gupt wrote:
>
> >I also tried to indicate in the two posts that colonial definition of
> >"Hindu" (which now prevails) reduced the wider meaning of "Hindu" as a
> geographic
> >cultural entity (from Persian Ind,Greek India, Islamic
> Hind/Hindostan/Mulke-Hindavi)
> >to religious, i.e., the followers of the Vedas.
>
> The notion that "Hindu" as a religious category is a colonial fabrication
> does not stand up to scrutiny.  Let me quote from D. Lorenzen (1995:12) as
> he discusses North Indian bhakti movements of the 15th and 16th centuries:
>
> "...the poems of virtually all nirguNI saints beginning with Kabir and
Guru
> Nanak repeatedly refer to 'Hindus and Turks' and 'Hindus and Muslims
> [musulaman]' in contexts that clearly show that the authors had in mind
> religious, and not ethnogeographical, communities."
>
> >But I drew attention to the fact that varna is not ONLY  a Brahminical
> concept
> >because it has been accepted by all indigenous people and here even by
> >Muslims also as social hierarchy.
>
> Again, Lorenzen (p.20):
>
> "It is easy to demonstrate that nirguNI religion, particularly in its
early
> stages, has embodied a fairly direct rejection of the ideology of
> varNAzramadharma."
>
> In this respect, the articles by Schaller and Juergensmeyer in Lorenzen's
> volume are relevant.
> The ref. is:
>
> Lorenzen, David N., ed. 1995. Bhakti Religion in North India: Community
> Identity and Political Action. SUNY Series in Religious Studies, ed.
Harold
> Coward. Albany: State University of New York Press.
>
> >Was this new categorisation ...
> > an administrative
> >strategy for altering social behaviour of the governed ?
>
> The following is a good analysis that might be of interest (especially to
> those who would apply Said's Orientalism to India):
>
> Rocher, Rosane. 1993. British Orientalism in the Eighteenth Century: The
> Dialectics of Knowledge and Government. In Orientalism and the
Postcolonial
> Predicament, eds. Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, 215-49.
> Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
>
> Best,
>
> Luis Gonzalez-Reimann
> University of California, Berkeley
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:20:16 +0100
> From:    Valerie J Roebuck <vjroebuck at APPLEONLINE.NET>
> Subject: Locutions
>
> Is there a technical term for the indirect locutions that Sanskrit poets
> are so fond of?  When a Viking poet calls the sea "the whale's way", we
> call it a kenning.  When a Sanskrit poet calls the sea "the husband of the
> rivers" (or indeed an English speaker calls it "the herring pond") we call
> it--what?
>
> Valerie J Roebuck
> Manchester, UK
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 15 Aug 2000 07:20:18 CDT
> From:    "Subrahmanya S." <subrahmanyas at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Subject: Re: SV: Witzels's scholarly translations
>
> >From: Michael Witzel <witzel at FAS.HARVARD.EDU>
> >
> >
> >Yes, I readily admit to:  misplacing a parenthesis by *one word*  in a
> >translation of BSS 18.44. That's about the extent of it. Even Homer nods.
> >
> yeah ! And then you use it as an example of the AMT !.
> A Piltdown textual evidence for the AMT.
>
> >
> >But: Europeanist? Dogma?  Come on,  Su??Brahmanya, in which world are you
> >living? -- Get real!
> >
> The nonsense of supposed IE superiority in horse handling,
> chariot tanks and going around reigning over all the lesser peoples
> is europeanist dogma.
>
> >
> >..... and at the same time conveniently forgetting that he had
> >promised to find my  "Vedic panzer" ...
> >
>
> Your quotes about vedic "tanks"  have already been given
> on the IndianCivilization list. No, you havent said
> anything about panzers. A panzer is a very specific
> kind of tank that only the germanic tribes would know.
> I will repost your vedic tank gems on this list as well,later
> when I have more time.
>
> >
> >He will have to change his prefix from Su- to Dur-.  Last chance!
> >
> sigh - immaturity !.
>
> Regards,
> Subrahmanya
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:47:41 -0700
> From:    Lakshmi Srinivas <lsrinivas at YAHOO.COM>
> Subject: Re: SV: Rajaram's bull
>
> --- Srini Pichumani <srini_pichumani at MENTORG.COM> wrote:
> > Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:
> >
> > > If some people go berserk with their
> > Occidentophobia, it looks like others
> > > have a deep case of Brahmanophobia.
> >
> > As tomorrow's version control hurrees towards us, I
> > find that the
> > Brahmanophobyness of the esteemed list members is
> > indeed getting to be
> > terrific.
>
> Hurrees? "Brahmanophobefulness" is more appropriate than
"Brahmanophobyness", no question about it. Please consider the following
example:
>
> Billy Bunter: Which of you chaps is going to lend me a bob until Thursday?
>
> Hurree Jamset Ramsingh: The lendfulness is terrific, my boy.
>
>
> :-)
>
>
> Thanks and Warm Regards,
>
> LS
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:18:41 GMT
> From:    Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Subject: Re: Hinduism and Colonialism. Was: Rajaram's bull/Hindutva
(response
>          to BhG)
>
> >"...the poems of virtually all nirguNI saints beginning with Kabir and
Guru
> >Nanak repeatedly refer to 'Hindus and Turks' and 'Hindus and Muslims
> >[musulaman]' in contexts that clearly show that the authors had in mind
> >religious, and not ethnogeographical, communities."
>
> Does Hindu vs. Turk convey no ethnogeographical meaning to you? Hindu vs.
> Musalman reveals a clear religious division to everybody. Doesn't it
follow
> from the above quotes that Turk was somehow synonymous with Musalman?
> Clearly, the Musalman was seen as an "Other", not only because of his
alien
> religious practices, but also because of his foreign origin as a "Turk".
Why
> do you not leave room for the idea that the term Hindu also conveyed both
a
> religious and a geographical meaning, at the time of Nanak and Kabir? Was
it
> possible to have a Hindu "religious" community in the 16th century, that
was
> independent of ethnic and geographical identities?
>
> One question you need to ask is whether Kabir and Nanak even made a
> distinction between the category of the religious and the category of the
> ethnic/geographical. Another question you need to ask is whether they made
a
> distinction between Hindu and Jain, or Hindu and Bauddh. After all, Jains
> were never absent from the regions where Kabir and Nanak lived. And if you
> notice, people like Kabir and Nanak opted for a syncretism that included
or
> accommodated Islam in some sense. The asymmetry lies in the fact that only
a
> "Hindu" environment could allow for such a syncretism.
>
> Indians have for long been used to fuzzy boundaries. Binary logic, that
> thinks primarily in terms of X vs. not-X fails miserably in understanding
> things Indian. The deliberate erasure of rigid boundaries is an integral
> part of the same system that once created the varNa and Azrama boundaries.
> That most of the bhakti poets rejected varNAzrama distinctions is just a
> symptom of this. But if one thinks that this rejection was somehow
> egalitarian or socialistic or democratic or any other modern category of
> Western origin, one is very much mistaken. Today you have the
Kabirpanthis,
> the Nanakpanthis, the Sikhs ---- yet more boundaries, if not along the
lines
> of varNa. In other words, in the 15th and 16th centuries, those who
rejected
> the varNAzrama distinctions ended up creating more groups within the
> categroy of the "Hindu". Only some of these groups became a distinct
> "religion", other than "Hindu". The 19th century definition that made
> varNAzrama central to "Hindu"-ism was clearly a flawed definition for a
> society that inherited the attitudes of Kabir and others.
>
> Classical Indology can very easily assert that the "Vedic" is different
from
> the "Hindu", but the biggest problem that remains is that the "Hindu"
defies
> definition. Just like the nirguNa of these saint poets. If, following the
> quoted comments about Kabir and Nanak, you insist that the word Hindu
> denoted primarily a religious category, ask yourself if varNa and Azrama
(as
> described by most Indologists, and based primarily on the texts) was all
> that pivotal to a "Hindu"-ism that made room for those who rejected varNa
> and Azrama.
>
> Vidyasankar
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:44:16 +0100
> From:    Yashwant Malaiya <malaiya at CS.COLOSTATE.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Hinduism and Colonialism. Was: Rajaram's bull/Hindutva
(response
>          to BhG)
>
> Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:
>
> >After all, Jains
> >were never absent from the regions where Kabir and Nanak lived.
>
> Both of them have mentioned Jains explicitly.
>
> I am not aware of any example of the usage of the word "Hindu"
> before the British rule, where Jains are excluded.
>
> As far as I know the definition of the word "Hindu" requiring
> a acceptance of the Vedas is from the British period. It looks
> like an attempt to define Hinduism along the lines of people-
> of-the-book like Christians and Muslims. Bal Gangadhar Tilak
> gave one such definition, however in a lecture that he presented
> at a Jain meeting, he used the term "Brahman dharma" for
> "Brahmanical Hinduism" and not Hinduism, which he used inclusively.
>
> There are some communities that are partially "Vaishnav" and partly
> Jain. In some of them, like Agrawals, very close social connection
> existed and still exists, between them. This was true for several
> communities in the past, even some which have no Jain members today like
> the Maheshwaris (Birlas etc). Similar conditions exists in some
> communites in South India, like the Arasu of Karnataka (Maharaja of
> Mysore).
>
>
> Yashwant
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of INDOLOGY Digest - 14 Aug 2000 to 15 Aug 2000 (#2000-110)
> ***************************************************************