Johannes Bronkhorst argues that the eastern Gangetic plain had a distinct culture that was Indo-Aryan but not Vedic. While the west was the Vedic heartland, the east was the home of the Śramaṇa tradition like Buddhism, Jainism, Ājīvika. In this culture, Kshatriyas ranked higher than Brahmins, and Vedic sacrifices and authority were rejected.
Vedic texts themselves place Magadha outside the pure Aryan area: the Atharvaveda, sends fever to Magadha and Anga, and the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa states that Kosala and Videha were not fully Brahmanized, much less Magadha. Later Dharmaśāstras also treated Magadha as impure.
According to Bronkhorst, ideas of karma and rebirth were already present in Greater Magadha and were later adopted by the Vedic tradition.
Therefore, Buddhism and Jainism did not “originate from” Vedic religion; they belonged to a parallel Śramaṇa stream and consciously rejected Vedic authority rather than merely adapting it around a single figure.
How long will we continue to hide our ignorance behind the 'left-wing influence' label?
In Brihajjataka, Varahamihira does not explicitly state his birth year or the year in which he composed the work. He does, however, mention his name and his place of origin (Avanti). The primary evidence for dating comes from the Panchasiddhantika, not from Brihajjataka.
• In the Panchasiddhantika, Varahamihira refers to the Shaka year 427, which corresponds to 505 CE.
• He also mentions Aryabhata (born 476 CE), indicating that he lived after him.
• Al-Biruni also places him around 505 CE.
The Western Kshatrapas (Shakas) remained in the Gujarat-Malwa region until the end of the 4th century CE. Their final ruler, Rudrasimha III, was defeated by the Gupta emperor Chandragupta II sometime between 395 and 413 CE. Chandragupta II assumed the titles 'Vikramaditya' and 'Shakari'.
There is no historical evidence for the famous Vikramaditya of 57 BCE to whom the initiation of the 'Vikrama Samvat' is attributed. Modern historians consider this a later legend, likely inspired by the conquests of Chandragupta II.
Shudraka (the author of Mrichchhakatik) is a literary or mythical figure, not a historical king who brought an end to the Shakas. The earliest references to this era appear under the names 'Krita' and 'Malava Gana' (found in inscriptions from the 3rd to 5th centuries CE in the regions of Rajasthan and Malwa).
The name 'Vikrama' first appears in an inscription dated to 842 CE. Explicit references linking it to 'Vikramaditya' are of an even later origin.
By distancing themselves from their Saurashtrian cultural roots, Gujarati films paved the way for their own decline.
તદ્દન ખોટી વાત.
જેમ બિહાર માં ક્રાઇમ હોઈ શકે અપરાધ નહીં , એમ ગુજરાત માં પીધેલા મળી શકે પણ દારૂ નહીં.
The cultural and social identity of the worshippers “cannot be settled here”
• These icons are secondary deities and are situated within a non-Śaivite context (Panjikent Temple II).
• The primary deity is the local goddess Nana, and Umāmaheśvara is considered “conceptually homologous” to her.
• This does not constitute evidence of full-fledged Śaivism.
Therefore, the claim that “Brahmins/Kshatriyas brought and installed is not substantiated by the text.
The pages merely demonstrate the arrival of Indian iconography and its incorporation into the local religion, rather than an organized mission undertaken by any specific Varṇa.
Buddhism introduced the worship of Indian gods in Sogdiana; the Sogdians equated Mahādeva with Veshparkar. The Panjikent three-headed deity is Veshparkar.
After the anti-Buddhist reaction in Sogdiana, non-Buddhist artists of Panjikent continued to depict their local wind god Veshparkar after the three-headed Śiva. Livshits read the inscription at the figure’s feet as ωšpr(kr).
In terms of textual sources, the epithet 'Shakyasimha' is used for the Buddha in works such as the Mahavastu, Lalitavistara, and Saddharmapundarika.
From an archaeological perspective, the Shakas, who arrived in India from Iran were the first to adopt 'Simha' as a title; the earliest instance is found with Rudrasimha (178–197 CE) of the Western Kshatrapas.
Subsequent Kshatrapa rulers such as Visvasimha (c. 277–282 CE), Rudrasimha II (c. 304–348 CE), Simhasena (c. 380–384/5 CE), and Rudrasimha III (c. 388–415 CE) also utilized the 'Simha' title; notably, all of these rulers were patrons of Buddhism.
The specific epithet 'Shakyasimha' for the Buddha also appears in an inscription from the Gahadvala dynasty of Rajputs, dating to the 12th century the reign of the Gahadvala monarch Jayachandra.
Buddhists used Simha, but Hindus were using it as well long before it became widespread.
The key distinction is between occasional usage and an established naming tradition. Singh appears sporadically in earlier Hindu names, but Kachhwaha inscriptions from around the 11th century CE show members of the dynasty using it as part of their names.
So, while others may have used Singh once in a while, the Kachhwahas were among the earliest to establish its consistent and hereditary use as a naming tradition. From there, its use gradually became widespread among Rajputs, especially by around the 14th century CE.
On a personal level, I am fond of Snehlata, perhaps because my mother resembled her! My mother’s friends used to say that she looked like Snehlata in her youth, and they would insist on watching every one of her films.
My all time favourite hit Jodi
Upendra Trivedi
Snehlata
Asha Bhosle
Praful Dave
Kśhātrāp retweeted
Those Gandharan style of face markings can still be seen among Pashtun women as "Sheen Kaal" tattoos, which reek of their Gandharan roots. Even genetically, Pashtuns can be modelled as simply a mix of half Bactrian/Avestic
Here is the source:
The statue of Hariti (2nd century CE) has markings on her forehead and cheeks described as rosettes.
In the context of the Greco-Buddhist art the rosette often represents a lotus flower. These motifs were common in the art of the Gandhara region and reflect a blend of Hellenistic and Indian Buddhist artistic traditions.
