The late white indologist Daniel Ingalls, whose Asana is now occupied by der Narr von Deutschland, and

who has spawned a brood of mlechCha indologists who have be en prominent in misinforming the uninformed regarding Hindu traditions [footnote 1], once remarked: Probably no two traditions of philosophy differ more widely than those of classic al Greece and India. It is only when we force our way through the logical surfac e to the seemingly illogical practices and goals of an earlier age that we can s ee similarities between the two cultures. These similarities, however, are somet imes so striking that the Indian evidence may help our understanding of Greece a nd the Greek our understanding of India. One gains such a reciprocal understandi ng, I think, from examining what I shall call the cults, meaning by this the sum of the practices and goals as opposed to the philosophy, of the Greek Cynics an d the Indian Pasupatas. Thus, in a contradiction-riddled fashion Ingalls introduces his discovery of the relationship between the pAshupata shaiva-s and the Cynics (from kuon= dog). An other mlechCha scholar Thomas Mcevilley after him came much closer in grasping t he Arya-yavana homology, but his prolix tome is so full of factual errors (Ancie nt Dravidian shaivAgama-s and a Dravidian origin for pAshupata-s!) that it only tarnishes the skeleton of truth in this thesis. The problem, as we have repeated ly stated, is that someone not befuddled by the odious Ibrahimi fog and not lack ing understanding of the ancient heathen thought (like most modern mlechCha-s) s hould take up such studies. That said we do agree that there is merit in Ingalls hypothesis for a connection between pAshupata and Cynics as graphically illustrated above by the images of t he lakuTadhArin founders. While Ingalls original work presents a number of contra dictory ideas without laying them out as alternative hypotheses to be tested he does recognize many of the essential elements of this connection. Three general hypotheses might be proposed to understand this connection. 1) The out of Greece hypothesis: lakulIsha pAshupata emerged due to Greek cynicism being transmitted to India and being absorbed into older shaiva systems. 2) The lakulIsha pAshupa ta emerged in India and was adapted in via syncretism with older Greek thought. 3) The lakulIsha-s and cynics were products of an independent tradition absorbed by both Greeks and Hindus. Black Sea shamans, Middle Eastern Gilagameshists and the like have been proposed as this common source. The main evidence supporting the first hypothesis goes thus: -There is no mention of lakulIsha as a great pAshupata teacher in the mahAbhArat a, which presents the first post-vedic material of pAshupata-s. He first appears with his students in the purANa-s. -The pAshupata sUtra-s themselves do not clearly indicate the lakulIsha was thei r author, though the later tradition pAshupata tradition holds this view. -There is inscription from the reign of chandragupta II vikramAditya in Mathura (380CE) regarding a pAshupatAcharya udita. He is mentioned to be the student of upamita who was the student of kapila. udita himself is described as 10th in lin e from kaushika. Some people have felt that this kaushika was the student lakulI sha (but note lakulIsha is not mentioned in this inscription) so by assign about 280 years for 10 generations they place lakulIsha in ~100 CE which is well afte r the Greek cynics. Some others state that there is an error in this estimate an d there are two kaushika-s in the pAShupata list and place lakulIsha around 200 BCE. But this is also after the first Greek cynics -The philological argument holds that lakulIsha is derived from Herakles: Herakles>rakles>lakulIsha. In support of this it is stated that: 1) lakulIsha is not regularly derived from lakuTa inside saMskR^ita and 2) the word lakulIsha h as many variants such as nakulIsha, lakulesha and lakulin. 3) An ectype of lakul Isha named musalendra has been stated to be his disciple. This name means bearer of a club, just like Herakles. The vedic rudra usually holds a bow rather than a club. Thus it is quite possible that the lakulIsha figure was adapted into the shaiva stream from a Greek cynical source.

Such syncretism is not surprising. We do know of the famous Greek bhAgavata Heli odorus who was a practitioner of some form of the pA~ncharAtra sect. On the othe r hand we know that at Nemrud Dagh there is Iranian-Greek syncretism where there Iranian verethraghna is explicitly identified with Herakles. So it is not impos sible that in the zone of Gandhara where there is much evidence for Indic-GreekIranian fusion that the cynic cult centered on Herakles was absorbed. Further, w e do have evidence in the form of the yavana-jAtaka and the paulIsha siddhAnta o f Indic absorption of Greek ideas [Note how Paulos>paulIsha is similar to the pr oposed derivation of lAkulIsha from Herakles. We cannot be certain if this Paulo s is the same of P. Alexandrinos the neo-Platonic astrologer]. Firstly, the key features for the out of India hypothesis are not apparent to ma ny main-stream white Indologists and their fellow travelers as they tend to have l udicrous ide fixes on the dates of most Hindu texts but we shall not waste time w ith those discussions here. The main points in support of this hypothesis are: -There is a long history of pAshupataM that predates the emergence of cynicism a mong the Greeks. We note that it begins in the late vedic period in the form of the pa~nchabrahma mantra-s of the mahAnAryaNa upaniShad-s, and the shvetAshvatar a and nIlarudra upaniShad-s. This is followed by the atharva-shiras, the pAshupa ta brAhmaNa and then by the pAshupata section of the bhArata (e.g. the ajAnana v irachita rudra stuti). Probably a little after this emerged the pAshupata sUtrAN i. Thus, even if, like much later tradition holds, the pashupata sutrANi were th e work of lakulIsha, it is hardly the beginning of the pAshupata tradition. Henc e, the roots of the pAshupata tradition is at least as old as 1200 BCE, which is certainly earlier than the 450-350 BCE time frame for the emergence of Greek cy nicism. Hence, the origins of pAshupata shaiva tradition were definitely not ins pired by the Greek traditions. -Key elements of homopraxis that are believed to unite the pAshupata-s and the c ynics are: 1) theriomorphic behavior and 2) seeking of dishonor or avamAna. Ther e are specific similarities especially in the latter in form of lewd behavior in public both among cynics and pAshupata-s and behaving like madmen e.g. performi ng aTTahAsa and huDDukAra. However, it should be noted that these elements are n ot entirely unique to the atimArga of the shaivashAsana but in general of the at imArga matrix that includes both Astika-s and their nAstika cousins. For this we have to turn to the saMnyAsa upaniShad-s. In their current form many of these a re later texts, but by they contain some genuinely archaic material [To give cre dit where it is due the white Indologist Sprockhoff performed a detailed study o f these and noted the homologies within them. Based on these homologies and the AruNi text one may conclude that there were 1 or 2 ancestral pre-nAstika saMnyAs opaniShad-s from which all the later ones descended. Interestingly, in the older period they tend not to use the word saMnyAsa that often. The older term for th e man of the atimArga was parivrAjaka]. That the atimArga was not unique to the pAshupata shaiva-s is suggested by relat ively early parivrAjaka text known as the AruNi upaniShad, which appear to belon g to the early vaiShNava atimArga. Here the naked paramahaMsa utters two mantras as he wanders about: OM hi OM hi OM hi AruU 11-12 [which is like the huDDukAra of the shaiva] and tad viShNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH divIva chakShurAtatam tad viprAso vipanyavo jAgR^ivAMsaH samindhate viShNor yat paramaM padam [which is like the pa~nchabrahma mantra of the shaiva ascetic]. The AruNi text also states: bhikShaarthaM grAmaM pravishanti pANi pAtram udarapAtraM vA AruU11 That is the paramahaMsa enters the village for alms and uses his hand or stomach as the begging bowl. Explaining this point the medieval exegete yAdavaprakAsha (teacher of rAmAnuja the vaiShNava) states that a parivrAjaka eats food with his mouth like a cow. To this effect, a latter vaiShNava atimArga text, the nAradaparivrAjakopaniShad states:

Asyena tu yadAhAraM govan-mR^igayate muniH NpU182 That is the vaiShNava ascetic eats food in theriomorphic fashion, like cow or so me animal with his mouth. The same text adds: budho bAlakavat krIDet kushalo jaDavachcharet vadedunmattavad vidvAn gocharyAM naigamashcharet The wise [ascetic] plays like child and the clever one behaves like an idiot. Th e eloquent one [speaks] like a madman and the scholar roams behaving like a cow. Thus theriomorphic and insane behavior is also part of the vaiShNava paramahaMsas behavioral repertoire. The bauddha majjhima nikAya shows how this behavioral complex of Indo-Aryan asce tics was adopted by the tathagata. In 1.79 of this Pali text we encounter the ta thAgata walking around on four legs observing a pashuvrata even as the one descr ibed in the earlier bhArata epic (somewhere in 5th parvan). Later in the majjhim a nikAya (1.387) the tathAgata is seen taking on two parivrAjaka-s one of whom i s performing a govrata (the boomorphic conduct) and the other shvacharyA (cynomo rphic conduct). These behaviors being part of the ancestral Indo-Aryan parivrAjakas repertoire is confirmed by two statements made by baudhAyana in the dharma sUtra in describin g the mode of existence of the avApachamAnaka (the ascetic who does not cook), w hich appears to include the vaiShNava vaikhAnasa ascetic: kR^ichChrAM vR^ittim asaMhAryAM sAmAnyAM mR^igapakShibhiH tad aharjana saMbhArAM kaShAyakaTukAshrayAM parigR^ihya shubhAM vR^ittim etAM durjana varjitAM vana-vAsam upAshritya brAhmaNo nAvasIdati mR^igaiH saha parispandaH saMvAsastebhir eva cha tair eva sadR^ishi vR^ittiH pratyaShaM svargalakShaNaM pratyakShaM svargalakShaNaM iti BauSu 3.3.21-22 These citations by baudhAyana appear to be from ancient lost texts which could v ery well be the precursor of the extant saMnyAsa upaniShad-s. It shows how the m ost difficult vrata observed by these vaikhanasa or brahma ascetics is one where they live like beasts or birds, eating raw and bitter and sour food just like t hem. They roam around with animals and live just like them amongst them. Thus, a key element which is present in some form in pashupata, vaiShNava and nAstika a sceticism and also form a central element in Greek cynicism has its roots in the ancient Hindu asceticism but emerges only around 450-350 BC in Greece. From the earlier statement from the NpU it also becomes clear that even the vaiS hNava parivrAjaka assumed mannerisms of the insane. That this was an ancient tra it of the parivrAjaka-s in general is supported by a sUtra in the vasiShTha dhar ma sUtra describing their behavior: anunmatta unmattveShaH VaSu 10.19 Though sane he puts on the appearance of the insane. This same statement is recy cled repeatedly in various saMnyAsa texts like jAbAla upaniShad and NpU suggesti ng that it is from the Ur-parivrAjaka text. Another ancient saying pertaining to parivrAjaka-s that is widely quoted in multiple texts is: saMmAnAd brAhmaNo nityam udvijeta viShAd iva amR^itasy eva chAkA~NkShed avamAnasya sarvadA The brAhmaNa is always averse to honor like poison and like elixir longs for dis honor. As in the case of the pAshupata texts the vaiShNava NpU further adds how when the ascetic is reviled and tortured he attains yogic success (exactly paral lels the pAshupata sUtra 3.19). Thus, another core element of the pAshupata beha vior shared with the Greek cynics i.e. simulated madness and concomitant seeking of appears to have been a feature of the ancestral Indo-Aryan ascetic and not a unique feature of the former. Not surprisingly, such dishonor- or abuse- seekin g is also encountered in the tales of even the nAstika ascetics like the nirgran tha, the tathagata and the goshAla.

Finally we come to the club of lakulIsha and Herakles. At face value this featur e is an important specific cognate of the respective founders of the systems und er consideration. Yet, we must not forget that the carrying a rod or a staff is an ancient emblem of the Hindu ascetics, well before the emergence of lakulIsha in Hindu texts. This emblem is taken up by ascetics with a vedic mantra which is cited in many texts including saMnyAsa upaniShad-s and also the dharma sUtra-s (e.g. NpU 169 or BauSu 2.17.32): sakhA mA gopAya ojah sakhAyo.asiindrasya vajro.asi vArtragnaH sharma me bhava yatpApaM tannivAraye Now it should be noted the daNDa taken by the ascetic is explicitly identified a s the vajra of indra. Interesting, the Greek cognate uagros is used for the club of Herakles. Thus, even in this case it is not impossible that the club is a co gnate of the older staff held by parivrAjaka-s. Specifically, a khaTvA~nga or la kuTa are mentioned as substitutes of a daNDa in the atharvaveda parishiShTha 40s description of the accoutrements of a pAshupata ascetic. Since most features of the pAshupata-s that are believed to be specific cognates of the Greek cynics ar e integral archaic features of the Indo-Aryan ascetics that were inherited as a complex by various successor ascetic groups in the India milieu, the case for an Indic origin followed by a transfer to Greece only around 450 BCE appears entir ely possible. The last hypothesis involving a third party influence on both yavana-s and Aryas is reminiscent of the posited by white Indologists to explain similarities bet ween the mathematics of the shulbasUtras and that of the yavana-s. This again co mes from their misconceptions regarding the age of the earlier Indo-Aryan litera ture. As we have seen above, the essential elements that need explanations can b e traced entirely inside Greek or Hindu tradition. Hence, this class explanation s is useless because it merely multiplies the number entities needed in an expla nation without adding any value. Looking at the two main contenders we find that Greek hypothesis has the advanta ge of explaining the etymology of lakulIsha and providing an explanation for the club as against the ascetics staff in the iconography of musalendra and lakulIsh a. However, this is challenged by the mention of the lakuTa relatively early in the AV-pari 40s account of the system. On the other hand, the Indic hypothesis ha s the advantage of providing continuity and context for the peculiarities of the se systems, which is lacking in the case of the Greek cynics who appear relative ly suddenly in their system. This probably was the basis for the confusion and c ontradiction displayed by Ingalls in his work he simultaneous suggests that ther e was no genetic link between the two and yet believes that they are related. He even adds that they discovered each other to explain the etymological link betwee n Herakles and lAkulIsha. More like scenario is the following: The parivrAjaka a sceticism arose in the Indo-Aryan world and the incipient shaiva- and vaiShNavashAsana-s both inherited it from their undifferentiated Indo-Aryan precursor. T hus vaikhAnasa and pAshupata ati-marga existed side by side before the tathagata or the nirgrantha. Around 500 BCE within the matrix of the parivrAjaka system e merged the nirgratha-s and bauddha-s who also inherited aspects of it to differe nt degrees. Around the same time in the western limits of bhAratavarSha the yava na-s started appearing and participating in various Hindu systems. From then on right through the Hellenistic period catalyzed by the invasions of the barbarian s of Macedon, yavana-s were actively involved in different Hindu systems. Around 500 BC some yavana-s most likely in the Northwest of bhAratavarSha adopted pari vrAjaka practices from shaiva teachers. Given their syncretic nature they equate d rudra (as shrIkaNTha) the founder of the pAshupata system with Herakles. Their shaiva teachers appear to have absorbed the name, perhaps being struck by the c onvergence in terms of the lakuTa held by both and the phonetic analogy in Herak les> lakulIsha. Thus, the figure lakulIsha emerged as an incarnation of shiva an d a founder of the pAshupata system. We note that many aspects of cynic philosop hy, not just practices, arise from early atimArga shaiva thought and its larger

parivrAjaka matrix and were transmitted to Greece to found classical cynicism. T he memes of ati-mArga thinking appear to have then on propagated in the Greek wo rld all the way to neo-Platonism. In a sense this is reminiscent of how atimArga memes permeate mantra-mArga shAsana of the later era in India. Thus, in the cyn ic-pAshupata homology we possibly encounter one of those lesser appreciated type s of interactions of the pagan Indo-European world the two participants despite their apparent differences were able to rather intelligibly interface and take w hat they found valid suitable for their world view from the other and then move on with their own expressions. This is somewhat different from certain other int eraction where one of the cultures simply acquires the whole complex from the ot her with hardly any local adaptation. Footnote 1: In my investigation of the politics of indology I have found no evid ence for Daniel Ingalls himself being a subversionist or engaging in willful mis information. However, his students include notable mlechCha subversionists who b elong to a larger wave of academic misinformation which can be termed Freudism. My mAtAshrI reports that even in her college days one such va~nchaka was already implanted in bhArata who was engaging in indoctrinating the gullible in the des h. But another student Thurman appears to be more sympathetic to our traditions.