In recent times, an alarming narrative has emerged within the Malaysian blogosphere, suggesting a historical event that appears to be a misinterpretation or perhaps a deliberate misinformation campaign. The claim revolves around a so called Malay prince named Manabharana from Srivijaya, purportedly attacking and conquering the Chola kingdom. This misleading story has gained traction and is spreading like wildfire across various social media platforms. The need to address and rectify such inaccuracies is crucial not only for the sake of historical accuracy but also for fostering a responsible and informed online community. To delve into the matter, it is essential to clarify that historical records reveal the existence of multiple individuals named Manabharana throughout history. However, a nuanced understanding reveals that all these figures were Tamils (Damila) hailing from the Pandya kingdom, with references to their exploits documented in Tamil inscriptions and Sri Lankan chronicles
According to this author, the major religions like Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and even Sikhism originated from Islam. The author has a theory that the founding father of these religions is Abraham who is also revered as a prophet by the Jews and Christians.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism have its roots in Abraham, hence they are collectively called as the Abrahamic Religions. But I disagree that Hinduism and its offshoots came from Abraham. The author claims that the Vedas were created as a result of Abraham's teachings. He also mentioned that Abraham lived in 2080 BC.
Is this true?
The Abrahamic religions have several text. The book known as Torah, predates the Old Testament of the Christians and the Quran of the Muslims. The story of prophets before Muhammad or Jesus was mentioned in Judaism before Christianity or Islam was founded.
Till date, there is no historical evidence to confirm if Abraham or Moses really existed but we can make some assumptions on the years they would have existed. According to the author of this book, Moses existed in 1446 BC and Abraham in 2080 BC. That means there is a wide gap of 634 years between Abraham and Moses.
Abraham's son is Isaac and Isaac's son is Jacob. One of Jacob's sons is Levi.
The Book of Exodus is part of the Torah. The genealogy of Moses being a direct descendant of Abraham through Levi was mentioned in Chapter 6 of the Exodus.
The lineage of Moses from Abraham will look like this:
Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> Levi -> Kohath -> Amram -> Moses
The description of ages in the Torah is questionable. These are their lifespan:
Abraham, 175 years
Isaac, 180 years
Jacob, 147 years
Levi, 137 years
Kohath, 133 years
Amram, 137 years
Moses, 120 years
So probably this is how the author calculated an age gap of 634 years between Abraham and Moses. Meaning, each generation beginning from Abraham would have become a father only at the ripe age of 100+. But this is again is debatable for obvious rational reasons.
The ancient society had the habit of early marriage. Meaning a man would get married at 20 years and probably become a grandfather by 40 years. Even if a man becomes a grandfather at 60-70 years, it only takes 200 years to cover 5 generations.
The Torah also mentioned that Amran (Moses's father) married Jochebed (Kohath's sister) who happened to be his own aunt. Jochebed is the mother of Moses who is also his paternal grandfather's sister.
If Moses had an age gap of 100 with his father Amram, then the marriage of Amram and Jochebed would have happened when both were very old because Amram and Jochebed's brother Kohath would have had an age gap of 100 years.
One will then wonder how old was Kohath when his sister Jochebed was born and what is the age gap between her and her husband Amram who happened to also be her nephew.
Based on this, we cannot take the dates given by the author as true. A date based on any religious text can only be confirmed if it is validated properly and it should not be based on assumption that it took 634 years to cover 5 generations.
In his book, the author used the Aryan Invasion Theory to support his claim that Siva was never mentioned in the Vedas.
 |
| TRANSLATION: Siva was never mentioned and was unknown to the Brahmans of the Vedic period. This is because the word Siva does not exist in the Vedas. Siva was only introduced during the Puranic period...... |
According to the author, the Puranic period began in 300 BC and Siva was only introduced during period.
In Rig Veda, Siva was identified in his fearsome aspect known as Rudra. The word Rudra means terrific. It is also used in association with fierce deities known as Maruts.
Please refer to Rig Veda hymn XXXIII and CXIV.
Then in Yajur Veda, the supreme God is requested to put away his terrific form known as Rudra and show his auspicious form known as Siva. Both Siva (auspicious) and Rudra (terrific) are different aspects of the same God proving that God is both the giver and also the annihilator .
This proves that Siva existed even in the Vedas and what the author mentioned in his book is not true. I have attached some screenshots from the Vedas to support what I mentioned here.
Comments
Post a Comment