Showing posts with label Mahavamsa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mahavamsa. Show all posts

Is Gautama Buddha Avatar of Vishnu

Why does Purana and Buddhist Chronology does not synchronize with each other. While they seem to be saying about the same person. When Analyzing this question. It becomes apparent that we have merged two Buddhas. The Adi Buddha or Avatar Buddha of Vishnu and Shakya Buddha  or Gautama Buddha into One. Let us Analyze

Let us  summarize what we have regarding each Buddha

Adi Buddha
Adi Buddha is avatar of Vishnu was born on 1887BC to Mother Anjana in Kikata (Bodh Gaya).
The Adi Buddha Established the Philosophy of Ahimsa, Non Violence. He preached against ritual Animal Sacrifices that has crept into Vedic Hinduism. He emphasized the divine in all beings and divinity of all souls arousing compassion for all.

Gautama Buddha
Siddhartha was was born around 560BC in Royal Family of Suddhodana and Mayadevi in Lumbini in Nepal. Siddhartha received his name Gautama from his spiritual Master Gautama Muni, who belongs to Kapila dynasty(as per Sundarananda Charita). He left home his royal comforts to find enlightenment. He went to Bodh Gaya to meditate and got enlightenment.
Gautama Buddha philosophy that is Monist (the God, is inert, nonactive and without any characteristic) and that reaching the same inert and non-active state through Nirvana is the goal. For attaining freedom from all suffering and end cycle of rebirths, one should attain Nirvana. Gautama Buddha is the propagator of Bahyatmavada, Jnanatmavada and Sunyavada, three pillars of Atheism. He Went to Bodhgaya to medidate because of its spiritual potency as the birthplace of Adi Buddha.

Buddhist Texts
Threvada Texts refer to six Preceding Buddhas (Those who have been awakened) as Vipasyin, Sikin, krakuccanda, Konagamara and Kashyapa, also they say Maitreya as the Buddha of the future.

Amara Simha Buddhist scholar, who wrote Amarakosha gives eighteen names of Vishnu avatara including the name Sugato (Which Shankara calls Buddha) and seven names of Shakya Simha Buddha without any mention of Sugato. So we can even argue that Shankara talks about avatar Buddha not Shakya Buddha. Amarakosha states the Lord Buddha is also known as Samanta Bhadra, whereas Gautama Buddha is a human being.

In Lalita Vistara, it is described how Gautama Buddha medidated on the same spot as the predecessor Buddha. The original name of Bodhgaya is Kikata, after Gautama attained enlightment there, it came to be known as Buddha gaya. Even today the rituals of worship is preformed by sannyasis of Shankaracharya sect.

Lankavatara Sutra, the famous buddhist work says that Ravana King of Lanka first worshipped Vishnu incarnation Buddha then successive and future Buddha.

Analysing Buddhist texts like Prajna-Paramita sutra, Astasahastrika prajna- paramita sutra, Sata-Shastrika Prajna, Pramita Sutra, Lalita Vistara shows three categories of Buddha namely

Human Buddhas: Like Gautama, who came to be known as Buddha after enlightment.
Bodhisattva Buddhas: Personalities like Samanta Bhadraka who were born enlightened.
Adi(Original-First) Buddha: the Avatar of Vishnu.

Hindu Texts
Bhagavata Purana says "At the commencement of the Kāli-yuga will Vishnu become incarnate in Kikata, under the name of Buddha, the son of Jina, for the purpose of deluding the enemies of the gods."

Puranas say that Adi Buddha was born in Ikshvaku Dynasty.

How Two were merged.
Adi Shankara, in discussion with others treated both of them as one person and did not discriminate between the two. Shankara Sunya philosophy is similar to Buddhist Nirvana. With his Mayavadha philosophy he not only stopped rise of Buddhism in India, but also started its decline.  However acharyas who came after him did not agree and they came with corrections for clear vedic View
Vishnuswami -Suddha Advaitha
Ramanuja - Vasistadvaitha
Nimbarka - Dvaita Advaita
Madhva - Dvaitha
Chaitanya - Acintaya Bheda Bheda

Historical Accounts
Adi Buddha is contemproary of Srenika(Sunika) whose father was Hemajit or Kshemajit or Kshetroja or Ksetrauja. Son of Srenika is Kunika. His son is Dharshaka.

Gautama Buddha is contemproary of Bimbisara(Son of Bhatiya or Bhattiya), King of Magadha with Capital at Rajgirh. Bimbisara made married alliances with many kings of India. His first wife Kosaladevi was the princess of Kosala, daughter of king Mahakoshal and sister of Pasendi or Prasenjit. The marriage ended the hostility between Kosala and Magadha. Ajatsatru was Kosaladevi`s son. Bimbisara conquered Anga and send Ajatsatru as the ruler there. Champa was the capital of Anga. Bimbisara was assasinated by his son Ajathashatru. Gautama Buddha then went to sravasti, Capital of Kosala ruled by Prasenjit. Most of the teachings come from Sravasti. Buddhist, Puranic and Jain Accounts confirm Gautama Buddha to be the contemproary of Bimbisara.

Jain scriptures, described King Bimbisara as a disciple of Mahavira who frequently sought his teachings. As per Jain texts, he is referred to as King Shrenika of Rajgriha (being the possessor of a large army). Bimbisara sent Jivaka to Ujjain for medical treatment of King Pradyata, the king of Avanti.

Mahavamsa traces the Shakya dyansty to Ikshvaku dynasty and starts the dynasty with Ikshvaku.

Let us see the list of Contemproary kings as various religious texts 

Puranas List
Shishunaga(40yrs)(Desposed Pratyodya)
Khastrojas (40yrs)
Bimbasara (28yrs)
Ajatashatru (25yrs)
Udayin (33yrs)
Nandivardhana (40rys)
Mahanandin (43yrs)

Buddhist List
Kalashoka (Sons Bhadrasena, Korandavarna, Mangura, Sarvanjaha, Jalika, Ubhaka, Sanjaya, Koravya, Nandivardhana and Panchamaka)
All 10 sons ruled simultaneously.

How Reliable is Buddhist Historical sources

Indologists have been saying Puranas are not reliable, let us see how unreliable Buddhist texts are. It is from Buddhist texts that Indologists arguments come. There two schools of sources. Tibetan and Sinhala. There is Chinese source, which comes later.
Let us take the kings around Buddhas time

Lankan Tradition

Ajatasattu (32yrs)
Udayabhadda (16yrs)
Nagadasa (24yrs)
susunaga (10yrs)
Ten sons of Kalasoka (22yrs)
Asoka (37yrs)

Bimbisara (52yrs)
Ajatasattu (32yrs)
Udayabhadda (16yrs)
Anuruddha, Munda (8yrs)
Nagadasaka (8yrs)
Susunaga (18yrs)
Kalasoka (28yrs)
ten sons of Kalasoka (22yrs)
Nine Nandas (22yrs)
Candagutta (24yrs)
Bindusara (28yrs)
Asoka (37yrs)

Burmese Tradition
Ajatasattu (35yrs)
Udayabhadda (15yrs)
Aururddha, Munda (9yrs)
Nagadasaka (4yrs)
Susunaga (32yrs)
Kalasoka 28yrs
bhaddasena and 8 brothers (33yrs)
Uggasenananda and 8 brothers (21yrs)
candagutta (24yrs)
Bindusara (27yrs)

Tibetan Tradition
Ujayain or Udayibhadda

Jain Tradition
(Total 60yrs)
Nine Nandas


Buddhist dates
1)Sources of Buddhist: First Where do Buddhist sources come from, they are not there from time immemorial like Purana or Jain sources. They are from definite time frame that is after Gautama Buddha. Mainly after the state patronage of Buddhism. Now how does Buddhist dates start from Ikshvaku dynasty. They should have got from some source. where else Purana. These Buddhist chronologies before Buddha are from Purana sources. If Puranas are the source of many Buddhist dates, how can Indology scholars choose to reject Puranas and take Buddhist sources.

2)Indian Dates: Dates from Purana or Buddhist or Jain are all Indian dates. Indologists are just playing one against other.

3)Not the Same Kings: Jain and Purana Chronology names does not tally with Buddhist Chronology names on contemporary kings

4) Differences within Buddhist: There are two main dates for Buddhists. One from Sinhala Buddhist and other Tibetan sources. There are two sources from Sinhala. That is Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa. There are differences between the two dates, but let us not overplay the differences.

The Tibetan Buddhist dates are more closer to Puranas date. But there are major differences. Such as when did Buddha lived. Date of Ashoka etc.

There is also Burma (Myanmar), though based on Lankan sources has a mind of its own because it has direct contact with puranic sourcse.

Chinese and Japanese follow Lankan, though they also have direct contact with puranic, so there are differences.

Indology Confusions
By Combining two Buddhas Indology scholars have discredited the Purana accounts and thus Indian History. Whenever the Puranas refers Adi Buddha they will cite Gautama Buddha to discredit and vice verse.

Colonel Kennedy, argues that the Buddha of the Purana and Buddha the founder of the Buddhist system of religion have nothing in common but the name, and that the attempted identification of these two is simply the work of European scholars, who have not been sufficiently careful to collect information, and to weigh the evidence they have had before them.

Jacobi Believes that Kakavarna(Puranas) = Kalashoka (Sinhalese Buddhist Literature) = Udyain (Jain Literature)

The Cambridge and Oxford histories of India accept 483 B.C as the date of Buddha’s nirvana. But, William Jones, on the basis of Chinese and Tibetan records infers that Buddha lived in the 11th century B.C. Historian Fleet, who makes a study of ‘Rajatarangini’, thinks that Buddha lived in the 17th century B.C. Chinese monk Fa-Hien puts Buddha’s Nirvana at 1050 B.C. These contradictory theories may confuse one altogether.

Indology scholars just pick and choose to discredit Purana sources. The history that Buddha lived in the 5th century B.C was propounded by E.J Rapson who writes that the exact date of Buddha’s Nirvana is not known and hence the popularly accepted year of Buddha’s Nirvana is imaginary. Sastry states that Western scholars arbitrarily skipped 12 centuries of Indian history because their ‘hypothesis’ about Alexander’s invasion did not match with centuries-old Indian chronology.

We see that Early Buddhist texts distinguishes the two Buddhas, while the later ones seem to ignored the former. The Rock Edicts of Piyadasi teachings are of Adi Buddha not Gautama Buddha. This clarification actually synchronizes the Buddhist and Purana Chronology and there seems to be no problem in merging the two once we take as two persons. The key is not play puranic , Jain, Buddhist chronology against each other, but synchronize them. The Conclusion is that : Gautama Buddha is not avatar of Vishnu. Avatar of Vishnu is Adi Buddha.

Were There Two Buddhas By Stephen Knapp
Modern Buddha and Vishnu Avatar Buddha are Different by Srila Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Maharaja
Hindu Mythology, Vedic and Puranic, by W.J. Wilkins
Index to all Chronology Pages from Indic Studies Foundation
Saisunaga Dynasty- The Third Dynasty of Magadha after the great war. from Kota Venkata Chelam - Ancient Indian History
Buddhist India
Lord Mahāvīra and His Times By Kailash Chand Jain
History of Ancient India: From 4250 BC to 637 AD By J.P. Mittal
The dates of the Buddha

The Dynasties Before Alexander
Kalpadeep Holidays
Hare Krsnas
grifter a splendidthing
Katinka Hesselink
Related Posts
Date of Buddha
Buddha Image
Date of Shankara
Did Megasthenes Meet Chandragupta Maurya
Kanishka Era
Dating Indian History
Are Maukharis and Malwa Guptas Feudatories of Imperial Guptas?
India by Indologists
Alexander Invasion of India
Who is Diodotus

Ancient Pandya kingdom - Location

The Early Pandyas of the Sangam period were one of the three main kingdoms of the ancient Tamil country, the other two being the Cholas and the Cheras. Most of the information about the Early Pandyas comes to us through literary sources. The capital of the Early Pandyan kingdom was initially Korkai, around and was later moved to Kudal (now Madurai) during the reign of Nedunj Cheliyan I. The Medieval Pandyas kingdom is well documented and replete with archeological evidence. But the Early pandyas was not.

Let us analayse the early pandyas, how they came into history.

Sangam LiteratureMaduraikkanci (761-763), by Mankudi Maruthanaar contains a full-length description of Madurai and the Pandyan country under NedunjCheliyan III. Netunalvatai (9th century AD)(in the collection of Pattupattu) give a glimpse into the society and commercial activities. One expert has said, since in one sentence in this poem there is a mention of a vembu flower adorning the spear of the hero, he could be identified to belong to the Pandya dynasty, but it is not certain. until 8th century Kanchi was referred as madurakanchi and Madurai was called Koodal,so we do not know if the said city and dynasty are same.

Descriptions of three major kings of Tamil nadu Chera, chola, pandya and minor chieftains called Velir are found in the Akananuru and the Purananuru collections (both 9th century AD). The second poem by Mudinagarayar addresses the Chera king Uthayan Cheralaathan and praises him for his feeding the armies at the Kurukshetra war. This is an obvious anachronism suggesting a king of the early Common Era Tamil country had a role to play in a mythological battle of the Mahabharata epic. Based on this one poem, there have been attempts at dating the Purananuru poems to around 1000 BCE or older. Which as we can see is full of legends and inaccuracies. Akananuru was compiled by Rudrasarman at the behest of the Pandya king Ukkiraperuvazhuthi. This also contains poems from Perunthevanar(9th century AD).

Silapathikaram and Manimekalai Both these works deal with pandya kings extensively. But dating has always been a issue. refer link1

Meenakshipuram edictEventhough Meenakshipuram edict is said to refer nedunjeliyan , there is noway to verify authenticity of the inscription. And the inscription does not refer to pandyas or nedunjeliyan.

Ashoka edictAshoka edict mentions coda pada satyaputo , ceraputo. Experts says pada in edict means Pandyas , but we do not know for sure. Since no other evidence suggest this. Kautilya when discussion about his southern country karnataka does not say anything about kingdoms beyond that.

Hathigumpha inscriptionsThe Hathigumpha inscriptions of the Kalinga King, Kharavela, (c. 150 BCE) refers to the arrival of a tribute of jewels and elephants from the Pandu king. We have nothing other than that.

Singhalese chronicle Mahawamsa claims that King Vijaya (c. 543 BCE) married a daughter of the Pandu king Kulasekaran, to whom he was sending rich presents every year. Let us see what dipavamsa(4th century AD) say about this, it says Pandu king kulashekara , does not specify whether he is from tamil nadu or he is tamil king. This might be an attempt to link up with Pandavas.

Foreign sources
The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (c. 60 - 100 CE) describes the riches of a 'Medura Regia Pandionis ': ...Nelcynda is distant from Muziris by river and sea about five hundred stadia, and is of another Kingdom, the Pandionis. This place also is situated on a river, about one hundred and twenty stadia from the sea....

The Chinese historian Yu Huan in his 3rd century text, the Weilüe, mentions a The Kingdom of Panyue:"...The kingdom of Panyue is also called Hanyuewang. It is several thousand li to the southeast of Tianzhu (Northern India)...The inhabitants are small; they are the same height as the Chinese..."

The Roman emperor Julian received an embassy from a Pandion about 361.

The 1st century Greek historian Nicolaus of Damascus met, at Damascus, the ambassador sent by an Indian King "named Pandion or, " to Caesar Augustus around 13 CE.

PandionPandion Historians dispute term pandion and they say it is porus that is mentioned not pandyas

There are numerous pandu kings in India , both Big and small. Each is an attempt to link up with Pandavas in mahabharata.

Pandyas of West Coast of karnataka
Pandya Bhutala pandya devipandyaAs per Bhutala Pandya Charitam – A Sanskrit book with 13 chapters - Bhutala Pandya’s rule begins at 77 A.D in Barkur as capital in south canara district of Karnataka. Their rule also included parts of Kerala. They are also mentioned in Puranas. Many claim the western sources and the indian sources mentioned refer to Pandyas in south canara. It is interesting to note that the kingdom of Bhutala Pandya was the first to have a delegation of Chinese traders in this part of the Vijayanagar Empire. Chinese porcelain relics can still be found in the temple built by Bhutala Pandya in Barkur (now in Udupi district). Many argue that the ambassador to Rome was from Bhutala pandya kingdom.

Siri Paddana
Antiquity of the Siri paDdana dates back to the period of Tamil Sangham literature. There are several Pali proper nouns in the Siri paDdana that show the backdrop of Buddhism during the composition of the oral epic. Buddhist elements have also been recognized in the environs of Tamil Sangham. The word Sangham (=association) itself is a word associated with. Analogy between the Siri paDdana and the story of Kanaki in Sangham literature suggests that both epics were two different regional versions been built on the same story element. As noted by Peter Claus “there are some tantalizing similarities between the Siri cult and that of Pattini, and also between the Siri legend and that of Kanagi (Pattini)”.The similarity of story element in the Sangham Kanaki and Tulu Siri, leads us to conclude that the composition of Siri paDdana was contemporary of Tamil Sangham literature. Many words in cilapathikaram are of tulu origin.

Barkur in Tulu nadu.
Greek and Roman sources say lot of about the ports of barkur, Kalian, Malpe,Olokhoira(which tamil scholars mention as korkai, tulu people call it as alavakhedu in South canara)

Medieval chera kingdom is Tulu
Medival chera kingdom we know is a Tulu origin. The Namboodaries are from Tulu nadu and they established the chera kingdom. Many of the sangam works are by Chera kings.

Chetty (chettiyar) Tale
The Nagarathar are migrated towards Pandya kingdom(707AD). The reason is that one of the Chola kings fell in love with one of the nagarathar girl, but the King refused to marry her. The nagrathars requested the King to marry her, but the king was very stubborn. Therefore the whole women community gave up their life and the men moved to the Pandya kingdom. The Pandian welcomed the Nagarathars and asked them where they wanted to live in his land. The nagarathars opted for the Chettinad Area. The Pandian wanted the community to grow and therefore he requested the nagarathars to marry again. Therefore they married the girls from the Saiva Vellalar community from Tirunelveli area. May be that is the reason they still have the practice of addressing the dad as Appachi, mom as Aatha, granny as Appatha / Aaya & granddad as Ayya.

Nagarathar, presently known as Nattukottai Nagarathars, are believed to have originated from Chandrapuri in the former Naganadu. There appears to be no authentic record in writing for said belief, excepting what has been handed down to our ancestors by word of mouth, especially 'Thalattu Padal' which itself has taken twist and turn over the years and has lost its originality. Our 'Isaikudimanam' (marriage deed) also bears testimony to our origin wherein it refers to 'Nagavalla…..' Location of former Naganadu is also debatable. Some of our Nagarathars say it is the border between Kerala and Tamilnadu. So many argue that it is the evidence of ancient trade with Rome Greece and South canara

PandavasThe most famous Panadavas has been mentioned in many literary souces , many are pronounced differently. Many say most of the ancient inscriptions refer to pandavas.

so we are not able to come to any conclusion on Ancient pandyas. Many of Sangam literatures who mention Pandyas are after written after 7th century AD. Many of the inscriptions referring to pandyas may not refer to pandavas. Many similar sounding names and trying to attach themselves to Pandavas has made the task of seprating myth and reality very difficult.

Where did Prince Vijaya land?

Vijaya is the central legendary figure in the Mahavamsa. He was the grandson of an Indian princess from Vanga in India who had been abducted by an amorous lion, Simha, and son of their incestuous and half-leonine offspring. Along with 700 of his followers, Vijaya arrived in Lanka and established himself as ruler with the help of Kuveni, a local princess. Even though there is several legends surrounding Sri Vijaya , the main legend is where did he land in lanka. let us see a article discussing the possible locations

1. The reference quoted from 'Deepavamsa' that the Prince Vijaya built the city of Thambapani 'in the South, on the bank of a river' does not indicate that the location of 'Thambapanni' was on the bank of a river in the present southern province.

Undoubtedly 'Deepavamsa' would have been compilated in the capital city of Anuradhapura and during the period the area to the south of Anuradhapura including the present north western province had been considered as south. The area of Tissamaharama was included within the country known as 'Rohana'.

2. There is no reliable historical evidence to establish that Vijaya came to Lanka during the north east monsoon. If this idea has been conceived merely on the historical record that 'the ship was driven by the violence of the wind', it could be applicable to the north west monsoon too.

3. As the exact landing place of vijaya was not known to the authors of Deepavampsa and Mahavamsa in a period as early as 4th and 5th century. A.D. the question arises as to what source of information helped the author of 'Rajawaliya' who lived in the 17th century A.D. to learn that the prince Vijaya and his followers decided to land from the coast of Rohana having seen a large rock, the 'Adam's Peak' as a land mark.

4. Mahavamsa does not mention that the king Vijaya's successor 'Panduvasudeva' landed at the port of 'Gonagama'. It was Bhaddakachchana, the Sakkaya princess who departed from 'Ganges Valley' and arrived at the port of 'Gonagamaka' with her brothers and found settlements in the eastern Lanka. The 'Gonagamaka' has identified as the present Trincomalee harbour. Therefore the understanding of Parker that the 'Gonagamaka' is the mouth of Mahakandara river is incorrect.

Moreover the Pali word 'Mahakandara Nadi' cannot be the Pali translation of 'Kirindioya.' The following information would be helpful in finding the probable area of Landing of Vijaya.

(i) The Vijaya legend symbolically represents the story of migration of the original Sinhalese, from 'Sinhapura' of the western region of 'Aryavartha' passing 'Bharukachcha' and 'Supparaka' on the western sea board of India.
(ii) As they have sailed southward alone the western sea board of India they should have arrived at a harbour in north-western sea coast of Lanka.

(iii) Their original settlements would have been established along the coastal belt from Negombo to Mannar where the pearl fishery was the main attraction and their generations would have gradually advanced towards Anuradhapura along Kalaoya and Malwatuoya.

(iv) The author of 'Mahavamsa' has mentioned the location of certain villages founded by the Ministers of Vijaya eg: Anuradhagama was built by a man of that name near the 'Kadamba river' the Chaplain Upatissa built 'Upatissagama' on the bank of the Gambhira river, to the north of Anuradhapura, three other Ministers built each for himself, Ujjeni, Uruvela and the city of Vijitha. 'Kadamba' river is the ancient name for present Malwatuoya, which flows by the ruins of Anuradhapura.

According to the Mahavamsa the 'Gambhiranadi' flows '1 Yojana (i.e. 7-8 miles) north of Anuradhapura. Sir Emerson Tennant refers to a traditional belief that the ruins which lie not far from Kalaveva about 24 miles from Anuradhapura is those of ancient 'Vijithagama'. Geiger believes that the tradition is right. A site near the mouth of Kala Oya in the north western coast has been identified by Geiger as the location of Uruvela. All these colonies had been situated within the triangle of Mannar,
Negombo and Anuradhapura.

(v) These settlements would have been founded encircling the town of their leader 'Vijaya'.

from W. P. W. WEERAWARDENA in Daily News

Kumarikandam (Lemuria) Tamil Myth

Kumari Kandam is a land mass that is supposed to be submerged under the India Ocean, extending from the southern tip of peninsular India, to Madagascar in the west, and Australia in the east. It is sometimes considered as part or all of Lemuria, a hypothetical continent variously located in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. References to Kumari Kandam can be found in the Tamil literature. Inferring from these references suggest that extensive land areas occupied by the Tamils have been lost to the sea due to massive tidal waves or tsunami. Legends say two sangams were established. First two sangams - Muthal sangam, Idai sangam was in kumari kandam and it was devoured by sea only the pandya king escaped and thus we don't have any literature of this period.

  1. History of kumari kandam (Lemuria) theory.
    1860 Philip Lutley Sclater Puzzled by the presence of fossil lemurs in both Madagascar and India, but not in Africa nor the Middle East, Sclater proposed that Madagascar and India had once been part of a larger continent, which he named "Lemuria" for its lemurs.The acceptance of Darwinism led scientists to seek to trace the diffusion of species from their points of evolutionary origin
  2. Melchior Neumayr in his book Erdgeschichte in 1887. Many hypothetical submerged land bridges and continents were proposed during the 19th century, in order to account for the present distribution of species.
  3. Ernst Haeckel, a German Darwinian taxonomist, proposed Lemuria as an explanation for the absence of "missing link" fossil records. According to another source, Haeckel put forward this thesis prior to Sclater (but without using the name 'Lemuria'). Locating the origins of the human species on this lost continent, he claimed the fossil record could not be found because it had sunk beneath the sea.
  4. In 1999, drilling by the JOIDES Resolution research vessel in the Indian Ocean discovered evidence that a continent about a third of the size of Australia sank about 20 million years ago. Samples showed pollen and fragments of wood in a 90 million-year-old sediment. This might lead one to expect similarity of dinosaur fossil evidence and will help to understand the breakup of the Indian and Australian land masses.It does not support the concept of Lemuria as a land bridge for mammals.
  5. Madame Blavatsky's Lemuria,Lemuria entered the lexicon of the Occult through the works of Madame Blavatsky, who claimed in the 1880s to have been shown an ancient, pre-Atlantean Book of Dzyan by the Mahatmas. Within Blavatsky's complex cosmology, which includes seven "Root Races", Lemuria was occupied by the "Third Root Race", which was about seven foot tall, sexually hermaphroditic, egg-laying, mentally undeveloped and spiritually more pure than the following "Root Races". Before the coming of the Lemurians, the second "Root Race" is said to have dwelled in Hyperborea.After the subsequent creation of mammals, Mme. Blavatsky revealed to her readers, some Lemurians turned to bestiality. The gods, aghast at the behavior of these "mindless" men, sank Lemuria into the ocean and created a "Fourth Root Race"—endowed with intellect—on Atlantis.Lemuria and Mount Shasta
  6. In 1894, Frederick Spencer Oliver published A Dweller on Two Planets, which claimed that survivors from a sunken continent called Lemuria were living in or on Mount Shasta in northern California. The Lemurians lived in a complex of tunnels beneath the mountain and occasionally were seen walking the surface dressed in white robes.This belief has been repeated by such individuals as the cultist Guy Warren Ballard in the 1930s who formed the I AM Foundation. It is also repeated by followers of the Ascended Masters and the Great White Brotherhood. This list includes such organizations as Bridge to Freedom, The Summit Lighthouse, Church Universal and Triumphant, The Temple of The Presence, and The Hearts Center.According to L. Sprague de Camp, Mme. Blavatsky was influenced by other writers on the theme of Lost Continents, notably Ignatius L. Donnelly, a cult leader named Thomas Lake Harris and the French writer Louis Jacolliot.
  7. Dravidologist Devaneya Pavanar, who held that all languages on earth were merely corrupted Tamil dialects proposed Kumari Kandam is a sunken kingdom also known as Lemuria . According to these modernist interpretations of motifs in classical Tamil literature — the epics Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai that describe the submerged city of Puhar — the Dravidians originally came from land south of the present day coast of South India that became submerged by successive floods. There are various claims from Tamil authors that there was a large land mass connecting Australia and the present day Tamil Nadu coast.Adiyarkkunelar, described the distance between the Prahuli and Kumari rivers as 700 kavathams. This distance has been interpreted as about 7,000 modern miles (11,000 km).

What does the Tamil Literature say exactly?Three literary sources are said to say something about the kumari kandam , let us see what they say.

Silapathikaram says,
kumarikOdum kodunkadal koLLa..." The mighty sea at the end of kumari(kanyakumari) submergedHere the author ilango adigal speaks about sea around kumari submerging the puhar(keveri pattinam) port.Silappadikaram'also describes Kadal Vadimpalampa Nindra Pandyan said to have thrown his spear towards the sea. The sea retaliated by swallowing a large area including Pahruli river and Panmalai Adukkam.

Manimekalai says,
Records the same incident of the puhar being engulfed by sea.Both silapathikaram and manimekalai both not being eyewitness accounts and known for gross exageration of facts clearly talk sea engulfing the city of puhar.

Sangam literary work, `Kalithogai' (Mullaikkali, verse number 4) calls it `Kadal vowal.' The poem says that when tidal waves swept away his land, the Pandyan monarch did not despair, but forged ahead into the territories of Cheras and Chozhas and brought the invaded country under his sway, thus making good the loss of territory due to the sea-swell.

What does the sinhala literature say?Mahavamsa records sea taking the land in 326BC which is also mentioned in Rajwalikathe.

All the above theories about Lemuriya went out of the window, the Continental dift theory was proposed.Kumari kandam was thrown out of the window when the tsunami data was analaysed, Still the Tani tamil Iyakkam and tamil elam activists held the theory for legitimisation of tamil elam demand. But after the Tsunami hit the sub continent, everybody knew what is said in the Silapathikaram and manimekalai is either strom surges or Tsunami.

Still many hold on to the theory , because it advances the age of Sangam , they can always claim all the literature was lost to the sea. Interestingly the three sangams were proposed in 11th century AD by Iraniyar agamporul.

There is no such thing as kumari kandam , it is just another attempt to increase tamil antiquity to prehistoric times.