Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 13 Sep 2013 12:16

Peter ji, we discussed Mittani texts before, as AgniMitra ji has mentioned, they invoked vedic Gods in thier treaties and had used numerals on the tablets describing horse training. I don't know anymore. I can research But I don't know what your referring to, hence it will only be faster if you could kindly post what you have in mind.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 13 Sep 2013 12:19

peter wrote:What evidence exists for the claim that "the present day caste system is not a direct derivative of the vedic varna system"? Thapar is not an authority and hence not worth much.

Thapar used to interpret varna as caste and took a U turn only in 2002.

Ambedkar :-
“…society is always composed of classes. It may be an exaggeration to assert the theory of class conflict, but existence of definite classes in a society is a fact. Their basis may differ. They may be economic or intellectual or social, but an individual in a society is always a member of a class. This is a universal fact and early Hindu society could not have been an exception to this rule, and, as a matter of fact, we know it was not. If we bear this generalization in mind, our study of the genesis of caste would be very much facilitated, for we have only to determine what was the class that first made itself into a caste… A Caste is an enclosed Class.”

"Hindu society, in common with other societies, was composed of classes and the earliest known are the (1) Brahmin or the priestly class; (2) the Kshatriya or the military class; (3) the Vaishya or the merchant class; (4) the Shudra or the artisan and the menial class. This was essentially a class system, in which, individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and therefore the classes did change their personnel.”

Basham :-
“The term varna does not mean ‘caste’ and has never meant ‘caste’ by which term it is often loosely translated”.

“It was only in late medieval times that it was finally recognized that exogamy and sharing meals with members of other classes were quite impossible for respectable people. These customs and many others such as widow-remarriage, were classed as kalivarjya—customs once permissible, but to be avoided in this dark Kali age, when men are no longer naturally righteous.”

"castes rise and fall in social scale, and old castes die out and new ones are formed, but the four great classes are stable. They are never more or less than four, and for over 2,000 years their order of precedence as not altered. All ancient Indian sources make a sharp distinction between the two terms; varna is much referred to but jati very little, and when it does appear in the literature it does not always imply the comparatively rigid and exclusive social groups of later times. (3) If caste is defined as a system of groups within the class, which are normally endogamous, commensal and caste exclusive, we have no real evidence of its existence until comparatively late times.”

“…Many trades were organized in guilds, in which some authorities have seen the origin of the trade castes; but these trade groups cannot be counted as fully developed castes. A 5th century inscription from Mandsore shows us a guild of silk-weavers emigrating in a body from Lata (the region of the lower Narmada) to Mandsor, and taking up many other crafts and professions, from soldiering to astrology, but still maintaining its guild consciousness. We have no evidence that this group was endogamous or commensal, and it was certainly not craft-exclusive, but its strong corporate sense is that of a caste in the making. Huen Tsang in the 7th century was well aware of the four classes, and also mentioned many mixed classes, no doubt accepting the orthodox view of the time that these sprang from intermarriage of the four, but he shows no clear knowledge of existence of caste in its modern form.”

"Prof J.J. Hutton has interpreted the caste system as an adaptation of one of the most primitive of the social relationships, whereby a small clan, living in a comparatively isolated village, would hold itself aloof from its neighbors by a complex system of taboos, and he has found embryonic caste features in the social structure of some of the wild tribes of present-day India. The caste system may well be the natural response of the many small and primitive peoples who were forced to come to terms with a more complex economic and social system. It did not develop out of the four Aryan varnas, and the two systems have never been thoroughly harmonized”

M. N. Srinivas :-
“The category of Shudra subsumes, in fact, the vast majority of non-Brahminical castes which have little in common. It may at one end include a rich, powerful and highly Sanskritized group while at the other end may be tribes whose assimilation to Hindu fold is only marginal. The Shudra-category spans such a wide structural and cultural gulf that its sociological utility is very limited.”

“It is well known that occasionally a Shudra caste has, after the acquisition of economic and political power, Sanskritized its customs and ways, and has succeeded in laying claim to be Kshatriyas. The classic example of the Raj Gonds, originally a tribe, but who successfully claimed to be kshatriyas after becoming rulers of a tract in Central India (now Madhya Pradesh), shows up the deficiency of the varna-classification. The term Kshatriya, for instance, does not refer to a closed ruling group which has always been there since the time of the Vedas. More often it refers to the position attained or claimed by a local group whose traditions and luck enabled it to seize politico-economic power.”

"The varna-model has been the cause of misinterpretation of the realities of the caste system. A point that has emerged from recent field-research is that the position of a caste in the hierarchy may vary from village to village. It is not only that the hierarchy is nebulous here and there, and the castes are mobile over a period of time, but the hierarchy is also to some extent local. The varna-scheme offers a perfect contrast to this picture.”

"When there were no castes in India, it was the individual which moved up or down in a varna scale. However, after establishment of castes in the last millennium, it was now castes which moved up or down in the varna scale. This was possible because of changeable nature of varna status of the Hindus. Hence, many castes which considered themselves shudra earlier, claimed later a brahmana or kshatriya status. Each claimant caste was aspiring to be elevated to a higher place in the social hierarchy.
Ahar as Yadava, as Yadava Kshatriya; Aheria as Hara Rajput; Ahir as Kshatiryas of varied superscripts; Banjaras as Chauhan and Rathor Rajput; Harhai as Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman, and Rathor Rajput; Barhai as Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman as Vishwakarma Brahman, Bawaria as Brahman; Bhotia as Rajput; Chamar as Jatav Rajput; Gadaria as Pali Rajput; Lodh as Lodhi Rajput; Taga as Tyagi Brahman"

Thus varna and ‘caste’ are different by definition, character and origins.

Although varnas were only few, Vedas always mentioned a large number of Vedic tribes (called jana or jan) like Kuru, Puru, Bharata, Panchala etc. These tribes had local territories of origin. Each tribe later developed its brahmana, khshatriya and other classes depending on profession.
These classes in the Vedas were not castes, and each Vedic tribe (jana) usually had its members distributed in all the four classes, as we find today in forest (scheduled) tribes of India. Vedas gave emphasis on exogamy, i.e. marriage outside the group. Vedic jana-s were most likely gotra-exogamous, village-exogamous and clan exogamous. This basic Vedic dogma prevented emergence of endogenous castes, as long as Vedic philosophy guided Hindus until the end of the first millennium AD. This exogamy principle was unique to Hindus, as has been noted by Al-Biruni in about 1000 A.D. in the following words:
“According to their marriage law it is better to marry a stranger than a relative. The more distant the relationship of a woman with regard to her husband, the better.”

When Vedic institutions ended after ancient Indian civilizational institutions were terminated by Muslim invaders, regrouping of people occurred on ethnicity, tribe, clan, professional guild and religious sect lines, leading to formation of modern castes. These regroupings were often based on trade-guilds (gold-smith, black-smith, carpenter etc), or micro-geographical territorial origins (like Marwari, Ramgarhiya, Kanaujiya, Mathur etc) or religion (like Lingayat, Kabirpanthi, Satnami etc).

Thapar :-
“Jati comes from the root meaning ‘birth’, and is a status acquired through birth. Jati had a different origin and function from varna and was not just the subdivision of the latter.”
...
“The transition from jana to jati or from clan to caste, as this process has sometimes been termed, is evident from early times as a recognizable process in the creation of Indian society and culture.”
...
“The conversion of clan to jati was not the only avenue to creating castes. Since caste identities were also determined by occupations, various professional associations, particularly urban artisans, gradually coalesced into jatis, beginning to observe jati rules by accepting a social hierarchy that defined marriage circles and inheritance laws, by adhering to common custom and by identifying with a common location. Yet another type of jati was the one that grew out of a religious sect that may have included various jatis to begin with, but started functioning so successfully as a unit that eventually it too became a caste. A striking example of this is the history of the Lingayat caste in the peninsula.”

Max Weber (1921), an early sociologist of Germany found that modern Hindu castes are more like European guilds which existed before the modern age in that continent. At that time there were untouchable guilds like Pariah and ‘opprobrious’ trade guilds, and liturgical guilds too in Europe, which were strictly controlled by caste laws in Europe.

Max Weber also noted remarkable similarity between ‘tribe’ and ‘caste’. Max Weber writes that when an Indian tribe loses its territorial significance it assumes the form of an Indian caste. In this way the tribe is a local group whereas caste is a social group. In other words, as long as a single tribe lives in a locality, it is a tribe. But when several tribes try to enter the same locality, they occupy different occupational niche or specialization, and then the same tribe starts behaving like castes. And of course, they retain their tribe (or caste) endogamy rule.

Bailey says that the communities which had more land per capita for farming, tended to be towards the tribal pole with lesser specialization, while the people who had lesser land, had to evolve specialized professions, and were at the caste pole of society. In the latter case the movement is towards role specialization, social stratification and a complex social interaction involving diversification of network of relations. Thus Bailey found that the tribes and castes differ only in respect of the political and the economic systems.

Refer here for full reading - http://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/201 ... dic-varna/

Regards,
Virendra

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 14 Sep 2013 07:02

"Khshnoom" in Avestan means "ecstacy of (spiritual) knowledge". There have been esoteric schools of Khshnoom among Zoroastrians, and just the last century one was established by an Indian Parsi, Mr. Behramshah Navroji Shroff, who supposedly spent 3 years with such a hidden school in the Alborz mountains in Iran.

In this summary of Khshnoom theories and practices, it is claimed that Indians ruled Iran for a short span in about 5300 B.C. This they record as part of calculations as to the actual date of Zarathushtra's life. They also have an interesting date for the span of Krishna's life. Whatever the dates, there is a record there of Indic rule over the Iranic world. The book is an interesting read for many other reasons, too.

A MANUAL OF "KHSHNOOM" - THE ZOROASTRIAN OCCULT KNOWLEDGE
(A) 40 years; birth (B.C. 7551) to Revelation of Holy Zarathushtra (B.C. 7511); Rule of Kayanian king Kae Gustasp (or Vishtasp) 90 years from above Revelation (shown in Bd. 34;3); (B. C. 7511-7421).

(B) 2,000 years; Kayanian dynasty continued (B.c.7421-5421). History completely destroyed by enemies of Iran;

(C) 40 years; Birth and Revelation period of Lord Shri Krishna (B.C. 5421-5381);

(D) 100 years; Indian rule over Iran (B.c. 5381-5281);

(E) 1,626 years; Huafrit dynasty (B.C. 5281-3655)

(F) 1,629 years; Kudurvand dynasty (B.C. 3655-2026) terminated by defeat of king Zarathushtra (Oxyartes) at the hands of Assyrian monarchs Ninus and Semiramis in B.c. 2026.

100 Years' Indian Rule Over Iran

After 40 years of Shri Krishna's birth, during which he got revelation, there was Indian rule over Iran for about a hundred years. In Dastur Peshotan Sanjana's Dinkard Vol V (p. 311) and in S.B.E. Vol. XLVII (p .84 & Intra. p. xii) the names of kings Karishak and Rashne Rish occur, which seem to be Indian rather than "Rumi" as stated in the footnote, yet it cannot be said with certainty that they ,were the two kings that ruled over Iran between B.C 5381 and B.C 5281. Then Huafrit arose, and defeated the Indians, and founded the Huafritan dynasty.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Nilesh Oak » 15 Sep 2013 01:32

Agnimitra wrote:"

A MANUAL OF "KHSHNOOM" - THE ZOROASTRIAN OCCULT KNOWLEDGE
(A) 40 years; birth (B.C. 7551) to Revelation of Holy Zarathushtra (B.C. 7511); Rule of Kayanian king Kae Gustasp (or Vishtasp) 90 years from above Revelation (shown in Bd. 34;3); (B. C. 7511-7421).

(B) 2,000 years; Kayanian dynasty continued (B.c.7421-5421). History completely destroyed by enemies of Iran;

(C) 40 years; Birth and Revelation period of Lord Shri Krishna (B.C. 5421-5381);

(D) 100 years; Indian rule over Iran (B.c. 5381-5281);

(E) 1,626 years; Huafrit dynasty (B.C. 5281-3655)

(F) 1,629 years; Kudurvand dynasty (B.C. 3655-2026) terminated by defeat of king Zarathushtra (Oxyartes) at the hands of Assyrian monarchs Ninus and Semiramis in B.c. 2026.

100 Years' Indian Rule Over Iran

After 40 years of Shri Krishna's birth, during which he got revelation, there was Indian rule over Iran for about a hundred years. In Dastur Peshotan Sanjana's Dinkard Vol V (p. 311) and in S.B.E. Vol. XLVII (p .84 & Intra. p. xii) the names of kings Karishak and Rashne Rish occur, which seem to be Indian rather than "Rumi" as stated in the footnote, yet it cannot be said with certainty that they ,were the two kings that ruled over Iran between B.C 5381 and B.C 5281. Then Huafrit arose, and defeated the Indians, and founded the Huafritan dynasty.


Agnimitra ji,

Krishna's time, per this Zaorastrian document..... from 5421 BCE - 5381 BCE.... is Very interesting..
----------------------

In the same ballpark as what I have proposed in my book.. (I have only commented on Krishna's passing away) in 5525 BCE.

In the near future, I will write on Krishna's entire life time....

FROM.....5636 BCE- 5640 BCE TO 5525 BCE.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 15 Sep 2013 21:46

Agnimitra wrote:
peter wrote:Before I answer your question:

i) do you know what is written in mittanni treaties?
ii) Do you know why mitanni wrote what they wrote in their treaties?
iii) Do you know of the linkages between RigVed and what the mitanni wrote in their treaties?

Once you clarify all three points i) ii) and iii) we can look into more details.

Dear peter, please do explain your point without keeping us in suspended animation.

As per my little reading:
i) The Mitanni treaties invoke Mitra, Varuna, Indra and the Ashwins. (They also use Sanskrit words for a number of their elite functions of government, military-related technology and training, and religion.
ii) They wrote what they wrote probably because they had an Indic superstrate over a non-Indic substrate, and were civilized by an export of Indic culture -- sort of like how Iran today has an Arabic superstrate over a non-Arabic substrate.
iii) Linkages - those gods are referred to as, both, Asuras and Devas in the RigVeda, and are invoked for sealing a bond, creating a new order, etc. (Varuna is absent from the Iranic, and some of the others are despised as demons in the Iranic, therefore it is clear that it was a definite Indic superstrate.)

That's my very superficial understanding. I still don't understand how that means the RigVeda has information related to history or geography. Mitra (in neuter) is linked with the sense of covenants, contracts, treaties, etc. In masculine, it refers to the sun. Varuna is lord of the cosmic Rta, etc. Could you help me understand how this has anything to do with history of geography? Thanks in advance.

A real set of people, Mitanni, used Vedic Gods in their treaties 3500 years ago. This implies these people "interpreted" Rg Veda in a certain way and that same interpretation is continuing till date and that is the reason why only these particular gods were mentioned. The order of the Gods mentioned in the treaty is identical to the way it is given in Rg Veda.

What this further means is that adherence to the concepts in Rigved was real and not "paroksha" as Dwivedi has been alluding to.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 15 Sep 2013 21:52

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:What evidence exists for the claim that "the present day caste system is not a direct derivative of the vedic varna system"? Thapar is not an authority and hence not worth much.

Thapar used to interpret varna as caste and took a U turn only in 2002.

....

Are we confusing two different things?

Vedas mention Brahmin, Kshatriya, Baniya and Shudra.

Even these days we see castes which are Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Baniya and Shudras.

So they are identical to the RgVed.

In the olden times the only difference was that caste was not determined at birth but by deeds.

At some later point it got identified by birth but the divisions were the ones postulated in Rigved.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Dipanker » 15 Sep 2013 22:05

peter wrote:Are we confusing two different things?

Vedas mention Brahmin, Kshatriya, Baniya and Shudra.

Even these days we see castes which are Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Baniya and Shudras.

So they are identical to the RgVed.

In the olden times the only difference was that caste was not determined at birth but by deeds.

At some later point it got identified by birth but the divisions were the ones postulated in Rigved.


The highlighted part should be Vaishyas. Please use the correct nomenclature.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby KLP Dubey » 16 Sep 2013 06:41

Dipanker wrote:
peter wrote:Are we confusing two different things?

Vedas mention Brahmin, Kshatriya, Baniya and Shudra.

Even these days we see castes which are Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Baniya and Shudras.

So they are identical to the RgVed.

In the olden times the only difference was that caste was not determined at birth but by deeds.

At some later point it got identified by birth but the divisions were the ones postulated in Rigved.


The highlighted part should be Vaishyas. Please use the correct nomenclature.


The Rgveda contains the above sounds but they do not refer to human beings or classes of society. These are interpretations foisted upon us later. The Rgveda classifies objects in many ways but that does not mean human beings are being referred to.

Also, the statement "Vedas mention Brahmin, Kshatriya, Baniya and Shudra" is vague. What is your definition of "Vedas" ?

KL

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 16 Sep 2013 07:51

A real set of people, Mitanni, used Vedic Gods in their treaties 3500 years ago. This implies these people "interpreted" Rg Veda in a certain way and that same interpretation is continuing till date and that is the reason why only these particular gods were mentioned. The order of the Gods mentioned in the treaty is identical to the way it is given in Rg Veda.

What this further means is that adherence to the concepts in Rigved was real and not "paroksha" as Dwivedi has been alluding to.


Peter ji, How does 'same interpretation of Gods' to this day traslate to mean that the names in the Vedas were historical in nature?
Mittanis using Vedic Gods means theat they revered them and that they had interacted with the Indus people, it doesn't even mean they knew the Vedas. For example, I heard about Mohammad, also about Jesus, doesn't mean I actually read either the Quran or the Bible to say I 'interpreted them' like the people of the religion. Usage of God's names in their treaties doesn't mean knowledge of the Vedas in the first place to interpret or not to interpret correctly.

For your reference the below is what Dubey ji had said to which you objected to :
Dubey ji said: "...Perfectly correct. I simply do not understand this obsession with finding history and geography in the Veda. It seems perverse in the extreme, and seems to be a recently developed illness.

It was common knowledge that Veda had no historical record in it. ..."

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 17 Sep 2013 01:51

Nilesh Oak wrote:

Krishna's time, per this Zaorastrian document..... from 5421 BCE - 5381 BCE.... is Very interesting...

Nilesh ji, be advised that many Zoros think this Ilm-e-Khshnoom emergence was influenced by Western currents like Theosophy (which cannibalized older philosophies in a very specific way, influenced by Social Darwinism and notions of a Hegelian Geist that had come to final rest in the colonial West).

Meanwhile, I came across this blog by a scholarly Zoroastrian author, Ardeshir Farahmand:

Reincarnation and the Zoroastrian Beliefs
The subject of reincarnation is a divisive and controversial issue in the Zoroastrian community. The tiny Zoroastrian community is highly educated and westernized. The Parsis or the Zoroastrians of India are the most anglicised community outside the British Isles. Due to their anglicized and western standards a great number of Zoroastrians respond in a typical western fashion toward reincarnation and deny the existence of “a unique form” of reincarnation in the sacred Zoroastrian poetry, literature and ancient doctrine. Only the very orthodox or the esoteric Zoroastrians openly advocate reincarnation.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the concept of reincarnation existed among the Pre-Christian Indo Europeans, and to examine if the christian/western counterarguments against reincarnation are compatible with the core Zoroastrian doctrine and beliefs....

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 517
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby pralay » 17 Sep 2013 02:21

The word Zorashtra sounds an abbreviation of Saurashtra(Gujarati: સૌરાષ્ટ્ર, Hindi: सौराष्ट्र).
Saurashtriya then became Zorashtrian?

So, it should be no wonder that Shrikirshna is mentioned in their literature.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 17 Sep 2013 03:28

sameer_shelavale wrote:The word Zorashtra sounds an abbreviation of Saurashtra(Gujarati: સૌરાષ્ટ્ર, Hindi: सौराष्ट्र).
Saurashtriya then became Zorashtrian?

So, it should be no wonder that Shrikirshna is mentioned in their literature.

sameer ji, Shri Krishna is not mentioned in any primary Zoroastrian text. This book linked above was written last century, and the author is reconstructing history based on some of his primary references.
-------------

Vegetarianism in the poetic gathas and the primary Zoroastrian Texts
Highly discourages all meat eating. Especially and explicitly eating the flesh of the cow.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 517
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby pralay » 17 Sep 2013 12:24

Agnimitra ji,
I thought it is mentioned in their folklores.
btw, the it was called "Sorath" in old days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurashtra_%28region%29
For a long span of time, the name Sorath remained limited to the region when Chudasama Rajput (Raa' dynasty) ruled from 9th centuary up to 15th century from 875 up to 1473

Wiki seems wrong there, as it relates Rajput to Raa Dynasty, there was no Raa dynasty in india, I shall correct the wiki.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 17 Sep 2013 13:35

Dipanker wrote:
peter wrote:Are we confusing two different things?

Vedas mention Brahmin, Kshatriya, Baniya and Shudra.

Even these days we see castes which are Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Baniya and Shudras.

So they are identical to the RgVed.

In the olden times the only difference was that caste was not determined at birth but by deeds.

At some later point it got identified by birth but the divisions were the ones postulated in Rigved.


The highlighted part should be Vaishyas. Please use the correct nomenclature.

KLP Dubey wrote:The Rgveda contains the above sounds but they do not refer to human beings or classes of society. These are interpretations foisted upon us later. The Rgveda classifies objects in many ways but that does not mean human beings are being referred to.


What was the reason that Kshatriya, Brahmin, Vaishya and Shudra castes came into being?
KLP Dubey wrote:Also, the statement "Vedas mention Brahmin, Kshatriya, Baniya and Shudra" is vague. What is your definition of "Vedas" ?

KL

Rigved is referred to. Mandal 10 verse 90.12.

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद्बाहू राजन्यः कृतः ।
ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत
Last edited by peter on 17 Sep 2013 13:46, edited 1 time in total.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 17 Sep 2013 13:43

venug wrote:
A real set of people, Mitanni, used Vedic Gods in their treaties 3500 years ago. This implies these people "interpreted" Rg Veda in a certain way and that same interpretation is continuing till date and that is the reason why only these particular gods were mentioned. The order of the Gods mentioned in the treaty is identical to the way it is given in Rg Veda.

What this further means is that adherence to the concepts in Rigved was real and not "paroksha" as Dwivedi has been alluding to.


Peter ji, How does 'same interpretation of Gods' to this day traslate to mean that the names in the Vedas were historical in nature?
Mittanis using Vedic Gods means theat they revered them and that they had interacted with the Indus people, it doesn't even mean they knew the Vedas.

Can I please impress upon you to find out, which I requested earlier too, why the mitanni used only these four gods in their treaties. What is the nature of these four gods in Rigved? It will take me too much typing to reproduce all the verses and the associated explanation. If you have access to Rajesh Kochar's book that can be a good starting point.

venug wrote: For example, I heard about Mohammad, also about Jesus, doesn't mean I actually read either the Quran or the Bible to say I 'interpreted them' like the people of the religion. Usage of God's names in their treaties doesn't mean knowledge of the Vedas in the first place to interpret or not to interpret correctly.

This is a problem my dear. Another frivolous argument. Please do what is requested above and then let us know if you still hold this opinion.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Dipanker » 17 Sep 2013 19:14

peter wrote:Can I please impress upon you to find out, which I requested earlier too, why the mitanni used only these four gods in their treaties. What is the nature of these four gods in Rigved? It will take me too much typing to reproduce all the verses and the associated explanation. If you have access to Rajesh Kochar's book that can be a good starting point.


Is Rajesh Kochar the same guy who says that the Aryans named the Indian rivers after the name of the rivers they encountered on the way to India? He cites river Harahati (? Saraswati) in Afghanistan as an example. What about Ganges, Yamuna and the rest of the riveres ? Are there rivers named Ganges, Yamuna etc. in Afghanistan or neighboring countries to the North and West of Afghanistan? Incidentally these rivers are named East to West in NadiStuti, not West to East, the purported migration path of the Aryans.

This is just one of the reasons I don't take Rajesh Kochar too seriously.

BTW are you an AIT proponent?

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 17 Sep 2013 20:33

Peter ji, I don't know the relevance of Kocchar's work to Mittanis. Not sure how his work gives any reference to mean that Mittanis indeed studied Vedas, hence had the same interpretation, even then I don't know how you are able to bring in Vedas had Historical references argument. One of the reviewers of Kocchar's book The Vedic People: Their History and Geography had this to say :

Unravelling the prehistoric India, defined by two major traditions, namely Harappan and Aryan, is a painful exercise. The Harappan culture provides ample archaeological evidence, but no literary tradition. Converse is true for the Vedic culture.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the Vedic texts are poor documents of human history, which are full of allusions and invocations and do not provide any direct reference to ancient geography and social life.


Kocchar and his book were discussed by many gurus here like shiv ji, Nilesh ji, JohneeG ji, Rajesh ji and others in this same thread, his work was rebutted...so not sure what else Kocchar's book has that is not discussed here before that can throw new light on Hostorical references in the Vedas.

And if your oblique reference is to Soma and it's geographic location, that too was questioned by many here and here is something JohneeG ji had posted on the mention of Soma in the Rg Vedic texts, please note, how many meanings Soma can have:
There is another angle. Agni and Soma. Agni means Fire. Soma, generally, can have many meanings. One meaning of Soma is elixir liquid(Amrita). Another meaning of Soma is moon. Both these meanings are not different. Because, in Hinduism, Moon(Soma) is thought to be composed of Amrita(Soma) or Moon is thought to provide the Amrita/healing power(Soma) to the medicinal herbs.

There is another meaning to Soma. Sa-Uma i.e. Shiva with Uma or Shiva and Shakti. Similarly, Rudra is the higher level of Agni. One way to look at it is that Agni is the God upto certain temperatures, beyond that it is the jurisdiction of Rudra. There is a story that Agni became Agni due to the worship of Shiva. There is also a story of birth of Karthikeya(or Murugan or Skandha or Subramanya). The seed/sperm of Shiva is given to Agni to carry it. But, Agni(the fire god) is unable to do so, because it is too hot. That means, that Rudra's(or Shiva's) energy levels are higher than the ones that even Agni can tolerate. During the pralaya, Rudra burns up everything including the 5 elements(including Akasha and fire). And uses the ashes to cover his body. The essential point is that Rudra is the higher Agni. And Soma is Shiva with Uma.

Shiva with Uma(depicted by downward triangle) means creation. Rudra(symbolized by upward triangle) means destruction. The combination of upward triangle and downward triangle symbolizes this cycle of creation and destruction.

The yagna(or fire altar) also has this agni-soma concept. Agni(fire) burns upwards in the yagna. While, soma(liquid) is flows downwards. The Soma is poured downwards into the Fire burning upwards. Both are inter-connected. Fire cannot burn without Soma(liquid fuel). In Hindu philosophy, Soma(liquids i.e apas) came from Agni(fire i.e. tejas). So, both are inter-connected and inter-dependent. This yagna process is depicted in the upward triangle(agni/fire) and downward triangle(soma/liquid). The combination of agni/fire(upward triangle) and soma/liquid(downward triangle) is shatkona or Sri Chakra. Here, Shatkona or Sri Chakra symbolizes the Yagna process.

This Yagna process by the combination of Agni and Soma is also portrayed in the depiction of Shiva. Shiva has crescent moon in his matted locks(hair). Shiva's hair is of the color of flaming red like Agni/fire. These hair(Agni/Fire) contains Ganga(liquid) and crescent Moon(Soma). So, Shiva is called Gangadhara and Chandrashekhara(or Rajashekhara). This again alludes to the agni-soma(upward triangle - downward triangle) yagna process.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 17 Sep 2013 21:17

Dipanker wrote:...

This is just one of the reasons I don't take Rajesh Kochar too seriously.

BTW are you an AIT proponent?

Well he had an excellent section on why mitanni used vedic gods. rest of his book is crap.

What is AIT?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 17 Sep 2013 21:19

venug wrote:Peter ji, I don't know the relevance of Kocchar's work to Mittanis. Not sure how his work gives any reference to mean that Mittanis indeed studied Vedas, hence had the same interpretation, even then I don't know how you are able to bring in Vedas had Historical references argument. One of the reviewers of Kocchar's book The Vedic People: Their History and Geography had this to say :


Well then please study any other work which details shlokas related to the gods mentioned in mitanni treaty. It is not a random choice of vedic gods by mitanni.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54430
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ramana » 17 Sep 2013 21:44

peter, In the interest of saving time and bandwidht can you give a gist here and let the link Nazis go research Kochar on their own?

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby KLP Dubey » 18 Sep 2013 00:24

peter wrote:What was the reason that Kshatriya, Brahmin, Vaishya and Shudra castes came into being?


Division into classes (by occupation, birth, or whatever) is natural in societies. And if one is looking for names for these classes, the Vedic sounds provide plenty of that.

Rigved is referred to. Mandal 10 verse 90.12.

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद्बाहू राजन्यः कृतः ।
ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत


I am well aware of the Purushasukta reference. This is another example of selectively quoting without understanding the context. The same Purushasukta also says that the Rk, Saman, and Yajus first manifested through a Yajna carried out by the rishis and the devas "at the beginning" with the Purusha as the sacrificial offering.

So if you insist that the brahmans, kshatriyas, etc referred to in the Sukta are referring to the human "varnas", you will also need to insist that human beings (the rishis) were present at the "dawn of creation", and that the creation of "brahmans, kshatriyas" et al was all pre-programmed into the Rks and indeed the Veda was not humanly authored. Obviously this will put paid to your claims of Rgveda being treatable as a historical record.

KL

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 18 Sep 2013 04:39

I blogged some thoughts posted here earlier on Vedic "interpretation":

Good Critic, Bad Critic
So the devoted practice and duplication is not blind, says the editor; it is a sympathetic, reflective critique.

Secondly, this line was intriguing: "What the sun doesn't see, that the poet sees; and what even the poet doesn't see, that the reflective critic sees." It reminded me of a verse famous in the Mahabharata:

अष्टौ श्लोकसहस्राणि अष्टौ श्लोकशतानि च
अहं वेद्मि शुको वेत्ति सञ्जयो वेत्ति वा न वा

"Eight thousand and eight hundred verses there are,
That I know and Shuka knows but Sanjaya (the author) may or may not know."
-Mahabharata, Adi Parva 1.81

Around this verse is built the theory of the "Hidden Bharata", one that isn't available in the popular epic's text. Now if I were an Idiot, or a clever Nazi or colonial Western Indologist, or a traditionalist upper caste Hindu clansman, I might go digging for the relics of this 8800 verse Holy Grail in Tibet or Turkey, or deep in the family archives of a particular caste-collective. Nothing wrong with that, of course - after all, "What one has not yet learned to use, one must first learn to waste", be it time, money, energy or intelligence. But this Hidden Bharata seems to have been pursued more as an idea by those Hindu spiritual leaders who worked with the fundamentals.

Control + Duplication = Communication;
Control + Communication = Having [ref. Be Do Have: Creativity, Faith, Works and Witnessing]

Its probably better to draw close to the original Veda before one spends time on academic interpretations and the theories of linguists, archaeologists and other "researchers" who have little identification with the Veda, or instead have an attitude of envy, usurpation or malice towards Vedic civilization or India. In other words, if they haven't paid their dues at the altar of the Veda and Vedanga, duplicating its practice as per its own clear native specifications, then their theories and critiques are worth nothing - or more harmful than useful.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 18 Sep 2013 08:18

peter wrote:What is AIT?
:lol: Pardon me but this has to take the cake. :lol:
Anyway, were you being serious while asking that question?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 18 Sep 2013 09:27

ramana wrote:peter, In the interest of saving time and bandwidht can you give a gist here and let the link Nazis go research Kochar on their own?

Besides Kochar others too have commented on this connection. I think the French Sanskritist Dumezil may have had a paper on this too.

Gist is:
a) Vedic Gods appear in Mitanni peace treaties exactly in the same order as in Rigveda.
b) Mitra and Varuna are "agreement enablers" according to Rigveda
c) Indra strikes those who do not honour accords / agreements according to multiple shlokas in Rigveda.
d) Parties who are bound by a covenant are helped by Nasatya to hounour the agreement accord to Rigveda shloka.

This is the reason Mitanni used these gods on their peace treaties.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 18 Sep 2013 09:36

KLP Dubey wrote:
peter wrote:What was the reason that Kshatriya, Brahmin, Vaishya and Shudra castes came into being?


Division into classes (by occupation, birth, or whatever) is natural in societies. And if one is looking for names for these classes, the Vedic sounds provide plenty of that.

Rishis who subdivided various Rigvedic Mandals according to family clans and were themselves Brahmins, Shudras (Parashara) also did not understand the Purusha Sukta?

KLP Dubey wrote:
peter wrote:Rigved is referred to. Mandal 10 verse 90.12.

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद्बाहू राजन्यः कृतः ।
ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत


I am well aware of the Purushasukta reference. This is another example of selectively quoting without understanding the context. The same Purushasukta also says that the Rk, Saman, and Yajus first manifested through a Yajna carried out by the rishis and the devas "at the beginning" with the Purusha as the sacrificial offering.

So if you insist that the brahmans, kshatriyas, etc referred to in the Sukta are referring to the human "varnas", you will also need to insist that human beings (the rishis) were present at the "dawn of creation", and that the creation of "brahmans, kshatriyas" et al was all pre-programmed into the Rks and indeed the Veda was not humanly authored. Obviously this will put paid to your claims of Rgveda being treatable as a historical record.

KL

No. There is a far simpler explanation. All Vedas are human created since "Rk, Saman, and Yajus first manifested through a Yajna carried out by the rishis " just means there was a decision taken to organize these books by the rishis.

Similarly society from hunter gatherer phase to settled phase required: teachers/fighter to defend/people to do trade/ and people to serve the other three.

This also got codified in the Purushasukt.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 18 Sep 2013 09:38

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:What is AIT?
:lol: Pardon me but this has to take the cake. :lol:
Anyway, were you being serious while asking that question?

:) . I was just messing with Dipankar.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 18 Sep 2013 09:57

peter wrote:Similarly society from hunter gatherer phase to settled phase required: teachers/fighter to defend/people to do trade/ and people to serve the other three.

Those social phenomena are merely emanations or special cases of "universal"/"comprehensive" principles that are reflected in biology, psychology, etc.

These phenomena must not be confused with the upper echelon noumena.

peter wrote:Rishis who subdivided various Rigvedic Mandals according to family clans and were themselves Brahmins, Shudras (Parashara) also did not understand the Purusha Sukta?

You are going around in tautological circles. The word "Rishis" mentioned in Vedas are not historical people, though they may be ontological beings. If an historical person achieves a specialized understanding of a corresponding part of Veda, he/she may be known by a particular Vedic name. That's all.

Those ontological beings cognize the different parts of the Purusha perfectly. As human interpreters, we can come up with various takes on these noumenal truths based on the level we choose to think at. E.g., here is my take on the meanings of the 4 parts of Purusha:

In short:
viewtopic.php?p=1331758#p1331758

Expanded:
viewtopic.php?p=1371444#p1371444

peter wrote:No. There is a far simpler explanation. All Vedas are human created since "Rk, Saman, and Yajus first manifested through a Yajna carried out by the rishis " just means there was a decision taken to organize these books by the rishis.

No, there is an even simpler explanation (consistent with other parts of the Veda), unlike the highly speculative explanation of yours (that has no integral relation with other parts of Veda). The 3 main parts that come out of a Yajna are scales of reality of Being, Doing and Having:

http://parikramah.blogspot.com/2013/09/ ... faith.html

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 18 Sep 2013 13:00

Agnimitra wrote:
peter wrote:Similarly society from hunter gatherer phase to settled phase required: teachers/fighter to defend/people to do trade/ and people to serve the other three.

Those social phenomena are merely emanations or special cases of "universal"/"comprehensive" principles that are reflected in biology, psychology, etc.

These phenomena must not be confused with the upper echelon noumena.
Means what?

peter wrote:Rishis who subdivided various Rigvedic Mandals according to family clans and were themselves Brahmins, Shudras (Parashara) also did not understand the Purusha Sukta?

Agnimitra wrote:You are going around in tautological circles. The word "Rishis" mentioned in Vedas are not historical people, though they may be ontological beings. If an historical person achieves a specialized understanding of a corresponding part of Veda, he/she may be known by a particular Vedic name. That's all.

Great. Obviosuly you know a lot. Can you please explain how come we have Brahmins with surnames like Atri, Parashar, Vashishth ....?
Or are you saying all these guys are just big liars in connecting themselves to the Vedic Rishis?

You can tell us who heard the RigVeda? Why go through the farce of putting the name of a Rishi in the Rigved?

Agnimitra wrote:
peter wrote:No. There is a far simpler explanation. All Vedas are human created since "Rk, Saman, and Yajus first manifested through a Yajna carried out by the rishis " just means there was a decision taken to organize these books by the rishis.

No, there is an even simpler explanation (consistent with other parts of the Veda), unlike the highly speculative explanation of yours (that has no integral relation with other parts of Veda). The 3 main parts that come out of a Yajna are scales of reality of Being, Doing and Having:

http://parikramah.blogspot.com/2013/09/ ... faith.html

Are you planning on coming up with a new definition of simple?

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 18 Sep 2013 13:46

peter wrote:Means what?

peter ji, I think you're being deliberately obtuse here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noumena?s=t

peter wrote:Can you please explain how come we have Brahmins with surnames like Atri, Parashar, Vashishth ....?
Or are you saying all these guys are just big liars in connecting themselves to the Vedic Rishis?

As I suggested, they descended from or affiliated with gotras of students and progeny forged by great Mahapurushas who had attained self-realization conformable to a particular thread within the Veda.

peter wrote:You can tell us who heard the RigVeda? Why go through the farce of putting the name of a Rishi in the Rigved?

The simple and humble answer is - We don't know. Unlike the speculative and arrogant academic authorities you refer to - who keep changing their theories every decade - we are quite frank and philosophically accurate in saying that we don't know the origin of the Veda. We just know - from its own self-definition, that it has been coming down from a point beyond the horizon of historical memory. Read this post:

viewtopic.php?p=1348748#p1348748

अग्निः पूर्वेभिर्ऋषिभिरीड्यो नूतनैरुत । स देवाँ एह वक्षति ॥ [RgVeda 1.1.2]
"Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as he was by ancient Rishis. He shall bring hitherward the Gods."

Swami Dayananda's commentary to this has this translation as per the Nirukti:
"pUrvebhiH - The learned of the present time and of the past;
nUtanaiH - the brahmachaaris who currently study the meanings of the Vedas and who are involved with the latest logical paradigms and technologies;
RShibhiH - the learned who see the meanings of the Veda, and those lives that stay involved in these learned men's logics and etiologies;
agniH - That supreme Lord;
IDyaH - worthy of praise and being continuously inquired into and discovered;
[...]
Whatever meanings the Nirukti has given for this mantra, that I have written here."

peter wrote:Are you planning on coming up with a new definition of simple?

No, same old simple - that which is complete and consistent with its own self-definition at the very least, as well as validated by all higher branches of knowledge. OTOH, it is YOU who are starting from the premise that the Veda is some sort of "tribal historical" document put together by some forest-dwelling Neanderthals who were just about discovering the virtues of agriculture - and thereby its integrity or caliber need not be evaluated from the point of view of higher branches of knowledge. I'm afraid your sarcastic affectations of skepticism now won't serve as a fig leaf for the ridiculousness and arrogant disdain of your earlier presuppositions.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 18 Sep 2013 14:23

Agnimitra wrote:
peter wrote:Can you please explain how come we have Brahmins with surnames like Atri, Parashar, Vashishth ....?
Or are you saying all these guys are just big liars in connecting themselves to the Vedic Rishis?

As I suggested, they descended from or affiliated with gotras of students and progeny forged by great Mahapurushas who had attained self-realization conformable to a particular thread within the Veda.

Well question still remains. How did "great Mahapurushas" got their gotras that are given in Rigved? Do not forget your position is that no historical rishi/gotra/brahmin/shudra in Rigved.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 18 Sep 2013 15:40

a) Vedic Gods appear in Mitanni peace treaties exactly in the same order as in Rigveda.
b) Mitra and Varuna are "agreement enablers" according to Rigveda
c) Indra strikes those who do not honour accords / agreements according to multiple shlokas in Rigveda.
d) Parties who are bound by a covenant are helped by Nasatya to hounour the agreement accord to Rigveda shloka.

This is the reason Mitanni used these gods on their peace treaties.


Doesn't cut it. Simple answer is monkey see, monkey do. There was interaction between Indus and Mittanis, what Gods the IVC revered, Mittanis revered, with that comes how they invoked the Gods, what each God stood for...it doesn't mean Mittanis 'studied' Vedas, the knowledge of Gods spread through word of mouth.

You might call it frivolous, but even to this day, people follow customs and traditions mostly because 'they were told do so' . How many really read the scriptures to understand and to interpret?

People quote many slokas from many scriptures, does that mean that they studied all the Scriptures they quote? some might, some might not, we don't know.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 18 Sep 2013 16:55

venug wrote:
a) Vedic Gods appear in Mitanni peace treaties exactly in the same order as in Rigveda.
b) Mitra and Varuna are "agreement enablers" according to Rigveda
c) Indra strikes those who do not honour accords / agreements according to multiple shlokas in Rigveda.
d) Parties who are bound by a covenant are helped by Nasatya to hounour the agreement accord to Rigveda shloka.

This is the reason Mitanni used these gods on their peace treaties.


Doesn't cut it. Simple answer is monkey see, monkey do. There was interaction between Indus and Mittanis, what Gods the IVC revered, Mittanis revered, with that comes how they invoked the Gods, what each God stood for...it doesn't mean Mittanis 'studied' Vedas, the knowledge of Gods spread through word of mouth.

You might call it frivolous, but even to this day, people follow customs and traditions mostly because 'they were told do so' . How many really read the scriptures to understand and to interpret?

People quote many slokas from many scriptures, does that mean that they studied all the Scriptures they quote? some might, some might not, we don't know.

Comeon. Kings do not follow others because someone told them so. Kings create their own rules. You are thinking about ordinary joe blow but Mitanni were the defacto power. You can have your opinion but Mitanni choice was not a random one. This much is certain. And it certainly points to their having studied Vedas.

Infact the Mitanni tablets' date is a firm anchor that Rigved certainly preceeds.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 18 Sep 2013 17:51

How many Indian kings do you know who have studied Vedas? Many invoke slokas, many are scholars in their own right and yet you won't find many who had done that. Studying Vedas is not like you find a teacher approach him and utter after him. It needs a study of other concerned vedanga branches, it takes a student teen years to do that. So you are saying that when traveling to distant parts in itself was so difficult and time consuming, the kings took the pains to study since they were kids and then into their teens under an Indian guru and then used that knowledge in their treaties? And you think this is possible but spread of knowledge of Gods through word of mouth is impossible because they were kings? And where are any records of Mittani kings mentioning that they just did that? You can surmise and assume to conjure something up, surprisingly such a theory doesnt seem frivouos to you, but seems very difficult to swallow given that you don't have any record of how the Mittani Kings came to know about the slokas.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 18 Sep 2013 18:48

What if Mittanis were considered Mlecchas by IVC? then Vedas would have been closed to Mittanis.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 18 Sep 2013 22:42

peter wrote:Well question still remains. How did "great Mahapurushas" got their gotras that are given in Rigved? Do not forget your position is that no historical rishi/gotra/brahmin/shudra in Rigved.

Have you been reading or not? It has already been pointed out that any such Mahapurusha would have taken for himself a monicker from the RigVeda, or been recognized as the living embodiment of that monicker by social agreement.

Guru, saadhu & shaastra has always been the threefold system for the validation of Vedic practice.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54430
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ramana » 18 Sep 2013 23:38

14 page pdf

Dumezil on Vedic Mitra

Dumezil and his cohort want to establish there was a proto-Indo-European society prior to the Indo-European and it spread all over Danube to the Ganga.

It ignores the fact that all of them could be migrants out of India.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5835
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby vishvak » 19 Sep 2013 00:51

Is this going towards the route of European claims of airyan inveshun theory when there was no word like Samskrit in Europe till 17th century. Where is proof made for all the tall claims.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 19 Sep 2013 01:55

Samskritam wasn't but PIE was. Well you know what the solution should be, so take the data points, insert some more if the given data points are not on the locus of the curve you desire and now what you do is fit the data points. Now you get the curve as per your assumed solution...see data points now match the solution exactly...hence AIT is true, AMT is true and what ever they fancy. And BTW the method is scientific too.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 19 Sep 2013 17:31

peter wrote:Comeon. Kings do not follow others because someone told them so. Kings create their own rules.

For the sake of treaty diplomacy, they can. IMO. If it is just the ceremonial mention of some Gods in the treaty.
I'm not a Mittani-IVC expert but in general if two sides are reaching a treaty, then obviously one side does not completely overwhelm the other.
They might do things to persuade, appease, appeal to each other. Sweeten the deal?
One side doesn't get to dictate everything. If they were so, there wouldn't be the need of a treaty in the first place.
And then IVC itself was not a tiny civilization of dhimmies.

Mention in a treaty is not a big issue IMO.
More important is, were they revering these Gods in public life?
If yes, how and when did this change come about?

Regards,
Virendra

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Murugan » 25 Sep 2013 09:31

Botanists Try to Find out Vanvas Route of Shri Rama

http://www.dailypioneer.com/todays-news ... route.html

“We tracked the route travelled by Lord Ram, Sita and Lakshman from Ayodhya in the north to south as part of their exile to the forest for 14 years. To our surprise, we could identify all the plant species in the Ramayan mentioned by Valmiki along this route,” Amrithalingam told The Pioneer. As a taxonomist, Sudhakar confirmed the plant variety with their Sanskrit and Latin names.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests