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.
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

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

Postby Rony » 19 Jun 2014 16:22

Seafarers brought Neolithic culture to Europe, gene study indicates

Genetic evidence in modern populations suggests that Neolithic farmers from the Levant traveled mostly by sea to reach Europe. By 7,000 B.C., they were introducing their ideas and their genes to the native Paleolithic people, who had migrated to the continent 30,000 to 40,000 years before.Genetic markers in modern populations indicate the Neolithic migrants who brought farming to Europe traveled from the Levant into Anatolia and the island hopped to Greece via Crete and then to Sicily and north into Southern Europe.


Kalyanraman's uvacha on this from his blog

It appears that the people from the "Levant" were of the same genetic stock as those who lived in the Middle East, Iran and North India and probably shared the "Indo-European" cultural and linguistic heritage, common to the Indus-Saraswati Valley, Jiroft (Iran) and Sumerian-Akkadian agricultural civilisations. The "Aryan invasion" was in fact a much older process of demographic expansion westwards from the Indo-Iranian cradle.

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

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

Postby Virendra » 20 Jun 2014 09:17

Now that we're talking of sea faring Migration, perhaps a similar scenario can be discussed now.
This one is from an aquaintence of Nilesh ji I believe and he is aware of the 'Levant origin' research quoted in the post above:
1. Sindh to Sea to Arabian coast.
2. Hugging Arabian coast, reach Suez.
3. Hop to Mediterranean Sea.
4. Hit Greece-Italy and start coast hugging Euro travel.
5. Reach Baltics
All this is done by haplogroup I-M253, between 4000 BCE and 2000 BCE.
https://www.academia.edu/7347494/Ancien ... al_Regions

These two claims will bite into the Anatolia origin AMT walas.

Regards,
Virendra

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Postby johneeG » 20 Jun 2014 16:31

UlanBatori wrote:No Barbs intended!
As for whether this is all OT as one postor claims, my take is that one cannot give useful answers to "Out of India" vs. "Into India" unless one can clearly articulate WHAT was in India to go out.

I have heard that there are objectionable lines but don't know exactly what are those statements. I am not very aware of Manu-smruthi

Of course moi would not be caught dead actually reading any "or-e-Jinnal" anything. But I know that the MS is held up as one of the prime weapons of the Commies and Left, pointing to the denigration of wimmens. Also, the ManuSmriti provides ammo to those who say that the Matsya Avatara and hence all the Avataras, post-date the Biblical Flood: the story of the Ark etc are nearly identical. The Matsya is pictured as doing a Vamana imitation, starting from a tiny fish, etc. All highly suspect. Also, one has to ask the obvious: if the MA came during the time of a KING (Manu was not a lone human, he was a KING, meaning hajaar-hajaar subjects) then this was not about the earliest stages of Creation. It also plays to the Lawd Gawd Created Man In HIS Form Onlee theme. All of this flies in the face of the basic lessons of the Vedas.
So I reject them flat out. :P



Saar,
you are assuming that the 'Biblical Flood' came first, then the story of Mathsya came. Why can't it be reverse? Maybe the Old Testament is just repeating what was said in Hindhu epics.

You started your post with a question "what was in Bhaarath that went out?" Well, the answer is that 'these are the stories which went out from Bhaarath'. These stories contained philosophy, culture, language, religion, symbols, ...etc. But, they got mutated over a period of time. If you are going to reject all those points were other cultures/religions have similarities with Hindhuism, then I think whole of Hindhuism will have to be rejected because all other religions seem to copy almost every point directly/indirectly from Hindhuism. Both negative and positive.

Mathsya-Noah is not the only similar meme. There are so many similarities that there are good chances that one copied from the other. Now, who copied from whom?

I think it would be difficult to prove it conclusively but there are good chances that it was Old Testament which was directly/indirectly inspired from Bhaarathiya epics.

The Old Testament itself starts with the story of Abraham who migrated from East to West. A flood dispersed them towards west. Then, he travelled to Egypt and finally settled down in Judea(or Palasthana). This in itself conclusively proves that these people came from east.

Which country in east could it be?
a) Bhaarath?
b) Cheen?
c) Japan?

The same story(Tower of Babel) also says that they were all speaking one language at that time. What language was it?
a) Sanskruth?
b) Mandarin?
c) Persian?

I think Sanskruth and Bhaarath are the best candidates especially because the stories of Old Testament seem to have many memes which are similar to the histories of Bhaarathiya epics. It seems that the stories of Old Testament underwent corruption because of social disruptions like migration, invasion, ...etc.

Actually, this theory that the Jews are related to Bhaarathiyas and came from Bhaarathiyas is not new. It seems that the Josephus(a jew writer of 1st CE) himself presented this theory. He quoted a Clearchus who quoted Aristotle. That means Josephus is saying that Aristotle said the following:

Josephus in 'Against Apion' wrote: For Clearchus, who was the scholar of Aristotle, and inferior to no one of the Peripatetics whomsoever, in his first book concerning sleep, says that "Aristotle his master related what follows of a Jew," and sets down Aristotle's own discourse with him. The account is this, as written down by him: "Now, for a great part of what this Jew said, it would be too long to recite it; but what includes in it both wonder and philosophy it may not be amiss to discourse of. Now, that I may be plain with thee, Hyperochides, I shall herein seem to thee to relate wonders, and what will resemble dreams themselves. Hereupon Hyperochides answered modestly, and said, For that very reason it is that all of us are very desirous of hearing what thou art going to say. Then replied Aristotle, For this cause it will be the best way to imitate that rule of the Rhetoricians, which requires us first to give an account of the man, and of what nation he was, that so we may not contradict our master's directions. Then said Hyperochides, Go on, if it so pleases thee. This man then, [answered Aristotle,] was by birth a Jew, and came from Celesyria; these Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their name from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for the name of their city, it is a very awkward one, for they call it Jerusalem. Now this man, when he was hospitably treated by a great many, came down from the upper country to the places near the sea, and became a Grecian, not only in his language, but in his soul also; insomuch that when we ourselves happened to be in Asia about the same places whither he came, he conversed with us, and with other philosophical persons, and made a trial of our skill in philosophy; and as he had lived with many learned men, he communicated to us more information than he received from us." This is Aristotle's account of the matter, as given us by Clearchus; which Aristotle discoursed also particularly of the great and wonderful fortitude of this Jew in his diet, and continent way of living, as those that please may learn more about him from Clearchus's book itself; for I avoid setting down any more than is sufficient for my purpose. Now Clearchus said this by way of digression, for his main design was of another nature.


Link

Josephus advanced this in his work 'Against Apion'. Why was 'Against Apion' written?

Wiki gives the answer:
wiki wrote:Against Apion was a polemical work written by Flavius Josephus as a defense of Judaism as a classical religion and philosophy, stressing its antiquity against what he perceived as more recent traditions of the Greeks. Against Apion cites Josephus' earlier work Antiquities of the Jews, so can be dated after C.E. 94. It was most likely written in the early second century.


Link

Basically, some greek called Apion raised an objection to Judaism on the grounds that it was not an ancient religion but rather a newly concocted one. To answer this objection, Josephus wrote his work 'Against Apion'. In this work, he tried to advance various logics to advocate that the Judaism is an ancient religion and not a new one. One such logic seems to be that the Jews were descendents of Indian Philosophers. So, this logic was put forth by Josephus himself. According to him, this was said by Clearchus who told him that this was said by none other than Aristotle.

Regardless of who said it, the simple point is that these people not only knew Bhaarathiyas but they themselves were saying that they were related to Bhaarathiyas.

The idea seems to be that everyone knew that Bhaarathiyas are an ancient people and Josephus is trying to claim antiquity for Judaism by claiming descendence from ancient Bhaarathiyas.

I don't know what Manu Smruthi says about Mathsya, but the story of Mathysa(i.e. fish) is present in Mahabhaaratha. And it is quite similar to the story of Noah and his ark. But, this is not all. Noah's story also has similarities with the story of Yayathi and his 3 children. Noah has 3 children while Yayathi has 5 children. So, Noah's story seems to share memes with two important figures of Hindhuism. I think the Noah story was copied from the Hindhu sources directly or indirectly. Noah is a remix of Yayathi and Manu.

There is another point: Manu Smruthi is written by Swayambhuva Manu according to Hindhu texts. Swayambhuva Manu was created by Lord Brahma according to Hindhu texts. Yes, this is very similar to Adam being created by God in Old Testament. But, the similarity does not end there. Swayambhuva Manu created his own wife from his own self. She is called Shatharupa. This is again similar to Eve being created from the rib of Adam. That Manu was called Swayambhuva because he was born by himself i.e. swayam. The word 'Adam' itself may be a corruption of the term 'Adhim' which means 'first' in Sanskruth.

But, Swayambhuva Manu is not related to Mathysa avathara. The Manu who is related to mathsya avathara is Vaivaswatha Manu. These are two different figures.

At the time of Swayambhuva Manu, the creation had just started. (Similar to Adam)

1 Mahayuga = 1 Krita(17,28,000) + 1 Treta(12,96,000) + 1 Dwapara(8,64,000) + 1 Kali(4,32,000) = 43,20,000 years.

Dwapara = 2*Kali; Treta = 3*Kali; Krita = 4*Kali;

1 Mahayuga = 1 Krita + 1 Treta + 1 Dwapara + 1 Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 4*Kali + 3*Kali + 2*Kali + 1*Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 10*Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 10 * (4,32,000) = 43,20,000 yrs;

1 Manvantara = 71 Mahayugas.(There are also Sandhi periods).

1 Kalpa = 14 Manvantaras.

Every Manvantara has a Manu, Indra and a set of Saptarishis. Or in other words the positions of Manu, Indra and Saptarishis have a term(allocated time period) of 1 Manvantara. So, a single Kalpa has 14 Manus(& 14 sets of Saptarishis).

The list of 14 Manus are:
01)Svayambhuva Manu(The Dhruva/polestar episode happened in this Manvantara. Dhruva was a descendent of this Manu).
02)Svarocisha Manu
03)Uttama Manu
04)Tamasa Manu
05)Raivata Manu
06)Cakshusha Manu
07)Vaivasvata Manu (current Manu and Manvantara. Mathsya Avathara happened with this one.)
08)Savarni Manu
09)Daksha-savarni Manu
10)Brahma-savarni Manu
11)Dharma-savarni Manu
12)Rudra-savarni Manu
13)Deva-savarni Manu
14)Indra-savarni Manu


Link to post

If you notice, Swayambhuva Manu is supposed to have been around at the time of Dhruva. Dhruva is the pole-star. So, Swayambhuva Manu was at the time when Pole-star was created according to Hindhu texts. He is such an ancient figure. Manu Smruthi was written by him according to Hindhuism.

Vaivaswatha Manu is the Son of Sun. The sun is called Vivaswaan. 'Manu' is a post which is given to a person. By the time of Vaivaswatha Manu, the creation had went on for a long long time and it was time for a flood(or dissolution). (This is similar to Noah). So, according to Old Testament also, long time had passed from Adam to Noah and it was time for a flood.

At the time of mathsya avathara, all the creation had been wiped out with an exception of few. Only few people survived this dissolution only by the grace of God/Goddess according to Hindhuism. And these people were used as seeds to restart the creation again. It seems that all the people are called 'manavas' in Sanskruth because they are descendents of Manu. The english word 'Man'(and 'woman') also seems to have same etymology. All the descendents of Manu are called 'Man'('Woman') in English. According to Hindhu texts, all human beings(notice the cognate 'man' in human) are descendents of Manu. All human beings have same genes. So, all the racial theories about basis of caste are not supported by Hindhu texts.

BTW, did you notice that the Noah's story is a tacit confession that creation and destruction happen by the will of God/Goddess. And this is exactly the philosophy of Hindhuism. Hindhuism's definition of God/Goddess is:
An entity that creates, manages and destroys the world/universe/creation. An entity which itself is without origin, destruction and change.

I read somewhere that the word 'Noah' may be related to the word 'Manu'. 'Nu' part of 'Manu' seems to have been retained in 'Noah' according to him. Yes, I remember, this theory was put forth by P.N.Oak(of Tejo Mahalaya fame) in one of his books.

I'll post the Mahabhaaratha version of Mathsya and Manu story.

Mahabhaaratha wrote:SECTION 186
(VANA PARVA)
Then Yudhishthira, the son of Paandu, said to the Markandeya, 'now narrate the history of Vaivaswata Manu.’
"Markandeya replied, 'O King, O foremost of men, there was a powerful and great Rushi of the name of Manu. He was the son of Vivaswan and was equal to Brahma in glory. And he far excelled his father and grandfather in strength, in power, in fortune, and also in religious austerities. And that lord of men did severe penance standing on one leg with uplifted hands in the jujube forest called Vishaala. And there he practised the rigid and severe penance with head downwards and with steadfast eyes for ten thousand years. And one day, while he was practising austerities there with wet clothes on and matted hair on head, a fish approaching the banks of the Chirini, addressed him thus, 'Worshipful sir, I am a helpless little fish, I am afraid of the large ones; therefore, O great devotee, please think it worth your while to protect me from them; especially as this fixed custom is well established amongst us that the strong fish always preys upon the weak ones. Therefore, think it fit to save me from being drowned in this sea of terrors! I shall repay you for your assistances.’
On hearing these words from the fish, Vaivaswata Manu was overpowered with pity and he took out the fish from the water with his own hands. And the fish which had a body glistening like the rays of the moon when taken out of the water was put back in an earthen water-vessel. And O King, thus reared, that fish grew up in size and Manu tended it carefully like a child. And after a long while, it became so large in size that there was no room for it in that vessel. And then seeing Manu (one day), it again addressed these words to him, 'Worshipful sir, appoint some better habitation for me.’
And then the adorable Manu, the conqueror of hostile cities, took it out of that vessel and carried it to a large tank and placed it there. And there again the fish grew for many a long year. And O lotus-eyed son of Kunthi and ruler of men, there was no room for the fish to play about even though the tank was two yojanas in length and one yojana in width! And beholding Manu it said again, 'O pious and adorable father, take me to the Ganga, the favourite spouse of the Ocean so that I may live there; or do according to your wish. O sinless one, as I have grown to this great bulk by your favour I shall do your bidding cheerfully.’
Thus asked the upright, continent, and worshipful Manu took the fish to the river Ganga and he put it into the river with his own hands. And O conqueror of your enemies, the fish again grew there for some little time and then beholding Manu, it said again, 'O lord, I am unable to move about in the Ganga on account of my great body, therefore, worshipful sir, please take me quickly to the sea!’
O son of Prutha, Manu then taking it out of the Ganga, carried it to the sea and consigned it there. And despite its great bulk, Manu transported it easily and its touch and smell were also pleasant to him. And when it was thrown into the sea by Manu, it said these words to him with a smile, 'O adorable being, you have protected me with special care, now listen to me as to what you should do in the fulness of time! O fortunate and worshipful sir, the dissolution of all this mobile and immobile world is nigh at hand. The time for the purging of this world is now ripe. Therefore do I now explain what is good for you! The mobile and immobile divisions of the creation, those who have the power of locomotion, and those who have it not, of all these the terrible doom has now approached. You shall build a strong massive ark and have it furnished with a long rope. O great Muni, you must ascend on that with the seven Rushis and take with you all the different seeds which were enumerated by regenerate Brahmanas in days of yore and separately and carefully you must preserve them therein. And O beloved of the Munis, you shall wait for me while there. And I shall appear to you like a horned animal, O ascetic, and thus you shall recognise me! And I shall now depart and you shall act according to my instructions because you can not save yourself from that fearful flood without my assistance.’
Then Manu said to the fish, 'I don’t doubt all that you have said, O great one! In the same way, I shall act!’
And giving instructions to each other, they both went away. And Manu then, O great and powerful King and conqueror of your enemies, procured all the different seeds as directed by the fish, and set sail in an excellent vessel on the surging sea. And then, O earth’s lord (King), he bethought himself of that fish. And the fish too, O conqueror of your enemies and foremost scion of Bharatha's family (lineage), knowing his mind, appeared there with horns on his head. And then, O tigerly-man, beholding in the ocean that horned fish emerging like a rock in the form of which he had been before appraised, he lowered the ropy noose on its head. And fastened by the noose, the fish, O King and conqueror of hostile cities, towed the ark with great force through the salt waters. And it conveyed them in that vessel on the roaring and billow beaten sea. And, O conqueror of your enemies and hostile cities, tossed by the tempest on the great ocean, the vessel reeled about like a drunken harlot. And neither land nor the four cardinal points of the compass, could be distinguished.
And there was water everywhere and the waters covered the heaven and the firmament also. And, O bull of Bharatha's family (lineage), when the world was thus flooded, none but Manu, the seven Rushis and the fish could be seen. And, O King, the fish diligently dragged the boat through the flood for many a long year and then, O descendant of Kuru and ornament of Bharatha's family (lineage), it towed the vessel towards the highest peak of the Himavat. And, O Bharatha, the fish then told those on the vessel to tie it to the peak of the Himavat. And hearing the words of the fish they immediately tied the boat on that peak of the mountain and, O Kunthi’s son and ornament of Bharatha's family (lineage), know that that high peak of the Himavat is still called by the name of Naubandhana (the harbour). Then the fish addressing the associated Rushis told them these words, 'I am Brahma, the Lord of all creatures; there is none greater than myself. Assuming the shape of a fish, I have saved you from this cataclysm. Manu will create (again) all beings--Gods, Asuras and men, all those divisions of creation which have the power of locomotion and which have it not. By practicing severe austerities he will acquire this power, and with my blessing, illusion will have no power over him.’
"So saying the fish vanished instantly. And Vaivaswata Manu himself became desirous of creating the world. In this work of creation illusion overtook him and therefore, he practised great asceticism. And endowed with ascetic merit, Manu, O ornament of Bharatha's family (lineage), again set about his work of creating all beings in proper and exact order. This story which I have narrated to you and the hearing of which destroys all sin, is celebrated as the Legend of the Fish. And the man who listens every day to this primeval history of Manu, attains happiness and all other objects of desire and goes to heaven.”


Immediately, after this, the next chapter deals with Yugas and particularly dwells on Khali Yuga(wicked age).

Mahabhaaratha wrote:Book 3
Chapter 185
1 [वै]
ततः स पाण्डवॊ भूयॊ मार्कण्डेयम उवाच ह
कथयस्वेह चरितं मनॊर वैवस्वतस्य मे
2 [मार्क]
विवस्तवः सुतॊ राजन परमर्षिः परतापवान
बभूव नरशार्दूल परजापतिसमद्युतिः
3 ओजसा तेजसा लक्ष्म्या तपसा च विशेषतः
अतिचक्राम पितरं मनुः सवं च पितामहम
4 ऊर्ध्वबाहुर विशालायां बदर्यां स नराधिपः
एकपादस्थितस तीव्रं चचार सुमहत तपः
5 अवाक्शिरास तथा चापि नेत्रैर अनिमिषैर दृढम
सॊ ऽतप्यत तपॊ घॊरं वर्षाणाम अयुतं तदा
6 तं कदा चित तपस्यन्तम आर्द्र चीरजटा धरम
वीरिणी तीरम आगम्य मत्स्यॊ वचनम अब्रवीत
7 भगवन कषुद्रमत्स्यॊ ऽसमि बलवद्भ्यॊ भयं मम
मत्स्येभ्यॊ हि ततॊ मां तवं तरातुम अर्हसि सुव्रत
8 दुर्बलं बलवन्तॊ हि मत्स्यं मत्स्या विशेषतः
भक्षयन्ति यथा वृत्तिर विहिता नः सनातनी
9 तस्माद भयौघान महतॊ मज्जन्तं मां विशेषतः
तरातुम अर्हसि कर्तास्मि कृते परतिकृतं तव
10 स मत्स्यवचनं शरुत्वा कृपयाभिपरिप्लुतः
मनुर वैवस्वतॊ ऽगृह्णात तं मत्स्यं पाणिना सवयम
11 उदकान्तम उपानीय मत्स्यं वैवस्वतॊ मनुः
अलिञ्जरे पराक्षिपत स चन्द्रांशुसदृशप्रभम
12 स तत्र ववृधे राजन मत्स्यः परमसत्कृतः
पुत्रवच चाकरॊत तस्मिन मनुर भावं विशेषतः
13 अथ कालेन महता स मत्स्यः सुमहान अभूत
अलिञ्जरे जले चैव नासौ समभवत किल
14 अथ मत्स्यॊ मनुं दृष्ट्वा पुनर एवाभ्यभाषत
भगवन साधु मे ऽदयान्यत सथानं संप्रतिपादय
15 उद्धृत्यालिञ्जरात तस्मात ततः स भगवान मुनिः
तं मत्स्यम अनयद वापीं महतीं स मनुस तदा
16 तत्र तं पराक्षिपच चापि मनुः परपुरंजय
अथावर्धत मत्स्यः स पुनर वर्षगणान बहून
17 दवियॊजनायता वापी विस्तृता चापि यॊजनम
तस्यां नासौ समभवन मत्स्यॊ राजीवलॊचन
विचेष्टितुं वा कौन्तेय मत्स्यॊ वाप्यां विशां पते
18 मनुं मत्यस ततॊ दृष्ट्वा पुनर एवाभ्यभाषत
नयमां भगवन साधॊ समुद्रमहिषीं परभॊ
गङ्गां तत्र निवत्स्यामि यथा वा तात मन्यसे
19 एवं कुतॊ मनुर मत्स्याम अनयद भगवान वशी
नदीं गङ्गां तत्र चैनं सवयं पराक्षिपद अच्युतः
20 स तत्र ववृधे मत्स्यः किं चित कालम अरिंदम
ततः पुनर मनुं दृष्ट्वा मत्स्यॊ वचनम अब्रवीत
21 गङ्गायां हि न शक्नॊमि बृहत्त्वाच चेष्टितुं परभॊ
समुद्रं नयमाम आशु परसीद भगवन्न इति
22 उद्धृत्य गङ्गा सलिलात ततॊ मत्स्यं मनुः सवयम
समुद्रम अनयत पार्थ तत्र चैनम अवासृजत
23 सुमहान अपि मत्स्यः सन स मनॊर मनसस तदा
आसीद यथेष्ट हार्यश च सपर्शगन्धसुखैश च वै
24 यदा समुद्रे परक्षिप्तः स मत्स्यॊ मनुना तदा
तत एनम इदं वाक्यं समयमान इवाब्रवीत
25 भगवन कृता हि मे रक्षा तवया सर्वा विशेषतः
पराप्तकालं तु यत कार्यं तवया तच छरूयतां मम
26 अचिराद भगवन भौमम इदं सथावरजङ्गमम
सर्वम एव महाभाग परलयं वै गमिष्यति
27 संप्रक्षालन कालॊ ऽयं लॊकानां समुपस्थितः
तस्मात तवां बॊधयाम्य अद्य तत ते हितम अनुत्तमम
28 तरसानां सथावराणां च यच चेङ्गं यच च नेङ्गति
तस्य सर्वस्य संप्राप्तः कालः परमदारुणः
29 नौश च कारयितव्या ते दृढा युक्तवटाकरा
तत्र सप्तर्षिभिः सार्धम आरुहेथा महामुने
30 बीजानि चैव सर्वाणि यथॊक्तनि मया पुरा
तस्याम आरॊहयेर नावि सुसंगुप्तानि भागशः
31 नौस्थश च मां परतीक्षेथास तदा मुनिजनप्रिय
आगमिष्याम्य अहं शृङ्गी विज्ञेयस तेन तापस
32 एवम एत तवया कार्यम आपृष्टॊ ऽसि वरजाम्य अहम
नातिशङ्क्यम इदं चापि वचनं ते ममाभिभॊ
33 एवं करिष्य इति तं स मत्स्यं परत्यभाषत
जग्मतुश च यथाकामम अनुज्ञाप्य परस्परम
34 ततॊ मनुर महाराज यथॊक्तं मत्यकेन ह
बीजान्य आदाय सर्वाणि सागरं पुप्लुवे तदा
नावा तु शुभया वीर महॊर्मिणम अरिंदम
35 चिन्तयाम आस च मनुस तं मत्स्यं पृथिवीपते
स च तच चिन्तितं जञात्वा मत्स्यः परपुरंजय
शृङ्गी तत्राजगामाशु तदा भरतसत्तम
36 तं दृष्ट्वा मनुजेन्द्रेन्द्र मनुर मत्स्यं जलार्णवे
शृङ्गिणं तं यथॊक्तेन रूपेणाद्रिम इवॊच्छ्रितम
37 वटाकरमयं पाशम अथ मत्स्यस्य मूधनि
मनुर मनुजशार्दूल तस्मिञ शृङ्गे नयवेशयत
38 संयतस तेन पाशेन मत्स्यः परपुरंजय
वेगेन महता नावं पराकर्षल लवणाम्भसि
39 स ततार तया नावा समुद्रं मनुजेश्वर
नृत्यमानम इवॊर्मीभिर गर्जमानम इवाम्भसा
40 कषॊभ्यमाणा महावातैः सा नौस तस्मिन महॊदधौ
धूर्णते चपलेव सत्री मत्ता परपुरंजय
41 नैव भूमिर न च दिशः परदिशॊ वा चकाशिरे
सर्वम आम्भसम एवासीत खं दयौश च नरपुंगव
42 एवं भूते तदा लॊके संकुले भरतर्षभ
अदृश्यन्त सप्तर्षयॊ मनुर मत्स्यः सहैव ह
43 एवं बहून वर्षगणांस तां नावं सॊ ऽथ मत्स्यकः
चकर्षातन्द्रितॊ राजंस तस्मिन सलिलसंचये
44 ततॊ हिमवतः शृङ्गं यत परं पुरुषर्षभ
तत्राकर्षत ततॊ नावं स मत्स्यः कुरुनन्दन
45 ततॊ ऽबरवीत तदा मत्स्यस तान ऋषीन परहसञ शनैः
अस्मिन हिमवतः शृङ्गे नावं बध्नीत माचिरम
46 सा बद्धा तत्र तैस तूर्णम ऋषिभिर भरतर्षभ
नौर मत्स्यस्य वचॊ शरुत्वा शृङ्गे हिमवतस तदा
47 तच च नौबन्धनं नाम शृङ्गं हिमवतः परम
खयातम अद्यापि कौन्तेय तद विद्धि भरतर्षभ
48 अथाब्रवीद अनिमिषस तान ऋषीन सहितांस तदा
अहं परजापतिर बरह्मा मत्परं नाधिगम्यते
मत्स्यरूपेण यूयं च मयास्मान मॊक्षिता भयात
49 मनुना च परजाः सर्वाः सदेवासुरमानवाः
सरष्टव्याः सर्वलॊकाश च यच चेङ्गं यच च नेङ्गति
50 तपसा चातितीव्रेण परतिभास्य भविष्यति
मत्प्रसादात परजा सर्गे न च मॊहं गमिष्यति
51 इत्य उक्त्वा वचनं मत्स्यः कषणेनादर्शनं गतः
सरष्टुकामः परजाश चापि मनुर वैवस्वतः सवयम
परमूढॊ ऽभूत परजा सर्गे तपस तेपे महत ततः
52 तपसा महता युक्तः सॊ ऽथ सरष्टुं परचक्रमे
सर्वाः परजा मनुः साक्षाद यथावद भरतर्षभ
53 इत्य एतन मात्यकं नाम पुराणं परिकीर्तितम
आख्यानम इदम आख्यातं सर्वपापहरं मया
54 य इदं शृणुयान नित्यं मनॊश चरितम आदितः
स सुखी सर्वसिद्धार्थः सवर्गलॊकम इयान नरः


Link


Now, the story of Yayathi and his sons in Mahabhaaratha:

Mahabhaaratha wrote:SECTION 084
(AADHI PARVA)
(Sambhava Parva continued)
"Vaishampayana said, 'Yayaathi, then, overcome with decrepitude, returned to his capital and summoning his eldest son Yadu who was also the most accomplished, addressed him thus, 'Dear child, from the curse of Kavya (Shukra) called also Usanas (Shukra), decrepitude and wrinkles and whiteness of hair have come over me. But I have not been gratified yet with the enjoyment of youth. O Yadu, take this my weakness along with my decrepitude. I shall enjoy with your youth. And when a full thousand years will have elapsed, returning to you your youth, I shall take back my weakness with this decrepitude!’
"Yadu replied, 'There are innumerable inconveniences in decrepitude, in respect of drinking and eating. Therefore, O King, I shall not take your decrepitude. This is, indeed, my determination. White hair on the head, cheerlessness and relaxation of the nerves, wrinkles all over the body, deformities, weakness of the limbs, emaciation, incapacity to work, defeat at the hands of friends and companions--these are the consequences of decrepitude. Therefore, O King, I desire not to take it. O King, you have many sons some of whom are dearer to you. you are acquainted with the precepts of dharma(virtue). Ask some other son of yours to take your decrepitude.
"Yayaathi replied, you are sprung from my heart, O son, but you give me not your youth. Therefore, your children shall never be kings.’
And he continued, addressing another son of his, 'O Turvasu, you take this weakness of mine along with my decrepitude. With your youth, O son, I like to enjoy the pleasure of life. After the lapse of a full thousand years I shall give back to you your youth, and take back from you my weakness and decrepitude.’
"Turvasu replied, 'I don’t like decrepitude, O father, it takes away all appetites and enjoyments, strength and beauty of person, intellect, and even life.’
Yayaathi said to him, you are sprung from my heart, O son! But you give me not your youth! Therefore, O Turvasu, your family (lineage) shall be extinct. Wretch, you shall be the King of those whose practices and precepts are impure, amongst whom men of inferior blood procreate children upon women of blue blood, who live on meat, who are mean, who hesitate not to appropriate the wives of their superiors, whose practices are those of birds and beasts, who are sinful, and non-Aryan.’
"Vaishampayana said, 'Yayaathi, having thus cursed his son Turvasu, then, addressed Sarmishtha's son Drahyu thus, 'O Drahyu, you take for a thousand years my decrepitude destructive of complexion and personal beauty and give me your youth. When a thousand years have passed away, I shall return you your youth and take back my own weakness, and decrepitude.’
To this Drahyu replied, 'O King, one who is decrepit can never enjoy elephants and chariots and horses and women. Even his voice becomes hoarse. Therefore, I don’t desire (to take) your decrepitude.’
Yayaathi said to him, you are sprung from my heart, O son! But you refuse to give me your youth. Therefore, your most cherished desires shall never be fulfilled. You shall be King only in name, of that region where there are no roads for (the passage of) horses and chariots and elephants, and good vehicles, and asses, and goats and bullocks, and palanquins; where there is swimming only by rafts and floats.’
Yayaathi next addressed Anu and said, 'O Anu, take my weakness and decrepitude. I shall with your youth enjoy the pleasures of life for a thousand years.’
To this Anu replied, 'Those who are decrepit always eat like children and are always impure. They cannot pour libations upon fire in proper times. Therefore, I don’t like to take your decrepitude.’
Yayaathi said to him, ‘you are sprung from my heart, yet you don’t give your youth. You find so many faults in decrepitude. Therefore, decrepitude shall overcome you! And, O Anu, your progeny also as soon as they attain to youth, shall die. And you shall also not be able to perform Yagnas (Sacrifices) before fire.’
"Yayaathi at last turned to his youngest child, Puru, and addressing him said, ‘O Puru, you are my youngest son! But you shall be the first of all! Decrepitude, wrinkles, and whiteness of hair have come over me due to the curse of Kavya (Shukra) called also Usanas (Shukra). I have not yet however, been satiated with my youth. O Puru, you take this my weakness and decrepitude! With your youth I shall enjoy for some years the pleasures of life. And when a thousand years have passed away, I shall give back to you your youth and take back my own decrepitude.’
"Vaishampayana said, 'Thus addressed by the King, Puru answered with humility, ' O monarch, I shall do as you bid me. O King,I shall take your weakness and decrepitude. You take my youth and enjoy according to your wish the pleasures of life. As you command I shall continue to live covered with your decrepitude and becoming old while giving you my youth.’
Yayaathi then said, 'O Puru, I have been gratified with you. And being gratified, I tell you that the people in your kingdom shall have all their desires fulfilled.’
"And having said this, the great ascetic Yayaathi, then thinking of Kavya (Shukra), transferred his decrepitude to the body of the mahathma Puru.’”

SECTION 085
(AADHI PARVA)
(Sambhava Parva continued)
"Vaishampayana said, 'The excellent monarch Yayaathi, the son of Nahusha, having received Puru's youth, became exceedingly gratified. And with it he once more began to indulge in his favourite pursuits to the full extent of his desires and to the limit of his powers, according to seasons, so as to derive the greatest pleasure therefrom. And, O King, in nothing that he did, he acted against the precepts of his Dharma (religion) as behoved him well. He gratified the Gods by his Yagnas (Sacrifices); the Pithrus, by Sraddhas; the poor, by his charities; all excellent Brahmanas, by fulfilling their desires; all persons entitled to the rites of hospitality, with food and drink; the Vaisyas, by protection; and the Shudhras, by kindness. And the King repressed all criminals by proper punishments. And Yayaathi, gratifying all sections of his subjects, protected them virtuously like another Indhra. And the monarch possessed of the prowess of a lion, with youth and every object of enjoyment under control, enjoyed unlimited happiness without transgressing the precepts of Dharma (religion). And the King became very happy in thus being able to enjoy all the excellent objects of his desires. And he was only sorry when he thought that those thousand years would come to an end. And having obtained youth for a thousand years, the King acquainted with the mysteries of time, and watching proper Kalas and Kashthas sported with (the celestial damsel) Viswachi, sometimes in the beautiful garden of Indhra, sometimes in Alaka (the city of Kubera), and sometimes on the summit of the mountain Meru on the north. And when the virtuous monarch saw that the thousand years were full, he summoned his son, Puru, and addressed him thus, 'O oppressor of foes, with your youth, O son, I have enjoyed the pleasures of life, each according to its season to the full extent of my desires, to the limit of my powers. Our desires, however, are never gratified by indulgence. On the other hand, with indulgence, they only flame up like fire with libations of sacrificial butter. If a single person were owner of everything on Earth--all her yields of paddy and barley, her silver, gold, and gems, her animals and women, he would not still be content. Thirst of enjoyment, therefore, should be given up. Indeed, true happiness belongs to them that have cast off their thirst for worldly objects--a thirst which is difficult to be thrown off by the wicked and the sinful, which doesn’t fail with the failing life and which is truly the fatal disease of man. My heart has for a full thousand years been fixed upon the objects of desires. My thirst for these, however, increases day by day without abating. Therefore, I shall cast it off, and fixing my mind on Brahma I shall pass the rest of my days with the innocent deer in the forest peacefully and with no heart for any worldly objects. And O Puru, I have been exceedingly gratified with you! Prosperity be yours! Receive back this your youth! Receive you also my kingdom. you are indeed, that son of mine who has done me the greatest services.’
"Vaishampayana continued, 'Then Yayaathi, the son of Nahusha, received back his decrepitude. And his son Puru received back his own youth. And Yayaathi was desirous of installing Puru, his youngest son, on the throne. But the four orders, with the Brahmanas at their head, then addressed the monarch thus, 'O King, how shall you bestow your kingdom on Puru, passing over your eldest son Yadu born of Devayani, and, therefore, the grandson of the great Shukra? Indeed, Yadu is your eldest son; after him has been born Turvasu; and of Sarmishtha's sons, the first is Drahyu, then Anu and then Puru. How does the youngest deserve the throne, passing all his elder brothers over? This we represent to you! O, conform to virtuous practice.’

"Yayaathi then said, 'You four orders with Brahmanas at their head, hear my words as to why my kingdom should not be given to my eldest son. My commands have been disobeyed by my eldest son, Yadu. The wise say that he is no son who disobeys his father. That son, however, who does the bidding of his parents, who seeks their good, who is pleasant to them, is indeed, the best of sons. I have been disregarded by Yadu and by Turvasu, too. Much I have been disregarded by Drahyu and by Anu also. By Puru alone has my word been obeyed. By him I have been much regarded. Therefore, the youngest shall be my heir. He took my decrepitude. Indeed, Puru is my friend. He did what was so pleasant to me. It has also been commanded by Shukra himself, the son of Kavi, that, that son of mine who should obey me will become King after me and bring the whole Earth under his sway. Therefore, I beseech you, let Puru be installed on the throne.’
"The people then said, ' O King, it is true that, that son who is accomplished and who seeks the good of his parents, deserves prosperity even if he be the youngest. Therefore, does Puru, who has done the good, deserve the crown. And as Shukra himself has commanded it, we have nothing to say to it.’
"Vaishampayana continued, 'Addressed in this manner by the contented people, then the son of Nahusha installed his son, Puru on the throne. And having bestowed his kingdom on Puru, the monarch performed the initiatory ceremonies for retiring into the woods. And soon after he left his capital, followed by Brahmanas and ascetics.
"The sons of Yadu are known by the name of the Yadavas: while those of Turvasu have come to be called the Yavanas. And the sons of Drahyu are the Bhojas, while those of Anu, the Mlechchhas. The progeny of Puru, however, are the Pauravas, amongst whom, O monarch, you are born, in order to rule for a thousand years with your passions under complete control.’”



Mahabhaaratha wrote:Book 1
Chapter 79
1 [व]
जरां पराप्य ययातिस तु सवपुरं पराप्य चैव ह
पुत्रं जयेष्ठं वरिष्ठं च यदुम इत्य अब्रवीद वचः
2 जरा वली च मां तात पलितानि च पर्यगुः
काव्यस्यॊशनसः शापान न च तृप्तॊ ऽसमि यौवने
3 तवं यदॊ परतिपद्यस्व पाप्मानं जरया सह
यौवनेन तवदीयेन चरेयं विषयान अहम
4 पूर्णे वर्षसहस्रे तु पुनस ते यौवनं तव अहम
दत्त्वा सवं परतिपत्स्यामि पाप्मानं जरया सह
5 [यदु]
सितश्मश्रुशिरा दीनॊ जरया शिथिली कृतः
वली संततगात्रश च दुर्दर्शॊ दुर्बलः कृशः
6 अशक्तः कार्यकरणे परिभूतः स यौवनैः
सहॊपजीविभिश चैव तां जरां नाभिकामये
7 [य]
यत तवं मे हृदयाज जातॊ वयः सवं न परयच्छसि
तस्माद अराज्यभाक तात परजा ते वै भविष्यति
8 तुर्वसॊ परतिपद्यस्व पाप्मानं जरया सह
यौवनेन चरेयं वै विषयांस तव पुत्रक
9 पूर्णे वर्षसहस्रे तु पुनर दास्यामि यौवनम
सवं चैव परतिपत्स्यामि पाप्मानं जरया सह
10 [तु]
न कामये जरां तात कामभॊग परणाशिनीम
बलरूपान्त करणीं बुद्धिप्राणविनाशिनीम
11 [य]
यत तवं मे हृदयाज जातॊ वयः सवं न परयच्छसि
तस्मात परजा समुच्छेदं तुर्वसॊ तव यास्यति
12 संकीर्णाचार धर्मेषु परतिलॊम चरेषु च
पिशिताशिषु चान्त्येषु मूढ राजा भविष्यसि
13 गुरु दारप्रसक्तेषु तिर्यग्यॊनिगतेषु च
पशुधर्मिषु पापेषु मलेच्छेषु परभविष्यसि
14 [व]
एवं स तुर्वसं शप्त्वा ययातिः सुतम आत्मनः
शर्मिष्ठायाः सुतं दरुह्युम इदं वचनम अब्रवीत
15 दरुह्यॊ तवं परतिपद्यस्व वर्णरूपविनाशिनीम
जरां वर्षसहस्रं मे यौवनं सवं ददस्व च
16 पूर्णे वर्षसहस्रे तु परतिदास्यामि यौवनम
सवं चादास्यामि भूयॊ ऽहं पाप्मानं जरया सह
17 [दरु]
न गजं न रथं नाश्वं जीर्णॊ भुङ्क्ते न च सत्रियम
वाग भङ्गश चास्य भवति तज जरां नाभिकामये
18 [य]
यत तवं मे हृदयाज जातॊ वयः सवं न परयच्छसि
तस्माद दरुह्यॊ परियः कामॊ न ते संपत्स्यते कव चित
19 उडुप पलव संतारॊ यत्र नित्यं भविष्यति
अराजा भॊजशम्ब्दं तवं तत्रावाप्स्यसि सान्वयः
20 अनॊ तवं परतिपद्यस्व पाप्मानं जरया सह
एकं वर्षसहस्रं तु चरेयं यौवनेन ते
21 [आनु]
जीर्णः शिशुवद आदत्ते ऽकाले ऽननम अशुचिर यथा
न जुहॊति च काले ऽगनिं तां जरां नाभिकामये
22 [य]
यत तवं मे हृदयाज जातॊ वयः सवं न परयच्छसि
जरा दॊषस तवयॊक्तॊ ऽयं तस्मात तवं परतिपत्स्यसे
23 परजाश च यौवनप्राप्ता विनशिष्यन्त्य अनॊ तव
अग्निप्रस्कन्दन परस तवं चाप्य एवं भविष्यसि
24 पुरॊ तवं मे परियः पुत्रस तवं वरीयान भविष्यसि
जरा वली च मे तात पलितानि च पर्यगुः
काव्यस्यॊशनसः शापान न च तृप्तॊ ऽसमि यौवने
25 पुरॊ तवं परतिपद्यस्व पाप्मानं जरया सह
कं चित कालं चरेयं वै विषयान वयसा तव
26 पूर्णे वर्षसहस्रे तु परतिदास्यामि यौवनम
सवं चैव परतिपत्स्यामि पाप्मानं जरया सह
27 [व]
एवम उक्तः परत्युवाच पूरुः पितरम अञ्जसा
यथात्थ मां महाराज तत करिष्यामि ते वचः
28 परतिपत्स्यामि ते राजन पाप्मानं जरया सह
गृहाण यौवनं मत्तश चर कामान यथेप्सितान
29 जरयाहं परतिच्छन्नॊ वयॊ रूपधरस तव
यौवनं भवते दत्त्वा चरिष्यामि यथात्थ माम
30 [य]
पूरॊ परीतॊ ऽसमि ते वत्स परीतश चेदं ददामि ते
सर्वकामसमृद्धा ते परजा राज्ये भविष्यति


Link

Mahabhaaratha wrote:Book 1
Chapter 80
1 [व]
पौरवेणाथ वयसा ययातिर नहुषात्मजः
परीतियुक्तॊ नृपश्रेष्ठश चचार विषयान परियान
2 यथाकामं यथॊत्साहं यथाकालं यथासुखम
धर्माविरुद्धान राजेन्द्रॊ यथार्हति स एव हि
3 देवान अतर्पयद यज्ञैः शराद्धैस तद्वत पितॄन अपि
दीनान अनुग्रहैर इष्टैः कामैश च दविजसत्तमान
4 अतिथीन अन्नपानैश च विशश च परिपालनैः
आनृशंस्येन शूद्रांश च दस्यून संनिग्रहेण च
5 धर्मेण च परजाः सर्वा यथावद अनुरञ्जयन
ययातिः पालयाम आस साक्षाद इन्द्र इवापरः
6 स राजा सिंहविक्रान्तॊ युवा विषयगॊचरः
अविरॊधेन धर्मस्य चचार सुखम उत्तमम
7 स संप्राप्य शुभान कामांस तृप्तः खिन्नश च पार्थिवः
कालं वर्षसहस्रान्तं सस्मार मनुजाधिपः
8 परिसंख्याय कालज्ञः कलाः काष्ठाश च वीर्यवान
पूर्णं मत्वा ततः कालं पूरुं पुत्रम उवाच ह
9 यथाकामं यथॊत्साहं यथाकालम अरिंदम
सेविता विषयाः पुत्र यौवनेन मया तव
10 पूरॊ परीतॊ ऽसमि भद्रं ते गृहाणेदं सवयौवनम
राज्यं चैव गृहाणेदं तवं हि मे परियकृत सुतः
11 परतिपेदे जरां राजा ययातिर नाहुषस तदा
यौवनं परतिपेदे च पूरुः सवं पुनर आत्मनः
12 अभिषेक्तु कामं नृपतिं पूरुं पुत्रं कनीयसम
बराह्मण परमुखा वर्णा इदं वचनम अब्रुवन
13 कथं शुक्रस्य नप्तारं देव यान्याः सुतं परभॊ
जयेष्ठं यदुम अतिक्रम्य राज्यं पूरॊः परदास्यसि
14 यदुर जयेष्ठस तव सुतॊ जातस तम अनु तुर्वसुः
शर्मिष्ठायाः सुतॊ दरुह्युस ततॊ ऽनुः पूरुर एव च
15 कथं जयेष्ठान अतिक्रम्य कनीयान राज्यम अर्हति
एतत संबॊधयामस तवां धर्मं तवम अनुपालय
16 [य]
बराह्मण परमुखा वर्णाः सर्वे शृण्वन्तु मे वचः
जयेष्ठं परति यथा राज्यं न देयं मे कथं चन
17 मम जयेष्ठेन यदुना नियॊगॊ नानुपालितः
परतिकूलः पितुर यश च न सपुत्रः सतां मतः
18 मातापित्रॊर वचनकृद धितः पथ्यश च यः सुतः
सपुत्रः पुत्रवद यश च वर्तते पितृमातृषु
19 यदुनाहम अवज्ञातस तथा तुर्वसुनापि च
दरुह्युना चानुना चैव मय्य अवज्ञा कृता भृशम
20 पूरुणा मे कृतं वाक्यं मानितश च विशेषतः
कनीयान मम दायादॊ जरा येन धृता मम
मम कामः स च कृतः पूरुणा पुत्र रूपिणा
21 शुक्रेण च वरॊ दत्तः काव्येनॊशनसा सवयम
पुत्रॊ यस तवानुवर्तेत स राजा पृथिवीपतिः
भवतॊ ऽनुनयाम्य एवं पूरू राज्ये ऽभिषिच्यताम
22 [परकृतयह]
यः पुत्रॊ गुणसंपन्नॊ मातापित्रॊर हितः सदा
सर्वम अर्हति कल्याणं कनीयान अपि स परभॊ
23 अर्हः पूरुर इदं राज्यं यः सुतः परियकृत तव
वरदानेन शुक्रस्य न शक्यं वक्तुम उत्तरम
24 [व]
पौरजानपदैस तुष्टैर इत्य उक्तॊ नाहुषस तदा
अभ्यषिञ्चत ततः पूरुं राज्ये सवे सुतम आत्मजम
25 दत्त्वा च पूरवे राज्यं वनवासाय दीक्षितः
पुरात स निर्ययौ राजा बराह्मणैस तापसैः सह
26 यदॊस तु यादवा जातास तुर्वसॊर यवनाः सुताः
दरुह्यॊर अपि सुता भॊजा अनॊस तु मलेच्छ जातयः
27 पूरॊस तु पौरवॊ वंशॊ यत्र जातॊ ऽसि पार्थिव
इदं वर्षसहस्राय राज्यं कारयितुं वशी


Link

Now, Noah' story:
Genesis 5

New International Version (NIV)
From Adam to Noah

5 This is the written account of Adam’s family line.

When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created.

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father[b] of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.

9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.

12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 After he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived a total of 910 years, and then he died.

15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 After he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived a total of 895 years, and then he died.

18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 After he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived a total of 962 years, and then he died.

21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 After he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived a total of 969 years, and then he died.

28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah[c] and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died.

32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Footnotes:

Genesis 5:2 Hebrew adam
Genesis 5:6 Father may mean ancestor; also in verses 7-26.
Genesis 5:29 Noah sounds like the Hebrew for comfort.


Link

Genesis 6

New International Version (NIV)
Wickedness in the World

6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
Noah and the Flood

9 This is the account of Noah and his family.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.[d] 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around.[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.
Footnotes:

Genesis 6:3 Or My spirit will not remain in
Genesis 6:3 Or corrupt
Genesis 6:14 The meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain.
Genesis 6:15 That is, about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high or about 135 meters long, 23 meters wide and 14 meters high
Genesis 6:16 That is, about 18 inches or about 45 centimeters
Genesis 6:16 The meaning of the Hebrew for this clause is uncertain.


Link

Notice that there is a part about 'wickedness of the world' just before the story of Noah's ark. In Mahabharatha, just after the story of Vaivaswatha Manu(and his ark), the next chapter is about Khali Yuga(wicked age). So, in Old Testament, the order is reversed.

Genesis 7

New International Version (NIV)

7 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

5 And Noah did all that the Lord commanded him.

6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a][b] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
Footnotes:

Genesis 7:20 That is, about 23 feet or about 6.8 meters
Genesis 7:20 Or rose more than fifteen cubits, and the mountains were covered


Link

enesis 8

New International Version (NIV)

8 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

6 After forty days Noah opened a window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.

13 By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.

15 Then God said to Noah, 16 “Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives. 17 Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it.”

18 So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives. 19 All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds—everything that moves on land—came out of the ark, one kind after another.

20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”
Footnotes:

Genesis 8:21 Or humans, for


Link

Now, the story of Yayaathi is remixed in Noah's story.
Genesis 9

New International Version (NIV)
God’s Covenant With Noah

9 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”
The Sons of Noah

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s[b] territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

28 After the flood Noah lived 350 years. 29 Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died.
Footnotes:

Genesis 9:20 Or soil, was the first
Genesis 9:27 Japheth sounds like the Hebrew for extend.



Link
Last edited by johneeG on 20 Jun 2014 17:05, edited 1 time in total.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Postby johneeG » 20 Jun 2014 16:50

And of course, the similarities between Brahma and Abraham and Saraswathi and Sara are noticed by many.

However, there is another angle: the story of Abhraham's children is similar to the story of Surya's children. Vaivaswatha Manu is the son of Surya.

Link to post

johneeG wrote:.

For example, birth of Karna:
Karna was born to Kunthi by the grace of Surya(Sun God). But, at that time, Kunthi was an unmarried girl. So, Surya(Sun God) blessed her that she would remain virgin despite the birth of Karna. Karna was born with a natural coat of mail and ear-rings. Kunthi put the child in a box and floated it in river Ganga. That box was found by chariot-driver named Athiratha. He adopted the child. Athiratha was the chariot-driver of Dhrithrashtra. So, Karna went to the same school(first Kripa, then Dhrona) that Kauravas and Pandavas went.

birth of Krushna:
Kamsa, the king of Mathura, married his sister(Dhevaki) to Vasudheva. But, he heard a prophecy that 8th son of Dhevaki is destined to kill him. So, Kamsa tried to kill his sister immediately to save his own life. Vasudheva begged Kamsa not to kill her. Instead, he promised to deliver all their children to Kamsa. Kamsa agreed and imprisoned his sister along with brother-in-law. As promised, Vasudheva delivered his children as soon as they were born. Kamsa killed these children. At the time of birth of 7th child, the child was transferred from the womb of Dhevaki to Rohini(second wife of Vasudheva). Then, after some time, the 8th child was born. Narayana Himself was born to them. He instructed them to transfer Him to the house of Nanda and Yashodha. Then, He assumed the form of a normal child. Vasudheva tranferred the child to the house of Nanda and Yashodha, then he replaced his own son with the daughter of Nanda and Yashodha who was also born on the same day. No one noticed the swap. Kamsa thought a daughter was born to Vasudheva and tried to kill the child. But, the child assumed the form of Goddess and informed Kamsa that the one who is going to kill him is already born and safe. Immediately, Kamsa ordered persecution of all the newborns born at that time...

Now, the story of Moses:
This story is an interesting remix of Karna and Krushna.

wiki wrote:In the Exodus account, the birth of Moses occurred at a time when an unnamed Egyptian Pharaoh had commanded that all male Hebrew children born be killed by drowning in the river Nile. Jochebed, the wife of the Levite Amram, bore a son and kept him concealed for three months.[13][15][16] When she could keep him hidden no longer, rather than deliver him to be killed, she set him adrift on the Nile River in a small craft of bulrushes coated in pitch.[15] Moses' sister Miriam observed the progress of the tiny boat until it reached a place where Pharaoh's daughter (Bithiah,[13] Thermuthis [17]) was bathing with her handmaidens. It is said that she spotted the baby in the basket and had her handmaiden fetch it for her. Miriam came forward and asked Pharaoh's daughter whether she would like a Hebrew woman to nurse the baby.[13] Thereafter, Jochebed was employed as the child's nurse. Moses grew up and was brought to Pharaoh's daughter and became her son and a younger brother to the future Pharaoh of Egypt. Moses would not be able to become Pharaoh because he was not the 'blood' son of Bithiah, and he was the youngest.

wiki link

So, the birth story of Moses is a remix of births of Karna and Krushna. Then, this story again copied in the story of Jesus.

wiki wrote:Herod hears of Jesus' birth and, wanting him killed, orders the murder of young male children in Bethlehem. But an angel warns Joseph in his second dream, and the family flees to Egypt, later to return and settle in Nazareth.

wiki link

The story of Jesus has some close connections to the birth story of Karna and Arjuna:
Karna was the son of Surya from a virgin mother Kunthi. Arjuna was the son of Indhra from Kunthi. Surya is Apollo and Indhra is Zeus in Greek. In Hindhuism, Surya and Indhra are kind of alter-egos. This is a secret.

One would have to mix Arjuna and Karna into one figure and Surya and Indhra into one figure to understand these Greek and Abrahamic stories.

Anyway, Indhra is the King of Gods in Hindhuism. Zeus is the King of Gods in Greek. Indhra's vehicle is a white elephant named Airavatha. Indhra is also a Rain God. The white elephant symbolizes a white cloud. Indhra's weapon in Vajra, it symbolizes thunderbolt. Thunderbolt is the weapon of Zeus. According to Buddhist scriptures, when Buddha was about to be born a white elephant entered the womb of Maya signifying that she became pregnant. The same motif is found in Jesus copy also. Buddhists seem to have overlooked the fact that white elephant represents white cloud. So, to Buddhists, white elephant became a symbol of Buddha. In X-ist copy, white dove and white lamb become a symbol of Jesus(crypto-Buddha).

----
Actually, it seems to me that the whole Abrahamic tales are merely corruptions of Hindhu originals. More than one Hindhu figure is mixed to create an Abrahamic figure. Buddhism may have been the medium. Buddhism itself copies and steals many Hindhu motifs and figures to craft its scriptures. I suspect that Buddha himself is a copied Hindhu figure.

Brahma/Surya(Vivasvan) -> Abraham
Saraswathy/Sangya -> Sarah
Chaya -> Hagar
Rudhra(Isha)/Yama -> Isaac
Indhra/Shani -> Ishmael
Kubhera -> Jacob
Swayambhuva Manu -> Adam
Shatharupa -> Eve
Vaivasvatha Manu and Matsya Avathara -> Noah and his ark.

Brahma and Saraswathi relationship is presented as incest in Buddhism. Abraham and Sarah are most probably derived from this presentation of Buddhists. Abraham's Incestuous Marriage with Sarah

There is a misconception that Buddhism is against caste. It does not seem to be true. I don't know how to say this, but it seems that the stress of caste/Kula was so much that they were prepared to commit incest rather than marry outside Kula(more specifically Kshatriya).

In several places in the Pāli Canon, including the Ambaṭṭha Sutta (D.i.92), the progenitors of the Śākyas are related to King Okkāka. Pāli Okkāka is identified with the Sanskrit Ikṣvāku, who is known from Purāṇic stories, and in Jainism he is an ancestor to all of the Tirthaṅkaras. The king banishes his elder brothers from his kingdom and they make their home on the slopes of the Himalayas. But they can find no one suitable to marry, so they take their own sisters as wives, and these incestuous relationships give birth to the Śākyas. Given the prejudice against incest in India society generally it is remarkable that this detail was preserved, and this suggests that it might have a grain of truth. If so it points to Iran "there is good evidence for this practice called xᵛaētuuadaθa, so-called next-of-kin or close-kin marriage."
Wiki Link

As you can see, they believed incest was better than marriage outside caste. In fact, they continued to believe that they were progeny of pure castes.

This incest in Buddhism had curious effect. They justified it through their theology by ascribing this behaviour to many other figures in their theology. But, most of the figures in Buddhism were borrowed from Hinduism. So, essentially, Buddhism redefined these figures and some of them were ascribed incest to justify their own incestous behaviour.

For ex:

In the Udaya Jataka the Bodhisattva is a prince who is compelled to marry his half-sister. Although the two sleep in the same room for many years they remain celibate (Ja.IV,105). In the Dasaratha Jataka the princes Rama and Lakkhana marry their sister (Ja.IV,130). As with many ancient peoples the Sakyans, the tribe the Buddha belonged to, had a myth about their origins which included brother-sister incest. When the Koliyans were involved in a dispute with the Sakyans they taunted them by sayings that they ‘cohabite with their sisters like dogs, jackals and other animals’ (Ja.V,413). During the Buddha’s life there was an incident where a nun became infatuated with her son who was a monk and had sex with him, an offence entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Vin.III,35). When this was brought to the Buddha’s attention he said, ‘Does not this foolish man know that a mother shall not lust after her son or a son after his mother?’
Link

So, Buddhists created a version of Ramayana where Sita is both the sister and wife of Rama. All this for what?! Caste! It is ironic since, according to Valmiki Ramayana, Rama killed Vali for committing incest with his sister-in-law. Rama explains that a sister-in-law is equivalent to one's daughter and should never be thought of as wife material. And the only punishment for such incest is death. If incest with sister-in-law in punishable by death, then what is the punishment for incest with sister?

But, all that is irrelevant when one has an agenda. So, Buddhists tarnish Rama to justify their incest.

The same thing passed on into the story of Abraham and Sarah.



Carl wrote:Subhash Kak writes: Rigvedic roots of Semitic gods?
The different Semitic gods have cognates in the Vedic pantheon. Yam may be connected to the Vedic Yama who in RV 10.10.4 is seen as being born from the waters, and Mot to the Vedic Mrityu, death. But more to the point, Ila represents Agni as in Yajurveda (VS) 2.3, whereas Ilaa represents Earth, speech, and flow. There is also the Vedic Yahvah. As an epithet it is associated with movement, activity, heaven and earth; it means the sacrificer and Agni, the chief terrestrial god. It is associated with energy like the Yahwah of the Semites. The name Yahvah occurs 21 times in the Rigveda [i]. It may be compared to Shivah, an epithet for auspiciousness in the Rigveda, that later is applied regularly to Rudra.

Are Ila and Yahvah like El and Yahweh just by coincidence? We don't know, but we certainly do know of the Vedic-god worshiping Mitanni of North Syria who could have served as the intermediaries in connecting the Indians and the Semites.

An example:

पर वो यह्वं पुरूणां विशां देवयतीनाम ।
अग्निं सूक्तेभिर्वचोभिरीमहे यं सीमिदन्य ईळते ॥ [RigVeda 1.36.1]

RigVedic meaning of Yahvah (a Name of Agni):

1 yahva mf(%{I4})n. restless , swift , active (applied to Agni , Indra and Soma) RV. ; continually moving or flowing (applied to the waters) ib. (= %{mahat} Sa1y.) ; m. = %{yajamAna} , a sacrificer Un2. i , 134 Sch. ; (%{I}) f. du. heaven and earth RV. ; pl. the flowing waters (with %{sapta} , `" the seven great rivers "') ib. (cf. Naigh. i , 15).

2 yahvat mf(%{a4tI})n. ever-flowing (waters) RV.

Predictably, EJ sources want to debunk any linkage of Semitic god to Vedic tradition. One website called "Karma to Grace" :lol: has this to say - link
Yahweh is the unique name given to the God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament.
[...]
Is Yahvah the same as Yahweh? Well, let us ask the question more correctly, “Is hwhy the same as यह्व?” Can you read these two? Do you know what they say? Is there a linguistic tie between the two? Is the “H” of Hebrew represented here (there are two “H” sounds in Hebrew) the same as the “h” in Sanskrit? Are the vowels the same? The vowels aren’t even written in Hebrew, so we can’t easily know if they are the same as the Sanskrit ones. The “v” of Jahvah and the “w” of Yahweh —are we sure they are the same? In English they are quite different—one is a fluid and one is a fricative, and they represent completely unique sounds in English. “Wow” and “Vow” are completely different words and though they could be connected phonetically, we still do not identify them as the same words. Do they represent different sounds in Hebrew and Sanskrit? ..... {on and on in this vein}


Link to Subash Kak's article
Link to original post quoting the post of Agnimithra

johneeG wrote:Yahvah is one of the names used for Agni(Fire God) in Rig Vedha. This connection between Yahvah and Agni(Fire God) will explain many of the miracles in Old Testament.

Elijah shows a miracle where fire is born from a transparent liquid. This is seen as triumph of Yahvah. Why is it a triumph? Because, Fire God won. Similarly, Moses sees a bush catch fire in desert. He thinks of it as manifestation of God. How can a bush catching fire be a manifestation of God? Because, it was Fire God that they were praying to.

Who is this Fire God? Rudhra is the higher Agni. Remember, Rudhra burns up Agni also during pralaya. So, Rudhra is the higher Fire God. It is Rudhra who is Yahvah. Rudhra is also Isha. Many Abrahamic names like Ishaac, Ishmael, Ishrael...etc have the cognate Isha.

Rudhra is also Girisha. Girisha means one who resides on mountains. Abraham goes on to the top of a mountain to sacrifice his son. His son carries the wood to lit up the fire. Why go to the top of the mountain? Because, top of the mountain is where the God resides: Girisha. Why lit a fire? Because, they are worshiping Rudhra/Yahvah, the Fire God.

Moses climbs to the top of the mountain to get the laws for his people. Why climb to the top of a mountain? Girisha...

Remember, the cows were also worshiped by the jews and egyptains at the time. Moses breaks the idol of a golden calf and kills many people who were worshiping it. Of course, these stories cannot be taken as real because they are simply remixing the older motifs from other scriptures.

So, who is Baal? Baal is water God or God of fertility or God of sea.
Baal is Soma i.e. Sa+Uma(Shiva with Uma). That means, in the worship of Baal, worship of Goddess is also inherent. On the other hand, in the worship of Yahvah, only the God without the Goddess is worshiped.

Eventually, the cult of Baal was digested into cult of Yahvah. Baal could also be viewed by the followers of Yahvah cult as Jaalandhara. Jaalandhara was born from Shiva. He became the ruler of Seas. Eventually, he was defeated by Shiva.

I think the root of iconoclasm in judaism is the worship of Fire. Because Fire is worshiped, there is no murthy/image. These people were opposed to the image worship because they were zealot fire worshippers.

These ideologies continue to be mutate and evolve(or devolve).

---
The essential point is that all ideas have their source in Hindhuism.

Link to post


----
Ravi_g saar,
Image

I just checked that particular part of Manu Smruthi. It seems that the part is talking about students who stay with the Guru in Aashram. This is similar to students who stay in boarding school(or hostel). Manu Smruthi seems be telling the students to respect the wife of Guru(teacher) and the children of teacher. And in between, it says them to stay away from all kinds of material pursuits and concentrate on studies. It is in this vein that the work talks about staying away from all women and keeping a respectful distance because one never knows.

One can take it as an exaggeration to impress upon people to be alert all the time because the senses are quite powerful.

Also, the idea seems to be that once the children become adults, they should be treated as adults which also means keeping respectful distance if they belong to opposite gender. This may seem a unnecessary to many. But, sometimes people can cross limits. One frequently sees in news that some muslim men raped their own daughters.

Moreover, this injunction seems to be aimed at students who are away from home and starved sexually. These people can become desperate and such strong injunctions are supposed to be aimed at them. Of course, they are also supposed to marry immediately after finishing the studies and settle down in married life(gruhastha aashrama).

I think the main problem in Hindhuism has been by making castes out of words like Brahamana, Kshathriya, Vaishya and Shudhra. These words seem to be similar to words like Arya, Mleccha, Gyaani, Rushi, ...etc. These are people with particular qualities. Its not about castes or races. Somewhere along, the idea of castes, genes, races, ...etc got conflated and produced a corruption.

I think Buddhism played a major role in this conflation. I just posted in previous post how Buddhists indulged in incest to 'preserve their purity of lineage'. 'Indulging in incest to preserve purity' is such an irony.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20317 » 20 Jun 2014 21:33

JohneeG garu,

Here is why I got confused.

In the case of maatraa and duhitraa the 3rd vibhakti gets used. but in case of svásṛ the 4th vibhakti gets used.

http://end.translatum.gr/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%83

स्वसृ (svásṛ) f.
sister
Declension
Feminine ṛ-stem declension of स्वसृ
Singular Dual Plural
स्वसा (svasā) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसारः (svasāraḥ)
स्वसः (svasaḥ) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसारः (svasāraḥ)
स्वसारम् (svasāram) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसॄः (svasṝḥ)
स्वस्रा (svasrā) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभिः (svasṛbhiḥ)
स्वस्रे (svasre) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभ्यः (svasṛbhyaḥ)
स्वसुः (svasuḥ) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभ्यः (svasṛbhyaḥ)
स्वसुः (svasuḥ) स्वस्रोः (svasroḥ) स्वसॄणाम् (svasṝṇām)
स्वसरि (svasari) स्वस्रोः (svasroḥ) स्वसृषु (svasṛṣu)


Obviously I cannot say Maharishi Manu is ignorant of Sanskrit grammar. Cannot hold deepak to the suraj.

I also cannot say Pandit G. P. Dvivedi or Agnimitra garu or yourself are wrong. You know the practice good enough.

Some of the options available to me are (non-exclusive):
1) I don't know enough Sanskrit.
2) Somebody in the listening-writing-reading sequence messed up what Maharishi Manu had to say. I don't think Maharishi Manu had writing available to him. He could absolutely as hell listen and speak.
2) The pauranic practice was there and that found voice in the interpretation afforded.

I am quite willing to take all of these at the same time. But my position while truthful is not helpful for using Sanskrit as a tool to find out OIT or anything else.

Acceptance/Santosh/Shradha is certainly established by these choices/set of choices. A position which is complete and sufficient for all my requirements.

The logic behind the grammar can be found in something like this.

http://www.jainworld.com/education/tatvagyan2/lesson06.htm
And that is why I was not interested in the 'karan' and instead was interested in the 'adhikaran'.

What do the mother and daugher cause. Nothing. The causative factor is the pull of the Indriyas.

Added later : Deleted the english cases. They were causing conphusion only.
Last edited by member_20317 on 21 Jun 2014 09:09, edited 2 times in total.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10545
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 21 Jun 2014 01:43

johneeG wrote:It seems that the part is talking about students who stay with the Guru in Aashram. This is similar to students who stay in boarding school(or hostel). Manu Smruthi seems be telling the students to respect the wife of Guru(teacher) and the children of teacher. And in between, it says them to stay away from all kinds of material pursuits and concentrate on studies. It is in this vein that the work talks about staying away from all women and keeping a respectful distance because one never knows.

johneeG: I am sure you know the story of kacha and dEvayAni. I'm not sure whether that part of Manu smriti was written after, before or concurrently (i.e. soon after) that story has happened.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 21 Jun 2014 17:52

Brief take on pre-Upanishadic thought:
http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2011/ ... hidic-era/

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

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

Postby Agnimitra » 22 Jun 2014 01:44

UlanBatori wrote:I will also post one of my caveats:
The reason why I ask "What is in the Vedas" is so that I can define exactly what is "Sruti" and avoid infringing there.

I don't believe this has been posted here before, so here goes. This is Madhva's Karma Nirnaya - which talks about how the Veda is not just about karma-kanda but also jnana-kanda, i.e., it talks about the coordinates for giving meaning to Veda.

Madhva's Karma Nirnaya PDF (Sanskrit)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 22 Jun 2014 19:37

How about the math majors approach the Vedas as a cryptographic problem with zero-knowledge of the issues?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2014 20:25

ramana wrote:How about the math majors approach the Vedas as a cryptographic problem with zero-knowledge of the issues?

ramana - I have no in depth knowledge or insight but I think math is more a visual-cognitive art while the Vedas may be more like music - an auditory-cognitive art.

I am heading into unfamiliar territory here but I think the brain processes both math and music differently - with different parts of the brain getting woken up for each. Having said that I don't think there is any reason why people cannot learn or process math using auditory inputs alone - but i suspect that mathematics as taught to us trains us to use vision a lot more.

Mind you I am treading well outside of my normal field of knowledge. These are comments from a person who is a nobody in math, music, neurosciences and the Vedas. A quadruple zero.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 22 Jun 2014 20:48

Shiv, What I am suggesting is to approach the Vedas as a cryptographic problem and assume zero-knowledge to crack it open. BTW I agree its a code to stimulate the left and right brain which you allude to as math and music. It has to be chanted with correct uchharana to get the meaning.

an Israeli thinker once said"Its possible o build a cabin without foundations but not a lasting building" in another context. So the Vedas having stood the test of time are definitely with deep foundations or punnadi in Telugu.

And you self deprecate when you claim to be nobody in neuroscience!!!


I once attended a seminnar on Anesthesiology in SFO where a speaker was showing the various parts of brain that are active or inactive as the anesthesia is induced and NMB drugs injected.

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

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

Postby SriKumar » 22 Jun 2014 21:08

ramana wrote:How about the math majors approach the Vedas as a cryptographic problem with zero-knowledge of the issues?
Perhaps one could measure the entropy of the Vedas...a measure of how often a symbol is used. This researcher Rajesh Rao http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwYxHPXIaao (TED talk) attempts to use entropy to get a sense for the sophistication of the Indus Valley civilization script to determine if it was even a genuine script (computational analysis of scripts)..he found that the entropy (= how often a symbol was used? I did not view the entire TED talk) was comparable to other bona fide scripts. The Veda's script is obviously known but perhaps Veda's entropy might show a lower level of entropy than spoken Sanskrit used for mundane conversations; it might show an entropy comparable to those of known works of philosophy, or science in other languages e.g. English or German.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 22 Jun 2014 21:16

Johneeji, u mistake my intent. I refuse to get into the controversy on whether the ManuSmriti preceded the Bible or vice versa, I just say that it is irrelevant. Of course my Mongolian heritage says that the Biblical flood was merely civilized ppl flushing the toilet from the Roof Of The World. :roll: Or maybe, to put it in Purely Bharatiya Context, a billion Mongolians bissing at the walls of the Himalayas.

But I object to the ManuSmriti as getting into convoluted, fanciful tales of tiny fish begging a human King, to be spared, etc. These diss the holy Sruti about the MatysaAvatara, which IMO conveys the Inherent Wisdom about early Evolution. I am now convinced of the following logical sequence:

1. We have argued here that the knowledge in the Vedas is much more than what is apparent in the individual translated Rks.
2. We speculated on the role of precise oral/aural transmission.
The best conclusion that I could reach is that the ACT of transmission induces changes in the body and mind that are sub-conscious or even pisko-somatic, whatever that means. IOW, I say something in a precisely learned, disciplined, repetitive manner for an hour, it causes certain changes and certain understanding of many things, far outside the meaning the words or sounds that I have been uttering.
3. Item 2 immediately opens the way to knowledge transmission by other than human speech or actions.
4. Item 4 opens up the vast domain of how animals "know" some things. "Feel it in their bones"? Smell it? Ultrasonic vibrations through the Earth? Electromagnetic fields in the atmosphere? Or is it just Vedic knowledge transmission? A lot of what we attribute to being "in their genes" and wonder how a displaced arrangement of molecules makes one person a Paki and another a desi, may in fact be knowledge transmission of this type. Nonlinear System Response.

It's like the Charles Bronson movie: Telefon. The phone call comes:
Listen carefully, Abdul:
The woods are lovely dark and deep
But I have promises to keep, and miles to go b4 I sleep
And miles 2 go b4 I sleep.

Miles to go b4 u sleep, Abdul!
And Abdul promptly puts on his soosai vest and goes to inflate a power plant!

5. OK, so now I have satisfied myself that I have a model for knowledge transmission that goes waaaaaaay back, to the Origin of Species. The actual one.
6. This suddenly makes the Matsa Avatara mean something entirely different: it IS the knowledge that Life came out of the oceans. That we could all have taken a completely different turn, had the Rakshasas stolen the Vedas. The Devas are no longer of human form. We have a working model where there is noooooo merit to the idea that humans are somehow superior. Nothing at all that says:
And The Lawd Made Man In HIS Image
And promptly made him pay through his ribs for his Bibi Eve so he could make Cain and Abel


We are free of any such chains. We are free of Single-Point Origins of Humanity. We are free of the question: Why did He only tell ***** the Real Deal? (answer: He/She/It did no such thing!!) So you see why I reject the MatysaPurana as a much-later creation that tries to fit into the western savage notions where humans are somehow Made In His Form, and The Fish has to beg to be spared. Most of these Puranic tales insist on bringing in highly fanciful made-4-da-Fridin-night-story-telling-under-da-banyan-tree versions, with romances, intrigue, miracles and herrowism thrown in.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2014 21:23

As I see it Srikumar - talking about Veda and "script" is GIGO. The Vedas are designed from the outset for oral transmission from human to human and the entire Veda is lost by writing it down if no one recalls how it is to be chanted/recited.

There is no comparison between
Oṃ bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ
tát savitúr váreṇ(i)yaṃ
bhárgo devásya dhīmahi
dhíyo yó naḥ prachodáyāt


and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Y--KY#t=50
(Listen for about a minute)

The meter and the manner of chanting are intrinsic to the Veda and are absent from the transcription

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

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

Postby SriKumar » 22 Jun 2014 21:46

^^^ I think calling it GIGO is an extreme comment, and uncalled for in an open-ended discussion of this nature.

Vedas have a lot of components to them, of which music and oral transmission is one. Samaveda is (as far as I know) Rig Veda set to music. So, there is more to veda than just music.

You maintain that qualities x, y and z are intinsic the the vedas. Fine, no contest. I maintain that the vedas contain a,b,c and d in addition to the x,y, z you mention. If we are trying to understand the nature of a beast, de-construting it into parts is one way to understand it. I think this is what ramana was alluding to when he brought up 'zero-knowledge' and math-oriented analysis. We do this for many things we attempt to understand in our day-to-day work....engineering, medicine, coding. If the sound is intrinsic to the vedas, then the question could be asked: what is the nature of the vedas when a visual symbol is associated with the sound, and the transmission is based on the script- what is lost, and what remains. I think there is value to this question.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 22 Jun 2014 21:53

The meter and the manner of chanting are intrinsic to the Veda and are absent from the transcription

And it does make a huge difference to the power of the chanting! Thanks! I do wonder if the tune/metric of chanting is unique, or varies from region to region and Guru to Guru. The meter does seem to be identical to anything I have heard, but those may be from similar sources, to the one given here.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7489
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 22 Jun 2014 23:31

There are many meters and manners of chanting. I think there was a link in the previous page that describes the various ways of chanting and ganapad-a/igal(a person who can recite in that form) is one such. So each way of recitation is different and meant to preserve the actual content. Much like checksum?

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 23 Jun 2014 00:04


Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 23 Jun 2014 01:17

Ganapatha chant of the Gayatri Mantra

Cleanses your soul especially if you understand what is being said...

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 23 Jun 2014 02:14

ramana wrote:How about the math majors approach the Vedas as a cryptographic problem with zero-knowledge of the issues?


Ramana,

You may be asking a rhetorical question to probe the issue differently, I will let others take up that challenge.

Traditional ideas for the content of the Veda (Id1) (Mimansa for sure) - anaditva (timeless), apaurusheyatva (authorless) and svatahpramanya (necessary and self sufficient validation)... This said, we have the dictum of 'Na Vedam Veda' (no knowledge in the Veda - literally).

However, my take (yes it is uniquely different from several Indian, Japanese, European & American scholars) on Mimamsa, and is as follows (still work in progress):

  • The Rig Veda has three types of content - Myths, Dictums and Philosophy
  • Myths: Other than Dictums (which we ought to take at face value and is used extensively in the Smriti), the myths are about elementals (to use a english/greek equivalent) and therefore all attempts to establish a terminus post quem are a futile exercise at establishing one meaning and TPQ - time.
  • Philosophy: The Vedanta, Buddha thinkers etc. have taken on the philosophical debate and reached a very high level of sophistry that the West is only now beginning to imagine. Yet again here it is hard to establish TPQ with any of the data available. How can one date the Nasadiya Sukta for example...
  • Some have argued and used the flora and fauna - birds, bees, elephants, tigers, etc.. this approach may have some benefits, but again, we are unsure of what these entities represent, they could be elementals, or they could be code for something else.
  • The best argumentation against the Mimanskaras therefore has not even gotten off the ground - the wastern commentators have said that the traditional argumentation of (Id1) is preposterous or incredulous, etc. but that is no argumentation at all.
  • The epistemologically sound argumentation successfully handed the Buddhists their hats, and if expanded will do the same (intellectually) to other half priced books and their claimed authors. As the half priced books will always be bound by history and problems with transmission (losses ie) and structure of the language itself.
  • As Sankara, Madhava, Ramanuja and others showed, one cannot rest of ones laurels and a more activist approach is better in the long run.
  • Finally, I will say this to your taking up math to decipher any meaning - as I have shown above - the content of the Veda are not informationally encoded to decipher its secrets, they are based on intuitive processes that induce higher order thinking... at the end of the day it is a feeling... you get it if you have listened or recited the mantras...

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

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

Postby SriKumar » 23 Jun 2014 02:35

Pulikeshi wrote: [*] the content of the Veda ... they are based on intuitive processes that induce higher order thinking... at the end of the day it is a feeling... you get it if you have listened or recited the mantras...[/list]
Couple of questions: is there a physical manifestation to this feeling? For example. does a person think differently after the 'feeling' induced by the mantras. Does anything change in a person after a prolonged experience of the feeling.

Another question: does this feeling depend on the meanings of the words, or is it just the sounds/induced vibrations?

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 23 Jun 2014 03:03

SriKumar wrote:If the sound is intrinsic to the vedas, then the question could be asked: what is the nature of the vedas when a visual symbol is associated with the sound, and the transmission is based on the script- what is lost, and what remains. I think there is value to this question.


An extremist view could be that anything that is written is not the Veda at all, we can only accept what is recited as the real deal - this indeed is a valid traditional view on this subject, irrespective of your feelings about it.

A simple argument is as follows:

  • Mimansakas took the criticism of the half priced book people on the content of the Vedas (as myths) and turned it on their head - that is since the Vedas are eternal, author less and self-sufficient as evidence - the ignorance is only those of the half priced book folks who take the myths at face value.
  • In doing so, the Mimansakas created a epistemologically consistent position that the Vedas existed before creation and will remain after creation. Notice that in this position, the onus is on the others to disprove it. To disprove it - the other has to find an author(s) and they have been unable to do so since after the Buddha. Next the others could prove something was older than the Rig Veda and here again, since the tradition was oral, transmitted from teacher to student (it still is), there is no scientific way to do so and one does not know the future and therefore one cannot prove that the Vedas will cease to exist sometime in the future. Therefore, given that it is hard to disprove the author-lessness of the Vedas or their claim to eternality, the Mimamsakas will argue that the Artha (meaning) of a Sabda (word) is author-less and eternal - that is every word can and will behave as a necessary and sufficient condition for evidence. Therefore to a practitioner both the meaning and the sound are important...
  • The last part of the previous argument has several unexpected consequences - Common language, speech and sentence do not have the precision of the Vedas as they are uttered by humans (see what this argument does to prophets and prophecies), since they are in imprecise language and there is no error correction as built in mechanism to ordinary language, there is transmission loss from teacher to student and even worse when written into words in a book (see how this degrades the validity of claims of any people of ~ Ahl al-Kitāb). Even divinity of any book does not stand ground, as the nature of the divinity and the time and method of transmission could come into question. The Vedas are even above that as they are deemed non-divine - pre-creation and post-creation independent of the Gods.
  • My humble suggestion to folks is to understand this argumentation first. These arguments have still no challenge in any serious way from either the East or the West. For all we know this was epistemological fiction that Sabara, Kumarila Bhatta and other digajas created out of their cerebrum, but they remain unchallenged.

Finally, my hope is you can see what is lost if the Vedas are in print, and yes there is valid question to their acceptance. The best wastern scholars have to say is that, these arguments are preposterous and incredulous - but that is no argument at all. Especially in face of their utter failure to defend their own books against such argumentation.

Choose intuition, oh, argumentative Rational Fool? :mrgreen:
(with no apologies to Prof. Sen)

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 23 Jun 2014 03:07

SriKumar wrote:Another question: does this feeling depend on the meanings of the words, or is it just the sounds/induced vibrations?


My prior post already made it clear - there is clarity of injunction on this subject:

Yaksha (calls them dry fuel without a fire), Bodhayana (wooden elephant), Manu (makes it a sin), Apastamba (guilty of sin similar to drinking liquor), so chant the Veda and not understand or argue them at your own risk...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 23 Jun 2014 05:38

I mentioned neuroscience in all seriousness and despite ramana's kind words, neuroscience goes a lot deeper than my rather superficial handling. Nevertheless I don't think it has gone deep enough. Tradition is that the Vedas as chanted are the only way they can have an effect as designed on the human - not as written text. The whole business of "sounds" and "eternal sounds" and "sound of the Universe" are persistent themes associated with the Vedas - along with the insistence that the sound aum ("Om") is the closest humans can render/hear the sensation/sound of creation.

From the sort of education I have received all this comes across like a load of crap - but there is to much in there and too many people have taken this stuff seriously and found something in it for me to willy nilly dismiss it as crap. Any vestigial "scientist" in me tells me that things must not be dismissed as crap without investigation.

Neuroscience comes into play because there are a lot of unexplained and inexplicable things about the brain, communication and language - and what were the first sounds or sensations that were detected by living organisms that helped shape the evolution of brains. In very simple terms - what we call as "sounds" are processes that pre existed before brains evolved and brains evolved to use what seems to exist. For eyes we use only a small spectrum of visible light and are insensitive to frequencies above and below (or we think we are and don't know yet). For sound too there may be unknown issues. As another rudimentary example, I went through my education being taught that we could detect only 4 tastes. The Japanese discovered a fifth in the last couple of decades or so) and more recently there are reports of a sixth. There may be more. We don't know what we don't know. There may be other sensations that we don't know that we are affected by and to which we respond.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 23 Jun 2014 06:11

Modern science - or at least the way we are taught to handle it requires us to think in a particular way and not accept anything that falls outside science until it has been vetted and absorbed into science by passing it through a venturi/examination process where the information is subjected to testing via existing tools.

If we don't have the right tools, or we are unwilling to step out of boundaries drawn by our teachers in our education we risk missing information that lies outside "known science". Our senses (traditionally only five - I mentioned taste in the post above) are among my favourite tool to talk about what we believe and what we don't.

My education boxed me into thinking that electromagnetic waves are detected by eyes, while sound waves are detected by the ears. But look at this - when you walk past a fire with your eyes averted or closed, or even if you are in a car with closed windows and you drive past a hot fire (burning garbage in India) you feel it. You feel the heat. What are you feeling? You are essentially detecting electromagnetic waves - infra red. The exact mechanism that makes you detect them is not relevant - but it straightaway puts paid to the nonsense you have been taught that EM waves are detected by eyes onlee

Ever "feel" a Su-30 taking off in your chest? Like the bass from the car next to yours at a traffic intersection with both sets of windows shut and virtually no audible high pitched sounds? We can detect infrasound in ways that ears do not help. Why are animals reputed to panic before an earthquake? Magic? Or just an ability to pick up sensations that we do not detect or sometimes refuse to accept as detectable.

I think the question of the chanting of the Vedas, oral transmission, the sounds and the effect they have need to be approached from an angle that we are not taught to use in our education.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10545
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 23 Jun 2014 06:42

Shiv ji: Let me say something very cryptic.

0000

I will let it sit here so that people can interpret it whichever way. Would that match what I have in mind? What do I have in mind? Can you deduce whether I followed the thread? To Which post?
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 23 Jun 2014 06:52, edited 1 time in total.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10545
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 23 Jun 2014 06:50

Pulikeshi ji:

The translation I heard of the phrase 'Na Vedam Veda' is that there is no other knowledge other than vEdA, i.e. there is no vEdA other than vEdA under which interpretation vEdA is used as a synonym of (vEdic) knowledge. But then the caveat is I do not know samskrutam other than what I can understand by osmosis from telugu and hindi.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 23 Jun 2014 07:06

matrimc wrote:Shiv ji: Let me say something very cryptic.

0000

I will let it sit here so that people can interpret it whichever way. Would that match what I have in mind? What do I have in mind? Can you deduce whether I followed the thread? To Which post?

Since I may not have read every post it would be presumptuous of me to guess which post - but the closest post that I made which could match your query is
viewtopic.php?p=1677052#p1677052

In the manner of a Std 1 student reciting "a,b,c.." let me recite what I have been told without understanding. An 0000 state of mind is the prerequisite for going deeper into one's inner consciousness to discover all the things we have been taught to ignore. The chanting of "om" is said to help.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 Jun 2014 07:11

Pulikeshi, If I made atleast one person speak their innermost thoughts I have succeeded.

And looks like l have done that with you!!!

Shiv You are right modern science uses only the left half of the brain.
Hindu philosophy allows for intuition which actualizes the right brain.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 23 Jun 2014 07:17

UlanBatori wrote:
The meter and the manner of chanting are intrinsic to the Veda and are absent from the transcription

And it does make a huge difference to the power of the chanting! Thanks! I do wonder if the tune/metric of chanting is unique, or varies from region to region and Guru to Guru. The meter does seem to be identical to anything I have heard, but those may be from similar sources, to the one given here.

No genuine knowledge here. But I think the meter is exactly the same all over bar some differences in some stanzas. The "rate" - i.e speed/slowness of chanting can vary. But the sound frequency relationship (tonal relationship?) between syllables is maintained. The highs and lows for syllables occur consistently and maintain the same frequency ratio (as one would expect from music) no matter what the starting chord/shruti might be.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 23 Jun 2014 08:04

SriKumar wrote: If the sound is intrinsic to the vedas, then the question could be asked: what is the nature of the vedas when a visual symbol is associated with the sound, and the transmission is based on the script- what is lost, and what remains. I think there is value to this question.

I cannot demand that this should not be done.

I can only point out that is is the standard reductionist approach of modern science and this approach has worked in so many areas that it would be wrong to simply dismiss the approach as unnecessary.

My contention is that the utility/value of the Vedas as chanted is in the effect the whole, as heard (and as taught and learned) has on humans as opposed to the value of its parts measured by arbitrary reductionist processes that first transcribe an auditory-cognitive phenomenon into a visible script and then seek to analyse that script for value.

Someone (possibly Feynman or Dawkins?) described this sort of reductionist approach as smashing a wristwatch into small bits to try and figure out how it works. The Vedas have existed for long enough along with the information that they are to be taken "as-is" orally-verbally and they lose their value when written down. Commentaries and interpretations of the Vedas can be written down and examined for value. But doing that to the Vedas destroys their essence and invalidates the very "how-to-use" manual that came down to us with the Vedas.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10545
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 23 Jun 2014 08:07

Pulikeshi ji: When you say Yaksha, are you refering to Yāska (yaaska)?

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10545
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 23 Jun 2014 08:35

shiv wrote:
matrimc wrote:Shiv ji: Let me say something very cryptic.

0000
To Which post?


viewtopic.php?p=1677052#p1677052

In the manner of a Std 1 student reciting "a,b,c.." let me recite what I have been told without understanding. An 0000 state of mind is the prerequisite for going deeper into one's inner consciousness to discover all the things we have been taught to ignore. The chanting of "om" is said to help.


Nice interpretation but there are two other interpretations that are not as deep. I did not see that post of yours :) . With that in mind, how do the following interpretations fit?

0. I might be referring to the number four in unary notation wchich can be further interpreted as I am referring to four vEdAs which have arisen out of nothing - sUnya

1. or the more prosaic one where I am referring to your post which seems needlessly self-deprecating at first sight but not necessarily so if given a second thought in that you recognize the limits of your knowledge in certain areas. The post I am referring to is the one you said "quadruple zero". When you said that did you mean it as an indicator function. IOW, a statement that "I know nothing about these four (names as given by you) areas"? Then we do not have any information about your knowledge of all other areas in particular general and say surgery in particular.

Here is a recent anecdotal incident. A learned gentleman priest who used to teach at MIU and was also a priest at Livermore, CA was visiting me (as he is the guru of one my nephews). As he showed some interest in visiting the university in town, I said I will take him and show him the library. On the way, I told him about the huge collection we have in the Asian section, all the sanskrit books etc. including multi-volume Berkeley series which is a publication of all the Hindu scriptures. He had only one question for me - how do you know those are "all" the scriptures? Obviously I did not have an answer.

After a little bit of contemplation that night, several more questions came into my mind - what if the scriptures are all mixed up in its timeline? Saying differently, we do not have any idea about the causality in that who is writing a critique on whom and who is countering whom.

Everything is interlaced in some complex way which we cannot fathom in its entirety but only in bits and pieces.

Thanks for reading through. More later.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 23 Jun 2014 10:21, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 23 Jun 2014 09:01

matrimc my comment was more an admission of possible inadequacies in my knowledge of four disparate disciplines.

But your conversation with that priest is interesting. Of course the collection is unlikely to be "all" the scriptures. Furthermore the Vedas are not "scriptures" at all and cannot be contained in a dead book and exist as the Vedas only in the brains of those who are trained to recite them. However commentaries and discussions have been written and perhaps the Berkeley collection is "all that is known to have been written".

The word "scripture" essentially refers to "religious writings" and religion in most senses pertains to God. Let me draw your attention to one quote from Pulikeshi
The last part of the previous argument has several unexpected consequences - Common language, speech and sentence do not have the precision of the Vedas as they are uttered by humans (see what this argument does to prophets and prophecies), since they are in imprecise language and there is no error correction as built in mechanism to ordinary language, there is transmission loss from teacher to student and even worse when written into words in a book (see how this degrades the validity of claims of any people of ~ Ahl al-Kitāb). Even divinity of any book does not stand ground, as the nature of the divinity and the time and method of transmission could come into question. The Vedas are even above that as they are deemed non-divine - pre-creation and post-creation independent of the Gods.


Much of what are called Hindu scriptures are not religious scriptures because they do not necessarily pertain to God. But then we are heading off into the wild blue yonder because much discussion exists about the nature of God. It is always easiest and most pragmatic to give God two eyes, two arms, two legs and a mouth and then write down what came out of that mouth and present it as "The Book" and kill all discussion and dissent. But that was not how we did it in India

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 23 Jun 2014 09:13

matrimc wrote:Pulikeshi ji:

The translation I heard of the phrase 'Na Vedam Veda' is that there is no other knowledge other than vEdA, i.e.


Make up your own mind:

Summary: The Vedas enable one to know the Brahman. However, Brahman is beyond known, unknown, known unknown and unknown unknown. Therefore beyond words and even the mind. Therefore there is no veda in the Veda. That is...

Quote from Shivasvarodaya {see page 10 for example}
na vedam veda ity aahur vede vedo na vidyate,
paraatma vedyate yena sa vedo veda uchyate

- the vedas (scriptures) are not to be referred as Veda, for there is no Veda, Wisdom in vedas. Much of what passes as veda is not Veda at all – the eternal, immutable Wisdom, without beginning or any end, constant and deeply supra-sensory experience.

More formally -

sanatsujAtIyam-1
na vedAnAm veditA kaScidasti
vedena vedam na vidurna vedyam |
yo veda vedam sa ca veda vedyam
yo veda vedyam na sa veda satyam ||42

42.The vedas cannot know brahman, since brahman, being pure
consciousness, is not an object of knowledge. vedas are insentient and so
neither brahman nor the world can be known through them. He who
knows brahman knows the entire universe of objects, since, by knowing
brahman everything is known. But he who knows only the universe of
objects does not know brahman.

For completeness, and context:
sanatsujAtIyam-2

PS: Yāska of the Nirutka fame - you are correct.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10545
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 23 Jun 2014 10:27

Shiv ji pulikeshi ji: will be back tomorrow. Getting late where I am.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 23 Jun 2014 17:14

Not all knowledge is scientific. Let us say someone has the reputation of being a good cook. The quality of being a good cook was likely not developed scientifically. There were no double-blind experiments to see which of two variants of a recipe gave a better result, etc., etc.

Likewise the whole experience of life is not scientific.

Science gives us a certain kind of knowledge that has some properties, like repeatable, publicly verifiable.

A creative artist, however, might hit a pinnacle of performance, that he/she is never able to repeat again.

The whole quest for moksha is, I think, the search to make permanent an experience of transcendence which one has had momentarily.

History is another kind of knowledge which is not scientific. The Abrahamic religions use history as one of their main means of validation/knowing.

The Vedas are not science and are not history, in my opinion. The closest metaphor to my mind, is "knowledge of the performing arts" (by which I do not mean art history but the actually ability to perform the art). Just as musicologists play a role in music, but far from central to music - the performer is infinitely more important - without the performers there is no musicology; likewise the theorist about the Vedas has a role, but limited; the active practicer is central. It is a crude metaphor, and not to be carried too far.

The academic study of the Vedas is necessary, in part to keep at bay Muellers and Witzels. But performance is much more important.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 23 Jun 2014 18:08

All this poses severe problems in conveying what is "Injun" or "yindoo".

First this:
"all" the scriptures.
The trouble is that the "scriptures" as others point out, include every bit of praise to the (fill in the blanks) that ANYONE has ever written. So if I write a MatrimC-Ashtakam, that becomes part of the Scriptures since matrimc has written in praise of others who have written in praise of others who all ultimate are part of the same ParamAtman. Thus the set "scriptures" is unbounded and continually expanding, and hence it is impossible for anyone to collect "ALL" the scriptures. The very act of collecting would be considered an act of devotion that must be added to the scriptures.

IOW, "Hindu scriptures" are not some "Dead *** Scrolls" or dead anything. They are very much alive. There is no break in the continuum, as in "everything pre-700AD counts as Scripture". Some of the Bhavishya Purana are (IMO) clearly added circa the 1800s. If you were to write an utterly superb rendering of the Ramayana that goes viral on YouTube and FaceBook and Amazon.com, that should be considered to be better than Valmiki's "original". Why not? We can't find the actual actual original of Valmiki, and have to take someone else's word for it that what we read is "original", so why not write our own?

The sole exception to all this appears to be the Vedas, which are dictated (by some unknown entity) to be passed on exactly without any modification. It is possible that n such renderings were passed down to provide multiple "checksums" as someone observed.

But when it comes right down to it, I am forced to conclude that what we call the Vedas are, per today's best understanding of science (which of course I deem to be primitive in understanding even a fraction of what there is to be understood/explained):

Vedas == Integral (-infinity to today) of (Genetic Knowledge + knowledge in inorganic substances + knowledge in extra-terrestrial, extra-galactic fields/matter/energy)


As applied to humans, it is reduced to Genetic knowledge since the rest is inaccessible/lost.

But that is a steep learning curve to explain to a skeptical 10-year-old.

As for the whole "Into India vs Out of India" bissing contest, the only right answer I see is:

The knowledge was everywhere. It was best preserved in codified form as a result of human thought, in India.


Simply because in other places, it was totally destroyed by the Pakis aka Rakshasas.

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

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

Postby member_22872 » 23 Jun 2014 20:58

A seal from Afghanistan showing a central Asian Iranic ruler worshiping viShNu ~300-400s of CE
https://twitter.com/blog_supplement/sta ... 32/photo/1

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 Jun 2014 21:03

matrimc,
Srinivasachari?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests