Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[peter]

+ 1.

Its interesting piskology when the worst humiliations and mistakes are rationalized in hindsight as chankian in order to defend Yudhishthira's honour -- the man who unilaterally gambled away Draupadi's honour.

Well. Is that the main point? What about Kali's Khappar bharna? In other words the war had to happen. That many heads had to roll. And karmically "reasons" had to align.

[Agnimitra]

Well peter ji, war "had to happen" doesn't make gambling away one's wife and watching her being disrobed an enlightened "chankian" move. It was delusion. Sometimes even the enlightened can be overcome by delusion, like clouds cover the sun.

That there may be a higher orchestration is a different matter.

स एष प्रकृतिं सूक्ष्मम्
दैवीं गुणमयीं विभुः ।
सदृच्छयैवोपगताम्
अभ्यपद्यत लीलया ॥

"In His lila, that Supreme Personality of Godhead, the greatest of the great, accepted the subtle material energy by his own will, which is invested with three material modes of nature (sattva, rajas, tamas)." - Shrimad Bhagavatam 3.26.4

But its not "chankian" on Dharmaraj's part IMHO.

[ramana]

I used to wonder about Dasaraj insisting that the progeny of Satyavati should be the rulers after Shantanu. It appeared too high an ambition for a fisherfolk leader to demand his daughter's children should be kings.

I recently found that Satyvati is not his natural daughter but the abandoned child of King Uparichara and an apsara who lived like a fishergirl. Most likely she was a fishergirl from his community. But was the daughter of a King.

Most likely Dasaraj wanted to ensure that Satyavati got her due, royal status as queen-mother, unlike if she was a queen married to an old king who might die and leave her destitute and without status.
He really was fighting to get the recognition she deserved but for her abandonment.

So we can ken his point of view.

[peter]

Well peter ji, war "had to happen" doesn't make gambling away one's wife and watching her being disrobed an enlightened "chankian" move. It was delusion. Sometimes even the enlightened can be overcome by delusion, like clouds cover the sun.

That there may be a higher orchestration is a different matter.

स एष प्रकृतिं सूक्ष्मम्
दैवीं गुणमयीं विभुः ।
सदृच्छयैवोपगताम्
अभ्यपद्यत लीलया ॥

"In His lila, that Supreme Personality of Godhead, the greatest of the great, accepted the subtle material energy by his own will, which is invested with three material modes of nature (sattva, rajas, tamas)." - Shrimad Bhagavatam 3.26.4

But its not "chankian" on Dharmaraj's part IMHO.

But if God had to show the "debasedness" of Kaliyuga what better way to do it then create repulsion at the action committed by supposedly good human beings?

[vishvak]

But if God had to show the "debasedness" of Kaliyuga what better way to do it then create repulsion at the action committed by supposedly good human beings?

It is obviously easy to blame God for anything, especially when one does not believe in God. It is even easier to ignore villains so then one gets no one to blame in particular completely and then a blame game can be started.

[johneeG]

I have a doubt about Sri Rama's ancestors. I hope someone can clear it.

According to Valmiki Ramayana, Sri Rama's ancestors are:

Brahman>Brahma>Maricha>Kashyapa>Vivasvat>Vaivasvata Manu > Ikshvaaku > Kukshi > Vikukshi > Baana > Anaranya > Pruthu > Trishanku > Dhundumaara > Yuvanaashva > Mandhaata > Susandhi > Dhruvasandhi(& brother Prasenajit) > Bharata > Asita(Lost to Haihayas, Talajanghas & Sasavindhas) > Sagara(Regained Ayodhya) > Asamanja(Exiled) > Amshuman > Diliipa > Bhageeratha > Kakutstha > Raghu > Pravriddha(alias Kalmashapada) > Shankana > Sudarshana > Agnivarsna > Shiigraga > Maru > Prashushruka > Ambariisha > Nahusha > Yayaati > Naabhaaga > Aja > Dasharatha > Sri Rama>Lava & Kusha>

Link


But, according to Kalidasa's Raghuvamsha:

Diliipa > Raghu > Aja > Dasharatha > Sri Rama>Lava & Kusha>

Link

So, why is Kalidasa following a different order from Valmiki Ramayana? or is their some mistake in reading one of them?

[Atri]

Genealogies are often mixed. Valmiki ramayana is more trustworthy. Raghuvansha is not Itihaasa. In fact, many people believe that raghuvansha is in fact chronicle of Chandragupta-2 Vikramaditya's conquests.

[RamaY]

Genealogies are often mixed. Valmiki ramayana is more trustworthy. Raghuvansha is not Itihaasa. In fact, many people believe that raghuvansha is in fact chronicle of Chandragupta-2 Vikramaditya's conquests.

In a foreward to Sri Kappagantula Laxmana Sastry's verbatim translation of Vyasa Bharata, the author says that Raghuvamsa was written to clarify Ramayana/Bharatas from Jainist and Buddhist ba$tardizations of these texts.

I personally would hold Valmiki Ramayana as a better source because we do not know what conspired between the periods of Valmiki and Kalidasa.

The one I have is (IIRC from Valmiki Ramayana - dont remember if it is a pravachanam or book)

Manu > Ikshvaaku > Kukshi > Vikukshi > Baana > Anaranya > Pruthu > Trishanku > Dhundumaara > Yuvanaashva > Mandhaata > Susandhi > Dhruvasandhi > Prasenajit > Bharata > Asita > Sagara > Asamanja > Amshuman > Diliipa > Bhageeratha > Kakutstha > Raghu > Pravriddha > Shankana > Sudarshana > Agnivarsna > Shiigraga > Maru > Prashushruka > Ambariisha > Nahusha > Yayaati > Naabhaaga > Aja > Dasharatha > Rama

hmm it is same as the one posted above.

[ramana]

After Pravriddha or Kalamashapada (who suffered from a Pandu like curse) its Raghuvamsham only in name.

-------------

I get this feeling that Buddhists were the first to occupy Hindu teerthasthalas and the Muslims followed.

[RamaY]

If Ambarisha is the one who is contemporary of Durvasa, he is a well known king too.

One issue is there is a Yayati son of Nahusha in both Rama as well as Dharmaraja lineages. We do not know if they are same.

Rama < Dasharatha < Aja < Naabhaaga < Yayaati < Nahusha < Ambariisha < Prashushruka < Maru < Shiigraga < Agnivarsna < Sudarshana < Shankana < Pravriddha

Krishna = Dharmaraja < Pandu < Vichitraveerya < Santana < Pratipa < Dhrutarashtra < Janamejaya < Aswavanta < Kuru < Samvarana < Rukshaka < Ajamidha < Suhota < Bhumanyu < Bharata < Dushyamta < Eelina < Tamsu < Matinaru < Anwadbhanu < Raudraswa < Pooru < Yayati < Nahusha < Ayus < Pururava < Budha < Chandra

Rama is the 4th generation from Yayati, where as Dharmaraja (contemporary of Krishna) is 22nd generation.

Smt Satya Sarada Kandula of Ancient Indians writes on generations between Rama and Krishna and proposes there are hardly 3 generation gap between SriRama and SriKrishna.

Again shows that Raghuvamsa could be accurate.

[RamaY]

I get this feeling that Buddhists were the first to occupy Hindu teerthasthalas and the Muslims followed.

More research is required to understand the impact of Charvaka schools on Bharatiya socio-political scenario before islamic invasions. My gut feel is that the internal rot allowed the external invasions culminating the complete colonization of Bharat.

If we see from one angle, 1947 is end of Kaliyuga (as far as Bharat is considered) and is in the cusp of Kali-Treta. The cusp is generally 70+ years? (Bji and others any ideas?)

[johneeG]

Genealogies are often mixed. Valmiki ramayana is more trustworthy. Raghuvansha is not Itihaasa. In fact, many people believe that raghuvansha is in fact chronicle of Chandragupta-2 Vikramaditya's conquests.

In a foreward to Sri Kappagantula Laxmana Sastry's verbatim translation of Vyasa Bharata, the author says that Raghuvamsa was written to clarify Ramayana/Bharatas from Jainist and Buddhist ba$tardizations of these texts.

I personally would hold Valmiki Ramayana as a better source because we do not know what conspired between the periods of Valmiki and Kalidasa.

The one I have is (IIRC from Valmiki Ramayana - dont remember if it is a pravachanam or book)

Manu > Ikshvaaku > Kukshi > Vikukshi > Baana > Anaranya > Pruthu > Trishanku > Dhundumaara > Yuvanaashva > Mandhaata > Susandhi > Dhruvasandhi > Prasenajit > Bharata > Asita > Sagara > Asamanja > Amshuman > Diliipa > Bhageeratha > Kakutstha > Raghu > Pravriddha > Shankana > Sudarshana > Agnivarsna > Shiigraga > Maru > Prashushruka > Ambariisha > Nahusha > Yayaati > Naabhaaga > Aja > Dasharatha > Rama

hmm it is same as the one posted above.

Saar,
I actually used the one you posted earlier with some changes. There is a mistake in what you posted. Prasenajith and Dhruvasandhi are brothers. Bharata is the son of Dhruvasandhi. It is from Valmiki Ramayana.

But, according to Kalidasa's Raghuvamsham,
Aja is the son of Raghu. Raghu is the son of Dilipa.

I understand that Valmiki is authoritative but can't understand why Kalidasa would make such big changes. Is the above reading of Valmiki correct or is there some mistake?

I would like to know how this is explained by the orthodox view.

After Pravriddha or Kalamashapada (who suffered from a Pandu like curse) its Raghuvamsham only in name.

-------------

I get this feeling that Buddhists were the first to occupy Hindu teerthasthalas and the Muslims followed.

and not just in India...

So, what is Angkor Wat and who built it?

Angkor Wat was built by Suryavarman the 2nd from 1113 to 1150. Suryavarman the 2nd identified himself with Vishnu -– the supreme god in Hinduism. That's why there are carvings in Angkor Wat related to the mythology of Vishnu.

When Suryavarman the 2nd died, the temple became his mausoleum.

In the 13th century, the Khmer empire was occupied by the first large Thai state -– Sukhotai. Sukhotai had occupied much of western and northern territories of the Khmer empire. That meant that Angkor Wat was transformed from a Vishnuite sanctuary into a Buddhist wat.

In 1430 a Thai king conquered Angkor in seven months. Their power influenced the art of Angkor of the following centuries. Statues of Buddha is one of the clear signs.

Link

It seems to me that the Buddhists were the first to exhibit the qualities shown by X-nity & Islam. I mean, X-nity and Islam have a history of occupying religious sites of other religions and taking them over. Similarly, icons, legends, and culture of the others is highjacked by these religions into their narrative. This process is particularly brazen in the initial periods when they are ready to highjack anything and everything. In Islam, this process has freezed to an extent. But, it is still present in X-nity. Buddhism seems to be the originator of this tactic.

Many times people portray Hinduism as Boa constrictor. For example,

“Max Arthur Macauliffe, a highly placed British administrator (…) told the Sikhs that Hinduism was like a ‘boa constrictor of the Indian forest’ which ‘winds its opponent and finally causes it to disappear in its capacious interior’. The Sikhs ‘may go that way’, he warned. He was pained to see that the Sikhs regarded themselves as Hindus which was ‘in direct opposition to the teachings of the Gurus’. (…) The influence of scholarship is silent, subtle and long-range. Macauliffe and others provided categories which became the thought-equipment of subsequent Sikh intellectuals.”24

The “boa constrictor” account is repeated by Khushwant Singh, who is very attached to “Sikh separate identity which we are trying to, and perhaps will go on trying to maintain”.25

He is worried by Hindu open-mindedness: “Hinduism has this enormous capacity of taking everything in its embrace: you can be an idol worshipper, you can be an idol breaker; you can believe in one god, you can believe in a thousand gods; you can have a caste system, you can deny the caste system; you can be an agnostic, atheist, or whatever else you like, and remain a Hindu. What can you do about it? It is this power of absorption of Hinduism, that it is even willing to recognize Prophet Mohammed as an Avatar of Vishnu, that poses the real challenge to other religions.”26 The statement contains exaggerations (idol breaker, Mohammed as avatar?!)27 , but we get the message: Hinduism’s accommodation of different spiritual approaches is a problem for separatists.

This is yet another instance of how Hindus are “damned if they do, damned if they don’t”: had they been intolerant, this would of course be held against them, but even when they are found to be tolerant and accommodating, it is still interpreted as an evil design. When Hinduism integrates new elements, it is not proof of broad-mindedness, but of a strategy of swallowing the minorities.”

Link

It seems to me that instead of trying to integrate, Hinduism has always tried to preserve its ancient religion from corruption from newer ideologies that have sprung forth. Rich collection of culture, languages, attires, icons, legends, ...etc provided by Hinduism are used as their vehicles by these newer ideologies. They never shied away from using parts of Hinduism to promote themselves. Most ideologies, whether born outside Hinduism or within it, have found that their chances of success increase if they highjack hinduism rather than try to eliminate it. Buddhism seems to be the first one to use this phenomenon to great success. Hinduism and Hindus have been struggling to keep Hinduism safe from such corruptions throughout ages. The corruption occurs both as an action and reaction. For example, if X-ian missionaries are action, Arya Samaj is reaction. Reaction is necessary and useful to protect Hinduism but it does corrupt. But, the reaction itself if left untreated becomes a problem. It is like a doctor performs an operation and then has to take care that the operation itself does not cause any infections.

PS: Atri ji, Thanks for reply.
PPS: I was trying to make a genealogical tree based on Puranas and Ithihaasas. I did it to an extent. But, the whole thing is quite complex...yet makes many things more understandable. I created it in a family-tree-builder software(GenoPro 2), but don't know how to post it or make a copy of it.

[johneeG]

If Ambarisha is the one who is contemporary of Durvasa, he is a well known king too.

One issue is there is a Yayati son of Nahusha in both Rama as well as Dharmaraja lineages. We do not know if they are same.

Rama < Dasharatha < Aja < Naabhaaga < Yayaati < Nahusha < Ambariisha < Prashushruka < Maru < Shiigraga < Agnivarsna < Sudarshana < Shankana < Pravriddha

Krishna = Dharmaraja < Pandu < Vichitraveerya < Santana < Pratipa < Dhrutarashtra < Janamejaya < Aswavanta < Kuru < Samvarana < Rukshaka < Ajamidha < Suhota < Bhumanyu < Bharata < Dushyamta < Eelina < Tamsu < Matinaru < Anwadbhanu < Raudraswa < Pooru < Yayati < Nahusha < Ayus < Pururava < Budha < Chandra

Rama is the 4th generation from Yayati, where as Dharmaraja (contemporary of Krishna) is 22nd generation.

Smt Satya Sarada Kandula of Ancient Indians writes on generations between Rama and Krishna and proposes there are hardly 3 generation gap between SriRama and SriKrishna.

Again shows that Raghuvamsa could be accurate.

They are different people with same names. The famous Yayati, Nahusha, and Bharata(son of Dushyanta ansd Shakuntala) belong to Chandra Vamsha(Krishna and Pandavas). The famous Ambarisha, and Maandhata belong to Surya Vamsha(Ikshvaku and Rama). The connecting link between the two lineages is Ila(son/daughter of Vaivasvata Manu and sibling of Ikshvaku). Ila married Buddha(Son of Chandra-son of Atri) and their descendents were Chandra Vamsha.

So, Ikshvaku and Ila were sibling. Both were children of Vaivasvata Manu. From, Ikshvaku, Surya Vamsham came. And from Ila, Chandra Vamsham came.

I had a doubt: Why is Harishchandra(and his son Lohitha) not mentioned in Rama's lineage?

So, I googled and came across this:

The most prominent son of Māndhātā was Ambarīṣa, his son was Yauvanāśva, and Yauvanāśva's son was Hārīta. These three personalities were the best in the dynasty of Māndhātā. Purukutsa, another son of Māndhātā, married the sister of the snakes (sarpa-gaṇa) named Narmadā. The son of Purukutsa was Trasaddasyu, whose son was Anaraṇya. Anaraṇya's son was Haryaśva, Haryaśva's son was Prāruṇa, Prāruṇa's son was Tribandhana, and Tribandhana's son was Satyavrata, also known as Triśańku. When Triśańku kidnapped the daughter of a brāhmaṇa, his father cursed him for this sinful act, and Triśańku became a caṇḍāla, worse than a śūdra. Later, by the influence of Viśvāmitra, he was brought to the heavenly planets, but by the influence of the demigods he fell back downward. He was stopped in his fall, however, by the influence of Viśvāmitra. The son of Triśańku was Hariścandra.

According to the above:
Māndhātā > Ambarīṣa > Yauvanāśva > Hārīta;
Māndhātā > Purukutsa -Narmadā > Trasaddasyu > Anaraṇya > Haryaśva > Prāruṇa > Tribandhana > Satyavrata (alias Triśańku) > Hariścandra > Lohitha(or Rohitha);

But thats a huge problem because, according to Valmiki Ramayana, Mandhata is the descensdent of Trishanku while this one claims that Trishanku is the descendent of Mandhata(supposedly according to Bhagavatam).

[RamaY]

I think people should read this and contemplate. Posting it in full so we can cross-reference.

Smt Satya Sarada Kandula of Ancient Indians writes on generations between Rama and Krishna and proposes there are hardly 3 generation gap between SriRama and SriKrishna.

Brahmarshi Vasishtha lived from the time of Satyavrata Manu, to the time of Sri Rama. In “How long did Ancient Indians live?” we worked out that it was reasonable to suppose that the long lived people of ancient India lived for about 120 years. It is possible, that they lived longer, but it is not necessary to assume it, if you look at the brahman lineages instead of the kingly lineages.

We know that Vasishtha’s son Sakthi, had a son called Parasara and that Parasara had a son called Veda Vyasa. So we know that Vasishtha was the great grandfather of Vyasa.

Veda Vyasa was the great grandson of Vasishtha and Sri Rama was Vasistha’s very young student.

Sri Krishna was the cousin of the Pandavas, younger than Yudhisthira and Bhima, but older than the Arjuna. So Sri Krishna was of the age of Vyasa’s grandsons.

Sri Krishna was named by Garga, the son of Bharadwaja, who was quoted by Parasara in the 21st chapter of the Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra. So Garga was at least of Sri Krishna’s great grandfather’s generation if not older.

Viswamitra was Sri Rama’s teacher and taught him all about the weapons of the Devas. Viswamitra’s sister, Satyavati, was the grandmother of Parasurama. So Viswamitra was the grand-uncle of Parasurama.

Viswamitra and Vasishtha were contemporaries, they lived at the same time and fought each other and became friends. Of the two, Viswamitra is younger. When Parasurama fought a lot of kings, he spared Dasaratha, the father of Sri Rama. So Parasurama was one generation earlier to Sri Rama. At Sri Rama’s wedding, Parasurama challenged him to hold the Vishnu Chapam – the bow of Sri Vishnu. Parasurama killed Karthavirya Arjuna, who had previously defeated the mighty Ravana.

Parasurama’s student was Agnivesha and Agnivesha’s student was Drona. Parasurama gave his axe to Drona. Drona was the teacher of Vyasa’s grandchildren, the Kauravas and the Pandavas. Drona’s father was the sage Bharadwaja, and Bharadawaja was the student of Valmiki. Drona’s son Ashwathhama was a friend of the Kauravas. Drona was like an uncle’s age to the Pandavas, Kauravas and Sri Krishna and Bharadwaja was of a grandfather’s age to them, like Vyasa. Though Bharadwaja was Valmiki’s disciple, he may have been older than Valmiki. Bharadwaja’s daughter was Visravas’s wife, the mother of Kubera, the elder half-brother of Ravana, so she must have been much older to Dronacharya. Drona was born late to Bharadwaja.

Valmiki was a friend of Sri Rama. He not only wrote the Ramayanam, but he also looked after Rama’s wife Sita and raised Rama’s children. The Uttarakanda of the Valmiki ramayana also tells us that Valmiki was a friend of Dasaratha.

So far, we have worked out that Vyasa, Sri Rama and Valmiki were of the same generation, which makes Sri Rama of the grandfather generation of Sri Krishna. We also know that Vyasa was senior to Sri Rama.

Bhishma’s father Santanu, married Vyasa’s mother Satyavati after both of them were born. Vyasa’s parents were Parasara and Satyavati., and Bhishma’s parents were Santanu and Ganga Devi. So Bhishma was a brother to Vyasa and of the same generation as Sri Rama.

Ravana’s grandfather Pulastya, explained the story of creation to Bhishma at Gangadwar. (Padma Puranam). Since Sri Rama and Ravana were of the same generation, and as Bhishma was of the same generation as Sri Rama, Pulastya was of a grandfather’s generation to Bhishma!

Bhishma fought the older Parasurama, over Amba’s marriage issue.

Sahadeva, the youngest Pandava, went on a victorious campaign of the South after Yudhisthira’s campaign. When he came up to Rameswaram, he sent a respectful message to Vibhishana of Sri Lanka, asking about his welfare and paying his respects.

Vibhishana, Ravana’s brother was Sri Rama’s generation and of a grandfather generation to Sahadeva and the Pandavas.

Dhaumya who was the priest of the Pandavas, visited Sri Rama at the time of his coronation. (Uttarakanda, Valmiki Ramayana)
Many Rig Vedic Rishis, the authors of the Rig Veda, were Sri Rama’s elders. They were Vasishtha, Viswamitra, Kanva (who raised Viswamitra’s daughter), Agastya (who gave Sri Rama, weapons from Indra and directed him southward), Atri (whose wife Anasuya, gave Sita ornaments and advice), Bhardwaja (grandfather of Ravana’s half brother and Valmiki’s disciple), Kasyapa, (Indra’s father), Bhrigu (Parasurama’s great grandfather (Parasurama-Jamadagni-Richika-Bhrgu)), and Gauthama (Sri Rama redeemed his wife Ahalya).

Durvasa was the son of Atri and Anasuya. He predicted Sri Rama’s separation from Sita. (Uttarakanda). He gave Kunthi the mantra for invoking the Devas to beget sons. He visited the Pandavas when they were in exile. (Mahabharata). He pronounced a curse on Sakuntala, the daughter of Viswamitra. (Abhignyana Sakuntalam).

Vaivaswatha Manu (Satyavrata Manu) was a contemporary of Vasishtha (Matsya Avatara). His son Saryati was of Sakthi’s generation, grandson, Anarta was of Parasara’s generation, great-grandson Revata was of Vyasa’s generation. Revata’s son, Raivata Kakudmin was of Pandu’s generation. Raivata’s son-in-law Balarama and Pandu’s sons, the Pandavas were of the same generation and very close together in age as well.

Jambavantha fought alongside Indra, when young, fought in Sri Rama’s army when he was old enough to feel his age, and had a wrestling match with Sri Krishna and gave his daugther, Jambavathi, in marriage to Sri Krishna. He was of a grandfather’s generation to Sri Krishna.

Janamejaya, the greatgrandson of Yudhisthira, and great grand nephew of Sri Krishna was enthroned in Kishkinda. Mainda and Dwivida, Vanara heroes who fought alongside, Sri Rama, were killed by Balarama when they attacked Dwaraka. (Sri Rama had left Kishkinda with the Vanaras, Sugriva and Angada, but the Yadus/Purus took control of it).

The Upanishadic period overlapped with the Vedic period and extended slightly beyond it. Sri Krishna gave us the Bhagavad Gita which is said to be the essence of all the Upanishads. The Katha Upanishad itself is a conversation between Gauthama’s great grand son Nachiketas and Mrtyu (the god of death). Naachiketas was of Drona’s generation, one generation before Sri Krishna.

Maya Danava composed the Surya Siddhantam towards the end of Krta Yuga. He gave his adopted daughter Mandodari in marriage to Ravana. He built the Maya Sabha for the pandavas in IndraPrastha in the Dwapara Yuga.

Balarama, the brother of Sri Krishna, visited Raja Janaka, Sita Devi’s father, at Mithila. It was there that he trained Duryodhana in Gada Yuddha (battle with the maces).

Adding to this, my other notes...

Lineage -------------- Avatara
Kasyapa Prajapati
Hiranyakashapa >>>> Narasimha
Prahrada
Virochana
Bali >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vamana
Bana
Usha >>>>>>>>>>>> Married Sri Krishna's grand-son, so Sri Krishna should belong to the generation of Bali/Virochana?

I am going to make a mind map for all this... The lineage maps are not halpful at this point....

[ramana]

JohneeG, That brings me to why Vyasa is the preserver not only of the Vedas but Sanathana Dharma.

Firstly he unravelled the complex Veda and made it accessible to people by classifying into its four parts.
Then he wrote the Puranas to explain the events in the Vedas. He wrote all the sahasranamas to the dieties except the Lalitha sahasranamam (spoken by Hyagriva avatar to Agastya in Kanchi area). After that he wrote the Mahabharata to contain the essence of the Vedas and the Puranas.

In the Puranas he recounts the many instances of how Sanathana Dharama was buried by ausric forces and yet revived again and again. Some of them had EJ/Secular ideas to wipe out the SD.
For instance the Hyagriva avatar tells us that sometimes one has to become like the other to vanquish them. That reminds me of Kumarilla Bhatta who learnt Buddhism to counter it. Many others like that.

The key is the common knowledge of the Puranas. Before the secular onslaught purana kalaapshempam(hearing Purana recital) was the common networking/entertainment of the people.

After the Vedas, Mahabharatam, its the Devi Bhagavatam that is his magnum opus which he recited by himself and not thru anyone else. This is what makes the Sanathana Dharama eternal and grounded in reality of human existence.

[johneeG]

Adding to this, my other notes...

Lineage -------------- Avatara
Kasyapa Prajapati
Hiranyakashapa >>>> Narasimha
Prahrada
Virochana
Bali >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vamana
Bana
Usha >>>>>>>>>>>> Married Sri Krishna's grand-son, so Sri Krishna should belong to the generation of Bali/Virochana?

I am going to make a mind map for all this... The lineage maps are not halpful at this point....

Saar,
a) I think Satya Sharada Kandula's arguments and assumptions do not fit the data of Puranas and Ithihaasas unless one is ready to discard much of the scriptures as fiction. Vashishta/Vyasa are considered to have lived long across several generations of normal human beings. In fact, they are still supposed to exist, according to scriptures.

b) Your assumption that if two people marry, then their parents must be of same generation also does not fit the data of Puranas and Ithihaasas unless one is ready to discard much of the scriptures as fiction.

PS: Which mindmap software is good?

[RajeshA]

When talking about the scriptures, I think one should consider that Vashishta and Vishwamitra were founders of Guru Paramparas and Gotric Lines, and their followers may have adopted these names as titles for the leader of the group.

So when one sees these rishis being mentioned, one should consider that they may not really refer to the same individual.

[RamaY]

JohneeG garu,

I too do not 100% agree with Ssk. We have a lot to decipher, for example the extremely long rules of Dasaratha (~65k years etc) and Rama (11000 yrs). I think they indicate the length of the lineage till a new king good enough to name his lineage.

I could see the same in gotra also. For example my seers are Viswamitra, Aghamarshana and Kausika. That doesn't mean these are three grandfather-father-son combo.

All it shows is how people can interpret things. It just adds to our notes for research.

[ramana]

One takleef I am having with the urge to date the Vedas, Mahabharata et al is it fits into the linear pattern of history which is an Abrahamic meme.

How can one fit a timeline on yugas and other Brahmandas? and kala chakra?

You believe or you dont.

[RamaY]

Ramanaji

It could be our inner urge to outdo the westerns in their linear history and prove them wrong using their own tools/methods.

I would care less if Rama and Krishna were people in 1008BC and 786BC because, I value the philosophical and spiritual validity of Sanatana Dharma and found Vedas to be my cosmic reflection. If I am individual, my universal consciousness is Param and the knowledge that connects both of us is Veda.

Since I believe that any pursuit of knowledge (irrespective of the subject matter) is a moksha sadhana, it doesn't bother me to see I/others pursuing that.

[RajeshA]

ramana garu,

but within one cycle, time is also linear. No? And since cycles occur one after another, so their order is also linear. No?

[peter]

But if God had to show the "debasedness" of Kaliyuga what better way to do it then create repulsion at the action committed by supposedly good human beings?

It is obviously easy to blame God for anything, especially when one does not believe in God. It is even easier to ignore villains so then one gets no one to blame in particular completely and then a blame game can be started.

Sorry did not understand your point. Please elaborate.

[peter]

When talking about the scriptures, I think one should consider that Vashishta and Vishwamitra were founders of Guru Paramparas and Gotric Lines, and their followers may have adopted these names as titles for the leader of the group.

So when one sees these rishis being mentioned, one should consider that they may not really refer to the same individual.

What is your understanding of Gotra? Is'nt it just a cow pen? So a rishi ashram which had an associated cow pen gave its name to all students who came to study there. Students may not necessarily be related to each other.

[johneeG]

When talking about the scriptures, I think one should consider that Vashishta and Vishwamitra were founders of Guru Paramparas and Gotric Lines, and their followers may have adopted these names as titles for the leader of the group.

So when one sees these rishis being mentioned, one should consider that they may not really refer to the same individual.

What is your understanding of Gotra? Is'nt it just a cow pen? So a rishi ashram which had an associated cow pen gave its name to all students who came to study there. Students may not necessarily be related to each other.

All the disciples of a particular rishi form a Kula. That rishi would be called Kulapati. Ramayana Link
I heard that a 'Kula' is a group of approx. 1000 disciples.

'Go' has many more meanings apart from 'cow' and the word 'Gotra' has several more meanings other than cow-pen. When, 'Gotra' is used in relation with humans, it is understood to means clans based on descenders, AFAIK.

[ramana]

Bji, I would like to know if there is on-line collection/repository of all the Indus Valley/Sarawati Valley seals in one place? If its not there I would like to have a group of volunteers collect them in one thread to later have them displayed in some on line repository.


All I am aware of is the famous image of the figure with deer horns sitting in a yogic pose.


I have a few books on IVC in different languages which I cant read but images are there.

[brihaspati]

THere are a few more than that seal. But a complete lst is not online - as far as I know. Will check up on this and post.

[ramana]

And lets start a thread to get the imagery in one place for I have reason which I think you will be able to cast some light on.

Google Images cache of IVC seals

[suryag]

http://www.imsc.res.in/~sitabhra/meetin ... ecture.pdf - summary paper on the seal language

[suryag]

Gurus why is it that in every seal of cow/buffalo whatever it is always the male variant(mijjile) depicted?

[ramana]

They want to tell you its BS and not dung.

Seriously now one can write a ipad game with guess the script for people.

RamaY want to take it further?

[ramana]

Pupul Jayakar's book "The Earth Mother" has a few other signs with a tiger and a woman depicted as a tree creeper (malini?).

SuryaG, Thanks for the link. I hadn't paid attention to it earlier.

Also in those signs posted in the pdf how many can we definitely/clearly say are Hindu/Indian in principle? reason I ask is some folks are saying Harappa is Sumerian outpost!

I think the script analysis probabilities shows its very remote if not impossible.

[suryag]

The fact that it is not sumerian can be deduced from Shiva's depiction on the seals. IF MB is true and since Harappan civilisation is in that vicinity there is a possibility that the regular language was lost in some flood(similar to the one that engulfed Dwarka) but it is hard to believe and that is where I have my doubts on the OIT. If MB was true and if Sanskrit was not imported then why dont we see it in the seals. I have never found the answer for this. Basically the answer is very essential to rebuke AIT claims

[ramana]

suryag, In the National Museum in Delhi there is plaque that shows the transformation to Sanskrit from Brahmi script. Brahmi was used to write Prakrit.

Brahmi script was forgotten till it was deciphered during the British period by James Princeps.

[ramana]

Deciphering Indus Script and the Barhui problem

[ramana]

Origins of Brahmi and its importance:

http://organize-information.blogspot.co ... cript.html

[suryag]

R - garu authors in this article have taken a non brahmi route to decipher IVC scripts
Beyond Brahmi, Indus text shaped modern scripts: study

Pasting in full so that it is not lost

The text used in the Indus Valley may have shaped the southern and northern Indian languages, new studies suggest. An analysis has traced the origins of the Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Prakrit and Devanagari scripts back to the Indus Civilisation and its writing, giving a new dimension to the conventional belief that Indian scripts owe their origin to the Brahmi script.

Two papers on the findings have been published in the July and August editions of Current Science. They were authored by scientific officers from the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Tamil Nadu.

“So far, it was believed all modern Indian scripts owe their origin to Brahmi script. Our findings add a new dimension and push back the evolution of both the Dravidian (southern India) and Aryan (north Indian) family of language scripts to the Indus Valley Civilisation and beyond. The presence of Brahmi- and Kharosthi-like scripts is also traced to the Indus script,” said S Srinivasan, principal author for both papers. The other authors are J V M Joseph and P H Harikumar (retired).

The paper notes symbols in the Indus text that resemble the zodiac symbols for Aries to Pisces. “A need to invent signs for zodiac symbols would have arisen when the Indus folk needed to cast horoscopes. References to such practices abound in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Also the Indus folk may have used the seven basic notes [of music]. We suspect the exposure to these musical note signs would have led to the intrusion of the note signs into the early Tamil-Brahmi writings,” it says.

Medial-vowel signs suggested Indian scripts of the Aryan and Dravidian families evolved from Indus writing, and all such Tamil and Kannada signs were identified in the Indus text. Two frequent signs in the Indus script, the jar and the short, double vertical strokes symbol, were identified as equivalent to two medial-vowel signs in Tamil. Two others, comb and arrow, were identified with medial-vowel(what does medial vowel mean ) signs in Kannada. “We were able to identify from the Indus text, the presence of scripts for five Indian languages, namely, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Prakrit and Sanskrit,” the paper says.

The authors believe that the script influenced about 15 languages. “A match between fish-like signs in Indus text and Kannada script was revealed in our analysis,” the lead author said.

The papers use illustrations to describe the similarity between several Tamil, Kannada and Telugu-like consonants with the Indus scripts. A few Dravidian words denoting ‘you’, ‘she’, ‘brave’, ‘beauty’, ‘land’, ‘house’, ‘fruit-fly’, ‘porcupine’, ‘owl’ and ‘elephant’ were also been identified by the authors from the Indus text.

“It looks easier to trace the genesis of these scripts directly from the Indus script rather than deriving it from the Brahmi route. However, we can’t rule out the possibility of the age-old belief that Tamil could be the mother or sister of all South Indian languages,” said Srinivasan.

Avinash Pandey, associate professor at Mumbai University’’s department of linguistics, is not convinced the Indus text is a script at all.

“A script has its own properties and there are very few symbols in the Indus text that can definitely establish that it’s a script. Besides, the relationship between languages are not established on the basis of scripts,” said Pandey.(pooper)

[peter]

When talking about the scriptures, I think one should consider that Vashishta and Vishwamitra were founders of Guru Paramparas and Gotric Lines, and their followers may have adopted these names as titles for the leader of the group.

So when one sees these rishis being mentioned, one should consider that they may not really refer to the same individual.

What is your understanding of Gotra? Is'nt it just a cow pen? So a rishi ashram which had an associated cow pen gave its name to all students who came to study there. Students may not necessarily be related to each other.

[..]
'Go' has many more meanings apart from 'cow' and the word 'Gotra' has several more meanings other than cow-pen. When, 'Gotra' is used in relation with humans, it is understood to means clans based on descenders, AFAIK.

I also used to think like you that Gotra is relaed to descent but it turns out not to be the case. Shishyas acquired the gotra of their rishi.

[brihaspati]

But descent was not according to current definitions - by blood line only. Descent could be from any of the five fathers, for example. Thus a sikshaka/guru/deekshadata is deemed one of the pancha peetri - and hence the sishya is a son by descent.

[peter]

But descent was not according to current definitions - by blood line only. Descent could be from any of the five fathers, for example. Thus a sikshaka/guru/deekshadata is deemed one of the pancha peetri - and hence the sishya is a son by descent.

Thanks. So this does imply that two people of the same Gotra would not have the same genetics.

[johneeG]

What is your understanding of Gotra? Is'nt it just a cow pen? So a rishi ashram which had an associated cow pen gave its name to all students who came to study there. Students may not necessarily be related to each other.

[..]
'Go' has many more meanings apart from 'cow' and the word 'Gotra' has several more meanings other than cow-pen. When, 'Gotra' is used in relation with humans, it is understood to means clans based on descenders, AFAIK.

I also used to think like you that Gotra is relaed to descent but it turns out not to be the case. Shishyas acquired the gotra of their rishi.

Could you give reasons for forming your opinion?

The rishis/gurus has ashrams where the disciples were taught. I am not sure on your idea that cow-pens were used for teaching disciples. I don't think so. Yes, cow-pens are considered holy(and therefore mantra anushtanas are supposed to give better results in cow-pen compared to home), but there is nothing to suggest that cow-pens were used for regular lessons. In fact, there are descriptions in Puranas, MB and Ramayana of huge ashramas of rishis/gurus with many disciples(and they are not cow-pens).

So, the disciples of rishi cannot be called by reference to cows or cow-pens. It doesn't make sense.

Anyway, as I said I think you are describing the 'Kula' phenomenon. All the disciples of a particular rishi form a Kula. That rishi would be called Kulapati. Ramayana Link I heard that a 'Kula' is a group of approx. 1000 disciples.

Heard the word 'Gurukul'? That word is very illuminating. It shows that all the disciples of a guru come under that 'Kul'. I think that is thew origin of 'Kula' grouping.

Also another word, 'Kulaguru'. This word implies that a 'Kula' has a guru. So, the two words 'Gurukul' and 'Kulaguru' show that they are mutually related. Kula is related to Guru (not necessarily a rishi).

On the other hand, 'Gotra' is a different thing. It comes from father's side. The only way a person can change the gotra is through marriage(for a woman). Further, sa-gotra (same-gotra) marriage is prohibited. This points to genetic relation. In fact, the basic rule in marriage is that bride and groom must not have same 'gotra'. All other rules are secondary. If what you are saying is true, then what is rationale behind this rule?

Now, it is understandable if it is said that the disciples of one Guru should not marry each other. But, to say that descendents of these disciples must not also marry each other for eternity would not make sense. The only way that makes sense is if they have same genes from father's side.

Bji's suggestion of 'pancha-pitri theory' also has problem on this front. Because father-in-law is listed as one of the five fathers. Can a son-in-law obtain his gotra from father-in-law? If that happens then the rule of 'prohibition of sa-gotra marriage' would be redundant and meaningless. So, the only rational possibility is that gotra was based on genetic descent from father to son or formal marriage(for woman). BTW, formal adoption is also allowed only with in the Gotra. This is another pointer of genetic nature of 'Gotra'. So, if a person wants to adopt, he is given an option to adopt someone who shared the same genes from his father's side. Adoption outside Gotra is prohibited (AFAIK). EDIT: Except in the case of Putri(that means when a daughter is elected as a putri, then her son is deemed to belong to the daughter's father's family.) In this case, the son would get the maternal grandfather's gotra(I think, I am not sure though).

Moreover, Gotra is not inherited from any and every rishi/guru(also, remember that every Guru is not a rishi, for example Dronacharya is an acharya, not a rishi). Gotra is inherited only from few select original rishis(who are supposed to have started the lineages for entire humanity. They or their descendents revived the family lines when they faced extinction).

If 'Gotra' is merely based on the Guru, then how is it that only some rishis have started the 'Gotra' even though we know that 1000s(if not 100s of 1000s) of Gurus must have established the schools.

The above accounts for the various 'Kulas' and their constantly changing nature. While, the 'Gotra' is based on the only the first rishis. And, thus, they are unchanging and derived from father to son (or from husband to wife). Thats why the 'Gotras' have, more or less, remained constant, that means the Gotras that were followed during the Ramayana are also followed today(approx.). But, the same can't be said about Kulas. They have kept changing. Several newer Kulas have been added. But, newer Gotras have not been added(of course, some corruption cannot be ruled out like in any human system).

Now, Dhrishtadyumna(Draupadi's brother), Pandavas, Kauravas, Karna, Ashwattama were students of Dronacharya. Does that mean they had same 'Gotra'? Remember, Pandavas could not have married Draupadi if their Gotra was same.

....
According to my understanding:
On the other hand, since they were all disciples of the same Guru, they can be seen as belonging to the same 'Kula'. Belonging to same 'Kula' need not mean the same Varna. Of course, if a particular Guru would take disciples from only particular families, then only those families would be part of that 'Kula'.
....

But, this much is clear, 'Gotra' is based on descent from father's side and not on Guru-Disciple relation. Possibly, it is the 'Kula' which is based on Guru-Disciple relation and not on descent(at least initially).

Varna is partly based on birth and partly on behaviour. It seems, the Varna system collapsed after MB war. 'Kula' became rigid over the years. It is only 'Gotra' that has survived with little change.