UlanBatori wrote:It was earlier thought that the origin of the early Harappan phase took place in Sind, in present-day Pakistan, because many sites had not been discovered then. In the last ten years, we have discovered many sites in this part [Haryana] and there are at least five Harappan sites
Sounds like the Research Project that set out to prove that Water is the Cause of Intoxication
Earlier we thought that it was Water+ Beer, but now v r finding Water+Brandy, Water +Rum, and even Water+Whisky...
They still call it "Harappan" civilijashun. When they have moved another 600 miles to the east, what will they call it? Maybe they should try digging UNDER the buried temple site at Ayodhya and see what was there before that temple.
Saar,
I think this whole thing works on the theory: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
So, they dig around and if they don't find the evidence, then they will declare that they have evidence of absence. It is infact quite lucky that evidence is still found after so many years and continous usage. Otherwise, most of the time, the same areas would be used and re-used again and again. People would keep modifying and renovating the same buildings/cities/towns/villages again and again. So, one would hardly find the traces of any older civilizations because it would be still living within the new civilization.
Harappan Civilization or Vaidhik Civilization is still alive in Bhaarathiya civilization. One can only find corpse of dead beings. The problem is if one wants to find the corpse of a living being. And then they go on to declare that the being does not exist because his corpse was not found. The irony is that the corpse was not found because he is still alive. Alive body is not called corpse. Similarly, civilizations which are still alive and dynamic cannot be expected to leave traces which can be dug out. Their traces are to be found in their living culture.
However, Bhaarathiyas are lucky that the traces are still found. But, one can be sure that these are very very rare traces. Most of the time, the same places would be re-inhabited and become part and parcel of next generations.
The same applies to Temples.
shiv wrote:
No. No Honey trap here.
My comment was a specific response to a specific request from Ulan batori. He wanted someone to "post the first ten lines" of the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda is not a text and it is technically wrong to "post the first ten lines" as if that might have some meaning. The honey trap is in imagining that the Rig Veda exists independently as a written text outside of what is chanted. That is a fundamental error.
The reason I complied with Ulan Batori's erroneous request of posting the first ten textual lines was because I wanted him to hear the audio of the original first ten lines rather than simply read the honey trap text. But when I listened to the audio I realized that the first ten lines of the Rig Veda as chanted do not commence until about two minutes into the chant - with those two minutes being an invocation of Ganesha. Anyone who wants to hear the first ten lines of the Rig Veda needs to be prepared for that.
There is no mention of Ganesha in the Rig Veda. Ganesha starts appearing in Indian tradition at some later stage. Whatever the timelessness of the Rig Veda, Ganesha is a concept that appeared later. If you believe that Ganesha too is timeless like the Rig Veda I would like to hear your reasoning. I think that the tradition of invoking Ganesh is separate from the Rig Veda itself, eternal and timeless as the latter might be.
Saar,
There is a famous invocation of Ganapathi which is recited in the beginning of every ritual. It seems it is part of Rig Veda 2nd Mandala 23rd Manthra.
गणानां त्वा गणपतिं हवामहे कविं कवीनामुपमश्रवस्तमम्।
ज्येष्ठराजं ब्रह्मणां ब्रह्मणस्पत आ नः शृण्वन्नूतिभिः सीद सादनम्॥ २.०२३.०१
देवाश्चित्ते असुर्य प्रचेतसो बृहस्पते यज्ञियं भागमानशुः।
उस्रा इव सूर्यो ज्योतिषा महो विश्वेषामिज्जनिता ब्रह्मणामसि॥ २.०२३.०२
आ विबाध्या परिरापस्तमांसि च ज्योतिष्मन्तं रथमृतस्य तिष्ठसि।
बृहस्पते भीमममित्रदम्भनं रक्षोहणं गोत्रभिदं स्वर्विदम्॥ २.०२३.०३
सुनीतिभिर्नयसि त्रायसे जनं यस्तुभ्यं दाशान्न तमंहो अश्नवत्।
ब्रह्मद्विषस्तपनो मन्युमीरसि बृहस्पते महि तत्ते महित्वनम्॥ २.०२३.०४
न तमंहो न दुरितं कुतश्चन नारातयस्तितिरुर्न द्वयाविनः।
विश्वा इदस्माद्ध्वरसो वि बाधसे यं सुगोपा रक्षसि ब्रह्मणस्पते॥ २.०२३.०५
त्वं नो गोपाः पथिकृद्विचक्षणस्तव व्रताय मतिभिर्जरामहे।
बृहस्पते यो नो अभि ह्वरो दधे स्वा तं मर्मर्तु दुच्छुना हरस्वती॥ २.०२३.०६
उत वा यो नो मर्चयादनागसोऽरातीवा मर्तः सानुको वृकः।
बृहस्पते अप तं वर्तया पथः सुगं नो अस्यै देववीतये कृधि॥ २.०२३.०७
त्रातारं त्वा तनूनां हवामहेऽवस्पर्तरधिवक्तारमस्मयुम्।
बृहस्पते देवनिदो नि बर्हय मा दुरेवा उत्तरं सुम्नमुन्नशन्॥ २.०२३.०८
त्वया वयं सुवृधा ब्रह्मणस्पते स्पार्हा वसु मनुष्या ददीमहि।
या नो दूरे तळितो या अरातयोऽभि सन्ति जम्भया ता अनप्नसः॥ २.०२३.०९
त्वया वयमुत्तमं धीमहे वयो बृहस्पते पप्रिणा सस्निना युजा।
मा नो दुःशंसो अभिदिप्सुरीशत प्र सुशंसा मतिभिस्तारिषीमहि॥ २.०२३.१०
अनानुदो वृषभो जग्मिराहवं निष्टप्ता शत्रुं पृतनासु सासहिः।
असि सत्य ऋणया ब्रह्मणस्पत उग्रस्य चिद्दमिता वीळुहर्षिणः॥ २.०२३.११
अदेवेन मनसा यो रिषण्यति शासामुग्रो मन्यमानो जिघांसति।
बृहस्पते मा प्रणक्तस्य नो वधो नि कर्म मन्युं दुरेवस्य शर्धतः॥ २.०२३.१२
भरेषु हव्यो नमसोपसद्यो गन्ता वाजेषु सनिता धनंधनम्।
विश्वा इदर्यो अभिदिप्स्वो मृधो बृहस्पतिर्वि ववर्हा रथाँ इव॥ २.०२३.१३
तेजिष्ठया तपनी रक्षसस्तप ये त्वा निदे दधिरे दृष्टवीर्यम्।
आविस्तत्कृष्व यदसत्त उक्थ्यं बृहस्पते वि परिरापो अर्दय॥ २.०२३.१४
बृहस्पते अति यदर्यो अर्हाद्द्युमद्विभाति क्रतुमज्जनेषु।
यद्दीदयच्छवस ऋतप्रजात तदस्मासु द्रविणं धेहि चित्रम्॥ २.०२३.१५
मा नः स्तेनेभ्यो ये अभि द्रुहस्पदे निरामिणो रिपवोऽन्नेषु जागृधुः।
आ देवानामोहते वि व्रयो हृदि बृहस्पते न परः साम्नो विदुः॥ २.०२३.१६
विश्वेभ्यो हि त्वा भुवनेभ्यस्परि त्वष्टाजनत्साम्नःसाम्नः कविः।
स ऋणचिदृणया ब्रह्मणस्पतिर्द्रुहो हन्ता मह ऋतस्य धर्तरि॥ २.०२३.१७
तव श्रिये व्यजिहीत पर्वतो गवां गोत्रमुदसृजो यदङ्गिरः।
इन्द्रेण युजा तमसा परीवृतं बृहस्पते निरपामौब्जो अर्णवम्॥ २.०२३.१८
ब्रह्मणस्पते त्वमस्य यन्ता सूक्तस्य बोधि तनयं च जिन्व।
विश्वं तद्भद्रं यदवन्ति देवा बृहद्वदेम विदथे सुवीराः॥ २.०२३.१९
Link
In Hindhuism, Ganapathi or Ganesha seems to be
a) Lord of Groups - Ganesha, Ganapathi,
b) Lord of intelligence - Bruhaspathi, Vinayaka
c) Lord of obstacles - Vigneshwara, Vignaraja,
d) Elephant headed - Gajanana, Ekadhantha, Vakrathunda, Shurpakarna
e) Pot-bellied - Lambodhara
So, these are the various terms which are generally used to refer to Ganesha or Ganapathi in Hindhu literature(including Vedhas). Each of these terms can have many variations. For example, Ganesha and Ganapathi, both mean same things.
I think one of the first things to understand is that the word 'Indra' means 'Lord'. This is a very important point. It is possible that many Vaidhik Manthras are addressed to Dheva-Indhra i.e. Lord of Gods of Heaven. But, it would be wrong to assume that whenever the word 'Indhra' is used, it implies 'Dheva-Indhra'. I think the context is important. If the word 'Indhra' is used while praying to Shiva, they it means that Shiva is being addressed as Lord.
Thats one point. The other important point is the Hindhu concept of God or Goddess is unity in diversity. The Major God/Goddess is the whole while the other Gods/Goddesses are the part. Now, depending on which God is being praised, any God can be elevated to the level of supreme God/Goddess. Because, they are all one and same. This is similar to a body and its various parts.
So, frequently, one God/Goddess is praised as the amalgamation of all Gods/Goddesses. When praying to Surya(Sun), Surya is seen as the amalgamation(or sum total) of all Gods/Goddesses. Similarly, when praying to other Gods, they are also seen as the amalgamation(sum total) of all Gods/Goddesses. So, whenever praying to any God/Goddess, that God/Goddess is praises as the sum total of all Gods/Goddesses.
UlanBatori wrote:If ppl learn to recite the Rg Veda, and they actually do recite it, they must have a starting point. So there must be a "first ten lines". If they are sounds, they can be written down as the closest textual representation, Hain? Blasphemous it may be, but I don't see what is practically impossible about it.
There seems to be a disagreement on the order of the Mandalas and Rks of the Rg Veda. The Mandala known as "6" appears to be cited as the first in the order, by Talageri and one other very recent authority whom I know. Both the Mandala marked "1" which is apparently family rituals, and the one marked "6" are praises of Agni.
The Witzel gang (I presume) says:
The most common numbering scheme is by book, hymn and stanza (and pada a, b, c ..., if required). E.g., the first pada is
1.1.1a agním īḷe puróhitaṃ "Agni I invoke, the housepriest"
and the final pada is
10.191.4d yáthā vaḥ súsahā́sati
Popular suktas include Purusha Sukta, Durga Sukta and Shree Sukta.[17]
Talageri says 6.1.1 should be the first. It is plainly a description of the greatness of Agni, none of the housepriest bijnej. So there is credibility to Talageri's claim, and it is also what is followed by the ancient Mallostani Namboothiri tradition.
It seems originally the Vedhas were organized differently. No one knows how they were organized. Broadly, they seem to be categorized into 3 groups based on Manthra types:
a) Rik b) Yajus c) Saama
Then, Krushna Dhwaipayana edited the Vedhas into their current form into 4 groups
a) Rik
b) Yajur
c) Saama
d) Atharvana
So, he was called Vedha Vyasa i.e Vedha Editor.
One does not know what was the organization of the Vedhas before Vyasa edited them.
----
Made a few changes to the map and posting it again:
This map needs a bit of explanation or this map needs another map which shows the forests.
It seems that the northern, central and western Bhaarath had huge forests at the time. There were a few gaps between these forests and many cities, towns and villages were built in those gaps. Central Bhaarath seems to have one big groups of forests.
These forests are:
a) Naimisha-aranya -> near Ayodhya
b) Madhu-Vanam -> near Mathura
c) Kandhava -> eastern Kuru
d) Kuru Jangala -> western Kuru
These forests are spread in the areas of Thrigartha, Mathsya, Kuru, Mathura, Chedhi, Karusha, Pulindha, ...etc.
Infact, it seems that the forests were spread all over this region while the kingdoms were interrupting the forests.
Originally, it seems that these forests were uninhabitable. They were inhabited by the cannibals. It was during the time of Shri Raama, that these forests were cleared off those cannibals and a few cities/towns/villages started to come up in these forests. Small parts of the forests were cleared off in regular intervals and cities/towns/villages were built. Mathura was built by Shathrughna after clearing Madhu-vanam. The forests not cleared completely. Only those lands which are needed for city/town/village are cleared. It seems, clearing the forests is a huge task. It seems the rains used to be quite heavy in those days. So heavy that the people used to just stay at home during rainy days without venturing outside. So, using fire to clear the forests may also not have worked because of frequent rains.
Vishwamithra says in Vaalmiki Raamayana that long long ago, these areas used to be inhabited by two great cities called Maladha and Karusha. Later they declined and forests came up in those places. From that time onwards, this place seems to have been filled with forests.
Many smaller kingdoms seem to have been established deep inside(or just on outskirts of) these forests. For example: Thrigartha and Mathsya seem to be small kingdoms established inside(or just on the outskirts of) Kuru forests i.e. Kuru jangala.
These forests seem to have been populated by the descendents of Yadhu. Many cities, towns and villages seem to be established by clearing parts of these forests by descendents of Yadhu.
Then, there was another major forest in the south: Dhandaka. It seems Dhandaka was much more dense and therefore much less populated by humans. There seems to be only one kingdom in this region i.e. Andhras. Andhras also seems to have 2/3 centres in between this forest where they could build a few cities/towns/villages. One is the coast. The other is the plateau. Similarly, Vidharbha is also part of the same plateau. While, Mahishakas seem to be on the western coast.
It seems that the coast was well populated at the time, while it was the forests and rains which were the major impediments. Since, the coasts of rivers and seas seem to be well populated, it seems to me that they must have been quite good in marine navigation. It seems that the roads might frequently break down due to rains. Also building roads through these dense forest might not be so easy. So, rivers and seas would be major source of navigation.
It seems that the Kingdoms in the east and north were rich at that time while the forests were spread in west, central and south.
Yavanas seem to be a semi-tribal kingdom. These people were also called Mlecchas. The tribals who lived in the forests were called Kirathas. And then there were kingdoms which cleared the forests partially to build their cities, towns and villages.
It seems that the marriages were avoided within the neigbours. It seems the neighbours were seen as potential enemies because they are the first obstacle to expanding the borders of the kingdom. Enemy of the enemy was seen as a friend which means neighbour of the neighbour was seen as an ally. So, it seems that the marriages were preferred in that way.
In Mahabhaaratha times, the Kurus and Paanchalas seem to be neighbours who had border disputes. The northern region(Dehradoon region) seems to be claimed by both. Ultimately, Kurus controlled it after Arjuna defeated Dhrupadha. Then, it seems that this region was given to Dhrona for setting up his ashram(or hostel). It seems that this region's name is based on Dhrona. 'Doon' seems to be a corruption of 'Dhrona'.
Later, Dhuryodhana tried to kill Paandavas in Varnavatha and Paandavas roamed in the forests of central Bhaarath after escaping and finally reaching Paanchala to marry Dhraupadhi. The alliance between Paanchala and Paandavas seems to have really given nightmares to Kurus because Paanchalas were the neighbours who could immediately march into Kuru regions anytime and now they also had legitimate cause. The people of Kuru also might support Paandavas. So, immediately Paandavas were given half a share in the kingdom. But cleverly, they were given a side which was heavily occupied by forests.
These Kingdoms change their size and nature over the time. For example, one kingdom can become a feudatory of another Kingdom. In Mahabhaaratha times, Magadha became powerful and controlled directly or indirectly the entire region in the east and center. It seems the Kurus were not attacked because of the forests: Khandava forests.
It seems that the Mathura was under constant attack by Magadha and Yadhavas had to make a fort in a hill and then they established a new city right in the middle of the sea called Dhwarka.
Once the Khandava forests were cleared to build Indhraprastha, Kuru kingdom was vulnerable to Magadha who could attack them via Mathura. The forests were still there, but it seems that now it was more accessible. So, a covert attack on Magadha was done to take out Jarasandha. After the threat from Magadha was neutralized, the Yadhavas seem to have returned to these central forest region for habitation until they finally died in a war between themselves. They also continued to stay in Dhwarka.
Krushna defeated king of Salwa region also, so the Yadhavas had access to this region also. Finally, all the Yaadhavas seem to have killed themselves in a war and the city of Dhwarka also seems to have been sunk. It seems the Yaadhavas were drunk on power and blinded by affluence.
It seems that though the Kurus claimed Anga region also, they never totally controlled it. Though the Kurus appointed Karna as the King of Anga, he never ruled Anga. Infact, in one of his Dhig-vijayas, he had to conquer Anga region also along with other regions to get tributes for the Kurus. So, the system was the defeated would pay tributes to the victors while retaining their kingdoms. Total defeats or victories seem to be rare.
Would appreciate the people's review on this map...
For all the bad blood that has flown in the Kaveri in the past, that's a less-than-honest presentation. That is exactly like a Congress spokesperson saying, "It would seem given the diversity of religions in India (Hindu/Muslim/Dalits) and even within the Hindu sampadayas, that it is natural for the "all equal-equal onlee" Congress ideology to have no reason to side with any one religion against the perennial orthodox core of India - which of course is the "all is equal-equal onlee" ideology. 
- then how come he get's the Yavana moniker?
. His interpretation cannot be made to stick to me and as a result I escape from his fate.
(i.e. the operative axioms or ground) for the injunction (I don't like that word, but I like the alternative - commandment - even less)?