Guest guest Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Dear Chakraborty ji, Thanks for this valuable note. Love and regards, Sreenadh , " Chakraborty, PL " <CHAKRABORTYP2 wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh-ji, > > 'Sorry. The name of author is Shrikant G Talageri. > > I had mentioned it as Talegiri... > > A net serach may provide you with the details. > > And your query.. > > The Veda is a compilation around the exploits of Puru vamsha. At least > that's what Talegiri tries to tell (and gets in to argument with Witzel).// > Can you share more info on this? I was yet so hear something like that! > > The quotation is from the article " Rig Veda - Ahistorical analyses " by > the same author. However, I don't want you to search the whole essay. > The relevant portion is in <http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch5.htm> > http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch5.htm > > I am copy / pasteing some part of the same here.. > > THE KINGS AND TRIBES IN THE RIGVEDA<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = > " urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office " /> > > We will examine the evidence under the following heads: > A. The Kings in the Rigveda. > B. The Tribes in the Rigveda. > > I.A. The Kings in the Rigveda > > As we have seen in our chapter on the chronology of the Rigveda, > > the predominant dynasty in the Rigveda is the dynasty of DevavAta, > > one of the descendants of the ancient king Bharata. > > The kings in this dynasty, as we have already seen, are: > > DevavAta > SRnjaya > VadhryaSva > DivodAsa > Pratardana > Pijavana > DevaSravas > SudAs > Sahadeva > Somaka > > These kings are Bharatas, but they are also PUrus: > > according to the PurANas, the Bharatas are a branch > > of the PUrus; and this is confirmed in the Rigveda, where both > > DivodAsa (I.130.7) and SudAs (I.63.7) are called PUrus, and > > where the Bharata composer Parucchepa DaivodAsI repeatedly > > speaks as a PUru (I.129.5; 131.4). > > Some other names of kings in the Rigveda who appear in the > > Puranic lists as PUru kings (some belonging to the Bharata > > dynasty of DevavAta, and some not) are: > > > > AjamILha (IV.44.6). > Dhvasra/Dhvasanti and PuruSanti (I.112.23; IX.58.3). > (SuSanti and PurujAti of the Puranic lists.) > Mudgala (X.102.2, 5, 6, 9). > RkSa (VIII.68.15, 16; 74.4, 13). > Srutarvan (VIII.74.4, 13; X.49.5). > Vidathin (IV.16.13; V.29.11). > Santanu (X.98.1, 3, 7). > KuSika (III.26.1). > > Incidentally, the other Veda SaMhitAs also refer to the > > following prominent PUru kings: > > > > BhImasena of KASI (Yajurveda, KAThaka SaMhitA, VII.1.8) > ParIkSita I (Atharvaveda, XX.127.7-10) > PratIpa (Atharvaveda, XX.129.2) > VicitravIrya (Yajurveda, KAThaka SaMhitA, X.6) > DhRtarASTra (Yajurveda, KAThaka SaMhitA, X.6) > > The only other prominent dynasty in the Rigveda is the TRkSi dynasty > > of MandhAtA, identifiable as a branch of the IkSvAkus of the PurANas. > > The kings of this dynasty, as we have already seen, are: > > > MandhAtA > Purukutsa > Trasadasyu > > > > These kings are not PUrus; but they are accorded a special > > position in the Rigveda only because of the special aid given > > by them to the PUrus. > > According to the PurANas, MandhAtA?s father was an IkSvAku > > king, but his mother was a PUru, being the daughter of a Puru > > king MatInAra. Moreover, the PurANas record that the Druhyus, > > who, in the earliest pre-Rigvedic period, were inhabitants of the > > Punjab, were pressing eastwards onto the PUrus. In this context, > > MandhAtA moved westwards, confronted the invading hordes of > > Druhyus, defeated them, and drove them out into Afghanistan and beyond. > > The Rigveda itself records (I.63.7; VI.20.10) that Indra, through Purukutsa, > > rendered help to the PUrus in a war against the DAsa tribes; and > > VII.19.3 refers to Indra aiding the PUrus, through Trasadasyu, in > > ?winning land and slaying foemen?. IV.38.1, likewise, thanks Mitra > > and Varuna for the help which Trasadasyu, ?the winner of our fields an > > d ploughlands, and the strong smiter who subdued the Dasyus?, rendered > > to the PUrus. > > It may be noted that most scholars, on the basis of these references, > > even go so far as to classify Purukutsa and Trasadasyu themselves > > as PUrus. > > The only other kings of identifiable dynasty who are classifiable as > > heroes in the Rigveda (as distinct from kings who are merely > > praised in dAnastutis on account of liberal gifts given by them to the > > RSis concerned: such liberal donors or patrons include DAsas and > > PaNis, as in VIII.46.32 and VI.45.31) are AbhyAvartin CAyamAna and > > VItahavya. > > AbhyAvartin CAyamAna is an Anu king, and he clearly appears as a > > hero in VI.27. However, it is equally clear that this is only because > > he is an ally of the Bharata king SRnjaya: his descendant Kavi CAyamAna > > who appears (though not in Griffith?s translation) in VII.18.9 as an enemy > > of the Bharata king SudAs, is referred to in hostile terms. > > VItahavya is a Yadu, and he is referred to in VI.15.2, 3 and VII.19.2 > > (and also in the Atharvaveda VI.137.1). However, nothing more is > > known about him in the Rigveda; and it may be noted that he is > > associated in VI.15 with BharadvAja, the priest of the Bharata king > > DivodAsa, and again remembered in passing (though not in Griffith?s > > translation) in the context of the Bharata king SudAs? battle with the > > ten kings. > > Clearly, the only kings that really matter in the Rigveda are the kings > > of the PUrus (and, in particular, of the Bharatas); and the only > > non-PUru kings who matter are those closely aligned with the Purus > > or those to whom the PUrus as a race are deeply indebted. > > > > (emphasis added) > > > > I.B. The Tribes in the Rigveda > > Traditional history knows of many different streams of tribes or peoples, > but the > > two main streams are of those belonging to the Solar Race of the IkSvAkus, > > and those belonging to the Lunar Race of the AiLas. The AiLas are further > divided > > into five main branches: the Yadus, TurvaSas, Druhyus, Anus and PUrus. > > ______________________________ > > ' Hope it is useful. > > regards > > chakraborty > > > > Sreenadh [sreesog] > Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:59 PM > > Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharat a > > > > Dear Chakraborty ji, > Thanks for the informative write-up. > > > > //The Veda is a compilation around the exploits of Puru vamsha. At least > that's what Talegiri tries to tell (and gets in to argument with Witzel).// > Can you share more info on this? I was yet so hear something like that! > //Mahabharat also revolves around that vamsha only. The sages who describe > Veda and plays some role in Mahabharata are from same group. It is quite > possible that this is the reason we get similar references there.// > Please provide more info - regarding this Puru Vamsha argument in > relation to Vedas. > // > The geneology of Rama (Ikshaku group) is different and probably much older > and irrelevant at the time of Mahabharata. So it may not get that many > references > in Veda-s. // > A possible argument - what what is the literary evidance to say that > " Ikshaku group " is much older? > //But I can not rule out whether Ramayana or Mahabharata is imaginery or > not till all the angles have been checked.// > I agree - and sorry for the hurry. Yes, I CANNOT assertain whether > Ramyana/Mahabharata are FULLY imaginarry or not. Certainly much of both > texts are impossible and certainly imaginarry, but defenetly there could be > many areas where the then known history is utalized much. > > //BTW, for some people, > Veda is " Apourusheya " - because it was compiled by people who are > not " Purush " - i.e., Not from Puru Vamsha - and not by God. // > That is quite interesting - Thanks for info about this argument. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > , " Chakraborty, PL " > CHAKRABORTYP2@ wrote: > > > > Dear Sreenadh-ji, > > > > Sorry to 'butt in' in experts topic. This is a view from a lay man > > > > Your assertion that " Rama is an imaginery character " is difficult to > > digest. > > It puts the concept of 'satya/Krita, treta, Dwapar, kali' yuga concept > > on its head. > > > > Please note that all the discussions are based on some references > > and some assumptions - some belief based and some educated ones. > > None of us clearly knew what actually had happened.. just trying to > > decipher only. > > > > The Veda is a compilation around the exploits of Puru vamsha. At least > > that's what Talegiri tries to tell (and gets in to argument with Witzel). > > > > Mahabharat also revolves around that vamsha only. The sages who describe > > Veda and plays some role in Mahabharata are from same group. It is quite > > possible that this is the reason we get similar references there. > > > > The geneology of Rama (Ikshaku group) is different and probably much older > > and irrelevant at the time of Mahabharata. So it may not get that many > > references > > in Veda-s. > > > > Please note that my views are not based on any 'religious sensitivity'. > > Like you, I don't mind discussing what happened between 'Rishyshringa Muni > > and Dasharatha & his queens or 'whether Sita was a 'kshetraj santan' > > > > But I can not rule out whether Ramayana or Mahabharata is imaginery or > > not till all the angles have been checked. BTW, for some people, > > Veda is " Apourusheya " - because it was compiled by people who are > > not " Purush " - i.e., Not from Puru Vamsha - and not by God. > > > > ''Sorry for the longish reply. > > > > regards > > > > chakraborty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh [sreesog@] > > Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:21 PM > > > > Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > //Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date > of > > 157 BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can > > call me adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study > is > > not going to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You > win. > > I have no objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 > > BCE.// > > Why should we think that Rama lived during BC 157?!! The point I was > > trying to convey was that the Horoscope given in Ramayana (as that of > Rama) > > is of BC 157, and this points to the fact that the book Ramaya got totally > > modified and numerous portions (like this horoscope; and possibly the > > Balakanda and Uttarakanda portions etc) added to the 'Original' text. A > > reference to BC 157 horoscope proves it as a sure fact that the original > > Ramayana CERTAINLY got re-written AFTER BC 157 (i.e. I suppose around AD > > 200) and the currently available Ramayana is this MODIFIED TEXT. > > Since Mahabharata refers to Ramayana, and also because numerous other > > ancient Vedic texts refers to Ramayana story, the following possibilities > > emerge - > > 1) There was an original Ramayana text available (even though that text is > > NOT the currently available Ramayana) > > 2) It is also possible that after the current ramayana become popular (as > > a religious text), slokas are interpolated into the ancient texts like > > Mahabharata (in an effort to prove that Ramayana is older). > > Instead of assuming that one of these two possibilities might have > > happened, it might be more natural and correct to assume that both the > above > > things happened. Thus we can assume that - > > * There was an original Ramayana available from ancient times which is no > > more available now. The core story of that ancient text might have many > > similarities with the current one. (If this is true - some body should > have > > to do a sincere research to reveal the original story of Ramayana based on > > stray references from Vedic literature and Mahabharata) > > * Currently available Ramayana is an ancient text modified through > > centuries; almost totally modified between BC 157 - AD 250 and currently > it > > is a text with numerous interpolations and additions. > > * Since Rama is just a imaginary character mentioned in a literary text, > > there is no point in considering him as a historical figure. There is no > > point in trying to fix a period of Rama. The Horoscope of Rama DOES NOT > > reflect the period of rama but only the the period after which the ancient > > text Ramayana got corrupted and almost totally modified. > > * The popularity of Ramayana as a religious text AFTER this > > modification (between BC 157 - AD 200), caused the corruption of many > other > > texts as well, and also the distortion of history. Because - > > 1) Pseudo scholars started interpolating slokas to age old/ancient > > texts like Mahabharata. > > 2) Places were named after the place names given in Ramayana and this > > caused much confusion regarding geography and story mentioned in Ramaya > and > > the 'actual' location mentioned by the author in his book. (Please note > that > > the events mentioned in Ramaya NEVER took place because, Ramayana is > > modified literary text only and NOT a book of history). > > > > Note: Considering literary texts like a tertiary resource in the study of > > history is OK, but NOT as primary or secondary evidence. Even the study of > > literary history should consider the real/natural/human possibilities of > > corruption and interpolation. Where we stand and what we are speaking > about > > is not a thing to forget. Based on tertiary evidence like simple literary > > books and trying to IMAGINE history out of it AS IF we are dealing with > real > > books of history is NOT the right track to follow, and does not lead > > anywhere; it is NOT an approach that should be followed by Historians or > > people interested in history. From a literary historians perspective the > > 'Story' told within Ramayana should be irrelevant to us, but the info, > > reference, linguistics, geography, astronomy or any other similar info > > available should be important to us. Giving too much importance to story > > (and the god concept of the character Rama) should be irrelevant and > > unimportant even from a literary historian's point of view. Let the > > Religious people be happy with their god, but why should a literary > > historian should mix-up his views with the views of religious people and > > bring in `emotion' into play? I don't think it is necessary and even > right. > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > sunil_bhattacharjya@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadhji, > > > > > > <<< In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana > > are > > > obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to > > > find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove > > > that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. // > > > > > > What an absurd and confusing paragraph it is!!! > > > //> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. // What do you mean by > this?! > > >>> > > > > > > ----------->Sorry, you have rightly noticed the goof-up. In Ramayana > there > > is no mention of the personalities of the Mahabharata. This is not to > > exclude any namesakes. > > > > > > > > > <<< The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. // > > Why 'obviously' - if not you pre-suppose that Ramayana got written before > > Mahabharata? >>> > > > > > > With your permission I shall rephrase what I wanted to say. If some > events > > are before both the Ramayana and mahabharata then obviously they can be > > referred to in both the epics. > > > > > > > > > Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date > of > > 157 BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can > > call me adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study > is > > not going to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You > win. > > I have no objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 > BCE. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > > Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:17:24 PM > > > Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil ji, > > > //> 1) > > > > Valmiki has depicted Rama as a human being in his five kandas but in > the > > Bala and the Uttara Kanda Rama is God.The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas > > were added by someone else afterwards./ / > > > That is good point - I would try to verify it. > > > //> 2) > > > > In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana > are > > obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to find > > mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that > > Ramayana was after Mahabharata. // > > > > > > What an absurd and confusing paragraph it is!!! > > > //> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. // What do you mean by > this?! > > > > > //The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. // > Why > > 'obviously' - if not you pre-suppose that Ramayana got written before > > Mahabharata? > > > //Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both > > the epics and this does not prove that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. // > > > " Currently available Ramayana " is definitely a text written AFTER > > Mahabharata, evident from the fact that Ramayana mentions several things > > that ranges even upto 9th century AD! This means that the additions to > > Ramayana continued to happen till 9th century AD; The Horoscope of Rama > > added to original Ramayana could be a 2nd Century AD addition (referring > to > > a BC 157 planettary combination) . > > > Mahabharata is a text of higher plane because the knowledge it shares is > > in tune with the Vedic past. That is why Mahabharata is known as the 5th > > Veda. This vast amount of secret knowledge present in Mahabharata is > evident > > from the fact that the author of this text tells us " What ever you find in > > other books, you will find here as well; but what ever you find here, you > > may not find elsewhere! " ; and also from the words " This text (Mahabharata) > > contains 1800 SECRET slokas (hiding valuable knowledge) " . Thus if there is > > any text in which we should search for the Davinchi- code (The key) to > > reveal and understand the ancient knowledge (including the Vedic as well > as > > Non-vedic streams), then that is none but Mahabharata! ! (There are > numerous > > examples for this) This is possible only for an ancient text that > > understands Vedic tradition and is ancient enough. If Mahabharata is like > a > > great Kingdom, then Ramayana is just like a rural distinct - there is no > > > comparison between the two - this is my opinion. > > > Of course it is true that due to Introducing Rama as God (by the > > interpolated slokas as well due to the later day texts like > > Ramacharitamanasa and Adhyatma Ramayana) ramayna became a religious text > and > > that is the reason for its popularity; otherwise who can imagine that this > > average text with numerous problems will be compared with the great epic > > Mahabharata with a treasure source of knowledge to share?!! > > > Note: Sorry, I never intended to hurt anyoneâ…•Rs religious feelings > - > > but just expressing my opinion. Locating and deciphering the 1800 secret > > quotes provided by Mahabharata, could provide a great break through in > > understanding the ancient indian knowledge in its true perspective. Due to > > this reason, I love the text Mahabharata, but I do not have this kind of > > regard for Ramayana. Also I am neither a religious fanatic nor a cultural > > fanatic. > > > Love and regards, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya > > <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadhji, > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > Valmiki has depicted Rama as a human being in his five kandas but in > the > > Bala and the Uttara Kanda Rama is God.The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas > > were added by someone else afterwards. > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana > are > > obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to find > > mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that > > Ramayana was after Mahabharata. > > > > > > > > 3) I read in a Buddhist text that Lord Buddha had claimed that he was > a > > descendent of Rama of the Ikshaku clan but I do not recall that reference > > now. Our Buddhist friends in this forum may remember. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:05:57 AM > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and > Mahabharata > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > > > //> It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki > > composed only five Kandas. The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not > > been composed by Valmiki. // > > > > What is the base for this argument? What is the core login/reason > > behind? > > > > //> Secondly the Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the > > Ramayana does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that > > mail. . // > > > > //> The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any > > reference to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful if you > kindly > > enlighten me as to the exact reference on the same. // > > > > You can refer to a discussion regarding the same happened in this > gruop > > itself. One of the mails posted by Chandrahari ji, addresses this issue in > > detail with references. > > > > Check this message: http://groups. / group/ancient_ > > indian_astrology /message/ 4352 > > > > Regards, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil > Bhattacharjya > > <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadhji, > > > > > > > > > > A) > > > > > It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki > > composed only five Kandas. The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not > > been composed by Valmiki. These have been interpolated into the Ramayana. > > You might have noticed that I have mentioned only the data given in the > > Adhyatma Ramayana, according to which the Sun just entered Aries, when > Rama > > was born. > > > > > > > > > > Secondly the Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the > Ramayana > > does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that mail. . > > > > > > > > > > According to me these above two conditions have to be met in case of > > dating of the Ramayana. > > > > > > > > > > B) > > > > > The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any > reference > > to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful if you kindly > enlighten > > me as to the exact reference on the same. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > > Monday, August 25, 2008 10:54:34 PM > > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Ramayana and > > Mahabharata > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > > > > //On the basis of the detailed astrological information on Lord > Rama's > > birth, as given in the puranic Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text > composed > > by Vedavyasa, it appears to me that Lord Rama's was born about 9300 years > > ago. // > > > > > The Horoscope given in Valmiki Ramayana is true for BC 157; The > > detailes of discussion happened regarding that in this group can be > tracked > > from message: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology > > /message/ 4292 > > > > > //Further here is mention of the Ramayana events in the Mahabharata > > and the reverse is not seen, which proves that the Ramayana events > occurred > > before the events of the Mahabharata. // > > > > > This is NOT true. The mention of Ramayana events is present in > > Mahabharata and the mention of Mahabharata events are present in Ramayana. > > Thus based on this kind of reference we CANNOT reach any such conclusion. > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > m, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadhji, > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you in that different people have different ideas > about > > the date of Valmiki's Ramayana, composed by the sage Valmiki. On the basis > > of the detailed astrological information on Lord Rama's birth, as given in > > the puranic Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text composed by Vedavyasa, it > > appears to me that Lord Rama's was born about 9300 years ago. Moreover > this > > dating matches with the Yuga-time scale given in the Bhagawat purana and > the > > Vishnu purana. The astro-scholar Avtar Kishen Kaulji could not understand > > the astronomical details given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana and I > > had quite some arguments with him on that sometime ago. But I do not wish > to > > go into it now as a very great detailed discussion will be required for > > that. Further here is mention of the Ramayana events in the Mahabharata > and > > the reverse is not seen, which proves that the Ramayana events occurred > > before the events of the Mahabharata. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the date of the Mahabharata war, as obtained from the > > astronomical data given by Vedavyasa it is clear to me that it took place > in > > the 32nd century BCE. Some knowledgeable astronomers goofed up the data > > given by Vedavyasa. For example Vedavyasa indicated that the Saturn was in > > Visakha and afflicted Rohini. To me it is clear that Saturn being in > Visakha > > can afflict Rohini but astronomers, who do not believe in astrology, have > > interpreted it as that the Saturn must have been in Rohini to cause the > > affliction. They simply refuse to believe that Vedavyasa believed in > > astrology and mixed astrological data along with astronomical data, in > spite > > of the fact that Vedavyasa mentioned about the omens in in the > Mahabharata. > > . Because of this wrong interpretation the modern astronomers of today > could > > not find the correct date of the Mahabharata. Some of them find it > difficult > > to believe that two eclipses can occur separated by a Kshayapaksha of 13 > > > days > > > > . > > > > > > They are also not aware that the tithi of the day is the tithi in > > which the Sun rises. Then some of them are not well-versed in Sanskrit. > For > > example, in the Bhishma parva Vedavyasa gives the word " Tribhaagashesha' , > > which actually means " Tribhaaganaam shesha bhaaga " , which means the last > > (part) of the the three parts, but the astronomers have given various > > meanings to this compound word, other than what it really means. This word > > is very important for identifying the paksha in which Bhishma died. Then > > there is one very reputed astronomer who says that Bhishma-Panchaka > occurred > > when Bhishma was in the bed of arrows, whereas to my knowledge the > > Bhishma-Panchaka was from Kartiki-Ekadashi to Kartiki-Purnima and as the > war > > started on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima it is clear that the > > Bhishma-Panchaka could not have been when Bhishma was on the bed of > arrows. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the dating of the Mahabharata war is not an easy subject and > > cannot be discussed here and it will require a sizable book to be written > on > > it with all these expalanations. May be some day I shall find some time to > > do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > The great sage Vedavyasa realised that at his time the Vedas and > the > > scriptures became so extensive that they would not survive unless these > are > > divided into different texts as it had become impossible for an individual > > disciple to memorise and master all the scriptures during his twelve years > > of stay in the gururkula. Because of the divisions made by Vedavyasa it > > became possible for the disciples to memorise and master the texts he and > > his guru had chosen and this way the oral transmission of larger texts > could > > continue. However from the time of Mahabharata the larger puranas and the > > epics were gradually written down. However the Vedas continued to be > > transmitted orally till a late date. > > > > > > > > > > > > The mail has already become too long and I wish to conclude here > as > > this subject is very interesting and one can go on and on. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > > > Monday, August 25, 2008 2:22:48 AM > > > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Yavanas (Non-Greeks; > People > > of Ionia and NOT Macedonia)! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > > > > > //As Vasishtha lived in the times of Ramayana // > > > > > > I don't think that that Ramayana is an ancient text (The currently > > available text is possibly of AD 2nd/3rd century origin). Further there > were > > numerous Vasishtas, since Vasishta was Guru parampara, a clan - Similar to > > Gargas (Gargs) and Parasaras and Kausikas. The ancient Rishi Kulas were > like > > the Universities where the head teacher of the Kula holds the sage title > > (Such as Vasishta, Narada, Mandhavya, Chyevana or Ati or what ever that > be). > > So we can not be much sure about the period of 'Vasishta' (considering as > if > > it refers to ONLY ONE sage and lived in one period alone). > > > > > > //Traditionally this is an old text of the Mahabharata times ie. > > composed by around 3100 BCE ie. more than 200 generations ago. // > > > > > > First, what was the period of Mahabharata is one controversial > > question. Second, from linguistic perspective the language used in > > Mahabharata is pretty evolved compared to that of Vedic language - and > thus > > the currently available Mahabharata cannot be a text of Vedic period > around > > BCE 3100. Thirdly we need to ensure, to whom the word Vedic Period refers > to > > (Are we referring to Sindhu-Sarasvati ppl, or specifically to Kalibengan > ppl > > and so on), since Vedic 'culture' is not much supported by archeological > > evidences. > > > > > > //Therefore without any valid and irrefutable proof to the > contrary > > one should not make any such statement to contradict what the age-old > > tradition says, otherwise it will be considered an irresponsible action.// > > > > > > I am of the opinion that we should allow criticism, because only > > when strong criticism is present people will search for more logical > > arguments, supportive evidence; it is said that those which are born in > fire > > will not perish simple heat of sunlight. Thus let the arguments evolve > with > > inner strength - and for that criticism is necessary, and it should be > > appreciated. > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > Sreeandh > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil > > Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Traditionally this is an old text of the Mahabharata times ie. > > composed by around 3100 BCE ie. more than 200 generations ago. This also > > means that they must have been transcribed many times in the past but that > > does not reduce their antiquity. In fact the book gives an account of what > > happened much before the Mahabharata times and this means the facts > > mentioned in it are very much older than 5000 years. As Vasishtha lived in > > the times of Ramayana the mentioned events should have occurred around > 9000 > > years ago. Therefore without any valid and irrefutable proof to the > contrary > > one should not make any such statement to contradict what the age-old > > tradition says, otherwise it will be considered an irresponslibe action. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > koenraad_elst koenraad.elst@ ... > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > > > > Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:35:08 AM > > > > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Yavanas (Non-Greeks; > > People of Ionia and NOT Macedonia)! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil > > Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish to add that Xerxes, the successor of Darius-I, the > great > > > > > > > Archimedian emperor, did defeat the Greeks and occupy Greece. > > > > > > > However that occupation was short and it lasted for one year > only. > > It > > > > > > > is believed by some that Alexander's expedition against the > > > > > > > Archimedian empire was to avenge that defeat< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because Xerxes destroyed Greek temples, Alexander, who otherwise > > > > > > > > respected all gods and temples of all peoples, extinguished many > > > > > > > > Zoroastrian sacred fires in Iran. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Yavanas one finds that according to the > > Harivamsha > > > > > > > (the appendix to the Mahabharata) the Yavanas were Kshatriyas, > who > > > > > > > > > were expelled from his kingdom by the king Sagar, on the advice > of > > > > > > > > > the sage Vasishtha, as they revolted. So they were very much of > > > > > > > Indian origin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a pretty late text, early Christian centuries, when the > > word > > > > > > > Yavana was already several centuries old and may have begun > losing > > > > > > > > > its original specific meaning. It is unclear what the said > passage > > > > > > > > > exactly refers to. If the Vedic Vasishtha is meant, then clearly > > > > > > > > these Yavans are not the Greeks. unless they were the Greeks of > > the > > > > > > > Vedic era, the era of the disintegration of the PIE peoples and > > their > > > > > > > spread from South Asia westward, who were certainly not known as > > > > > > > > Ionians/Yavanas yet. It is highly doubtful the tha Alexandrine > > Yavans > > > > > > > would have remembered anything about ndian origins two millennia > > > > > > > > earlier. At any rate no Greek text ever refers to such memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > > > > > Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:40:45 AM > > > > > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Yavanas (Non-Greeks; > People > > of > > > > > > > Ionia and NOT Macedonia)! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ionia was a part of the Achaemenid empire, the rest of > > > > > > > > Greece was not, so any Greeks resetlled to the east of the > > empire > > > > > > > > would have been Ionians. That makes it likely the word dates > > from > > > > > > > > before Alexander. > > > > > > > > (http://tech. groups.. com IndiaArchaeology > > /message/ > > > > > > > 7520) > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > * We also know that the word 'Yavana' as per indian > > > > > > > astrological sources dates back even to BC 1400!< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we really? What source is that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How come indian people know about Ionia and Ionians much prior > > to > > > > > > > Greeks?! If not to the Alexandrian Greeks to whom this word > refer > > > > > > > to? Which culture and cultural heritage is referred to?!< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander was resisted by a Greek population in Afganistan. he > > told > > > > > > > them not to sue for peace on any terms, as he was determined to > > kill > > > > > > > them to the last; which he proceeded to do. Those were the pre- > > > > > > > Alexandrine Ionians resettled by the Achaemenids since ca. 500 > BC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * They spoke the Anatolian languages are a group of extinct > > > > > > > Indo-European languages, which were spoken in Asia Minor , the > > best > > > > > > > attested of them being the Hittite language. The Anatolian > branch > > is > > > > > > > generally considered the earliest to split off the Proto-Indo- > > > > > > > European language, from a stage referred to either as > Indo-Hittite > > > > > > > > > or " Middle PIE " , typically a date in the mid-4th millennium BC > is > > > > > > > assumed. http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Anatolian_ languages < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some Ionians may have been Hittites or Luwains or other non-IEs > > who > > > > > > > adopted the newly dominant language. But in general, Ionians > were > > > > > > > simply Greek settles in Ionia. As Ionians, they spoke Greek, not > > > > > > > > Anatolian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in short the Yavanas are NOT Greeks, but the ancient > > > > > > > people lived in Smyrna BEFORE the barbarian Alexandrian/ > > Macedonian > > > > > > > Greeks destroyed their culture!< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They are Greeks, e.g. the philosophers Thales and Herokleitos. > And > > > > > > > > > Alexander didn't destroy their culture. Some of their cities had > > been > > > > > > > destroyed by the Persians, but generally they too left their > > culture > > > > > > > alone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ionians appear in Indic literature and documents as Yavana and > > > > > > > > Yona.< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Prior to then, the Yavanas appear in the Vedas with reference > to > > the > > > > > > > Vedic period, which could be as early as the 2nd or 3rd > millennium > > > > > > > > > BC.< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do they really?! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway. The information > contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are > intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain > proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the > intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this > e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this > message and any attachments. > > This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Dear Sreenadh-ji, I just conveyed what is available in net, I am just a conveyor.. not a contributor. regards chakraborty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.