Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 15th, 2012, 08:08 PM   #31
hob
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 453

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
IMO, the Vedic period can be divided into two categories: Upper Vedic period & Lower Vedic period.

The Upper Vedic Period shows some clues that'd make it contemporous to the
mid/late Indus Valley Civilization, with my guess being around 2500s-1800s BCE. This is the period of composition of the Rig Veda and the older vedas.
The latter Vedic Period, IMO, is from 1800s BCE-1100s BCE. This is the period of the younger vedas (Athar-veda, Ayurveda).

This, IMO, is the most consistent position with archaeology and taking Indic sources seriously.


PS: I too, don't agree with the racial tilt to the Aryan/Dravidian concepts. IMO, these concepts are largely incorrect in the first place ( Since Dravidian languages are poorly studied in linguistic scholarship and the 'Dravidian tree' could easily be a sub-tree to the Indo-European tree or even an amalgamation of Indo-European and Proto-Semetic tree.

However, the 'race' angle is completely ridiculous: inorder to have a racial divide,a culture *must* be able to differentiate in terms of race. Almost all Indic literature from ancient & epic times are bereft of racial discrimination or even, the concept of 'race', where a 'jaati' could be identified with physical features.
The first concepts of race in Indic literature is displayed by medeival Indian literature, with the Mongol description of people being the first description of 'jaati' and 'features' assigned to the jaati.

This, simply means one thing: that 'racial' variations have existed in India far, far before civilization has existed anywhere on the planet and thus, was considered unremarkable or a 'fundamental aspect' of humanity. Indeed, this is visible from my stay in India: the amount of variation between physical features of what one would call a 'desi' and even from the most backwards areas, is immense. Indic 'racial variations' are perhaps as diverse as the variations of 'white people', if not even more.

Ancient, classical and early medeival India displays a complete lack of 'race' as a concept and indeed, it is unique amongst the old civilizations, having displayed a racial concept first, at a later date than any other civilization.

On the other hand, the basis of the 'aryan race' idea is supported by Iranian studies.
In Iranian worldview, as early as the era of Darius the Great (500 BCE), the word 'Arya and Anarya' were quite categorically, a racial concept: you were born an arya or an anarya. They also show further racial distinction, by classifying the Central Asians as 'Turanians', which is also a racial concept( while they do say that Turan-zameen has many Aryas who are Turaani by disgrace, the Turaanis were born Turaani, sons of Turaanzameen).

It is from Iranian studies, which fits the kurgan hypothesis quite well ( it also fits the OOI hypothesis equally well) is used to bolster the idea that Aryans were a race.

Yes, but if you study how Zoroastrianism began, as well as its key religious concepts derived from the Vedas--one can make a clear argument that while within India there was no concept of race, there was a clear concept of correct religion and barbarian religions. Arya followed the Vedas or the correct religion.

Now, taken in this light, it is not surprising that the Persian Zoroastrians labelled themselves Arya. As there is no history of foreigners becoming Zoroastrians, nor any effort being made to convert those under the Persian empire, it makes sense that it remained within original family groups that had to have some Indo-iranian lineage.

In India proper, Buddhism arose and with it a rejection of cast and the restricted teachings of religion to Arya people. This had major effects on the willingness of Indians to share their religions with anarya.

Look at the examples we have. Jains, even though a separate religion from the Vedic norm, still called themselves Arya. Buddhist, even though practicing a non Vedic religion, still called themselves Arya.

The Zoroastrians, called themselves Arya, this doesn't mean that it isn't a racial term, it just means that any group of Indians taken out of India into a foreign land would become a racial group. Their Racial Characteristics would not match all of India because India has always been highly varied in phenotypes. This line of argument supports out of India theory, it doesn't debunk it.

Did the Persians link the Arya and anarya to specific phenotypes which only the Persians had? Did they make any such statements about phenotypes? They are simply self identifying with proper religion, which only the Zoroastrians followed. I think everybody is mistaking how deeply relevant a religious identity is to the ancient Zoroastrians. As it was to the Indians.



You seem to be a very knowledgeable scholar, can I ask you, what do you make of the Hittites using Indian Vedic terminology? Not Indo-Iranian names and words, but specifically Indian Vedic terminolgy and names? They used these names and terms before the Vedic system is supposed to have developed in India. If this does not support out of India theory, how would you explain it?

Last edited by hob; June 15th, 2012 at 08:19 PM.
hob is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 15th, 2012, 09:03 PM   #32

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 6,518

Quote:
Originally Posted by hob View Post
Yes, but if you study how Zoroastrianism began, as well as its key religious concepts derived from the Vedas--one can make a clear argument that while within India there was no concept of race, there was a clear concept of correct religion and barbarian religions. Arya followed the Vedas or the correct religion.
I don't know if the idea that Zoroastrianism is derived from the Vedas is supportable- there are remarkable similarities, but i don't see why it cannot be an independent development, deriving from a common cultural ancestry as the Vedic identity.

One thing is certain: The vedic identity is not the first one to develop a civilized society in India. This is evident from the vedic river hymns( Nadistuti sruti), where the Saraswati is the prime river, not Indus or Ganges.
I place the dating of the Rig Veda to the Indus Valley Civilization, but near the mature/end phase of it. This is because, the IVC categorically rose in the Indus basin, not east of it. Infact, agriculture shows a progression of spreading from Sauvira ( the Sindh area of North-west, that is a fertile plain west of the Indus), such as Mehrgarh eastwards, with almost all agricultural sites on the edge of Balochistan & Sindh predating the ones east of it.
It is also seen that the cities on the Indus are in general, older and bigger than the ones east of it. Now, the Saraswati river shows the densest concentration of settlements, throughout the 'Golden age of Indus Valley' period, which is 2500 BCE-2000 BCE.

It would make sense to date the Rig Veda at this stage, as the text shows a pastoral culture living beside an urban one, with Saraswati given the highest accord. This would however, mean that there was a pre-Rig Vedic identity, which is what the preceeding centuries of Indus river civilization would've practiced.

It is quite possible that this is the stage where what eventually became Vedism and Zoroastrianism diverged from.

Quote:
Now, taken in this light, it is not surprising that the Persian Zoroastrians labelled themselves Arya. As there is no history of foreigners becoming Zoroastrians, nor any effort being made to convert those under the Persian empire, it makes sense that it remained within original family groups that had to have some Indo-iranian lineage.
There is evidence of Zoroastrian concepts spreading: it is initially the domain of the Persians (and not the Medians) but quickly spreads to the Medians through the Achaemenid period, while the Sassanid period saw a crescando of Zoroastrian faith spreading between Iranic speakers of eastern middle east.

Quote:
In India proper, Buddhism arose and with it a rejection of cast and the restricted teachings of religion to Arya people. This had major effects on the willingness of Indians to share their religions with anarya.
Caste system and Aryans themselves are not directly linked: caste was a facet of virtually all societies in 2nd millenium BCE, the Indian caste system is simply the Indic variation of it (it is no different from the Chinese caste system for example, just different ordering of it). Buddhism rose to weaken the heriditary aspect of casteism, which is what made it opressive. However, i see no evidence of 'arya' ethnic group prior to Buddhism- even the oldest Vedic literature does not hint at race being a determinant factor.

Quote:
The Zoroastrians, called themselves Arya, this doesn't mean that it isn't a racial term, it just means that any group of Indians taken out of India into a foreign land would become a racial group. Their Racial Characteristics would not match all of India because India has always been highly varied in phenotypes. This line of argument supports out of India theory, it doesn't debunk it.
This presumes that Iranians originated in India. That, IMO, is false. At best, only the Persian clans could've originated in India (not the other Iranians, such as medians, Armenians, Parthians, Tocharians, etc) and even then, it is far likelier that the Persians originate not from India proper but the vicinity of it- the Helmand valley region that begins around Qandahar and ends at Hamun-e-Helmand.

Quote:
Did the Persians link the Arya and anarya to specific phenotypes which only the Persians had? Did they make any such statements about phenotypes? They are simply self identifying with proper religion, which only the Zoroastrians followed. I think everybody is mistaking how deeply relevant a religious identity is to the ancient Zoroastrians. As it was to the Indians.
Indeed, but most Persian texts clearly treat Arya and Anarya on the basis of race- it is seen as heriditary, it is associated with a certain lineage, though it does not progress to the point of Nordic racial differiantation, where 'features' itself are attached to a race.
This is a bit hard to understand because the difference is a fine line, but it still does not take away from the fact that nomatter what you did as an Anarya, you yourself would not become an Arya, only your children could, if you sired them through arya blood marriage and then too, only if they followed the arya way.

Quote:

You seem to be a very knowledgeable scholar, can I ask you, what do you make of the Hittites using Indian Vedic terminology? Not Indo-Iranian names and words, but specifically Indian Vedic terminolgy and names? They used these names and terms before the Vedic system is supposed to have developed in India. If this does not support out of India theory, how would you explain it?
Can you give me an example ?

IMO, this would depend largely on the period of Hittite civilization we are speaking of.
The oldest Hittite language, nesali, was spoken by the Hattians, a group of people taken over and their language almost completely intact by the later Hittites, who show a few isolated Indo-Aryan terminology.
This effect is not as pronounced as in the Mitanni state, where there is a clear Indo-Aryan substratum to their language.

This can be explained by the OOI theory well, if this is post 1800 BCE: by 1800 BCE, most of the IVC sites were largely abandoned and a major population shift happened towards the Deccan and Ganges valley. There is also evidence that major population movements went west, akin to the Gypsy immigration millenias later, in the form of the Mitanni and probably the Hittite and the Kassites.
All three show curious Indo-Aryan cultural paradigms or linguistic affinity and all of their presence in the middle east happen after the fall of the IVC. Now, IVC was a significantly more developed material culture than the mesopotamian civilizations begining with Sumeria: IVC structure shows far greater consistency in standards and tolerance, showing a more developed constructional history, their bronze technique is also significantly more refined than what we see from the Sumerian city states. Their span was over 5 times bigger than Sumerian civilization and therefore, it is not alltogether improbable that the Indo-Aryans migrating out of the Indus Valley Civilization were materialistically able to overwhelm the remnants of the Old babylonian civilizations (Sumeria, Akkadia and Old Babylonia).

However, if the presence of these Indo-Aryan words are prior to 1800s BCE, then it actually favours the AMT of the Kurgan hypothesis variant.

Last edited by Lord_of_Gauda; June 15th, 2012 at 09:22 PM.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old June 16th, 2012, 12:34 AM   #33
Just me
 
Joined: Jul 2008
From: --
Posts: 6,204
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Immchr View Post
I do not think you have read the original Mahabharata or the Ramayana. Have you ?
I haven't, I've seen the dramatized versions of these, does that count?

Quote:
The Mahabharata's author claims in the work itself, that he is narrating Ithihaas or history.

Many fictitious things may have got added to the story over a long period of time. We should understand that, over such a vast expanse of time, the entire Mahabharata could not have been left free from corruptions.

The Mahabharata clearly has a traditional date for itself, 3138 BC - the year in which the war was fought. And Indian people throughout the Indian history, have always known Mahabharata to be a narrative of ancient events, not a fictitious story. A large no. of ancient Indian dynasties claimed descent from the families of the various heroes of the epics.
Claims, claims and claims. Where's the evidence for any of this to have been factually accurate?

Quote:
It is only in the last two centuries, that people have labelled Mahabharata as mythology.

And besides, do you know that there are royal genealogies given in the Indian Puranas, that give the names of kings right from Mahabharata War upto the time when the Guptas rose to power ? And the royal genealogies even extend to an much earlier epoch than the Mahabharata.

We have a clear statement given in the Puranas, from the birth of King Parikshit(grandson of Arjuna), born during the Mahabharata War, to the ascension of Mahapadma Nanda, 1500 years had elapsed. We know Mahapadma Nanda was a historical king.
The historical credibility of the Puranas themselves is doubtful, how can they vouch for anything else?

Quote:
And the royal line of Lord Ram is also given in the Puranas. 65 names of kings that preceded him are known from the Puranas. Further, from the time of Lord Ram, 30 more kings had passed away in his dynasty, when the Bharata war took place. This is all mentioned in our Puranas and other ancient literature.

How can all this be mythology ?
Thanks for the detailed reply. Maybe not all of the above is mythology but a lot of it is and that takes away from the historicity of the work. Man turning into deer, man growing 10 heads out of nowhere, a man claiming he is god and then growing 100 times in size, rishis turning into snakes, the list is endless. One doesn't even need to have an agenda not to take such epics as anything more than mere entertaining stories.

Quote:
AIT is not the only colonial legacy, there are other legacies of distortion by the British in Indian historiography. Taken as a whole, it was under the British rule, that the Indians started devaluing their ancient traditions. Therefore, since the British condemned ancient Indian historical information as wholly unreliable and given to absurdities, many Indians also believe the same - ever eager to follow the western civilization.

The British were loathe to admit, that the Indian civilization could be so old as they claimed. So they drastically brought down the history of India. And many events like Mahabharata were just dismissed as fantasies. One thing to note is that most of the British historiographers were not competent in Sanskrit.
OK. That does not excuse the apathy of the modern Indian historians though.

Last edited by Rosi; June 16th, 2012 at 12:41 AM.
Rosi is offline  
Old June 17th, 2012, 10:51 AM   #34
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: uk
Posts: 762
Blog Entries: 1

Either Puranas or mahabaratham or Ramayanam are not historical events at all. They are just stories. To be more clear to you, in each and every Purana , there lying a hidden truth based on historical, philosophical and spiritual meaning. . For an example, we have heard about the Great flood which destroyed the world some approximately 10000 years before. This great flood is real historical event and it has been recorded in Greek,mesepotomia and tamil literatures and also can be seen in BIBLE as Novas arch. The very same event also can be read in “Macha purana”. In this machapurana The man called “manu” built a ship and escaped from the flood .Similarily, you take the ARICHANDRA PURANA. This is exactly the replica of the bible character “JOB” please read bible the entire chapter of JOB.

The religious and spiritual Gurus of Hindu religion used Puranas as a method of teaching in story form so that public can easily understand because on those days literacy was very poor in India. But, on later stage, due to the controversy between Saivism and vaishnavism , there were more number of puranas were written by each group and gave wrong interpretation for them and some interpretations are even very vulgar and doesn’t have any logic in the story.

When we come to ITHIHAS both ramayanam and mahabaratham are not of historical event at all and there are mere Indianised stories based on historical event . Some of the Mahabaratha charactors are closely associated with Bible charctors. To name a few
Lord Krishna’s name itself similar to Christ. Krishna born in a cell where as Jesus also born in a small hut . Both Krishna and Jesus doesn’t have material fathers.
Both are from kings linage. Krishna from Nanda(Yadava)linage and Christ from King David lineage. Jesus is called as Good Shepard and Lord Krishna is called Kovardhan. Both Krishna and Christ came to this world to sacrifice themselves as “YAGNA”. Jesus was crucified and Krishna was pierced by an Arrow and died.

Another character is Karnan. He is the son of Kundhi and was kept in the cradle and was left in the river. Same event also can be seen from the Bible that, mother of Moses kept him in the cradle and was left in the River Nile. Both Karnan and Moses were saved by queens and they have been brought by the king.(for Moses please read Exodus : chapter 2,versus 1-10)

Pandavas fought against Gowravas to get back the kingdom similarily in Bible there was a war between Israel leader Joshua with Jerusalem king to get back the kingdom.As in mahabaratham Lord Krishna was in pandavas side, same way Lord was with Israel and won the war. More interestingly, in Mahabaratha Lord Krishna delayed the sunset during Gurushethra war, similarily the same incident also happened and the sunset was delayed .
Please read Joshua : chapter 10 versus 1-14. Lord Krishna gave His speech as Bagavath githa in the Battlefield(long sermon) the same way Jesus gave His longest speech as Mount sermon.

When comparing the similarity between Mahabaratha and the biblical events, we can come to a conclusion that” to write Mahabaratha , or Harichandrapurana, the writers would have taken the Bible events as an Inspiration.
Since the Biblical events took place much earlier than the period of ITHIHAS(Ramayana and mahabaratham were written only in the A.D) there is a logical reason for such argument.
unmai53 is online now  
Old June 17th, 2012, 11:03 PM   #35

1991sudarshan's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: São Tomé de Meliapore
Posts: 1,734

Quote:
Originally Posted by unmai53 View Post
Either Puranas or mahabaratham or Ramayanam are not historical events at all. They are just stories. To be more clear to you, in each and every Purana , there lying a hidden truth based on historical, philosophical and spiritual meaning. . For an example, we have heard about the Great flood which destroyed the world some approximately 10000 years before. This great flood is real historical event and it has been recorded in Greek,mesepotomia and tamil literatures and also can be seen in BIBLE as Novas arch. The very same event also can be read in “Macha purana”. In this machapurana The man called “manu” built a ship and escaped from the flood .Similarily, you take the ARICHANDRA PURANA. This is exactly the replica of the bible character “JOB” please read bible the entire chapter of JOB.
Pure Co-incidence.

Quote:
The religious and spiritual Gurus of Hindu religion used Puranas as a method of teaching in story form so that public can easily understand because on those days literacy was very poor in India. But, on later stage, due to the controversy between Saivism and vaishnavism , there were more number of puranas were written by each group and gave wrong interpretation for them and some interpretations are even very vulgar and doesn’t have any logic in the story.
What do you know about puranas . The mythology presented in books are very limited and they are large in number in the oral tradition passed from one generation to another. I dunno how it is possible for you to have the knowledge of the oral purans and ithihasas


Quote:
When we come to ITHIHAS both ramayanam and mahabaratham are not of historical event at all and there are mere Indianised stories based on historical event . Some of the Mahabaratha charactors are closely associated with Bible charctors. To name a few
Lord Krishna’s name itself similar to Christ. Krishna born in a cell where as Jesus also born in a small hut . Both Krishna and Jesus doesn’t have material fathers.
Both are from kings linage. Krishna from Nanda(Yadava)linage and Christ from King David lineage. Jesus is called as Good Shepard and Lord Krishna is called Kovardhan. Both Krishna and Christ came to this world to sacrifice themselves as “YAGNA”. Jesus was crucified and Krishna was pierced by an Arrow and died.
Pure Co Incidence again

Quote:
Another character is Karnan. He is the son of Kundhi and was kept in the cradle and was left in the river. Same event also can be seen from the Bible that, mother of Moses kept him in the cradle and was left in the River Nile. Both Karnan and Moses were saved by queens and they have been brought by the king.(for Moses please read Exodus : chapter 2,versus 1-10)
Karna did not switch sides where as Mosses did and these persons can not be compared

Quote:
Pandavas fought against Gowravas to get back the kingdom similarily in Bible there was a war between Israel leader Joshua with Jerusalem king to get back the kingdom.As in mahabaratham Lord Krishna was in pandavas side, same way Lord was with Israel and won the war. More interestingly, in Mahabaratha Lord Krishna delayed the sunset during Gurushethra war, similarily the same incident also happened and the sunset was delayed .
Please read Joshua : chapter 10 versus 1-14. Lord Krishna gave His speech as Bagavath githa in the Battlefield(long sermon) the same way Jesus gave His longest speech as Mount sermon.
Lord Krishna was present in the Human form with Divine power and there any mention in the bible that Father came down to earth and supported the Israelite

Quote:
When comparing the similarity between Mahabaratha and the biblical events, we can come to a conclusion that” to write Mahabaratha , or Harichandrapurana, the writers would have taken the Bible events as an Inspiration.
Since the Biblical events took place much earlier than the period of ITHIHAS(Ramayana and mahabaratham were written only in the A.D) there is a logical reason for such argument.
Not possible

What you want to prove, Christianity Pre-dates Judiasm and all the religion ? Please answer
1991sudarshan is online now  
Old November 9th, 2012, 02:34 PM   #36

Bharata's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Forum
Posts: 273

Nice post.
Only solution would be more archiological exvavations required on indus - saraswati bed
Bharata is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 03:19 PM   #37
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2010
From: Dehradun
Posts: 1,936

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
I don't know if the idea that Zoroastrianism is derived from the Vedas is supportable- there are remarkable similarities, but i don't see why it cannot be an independent development, deriving from a common cultural ancestry as the Vedic identity.
I have great respect for Zoroaster. His true followers are a dying breed coz of their emphasis on Racial Purity.

Now, there is no doubt that the Vedas and the teachings of the Zoroaster have some striking similarities.

My favourite hymn from the Vedas is the hymn of creation. I did copy paste it on another History Forum a few years ago ~

HYMN CXXIX Creation


1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.


http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharata View Post
Nice post.
Only solution would be more archiological exvavations required on indus - saraswati bed
R U aware about recent excavations

In my view the Vedas and the teachings of the Zoroaster were not a product of a short enough time period and one location, or one people.
Jhangora is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 11:47 PM   #38

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 3,393
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by unmai53 View Post
Either Puranas or mahabaratham or Ramayanam are not historical events at all. They are just stories. To be more clear to you, in each and every Purana , there lying a hidden truth based on historical, philosophical and spiritual meaning. . For an example, we have heard about the Great flood which destroyed the world some approximately 10000 years before. This great flood is real historical event and it has been recorded in Greek,mesepotomia and tamil literatures and also can be seen in BIBLE as Novas arch. The very same event also can be read in “Macha purana”. In this machapurana The man called “manu” built a ship and escaped from the flood .Similarily, you take the ARICHANDRA PURANA. This is exactly the replica of the bible character “JOB” please read bible the entire chapter of JOB.

The religious and spiritual Gurus of Hindu religion used Puranas as a method of teaching in story form so that public can easily understand because on those days literacy was very poor in India. But, on later stage, due to the controversy between Saivism and vaishnavism , there were more number of puranas were written by each group and gave wrong interpretation for them and some interpretations are even very vulgar and doesn’t have any logic in the story.

When we come to ITHIHAS both ramayanam and mahabaratham are not of historical event at all and there are mere Indianised stories based on historical event . Some of the Mahabaratha charactors are closely associated with Bible charctors. To name a few
Lord Krishna’s name itself similar to Christ. Krishna born in a cell where as Jesus also born in a small hut . Both Krishna and Jesus doesn’t have material fathers.
Both are from kings linage. Krishna from Nanda(Yadava)linage and Christ from King David lineage. Jesus is called as Good Shepard and Lord Krishna is called Kovardhan. Both Krishna and Christ came to this world to sacrifice themselves as “YAGNA”. Jesus was crucified and Krishna was pierced by an Arrow and died.

Another character is Karnan. He is the son of Kundhi and was kept in the cradle and was left in the river. Same event also can be seen from the Bible that, mother of Moses kept him in the cradle and was left in the River Nile. Both Karnan and Moses were saved by queens and they have been brought by the king.(for Moses please read Exodus : chapter 2,versus 1-10)

Pandavas fought against Gowravas to get back the kingdom similarily in Bible there was a war between Israel leader Joshua with Jerusalem king to get back the kingdom.As in mahabaratham Lord Krishna was in pandavas side, same way Lord was with Israel and won the war. More interestingly, in Mahabaratha Lord Krishna delayed the sunset during Gurushethra war, similarily the same incident also happened and the sunset was delayed .
Please read Joshua : chapter 10 versus 1-14. Lord Krishna gave His speech as Bagavath githa in the Battlefield(long sermon) the same way Jesus gave His longest speech as Mount sermon.

When comparing the similarity between Mahabaratha and the biblical events, we can come to a conclusion that” to write Mahabaratha , or Harichandrapurana, the writers would have taken the Bible events as an Inspiration.
Since the Biblical events took place much earlier than the period of ITHIHAS(Ramayana and mahabaratham were written only in the A.D) there is a logical reason for such argument.
Hmmm strangely most of the points you put forward are more in the favour of the idea that Christianity is derived from Hinduism while you are trying to proove the opposite!!!
Jinit is online now  
Old November 10th, 2012, 11:51 PM   #39

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 3,393
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosi View Post
Surely the Greek wasn't alluding to Lord Krishna? Maybe his Krishna was some other bloke? It's got to be someone else, mythological gods do not exist.
.
YEs mythological gods don't exist. but one can convert the real life person into mythological god very easily.... especially in India.

Last edited by Jinit; November 11th, 2012 at 12:05 AM.
Jinit is online now  
Old November 12th, 2012, 08:54 AM   #40

kauchenvinci-0's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: On a chain of Extinct Volcanoes
Posts: 1,535
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by unmai53 View Post
Either Puranas or mahabaratham or Ramayanam are not historical events at all. They are just stories. To be more clear to you, in each and every Purana , there lying a hidden truth based on historical, philosophical and spiritual meaning. . For an example, we have heard about the Great flood which destroyed the world some approximately 10000 years before. This great flood is real historical event and it has been recorded in Greek,mesepotomia and tamil literatures and also can be seen in BIBLE as Novas arch. The very same event also can be read in “Macha purana”. In this machapurana The man called “manu” built a ship and escaped from the flood .Similarily, you take the ARICHANDRA PURANA. This is exactly the replica of the bible character “JOB” please read bible the entire chapter of JOB.

The religious and spiritual Gurus of Hindu religion used Puranas as a method of teaching in story form so that public can easily understand because on those days literacy was very poor in India. But, on later stage, due to the controversy between Saivism and vaishnavism , there were more number of puranas were written by each group and gave wrong interpretation for them and some interpretations are even very vulgar and doesn’t have any logic in the story.

When we come to ITHIHAS both ramayanam and mahabaratham are not of historical event at all and there are mere Indianised stories based on historical event . Some of the Mahabaratha charactors are closely associated with Bible charctors. To name a few
Lord Krishna’s name itself similar to Christ. Krishna born in a cell where as Jesus also born in a small hut . Both Krishna and Jesus doesn’t have material fathers.
Both are from kings linage. Krishna from Nanda(Yadava)linage and Christ from King David lineage. Jesus is called as Good Shepard and Lord Krishna is called Kovardhan. Both Krishna and Christ came to this world to sacrifice themselves as “YAGNA”. Jesus was crucified and Krishna was pierced by an Arrow and died.

Another character is Karnan. He is the son of Kundhi and was kept in the cradle and was left in the river. Same event also can be seen from the Bible that, mother of Moses kept him in the cradle and was left in the River Nile. Both Karnan and Moses were saved by queens and they have been brought by the king.(for Moses please read Exodus : chapter 2,versus 1-10)

Pandavas fought against Gowravas to get back the kingdom similarily in Bible there was a war between Israel leader Joshua with Jerusalem king to get back the kingdom.As in mahabaratham Lord Krishna was in pandavas side, same way Lord was with Israel and won the war. More interestingly, in Mahabaratha Lord Krishna delayed the sunset during Gurushethra war, similarily the same incident also happened and the sunset was delayed .
Please read Joshua : chapter 10 versus 1-14. Lord Krishna gave His speech as Bagavath githa in the Battlefield(long sermon) the same way Jesus gave His longest speech as Mount sermon.

When comparing the similarity between Mahabaratha and the biblical events, we can come to a conclusion that” to write Mahabaratha , or Harichandrapurana, the writers would have taken the Bible events as an Inspiration.
Since the Biblical events took place much earlier than the period of ITHIHAS(Ramayana and mahabaratham were written only in the A.D) there is a logical reason for such argument.
actually you will find it interesting to see some striking similarities between the epics of India and Greece . Mahabharatha and Illiad are so glaringly same in notable aspects.
So can the Greek epics be attributed to Bible ?
kauchenvinci-0 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
civilization, vedic


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
History of the Andean Civilization Thessalonian American History 9 March 29th, 2013 07:00 AM
What type of armor and weapons were used in Bronze Age Vedic India? Byrdsjanuary1954 General History 0 November 10th, 2011 03:26 PM
ask about Anti-Vedic thought's name Cherry Woo Asian History 4 July 29th, 2011 12:54 AM
Civilization: is the West History? Inc General History 1 March 30th, 2011 04:44 PM
First tolerant civilization in history Satuf Ancient History 21 January 30th, 2010 01:26 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.