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


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 29th, 2014, 05:23 PM   #1441
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: India
Posts: 474

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
Where is it written in the Rig Veda that King Chitra's Kingdom was in the Indus Valley Civilisation. And is it also written in the Rig Veda that Vedic Kings built Indus Valley Civilisation cities. Could you please quote reference to that. Thanks.

And why couldn't it be in the Ganges river valley.
With Chitra's evidence, Your fallacious conjecture that Saraswati was never an Indus Valley River stands defeated.

You don't have knowledge of other scriptures who clearly mentions name of kings ruling the region of Indus river, Nor it is required since you appear not to have common sense and sincerity to stand for correct history.

Some people should always live in ignorance, we have Romila Thapar and others who works/worked for JNU like institutions, such people do everything excpet for the study and researches, so is your case. if everbody has knowledge then what is fun ..
litsol is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 29th, 2014, 05:30 PM   #1442
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: India
Posts: 474

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
Generally speaking, the centuries between 1500 and 500, BC correspond to the early and the late Vedic Age. During this period the Aryans moved into the whole of Punjab and the Western Gangetic Valley. From the Western Gangetic Valley, about the year 1000, they shifted to the Middle and Eastern Gangetic Valley. Their society changed from tribal organization to caste organisation and their polity changed from tribes ruled by elected chiefs to little kingdoms ruled for the most part by semi-divine kings--and then to larger monarchical states. Romila Thapar identifies this transition as "lineage to state." During this time the Aryans shifted their livelihood from nomad pastoralism to a combination of pastoralism and farming by 1000, and then, in the next five hundred years to agriculture and trade. This last transition is known as India's second urbanisation.

In early Vedic society a tribe was called jana. The clans in a tribe were called vish. The leader of a lineage in a clan was a chief called a raja. The lineage chief, a raja of a clan, had the responsibility of organising protection of his people and their cattle. This involved organising the protection of the clan's herding areas.

In the early Vedic texts rajas are shown as having to consult a council of all male members of a tribe or aristocratic tribal councils called sabhas or samitis. Some tribes had no kingly figures and only councils--these were aristocratic tribal republics, a kind of cheifly organization, or gana-sanghas.

The increasing heterogeneity of Vedic society demanded a category of persons who could be invested with authority, with stronger political control. This subsequently led to a proliferation of small kingdoms, called janapada. This transition is seen in the very use of the word janapada, which comes from the word for tribe. Originally the janapada was the foothold of a tribe, their place, but it came to be known as the territory of all of the people of a community.

This very very briefly is the transition from pastoral nomads of the initial instance, from tribe to caste to the rajas and kings and janapadas and later mahajanapadas, the lineage to state, as it were.
What a flimsy script, no evidence, no logic but keep on writing.

1. In early Vedic society a tribe was called jana, Good going !!

2. Ask if Romila Thapar was involved in such activities either in 1500 BCE or 1000 BCE or 500 BCE and when get answer, report to me - "Their society changed from tribal organization to caste organisation and their polity changed from tribes ruled by elected chiefs to little kingdoms ruled for the most part by semi-divine kings--and then to larger monarchical states. Romila Thapar identifies this transition as "lineage to state."
litsol is offline  
Old November 30th, 2014, 12:29 AM   #1443
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
With Chitra's evidence, Your fallacious conjecture that Saraswati was never an Indus Valley River stands defeated.

You don't have knowledge of other scriptures who clearly mentions name of kings ruling the region of Indus river, Nor it is required since you appear not to have common sense and sincerity to stand for correct history.

Some people should always live in ignorance, we have Romila Thapar and others who works/worked for JNU like institutions, such people do everything excpet for the study and researches, so is your case. if everbody has knowledge then what is fun ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
What a flimsy script, no evidence, no logic but keep on writing.

1. In early Vedic society a tribe was called jana, Good going !!

2. Ask if Romila Thapar was involved in such activities either in 1500 BCE or 1000 BCE or 500 BCE and when get answer, report to me - "Their society changed from tribal organization to caste organisation and their polity changed from tribes ruled by elected chiefs to little kingdoms ruled for the most part by semi-divine kings--and then to larger monarchical states. Romila Thapar identifies this transition as "lineage to state."
Chitra is a common term in used Rig Veda. It is a common name or epithet for many Vedic Gods including the Sun as referred to in Hymn 1.115.1. Indra is identified with Sun as Chitra IV.31.1, 15. Indra also steals Soma from Twashtar, the God who rules the constellation Chitra (I though won't comment on a God stealing booze from another God). Let me quote from Hymn VI.6.6: "oh Chitra, appear for us as Chitra, you whose rule is Chitra, most Chitra like, the ordained of the age, oh Moon, with the Moons grant to the singer the Moon, a vast and manifold splendour." Chitra is also invoked as a deity or as a form of Agni. The Taittrirya Brahmana (1.5.2.2) also relate Chitra to the head of the constellation. While the Brahmanas relate these as traditional, the Rig Veda speaks of them as contemporaneous. While Saraswati is also mentioned as a Milky Way in Rig Veda, a constellation called Chitra is not out of place.

In book, "Vedic Civilization" edited RK Pruthi, on page 116, it is highlighted that,
"Rig Veda 1.126.1 speaks of a King living on the banks of Sindhu, and another VIII.21.18 refers to a King Chitra and other nobles as residing in the neighbourhood of river Saraswati." You stated that King Chitra had his kingdom on the bank of the river, whereas, RK Purthi translates it to be in the neighbourhood. Can the neighbourhood here extends to hundreds or more miles, as one of the gentlemen here indicated Rakhigarhi to be on the bank of river Ghaggar, however, the site was over 100 km away. His kingdom could could still be in the neighbourhood of Saraswati which is a Ganges Valley river, while remaining in the old Punjab, on the other side of the watershed.

What I am trying to state here is that you have big holes in what you are trying to prove.

And I deliberately referred to Romila Thapar in my earlier post, knowing the interest she generates amongst you guys.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 30th, 2014, 02:07 AM   #1444
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
With Chitra's evidence, Your fallacious conjecture that Saraswati was never an Indus Valley River stands defeated.

You don't have knowledge of other scriptures who clearly mentions name of kings ruling the region of Indus river, Nor it is required since you appear not to have common sense and sincerity to stand for correct history.

Some people should always live in ignorance, we have Romila Thapar and others who works/worked for JNU like institutions, such people do everything excpet for the study and researches, so is your case. if everbody has knowledge then what is fun ..
I have posted this before as well. However, I am sure you have not read it before. For your convenience, I will post it again:

Excerpt

Prof. Ashoke Mukherjee of Calcutta University sees the term Sarasvati as an adjective ‘qualifying something as being full of water’ which need not necessarily mean a river but any water body. Witzel says that Sarasvati is the feminine form of Sarasvant which name occurs in the RV as the keeper of heavenly waters (RV 7.96.4/ 10.66.5). In 1927 Hermen Lommel had first speculated that Sarasvati is cognate to Haraxaiti, as Iranian H corresponds to Vedic S. He referred to an Avestan mythological river, sura anahita, which points to an already proto-Indo-Iranian myth of a cosmic river Sarasvati. In the later Avesta Haraxaiti is identified with a region infested with rivers and the early Persian cognate Harahuvati was identified with the Helmand river system. The reference to a region rich in rivers fits well both to the Helmand system and to sapta sindhva system of the northwest. Other meaning of the term Sarasvati renders `praise utterance` signifying eulogy. This cannot mean a river, can possibly refer to goddess. In the fourth book alone there are no referral verses on Sarasvati; all other books contain verses on Sarasvati. Seventy two references are there in the Rig Veda. However, barring a few, it is not clear if the hymns praise the river Sarasvati or goddess Sarasvati, it is inexplicably merged.

http://enorkumar.wordpress.com/tag/hakra-culture/
Ticker is offline  
Old November 30th, 2014, 02:19 AM   #1445
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

@litsol

The above posts of mine may suggest that, a constellation named Chitra exists in the neighbourhood of Milky Way named Saraswati. Unless of course, the location of Saraswati river and exact location of King Chitra's Kingdom is physically verified on ground. And that has not happened as yet.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 30th, 2014, 02:45 AM   #1446
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: India
Posts: 474

You were already given another verse having exclusive word "Nadi" or "River" added to "Sarswati" but you are going to Milkyway, "Milkyway" is a galaxy that's called "Akash Ganga" in text and Rigveda dosnt have word "Akash Ganga" in it, so, there is no inter-connection.

But looks, you have lost your comprehension and thinking to relate "King" - "Chitra" to "constellation" - ""Milkyway"

You best remain confused although the verse clearly mentions that it is the king Chitra who ruled over the Saradwati region, as mentioned with position of "Rajan" but it looks that in your schools you are told that King or "Rajan" is a synonym to "Constellation" and hence you are not able to decide what it is there.

I w'd add to your confusions that these days, India has got a famous singer "Chitra" who sings very well, so, You have to think what's the best fit = King Chitra, Constellation Chitra and Singer Chitra.

Only you can remove your confusions, t's not of other's interest that what you do to help you out overcoming the state of confusions.

Last edited by litsol; November 30th, 2014 at 03:32 AM.
litsol is offline  
Old November 30th, 2014, 04:08 AM   #1447
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
You were already given another verse having exclusive word "Nadi" or "River" added to "Sarswati" but you are going to Milkyway, "Milkyway" is a galaxy that's called "Akash Ganga" in text and Rigveda dosnt have word "Akash Ganga" in it, so, there is no inter-connection.

But looks, you have lost your comprehension and thinking to relate "King" - "Chitra" to "constellation" - ""Milkyway"

You best remain confused although the verse clearly mentions that it is the king Chitra who ruled over the Saradwati region, as mentioned with position of "Rajan" but it looks that in your schools you are told that King or "Rajan" is a synonym to "Constellation" and hence you are not able to decide what it is there.

I w'd add to your confusions that these days, India has got a famous singer "Chitra" who sings very well, so, You have to think what's the best fit = King Chitra, Constellation Chitra and Singer Chitra.

Only you can remove your confusions, t's not of other's interest that what you do to help you out overcoming the state of confusions.
The Vedas do mention a lot of names of kings and rulers and warriors but fail to provide the names of places where they ruled, the tribes to which they belonged or any mention of political or administrative structure of the territory and the system of governance that they followed. Names of at -east twenty or more tribes have been mentioned in the Vedas but fail to indicate the territory they inhabited or the kings or chiefs who led them. The names of the fathers of those kings have been mentioned and that is the extent to which information is highlighted which is not enough to reconstruct the ruling dynasty. The Vedas also mention names of some tribes who were allies but not much can be analysed from the random mention of names of kings or tribes. For understanding of the Vedic political structure and history, dependence on Puranas will have to be resorted to. The problem however is that the Puranas were composed about one thousand years after the end of Vedic period. Some of the events or kings mentioned in the Vedas may even have existed closer to two thousand years before the first Purananic dynasty was though about.

I have quoted scholars of various hues, including those from Republic of India and internationally acclaimed and have also provided links to those quotes for you to read their assessments and opinions.

You on the other hand make statements which at best can only be conjectures and nothing more.

You also mention Chitra, the famous India singer that she is, and refer her to a male personality of the yore. It reminds me of a famous saying, "if aunty had balls she would have been an uncle."

Alas, you and your conjecturing.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 30th, 2014, 05:19 AM   #1448
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Let's take the example of King Sudas who is prominently mentioned in the Vedas. The Puranas state that he belonged to the Lunar dynasty and was amongst the descendants of the Puru, belonging to Puru tribe and shown as a thirty third descendant of the Purus. However, in the Vedas, he is stated to be leading the Bharat and Tritsu tribes against a group or coalition of tribes in which the Puru tribe is one of the most prominent tribes. I wonder as to how could King Sudas would then be a Puru. Many names of kings mentioned in the Vedas have not even been included in the Puranas. This makes clear understanding of the history of that era rather problematic.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 30th, 2014, 06:02 AM   #1449
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: India
Posts: 4,333

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
Let's take the example of King Sudas who is prominently mentioned in the Vedas. The Puranas state that he belonged to the Lunar dynasty and was amongst the descendants of the Puru, belonging to Puru tribe and shown as a thirty third descendant of the Purus. However, in the Vedas, he is stated to be leading the Bharat and Tritsu tribes against a group or coalition of tribes in which the Puru tribe is one of the most prominent tribes. I wonder as to how could King Sudas would then be a Puru. Many names of kings mentioned in the Vedas have not even been included in the Puranas. This makes clear understanding of the history of that era rather problematic.

Bharatas are a branch of the Purus.
Vajra is offline  
Old November 30th, 2014, 07:12 AM   #1450
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: India
Posts: 474

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
The Vedas do mention a lot of names of kings and rulers and warriors but fail to provide the names of places where they ruled, the tribes to which they belonged or any mention of political or administrative structure of the territory and the system of governance that they followed. Names of at -east twenty or more tribes have been mentioned in the Vedas but fail to indicate the territory they inhabited or the kings or chiefs who led them. The names of the fathers of those kings have been mentioned and that is the extent to which information is highlighted which is not enough to reconstruct the ruling dynasty. The Vedas also mention names of some tribes who were allies but not much can be analysed from the random mention of names of kings or tribes. For understanding of the Vedic political structure and history, dependence on Puranas will have to be resorted to. The problem however is that the Puranas were composed about one thousand years after the end of Vedic period. Some of the events or kings mentioned in the Vedas may even have existed closer to two thousand years before the first Purananic dynasty was though about.

I have quoted scholars of various hues, including those from Republic of India and internationally acclaimed and have also provided links to those quotes for you to read their assessments and opinions.

You on the other hand make statements which at best can only be conjectures and nothing more.

You also mention Chitra, the famous India singer that she is, and refer her to a male personality of the yore. It reminds me of a famous saying, "if aunty had balls she would have been an uncle."

Alas, you and your conjecturing.
Now I understand why you are so much into nonsense and frivolity, both words are not same and equal -

1. The king who is mentioned in Rigveda - चित्र , in fact his full name is - चित्ररथ.
2. The constellation where you are getting lost is - चित्रा

Rest all that you copied from here and there and pasted on Vedas are all false and wrong, how you thought to do all such absurd things without knowledge, without having ability to understand, You made a show of illiteracy. It's shameful.

Last edited by litsol; November 30th, 2014 at 07:28 AM.
litsol is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
ganges, indus, river, saraswati, valley



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ethnicity of The Indus Valley Civilization 1991sudarshan Ancient History 71 December 17th, 2015 06:44 PM
Indus Valley celtman Ancient History 26 January 10th, 2015 01:08 PM
Indus Valley is Tamil Civilization omtamil Asian History 407 December 21st, 2014 09:18 AM
some indus river valley questions dreamshadow3 History Help 4 February 18th, 2011 08:08 PM
Indus Valley Syed F. Inam Ancient History 3 November 19th, 2010 01:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.