Dwarka- Solid proof of Lord Krishna's existence & AIT's death

Nov 2014
1,979
Bhuloka
Since our Karmakandins believe in monopoly over logic and science, let us apply it here a bit. Science says that a law must be universal and not bound by time so Newton's laws of motion should be true for bronze age as much as for 17th century England. By this logic, if killing animals is indeed a sin, then Rigvedic seers were sinners. Brahmanic system might say that some laws are different for different time but sorry, if it was a sin it was a sin even in Rigvedic age.


Yes MS says that those who sell meat, those who consume it and those who kill it are all butchers. however, as I said this means that Vedic seers were butchers!

Also, I would like to mention that Bengali brahmins eat fish heavily as do Assamese brahmins. Konkanastha brahmins too have no problem in flouting MS here( lol, but 'doubt' is what distinguishes these people), Mithila Brahmins eat mutton but not chicken. Kashmiri brahmins were condemned as meat eater by MM Malviya for a reason.
You missed my point completely. Read my post again. Sacrifices in the rituals were permitted all along, all though some people used flour. It was meat eating that was generally condemned, but here too there are exceptions.

Mallaviya was a coward who did not fight even when Vishnu idol from garbha griha was thrown out of Amritsar but instead took it away to another place. Malviya lived and died a fool, he did not even know that the same dharmasutras permit meat eating in mountainous regions where food is scarce

But then this is 'beauty' of these people. Rigvedics butcher innocent bulls but Satpatha brahmin says killing animals is sin.
Satapatha Brahmana does not say killing animals in vedic sacrifice is a sin

You can eat beef and you can call yourself Vedic religion follower, you can frown upon marrying cousins and call yourself Vedic follower.
So? Core Vaishnava texts(srimad bhagavatam etc..,.) completely condemn meat eating. Yet, bengali vaishnavite texts permit fish eating.So is vaishnavism not a religion? How many worshipers of Rama and krishna are vegetarians today? You have called Krishna your god.Are you a vegetarian(I'm sure Rajputs aren't) So does that mean yours is not a religion?

BTW, Beef eating is completely condemned in every single vedic text, with all the consistency. The only exception, as usual, is during sacrifices

Now ,Dalits who form 20% of Hindus are voracious beef eaters. Every Hindu text condemns beef. Yet they eat beef and call themselves Hindu.So, is Hinduism not a religion?

and you can marry your nieces and call yourself Vedic follower
Absolutely wrong. Show me a single verse vedic verse which permits to marry nieces. This tradition is south Indian and unrelated to vedic

You can abduct women in war and call yourself Vedic follower
No, not at all. Abduction is called 'Rakshaka'(demonic) form of marriage.. It was condemned in harsh words in all Brahmanical texts . It is explicitly stated that Rakshasa form of marriage is performed only by powerful kshatriyas who were outside the purview and control of Brahmins anyway

Manu smriti 3.24

”The four forms (of Marriage) the seers have ordained as proper for Brahmanas; only the Rakshasa form as proper for Kshatriyas, and the A’sura form as proper for Vais’yas and S’udras
Mahabharata 1.73
.As regards kings, even the Rakshasa form is permissible
So, your statement is false. Brahmins did not abduct women. It was done by kshatriyas


Krishna abducted (although not forcibly) and married his own cousin. Now, you say vedic religion is not a religion because it permits cousin marriages and abduction(which it does not). By your own logic, your religion is itself not one. Of course, religion is not about these things. Vedic religion,Vaishnavism and Hinduism are all beautiful religions with great morals and we cannot judge them by picking stray references such as the above
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
1,979
Bhuloka
First of all, you are still mistaken that I care for insults of Rajputs or Biharis, you once again forgot what I wrote about Rajputs. However your Huna = Rajput( actually Vajra's idea not your) is not that correct. Rajputs are not homogeneous just like brahmins are not same. Huna connection is strong only for Gurjars and scholars like Masica find indigeneous origin of Gurjars possible.
Gurjara= Pratiharas is again not shared by many historians like Dasarath Sharma who have written extensively on Rajputs. Actually Rajputs had different clans and dynasties which emerged at different places. Paramars emerged in Malwa, Chandelas in Jejakabhukti, Tomars in Delhi region, Gahadvalas near Varanasi and Solankis in Gujrat. Guhilots emerged in Rajasthan.



In Malwa which was ruled by Muslims for centuries, Rajputs became dominant in early part of 16th century . Was Rajasthan ruled by two centuries by Hunas? Certainly not. Not even Mughals could exterminate Rajputs, they used Rajput soldiers and even cavalrymen despite having continuous supply of fresh Turkic warlike people, how come Hunas destroyed every Kshatriya when Kshatriyas like Yashodharman and Maukharis defeated them and Harshavardhana's father was lion to 'Huna deer' as per Banabhatt?
In the Gurjara pratihara-Pala-Rastrakuta contest that crippled everyone, some Rajputs fought under Gurjaras.Many other minor chieftains who asserted independence also came to be called Rajputs.This is a reason why there wasn't a strong north Indian kingdom post Harsha until the time of Muslim invasions. it does not mean rajputs invaded, just that every minor chieftain called himself one

That said, i stand by my assertion that Brahmins of South and Bengal indeed mixed with locals or even elevated locals under Brahmanic fold. Come on man, this much is accepted by even Mimansakas like owner of ManasTaramgini blog who is himself a brahmin well versed in Vedic lore.
I have never disputed it. Many Bengali and South Indian locals were elevated as Brahmins very early. i agree with your statement that they were most probably converted from local non brahmin castes.

However, I entirely disagree with your genetic hypothesis.It is these Brahmins which show highest frequency of R1A1(Bengali Brahmins at 72%). So how do these local Brahmins show Greater "Central asian" admixture? The Harappan project code which put NE component of Haryanvi Jats at 18%(higher than baloch,kashmiri,pathan and nuristani!) is a flawed exercise that failed to distinguish NE from SA completely. I think these genetic tests are absolutely unreliable. Haryanvi jats such as Mallika sherawat look completely south Indian to me. That is because NW is an old halogroup. Even the Baloch component among jats, which is expected to be higher, is the same as that of other Rajasthani and Haryanvi locals.This plainly contradicts history.Had the same jats been tested at sindh, that NW euro component would have actually been taken as Baloch. If they had been tested in UP, the same component would have been tested as South Asian(Indian)

Actually you cautioned me not to go by looks but now it seems you are doing just that. I also agree with your assertion that Brahmins of south do not look much different from locals. But then, the Brahmins of Bihar and UP do not look much different from them either. Although many Brahmins from UP have retained their 'Aryan' looks, I cannot differentiate a south Indian from many UP brahmins like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pandit malaviya. Many locals from UP must have been elevated to the status of Brahmin as well. After all, Patanjali talks about golden haired Brahmins in UP. I think we can agree that vajpayee does not belong to this race of golden haired Brahmins. The point is there was admixture everywhere, from kashmir to kanyakumari. Atleast,some south Indian Brahmins such as Jayalalita and srinivasan look just a tad different from other south Indians. We also know that many northern Brahmins migrated into the south and there was some admixture.


Because the density was lesser in regions like Himachal,kashmir,garhwal etc..,. we come across higher frequency of northwest Aryan component


First of all, you are still mistaken that I care for insults of Rajputs or Biharis, you once again forgot what I wrote about Rajputs. However your Huna = Rajput( actually Vajra's idea not your) is not that correct. Rajputs are not homogeneous just like brahmins are not same. Huna connection is strong only for Gurjars and scholars like Masica find indigeneous origin of Gurjars possible.
Gurjara= Pratiharas is again not shared by many historians like Dasarath Sharma who have written extensively on Rajputs. Actually Rajputs had different clans and dynasties which emerged at different places. Paramars emerged in Malwa, Chandelas in Jejakabhukti, Tomars in Delhi region, Gahadvalas near Varanasi and Solankis in Gujrat. Guhilots emerged in Rajasthan.
Yes, I know this all. You missed my point completely. I have already mentioned in the beginning of this thread that most castes such as Solankis were of Indian origin. However, I have read many books written by western indologists which say that Huna surname was once much widespread among Rajputs
 
Last edited:

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,441
USA
It was said in context. Mahabharata lists Hunas among Kshatriyas so many people emphasise it to show that Kshatriyas mixed( or 'originated') with Hunas who were perhaps Turkic tribes. Yes Kshatriyas of Rajasthan and Punjab might have mixed with Hunas but so were Brahmins. Bengal and South India came under fold of Vedic culture very late and Brahmins there were imported by local kings by giving huge gifts. What is today called Uttar Pradesh was core of Brahmanic settlements ( even today UP has 11 percent Brahmins if 1931 composition did not change meaning 22 million brahmins) and from here Brahmins migrated to Bengal. Now people in UP do not have mongoloid features but many brahmins of Bengal and Assam do have, this means that newly arrived brahmins in Bengal did mix with mongoloid locals.

Same goes for South India. An average Brahmin of South is still closer to non brahmins of North India than to his locality in looks but he indeed shows local influences. I have seen Brahmins from South who look almost like tribal Dravidians, this only means that either local priests were absorbed or local females were taken by them.

In other words, Brahmins of South and Bengal are not 'pure' descendants of Vedic or late vedic age brahmins from UP and Haryana and have admixed heavily.
Thanks @Jaitrasimha,

Sir, do we really know how the "pure" Vedic Brahmins looked like? Seriously, is our science that advanced? Also, if you could please let me know where this assessment was made, that will be great.
 

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,379
India
Krishna abducted (although not forcibly) and married his own cousin. Now, you say vedic religion is not a religion because it permits cousin marriages and abduction(which it does not). By your own logic, your religion is itself not one. Of course, religion is not about these things. Vedic religion,Vaishnavism and Hinduism are all beautiful religions with great morals and we cannot judge them by picking stray references such as the above
Rukmini wasn't Krishna's cousin was she? Are you sure you're not confusing Krishna Rukmini with Arjuna Subhadra? Though Subhadra was a second cousin IIRC, not a first cousin. Unless you're referring to some other abduction by Krishna, but I cant think of any other.
 
Nov 2014
1,979
Bhuloka
Rukmini wasn't Krishna's cousin was she? Are you sure you're not confusing Krishna Rukmini with Arjuna Subhadra? Though Subhadra was a second cousin IIRC, not a first cousin. Unless you're referring to some other abduction by Krishna, but I cant think of any other.
I was actually talking of Mitravinda and Bhadra. It was an abduction, but not forced . Mitravinda did not object to it at all
 
Last edited:

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,379
India
I was actually talking of Mitravinda and Bhadra. It was an abduction, but not forced . Mitravinda did not object to it at all
Interesting, didn't know about them. BTW, its possible that Jaitrasimha was talking about the Rg Vedic era, where (IIRC) cattle raids were as much about women as they were about cattle. The problem ofcourse is that the Rg Vedic era did not have Brahmins and Kshatriyas, who evolved out of the Varna system of the later Vedic era.

But abduction marriages were actually pretty common in the Mahabharata. And pretty acceptable too, based on the fact that nobody ever criticizes Bhishma, Arjuna or any of the others who did it. And Bhishma's abduction of the three sisters wasn't even consensual, it was basically out and out kidnapping and rape, and yet it was considered completely acceptable.
 

SSDD

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
3,900
India
But abduction marriages were actually pretty common in the Mahabharata. And pretty acceptable too, based on the fact that nobody ever criticizes Bhishma, Arjuna or any of the others who did it. And Bhishma's abduction of the three sisters wasn't even consensual, it was basically out and out kidnapping and rape, and yet it was considered completely acceptable.
That was Rakhsasa Vivaha(Rakhsasa Marriage) both Manu and Yajnavalkya had criticized it. In East India it was further condemned.
 
Nov 2014
1,979
Bhuloka
Interesting, didn't know about them. BTW, its possible that Jaitrasimha was talking about the Rg Vedic era, where (IIRC) cattle raids were as much about women as they were about cattle.
There isn't a single verse in Rigveda which talks of, much less approves, abduction of women. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that 'cattle raids were as much about women as they were about cattle'

The problem ofcourse is that the Rg Vedic era did not have Brahmins and Kshatriyas, who evolved out of the Varna system of the later Vedic era.
Rigveda did have Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Caste system was present even during Proto-Indo-European and Proto-India-iranian age. Since we already had this conversation, I'm just posting the links

My post #751 on this thread

http://historum.com/asian-history/73911-turushka-76.html

Also my post #129 on this thread

http://historum.com/asian-history/78935-how-did-brahui-preserve-their-dravidian-character-13.html
 
Nov 2014
1,979
Bhuloka
But abduction marriages were actually pretty common in the Mahabharata. And Bhishma's abduction of the three sisters wasn't even consensual, it was basically out and out kidnapping and rape,.
I agree with this part

And pretty acceptable too, based on the fact that nobody ever criticizes Bhishma, Arjuna or any of the others who did it.

and yet it was considered completely acceptable
What can I say? Manu Smriti condemns cousin marriage. yet, Arjuna had no problem with it. Chandogya upanishad condemns drinking. Yet, Arjuna had had no problem with it. Similarly abduction, although strictly condemned as rakshasa marriage, was performed unabated by royal elite
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
1,979
Bhuloka
Rajputs look more Indian than Kashmiri brahmins or Dogras, that is a fact.
What is Indian look? What is the basis of this qualification? So anyone with fair skin is "less" Indian than those with dark skin?

So is a dark skinned Tamilian more Indian than a person from uttarpradesh? What about mongoloid tribes? Who is more Indian between these mongoloid tribes and Dravidian chenchus?

What about the white skinned Hunza? His language is unrelated to anything outside and Hunza loans could also be found in rigveda. Can you trace an outside origin to him? Is this Hunza less Indian that Siddhi tribes?

Rajputs do not have a history before 600 AD as you have yourself observed. Meanwhile kashmiri Brahmins trace their descent all the way to rigveda sages.They have a presence in the valley since atleast 2200 years.


Entire Vedic religion is just one branch of PIE people and all its gods have some equivalents in other IE cultures as also myths and motifs. Buddhism is more distinctly Indian than Rigvedic religion.
Buddhism more Indian than Rigveda? Buddha frequently compares himself to pure "white skinned" Brahmins. "Fair skin" is mentioned as as one of the great characteristics of a Brahmin and it is further stated that Buddha also possesses this great trait


And they laid before Sonadanda the Brahman in like manner also other considerations, to wit:

That he was well born on both sides, of pure descent through the mother and through the father back through seven generations, with no slur put upon him, and no reproach, in respect of birth.

That he was prosperous, well to do, and rich

That he was handsome, pleasant to look upon, inspiring trust, gifted with great beauty of complexion, fair in colour, fine in presence{1}, stately{2} to behold
Guatama Buddha is compared to this Brahman sonadanda and it is said Gautama Buddha was of fair complexion too

'Truly, Sirs, the Samana Gotama is handsome, pleasant to look upon, inspiring trust, gifted with great beauty of complexion, fair in colour, fine in presence, stately to behold-- 'Truly, Sirs, the Samana Gotama is virtuous with the virtue of the Arahats, good and virtuous, gifted with goodness and virtue
Source- http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/dob/dob-04tx.htm

In Ambatta sutta, buddha makes fun of darker skin.

Tripitakas mention vedic "Aryan deities" such as Sakka(Indra), Agni,Varuna,Soma,Brihaspati etc,,. but you will not find who according to you are "Indian gods" such as Ganesha,durga,Krishna, rama etc..,.

Buddhist scriptures are in Sanskrit and Prakrit, both IE languages, and it is confirmed in lalitavistara sutta that Buddha takes Birth only as a Brahmin or kshatriya
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions