@_Anonymous_ @Guynextdoor Can you guys stop getting personal to each other on every thread? The time goes in to cleaning the crap is high..... Please.... it's a request...
The Vedic World
- Thread starter Guynextdoor
- Start date
- Status
The professor points out that they vedic texts and the weed VSDOC's smoked were probably different. In the Persian side 'homa' can have many candidates and and seems to be somewhat 'weaker' in potency than the stuff the Vedic in the subcontinent were referring to. the Persian stuff was probably found in the areas around the Pamir mountains while the Indian soma is described as being on the top of a specific mountain and difficult to get.
In summary....our forefathers smoked the better stuff...
If one strictly goes by the AMT model, despite the split, ancient Iranians and Indo-Aryans must have lived near proximity to one another to develop cultural affinities (including the soma ritual) but as the Indo-Aryans moved eastward, and into the flat plains, access to the ephedra plant becomes scarce and forced them to look for a substitute. The other school disputes this claim and believes that Soma was not integral to the vedic sacrifices in the early Rg Veda mandalas and only makes its entry in the late Rgveda mandalas (8 and 9) thus was probably picked up by Indo-Aryans on their way westward or possibly was introduced by a second wave of Indo-Aryans moving east in late Rgvedic period....
The official explanation of some prominent leaders of Sangh say "India is for Hindus", but every time they have said this they have categorically clarified hindu (indu) as a geopolitical identity and not a religion. Anyone who identifies himself from hind is hindu, not the religion. But as often happens dimwits hordes that follow these organization take the first sentence and combine it with their own insecurities, and subvert that message as India is for Hindu (religion).
There is a bit of classical hypocrisy in that explanation, where the same Sang leaders can easily change the message to Bharat Bharitiyon/Hindustaniyon ke liya, or to that effect. If the term Hindu is to be used as a geopolitical term for the identity of people from "Hind", there is no reason to use the word that can have two meanings. But I suspect, the way it is used is specifically to promulgate not an alternative meaning for the same hordes that the same leaders claim to be misusing it. The idea that Hindu can have two meanings is convenient "get of jail" card when their feet are held to fire; all the while not accepting it's dual meaning by the mainstream keeps it catering to the mindless followers whose frustration of daily lives manifest through aggression and sometimes violence against other religions.
Education and only education can serve as the solution to all this; as far as I am concerned, India, not the just republic of India (since 1950) but the Idea of India has accepted, adapted and absorbed all different cultures, religions, traditions, cuisine's that came to it and made it it's own. Rigidity was never a civilizational trait of India if someone tries to fabricate cultural/civilizational rigidity, it is bound to fail.
From what I have read, the samudra manthan and haoma itself was immediate to near pre split.
Cheers, Doc
Research about vedic period is at best hopeless and at worst a waste of time. The events they talked about had happened millions of years ago. You can't find any evidences of them. That is why it entirely depends on your aastha that you believe them or not
Anyone who believes in this AIT is absolutely wrong. Tamils were the original Aryans and their Language at that time known as Prakrit was converted to Sanskrit. The early sanskrit and the sanskrit of Vedas is heavily derived from Tamil and has words which are common to both. The Panini sanskrit included words from other regions as well. The language of the locals all over India was called Prakrit and an highly evolved version of that was Sanskrit. So no goddamn Aryans came to India. Indians went out to central Asia and Iran. Please read the vedas and you will know that It speaks of India as Jambudvip. This belongs to the time when India had broken away from Africa plate and was drifting in IOR to finally strike Asia Plate. It is for this reason that flora and Founa in India is very close to South African regions. How do you explain the Balochi language Brahui which is nothing but Tamil?
Yes I think the date ascribed by prof Muller et al was arbitrary and at best an educated guess. Muller took great pains to explain that his dating was indeed not based on any hard evidence.
However one way the scholars have tried to set an upper and lower limit is based on the Anatolian evidence. The Boghazkoi treaty of the Mittanis appears to belong to a people who appear to have spoken an Indo-Aryan derivate closely resembling Indo-Aryan of the Rgvedas. The Mittani tablet has been dated to around 1400 BCE, so Indo-Aryan is at least that old. The Boghazkoi tablets also revealed several early Hittite languages which are now considered to be part of the Indo-European group. Interestingly these languages have, according to linguists, displayed several phonological characteristics which makes them to believe that these Hittite languages were, linguistically speaking, closer to the proto-Indo-European, than Sanskrit, Greek or any other Indo-European languages. Now the Boghazkoi tablets have been dated to between 1800-1200 BCE. Now it has been argued that vedic sanskrit, as with other Indo-European languages, does not show those Hittite linguistic characteristics because it developed much later than the languages represented by the Boghazkoi inscriptions. This means Indo-Aryan of the Rgvedas cannot be older than 1800 BCE, which is the age of the Boghazkoi tablets.
Now that you've mentioned the supposed time lines , two interesting points cropped up which need be mentioned here.
I once read ( I believe on Historum) that the oldest of the family books of the Rg Veda attested to certain astronomical phenomena which when Cross checked with modern astronomical software programmes dated back to anywhere between 4000 - 6000 BCE, perhaps older.
There are also references to yagyas carried out deep in the night continuously for several nights& days( a clear reference to temparate climes where the sun didn't shine for several days at a stretch particularly in autumns & winters) .
The second pertains to the similarities between the Sanskrit of the later books of the Rg Veda with the Avestan language. In fact I've also come across speculation that the Atharva Veda is a companion piece to the Zend Avesta.
It really makes me wonder as to why we Indians go by the bullshit written by western world and not by our own knowledge. we all know about Lord Rama. Using the astronomical calculaters we have not only calculated his date of birth to be in some 5000 yrs BC but also the dates of Mahabharata. Both those texts are written in Sanskrit. So how can anyone put the dates of Vedas to be 1800BCE? Most people forget that Vedas existed as one single document till Rishi Ved Vyas divided them to four parts and gave them different names. The sanskrit of these four parts has contained some words from the era of Rishi Vedvyas. This is the reason that western world got fooled and put the date of Vedas to about 1800 BCE.
We are all aware of the Ice age which lasted till about 2000BCE. India was not affected by it but latitudes above Punjab were which had thick layer of ICE. The end of ICE age resulted in disappearance of many rivers including River Saraswati which had their origin in high himalayas in Glaciers.
The Rig Veda yagnas starting in first prahar of morning and lasting for few hours as stated by Bal Gangadhar Tilak point to higher latitudes but he was wrong. If you are in southern hemisphere at similar latitude, you will get same type of sunrise and sunset times.
Language and names of the places are the biggest indicater of direction of movement of civilizations. British took the names of the cities they belonged to to various places like USA, NZ and Australia. They even named the rivers with similar names. But we do not find even a single city or river named in our vedas anywhere in the world except India. Why?
Lastly, the victors have always dictated their belief and gods on the new areas and its people. How can anyone explain that Aryans adopted the native culture and rituals of the lands they conqured.
You have made some valid points but there's a fundamental fallacy in your argument. Any such theory propounded must be validated on the ground with hard evidence and corroborated too. Else they're mere theories or in this case part of a belief system and mythology. The AIT / OIT / AMT hasn't been completely validated nor invalidated coz each of these theories contain substantial gaps which don't quite add up when viewed holistically.
While Dravidian substratum is observed in the ancient Indo-Aryan, thus some suggesting it was extraneous in origin, no serious scholarship considers Dravidian group of languages and Indo-Aryan languages having sprung from the same source. Loanwords between languages only indicates their proximity in a distant past, not necessarily their common origin.
We should not conflate the Indo-Aryan origin theory with that of continental drift theory, these happened on entirely different geological timescale.
Archaeoastronomy as a method to arrive at chronology of historical events based on charting of the celestial map, has had a rather poor reception in the academia. Probably because the 'alternate history /forbidden history' scholars have more often than not resorted to this method to overturn traditional chronology. You are probably aware of the theories of Graham Hancock, John Anthony west et al. So imagine how something as arcane as archaeoastrology would be perceived.
The similarities between the old Indo-Aryan and old Avestan is extraordinary, but is understandable if you consider the close proximity of the relative geographies of the two cultures. Moreover, as per the linguistic model, the indo-Iranian group was the last split from the proto-Indo European group and in terms of chronology of the indo European language group, indo-Iranian split into old Indo-Aryan and old Avestan happened is deemed very late.
I have given you hard scientific facts regarding the date of birth of Lord Rama and mahabharata war. We all have read/heard them and we all know that even vedas were quoted extensively in them. Does this not mean that Vedas predate these historical events? Who can doubt them and for what? So all these theories must first prove those dates wrong and only after that those evidences about Aryan theories whether into India or out of India can be accepted. When these theories were written, the proof about Lord Rama was not availbale.
No sir, the continental drift theory and the date of origin of Vedas is same. The world has accepted that there were three different routes of migration out of Africa into India. The first one was with the continental drift itself.
Point well taken but I think there's a fundamental difference between Archaeoastronomy & astrology. I never referred to the latter unless it's a typo from your end.
Further, I think the archaeological community ought to broaden it's horizons beyond considering certain disciplines as blasphemy or heretical just because a fringe group swears by it.
I'm also inclined to believe that while Indo Iranian as a language family may have been the last time break away from P.I.E , the practices this described may well have it's origins in even more ancient times. After all codification of the liturgical language for rituals apart from the rituals themselves follows and doesn't precede the rituals or the liturgical texts employed in it's discharge.Just my 2 cents . There have been fire altars discovered in the Pontic Steppes too dating to about 4000-5000 BCE apart from the BMAC circa 2000 BCE which incidentally also revealed butchered remains of horses in precisely the manner it had been described in the Rg Veda.
Continents started to drift to their current position hundreds of millions of years ago, long before there were any humans (or any simians for that matter )
Sir, the vedas have no reference to the Mahabharata or the Ramayana.The only significant war the Rg Veda refers to is the Das Rajina.In fact references to the Veda are almost conspicuous by their absence in the Ramayana. It may also surprise you to note that the Ikshavakus though considered an Indo Aryan tribe weren't exactly considered part of the Vedic pantheon for not all the Indo Aryans submitted to the authority of the Vedas - a pre requisite to being considered part of the Vedic cult. This in itself would merit a separate thread of its own. Incidentally, the Ikshavakus and the Bharatas purportedly descendants of the solar & lunar dynasties respectively never saw eye to eye. Incidentally Siddhartha Gautama proudly claimed he belonged to the Ikshavakus and was a descendant of Rama. He also negated the supreme authority of the Vedas.
However, there are plenty of references to the Vedas in the Mahabharata including to it's presumed compiler Veda Vyasa. Incidentally, Veda Vyasa is referred to as the compiler / editor of the Vedas and not it's author. There was no single author of the Rg Veda.
I completely disagree with you here. Puranas and vedas are quoted extensively in Ramayana. Otherwise there would have been no astronomical record of events. Astronomy/astrology is a vedanga meaning part of vedas. The Ikshvaku vansh started from Vaivastha Manu who got Vedas from Lord Ganesha. The vedas were preserved from the previous manavantar meaning the seventh manu and passed on to the present eight Manu.
Regarding continental drift theory. The event took place millions of years ago and also lasted millions of years. I am referring to the ending time of it and not the start of it. How old are Himalayas.
The Geological Society
- Status