Ancient Indian scholarships makes a distinction between 'Sruti' and 'Smruti' corpus. Ithasa(epics) and the puranas are firmly treated as Smruti texts, while only the vedic corpus is treated as Sruti. May be the reason for this distinction was because they did not want Sruti texts to have a historical basis and wanted it to be ahistorical and not restricted by any chronology.
The Vedic World
- Thread starter Guynextdoor
- Start date
- Status
Ancient Indian scholarships makes a distinction between 'Sruti' and 'Smruti' corpus. Ithasa(epics) and the puranas are firmly treated as Smruti texts, while only the vedic corpus is treated as Sruti. May be the reason for this distinction was because they did not want Sruti texts to have a historical basis and wanted it to be ahistorical and not restricted by any chronology.
The emphasis on Shruti had more to do with maintaining the purity in chanting, intonations etc There is a certain methodology in the way such training is imparted so that the words in the mantra aren't mispronounced .These can't be conveyed through dry texts. That's the reason the Indo Iranians opted and persisted with this method even after the shift of Zoroastrianism from the Vedic .
Nearly every Veda has a bit of smruti in it and nearly every Purana has shruti to it. The percentage varies.
The system of 'padas' (style of chanting the mantra) and 'chandas' (meter) pretty much helped maintain the integrity of the mantras, word for word, over generations. Perhaps the reason why early scholars resorted to classifying their knowledge corpus as Sruti and Smruti, is the need they felt to distinguish between what was spiritual and temporal. The Sruti texts were considered 'Apaurusheya' (not of human), truths revealed to seers in their heightened state of consciousness, hence the dire need to maintain the integrity of the text and pass it on as it is to the next generation. Smritis (from memory) was always considered a worldly text, hence no such urgency was displayed to maintain its textual integrity. Perhaps this is why smriti texts can be taken as chronologies.
Perhaps yes, but the distinction between the two textual traditions were quite rigid. How they were transmitted from generations to generations bears out this fact.
That is correct. even many brahmins got classified by the amount of knowledge they had. Like Dwivedi means a person with the knowledge of two vedas. A Trivedi means a person with the knowledge of three vedas. A chaturvedi means a person with knowledge of four vedas etc.
Why do you think we care about your Refugee claims? Didn't your ancestors make the claim that we will mix with us like Milk and Sugar? Then where does this exclusive! blood claim and exclusivity comes from? We have GIVEN you refuge, but you and many of your people spat back on us, you think you Lord over us?
You are worried because the awakening has already happened, theres nothing you can do about it
All Hail Hindu Rasthra! Let me make it clear!
Last edited:
It all started from Diti and Aditi. Why do you think Parsis, Iranians worship Asuras or Ahura Mazda and claim devas as their mortal enemies?
While we worship Devtas and consider Asuras, rakshashas as again us. Just think!
If you look closer Shukracharya was their guru, hence the word " shukran" Or "Shukriya" Came into existence in their vocabulary!
Current thinking says that IVC was formed by Iranian farmers and Southern (ASI) hunter gatherers.
The event you refer to was about after 9000 years ago, when two arms of ancient agriculture spread into India from the west (Iran) and the east (China).
Cheers, Doc
Just to be a killjoy, dickraa. Iranian farmers even after 9000 years ago didn't / couldnt / weren't Zoroastrians or Indo Iranian people. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I wasn't even saying that.
Just that movement has been into India in both cases.
I'm as interested in the ancient Indian DNA data as any of us here.
From what I've been reading about Rakhigrahi, there's already a royal shitstorm.
Neither am I surprised (knowing the chief proponent/s and the politics) nor am I disappointed.
Anything that makes Hindutvawadi blood boil is welcome.
Cheers, Doc
To quote @Sandeep0159 , what's the DNA of dickraas like? Examples of in breeding given the empahasis on racial purity, the small population size and glorious precedents in Persia? Which facilitated your entry into Islam.Smoothened it rather well.Just asking , dickraa.
Do start another thread if you are interested.
Parsis, Zoroastrianism or Islam has nothing to do with the Vedic world.
Cheers, Doc
Nearly all your views here have become repititive. tell us something new. We have debunked all the theories which have been modified overtime from AIT to no-invasion to mixing with European/Iranian stock etc. The fact was, is and will remain is that Indians are indigenous people who went out to settle in present day Iran and central asia from where they spread out to europe. These people maintained connect with their original land and continued to return their roots. This explains why the DNA is same along this route of migration out of India. There was a continuos connection between these people either thru trade or thru wars. People who call North Indians as people from Iran or steppes must consider this entire area encompassing North India central asia and Persia as one single piece of land inhabited by people of Indian origin.
Tg
IVC didn't evolve out of a Cultural vaccum. Three distinct phases of development have been documented in the Harappan civilization, this phase of evolution is both cultural, like development of distinct styles of pottery, distinct urban settlement techniques, but also chronological. The early Harappan phase(3200 BCE - 2600 BCE), The mature Harappan phase (2600 BCE - 1900 BCE), The late Harappan phase (1900 BCE - 1300 BCE)
But even in the early Harappan phase agriculture appears to be well developed, which means early phase of development of agriculture in the greater Indus area must be dated to a period before 3200 BCE. The evidence for this early phase of development in agriculture shows up in the Mehrgarh in balochistan. The Mehrgarh site has been occupied since 5500 BCE.
If you couple David Reich's hypothesis that, based on the gene analysis, people from West of the Indus basin came into interaction with South Asian hunter gathers, with Prof Renfrew's model of expansion of Anatolian farming communities spreading their advanced agricultural technology around 7000 BCE, you get this picture of the Mehrgarh phase of the pre-indus core population group. This pre-indus core population, with advanced farming techniques and early urban settlement techniques, then goes on to develop the Indus valley civilization.
This pre-indus population group carries with it the traces of common ancestry with European ancestry, because the same Anatolian farming communities went north towards Europe and Eurasia. This pre-indus population group, or at least part of it, carried with it characteristic of the earliest Indo-European language similar to the ones found in Europe, because the expanding Anatolian farming communities spoke an earlier form of proto-indo European, which then evolved into the mature Indo-European languages of the later period.
This we can explain the shared genetic ancestry, shared language system, without any need for an Aryan invasion in the late bronze age into India. These developments happened in the pre - Aryan people.
IVC didn't evolve out of a Cultural vaccum. Three distinct phases of development have been documented in the Harappan civilization, this phase of evolution is both cultural, like development of distinct styles of pottery, distinct urban settlement techniques, but also chronological. The early Harappan phase(3200 BCE - 2600 BCE), The mature Harappan phase (2600 BCE - 1900 BCE), The late Harappan phase (1900 BCE - 1300 BCE)
But even in the early Harappan phase agriculture appears to be well developed, which means early phase of development of agriculture in the greater Indus area must be dated to a period before 3200 BCE. The evidence for this early phase of development in agriculture shows up in the Mehrgarh in balochistan. The Mehrgarh site has been occupied since 5500 BCE.
If you couple David Reich's hypothesis that, based on the gene analysis, people from West of the Indus basin came into interaction with South Asian hunter gathers, with Prof Renfrew's model of expansion of Anatolian farming communities spreading their advanced agricultural technology around 7000 BCE, you get this picture of the Mehrgarh phase of the pre-indus core population group. This pre-indus core population, with advanced farming techniques and early urban settlement techniques, then goes on to develop the Indus valley civilization.
This pre-indus population group carries with it the traces of common ancestry with European ancestry, because the same Anatolian farming communities went north towards Europe and Eurasia. This pre-indus population group, or at least part of it, carried with it characteristic of the earliest Indo-European language similar to the ones found in Europe, because the expanding Anatolian farming communities spoke an earlier form of proto-indo European, which then evolved into the mature Indo-European languages of the later period.
This we can explain the shared genetic ancestry, shared language system, without any need for an Aryan invasion in the late bronze age into India. These developments happened in the pre - Aryan people.
Its not just his view, lots of new research, primarily spearheaded by genetic research but also from linguistics, seems to back the conclusion he is putting forth. At any rate most of the arguments cited against a migration of Indo-Aryan into India, also holds good to preclude a migration out of India. What I think is that we need a new model to explain all the new evidence.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw07sv4-oAKKDaiOTdOGe2Th&cf=1
Two important conclusions
Two important conclusions
- The Out of India theory is now even more unlikely, at least at the genetic level. The researchers say early Iranian agriculturists did not have any significant mixture of South Asian hunter-gatherer ancestry, “and thus the patterns we observe are driven by gene flow into South Asia and not the reverse”.
- That said, there is some evidence of movement of the Indus Valley people out towards the Turan area, based on data from the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex. Ancestries of people there suggest some very small amount of South Asian hunter-gatherer mixture, and the presence of the three outlier individuals is believed to possibly be proof of Indus Valley inhabitants migrating to Turan.
- Status