Was Arjun a 'Parthian' MassaGetae ?!

[moar]

Was Arjun ( अर्जुन ) a 'Parthian' MassaGetae (Great Jat) King !!

Sri Krishna often used to refer Arjun as " O PARTH ! ". Does that means the One from PARTHIA ?!

Just like We refer to any guy from Afghanistan as 'Afghan'.

---------------------

Please note that Arjuna ( अर्जुन ) successfully meets the qualities of being a Scythian ('archer') / Skythian ('archer') / Sacae ('archer') / Sakâ ('archer') / Skythai ('archer') / Sai ('archer') / Skudat ('archer') !!

 

[swaich]

Was Arjun a 'Parthian' MassaGetae (Great Jat) King !!

Sri Krishna often used to refer Arjun as " O PARTH ! ". Does that mean the One from PARTHIA ?!

Just like We refer to any guy from Afghanistan as 'Afghan'.

---------------------

Please note that Arjuna successfully meets the qualities of being a Skudat ('archer') !!

A quick Google search suggests the word Parth as either relating to Archer given that Arjun was a proficient archer or as son of Pritha, another name for Kunti.

 

[rekhasmriti]

if it is -then toh good

i have googled a lot-----but not a single link suggests he was Jat king

please share same link which says he was Jat king

Was Arjun ( अर्जुन ) a 'Parthian' MassaGetae (Great Jat) King !!

Sri Krishna often used to refer Arjun as " O PARTH ! ". Does that mean the One from PARTHIA ?!

Just like We refer to any guy from Afghanistan as 'Afghan'.

---------------------

Please note that Arjuna ( अर्जुन ) successfully meets the qualities of being a Scythian ('archer') / Skythian ('archer') / Sacae ('archer') / Sakâ ('archer') / Skythai ('archer') / Sai ('archer') / Skudat ('archer') !!

 

[moar]

if it is -then toh good

i have googled a lot-----but not a single link suggests he was Jat king

please share same link which says he was Jat king

Dear Lady, I AM sure that You are not aware of the fact that Yadavas are themselves an off-shoot of the Great Jats.

About the Links, Well .... I will provide You the Links for sure, but You've got to Have some Patience for that !!

And, as the Gentleman Jit Takhar suggests >> .. " Until Lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter! " .. <<

 

[rekhasmriti]

Dear Gentleman,

Nice quote.

Although I am not a patient a person , however for this I will borrow some.

Regards,

Dear Lady, I AM sure that You are not aware of the fact that Yadavas are themselves an off-shoot of the Great Jats.

About the Links, Well .... I will provide You the Links for sure, but You've got to Have some Patience for that !!

And, as the Gentleman Jit Takhar suggests >> .. " Until Lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter! " .. <<

 

[dndeswal]

.

जब चन्द्रवंशी पांडव ही जाट थे, तो अर्जुन क्या कोई और होगा ?

कुन्ती के पुत्र को कौन्तेय कहा जाता है । कुन्ती का एक नाम पृथा भी था, इसलिये उसके पुत्र को पार्थ भी कहा जाता था ।

अर्जुन के और भी दस नाम प्रचलित थे -

1. अर्जुन ने अनेक देश जीते और उनका धन लाकर राजकोष में जमा करवाया, इसलिए उसका नाम हुआ धनंजय ।

2. संग्राम में शत्रुओं को जीते बिना अर्जुन कभी नहीं लौटा, इसलिय उसका नाम हुआ विजय ।

3. उसके रथ में श्वेत अश्व जुते रहते थे, इसलिये उसका नाम पड़ा श्वेतवाहन ।

4. उसका जन्म हिमालय पर हुआ इसलिये उसका नाम हुआ फाल्गुन ।

5. इंद्र ने उसके सिर पर तेजस्वी किरीट (मुकुट) पहनाया था, इसलिए एक और नाम हुआ किरीट ।

6. युद्ध करते समय अर्जुन ने कोई भयानक काम नहीं किया इसीलिए उसका नाम पड़ा बीभत्सु ।

7. गांडीव को वह दोनों हाथों से खींच सकता था (आम तौर पर डोरी दाहिने हाथ से ही खींची जाती है) इसलिये उसका एक नाम हुआ सव्यसांची ।

8. उसका जैसा शुद्ध वर्ण था, वैसे ही वह शुद्ध कर्म करता था, इसलिये उसका नाम हुआ अर्जुन।

9. दुर्जय का दमन करने वाला, इसलिए नाम पड़ा जिष्णु ।

10. उसका एक नाम कृष्ण भी था क्योंकि उसके पिता उसको इसी नाम से बुलाते थे ।

.

आजकल हमें जो अंग्रेजी माध्यम से इतिहास पढ़ाया जा रहा है, उसी से सारी गड़बड़ होती है । अर्जुन के समय में अंग्रेजी नहीं थी । इसलिये 'Parthian' ’MassaGetae’ का मतलब अंग्रेजों से पूछो जिन्होंने ये सब उल्टी-सीधी थ्यूरी बनाई हैं !
.

 

[rekhasmriti]

Sir ,

Indeed good info .
Please share any wikie - encyclopedia link

or any book that i can refer for same

i am mahabharat fan-----n i don't such important fact - my bad

please assist

.

जब चन्द्रवंशी पांडव ही जाट थे, तो अर्जुन क्या कोई और होगा ?

कुन्ती के पुत्र को कौन्तेय कहा जाता है । कुन्ती का एक नाम पृथा भी था, इसलिये उसके पुत्र को पार्थ भी कहा जाता था ।

अर्जुन के और भी दस नाम प्रचलित थे -

1. अर्जुन ने अनेक देश जीते और उनका धन लाकर राजकोष में जमा करवाया, इसलिए उसका नाम हुआ धनंजय ।

2. संग्राम में शत्रुओं को जीते बिना अर्जुन कभी नहीं लौटा, इसलिय उसका नाम हुआ विजय ।

3. उसके रथ में श्वेत अश्व जुते रहते थे, इसलिये उसका नाम पड़ा श्वेतवाहन ।

4. उसका जन्म हिमालय पर हुआ इसलिये उसका नाम हुआ फाल्गुन ।

5. इंद्र ने उसके सिर पर तेजस्वी किरीट (मुकुट) पहनाया था, इसलिए एक और नाम हुआ किरीट ।

6. युद्ध करते समय अर्जुन ने कोई भयानक काम नहीं किया इसीलिए उसका नाम पड़ा बीभत्सु ।

7. गांडीव को वह दोनों हाथों से खींच सकता था (आम तौर पर डोरी दाहिने हाथ से ही खींची जाती है) इसलिये उसका एक नाम हुआ सव्यसांची ।

8. उसका जैसा शुद्ध वर्ण था, वैसे ही वह शुद्ध कर्म करता था, इसलिये उसका नाम हुआ अर्जुन।

9. दुर्जय का दमन करने वाला, इसलिए नाम पड़ा जिष्णु ।

10. उसका एक नाम कृष्ण भी था क्योंकि उसके पिता उसको इसी नाम से बुलाते थे ।

.

आजकल हमें जो अंग्रेजी माध्यम से इतिहास पढ़ाया जा रहा है, उसी से सारी गड़बड़ होती है । अर्जुन के समय में अंग्रेजी नहीं थी । इसलिये 'Parthian' ’MassaGetae’ का मतलब अंग्रेजों से पूछो जिन्होंने ये सब उल्टी-सीधी थ्यूरी बनाई हैं !
.

 

[moar]

.

जब चन्द्रवंशी पांडव ही जाट थे, तो अर्जुन क्या कोई और होगा ?

Agreed Dear Sir, but I respectfully ask You to consult the Indian brahmanist (including Hindu) population to share their views on the above quote of Yours. It is the brahmanism-driven historians who are at fault. I AM sure that You will be surprised by what they have to say, and what more they are cooking in their mind to hijack the Jat History once-it-for-all !!

 

[moar]

.

कुन्ती का एक नाम पृथा भी था, इसलिये उसके पुत्र को पार्थ भी कहा जाता था ।

Dear Sir, I Respectfully Disagree.

उस्ताद जी, ब्राह्मण-ग्रंथों में आपको हर जुगाड़ मिल जाएगा, सिर्फ एक शर्त है की आपको यह अवश्य ज्ञात होना चाहिए की आपको खोजना क्या है ( अर्थात किस समस्या का जुगाड़ करना है या कहें की झूठ के पुलिंदे को कुतर्क के माध्यम से सिद्ध करना है ), अगर आपको ज्ञात है की क्या खोजना है या कहें की किस समस्या का जुगाड़ करना है फ़िर आप छा जाएंगे |

 

[moar]

Dear Sir, I Know That You Also Agree With Me About The Fact That Arjuna Was A Peerless Archer & A Jat . . . . But I AM Looking Forward To Throw Light (Expose) On The Reality Which We Are Ignoring Intentionally Beacuse Unfortunately We Are In A Habit To Do So !!

 

[moar]

.
इसलिये 'Parthian' ’MassaGetae’ का मतलब अंग्रेजों से पूछो जिन्होंने ये सब उल्टी-सीधी थ्यूरी बनाई हैं !
.

Dear Sir, I AM Glad That There Are People On Planet Earth Who Carry-On Their 'Studies & Research-Work On History' With A 'Neutral Approach' !!

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Dear Sir, I Respectfully Disagree.

उस्ताद जी, ब्राह्मण-ग्रंथों में आपको हर जुगाड़ मिल जाएगा, सिर्फ एक शर्त है की आपको यह अवश्य ज्ञात होना चाहिए की आपको खोजना क्या है ( अर्थात किस समस्या का जुगाड़ करना है या कहें की झूठ के पुलिंदे को कुतर्क के माध्यम से सिद्ध करना है ), अगर आपको ज्ञात है की क्या खोजना है या कहें की किस समस्या का जुगाड़ करना है फ़िर आप छा जाएंगे |

To label all Indian literature as 'Brahmanic' and unreliable would be a perversity of facts. The authority of the Vedas and Vedic literature is accepted by all. So, One must restrain oneself issuing sweeping statements while commenting on contribution of Indian Heritage and Cultural legacy.

 

[moar]

To label all Indian literature as 'Brahmanic' and unreliable would be a perversity of facts. The authority of the Vedas and Vedic literature is accepted by all. So, One must restrain oneself issuing sweeping statements while commenting on contribution of Indian Heritage and Cultural legacy.

Dear Sir, Please don't tell Me that You consider the Vedas as brahmanic Literature because the Vedas are not brahmanic Literature !!

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Agreed Dear Sir, but I respectfully ask You to consult the Indian brahmanist (including Hindu) population to share their views on the above quote of Yours. It is the brahmanism-driven historians who are at fault. I AM sure that You will be surprised by what they have to say, and what more they are cooking in their mind to hijack the Jat History once-it-for-all !!

Let the facts emerge on their own merit. None can stop spread of truth and as such fact based history. There is no question of putting the issue to voting and to get the approval of the so called 'brahmanist' population!

How you have gauged: "what they have to say, and what more they are cooking in their mind to hijack the Jat History once-it-for-all"

 

[moar]

To label all Indian literature as 'Brahmanic' and unreliable would be a perversity of facts. The authority of the Vedas and Vedic literature is accepted by all. So, One must restrain oneself issuing sweeping statements while commenting on contribution of Indian Heritage and Cultural legacy.

कृपया ध्यान दें : वेद ब्राह्मण-ग्रंथ नहीं हैं |

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Dear Sir, Please don't tell Me that You consider the Vedas as brahmanic Literature because the Vedas are not brahmanic Literature !!

Four Vedas/Samhitas constitute Vedic literature. So I have not said what you want to make believe others that it is so.

Rigveda is considered as the first book of the world and its Purus Sukata Mantra divides society in four groups based on their professions not on birth. That Indian system of division of society is known as Varanashram system! According to that teaching and learning is assigned to Brhaman.

They were not born as brahamns from the womb of their mothers but to acquire and the position of Brahamans they had to engage themselves busy in learning at the feet of the learned rishis/munis for a long time of period.

First we must learn difference between the ancient classification of society and understand difference between a ''Brahaman" [meaning learned] and a Pujari [Priestly class]. Now every person born in Hindu priestly class is addressed as Brahaman. This results in misunderstand and misinterpretation of ancient history at the hands of people who are ignorant of literary tradition of India.

Thanks

 

[swaich]

Moar, bhai if Arjun or the Pandavas were asupposedy Jats then why is there a conflict regarding the designation of Jats in the Varna system. Shouldn't they be automatically classified as Kshatriyas?

 

[drrajpalsingh]

कृपया ध्यान दें : वेद ब्राह्मण-ग्रंथ नहीं हैं | इच्छानुसार, आप चाहे तो इस विषय पर दयानंद सरस्वती जी के विचारों से भी अवगत हो सकते हैं |

Friend,

I understand zeal of many people to denounce 'brahamns' for the ill-position of History of the Jats. But they miss to understand difference between various terms found in ancient Indian literature like 'Brahaman' and 'Purohit' etc and their later day corrupted variants. The later day 'Pujari, Pundit, priest, bhat, court poet and bards etc.' and so on are not substitutes of the old word 'Brahaman', therefore, this leads some of the enthusiasts among us to issue sweeping statements on the issue.

Swami Dayanand Saraswati had based his arguments 'mainly' on the Vedas and not used them as 'sole or only' evidence. See various books authored by him and you would understand that he did not hate to use ancient available arguments in any scripture. His Khandan Mandan is based on a host of sources and references including therein what now we term 'Brahmnical Granthas'.

Secondly, I have read enough of books by revered Swamiji and do not say the Vedas/Samhitas as priestly literature then what for you suggest/ direct me to go in for getting information on the issue from him.

Thanks

 

[moar]

Moar, bhai if Arjun or the Pandavas were asupposedy Jats then why is there a conflict regarding the designation of Jats in the Varna system. Shouldn't they be automatically classified as Kshatriyas?

Do You Agree To The Fact That Sri Krishna Was A Human !!




We Must Not Ignore Every Established Research-Work That Directly Contradicts With brahmanical writings!!




brahmanical writings shouts that Sri Krishna had 16,108 wives (Source : Jatland Wiki - http://www.jatland.com/home/Krishna#Wives_of_Krishna ); What Do You Suggest Jaspreet Ji !!




I Do Respect Sri Krishna Ji, But As A Human !!




Also, I Believe That I Will Be Able To Answer Every Single One Of Your Question Sooner Than Later . . . . But You Have To Be Patient . . . . I AM Working-Out On This One !!




Also . . . . Jaspreet Ji, Not Only Me But The Jatland Wiki Editors Also Certifies That Sri Krishna Was A Jat . . . . But I AM Looking Forward To Throw Light (Expose) On The Reality Which We Are Ignoring Intentionally Beacuse Unfortunately We Are In A Habit To Do So !!

 

[moar]

@ DrRajpalSingh & Fellas

As Far As This Thread Is Concerned, Let Us Focus Only On The Topic Under Discussion . . . . We Shall Discuss About The Vedas In A New Specific Thread Later-On !! I Will Be Up For Discussion, For Sure . . . . In-Fact, I Would Like To Do So !!