Chronology of Indian History --Newer discussions

Here date become important. If date around 1500 BCE is the date ascribed to Aryans in India, then central asia and middle east comes into picture, else those areas may not matter for the original place of Aryans.

Friend,

You have rightly nailed the issue in head.

Chronology is important and chronological order could only be finalized if some clues are collected from several Deva-asura battles alluded to in the traditions of India and Iran of the yore.

If main participants[Devas/Asuras and their priests] in all these Yudhas/or at least some of them, could be identified and the regions recognised where they resided at that point of time, the migration/immigration of the Indo-Aryans which happened in several waves could be settled to an extent.

As per information gleaned from various sources, 'Aryan Devas' and 'Aryan Asuras' are ascribed to common lineage of Manu and as such his descendants. Asuras are said to be senior and thus became rulers. The Devas tried to contest their right to claim ruling rights which they were denied and this led to eruption of fight between the two groups of the proverbial Aryan stock of the Pre historic and proto-historic times. These wars led to their scattering in various directions from their earliest kingdom from time to time. As their places of successive abodes changed, so gradual changes were injected in their habits, traditions, language and religious beliefs. [See, for details of our earlier attempts [posts with references earliest section of this thread] towards identification of men and places related with Devaloka and Pitri Loka [including of course, uttar Kurus].

If, one accepts to verify the authenticity of the Deva Asura power struggle known as Sangramas]Yuddhas in various Puranas, Mahabharata and, of course by implication in Rigveda, then and only then the issue could be settled once for all times to come, otherwise, endless discussion or debates would lead one nowhere.

Cooperation of all participants to dig the issue out is solicited.
 
Last edited:
Friend,

You have rightly nailed the issue in head.

Chronology is important and chronological order could only be finalized if some clues are collected from several Deva-asura battles alluded to in the traditions of India and Iran of the yore.

If main participants[Devas/Asuras and their priests] in all these Yudhas/or at least some of them, could be identified and the regions recognised where they resided at that point of time, the migration/immigration of the Indo-Aryans which happened in several waves could be settled to an extent.

As per information gleaned from various sources, 'Aryan Devas' and 'Aryan Asuras' are ascribed to common lineage of Manu and as such his descendants. Asuras are said to be senior and thus became rulers. The Devas tried to contest their right to claim ruling rights which they were denied and this led to eruption of fight between the two groups of the proverbial Aryan stock of the Pre historic and proto-historic times. These wars led to their scattering in various directions from their earliest kingdom from time to time. As their places of successive abodes changed, so gradual changes were injected in their habits, traditions, language and religious beliefs. [See, for details of our earlier attempts [posts with references earliest section of this thread] towards identification of men and places related with Devaloka and Pitri Loka [including of course, uttar Kurus].

If, one accepts to verify the authenticity of the Deva Asura power struggle known as Sangramas]Yuddhas in various Puranas, Mahabharata and, of course by implication in Rigveda, then and only then the issue could be settled once for all times to come, otherwise, endless discussion or debates would lead one nowhere.

Cooperation of all participants to dig the issue out is solicited.

We have at least 2 archaeological/geological certainties which tell us that Rig Ved should be dated much earlier than 1500 BCE:

i) iron has been dated to 1800 BCE or earlier in India in the Indo-gangetic plains,
ii) Saraswati river which has been mentioned in RigVed the most, has also been dated to have dried earlier than 2000 BCE. In Rig-ved times, it was flowing uninterrupted.

I am not sure if we should focus too much on Dev-asur sangram. Sometimes early symbolism takes historical shape later on. For a little digression, here is my thought about Dev-Asur (using Dr. Bhagwan Singh's book, The Vedic Harappans, as a reference) -

To focus only on Dev-asur is not correct. Lets look at all such pairs that find mention in Rig-Ved:

सुर - असुर or sur(dev)-asur,
देव - अदेव or dev-adev (enlightenment-unenlightenment),
स्नात - अस्नात or snat-asnat (initiated-uninitiated),
मेधावी - मूरा or medhavi-mura (wise-foolish),
आर्य - दास or arya-dasa (master-servant),
ज्योति - तम: or jyoti-tama (light-darkness),
रितविक - म्रीद्रावच or rtavak-mrdhravac (good in speech-corrupt in speech)

BTW - Most of the above words are still in use in present day India.

Most of these dev-asur conflicts seem to be symbolic and should also be seen in context as advice of good आचरण to follow to deal with or overcome specific asurs or fears. People were probably overcoming their डर या भय (asur) and they also performed rituals where they were helped by Agni (fire), Indr (rain) etc. So Agni and Indra became Dev to people but sometimes when they also caused destruction, they became Asur as well.

Some Vedic dieties that are regarded as Dev were also Asur in Rig Ved. Agni is asur (III.3.4, IV.2.4, X.15.1) as it emits smoke, Varun is asur (I.24.14, II.27.10) as he is the lord of the night, Rudr is asur too (I.122.1, II.1.6) as he is related to smoldering fire.

Lets look at some of ways Dev conquered Asurs:
Dev killed Namuci and other demons with foam, they killed Asur through sacrifices, they killed Vrtra with offerings (oblations).

These opposite good-bad forces of Rig Vedic times probably took life form in late texts. It is quite possible that certain tribes or group of people were probably categorized based on their आचरण and behavior (here we get a hint of morality and ethics perhaps) in later texts that you have mentioned previously such as Puraan and Mahabharat, where dev or sur were good people and asur were bad people but in earlier text it does not appear to be so.

However, better scholars can always educate me.
 
Last edited:
We have at least 2 archaeological/geological certainties which tell us that Rig Ved should be dated much earlier than 1500 BCE:

i) iron has been dated to 1800 BCE or earlier in India in the Indo-gangetic plains,
ii) Saraswati river which has been mentioned in RigVed the most, has also been dated to have dried earlier than 2000 BCE. In Rig-ved times, it was flowing uninterrupted.

I am not sure if we should focus too much on Dev-asur sangram. Sometimes early symbolism takes historical shape later on. For a little digression, here is my thought about Dev-Asur (using Dr. Bhagwan Singh's book, The Vedic Harappans, as a reference) -

To focus only on Dev-asur is not correct. Lets look at all such pairs that find mention in Rig-Ved:

सुर - असुर or sur(dev)-asur,
देव - अदेव or dev-adev (enlightenment-unenlightenment),
स्नात - अस्नात or snat-asnat (initiated-uninitiated),
मेधावी - मूरा or medhavi-mura (wise-foolish),
आर्य - दास or arya-dasa (master-servant),
ज्योति - तम: or jyoti-tama (light-darkness),
रितविक - म्रीद्रावच or rtavak-mrdhravac (good in speech-corrupt in speech)

BTW - Most of the above words are still in use in present day India.

Most of these dev-asur conflicts seem to be symbolic and should also be seen in context as advice of good आचरण to follow to deal with or overcome specific asurs or fears. People were probably overcoming their डर या भय (asur) and they also performed rituals where they were helped by Agni (fire), Indr (rain) etc. So Agni and Indra became Dev to people but sometimes when they also caused destruction, they became Asur as well.

Some Vedic dieties that are regarded as Dev were also Asur in Rig Ved. Agni is asur (III.3.4, IV.2.4, X.15.1) as it emits smoke, Varun is asur (I.24.14, II.27.10) as he is the lord of the night, Rudr is asur too (I.122.1, II.1.6) as he is related to smoldering fire.

Lets look at some of ways Dev conquered Asurs:
Dev killed Namuci and other demons with foam, they killed Asur through sacrifices, they killed Vrtra with offerings (oblations).

These opposite good-bad forces of Rig Vedic times probably took life form in late texts. It is quite possible that certain tribes or group of people were probably categorized based on their आचरण and behavior (here we get a hint of morality and ethics perhaps) in later texts that you have mentioned previously such as Puraan and Mahabharat, where dev or sur were good people and asur were bad people but in earlier text it does not appear to be so.

However, better scholars can always educate me.

Friend,

Kindly let us know in clear terms if you suggest that no Deva-Asur struggle for supremacy or politiical power ever occurred as is alluded to in Indian traditions.

Regards,
 
We have at least 2 archaeological/geological certainties which tell us that Rig Ved should be dated much earlier than 1500 BCE:

i) iron has been dated to 1800 BCE or earlier in India in the Indo-gangetic plains,
ii) Saraswati river which has been mentioned in RigVed the most, has also been dated to have dried earlier than 2000 BCE. In Rig-ved times, it was flowing uninterrupted.

I am not sure if we should focus too much on Dev-asur sangram. Sometimes early symbolism takes historical shape later on. For a little digression, here is my thought about Dev-Asur (using Dr. Bhagwan Singh's book, The Vedic Harappans, as a reference) -

To focus only on Dev-asur is not correct. Lets look at all such pairs that find mention in Rig-Ved:

सुर - असुर or sur(dev)-asur,
देव - अदेव or dev-adev (enlightenment-unenlightenment),
स्नात - अस्नात or snat-asnat (initiated-uninitiated),
मेधावी - मूरा or medhavi-mura (wise-foolish),
आर्य - दास or arya-dasa (master-servant),
ज्योति - तम: or jyoti-tama (light-darkness),
रितविक - म्रीद्रावच or rtavak-mrdhravac (good in speech-corrupt in speech)

BTW - Most of the above words are still in use in present day India.

Most of these dev-asur conflicts seem to be symbolic and should also be seen in context as advice of good आचरण to follow to deal with or overcome specific asurs or fears. People were probably overcoming their डर या भय (asur) and they also performed rituals where they were helped by Agni (fire), Indr (rain) etc. So Agni and Indra became Dev to people but sometimes when they also caused destruction, they became Asur as well.

Some Vedic dieties that are regarded as Dev were also Asur in Rig Ved. Agni is asur (III.3.4, IV.2.4, X.15.1) as it emits smoke, Varun is asur (I.24.14, II.27.10) as he is the lord of the night, Rudr is asur too (I.122.1, II.1.6) as he is related to smoldering fire.

Lets look at some of ways Dev conquered Asurs:
Dev killed Namuci and other demons with foam, they killed Asur through sacrifices, they killed Vrtra with offerings (oblations).

These opposite good-bad forces of Rig Vedic times probably took life form in late texts. It is quite possible that certain tribes or group of people were probably categorized based on their आचरण and behavior (here we get a hint of morality and ethics perhaps) in later texts that you have mentioned previously such as Puraan and Mahabharat, where dev or sur were good people and asur were bad people but in earlier text it does not appear to be so.

However, better scholars can always educate me.

Aapki baat bahut sahi hai. Agar aaj bhi dekha jaaye gaon mein kaha jaata hai:"ise to katai soor hi nahi hai" artharth jis vyakti mein mein kuch bhi budhimani ya acha acharan na ho. soor ke aage "a" lagane se ban gaya asoor.

Vedon mein jis ladai ka varnan hai veh das rajaon ki ladai hai jo Ravi nadi ke aas paas ladi gayi. Isme Sudas vijayi hue. Yeh ladai aryon aur aryon ke beech mein thhi. Ek taraf kuch asur bhi thhe. Is ladai ko katai dev asur sangram nahin kaha ja sakta kyonki arya dono taraf lad rahe thhe. Sudas raja ki doosri ladai Yamuna ke tat per hui. Vidvanon ka mat hai ki Yamuna per hui ladai pehle ladi gayi. Puranon tak pahunchte pahunchte bahut ghaal meil ho gayi.
 
.............................. Yeh ladai aryon aur aryon ke beech mein thhi. Ek taraf kuch asur bhi thhe. Is ladai ko katai dev asur sangram nahin kaha ja sakta kyonki arya dono taraf lad rahe thhe.

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

Kamaal ka judgement !

Dashratha, Haryanakshpa aur Indra ke naam se jude wartanton per bhi lage haath apna faisla dene ki kripa kijiyega ki woh bhi kya arya hi aaps mein ankh micholi khel rahe the.
 
And these foolish Irani Kings called themselves Asurs in their inscxription proudly displaying their foolishness.

Romar you remind me of Dr SS Rana who advocated same type of thesis about Jats...... when he wrote....... word Jat, was a derogatory word given by Arabs to us...........( and we proudly accepted this abusive title).

When I challenged him for a debate he said you can have your views and I can have mine .On further insistence he wrote there is no trace of vedic /aryans culture beyond Indus .....Finally I understood .... he knew nothing about Iranian history or Irani Aryans ....and I lost zeal to debate with him.


Dr Rajpal has a beautiful signature and the last part is really important.
 
Aapki baat bahut sahi hai. Agar aaj bhi dekha jaaye gaon mein kaha jaata hai:"ise to katai soor hi nahi hai" artharth jis vyakti mein mein kuch bhi budhimani ya acha acharan na ho. soor ke aage "a" lagane se ban gaya asoor.

Vedon mein jis ladai ka varnan hai veh das rajaon ki ladai hai jo Ravi nadi ke aas paas ladi gayi. Isme Sudas vijayi hue. Yeh ladai aryon aur aryon ke beech mein thhi. Ek taraf kuch asur bhi thhe. Is ladai ko katai dev asur sangram nahin kaha ja sakta kyonki arya dono taraf lad rahe thhe. Sudas raja ki doosri ladai Yamuna ke tat per hui. Vidvanon ka mat hai ki Yamuna per hui ladai pehle ladi gayi. Puranon tak pahunchte pahunchte bahut ghaal meil ho gayi.

Dost,


Vedon mein varanit ladai Ravi Ke Kinare hui !

Pahali ladai Vedon ki rachana se kitane samaya pahale hui aur woh kaun vidwan hai jo yah baat kah raha hai,

kuchha andaz nahin diya aapne.

Yamuna ke kinare usase pahale hui Sudas ki ladai ka varan aap ne kahan se liya,

Bhai sahib sandarbh batiyane kee kripa kijeeyaga.

Aap farmate hain ki "Puranon tak pahunchte pahunchte bahut ghaal meil ho gayi."

Kaun pahunch raha tha Puranon tak Sudas ya pathakgana ya koi aur !!!

Dhanyavad!
 
Aapki baat bahut sahi hai. Agar aaj bhi dekha jaaye gaon mein kaha jaata hai:"ise to katai soor hi nahi hai" artharth jis vyakti mein mein kuch bhi budhimani ya acha acharan na ho. soor ke aage "a" lagane se ban gaya asoor.

............................................

Please note what historians say on the meaning of the word ASURA,

On the word 'Asura', P.L Bhargava says: "Nothing can be a greater travesty of truth than to connect it with the aborigines because in the Rigvedic period the word was a synonym of Deva, a god, and was particularly applied to the highest of the gods."
 
Please note what historians say on the meaning of the word ASURA,

On the word 'Asura', P.L Bhargava says: "Nothing can be a greater travesty of truth than to connect it with the aborigines because in the Rigvedic period the word was a synonym of Deva, a god, and was particularly applied to the highest of the gods."

The Tandya Brahmana quoted by D P Misra, p. 63 says that ''the Devas and the Asuras were both sons of Prajapati. Traditional accounts ascribe the origin of various races to a number of Prajapatis.*

Both Devas and Asuras are descendants of the same father but different mothers. It is recorded that Kashyap, the Prajapati was son of Marichi. He married several daughters of another Prajapati known as Daksa. His three principal wives were Diti, Aditi and Danu. From Diti were born the Daityas and from Danu, the Danavas. Aditi mothered Adityas, who in later ages came to be regarded as the true gods by the Vedic Aryans.

The eldest, the Daityas, and the youngest, tbe Danavas, both have been coupled together under the name 'Asuras'. The Daityas being the eldest, ruled over their father's territories. When the Adityas became strong they demanded a share in their paternal territories. On refusal by the Senior Branch i.e. Asuras, conflict started and assumed a long drawn struggle between the two branches of the same family which is described in Puranas and Mahabharata as Deva-Asura Yudhas.

['*' Prajapati means 'the head of the progeny' or patiarch]
 
nrao said:
We have at least 2 archaeological/geological certainties which tell us that Rig Ved should be dated much earlier than 1500 BCE:

i) iron has been dated to 1800 BCE or earlier in India in the Indo-gangetic plains,
ii) Saraswati river which has been mentioned in RigVed the most, has also been dated to have dried earlier than 2000 BCE. In Rig-ved times, it was flowing uninterrupted.

I am not sure if we should focus too much on Dev-asur sangram. Sometimes early symbolism takes historical shape later on. For a little digression, here is my thought about Dev-Asur (using Dr. Bhagwan Singh's book, The Vedic Harappans, as a reference) -

To focus only on Dev-asur is not correct. Lets look at all such pairs that find mention in Rig-Ved:

सुर - असुर or sur(dev)-asur,
देव - अदेव or dev-adev (enlightenment-unenlightenment),
स्नात - अस्नात or snat-asnat (initiated-uninitiated),
मेधावी - मूरा or medhavi-mura (wise-foolish),
आर्य - दास or arya-dasa (master-servant),
ज्योति - तम: or jyoti-tama (light-darkness),
रितविक - म्रीद्रावच or rtavak-mrdhravac (good in speech-corrupt in speech)

BTW - Most of the above words are still in use in present day India.

Most of these dev-asur conflicts seem to be symbolic and should also be seen in context as advice of good आचरण to follow to deal with or overcome specific asurs or fears. People were probably overcoming their डर या भय (asur) and they also performed rituals where they were helped by Agni (fire), Indr (rain) etc. So Agni and Indra became Dev to people but sometimes when they also caused destruction, they became Asur as well.

Some Vedic dieties that are regarded as Dev were also Asur in Rig Ved. Agni is asur (III.3.4, IV.2.4, X.15.1) as it emits smoke, Varun is asur (I.24.14, II.27.10) as he is the lord of the night, Rudr is asur too (I.122.1, II.1.6) as he is related to smoldering fire.

Lets look at some of ways Dev conquered Asurs:
Dev killed Namuci and other demons with foam, they killed Asur through sacrifices, they killed Vrtra with offerings (oblations).

These opposite good-bad forces of Rig Vedic times probably took life form in late texts. It is quite possible that certain tribes or group of people were probably categorized based on their आचरण and behavior (here we get a hint of morality and ethics perhaps) in later texts that you have mentioned previously such as Puraan and Mahabharat, where dev or sur were good people and asur were bad people but in earlier text it does not appear to be so.

However, better scholars can always educate me.

Friend,

Kindly let us know in clear terms if you suggest that no Deva-Asur struggle for supremacy or politiical power ever occurred as is alluded to in Indian traditions.

Regards,

Rajpalji,

With due respect as you well know, I do not have answers.
As you will also agree, even Rig Ved was created over many generations which is pointed out by anukram of rshis (see Talageri for instance). So it is quite possible that names and symbols like dev-asur which are symbolic (as per Bhagwan Singh) in earlier part of RigVed got attached to specific groups and tribes in later parts of various texts. In Rig Ved the only wars or yudh are the ones fought on Yamuna (perhaps related to treta yug as you pointed earlier in your post) and on Ravi (perhaps related to kal yug, which you also pointed in your post).

Your question is very valid and needs to be looked into. May I suggest a little ordering of things.

First lets order the ancient literary texts in terms of date or age (like which one came first and which later on...). Here is a partial list of text I have in mind: All Ved, Vedang, Upanishad, Puraan, Ramayan aur Mahabharat.

Once the chronological ordering is done, we can try to find specific mention of dev-asur sangram with specific quotes. Then we can make sense of who was writing/talking what.

That may help.
 
Rajpalji,

With due respect as you well know, I do not have answers.
As you will also agree, even Rig Ved was created over many generations which is pointed out by anukram of rshis (see Talageri for instance). So it is quite possible that names and symbols like dev-asur which are symbolic (as per Bhagwan Singh) in earlier part of RigVed got attached to specific groups and tribes in later parts of various texts. In Rig Ved the only wars or yudh are the ones fought on Yamuna (perhaps related to treta yug as you pointed earlier in your post) and on Ravi (perhaps related to kal yug, which you also pointed in your post).

Your question is very valid and needs to be looked into. May I suggest a little ordering of things.

First lets order the ancient literary texts in terms of date or age (like which one came first and which later on...). Here is a partial list of text I have in mind: All Ved, Vedang, Upanishad, Puraan, Ramayan aur Mahabharat.

Once the chronological ordering is done, we can try to find specific mention of dev-asur sangram with specific quotes. Then we can make sense of who was writing/talking what.
That may help.

Thanks.

And your comments on post 370 above: http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...-of-Indian-History-Newer-discussions&p=332533
 
Aapki baat bahut sahi hai. Agar aaj bhi dekha jaaye gaon mein kaha jaata hai:"ise to katai soor hi nahi hai" artharth jis vyakti mein mein kuch bhi budhimani ya acha acharan na ho. soor ke aage "a" lagane se ban gaya asoor.

Vedon mein jis ladai ka varnan hai veh das rajaon ki ladai hai jo Ravi nadi ke aas paas ladi gayi. Isme Sudas vijayi hue. Yeh ladai aryon aur aryon ke beech mein thhi. Ek taraf kuch asur bhi thhe. Is ladai ko katai dev asur sangram nahin kaha ja sakta kyonki arya dono taraf lad rahe thhe. Sudas raja ki doosri ladai Yamuna ke tat per hui. Vidvanon ka mat hai ki Yamuna per hui ladai pehle ladi gayi. Puranon tak pahunchte pahunchte bahut ghaal meil ho gayi.

You are right, Dasrajan yudh is definetely described as an encounter only between Aryans.

In fact it was not a war in the real sense of the word and it was never fought, I think.
It seems more of a chance encounter where some groups (taken as enemy of Sudas) came across a convoy of Sudas. The encounter took place in the middle of river Parusni (Ravi). Enemy of Sudas who were moving upstream, were swept away by some sort of flood or tide. Sudas who was moving downstream got saved. And that was the end of the so called yudh which Sudas won.

Thus we find hyms praising Indra for his help provided (I think for the timely flood) as mentioned in Rig Ved. Sudas is never mentioned for his bravery or fighting prowess but for his devotion. As provided by Bhagwan Singh - RigVed (VII 18.5-17), Wikipedia has Griffiths translation about it, which are confusing.
 
Last edited:
And these foolish Irani Kings called themselves Asurs in their inscxription proudly displaying their foolishness.

Romar you remind me of Dr SS Rana who advocated same type of thesis about Jats...... when he wrote....... word Jat, was a derogatory word given by Arabs to us...........( and we proudly accepted this abusive title).

When I challenged him for a debate he said you can have your views and I can have mine .On further insistence he wrote there is no trace of vedic /aryans culture beyond Indus .....Finally I understood .... he knew nothing about Iranian history or Irani Aryans ....and I lost zeal to debate with him.


Dr Rajpal has a beautiful signature and the last part is really important.

I think Ranbir or Romar should also answer this query.

Rig-Ved can never be equated with Persian inscriptions that mention Asur as times are completely different. Difference between the two should be in thousands of years at least. Early Rid-Ved symbolic names do not have have dev-asur as people anywhere. Later texts developed them as such in Indian literature itself, which was seen later in Persian inscriptions pointing to movement of ideas and people from east to west.
 
You are right, Dasrajan yudh is definetely described as an encounter only between Aryans.

In fact it was not a war in the real sense of the word and it was never fought, I think.
It seems more of a chance encounter where some groups (taken as enemy of Sudas) came across a convoy of Sudas. The encounter took place in the middle of river Parusni (Ravi). Enemy of Sudas who were moving upstream, were swept away by some sort of flood or tide. Sudas who was moving downstream got saved. And that was the end of the so called yudh which Sudas won.

Thus we find hyms praising Indra for his help provided (I think for the timely flood) as mentioned in Rig Ved. Sudas is never mentioned for his bravery or fighting prowess but for his devotion. As provided by Bhagwan Singh - RigVed (VII 18.5-17), Wikipedia has Griffiths translation about it, which are confusing.

Friend,

Would you kindly share the basis of your saying about Dasrajan Yudh that :''In fact it was not a war in the real sense of the word and it was never fought, I think.''

Does even Rigvedic evidence has no historic relevance at all?

Thanks
 
You are right, Dasrajan yudh is definetely described as an encounter only between Aryans.

.....................................

You are absolutely right Friend to conclude that Dasrajan Yudh was contested between the two branches of Aryans.

Members of a family were designated as Devas and Asuras in later times as both had originated from a common father [Kashyap Prajapati]

but from different mothers as clarified in my earlier post.

Several times the two branches contested for founding their political supremacy over each others' regions

which are known as Deva Asura Battles in traditions of Indo Aryans and Iranian Aryans as well as other sources too.

Thanks
 
And these foolish Irani Kings called themselves Asurs in their inscxription proudly displaying their foolishness.
Iraniyon ke inscxription kaunse saal mein likhe gaye?

Kis aadhar per aap kah rahe hain ki Iraniyon ke inscxription Rigved se pehle likhe gaye?
 
Dost,


Vedon mein varanit ladai Ravi Ke Kinare hui !

Pahali ladai Vedon ki rachana se kitane samaya pahale hui aur woh kaun vidwan hai jo yah baat kah raha hai,

kuchha andaz nahin diya aapne.

Yamuna ke kinare usase pahale hui Sudas ki ladai ka varan aap ne kahan se liya,

Bhai sahib sandarbh batiyane kee kripa kijeeyaga.

Aap farmate hain ki "Puranon tak pahunchte pahunchte bahut ghaal meil ho gayi."

Kaun pahunch raha tha Puranon tak Sudas ya pathakgana ya koi aur !!!

Dhanyavad!
Dono ladai Sudas ne ladi. Navin ne Ravi nadi ke upar ladi gayi ladai ke upar prakash dala hai. Dono ladayian Rigved ke samay mein hui hain aisa pratit hota hai. Yamuna ke upar ladai aur Ravi ke upar ladai dono hi Rigved me likhi hui hai.

Puranon tak pahuncne me ghaal mel ka matlab hai ki Puranon mein aise bahut se sandarbh jode gaye jo ki vidwan maante hein ki pichle kuch so saalon mein hi likhe gaye. Artharth Puranon ki rachna Rigved ke bahut baad hui. Puranon mein itihas doondhna aur us itihas ko rigved ke upar fit karna galat hoga.
 
I think Ranbir or Romar should also answer this query.

Rig-Ved can never be equated with Persian inscriptions that mention Asur as times are completely different. Difference between the two should be in thousands of years at least. Early Rid-Ved symbolic names do not have have dev-asur as people anywhere. Later texts developed them as such in Indian literature itself, which was seen later in Persian inscriptions pointing to movement of ideas and people from east to west.

Just trying to understand your logic ....asur a symbolic( negative) name was developed later in Indian literature which was taken later by persian ..pointing towards east west movement .....


My question was why this symbolic negative name was willingly taken as a proud identity by persians Kings ?


Answer is simple... this was not a negative identity or some symbolism or a word created by simply adding A to Soor to denote a negative meaning.



I think Ranbir confused Shauur an Urdu word that mean salika which people use in villages with word Soor used for dev.
 
Back
Top