Chronology of Indian History --Newer discussions

[drrajpalsingh]

Fresh research based views of the authors/participants in the discussion are solicited to help us to reach to the roots of the people known as 'Aryans' so that their original home question is solved, otherwise we shall keep on hankering after the borrowed website views without quotes from the original sources. Archaeological studies have come out to change many myths into history as is the case with 'Dwaraka' and converse evidences in other cases have also emerged to change the so called history into myth world over.

Hence, let us start sharing the latest accessible and available studies on the question of the Original home of the Aryans without prejudice that they came from outside the frontiers of India of today or they were indigenous product of Indian soil.

Yes come on and help us to sort out the issue, please.

 

[romar]

Very knowledgeable thread...Though it still remains a mystery whether movement was from east to west or west to east! N rao and Romar ji on one side and rajpal ji and narender bhai on other...good discussion going on... waiting for the conclusion

Aap inhe karambadh padhiye:

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...er-discussions&p=332395&viewfull=1#post332395

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...er-discussions&p=332016&viewfull=1#post332016

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...er-discussions&p=332018&viewfull=1#post332018

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms.html

 

[romar]

Asura's represented senior branch of the 'Aryans' and it seems became rulers which was resented to by their junior brethern belonging to Devas.

Asura senior thhe aur pehle raja bane yeh kaunse granth se liya gaya hai? Iska pramaan kya hai?

Dost,

Aap ne Rigaveda ko padha hoga kripya yah batlane ka kast kijiyega ki kya Rigveda mein Jain aur Buddha Dharam ke baare mein varanan milta hai.

Jaisa ki anek baar kaha ja chuka hai ki rigved ki rachna 3000 BC se pehle hui to aap yeh batayen ki isme Budh aur Jain dharam ka varnan kaise mil sakta hai? Kya aap maante hain ki Buddh aur Mahavir 3000 BC se pehle hue thhe? Agar aisa hai to kuch pramaan dijiye.

Baat un dinon ki ho rahi hai jab vedas aur anya dharama astitava mein hi nahin aye the aur Aryans ke naam se aaj jane jate Bhasha samuh ke log Kisi Ek sthan per rahate the !

Humen us sthan ki khoj ki taraf khule mana se chalana hoga, tabhi smasya ka taraksangat nirakaran ho sakata hai !

Dikkat yeh hai ki aap muul granth ki taraf nahi badh rahe hain. Bhargava ne kya kaha diya yeh Puraan mein kya likha hai ise mool baat nahi maani ja sakti. Prathmik granth Rigved hai aur usi ko aadhar banana padega. Is baat se thoda ashcharya hai ki aap bhugarbh vaigyanikon ki baat per jara bhi tavajjon nahi de rahe hain jinho ne Saraswati nadi ke tootne aur sookhne ki baat kahi hai. Isse to kuch aisa pratit ho raha ki aap apna mun bana chuke hain ki bharat mein arya bahar se aaye aur aa kar kabja kiya. Agar aisa hai to aap khul kar yeh baat kahiye.

 

[nrao]

You contradict yourself. Just 2-3 posts earlier you asked me to read quite a dated book by Bhargava, first edition of which was written in 1956. Maybe when you were a student back in 1950s, it made sense and some parts of the book still do but currently I do not have access to it. Idhar aap likh rahe hain ki " let us start sharing the latest accessible and available studies", iska kya matlab hai. Jab aapko latest research dete hain toh aap unki koi baat hi nahin karte.

Fresh research based views of the authors/participants in the discussion are solicited to help us to reach to the roots of the people known as 'Aryans' so that their original home question is solved, otherwise we shall keep on hankering after the borrowed website views without quotes from the original sources. Archaeological studies have come out to change many myths into history as is the case with 'Dwaraka' and converse evidences in other cases have also emerged to change the so called history into myth world over.

Hence, let us start sharing the latest accessible and available studies on the question of the Original home of the Aryans without prejudice that they came from outside the frontiers of India of today or they were indigenous product of Indian soil.

Yes come on and help us to sort out the issue, please.

 

[nrao]

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.

Do you think, it is satisfactory resolution of the issue?

It depends on who is asking lekin yeh case aise banta hai:

Isme koi doraye nahin ki Rig ved 2000 BCE se bahut pehle ka hai, upar diye gaye 2 karno ki vajah se.
Zend Avesta, 1700-1500 BCE se pehle ka ho hi nahin sakta, yeh zoraster ke sab researchers maante hain.
Joh ul-lekh aapne Mitanni ke diye they, who saab 1350 BCE ke hain aur unme aryans ka varnan hai. Yeh sab Rig ved ke bahut baad aate hain lekin khoob Aryans ki baat kar rahe hain.

Agar yeh sab Rig-Ved ke bahut baad ke hain toh, inko likhne wale wahan se kaise aa sakte hain, yeh batiye?

Iska matlab Aryan, Saraswati-Sindhu se udh kar vahan 1400 ke aas pahunch gaye they aur beech mein zoraster dharm ki neev bhi rakhi thi.

Yeh sab Aryan, Saraswati-Sindhu ke madhya main hi niwas karte theh aur Aryan kahne se pehle hum inhe Harappan sabhyata ke logon se jante hain. Yahi Aryans ka mool niwas hai, jinhe aap abode kahte hain.

Bharat ke bahar se aane ka na toh koi jikar RigVed main hai, na hi genetics main hai aur na hi koi pramaan archaeology main hai.
Bharat se bahar jaane ka pramaan RigVed main hain.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Friend,
Thanks for your searching questions on this issue but to keep the record straight, please see, who says what and why..................

Agar aap Rigved padhenge to shayad aap samajh jayenge ki ho kya raha hai. Bharat mein bahut se Dharm utpan hue jinka vajood Vedic dharm ki kaat karna tha. Udharanarth Bodh, Jaini, Carvaka, Zarathushtra ke dharm jaan boojh kar vedic dharm ke viprit thhe. Isme jyada sanshay nahin hai ki Iran ke arya Devon ko kharab maante hain aur asur ko acha. Bharata mein ab iska ulta hai.

Aur yeh mat bhooliye ki Bogaz Kuy mein bhi bharatiya aryon ke bhagwanon ko dev maana gaya hai. Aur rahi baat Shauur shabd ki to iska lena dena insaan ke acharan se hi hai aur yahi paribhasha hamare desh ke rishiyon ne bhi prayog ki thi aryon aur dasyu ke vishay mein.

Friend on your this post I had put the question:

Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh Dost,

Aap ne Rigaveda ko padha hoga kripya yah batlane ka kast kijiyega ki kya Rigveda mein Jain aur Buddha Dharam ke baare mein varanan milta hai.


Now, you say in reply :

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

Jaisa ki anek baar kaha ja chuka hai ki rigved ki rachna 3000 BC se pehle hui to aap yeh batayen ki isme Budh aur Jain dharam ka varnan kaise mil sakta hai? Kya aap maante hain ki Buddh aur Mahavir 3000 BC se pehle hue thhe? Agar aisa hai to kuch pramaan dijiye.

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

Ise kahate hain : Chit bhi meri aur pat bhi meri !!!

 

[narenderkharb]

Very knowledgeable thread...Though it still remains a mystery whether movement was from east to west or west to east! N rao and Romar ji on one side and rajpal ji and narender bhai on other...good discussion going on... waiting for the conclusion

Frankly I am not participating much except occasional one or two post here or there .

This migration is not a point of debate .It is clearly given to us by scientific evidences via mt-dna and Y chromosomal haplogroup study .If we can not understand that than it is our problem.

Regarding present debate as Dr Rajpal pointed out it is about earlier home of undivided vedic people.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

You contradict yourself. Just 2-3 posts earlier you asked me to read a totally outdated book by Bhargava, first edition of which was written in 1956 and nobody really takes it seriously. Maybe when you were a student back in 1950s, it made sense, eb kone chaale. Idhar aap likh rahe hain ki " let us start sharing the latest accessible and available studies", iska kya matlab hai. Jab aapko latest research dete hain toh aap unki koi baat hi nahin karte.

Kindly read my earlier comments on all the relevant latest researches posted and you will find the consistent flow of replies on my part, leave aside when what and why did Bhargava wrote and when did I study them.
If, you find any contradiction in my approach, kindly point out specific case/s as I am trying to learn from the 'youthful research' for the advancement of our knowledge on the issue being discussed and try to improve upon my 'out-dated studies'.

Thanks

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Aap inhe karambadh padhiye:

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...er-discussions&p=332395&viewfull=1#post332395

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...er-discussions&p=332016&viewfull=1#post332016

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...er-discussions&p=332018&viewfull=1#post332018

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms.html

Apke anusar Uprokat 4 links padhen, aur vishya 'Iti Sidham!'

No, it is not so easy to conclude the knotty issue so convincingly without full discussion based on historical research methodology as none is ready to buy your theory that Rigaveda came into its present final shape c.3000 B.C.

 

[nrao]

Rajpal ji,

The basis of what I wrote is what is provided in Rig-Ved and I also provided the source above. Kindly read up on RigVed VII 18.5-17. That in my view, is the Rigvedic evidence and the historic relevance of this event. For a quick understanding, please go through Wikepedia article, even though there are confusing meaning, they do provide a gist of the encounter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ten_Kings

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

The link referred by you has first of all warned us to note that :

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions. <small>(November 2012)</small>

Of course, I did write that it contains confusing meaning but will give a gist of what happened. To really understand how the events unfolded, people have to read RigVed VII 18.5-17. If possible try texts in देवनागरी and avoid Latin. Indian texts in Latin are first transliterated and then translated.

I provided Dr. Bhagwan Singh's translation, who calls Griffiths translation confusing.

 

[nrao]

Apke anusar Uprokat 4 links padhen, aur vishya 'Iti Sidham!'

No, it is not so easy to conclude the knotty issue so convincingly without full discussion based on historical research methodology as none is ready to buy your theory that Rigaveda came into its present final shape c.3000 B.C.

I would really like to know why you think this way. Why do you think that Saraswati drying up prior to 2000 BCE is not good enough. Agar RivVed mein yeh likha hai ki Saraswati poore vaeg shi bahi rahi thi toh uska kya abhipraay hai?

 

[nrao]

Kindly read my earlier comments on all the relevant latest researches posted and you will find the consistent flow of replies on my part, leave aside when what and why did Bhargava wrote and when did I study them.
If, you find any contradiction in my approach, kindly point out specific case/s as I am trying to learn from the 'youthful research' for the advancement of our knowledge on the issue being discussed and try to improve upon my 'out-dated studies'.

Thanks

Not sure what those lines are supposed to convey but I found this from Bhargava: "the Aryans originally lived in the valleys of the river Ghorband and Panjshir to the south of the Hindu Kush range... from this region one branch seems to have ultimately settled in the various countries of Europe, while another branch migrated to Saptasindhu" pg. 49, PL Bhargava, India in the Vedic Age: A History of Aryan Expansion in India, Upper India Publishing House Pvt Ltd, 2nd edition, 1971 (first published 1956).

Do you think this is the original place of the Aryans that you keep referring to as abode, as per Bhargava, who is a known invasion-theorist (although an internal invasion-theorist as opposed to external-invasion theorist).

I have another example from Bhargava regarding a conclusion using a RigVedic shlok and word, pg 236:

I think he is using the word svitniyebhih when referring to a shlok from RigVed I.100.18:

I found that particular shlok from online RigVed produced in Latin (link): http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/l...RV01.html#H100
From Latin - RigVed I.100.18 - sánat kṣétraṃ sákhibhiḥ śvitniyébhiḥ

When I looked it up in देवनागरी - RigVed I.100.18 above word in bold is actually: shvilyebhih (श्विल्येभि:)

Would they mean different things?

While we are on this topic, this link should not be missed. It prepares UPSC students for IAS and this page is for History for IAS Mains: Aryans and Vedic Period - Expansions of Aryans in India. I think they forgot to thank Dr Bhargava, when throwing light:

http://upscportal.com/civilservices...y/aryans-vedic-period/expansions-aryans-india

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Not sure what those lines are supposed to convey but I found this from Bhargava: "the Aryans originally lived in the valleys of the river Ghorband and Panjshir to the south of the Hindu Kush range... from this region one branch seems to have ultimately settled in the various countries of Europe, while another branch migrated to Saptasindhu" pg. 49, PL Bhargava, India in the Vedic Age: A History of Aryan Expansion in India, Upper India Publishing House Pvt Ltd, 2nd edition, 1971 (first published 1956).

Do you think this is the original place of the Aryans that you keep referring to as abode, as per Bhargava, who is a known invasion-theorist (although an internal invasion-theorist as opposed to external-invasion theorist).

I have another example from Bhargava regarding a conclusion using a RigVedic shlok and word, pg 236:

I think he is using the word svitniyebhih when referring to a shlok from RigVed I.100.18:

I found that particular shlok from online RigVed produced in Latin (link): http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/l...RV01.html#H100
From Latin - RigVed I.100.18 - sánat kṣétraṃ sákhibhiḥ śvitniyébhiḥ

When I looked it up in देवनागरी - RigVed I.100.18 above word in bold is actually: shvilyebhih (श्विल्येभि:)

Would they mean different things?

While we are on this topic, this link should not be missed. It prepares UPSC students for IAS and this page is for History for IAS Mains: Aryans and Vedic Period - Expansions of Aryans in India. I think they forgot to thank Dr Bhargava, when throwing light:

http://upscportal.com/civilservices...y/aryans-vedic-period/expansions-aryans-india

Friend,

Thanks for the post on the quote of Bhargava's quotation from Rig Veda 1.100.18. I will check it out and then try to make out what is the real position/ difference between both the quotes.

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Of course, I did write that it contains confusing meaning but will give a gist of what happened. To really understand how the events unfolded, people have to read RigVed VII 18.5-17. If possible try texts in देवनागरी and avoid Latin. Indian texts in Latin are first transliterated and then translated.

I provided Dr. Bhagwan Singh's translation, who calls Griffiths translation confusing.

Friend,

Good I shall like to read the original text of the book translated by Dr. Bhagwan Singh ji to avoid the pitfall of translation and re-translation as advised by you. Kindly let us know the address of the Publishing house from where his Rig Veda [original/Translation] has been published.

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

I would really like to know why you think this way. Why do you think that Saraswati drying up prior to 2000 BCE is not good enough. Agar RivVed mein yeh likha hai ki Saraswati poore vaeg shi bahi rahi thi toh uska kya abhipraay hai?

Kripya yah batane ka kaht kijiyega ke jo oldest form mein aaj Rig Veda uplabha hai, uska antim swaroop aap kis kaal sima mein manate hain aur kyon ?

Regards

 

[nrao]

Kripya yah batane ka kaht kijiyega ke jo oldest form mein aaj Rig Veda uplabha hai, uska antim swaroop aap kis kaal sima mein manate hain aur kyon ?

Regards

Prashn ka uttar prashan se kaise?

Isko is tarah se uttar diya ja sakta hai. Pehle toh yeh dekhiye ki hamien kya pata hai.

Hamein yeh pata hai ki RV 7.95.1-2 (jo ki RV ke aarambh ke anth aur RV ke madhyam mein aati hai), mein yeh bataya gaya hai ki Sarasawti ndi poore veg ke saath samudra tak bah rahi thi. Iska abhi prayay yeh hai ki kahin tootne ka koi varnan nahin aata.

Toh phir yeh pata karna hai ki Saraswati tootni kab aarambh hui. Scientists (jaise ke geologists) ka maanana hai ki 3000 BCE se pehle ya iske aas pas Saraswati ke tootne ke pramaan aane lagte hain. Isse toh yahi lagta hai ki RV ke aarambh or kuch madhyam ke mandal is samay ke pehle ke hain, laghbagh 3000 BC se pehle ke hain kyonki 7th mandal madhyam/aarambh ke aas paas ka hai. Yeh link dekhiye : http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/img20.jpg, 7th mandal ka anukram.

Iske baad yeh dekhye ki aanth ke mandal kaab aate hain toh woh iss samay ke baad ka hai. Aur aanth ke mandal hi Avesta se milte hain naa ki pehle ke mandalon se. Avesta ka samay 1600-1700 BCE se pehle kabhi bhi nahin hoh sakta. Toh RV ka poora samay 2000-1700 BCE se pehle samapth hoh jata hai.

Kuch samoodaay hain jo unlikhit vedon (maukhik) ko abhi bhi unke poorane wale roop mein hi prayoog karte hain. Yeh vedon ka kitna poorana swaroop hain, iska kuch pata nahin.

Likhith antim swaroop toh hamein Sayan ki RV se milta jiski dee hui RV ki paandu lipi hee aaj kal poori dooniya padhti hai aur uska samay 1350-1380 CE (aaj se 650 saal pehle) ka tha aur woh Vijaynagar saamrajya ka aacharya tha.

RV 7.95 shlok ka kuch aansh kuch is prakar hai:

ékācetat sárasvatī nadī́nāṃ
śúcir yatī́ giríbhya ā́ samudrā́t
rāyáś cétantī bhúvanasya bhū́rer
ghr̥tám páyo duduhe nā́huṣāya

Yajur ved mein Saraswati ko Sindhu ki sangya bhi dhi hui hai. Iska matlab hai ki hoh sakta hai ki is samay tak Saraswati sookh gayi hoh. Hamin yeh pata hai ki Yajur Ved ka kram RigVed ke baad ka aur Sam Ved ke pehle ka hai. Kuch gyaani log RV ke antim mandalon ko Sam Ved bhi maante hain.

 

[nrao]

Of course, I did write that it contains confusing meaning but will give a gist of what happened. To really understand how the events unfolded, people have to read RigVed VII 18.5-17. If possible try texts in देवनागरी and avoid Latin. Indian texts in Latin are first transliterated and then translated.

I provided Dr. Bhagwan Singh's translation, who calls Griffiths translation confusing.

Friend,

Good I shall like to read the original text of the book translated by Dr. Bhagwan Singh ji to avoid the pitfall of translation and re-translation as advised by you. Kindly let us know the address of the Publishing house from where his Rig Veda [original/Translation] has been published.

Thanks.

Rajpal ji,

I think you misunderstood. It is not translation and re-translation but transliteration and then translation. Big difference between the two words.

Dr Bhagwan Singh ki pustak ka naam hai: The Vedic Harappans, Aditya Prakshan, Delhi, 1995. In my opinion it is a little dated but offers a very unique and fresh perspective. He does not have any dates since he is not using Puraan as reference for anukram of rishis but still highly recommended otherwise. Take it as a perspective or point of view along with others RV commentaries that you read.
(If I can write, PL Bhargava's book is very outdated. Some of his view cannot be supported by RV itself and it seems that even some of his translations of RV shlok may not be correct).

Once again here is a review of this his book: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ipsg/vedic_review.htm

However, to get the right meaning of RV shlok, my recommendation is to read RV itself (in this instance RigVed VII 18.5-17) but since Sanskrit is a problem for most, we go with what others write. However, this event under discussion though no doubt historical, should not factor in our discussion about overall chronology of texts or events.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Rajpal ji,

I think you misunderstood. It is not translation and re-translation but transliteration and then translation. Big difference between the two words.

Dr Bhagwan Singh ki pustak ka naam hai: The Vedic Harappans, Aditya Prakshan, Delhi, 1995. In my opinion it is a little dated but offers a very unique and fresh perspective. He does not have any dates since he is not using Puraan as reference for anukram of rishis but still highly recommended otherwise. Take it as a perspective or point of view along with others RV commentaries that you read.
(If I can write, PL Bhargava's book is very outdated. Some of his view cannot be supported by RV itself and it seems that even some of his translations of RV shlok may not be correct).

Once again here is a review of this his book: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ipsg/vedic_review.htm

However, to get the right meaning of RV shlok, my recommendation is to read RV itself (in this instance RigVed VII 18.5-17) but since Sanskrit is a problem for most, we go with what others write. However, this event under discussion though no doubt historical, should not factor in our discussion about overall chronology of texts or events.

Friend,

This book I would like to go through and then could be in a position to comment.

At the same time, thank you for telling the difference between the transliteration and translation.. Has Dr. Harnam Singh done both or which one translation or transliteration !

regards and thanks

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Prashn ka uttar prashan se kaise?

Isko is tarah se uttar diya ja sakta hai. Pehle toh yeh dekhiye ki hamien kya pata hai.

Hamein yeh pata hai ki RV 7.95.1-2 (jo ki RV ke aarambh ke anth aur RV ke madhyam mein aati hai), mein yeh bataya gaya hai ki Sarasawti ndi poore veg ke saath samudra tak bah rahi thi. Iska abhi prayay yeh hai ki kahin tootne ka koi varnan nahin aata.

Toh phir yeh pata karna hai ki Saraswati tootni kab aarambh hui. Scientists (jaise ke geologists) ka maanana hai ki 3000 BCE se pehle ya iske aas pas Saraswati ke tootne ke pramaan aane lagte hain. Isse toh yahi lagta hai ki RV ke aarambh or kuch madhyam ke mandal is samay ke pehle ke hain, laghbagh 3000 BC se pehle ke hain kyonki 7th mandal madhyam/aarambh ke aas paas ka hai. Yeh link dekhiye : http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/img20.jpg, 7th mandal ka anukram.

Iske baad yeh dekhye ki aanth ke mandal kaab aate hain toh woh iss samay ke baad ka hai. Aur aanth ke mandal hi Avesta se milte hain naa ki pehle ke mandalon se. Avesta ka samay 1600-1700 BCE se pehle kabhi bhi nahin hoh sakta. Toh RV ka poora samay 2000-1700 BCE se pehle samapth hoh jata hai.

Lekin antim swaroop toh hamein Sayan ki RV se milta jiski dee hui RV ki paandu lipi hee aaj kal poori dooniya padhti hai aur uska samay 1350-1380 CE (aaj se 650 saal pehle) ka tha aur woh Vijaynagar saamrajya ka aacharya tha.

RV 7.95 shlok ka kuch aansh kuch is prakar hai:

ékācetat sárasvatī nadī́nāṃ
śúcir yatī́ giríbhya ā́ samudrā́t
rāyáś cétantī bhúvanasya bhū́rer
ghr̥tám páyo duduhe nā́huṣāya

Yajur ved mein Saraswati ko Sindhu ki sangya bhi dhi hui hai. Iska matlab hai ki hoh sakta hai ki is samay tak Saraswati sookh gayi hoh. Hamin yeh pata hai ki Yajur Ved ka kram RigVed ke baad ka aur Sam Ved ke pehle ka hai. Kuch gyaani log RV ke antim mandalon ko Sam Ved bhi maante hain.

Thanks for sharing the information [bold mine]'

 

[nrao]

I am not following. Who is Dr Harnam Singh and why is he discussed here at all?

Friend,

This book I would like to go through and then could be in a position to comment.

At the same time, thank you for telling the difference between the transliteration and translation.. Has Dr. Harnam Singh done both or which one translation or transliteration !

regards and thanks