'Indian history was distorted by the British'

Iamanidiot

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
5,325
Likes
1,504
I am not talking about other parts of India. The material remains that we find from c.1400 B.C.E. in the Indus Valley are far less impressive than those from c.2400 B.C.E. The IVC underwent a very clear decline over the course of the 2nd millennium B.C.E.; at the same time, we see new cultures popping up further east in the Indian subcontinent, especially in the Ganga-Yamuna region. Compared to the IVC at its height, these new cultures were much less sophisticated, though unlike the IVC they seemed to possess horses and chariots. We see no urban sites comparable to Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro in the Gangetic plain until a much later date.

In the past couple pages of this thread I argued that the IVC declined primarily due to environmental factors, rather than any invasions/migrations from outside. I also argued that there was quite likely a large-scale eastwards migration of Harappan people from the Indus Valley to the Gangetic plain in the 2nd millennium B.C.E., and that the resulting diffusion of Late Harappan culture (which was quite different from Mature Harappan culture) laid the foundation for the rise of other cultures in the subcontinent. I elaborated more on this in earlier posts, so I won't say too much here.



Interestingly, for most of Indian history, the Indus Valley has been quite peripheral in nature, despite its great fertility and natural wealth. It has seldom been a political epicenter, and has much more often been subject to the power and authority of other regions, especially Central Asia (incl. Afghanistan), the Iranian plateau, and the Indo-Gangetic plain. There were very few powerful states that arose in the Indus Valley, compared to the number that emerged in the aforementioned regions, and virtually all states based in the Indus Valley were of only regional importance. This is largely due, it seems, to the very vulnerable geographic position of the Indus Valley, lying right on the major invasion/migration routes. Almost all powerful Indian states/empires had their base in the Indo-Gangetic plain, and a few were based in the Deccan. Both regions were much more stable and secure than the Indus Valley.
Good post this would get you a 10/15 marks for a UPSC question
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
I can prove to some extent than Aryans came from outside india...it might not be invasion but can be taken as migration of people.
Main reason is HORSES, as per vedics , horses were integral part of aryan culture and for kings wars were made on horses.
Sacrifices were made of horses, so they were part and parcel of life of aryans.
Sorry but you are rehashing the same old tripe.

Ashwamedh Yagna is so wrongly interpreted.

The word 'Ashwamedha is wrongly interpreted as
'Horse Sacrifice'. The connotation of the word 'ashwa is 'ashnute
vyaapnoteeti ashwah'. [One who expands; or one who radiates].

The word 'medhaa ' is NOT sacrifice. The connotation is 'maatrashaH edhati anayaa iti medhaa" - [That by which one can determine exactly is Medhaa].

The famous 'Ashwamedhaa sukta' (Rik. 1-164), which is widely misinterpreted
as 'Horse Sacrifice' neither mentions a horse nor describes a sacrifice.
It is a sukta, wherein Dheerghatamaa Maharshi explains the science of
Cosmos. Unfortunately most of the Commentators are not exposed to
Science; and hence go astray. All this from book 'The Science of Hinduism'.

But its proven that there were no horses in indian sub continent before 1800 BC, so indus valley civilization which existed before that time was non aryan.
So Aryans came from outside and brought horses with them.
Again bull shit stuff.

The Horse And The Aryan Debate

Physical remains of the horse in Indus-Sarasvati sites

Our first surprise is that contrary to conventional assertions, quite a few archaeologists have reported horse remains from India's prehistoric sites. A. Ghosh's respected and authoritative Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology mentions without fuss:
In India the ... true horse is reported from the Neolithic levels at Kodekal [dist. Gulbarga of Karnataka] and Hallur [dist. Raichur of Karnataka] and the late Harappa levels at Mohenjo-daro (Sewell and Guha, 1931) and Ropar and at Harappa, Lothal and numerous other sites. "¦ Recently bones of Equus caballus have also been reported from the proto-Harappa site of
Malvan in Gujarat.1

Mortimer Wheeler, a flamboyant proponent of the Aryan invasion theory if ever there was one, admitted long ago that "it is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact a familiar feature of the Indus caravan."2 The well- known archaeologist B. B. Lal refers to a number of horse teeth and bones reported from Kalibangan, Ropar, Malvan and Lothal.3 Another senior archaeologist, S. P. Gupta, adds further details on those finds, including early ones.4 In the case of Lothal, the archaeozoologist Bhola Nath certified the identification of a tooth;5 he also made similar observations regarding bones from Mohenjo-daro and Harappa.6



Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoric settlement of Surkotada, Kutch, excavated under the direction of Dr. J. P. Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse (Equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Since no wild horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoubtful. This is also supported by an inter- maxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a bad habit only existing among domestic horses which are not extensively used for war.

People migrate for sake of good pastures and better living, during 3000 - 1000 bc, there was said to be a lot of changes to world,
Castism said at time of Mahabharata was quite different, an Kastria word doesn't means high caste etc it used to mean just and good and protector of needy. so even if the ruler was born to Kshatriya but if he becomes unjust he could be called Sudra as he lost his virtue. its was we interpret what was written.
Yes Skanda Purana is very detailed about it. But we are not talking exclusively about it are we? There was no casteism in the time of Mahabharats. Do not put rubbish out without giving proof.

Mahabharata did happened as there is proof of same but it wasn't that big...try and get to some facts, its they way to say u were right and others were wrong.
Always remember HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY WINNERS NOT LOSERS. so one has to go into facts and research a lot to come to truth.

try and search about gypsies/Romani of Europe, they north Indian mostly jats who migrated to Europe to fled Muslim invasion in 12th and 13th century.
Romani people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So start giving proof. Do not just make statements.

Here is a genetic proof of outward migration from India.

http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik08/indo_aryan.pdf

Excerpt - Based on the above mentioned genetic markers, one has to conclude that Hg R1a1
chromosomes came from India and reached the Balkans, before Hg N3 expanded between
the Baltic and the Black Seas. Also the expansion of Hg I from the Balkans was impeded
and did not reach India. All of this is in agreement and supports Out of India Theory
(OIT) of the 'satem' branch of the Indo-European language family. Furthermore, the
domestication of cattle in the Indus valley and no indication of domestication of European
aurochs (Edwards et al. 2007) further support the OIT



Also to present one more point, u know parsi people?
they follow the religion called Zoroastrianism, its quite old religion if not older than hindu religion but quite the same.
They too follows a lots of books and lot of which are quite similar to our own. They got this culture also from people coming from central asia.
What proof have you got that they came from central asia? Have you heard about the war of the 10 kings? Have you read Rigveda and Avestha a final evidence by Shrikant Talageri?

In the pre-Rigvedic age, a group of IE-speaking tribes populated the central and western Ganga plain and some of these migrated westward to the Saraswati basin in what is now Haryana and Rajasthan, and on to the Indus basin from Panjab to Afghanistan. By the time the earliest Vedic hymns were composed (tentatively dated to beyond 3000 BC), the westernmost tribes, known in Sanskrit sources as the Druhyus, were leaving the subcontinent, filling up Central Asia, thence to migrate to Anatolia, Xinjiang and Europe. The remaining peoples in the northwest, known as the Anavas, were mainly speakers of Iranian; while Indo-Aryan developed in central North India, whence it expanded westward into then-Iranian territory. Of the Indo-Aryan speakers, it is the Paurava tribe and within it the Bharata clan that produced the Rigveda. The friendly and hostile interactions between the Iranians and the Paurava Indo-Aryans form part of the historical background of the Rigveda and the Avesta. Among the conflicts, the main ones were the Battle of the Ten Kings, between the Bharata king Sudas and a confederacy of tribes in whose names we can still recognize Iranian ethnonyms; and the Varshagira Battle, to which both the younger part of the Rigveda and the earliest part of the Avesta refer. At the end of this confrontation, the Iranian centre moved to Afghanistan, those who remained in the subcontinent assimilated into Indo-Aryan.

There is more than enough evidence in the book. But as usual the macaulay putras will claim all this as Hindutvavadi tripe and ignore it.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
There is no animal sacrifice mentioned anywhere in any of the Vedas.
Vedas on the other hand condemn any type of animal slaughter or meat eating.

Anago hatya vai bheema kritye
Maa no gaamashvam purusham vadheeh
(It is definitely a great sin to kill innocents. Do not kill our cows, horses and people)
Atharvaveda 10.1.29

Aghnyaa yajamaanasya pashoonpahi
(O human! animals are Aghnya – not to be killed. Protect the animals)
Yajurveda 1.1

Pashunstraayethaam
(Protect the animals)
Yajurveda 6.11

Dwipaadava Chatushpaatpaahi
(Protect the bipeds and quadrupeds)
Yajurveda 14.8

Anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayee
Samskartaa chopahartaa cha khadakashcheti ghaatakaah
(Those who permit slaying of animals; those who bring animals for slaughter; those who slaughter; those who sell meat; those who purchase meat; those who prepare dish out of it; those who serve that meat and those who eat are all murderers.)
~Manusmrithi 5.51

Breehimattam yavamattamatho maashamatho tilam
Esha vaam bhaago nihito ratnadheyaaya dantau maa hinsishtam pitaram maataram cha
(O teeth! You eat rice, you eat barley, you gram and you eat sesame. These cereals are specifically meant for you. Do not kill those who are capable of being fathers and mothers.)
Atharvaveda 6.140.2

Ya aamam maansamadanti paurusheyam cha ye kravih
Garbhaan khaadanti keshavaastaanito naashayaamasi
(We ought to destroy the people who eat cooked as well as uncooked meat, meat involving destruction of males and females, foetus and eggs)
Atharvaveda 8.6.23

Regards,
Virendra
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Ashwamedha doesn't mean horse sacrifice? Indian kings never sacrificed animals?

Regardless of what Vedas say or don't say (they are largely incomprehensible ramblings anyhow), it is clear that animal sacrifice was widely practiced in India in ancient times. Otherwise, we wouldn't see sects such as the Buddhists and Jains emerge to explicitly criticize the practice of animal sacrifice that was prevalent among Vedic sects of the time.

If animal sacrifice was never practiced, please explain this excerpt from Ashoka's 4th Rock Edict:
In the past, for many hundreds of years, killing or harming living beings and improper behavior towards relatives, and improper behavior towards Brahmans and ascetics has increased. But now due to Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi's Dhamma practice, the sound of the drum has been replaced by the sound of the Dhamma. The sighting of heavenly cars, auspicious elephants, bodies of fire and other divine sightings has not happened for many hundreds of years. But now because Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi promotes restraint in the killing and harming of living beings, proper behavior towards relatives, Brahmans and ascetics, and respect for mother, father and elders, such sightings have increased.

These and many other kinds of Dhamma practice have been encouraged by Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, and he will continue to promote Dhamma practice. And the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, too will continue to promote Dhamma practice until the end of time; living by Dhamma and virtue, they will instruct in Dhamma. Truly, this is the highest work, to instruct in Dhamma. But practicing the Dhamma cannot be done by one who is devoid of virtue and therefore its promotion and growth is commendable.

This edict has been written so that it may please my successors to devote themselves to promoting these things and not allow them to decline. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, has had this written twelve years after his coronation.

Also, if Ashwamedha doesn't mean "horse sacrifice", please explain to me this painting of Kausalya sacrificing a horse. This painting was made long before any Britishers had the opportunity to misinterpret Indian texts:

 

SilentKiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
799
Likes
377
Country flag
QUOTE=panduranghari;690839]Sorry but you are rehashing the same old tripe.

Again bull shit stuff.
[
The Horse And The Aryan Debate

Physical remains of the horse in Indus-Sarasvati sites

Our first surprise is that contrary to conventional assertions, quite a few archaeologists have reported horse remains from India's prehistoric sites. A. Ghosh's respected and authoritative Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology mentions without fuss:
In India the ... true horse is reported from the Neolithic levels at Kodekal [dist. Gulbarga of Karnataka] and Hallur [dist. Raichur of Karnataka] and the late Harappa levels at Mohenjo-daro (Sewell and Guha, 1931) and Ropar and at Harappa, Lothal and numerous other sites. "¦ Recently bones of Equus caballus have also been reported from the proto-Harappa site of
Malvan in Gujarat.1

Mortimer Wheeler, a flamboyant proponent of the Aryan invasion theory if ever there was one, admitted long ago that "it is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact a familiar feature of the Indus caravan."2 The well- known archaeologist B. B. Lal refers to a number of horse teeth and bones reported from Kalibangan, Ropar, Malvan and Lothal.3 Another senior archaeologist, S. P. Gupta, adds further details on those finds, including early ones.4 In the case of Lothal, the archaeozoologist Bhola Nath certified the identification of a tooth;5 he also made similar observations regarding bones from Mohenjo-daro and Harappa.6



Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoric settlement of Surkotada, Kutch, excavated under the direction of Dr. J. P. Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse (Equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Since no wild horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoubtful. This is also supported by an inter- maxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a bad habit only existing among domestic horses which are not extensively used for war.
[/QUOTE]

Well, either don't read.
the one u are talking are the horse before the ice age, i.e. pre-historic time.
Horses became extinct in large parts of the world, same is true with america and indian subcontinent.

Please read below:
Pleistocene extinctions
Digs in western Canada have unearthed clear evidence horses existed in North America until about 12,000 years ago.[29] However, all Equidae in North America ultimately became extinct. The causes of this extinction (simultaneous with the extinctions of a variety of other American megafauna) have been a matter of debate. Given the suddenness of the event and because these mammals had been flourishing for millions of years previously, something quite unusual must have happened. The first main hypothesis attributes extinction to climate change. For example, in Alaska, beginning approximately 12,500 years ago, the grasses characteristic of a steppe ecosystem gave way to shrub tundra, which was covered with unpalatable plants.[30][31] The other hypothesis suggests extinction was linked to overexploitation of naive prey by newly arrived humans. The extinctions were roughly simultaneous with the end of the most recent glacial advance and the appearance of the big game-hunting Clovis culture.[32][33] Several studies have indicated humans probably arrived in Alaska at the same time or shortly before the local extinction of horses.[33][34][35] Additionally, it has been proposed that the steppe-tundra vegetation transition in Beringia may have been a consequence, rather than a cause, of the extinction of megafaunal grazers.[36]
In Eurasia, horse fossils began occurring frequently again in archaeological sites in Kazakhstan and the southern Ukraine about 6,000 years ago.[27] From then on, domesticated horses, as well as the knowledge of capturing, taming, and rearing horses, probably spread relatively quickly, with wild mares from several wild populations being incorporated en route.

there is huge gap b/w the pre-historic and horses remains found in indus valley civilization.
So horses did became extinct, same as Hippo went extinct from india.
Maybe you don't know that hippo was also found in large parts of india, even elephant was found in kashmir region before it became extinct there.


Quaternary extinctions in Southeast Asia | Julien Louys - Academia.edu
Horses became extinct from large places in world.
due to scientific evidence only i suggested that horse were reintroduced in india by aryans by trade or migration, same way it was re-introduced by spanish in america.

Some more evidence to support my claim.
please read facts before saying other's points as bullshit.

The Aryan Debate: Horse | varnam

also you brought your facts from.
The Horse And The Aryan Debate

please read its conclusion also.
it doesn't agree with date which many people say, but it does agree that horse is not native species of india.

Some more timeline for horse.
1500 bce
The Mittani arrive in the Middle East and ally with Egypt; Wassukkani is their capital. The famous black horses of Nefertiti were probably Mittani.
Horses are introduced into northern India at this time, the beginning of the Vedic Era. Mittani and Indian horses belong to the same family.
Sometime between 1500 and 1450, King Shaushshatar of the Mittani loots the Assyrian city of Ashur, teaching its citizens the importance of the horse.

from: Horses: a history
 

SilentKiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
799
Likes
377
Country flag
=panduranghari;690839]Sorry but you are rehashing the same old tripe.

Again bull shit stuff.
[
The Horse And The Aryan Debate

Physical remains of the horse in Indus-Sarasvati sites

Our first surprise is that contrary to conventional assertions, quite a few archaeologists have reported horse remains from India's prehistoric sites. A. Ghosh's respected and authoritative Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology mentions without fuss:
In India the ... true horse is reported from the Neolithic levels at Kodekal [dist. Gulbarga of Karnataka] and Hallur [dist. Raichur of Karnataka] and the late Harappa levels at Mohenjo-daro (Sewell and Guha, 1931) and Ropar and at Harappa, Lothal and numerous other sites. "¦ Recently bones of Equus caballus have also been reported from the proto-Harappa site of
Malvan in Gujarat.1

Mortimer Wheeler, a flamboyant proponent of the Aryan invasion theory if ever there was one, admitted long ago that "it is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact a familiar feature of the Indus caravan."2 The well- known archaeologist B. B. Lal refers to a number of horse teeth and bones reported from Kalibangan, Ropar, Malvan and Lothal.3 Another senior archaeologist, S. P. Gupta, adds further details on those finds, including early ones.4 In the case of Lothal, the archaeozoologist Bhola Nath certified the identification of a tooth;5 he also made similar observations regarding bones from Mohenjo-daro and Harappa.6



Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoric settlement of Surkotada, Kutch, excavated under the direction of Dr. J. P. Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse (Equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Since no wild horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoubtful. This is also supported by an inter- maxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a bad habit only existing among domestic horses which are not extensively used for war.
Well, either don't read.
the one u are talking are the horse before the ice age, i.e. pre-historic time.
Horses became extinct in large parts of the world, same is true with america and indian subcontinent.

Please read below:
Pleistocene extinctions
Digs in western Canada have unearthed clear evidence horses existed in North America until about 12,000 years ago.[29] However, all Equidae in North America ultimately became extinct. The causes of this extinction (simultaneous with the extinctions of a variety of other American megafauna) have been a matter of debate. Given the suddenness of the event and because these mammals had been flourishing for millions of years previously, something quite unusual must have happened. The first main hypothesis attributes extinction to climate change. For example, in Alaska, beginning approximately 12,500 years ago, the grasses characteristic of a steppe ecosystem gave way to shrub tundra, which was covered with unpalatable plants.[30][31] The other hypothesis suggests extinction was linked to overexploitation of naive prey by newly arrived humans. The extinctions were roughly simultaneous with the end of the most recent glacial advance and the appearance of the big game-hunting Clovis culture.[32][33] Several studies have indicated humans probably arrived in Alaska at the same time or shortly before the local extinction of horses.[33][34][35] Additionally, it has been proposed that the steppe-tundra vegetation transition in Beringia may have been a consequence, rather than a cause, of the extinction of megafaunal grazers.[36]
In Eurasia, horse fossils began occurring frequently again in archaeological sites in Kazakhstan and the southern Ukraine about 6,000 years ago.[27] From then on, domesticated horses, as well as the knowledge of capturing, taming, and rearing horses, probably spread relatively quickly, with wild mares from several wild populations being incorporated en route.

there is huge gap b/w the pre-historic and horses remains found in indus valley civilization.
So horses did became extinct, same as Hippo went extinct from india.
Maybe you don't know that hippo was also found in large parts of india, even elephant was found in kashmir region before it became extinct there.


Quaternary extinctions in Southeast Asia | Julien Louys - Academia.edu
Horses became extinct from large places in world.
due to scientific evidence only i suggested that horse were reintroduced in india by aryans by trade or migration, same way it was re-introduced by spanish in america.

Some more evidence to support my claim.
please read facts before saying other's points as bullshit.

The Aryan Debate: Horse | varnam

also you brought your facts from.
The Horse And The Aryan Debate

please read its conclusion also.
it doesn't agree with date which many people say, but it does agree that horse is not native species of india.

Some more timeline for horse.
1500 bce
The Mittani arrive in the Middle East and ally with Egypt; Wassukkani is their capital. The famous black horses of Nefertiti were probably Mittani.
Horses are introduced into northern India at this time, the beginning of the Vedic Era. Mittani and Indian horses belong to the same family.
Sometime between 1500 and 1450, King Shaushshatar of the Mittani loots the Assyrian city of Ashur, teaching its citizens the importance of the horse.

from: Horses: a history
 
Last edited:

SilentKiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
799
Likes
377
Country flag
@SilentKiller i would be delighted to give at least 10 references but I wont because I dont think you are really interested
Its highly improper to come to such conclusion about others, am always ready for discussion but u seems otherwise.
please feel free to provide evidence, i am not as arrogant as u think about yourself.
i will read what ever you provide, bring scientific evidence and i will accept what's proven, can't take what u say or what old religious text says... until proven other wise.
as per religious texts, we had flying machines etc, so better to be on ground then to fly on such imagination, prove it and i will accept it.
sorry!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Ashwamedha doesn't mean horse sacrifice? Indian kings never sacrificed animals?
I'm not being dogmatic. Yes animal sacrifice was there but no, the Vedas do not support it at all.
Yet if people started doing it later on, it is a corruption/evil that crept in with changing times.
If we're talking about Indian Kings in general then that is an extrapolation and yes there may be such Kings who sacrificed animals.

Regardless of what Vedas say or don't say (they are largely incomprehensible ramblings anyhow),
Hmm ..that makes the likes of Muller, Griffith, Dayanand Sarasvati etc fools to have translated the incomprehensible Vedas (out of thin iar then?) :dude:
We should scrap the Harvard's Indology chairs immediately :D

it is clear that animal sacrifice was widely practiced in India in ancient times Otherwise, we wouldn't see sects such as the Buddhists and Jains emerge to explicitly criticize the practice of animal sacrifice that was prevalent among Vedic sects of the time.

If animal sacrifice was never practiced, please explain this excerpt from Ashoka's 4th Rock Edict:
Like I said before, practice was there and it is even today. But the doctrine (Veda) doesn't support it. It condemns the practice.

Also, if Ashwamedha doesn't mean "horse sacrifice", please explain to me this painting of Kausalya sacrificing a horse. This painting was made long before any Britishers had the opportunity to misinterpret Indian texts:
Who made the painting and how old is it? Was it made during vedic period? Or during Raja Rama's period?
Ashwamedha cannot mean Horse sacrifice. People (like us today) may start believing it to be so. But is was never meant to be horse sacrifice or cow sacrifice for 'Gomedha'.
There is also a term 'Purushmedha'. Doesn't mean a human sacrifice, does it ? It means to honor a person (guest in some context).

'Ashva' comes from the root 'ash' which means to pervade. The term 'Ashva' can been used for anyone/anything that is strong and pervasive.
It has been used not only to mean horse but for God and for Nation also. Because God indeed is all pervasive and Nation is strong like a horse.
Similarly Gau not only means 'Cow' but 'Earth' as well.
'Medha' word comes from the root/dhatu - 'medhri' which means intellect. Medha means anything that is done with intellect.

These in no possible way Ashvamedha could mean 'Horse Sacrifice'.

Imam ma himsirekashafam pashum kanikradam vaajinam vaajineshu
(Do not slaughter this one hoofed animal that neighs and who goes with a speed faster than most of the animals.)
Yajurveda 13.48

Yah paurusheyena kravishaa samankte yo ashwena pashunaa yaatudhaanah
Yo aghnyaayaa bharati ksheeramagne teshaam sheershaani harasaapi vrishcha
(Those who feed on human, horse or animal flesh and those who destroy milk-giving Aghnya cows should be severely punished)
Rigveda 10.87.16

'Maans' means 'Pulpy'. That meat is pulpy and hence 'Maans' be used to denote it, is only one use of the term 'Maans' and not the meaing itself.

There is a need to be cautious and not apply literal, mechanical, out of context translations of the terms such that it twists the entire meaning.

Regards,
Virendra
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Quaternary extinctions in Southeast Asia | Julien Louys - Academia.edu
Horses became extinct from large places in world.
due to scientific evidence only i suggested that horse were reintroduced in india by aryans by trade or migration, same way it was re-introduced by spanish in america.

Some more evidence to support my claim.
please read facts before saying other's points as bullshit.

The Aryan Debate: Horse | varnam
From your article;

Despite the polarity between these two paradigms, there is now anincreasing awareness that a single cause is unlikely to be solely responsiblefor all extinctions, and that both human and climate would have an effect(e.g. Barnosky et al. 2004). The debate has now largely shifted towardshow much each factor contributed to the extinction. However, thiscomplex interplay of factors will likely never be completely understood,and Wroe and Field (2006) recently questioned even the validity of thisapproach.

You are assuming Horses became extinct in India due to Climate change. The article you quoted is based on the study done in Australia and NZ. You cannot extrapolate findings of data which is geographically different.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
So horses did became extinct, same as Hippo went extinct from india.
Maybe you don't know that hippo was also found in large parts of india, even elephant was found in kashmir region before it became extinct there.
Absence today does not mean extinct. The reduction in habitat has happened but it has not make an elephant extinct from Kashmir as you say.
Some more timeline for horse.
1500 bce
The Mittani arrive in the Middle East and ally with Egypt; Wassukkani is their capital. The famous black horses of Nefertiti were probably Mittani.
Horses are introduced into northern India at this time, the beginning of the Vedic Era. Mittani and Indian horses belong to the same family.
Sometime between 1500 and 1450, King Shaushshatar of the Mittani loots the Assyrian city of Ashur, teaching its citizens the importance of the horse.

from: Horses: a history
This is a part of review of thisbook by K Elst


I quote-

Another spectacular finding is that the early Avesta, involving Zarathustra, coincides in time with the youngest period of the Rigveda. The material and religious culture, along with the vocabulary and the name-types, allow us to link a number of datable extra-Indian connections to the youngest layer of the Rigveda. The remnants of Indo-Aryan vocabulary in the West-Asian Kassite (17th BC) and Mitanni (15th BC) culture, bequeathed by Indo-Aryan-speaking emigrant groups of at least several generations earlier, belong to the youngest period. This implies that the Rigveda must have been completed by ca. 2000 BC.

Another emigrant group is the one whose settlement has been dug up in Sintashta, on the eastern slopes of the Ural mountains in Russia. This is where the oldest horse-drawn chariots have been found, dated to ca. 2000 BC. The burials show a number of ritual features which Witzel has connected to the Rigveda in a bid to buttress his thesis that the Sintashta people were proto-Indo-Aryans on the way to India. But of each of these features, including the fabled horse sacrifice, Talageri shows that they are typical of the late period of the Rigveda, unattested in the older periods. So, more likely, the Sintashta people were part of a succession of small westward emigrations (small by India's demographic standards but highly noticeable in the thinly-populated countries of settlement) around the end of the period of Rigvedic composition. This time seems to coincide with the end of the urban Harappan period, probably due to desiccation, when north-western India became less capable of supporting its dense population.

An Indo-Aryan presence in Russia was noticed by the ancient Greeks (e.g. the Sindoi in the Crimea) and remains visible in dozens of loanwords in the Uralic languages. The latter too have often been presented as testimony of the Indo-Aryans' stay among the Uralic peoples while on their way to India. But from the unidirectional pattern of borrowing, with not a single Uralic loan in Indo-Aryan, Talageri shows that this is impossible. On the contrary, the pattern fits the opposite scenario: the Indo-Aryan loans in Uralic, like those in Mitanni-Hurrian and in Kassite, were the gift of emigrant groups from the Indo-Aryan heartland, which was India. Here, Talageri has made up for his lack of knowledge of the Uralic languages with a penetrating logical analysis of the relevant findings of other, AIT-bound scholars. Indeed, logic is where this non-specialist outshines all the specialists and manages to use their own data in support of conclusions opposite to the ones they profess.

Talageri argues that spoked-wheel chariots are not simply in evidence "in the Rigveda", as the Orientalists have known since the 19th century, but are specifically typical of its youngest period. The older parts know of carts, generally with four full wheels, but the chariots with two spoked wheels are a later development. The archaeological record is pretty silent on their first appearance, for none have been dug up from reputedly Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian settlements in the Andronovo culture (Kazakhstan), the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex or India. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially in the case of largely wooden constructions in a hot and humid climate like India's. From the late-Rigvedic testimony reasonably dated to the late 3rd millennium BC, it may be deduced that they were first produced on a sizable scale in India, whence groups of specialist craftsmen-warriors and other emigrants took them to western lands.

Talageri's reconstruction of Vedic and Indo-European history is exclusively based on primary data and on findings by scholars working within the AIT framework. He never relies on the theses of other AIT sceptics. The latter's findings on astro-chronology, archaeology and linguistics are generally compatible with his scenario extracted from the literary data, but they are independent witnesses, not part of Talageri's evidence basis. Thus, in the book's introduction the reader will notice traces of an ego clash between the author and Greek OIT scholar Nicholas Kazanas (whose collected papers on this subject are about to be published by Aditya Prakashan as well). While I hope at the personal level that they make up and become friends again, at the polemical level this quarrel is a fortunate thing. In contrast with the AIT school, a network of mutual support where we see R.S. Sharma and Romila Thapar relying on the "evidence" of Michael Witzel's well-refuted assertion that the post-Vedic literature describes an Aryan invasion, the OIT school consists of isolated individuals who have no other support than from the data themselves.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
In contrast with the AIT school, a network of mutual support where we see R.S. Sharma and Romila Thapar relying on the "evidence" of Michael Witzel's well-refuted assertion that the post-Vedic literature describes an Aryan invasion, the OIT school consists of isolated individuals who have no other support than from the data themselves.
It was inward Migration and not Invasion that Witzel's wanted to prove with that verse from Budhayana Srauta Sutra.
But yes, multiple scholars and independent/neutral Sanskrit Grammar experts had concluded that Witzel's interpretation of that verse was plain wrong and it meant indeed the opposite of what was suggested.

Regards,
Virendra
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
It is understandable that Witzel may err in interpreting a Sanskirt verse (lets forget for now that it may have been deliberate). Anyone can.
What is disappointing is that some Indian scholars eagerly and blindly pointed to his intrepretation as the Gospel and made tall claims over it.
They didn't even cross check the verse and its meaning and used it to write so much in their own books. :tsk:

Vedas aren't incomprehensible. Only that there is some confusion prima facae; due to the colonial breed of Indologists doing mechnical, inaccurate translations.and incontextual interpretations.

Regards,
Virendra
 

Das ka das

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
895
Likes
456
Its funny how our resident sophists call Vedas as incomprehensible ramblings while the stone edicts of Ashok are considered truth.

Please find out what a sophist means.
I know. This individual called the Puranas as propaganda works and Vedas as incomprehensible. He never misses and oppurtunity to denigrate and insult Hindus and their beliefs.
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
thats how these pigs were rated in this world even till 18th century, as below. :ranger:

Poverty in the Middle Ages

However in the Middle Ages poverty was common. England was basically a subsistence economy where each village made most of the things it needed and most of the population were subsistence farmers. They grew as much food as their families needed (if they were lucky).

Surprisingly, perhaps, examining Medieval skeletons shows that most people had an adequate diet, except in times of famine. :toilet:

However life must have been very hard for the disabled. There were many disabled beggars in Medieval towns.

The Church tried to help the poor. The Church taught that it was a Christian duty to give to the poor. In monasteries a monk called an almoner gave alms to the poor. However in the Middle Ages fearful poverty was an inescapable part of life.

Things did improve after the Black Death of 1348-49. In England about one third of the population died. Afterwards there was a shortage of workers so wages rose. In the 15th century wage labourers were better off then in the 13th century. :facepalm:

A History of Poverty in Britain

the criterion of measuring 'richness' of these pigs even till 17th/18th century as below: (based on the number of days they could eat properly) :tsk:

Poverty in the 17th Century

At the end of the 17th century a writer estimated that half the population could afford to eat meat every day. In other words about 50% of the people were wealthy of at least reasonably well off :toilet:. Below them about 30% of the population could afford to eat meat between 2 and 6 times a week. They were 'poor'. The bottom 20% could only eat meat once a week. They were very poor. At least part of the time they had to rely on poor relief.

A History of Poverty in Britain
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
There is a need to be cautious and not apply literal, mechanical, out of context translations of the terms such that it twists the entire meaning.
Unfortunately, this brings us to the interpretation-in-letter vs interpretation-in-spirit debate,

I would go with the former, i.e. a literal translation, because, that way, we have only one interpretation. With the latter, there can be so many esoteric and surreal explanations and it adds more confusion.

I have to agree with @civfanatic that animal sacrifice, or references thereto, exist in the Vedas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
I'm not being dogmatic. Yes animal sacrifice was there but no, the Vedas do not support it at all.
The brahmans of Buddha's time claimed that the animal sacrifices were in concordance with the Vedas. That's what matters.

The Vedas were not written down in ancient times, but were passed on through oral tradition. This transmission of Vedic "knowledge" was of the exclusive domain of the brahmans. It is the idea of the Vedas rather than their largely meaningless contents which matters.

Hmm ..that makes the likes of Muller, Griffith, Dayanand Sarasvati etc fools to have translated the incomprehensible Vedas (out of thin iar then?) :dude:
We should scrap the Harvard's Indology chairs immediately :D
Yes, most of these so-called "Indologists" were/are fools, and Max Muller in particular was an exceptionally incompetent fool for attempting to reconstruct ancient Indian history from the Vedas. The only value of these incomprehensible ramblings is in philology, as some of the "words" (or more accurately, morphemes) of the Vedas are similar to those of the Avesta.


Like I said before, practice was there and it is even today. But the doctrine (Veda) doesn't support it. It condemns the practice.
So then, the brahmans conducting the said sacrifices intentionally "misinterpreted" the Vedas for all those centuries?


Who made the painting and how old is it? Was it made during vedic period? Or during Raja Rama's period?
It is a 17th century Mewar painting made by the famous Sahibdin. There were no "Indologists" like Max Mueller around then, so the depiction of horse sacrifice in the painting could only have been drawn from the native Hindu understanding of ashwamedha.


There is also a term 'Purushmedha'. Doesn't mean a human sacrifice, does it ? It means to honor a person (guest in some context).

'Ashva' comes from the root 'ash' which means to pervade. The term 'Ashva' can been used for anyone/anything that is strong and pervasive.
It has been used not only to mean horse but for God and for Nation also. Because God indeed is all pervasive and Nation is strong like a horse.
Similarly Gau not only means 'Cow' but 'Earth' as well.
And why exactly can't purushamedha mean human sacrifice? The custom of human sacrifice was practiced around the world in ancient times, so why not in India? Doesn't Rig Veda itself deal with the sacrifice of Purusha, the Primordial Man, from whose dismembered limbs sprung the four varnas?

These interpretations of the Vedas seem like the work of the Hindus of the 19th and 20th centuries who were shocked by their perceived backwardness in regards to the colonizing European, and sought to "reconstruct" the Vedas and make them more appealing to the European as well as the Europeanized pseudo-Dharmic. These same Hindus, for example, are ashamed of the intense erotic depictions found in much Indic art and architecture, and the uncomfortably frank and explicit (from their point of view) descriptions of sexual activity found in much Indic literature. Raja Ravi Varma was one such Hindu who was unduly influenced by the European, and who sought to reconcile Hindu mythology with the moral standards and expectations of Victorian Britain. In regards to the Vedas, these Hindus suddenly became painfully aware of the inherent meaninglessness of the Vedas as they came under the scrutiny of the self-proclaimed "Indologists", and so sought to construct new interpretations that would impress the European and Europeanized Hindu alike (it didn't help that many Westerners themselves actually bought the faux profundity of the Vedas championed by the pseudo-Dharmics). The brahmans could no longer expect the populace to buy the giant lie of the Vedas as they had for the past several millennia, and so it became imperative to give new meaning to these supposedly sacred texts, where no meaning existed before. I am, of course, referring primarily to the Arya Samaj movement, for they represented the epitome of the new Europeanized Hinduism. The famed Dayanand Saraswati rejected the classical commentaries on the Vedas as "corruptions", and tried to reduce the Ashwamedha to a purely abstract, allegorical ritual, despite the considerable detail in which the ritual is physically described in other Hindu works (including the depiction of women engaging in sexual activity with the horse).The pertinent question, of course, is whether or not Dayanand Saraswati would have championed such a radical re-interpretation of the Vedic corpus, if he wasn't living in the late 19th century India during the so-called "Hindu Renaissance" under the intellectual and moral shadow of the West in general, and the British Empire in particular?
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Its funny how our resident sophists call Vedas as incomprehensible ramblings while the stone edicts of Ashok are considered truth.

Please find out what a sophist means.
I understand that name-calling has been the hallmark of the brahmans since ancient times, and that this tradition has been passed on to their intellectual pseudo-Dharmic descendants in the modern day who pretend to be "Dharmic" while having no knowledge of Sanskrit, forming their opinions and worldview from Western writers and Westernized "Hindus", and who physically live in the West to boot. One does not know what to make of such people.

Ashok's stone edicts may or may not be the "truth", but they are at least comprehensible and have clear, discernible meanings. This simple fact lends them more historical value and importance than one thousand Vedas or Puranas. Indeed, I would give more value any day to hard evidence like a stone epigraph, authentic historical painting, or even a coin than I would to the useless mass of ramblings which go by the name of "Vedas".

Of course, I am not the only person who believes that the Vedas are incomprehensible ramblings. This view is echoed by numerous people throughout the ages, perhaps ever since the Vedas were first composed. There were Indians even in the 1st millennium B.C.E. who thought the Vedas were meaningless rubbish. The most vocal advocates of this view were the Charvaks.

From Chapter 1 of Madhava Acharya's Sarvadarshanasamgraha, giving an exposition of Charvak thought:
If you object that, if there be no such thing as happiness in a future world, then how should men of experienced wisdom engage in the agnihotra and other sacrifices, which can only be performed with great expenditure of money and bodily fatigue, your objection cannot be accepted as any proof to the contrary, since the agnihotra, &c., are only useful as means of livelihood, for the Veda is tainted by the three faults of untruth, self-contradiction, and tautology; then again the impostors who call themselves Vedic pundits are mutually destructive, as the authority of the jñána-káṇḍa is overthrown by those who maintain that of the karma-káṇḍa, while those who maintain the authority of the jñána-káṇḍa reject that of the karma-káṇḍa; and lastly, the three Vedas themselves are only the incoherent rhapsodies of knaves, and to this effect runs the popular saying -- the Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes,— these, Bá¹›ihaspati says, are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense.
Indeed, it is a testament to the greatness of ancient Indian civilization that it produced such beacons of rational and progressive thought as the great Brihaspati, Ajita Kesakambali, and of course Siddhartha Gautama. These great individuals, and undoubtedly many others, were able to see through the destructive and self-serving dogmas of religion which plagued the world at the time, and indeed continue to do so today. It is unfortunate that the voices of these individuals have since been drowned by the sea of ignorance and superstition promoted by the proponents of religion. This is only natural, for religion in essence is the polar opposite of rationalism and progress, and ignorance and superstition are its natural allies.
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
my responses
(1) Whatever the brits tried to do to "underpin" ( in a sense ) indian culture and to twist and turn it to their favour has and continues to fail miserably because - our culture is living and alive and shows itself to be what it is and not what the brits may have said

to prove my point ....many other nationalities are looking up to Indian culture as a great thing to be copied so tough luck brits ( in that aspect )

(2) Historian Sanjeev Sanyal, speaking on the continuity of Indian history claimed that east European and north Indian people share genetic similarities.

thanks and no thanks - i am particularly disinterested in being related to any east-europeans ( not that i dislike them , not at all )

..... and would very much prefer relationship with our central asian brothers and cousins - uzbek and turkmen - thanks to the russian sponsored independence the cultures of these nations is undergoing somewhat of a renaissance and flourishing on the easily available platforms eg youtube etc

we can obviously notice the similarity to our own - in particular the music-videos of the turkmens is very similar to our own
 
Last edited:

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
* Of the four Vedas, only the Rig Veda is supposed to be important

* Rig Veda is not to be translated because it was never written ! There is a complicated Oral tradition which ensures high fidelity Vedic chant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* The language of Rig Veda ain't Sanksrit. Sanskrit grammar was formulated much later

* All these translations came out by back porting Sanskrit words into Rig Vedic sounds. Do you know see the problem with this exercise ? Both Talageri and Max Muller are making the same mistake !

* Rig Veda is not supposed to have any inherent 'meaning'. This is a very old proposition by Mimansa which is an orthodox school. The Rig Veda is simply eternal. (There is no need to be offended by this statement since its a very abstract concept)

@panduranghari @Virendra @civfanatic
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top