Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
I don't think Shurpnakha was tribal. Her brother ruled a great urban city.
Krishna Rukmini had never met as per Bhagwatam, she simply heard about him and started loving him. If Bhagwatam narrative is true, she was simply a fangirl to Krishna and Krishna realising that she could get her some support when mostly everyone was them
I think when Shradha Manu was where Shradha proposed but she was an Apsara too
I wanted to write non-Aryan but stopped because that term is controversial.
I wanted to write non-Aryan but stopped because that term is controversial.
All were Aryan and All were tribals. By all I mean (Adityas - Indra and his brothers), Danavas (Kansa's biological father's family)
Rakshasa (Ravana's family, Hidimba's family)
Asuras (Hiranyakashipu's family that included Prahlad, Bali and Banasur)
Nagas (Vasuki, Takshak etc)
A lot of people in all tribes were fair and very beautiful. Eg. Bali was very handsome dude, Mandodari gave stiff competition to Sita in beauty, both belonged to Asura tribe. Sharmishtha the second queen of Yayati was a Rakshasa princess and more beautiful than Devyani.
Krishna Arjuna Rama Draupadi were all jet black. Extremely dark like Africans yet beautiful too.
All the tribes practiced Varna bheda. Ravana started a brahmin and became a kshatriya. Prahlad chose to be a brahmin. Mayasur chose to be an architect (Vaishya).
All tribes had control of different kingdoms and had beautiful cities under their control.
Mathura was built by Nagas for yadavas and ruled by Asuras for a while before Yadava came back there.
Bhogavathi (Naga), Lanka (Rakshasa) Shonitpura, pragyajyotishpur (Both Asura cities) were Lavish urban sprawling cities.
They all looked the same, dressed similar and ate similar food. Music and other lifestyle and cultural aspects were same too.
Only two major differences were:
1. Nagas, Rakshasa, Asura and Danava were Devi and Shiva worshippers and under no circumstance were they willing to accept Vishnu as a form of almighty and worship him. Only exception were Prahlad and Vibhishan. But Vibhishan also worshipped Devi and Shiva
Descendents of Adityas who split into suryavanshi (from Vaivasvan) and chandravanshi (from Ila). These guys earlier worshipped Indra their eldest ancestor and then moved onto Vishnu. When Shiva and Shakti worship peaked as counter Vishnu was propped up, because Indra's image was not a good enough counter to Shiva or Shakti.
Vishnu basically subsumed all the powers of 12 Adityas and remaining Devas into himself
2. Better treatment of women, - Non Deva tribes supported women's rights, to choice of partner as well as inheritance. There were female rulers. Hidimba (Rakshasa), Manasa (Naga), Tadaka (Rakshasa). Also widow remarriage was very common. Ulupi, Mandodari, etc. Surpanaka was a widow and was looking for a new partner.
TV serials and plays are totally wrong.
Nagas and Rakshasa were not junglee, wearing skulls horns and leaves.
Nagas had more wealth, gold and jewels than Devas..They after all controlled the regions that had gold and gems deposits
All the tribes intermarried regularly. Vasudev and Kunti's mother Marisha was naga princess. (Krishna and Yudhi, Bhima and Arjun's grandmother was a Naga)
Ancient India was like modern India. We have different states and differences are there but a lot of similarities too. Mumbai and Chennai are similar urban cities with lots of common things as well as differences. But if you look at Tamilnadu and Maharashtra as whole you will see urban centres, rural areas with smaller towns and villages and then forests.
Both states have all three
Same was with deva tribes and other tribes. All of them controlled large areas that included urban centres, rural areas and forests too.
And the people who lived there were part of the same tribe.
Like Kuru had kurujangala.
Is not Ramayana considered an Aryan-Dravidian War?
How could Ramayana be an Aryan Dravidian war? The father of Ravan was the same as that of Supposed Aryan demiGod Kuber. If Kuber was an Aryan how could Ravan be a Dravidian? Aside even if you want to take Ravan as Dravidian (not much rationale behind it) by what logic are you taking Vanars as Aryan? Vanars stayed around Rishyamukh parvat (South India), were essentially Non Sansksrit speaking tribe(because it's specifically mentioned that Hanuman ji could speak Sansksrit like a Vipra despite being a Vanar) absolutely no mention of theirs worshipping the Vedic Gods. Their description matches that of a supposed Dravidian race much more. Ramayana was mostly a war between Rakshas n Vanars, so it was then a war between two Dravidian groups with one group having support from Aryans. Not to forget after winning the supposed Aryans put a Dravidian (Vivibhishan) on the throne. How exactly does it resemble a clan or tribal war?
The ancient Tamil literature even like the ancient Sangam never talks about Ravan as their own although they had near mentioned all their ancient heroes.
Making Ravan a Dravidian hero against Aryans is a very recent phenomenon and it is purely a political stand(irrespective of whether AIT/AMT is true or not)
As Chhiillli rightly pointed out there were multiple groups in ancient India all of them having different set of Gods (slowly they started getting one Supreme God which spread across later these Gods in themselves became devotees of each other) but all of them having some kind of connection with each other and respecting each others' God. It was a region of unity in Diversity ever since.
Even among the supposed Aryans as we know today there were different sub groups. Krishna was a Yadu Vanshi who had literally stopped Indra worship. The Yadus were among one of the 9 tribes Sudasa fought against in the Dashragya Yudhh of RigVeda where all the enemies has been mentioned as either Anasa or Dasa. So didn't it mean that probably Yadus weren't the worshipers of the RigVedic Gods? To specify the major proponents of Aryan invasion (not migration) theory took this very war as the literature evidence of the entry of Aryans into India by defeating the local kings, wouldn't it mean that Krishna in himself wasn't an Aryan? However AIT has been completely discarded now by the historians across the globe due to the lack of any evidence, it is only there as a political machinery in India (the most widely accepted theory now is Aryan Migration Theory)
The only difference which happened post Abrahaminisation of land was that they never showed acceptance. They started with a narrative that only my God is fine yours is fake and you deserve to be humiliated for worshipping a fake God
Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
In the earliest of the Mandalas Asur also means someone very powerful. Krishnasur could have very well meant powerful Krishna
However the reason for my denying this Krishna being the same as that of Mahabharat is that RigVed in particular and other Veds too are UNESCO heritage. They have remained exactly the same as they were in 1500 BCE. All the changes that have ever happened to them happened before that. The Vedic Samhitas doesn't even give an iota of hint about assimilation of the later languages like all the other texts including the Vedic Brahmans and Sutras do.
The Samhitas had started being called Apaurasheya so addition into those after the happening of Mahabharat was completely impossible since the war is definitely a later happening. Unless we consider that Mahabharatha happened before 1500BCE, but none of the Historians or Indologists believe in it. All are near unanimous that Mahabharatha war happened after the Vedas had become Apaurasheya.. Aside unless it is at least 500 years prior to that happening, it is not practical to bring in mythical elements into the Life of a Historical person. So Mahabharatha war should have happened around 2000BCE if we assume the
Aside book 8 isn't among the last books either, books 1,9 and 10 are comparatively newer. The language gulf between them makes it clear that the books couldn't have been written within a couple of decades. Book 8 is approximately of the time of Sudasa the ancestor of Kuru clan
On a minor side Vedas are very much a Bharat Vanshi Puru book. It is clearly biased towards that particular clan. The only one remaining in this clan after the war were Pandavas why would they write anti Krishna
So I don't think much changes are possible henceforth
1. See, the problem with thinking of a veda or vedas as ONE work is that we start imagining an author or a group of authors writing it. No, those were the collected wisdom of ages.
VYASA compiled the vedas. He didn't write them, but he compiled the info. So it's fairly reasonable to believe most of the stuff he got together dated until his time. Why wouldn't he? For him, it was writing a textbook. He'd naturally get all the info dating up to his time.
So MBh and surrounding events can happen in Iron Age and still be included in vedas.
2. Moreover, the vedas are also in Panini sanskrit.
Which means whichever form has come to us in the modern era has been composed during or after Panini who lived after MBh era.
3. Rig Veda being a Bharat vanshi work.
2 possibilties.
(1) The Bharatas mentioned there might not even be Dushyantha Bharatas.
Priyamvadho nama sutho manoh swayambhuvasya ha !
Thasyagnigrasthatho nabhitrishbhashcha suthasthathah !!
Avatheerana puthrashatham thasyasidrahaychaparagham !
Vikyatham varshamethaghyannaamnaa bharathamuthapram !!
Manu had a son Priyamvadha who had a son called Agnigra
A had a son nabhi
N had a son Rishabha
Rishabha had a 100 sons, eldest of whom was Bharata, servant of Narayana, after whom the land is named.
This Bharata tribe is likely the one in Rig Veda.
The chief mention of Bharatas in RV is in the Mandala by Vishvamitra. But remember, Bharata of Kurus would be Vishvamitra's grandson. That clan had not yet formed to take part in the battle of 10 kings.
(2) if it were Dushyanta Bharatas, then it definitely was MBh era.
4. Regardless, Rig Veda's most prominent personality is Indra, not Bharat vanshis, regardless of role Battle of 10 Kings might have played.
Indra was not a friend to Krishna.
5. The similarities are too big to ignore between the Krishnasur of Rig Veda and the Krishna of MBh/HV/SB
Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
How could Ramayana be an Aryan Dravidian war? The father of Ravan was the same as that of Supposed Aryan demiGod Kuber. If Kuber was an Aryan how could Ravan be a Dravidian? Aside even if you want to take Ravan as Dravidian (not much rationale behind it) by what logic are you taking Vanars as Aryan? Vanars stayed around Rishyamukh parvat (South India), were essentially Non Sansksrit speaking tribe(because it's specifically mentioned that Hanuman ji could speak Sansksrit like a Vipra despite being a Vanar) absolutely no mention of theirs worshipping the Vedic Gods. Their description matches that of a supposed Dravidian race much more. Ramayana was mostly a war between Rakshas n Vanars, so it was then a war between two Dravidian groups with one group having support from Aryans. Not to forget after winning the supposed Aryans put a Dravidian (Vivibhishan) on the throne. How exactly does it resemble a clan or tribal war?
The ancient Tamil literature even like the ancient Sangam never talks about Ravan as their own although they had near mentioned all their ancient heroes.
Making Ravan a Dravidian hero against Aryans is a very recent phenomenon and it is purely a political stand(irrespective of whether AIT/AMT is true or not)
As Chhiillli rightly pointed out there were multiple groups in ancient India all of them having different set of Gods (slowly they started getting one Supreme God which spread across later these Gods in themselves became devotees of each other) but all of them having some kind of connection with each other and respecting each others' God. It was a region of unity in Diversity ever since.
Even among the supposed Aryans as we know today there were different sub groups. Krishna was a Yadu Vanshi who had literally stopped Indra worship. The Yadus were among one of the 9 tribes Sudasa fought against in the Dashragya Yudhh of RigVeda where all the enemies has been mentioned as either Anasa or Dasa. So didn't it mean that probably Yadus weren't the worshipers of the RigVedic Gods? To specify the major proponents of Aryan invasion (not migration) theory took this very war as the literature evidence of the entry of Aryans into India by defeating the local kings, wouldn't it mean that Krishna in himself wasn't an Aryan? However AIT has been completely discarded now by the historians across the globe due to the lack of any evidence, it is only there as a political machinery in India (the most widely accepted theory now is Aryan Migration Theory)
The only difference which happened post Abrahaminisation of land was that they never showed acceptance. They started with a narrative that only my God is fine yours is fake and you deserve to be humiliated for worshipping a fake God
This Yadu and this Puru were not the same from MBh.
@Red. Actually this is incorrect. genetic evidence points out there was mass migration from central Asia to India between Indus Valley civ and now. I understand there is propaganda to suggest otherwise, but genetics don't lie.
In fact, Rig Veda talks about Indra defeating black hordes and rewarding Aryan worshippers.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01101.htm
SING, with oblation, praise to him who maketh glad, who with αΉjiΕvan drove the dusky brood away.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01130.htm
8 Indra in battles help his Δryan worshipper, he who hath hundred helps at hand in every fray, in frays that win the light of heaven.
Plaguing the lawless he gave up to Manu's seed the dusky skin;
Blazing, βtwere, he burns each covetous man away, he burns, the tyrannous away.
Even in Book 8, which as you said is not one of the newer books, Indra is described as defeating Krishna and the black hordes.
Just like claiming women were treated well during vedic times, it is illogical to imagine that a giant group of people migrated/invaded and were happily accepted by those already occupying the land. it goes against human nature. Assimilation happened over centuries.
Originally posted by: HearMeRoar
This Yadu and this Puru were not the same from MBh.
@Red. Actually this is incorrect. genetic evidence points out there was mass migration from central Asia to India between Indus Valley civ and now. I understand there is propaganda to suggest otherwise, but genetics don't lie.
In fact, Rig Veda talks about Indra defeating black hordes and rewarding Aryan worshippers.
@Bold how can you say that they are different? The Purus Yadus Parsus Anus all of them are mentioned in Dashragya Yudh and Mahabharatha mentions Puru Yadu Parsu Anu etc. as the son of Yayati. Most probably these were different tribes which were later given a common ancestory from Yayati to make the atmosphere more homogeneous just as they gave Devas Daityas Danavs, Nagas, etc. a common ancestory from Kashyap and his 13 wives.
@Underlined please re-read the red portion of my comment I didn't say that historians have discarded the possibility of Aryan migration, I rather said that Historians are most widely in acceptance with the Aryan Migration Theory. The theory which I said has been completely discarded is Aryan Invasion theory. The Aryans could have come from outside but they didn't "invade" the land they simply"migrated" here. There hasn't been any evidence of an "invasion"
Coming to the genetic thing you discussed, I have read the entire papers of many scholars in this case. The same genetics evidence is being cited by renowned present day historians (from both pro Aryan migration and anti Aryan migration school of thoughts) in their research papers (presented in learned forums)
I think you know about the pro Aryan Migration groups' point. They have called the R1A1 haplogroup genome as the Steppes genes which was missing in the two skeletons(one of them being that of a woman who as it is don't have this genome even today in India) of Rakhigiri tested and thereby concluded that the bearers of this haplogroup have come from outside since no proof of this haplogroup has been found in India before
On the contrary the Anti Aryan migration group Mentions that not only does this haplogroup find it's presence in a very small population of the country (only around 20-22%) but also this haplogroup is found more in the people of Eastern India like UP Bihar than in the areas of Punjab from where this supposed migration happened. Aside the percentage presence of this haplogroup is nearly in same percentage in South India (supposedly Dravidian group) and in the regions of North west india.
Not just this although no trace of R1A1 genome was found in ancient India but the parent group of this genome (from which this genome bifurcated) namely R and R1 groups have been traced earliest in India i.e. 80kya and 36kya respectively. Hence stating that this R1A1 group developed outside India can't be a conclusive statement.
So basically this genome discovery hasn't given any conclusive evidence but just served as an additional support to the claims of either side historians.
I am personally agnostic to this thing (slightly leaning towards the possibility that migration had happened though) and have no interest in whether or not such migration happened. Just discussed the briefs of historical research papers with you.
P.S. About the Indra thing Rig Veda also mentions Indra being the God to both Aryas and Dasas and that he helps them both. Indra fighting the dark skinned and dismantling then doesn't necessarily mean that he has to come from outside to fight them. A person from Himalayan foothill would be fairer than anyone down. Although the possibility of him being a foreigner couldn't be ignored either that is the reason I have left that discussion to the Historians. I don't find myself worthy enough to discuss that. However making Ramayana a Aryan vs Dravidian war is definitely a political agenda. It wasn't that
Will reply to your other comment in some time
Some conclusive facts based on all the available texts.
1. Bharata mentioned in Vedas is son of Rishabhanatha (who actually rejected vedas and took to Jainism). India is named Bhaarat after him.
This is not dushyant bharata. So please do not get confused.
Mahabharata is about Dushyant Bharat's family. Vedas talk about Rishabhanath Bharat. Timelines also concur with these.
Vyasa was not the author or composer of Vedas. He was the compiler. Vyasa made the final critical edition of vedas and split them into Rig Sama Yajur and Atharva.
The Vedas we have today were transcribed by disciples of Panini and are therefore in Panini Sanskrit. Panini was the one who formalised the modern rules for grammar of Sanskrit. We still follow it.
There is a gap of several centuries between 1st compilation of Vedas, Critical Edition of Vyasa and Panini version of Vedas.
For eg. We Have Vyasa composing Mahabharata 1000s of years ago. We have Bhandarkar Oriental Institute compiling Critical edition from 1259 existing manuscripts 20 years ago while we have its English and Hindi Translation by Bibek Debroy as a much recent work.
Vashishtha- Varuni group of rishis had a set of their version of Vedas as a single compilation. Similarly Bhargava - Kanva - Angirasa had one. There was a southern Agastya version as well.
Just like 3 major recensions of Mahabharata that we have - Kashmiri, Burdwan and Kumbakonam. And we have Indonesian version which is same story but very different in narrative.
Similarly Vedas also existed in multiple versions with the rishi clans as I have mentioned above and similar to Indonesian MB we have Iranian Zenda Avesta, which is of same origin and content as vedas but narrative is totally different.
Like BORI made critical edition of MB after collecting all the different manuscripts (1259 full scripts and several partial ones) with extensive studying, analysing, removing non consistent or interpolated text, etc. Krishna dwaipayana's life work was critical edition of Vedas. He collected all available versions of Vedas from all major rishi clans, analysed them, removed inconsistencies and interpolations and arrived at a critical edition and split it into 4 separate books.
It was eventually accepted as precise and to be used by every one henceforth by all Rishi Clans And because he single handedly completed such a humungous task. He was given the title of Veda Vyasa. You need to remember the fact that all the vedas were transmitted orally from every Guru to Shishya. They were not written down anywhere. People memorized them verbatim and passed them on.
Several centuries later Panini created an updated Sanskrit. And Vyasa's Vedas were translated into it. Just Sanskrit BORI edition has been translated into English and Hindi today.
Also please note: This is very important, Indra of Vedas is not the same Indra of Mahabharata or Puranas.
Vedas are apaurusheya not because they were not created by a Human.
But because the Deities spoken of in the Vedas are apaurusheya. They are phenomenon of nature.
Indra is Rain. Vritra is drought. The Vajra made of bones of Dhadichi is puranic story. Vajra actually means lightning that precedes rain.
So the hymns addressed in vedas to Indra is actually addressed to natural phenomenon of rain, not to person Indra son of Kashyap.
The only real persons spoken of in Vedas were king Sudasa and his enemies the 10 kings. Their battle is alluded to in the text and Sudasa wins the battle because sudden lighting and heavy rains flood the river saraswati just when the fleet of 10 kings were attempting cross it, thereby decimating bulk of their armies and enabling sudasa to defeat them.
Varuna is water, Agni is fire, Maruts are different storms (tornado, cyclone, gale, hurricane) etc
Ashwins are dawn and dusk.
Similarly Krishnasur is storm cloud. Not Krishna son of Vasudev.
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Bollywood
Jhanak
Fan Fictions
Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai
