PDA

View Full Version : Does "Bharat-Varsha" refer to India, or the entire planet?



SKR108
12 December 2014, 01:06 PM
namaskar

I see the term Bharat-Varsha applied to only India in some cases, but I've also seen it refer to the "world," or planet by others, usually by western followers of different dharma traditions, most notably ISKCON.

For people who believe the former is true, how do you reconcile that with the idea that the Supreme being described in shastras is indeed a universal deity and not just the God of Indians?

For people who believe the latter is true, why have none of the avatars appeared in any place outside India? Why do shastras only speak of holy places within the subcontinent and nowhere else?

hinduism♥krishna
14 December 2014, 02:04 AM
According to Puruna, Bharatavarsha refers to India only .. The name itself speaks much. In Sanskrit 'Varsha' means specific region. That means the specific region on this earth.

Kalicharan Tuvij
14 December 2014, 05:57 AM
namaskar

I see the term Bharat-Varsha applied to only India in some cases, but I've also seen it refer to the "world," or planet by others, usually by western followers of different dharma traditions, most notably ISKCON.

For people who believe the former is true, how do you reconcile that with the idea that the Supreme being described in shastras is indeed a universal deity and not just the God of Indians?

For people who believe the latter is true, why have none of the avatars appeared in any place outside India? Why do shastras only speak of holy places within the subcontinent and nowhere else?
Namaskar,

Bharata means, "light-giver". BharataVarsha means, "the land of light". On a mundane level, it means, "the East". But to be accurate, BharataVarsha means vrihata Bharata including all those Eastern nations which fall into Ramayana zone of influence.

Then there is AryaVrata. Arya means, "the dark divine Sun" (don't ask me how:) ). Mundanely, "the West". Accurately, the vrihata Arya desha including all those western nations that fell under Arya domain of influence.

In the beginning, however, the terms "west" and "east" exclusively meant the west and the east of India (Mother India), respectively. That would be pretty much the "prehistory of mankind".(don't ask me how:) )

So, in the modern times it is no surprise that there is some confusion regarding these words. Clearly, more orthodox Hindus (read mostly native born) will equate AryaVarta to BharataVarsha to present confines of India - this view is well justified by observing that Dharma's influence has totally vanished outside India.

Then there are some Sadhus still residing in India, who know much much more, things that are very powerful and perhaps shouldn't be told.

Finally, there will be people like me, who would.. well, not now:)

Sudas Paijavana
14 December 2014, 08:27 AM
Namaste,


namaskar

I see the term Bharat-Varsha applied to only India in some cases, but I've also seen it refer to the "world," or planet by others, usually by western followers of different dharma traditions, most notably ISKCON.

In "some cases"? How can Bharat=Historical India 99.99% of the time be "some"?


For people who believe the former is true, how do you reconcile that with the idea that the Supreme being described in shastras is indeed a universal deity and not just the God of Indians? For people who believe the latter is true, why have none of the avatars appeared in any place outside India? Why do shastras only speak of holy places within the subcontinent and nowhere else?Reconciliation is necessary mostly for those that wish to make compatibility, either knowingly or unknowingly, of two or more things that would not have traditionally been brought together. Either way, whether or not the deva-s traversed only certain regions of the world does not tarnish the sublimity of Dharma. In other words, the proud virya is well-comforted by the impenetrable chainmail of Dharma.

hinduism♥krishna
15 December 2014, 03:58 AM
Namaste,

Puranas praises Bharatavarsha as Mokshabhumi and says that even gods wish to take birth in bharatavarsha in vaidik families. Such birth is a sure way to moksha. It is knows as Mokshabhumi as most of the people here attains moksha. Birth in Bharata is the highest as one is born in Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishya varna.

Lets see what puranas say. Following words are extractions from Puranas.
"Puranas mention India as the landmass that stretches from the snowy peaks of Himalayas to the splashing Indian Ocean. Bharatavarsha has nine divisions named Indradweep, Kaseru, Tamraparn, Gamastiman, Nagdweep, Soumya, Gandharva, Varun and Yahadweep which is surrounded by the sea and has an expansion of 1000 Yojans. In the eastern part of Bharata, live Kirat whereas in the western part live Yavans. In the Bharata, live population of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras who pass their lives engage in works ascribed to their respective class. So as people who've varna lives only in Bharatavarsha, Vishnu takes avatara in India."


"Four yugas namely Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapar Yuga and Kali Yuga descend on Bharatavarsha. In Bharatavarsha, sages observe penance to attain better life in another world, people organise Yagyas and offer donations to the Brahmins respectfully. In Jambudweep, Lord Vishnu is worshipped in Yagyas. Bharatavarsha is the land par excellence in Jambudweep for it is a land of action. Soul passes through millions of births, only then it finds a chance to take birth in Bharatavarsha when its pious deeds accumulate to a certain extent. Even the gods envy those people who take birth in Bharatavarsha. People in Bharatavarsha act without a desire to get fruits from their action. They dedicate their whole action to Lord Vishnu and ultimately mingle with Him. "

From Markandeya Purana : " Bharatavarsha is the only country in the whole world where all the four yugas- Satya, Treta, Dwapar, and Kali occur in a cyclic way. Bharatavarsha is the root of all forms of divinity where deities reside and almighty God takes incarnation."


"Beyond the boundaries of Bharatavarsha live the disbelievers (Non-aryan,that is, those who disbelieve in the Vedas). To the east live the kiratas and to the west live the yavanas.
Bharatavarsha is populated by brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras. There are seven major mountain ranges in Bharatavarsha. These are known as Mahendra, Malaya, Sahya, Shaktimana, Riksha, Vindhya and Paripatra. "

It's wort to note that we got something. According to Purana, non-aryan are those people whose homeland isn't India. Another refutation to AIT..

Only Hindus are Arya.


Such is the glory of India.
Hail to our Mother, Bharata.

markandeya 108 dasa
15 December 2014, 10:31 AM
Pranams

HLK

"Only Hindus are Arya"

This may not go down well with people who are born outside of India, would it also include Indians who have not taken birth in India.

The Daoist tradition grew up independently from Hindu culture, would you also say that they are not not noble. Also what about the Ancient Egyptians. Both these were very advanced cultures.

Ys

Md

goodlife
15 December 2014, 12:19 PM
I too have this confusion over late. I think Krishna in Gita keeps referring to Arjun as Oh Bharata..some translate it as king of the world.

maybe the knowledgeable can clarify.

SKR108
15 December 2014, 01:44 PM
Namaste,



In "some cases"? How can Bharat=Historical India 99.99% of the time be "some"?

I doubt that's accurate.


Reconciliation is necessary mostly for those that wish to make compatibility, either knowingly or unknowingly, of two or more things that would not have traditionally been brought together.

True.


Either way, whether or not the deva-s traversed only certain regions of the world does not tarnish the sublimity of Dharma. In other words, the proud virya is well-comforted by the impenetrable chainmail of Dharma.

Maybe not, but it seems odd that the Supreme Lord of the universe would only manifest within one part of such a vast creation.

Sudas Paijavana
15 December 2014, 03:30 PM
Namaste,

I doubt that's accurate.
How so?
भारत [ bhārata ] [ bhā́rata ] m. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaarata&g=Mas) f. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaaratii&g=Fem) n. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaarata&g=Neu) descended from Bharata or the Bharatas (applied to Agni either " sprung from the priests called Bharatas " or " bearer of the oblation " ) Lit. RV. belonging or relating to the Bharatas (with [ yuddha ] n. [ saṃgrāma ] m. [ samara (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/281.html#samara) ] m. [ samiti (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/282.html#samiti) ] f. the war or battle of the Bharatas ; with or scil. [ ākhyāna (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/26.html#aakhyaana) ] n. with [ itihāsa (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/33.html#itihaasa) ] m. and [ kathā (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/56.html#kathaa) ] f. the story of the Bharatas , the history or narrative of their war ; with or scil. [ maṇḍala (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/193.html#ma.n.dala) ] n. or [ varṣa (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/229.html#var.sa) ] n. " king Bharatas's realm " i.e. India) Lit. MBh. Lit. Kāv.
inhabiting Bharata-varsha i.e. India Lit. BhP.
[ bhārata ] m. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaarata&g=Mas) a descendant of Bharata ( also in pl. for [ bharatās ] ) Lit. RV.
( with [ aśva-medha ] ) , N. of the author of Lit. RV. v , 27
( with [ deva-vāta ] and [ deva-śravas ] ) , N. of the authors of Lit. RV. iii , 23
fire Lit. L.
an actor Lit. L. ( cf. [ bharata ] )
N. of the sun shining on the south of Meru Lit. L.
[ bhāratī ] f. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaaratii&g=Fem) see below
[ bhārata ] n. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaarata&g=Neu) the land of Bharatas i.e. India ( cf. above )
the story of the Bharatas and their wars (sometimes identified with the Mahā-bhārata , and sometimes distinguished from it) Lit. MBh. Lit. Rājat. Lit. IW. 371 n. 1 and 2
( with [ saras ] ) , N. of a lake Lit. Śatr.
source (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/186.html#bhaarata)
To correlate Bharat with the whole world is quite the leap, often a very unnecessary correlation, since traditionally it refers to Historical India, now constitutionally used as a legitimate---and ancestral---name for the Republic of India (e.g., Bharat Ganarajya).

Maybe not, but it seems odd that the Supreme Lord of the universe would only manifest within one part of such a vast creation.Here's the thing, as a Hindu polytheist, I do not hold the glorious gods and goddesses of my ancestors under the assumption that they are universally applicable. In terms of purely socio-cultural matters, where the gods "take birth" or incarnate is not really a matter worth contemplating rigorously over. Therefore, since I hold them under Bharatiya paradigms, or rather Dharmic epistemic and ontological realities, because of their socio-cultural relevancy, the question of why they were "born" only in various cities of Bharat and not in, say, Tokyo or Kiev, is invalid since it is irrelevant. Please keep in mind, however, what I have offered is only a Hindu polytheist perspective, a perspective that is quite content with not acknowledging a Supreme or Absolute; this question, in my opinion, would most likely apply to Hindus that hold the gods, or rather a Supreme, under the assumption or qualification of universality.

SKR108
15 December 2014, 03:47 PM
Namaste,

How so?
भारत [ bhārata ] [ bhā́rata ] m. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaarata&g=Mas) f. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaaratii&g=Fem) n. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaarata&g=Neu) descended from Bharata or the Bharatas (applied to Agni either " sprung from the priests called Bharatas " or " bearer of the oblation " ) Lit. RV. belonging or relating to the Bharatas (with [ yuddha ] n. [ saṃgrāma ] m. [ samara (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/281.html#samara) ] m. [ samiti (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/282.html#samiti) ] f. the war or battle of the Bharatas ; with or scil. [ ākhyāna (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/26.html#aakhyaana) ] n. with [ itihāsa (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/33.html#itihaasa) ] m. and [ kathā (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/56.html#kathaa) ] f. the story of the Bharatas , the history or narrative of their war ; with or scil. [ maṇḍala (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/193.html#ma.n.dala) ] n. or [ varṣa (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/229.html#var.sa) ] n. " king Bharatas's realm " i.e. India) Lit. MBh. Lit. Kāv.
inhabiting Bharata-varsha i.e. India Lit. BhP.
[ bhārata ] m. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaarata&g=Mas) a descendant of Bharata ( also in pl. for [ bharatās ] ) Lit. RV.
( with [ aśva-medha ] ) , N. of the author of Lit. RV. v , 27
( with [ deva-vāta ] and [ deva-śravas ] ) , N. of the authors of Lit. RV. iii , 23
fire Lit. L.
an actor Lit. L. ( cf. [ bharata ] )
N. of the sun shining on the south of Meru Lit. L.
[ bhāratī ] f. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaaratii&g=Fem) see below
[ bhārata ] n. (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/sktdeclin?lex=MW&q=bhaarata&g=Neu) the land of Bharatas i.e. India ( cf. above )
the story of the Bharatas and their wars (sometimes identified with the Mahā-bhārata , and sometimes distinguished from it) Lit. MBh. Lit. Rājat. Lit. IW. 371 n. 1 and 2
( with [ saras ] ) , N. of a lake Lit. Śatr.
source (http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/186.html#bhaarata)
To correlate Bharat with the whole world is quite the leap, often a very unnecessary correlation, since traditionally it refers to Historical India, now constitutionally used as a legitimate---and ancestral---name for the Republic of India (e.g., Bharat Ganarajya).

That's fine, I was only referring to your statistic of 99.9%

Besides, if we look the word "Aryan" up in a dictionary or reference book, should we be satisfied and accept what we see?



Here's the thing, as a Hindu polytheist, I do not hold the glorious gods and goddesses of my ancestors under the assumption that they are universally applicable. In terms of purely socio-cultural matters, where the gods "take birth" or incarnate is not really a matter worth contemplating rigorously over. Therefore, since I hold them under Bharatiya paradigms, or rather Dharmic epistemic and ontological realities, because of their socio-cultural relevancy, the question of why they were "born" only in various cities of Bharat and not in, say, Tokyo or Kiev, is invalid since it is irrelevant. Please keep in mind, however, what I have offered is only a Hindu polytheist perspective, a perspective that is quite content with not acknowledging a Supreme or Absolute; this question, in my opinion, would most likely apply to Hindus that hold the gods, or rather a Supreme, under the assumption or qualification of universality.

I respect that and I can't really say you are wrong for seeing it that way, but when you say that the Hindu deities are not "universally applicable," does that mean that you view the powers they possess to be confined within the context of present-day border definitions?

I disagree that these kinds of questions are "irrelevant," especially if the very first thing vedanta-sutras tells the student to do is inquire about the nature of the absolute.

SKR108
15 December 2014, 03:57 PM
Namaskar,

Bharata means, "light-giver". BharataVarsha means, "the land of light". On a mundane level, it means, "the East". But to be accurate, BharataVarsha means vrihata Bharata including all those Eastern nations which fall into Ramayana zone of influence.

Then there is AryaVrata. Arya means, "the dark divine Sun" (don't ask me how:) ). Mundanely, "the West". Accurately, the vrihata Arya desha including all those western nations that fell under Arya domain of influence.

In the beginning, however, the terms "west" and "east" exclusively meant the west and the east of India (Mother India), respectively. That would be pretty much the "prehistory of mankind".(don't ask me how:) )

So, in the modern times it is no surprise that there is some confusion regarding these words. Clearly, more orthodox Hindus (read mostly native born) will equate AryaVarta to BharataVarsha to present confines of India - this view is well justified by observing that Dharma's influence has totally vanished outside India.

Then there are some Sadhus still residing in India, who know much much more, things that are very powerful and perhaps shouldn't be told.

Finally, there will be people like me, who would.. well, not now:)

Interesting, thank you.

Personally I am of the belief that at one point in time, vedic civilization was present everywhere on the planet, but at present is confined to the subcontinent.

Is it possible that in every Manuvantara, Manu manifests in different parts of the planet, and in this particular Manuvantara, that place happens to be India? This is pure speculation on my part, I was just wondering if it has any basis in authorized scriptures or whatever.

SKR108
15 December 2014, 04:17 PM
Namaste,

Puranas praises Bharatavarsha as Mokshabhumi and says that even gods wish to take birth in bharatavarsha in vaidik families. Such birth is a sure way to moksha. It is knows as Mokshabhumi as most of the people here attains moksha. Birth in Bharata is the highest as one is born in Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishya varna.

Lets see what puranas say. Following words are extractions from Puranas.
"Puranas mention India as the landmass that stretches from the snowy peaks of Himalayas to the splashing Indian Ocean. Bharatavarsha has nine divisions named Indradweep, Kaseru, Tamraparn, Gamastiman, Nagdweep, Soumya, Gandharva, Varun and Yahadweep which is surrounded by the sea and has an expansion of 1000 Yojans. In the eastern part of Bharata, live Kirat whereas in the western part live Yavans. In the Bharata, live population of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras who pass their lives engage in works ascribed to their respective class. So as people who've varna lives only in Bharatavarsha, Vishnu takes avatara in India."


"Four yugas namely Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapar Yuga and Kali Yuga descend on Bharatavarsha. In Bharatavarsha, sages observe penance to attain better life in another world, people organise Yagyas and offer donations to the Brahmins respectfully. In Jambudweep, Lord Vishnu is worshipped in Yagyas. Bharatavarsha is the land par excellence in Jambudweep for it is a land of action. Soul passes through millions of births, only then it finds a chance to take birth in Bharatavarsha when its pious deeds accumulate to a certain extent. Even the gods envy those people who take birth in Bharatavarsha. People in Bharatavarsha act without a desire to get fruits from their action. They dedicate their whole action to Lord Vishnu and ultimately mingle with Him. "

From Markandeya Purana : " Bharatavarsha is the only country in the whole world where all the four yugas- Satya, Treta, Dwapar, and Kali occur in a cyclic way. Bharatavarsha is the root of all forms of divinity where deities reside and almighty God takes incarnation."


"Beyond the boundaries of Bharatavarsha live the disbelievers (Non-aryan,that is, those who disbelieve in the Vedas). To the east live the kiratas and to the west live the yavanas.
Bharatavarsha is populated by brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras. There are seven major mountain ranges in Bharatavarsha. These are known as Mahendra, Malaya, Sahya, Shaktimana, Riksha, Vindhya and Paripatra. "

It's wort to note that we got something. According to Purana, non-aryan are those people whose homeland isn't India. Another refutation to AIT..

Only Hindus are Arya.


Such is the glory of India.
Hail to our Mother, Bharata.

Thanks, can you please show me exactly where I can reference those quotes that you cited? A link perhaps?

SanathanaDharma
15 December 2014, 11:39 PM
Dear Friend,

In order to understand why the term "Bharatha varsha" is referred to India, some information is available in our Puranas...

The Bhagavata and Sri Vishnu Purana clearly mention the following...

The first Manu of this kalpa, Swayambhuva and his wife Shraddha Devi, had a son named Priyavartha. Priyavartha had a wife by name Barhishmati and they had 10 sons....all these sons were named after different forms of Agni and the first one was Agnidhra...

The Puranas state that during Priyavartha's rule, this "earth" actually was seen as a group of 7 major chunks of islands (something similar to what has been defined in the "Plate tectonics theory"...but the timing is quite different)...we are talking about the division quite early in the timeline...not few years ago...

The names are
Jambu, Plaksha, Shalmali, Kusha, Kraunca, Shaka and Pushkara

Again nothing specific is given as to why they were named so....one of the islands or dweepa was known as "Jambudweepa"....

Priyavartha made his eldest son "Agnidhra" as the ruler of Jambudweepa...

Agnidhra had a wife named Purvacitti and they had nine sons of whom "Nabhi" was the first one...
He ruled the major portion of this Jambudweepa under the area called "Ajanabha" Nabhi and his wife Merudevi were great devotees of Sri Vishnu and did penance and obtained the boon that He should be born as their son...Sri Maha Vishnu took up an Avatar as "Sri Rishabhadeva"...He then had a wife called Jayanthi, who was the daughter of Indra of that period...

Sri Rishabhadeva and Jayanthi had many sons and the first one was named "Bharatha"[not to be confused with the son of Dushyantha and Shakuntala of Mahabharatha] and according to the Puranas, the area of land, Ajanabha, in Jambudweepa, below the great himalayas till the ocean was ruled by Bharatha and hence it also got the name "Bharatha-varsha"

Srimad Bhagavatam[5.7.3] ajanābhaṁ nāmaitad varṣaṁ bhāratam iti yata ārabhya vyapadiśanti.


Ofcourse there may be many other stories regarding the name and history, but this is the one from Puranas...[the very popular Bharatha, son of King Dushyantha and Shakunthala, who was one of the greatest kings to rule this area...he was the ancestor of Pandavas and Kauravas and hence was also referred by Sri Krishna as Bhaarata...in order to understand this, one should learn Sanskrit where the name of parents, ancestors are used to call a particular person..example Kaunteya,Vaasudeva, Paandava..etc]

Coming to your question "....why have none of the avatars appeared in any place outside India? Why do shastras only speak of holy places within the subcontinent and nowhere else?"

can you please let me know on what basis have to come to this conclusion?
can you please explain as to how on earth did you conclude that none of the Avatars appeared in any place outside India?
Have you heard of the term "Prithvi" which refers to earth? do you know how it got that name?

if at all you are wondering why Sanathana Dharma has high presence in the modern "India" alone....then the answer is very simple...
the so called man made religions from the middle east and west have been only promoting hatred, destruction, demolition of everything
that comes in their way, murdering others who do not follow their ideology ...they have been indulged in countless barbaric acts performed
for thousands of years.....again because of high resistance from the modern Indians, Sanathana Dharma is still existing in modern India...who knows how many temples, saints, scriptures has been destroyed across the globe by them for thousands of years...no one has a record...
but we do have proof.[just count the number of ruins in India...you will understand the reality...] that those guys were determined to destroy everything else...

The real saints of Sanatha Dharma in Bharata varsha have one main mantra ....Om Shaanthih Shaanthih Shaanthihi....and hence in this Punya bhuni [holy land] this Dharma continues to exist...

hinduism♥krishna
15 December 2014, 11:44 PM
PranAm Markendeya


Pranams

HLK

"Only Hindus are Arya"

This may not go down well with people who are born outside of India, would it also include Indians who have not taken birth in India.

Most probably yes, because we see much differences between Indian and western born Hindus.


The Daoist tradition grew up independently from Hindu culture, would you also say that they are not not noble. Also what about the Ancient Egyptians. Both these were very advanced cultures.

Ys

Md


They may be advanced but not more than Vaidik culture. Vaidik Hindu culture is ultimate and Lord Vishnu himself is the creator and protector of it. Other cultures are man made and developed in course of time.


Thank You

hinduism♥krishna
15 December 2014, 11:52 PM
Namaste,

As I think, only Iskcons alleges that Bharatvarsha refers to whole world. I don't know the exact reason, may be to attract westerners to make them feel that Hinduism is not actually foreign to them.. :)

Regards

markandeya 108 dasa
16 December 2014, 12:28 AM
Pranams HLK Ji,

While I do not wish to undermine the great Culture of Bharat-Varsha I think that if many even minded people see those types of comments then they will be heading straight for the exit door. I also think many western Hindus maybe up in arms over this too.

I am not totally sure of what ISKCON thinks about this, some have done some archeological research, Micheal A Cremo for one in Forbidden Archeology , but it is considered controversial.

I read and study many aspects of culture and religion around the world, and I do find something common within all of them, although expressed in diverse ways. The underlying essence of Daoism is non different as far as I can see from advaita, although mention of Vedic Gods maybe absent in their writings, but perhaps not their visions, also the Buddha Dharma over hundreds of years have claimed many realized masters in China,Thailand, Burma Japan and Southern Korea etc...., and the heart of true Buddhism is non different from advaita. As of this time other than reading certain passages which you highlight,I can't find anyway in which I can say God is localized in only one place. I also feel that it maybe a mistake to think that we can limit the workings of God and how he reaches out in broader parameter.

But saying all this as of now I do not see many other cultures so rich and profound as those that have arisen or have been revealed from India. I think the ancient writings set the standard of realization, and may stand supreme in terms of revelation but within mystic writings over the years many have come to the same type of conclusion but expressed according to the cultural and environmental surroundings.

That being said I have no doubts that I need a good few lifetimes for success, and I wouldn't say no to being born in a highly advanced setting like in South India.

Ys

Md

Jaskaran Singh
16 December 2014, 08:22 PM
Here's the thing, as a Hindu polytheist, I do not hold the glorious gods and goddesses of my ancestors under the assumption that they are universally applicable. In terms of purely socio-cultural matters, where the gods "take birth" or incarnate is not really a matter worth contemplating rigorously over. Therefore, since I hold them under Bharatiya paradigms, or rather Dharmic epistemic and ontological realities, because of their socio-cultural relevancy, the question of why they were "born" only in various cities of Bharat and not in, say, Tokyo or Kiev, is invalid since it is irrelevant. Please keep in mind, however, what I have offered is only a Hindu polytheist perspective, a perspective that is quite content with not acknowledging a Supreme or Absolute; this question, in my opinion, would most likely apply to Hindus that hold the gods, or rather a Supreme, under the assumption or qualification of universality.

Don't disagree with you, but where in shruti are the dashAvatArAH even mentioned, excluding:
varAha-
http://oi60.tinypic.com/30i9o1u.jpg

vAmana-
http://s15.postimg.org/cqm4d6xaj/dfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.png

kRiShNa-
http://s24.postimg.org/gvke692gl/wwwwwww.png

So for you, who doesn't accept smRiti (where the paratvam of certain devatA-s is established) where does the question of ayodhyA, mathurA, etc. even come up?

Sudas Paijavana
16 December 2014, 09:21 PM
Namaste, Jaskaran:


So for you, who doesn't accept smRiti (where the paratvam of certain devatA-s is established) where does the question of ayodhyA, mathurA, etc. even come up?
I no longer hold such "Law of Shruti" thoughts. If you have been following my posts "in other dimensions" :p, you'll see that I have made a lot of retractions and changes in thought since early summer. Oh, and it's good to hear from you. Hope you are doing well.

markandeya 108 dasa
17 December 2014, 02:42 AM
Pranams

http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/op/2003/04/15/stories/2003041500010200.htm

Thoughts?

Ys

Md

hinduism♥krishna
18 December 2014, 10:26 AM
Pranams

http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/op/2003/04/15/stories/2003041500010200.htm

Thoughts?

Ys

Md

Pranam..Nice article. Just my thoughts.

Vaidika culture was NEVER outside of Bharatavarsha or Aryavarta. It is not like that once all countries were following Vaidik culture but later they gave up following it.

Some similarities we find in other cultures only because the reign of entire earth was operated by one king, who was Indian/Hindu king. So there must be some cultural impact of the vaidik dharma all over the world.

Thank You

markandeya 108 dasa
25 December 2014, 01:09 PM
Pranams HLK

With all the information we have at this time I would say you are right, and the blessing of Bharata is that in the last few thousand years the knowledge has mostly been preserved and has thus produced a rich environment for the practice of self realization, so India has and still is the main portion of this planet that has the sacred knowledge of self realization in abundance. It would be almost impossible to count the amount of self realized sages and Sadhus which India seems to produce without effort.

Sadly around the globe and especially the more west we go the environment for self realization has been suppressed, and most the countries lost their cultural identity, and what ever level they were at in times gone by has been destroyed and taken out of the history books and the mainstream societies. At certain times in Europe and the middle east people could get killed just for thinking.....

But as they say with true knowledge comes great responsibility, so if one adheres to the current situation where India is the holy land and the basis of spiritual civilization then one surely has to take on with great humility this burden to spread the dharma in the correct way and gradually elevate as best as possible the counter parts.

Ys

Md

markandeya 108 dasa
26 December 2014, 06:01 AM
Pranams

For some research purpose only not in the spirit of debate we do find certain influences around the ancient world that are connected to Vedic Culture.

I am not sure who are the main people behind India divine.org and what sampradya if any they represent.

http://www.indiadivine.org/news/history-and-culture/4000-year-old-vishnu-statue-discovered-in-vietnam-r766

The Pre-Roman/Christian culture of Britain was Druid, Celtic followed by the Britons, who in fact were a peaceful race of people, not a traveling warring culture, this was learned and forced upon this land by the Romans and their application of divide and conquer.

There are many similarities between Druid/Celtic culture and Vedic culture, both in language and some applied practices and beliefs.

All of this may be down to trade routes and still we cannot rule out that Bharata or current India was the center in the most ancient times, but from History we learn that most of the evidences of ancient culture in the West have more or less been totally destroyed, so an accurate study is almost impossible and pending more archeological findings.

The druids who were the spiritual heads of Britain were totally wiped out, massacred and all remains of the their beliefs and practices wiped off the surface and destroyed. It has only been in the last few hundred years that they have been trying to pick up the pieces and so far have traced many things back to Vedic culture and consider India the preservation of their own culture.

http://www.druidry.org/druid-way/other-paths/druidry-dharma

Also some insight into early life in Ancient Britain, what is quite interesting is the timelines, all seem to be existing and flourishing at their peaks at about 5000 years ago, the dawn of Kali Yuga. The population would have been low and the villages and towns very simple globally. Most of these cultures as well as ancient Vedic and Bharata culture were oral and memory transmission of teachings, even the Buddhas teachings remained oral until approx 500 years after his para-nirvana, so writing down things, building of elaborate temples and city building are relatively new within the history of mankind.

A bit long but maybe interesting for some, but the first 15 mins is the most important and one can get the basic idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN7X8ax6WMk

History is indeed perhaps one of the most frustrating subjects to study, as many facts have been permanently deleted from our records with very slim chances of ever really knowing the true history of the cultural fabric of the globe in ancient times, but we do know that we have been trading and sharing information for a very long time in all corners of the planet.

I read a book or rather browsed a book on early Celtic literature a few years back and the influence of Sanskrit on its writings and culture. I could not find a suitable link to post and forget the name of the book.

Side note, I am not in anyway or form trying to suggest the Aryan Invasion, but more for my own interests that Sadhus were existing globally around the world at all times, and still do for the elevation of jivas to pure God consciousness, however one may translate and express that within their own understandings. And as far as I can see India of today still is the main center of the globes spiritual roots and the most advanced.

Ys

Md

SKR108
27 December 2014, 05:50 PM
A little off topic, but it's my thread so why not ;)

Why do you guys think that there are no monuments, palaces, or temples left over from the IV/Harrapa civilization similar to what we see left over from Egypt, and Sumer?

According to accepted academia, the IVC was a contemporary of Ancient Egypt and Sumer, and they clearly had the technological know-how for such architecture, so what gives? Were they destroyed in some way? Is there proof of that?

Is this a hint that it was indeed a vedic civilization, since the vedic method of worship either took place in the home or at open air fire altars and didn't require such extravagance?

Why did hindus all of a sudden start building elaborate temples in the first place?

ratikala
23 June 2015, 01:32 AM
namaskaram SKR108 ji

as this is an interesting subject , ...excuse later addition , ....

in discussion elsewhere I discovered this map which gives reference to Bharata Varsha extending to the top of Africa

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1645/408/original.jpg?w=600&h