Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

[jignyAsu]

On one side, we have archaeology, philology and above all, common sense. On the other hand, we have religious texts with talking moneys, human presence going back billions of years, people with lifespans as high as 20000 years - none of which can be corroborated by any other means. You make your choice.

Many of us have made our choice because we don't see any contradiction but only pending scientific research. Those things seem ridiculous to one only if he thinks that the world has ever been like what he is seeing now.

Regarding history, it just depends on what Pramana(proof) one has chosen. Atleast in HDF its not unreasonable to find somebody like GaneshPrasad ji to choose Mahabharata as a pramana. After all our history wasn't started by Chandragupta Maurya..its just that the west is not able see past it.

We find it unreasonable when somebody tells us not to start reading our Bhagavad Gita, till somebody has actually dug up Dwaraka! Nor do we want to believe that prayers are futile or that life can come from matter because a bunch of self-proclaimed authorities insist. How can a primtive religion find out that the world is more than just a few thousand years old anyway.

People should be clear the the Mbh and Ramayana, in their present form are not about history, but about religion and more specifically - Vaishnavism.

It is possible that they started out as history works a long time ago, but have changed form drastically since then and can no longer be relied on for historical material. This should be evident to anyone who has some time reading them, even if just the abridged forms.

All these are unproven speculations not acceptable to many. These do not explain how an Acharya can walk all the way from kerala to Kashmir to Bengal to Rajastan debating on the same texts, anyway.

Apparently it is not evident to quite a few members you see even in this forum that have spent years researching the Vedas. What one sees is that anyone who starts Vedic research sincerely gains more faith only.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Shiv. S

Here we go again with the outsider vs. insider accusations. Anyone who does not align with our own views has got to be an outsider with an ulterior motive.

No one tells us what our history is. On one side, we have archaeology, philology and above all, common sense. On the other hand, we have religious texts with talking moneys, human presence going back billions of years, people with lifespans as high as 20000 years - none of which can be corroborated by any other means. You make your choice.

People should be clear the the Mbh and Ramayana, in their present form are not about history, but about religion and more specifically - Vaishnavism. It is possible that they started out as history works a long time ago, but have changed form drastically since then and can no longer be relied on for historical material. This should be evident to anyone who has some time reading them, even if just the abridged forms.

I am sorry I had come across the way I did, I had no such intentions.

Thing is, just as jignyAsu (thank you) points out here we are on HDF, a Hindu forum least we can expect is reverence for its scriptures. So when I hear the the word 'myth' it get to me, it should not though.

Faith is not blind but then I do not look for science or its approval to build my faith, be it religion or history, the history that has been distorted and written by the west, never in the interest of the subjugated.

World still does not give credit where credit is due, look at 0 look at pi, it is not general knowledge, just the two example. Why I am saying this, well I come to it. Ramayan speaks of Viman, speaks of Ravan communicating with Ahiravan continent apart or Sanjay relaying to Dhitrastra live event. These same practice today nobody blinks an eye lid.
I just do not believe those highly intelligent people, of our not so recent past would have carried on the way of life that had been passed down or survived on following myth.

Jai Shree Krishna

[shiv.somashekhar]

Many of us have made our choice because we don't see any contradiction but only pending scientific research.

What is still "pending" at this point? It is 2013 and we have uncovered enough information to know our history to quite a reliable degree. Humans moved out of Africa only 50,000 years ago, the iron age started only in 1300 BC and cities did not emerge in India until around 500 BC (not counting IVC).

Your stance also raises another question. If this pending research turns out to be in line with the current academic position, will you accept the outcome or will you reject it as incomplete asking for more research? If it is the latter, then you probably have assumed the Purana/Itihasa version as absolute and nothing will change your mind, as you are not basing your view on facts, but on faith.

Those things seem ridiculous to one only if he thinks that the world has ever been like what he is seeing now.

No. Those claims are ridiculous due to lack of evidence and for no other reason. If we ignore all the work of the scientific community in this area in favor of accepting unsubstantiated, religious poetry as history, then we are insulting human intelligence as a whole.

Regarding history, it just depends on what Pramana(proof) one has chosen. Atleast in HDF its not unreasonable to find somebody like GaneshPrasad ji to choose Mahabharata as a pramana. After all our history wasn't started by Chandragupta Maurya..its just that the west is not able see past it.

It has nothing to do with the West. We cannot find historically reliable information before the time of the Buddha because our ancestors who were responsible for record keeping failed to separate fact from fiction. Without dates, authorship and by heavily glossing over reality (unpalatable?) with colorful mythology, their records - from a historical perspective - are useless.

We find it unreasonable when somebody tells us not to start reading our Bhagavad Gita, till somebody has actually dug up Dwaraka!

No one has to dig out Dwaraka. It has been around for a long time and you can visit it anytime you wish (Jamnagar district, Guajarat).

This is the problem I was talking about earlier. People are confusing history with religion and vice-versa. The Gita has nothing to do with Dwaraka or any other place. It is not a historical record, nor does its value rise or fall on the the historical accuracy of the Mahabharata. Once again, the Mbh (i its present form) is a religious text and not a historical text. Many people seem to think that the divine/religious value of Rama and Krishna depends on accepting the Itihasa/Purana version of history, as is. There also appears to be an obsession with pushing their dates (and the date of the Veda) as far back as possible. The idea appears to be, the older they are, the better.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Pranam Shiv. S




I am sorry I had come across the way I did, I had no such intentions.

Thing is, just as jignyAsu (thank you) points out here we are on HDF, a Hindu forum least we can expect is reverence for its scriptures. So when I hear the the word 'myth' it get to me, it should not though.

Faith is not blind but then I do not look for science or its approval to build my faith, be it religion or history, the history that has been distorted and written by the west, never in the interest of the subjugated.

World still does not give credit where credit is due, look at 0 look at pi, it is not general knowledge, just the two example. Why I am saying this, well I come to it. Ramayan speaks of Viman, speaks of Ravan communicating with Ahiravan continent apart or Sanjay relaying to Dhitrastra live event. These same practice today nobody blinks an eye lid.
I just do not believe those highly intelligent people, of our not so recent past would have carried on the way of life that had been passed down or survived on following myth.

Jai Shree Krishna

I'll keep it simple. Do not confuse religion and history. The two do not have to go hand in hand.

When we say king Bharata is not historical, this does not necessarily mean there was no Bharata. It simple means we have no way of knowing for sure that he existed or when he existed and what his circumstances were. If he was real, then the people responsible for recording his life and/or preserving these records, failed to to do a good job.

Throughout history, we know that religious books are highly embellished and their intention is not to convey historical facts, but to inspire people towards religious ideals. To that end, they will introduce colorful stories, miracles, prayers and other instruments that help them put the message across. If we choose to interpret these stories as literal facts, then we are missing the purpose of these texts.

The religious value of the Rig-veda is the same regardless of it being 4000 or 40,000 years old, if it was composed by home grown indigenous Indians or by an Aryan tribe that migrated from the Eurasian Steppe. The divinity of Rama cannot be dependent on the existence of talking monkeys and floating stones.

And once you separate history from religion, what is the need to challenge academic research and scientific findings or to support conspiracy theories?

[kallol]

Even during Rama's period and Mahabharata's period the whole of this region was divided into different kingdoms. The proofs are there in the epics. So there is no doubt that for substantial time this region was divided.

However the fact remains that the whole region and beyond were bound by the sanatana dharma whether as enemy or as friend.

Even Ravana tutored Rama on good governance when he was on his death bed.

Today's India is mostly due to the British rule.

[Hindu33]

I'll keep it simple. Do not confuse religion and history. The two do not have to go hand in hand.

When we say king Bharata is not historical, this does not necessarily mean there was no Bharata. It simple means we have no way of knowing for sure that he existed or when he existed and what his circumstances were. If he was real, then the people responsible for recording his life and/or preserving these records, failed to to do a good job.

Throughout history, we know that religious books are highly embellished and their intention is not to convey historical facts, but to inspire people towards religious ideals. To that end, they will introduce colorful stories, miracles, prayers and other instruments that help them put the message across. If we choose to interpret these stories as literal facts, then we are missing the purpose of these texts.

The religious value of the Rig-veda is the same regardless of it being 4000 or 40,000 years old, if it was composed by home grown indigenous Indians or by an Aryan tribe that migrated from the Eurasian Steppe. The divinity of Rama cannot be dependent on the existence of talking monkeys and floating stones.

And once you separate history from religion, what is the need to challenge academic research and scientific findings or to support conspiracy theories?

Hello shiv,

Religion, to a layman, is just following the path of ancestors. Whatever we have today is solely because of our ancestors, is it not? If we deviate from that path, we utterly lose our identity. As far as i understand from my little knowledge, the books that I have read does not stress upon god too much, rather it is for the benefit of the reader. I think you are confusing belief with religion. Religion is not belief, religion is a path, which my father followed because his father followed and so on. In that respect, one can interpret any source of information without doubt.

[jignyAsu]

What is still "pending" at this point? It is 2013 and we have uncovered enough information to know our history to quite a reliable degree.

I am surprised you quote it with such certainty that everything has been found.

Humans moved out of Africa only 50,000 years ago, the iron age started only in 1300 BC and cities did not emerge in India until around 500 BC (not counting IVC).

And what do we have left? A sudden transformation with an unexplainable giant leap to a unique philosophy, culture, language, living, beliefs - all mysteriously happened only in India only in the past 2000 years or so and was accepted immediately in all corners of India- the likes of which has not happened anywhere else. They forgot completely their past as well..unlike the Muslims who still remember Mecca. In support of this we have no proof of gradual transformation.

What is amazing is that the certainty with which all these are talked as if a video recording of this exists!

Your stance also raises another question. If this pending research turns out to be in line with the current academic position, will you accept the outcome or will you reject it as incomplete asking for more research? If it is the latter, then you probably have assumed the Purana/Itihasa version as absolute and nothing will change your mind, as you are not basing your view on facts, but on faith.

Not only me but everyone is bound to accept established scientific facts but not lame theories, opinions and speculations.

No. Those claims are ridiculous due to lack of evidence and for no other reason. If we ignore all the work of the scientific community in this area in favor of accepting unsubstantiated, religious poetry as history, then we are insulting human intelligence as a whole.

Again, only theories are being ignored. Might I point out that the Dwaraka was searched out because someone chose to believe in this "ridiculous" account: Bharata as a PramAna?

No one has to dig out Dwaraka. It has been around for a long time and you can visit it anytime you wish (Jamnagar district, Guajarat).

Not a long time but just a few decades ago. My question is how has that affected your theories? Dwaraka-so what? Saraswathi river-so what? A world spanning billions of years? so what..lucky guess and tampering. So, noting this repeated indifference to anything in favor and ready acceptance to anything against no matter how huge the gaps are, have the members here repeatedly stated: "prejudice"...not because you don't believe this.

When we say king Bharata is not historical, this does not necessarily mean there was no Bharata. It simple means we have no way of knowing for sure that he existed or when he existed and what his circumstances were.

Much better statement! So which means, our faith in the Pramana has not been contradicted. One can choose to trust only what one sees....but to force on others trust only his vision and opinions is unwarranted.

If he was real, then the people responsible for recording his life and/or preserving these records, failed to to do a good job.

No He has done what was intended. The person did not want awards or patents or money...but just to spread spiritual truths. How will fossils help in this regard anyway?

The divinity of Rama cannot be dependent on the existence of talking monkeys and floating stones.

No one said His divinity is dependent on monkeys. However, if One is divine, then it is impossible to guess His intentions and qualities...that's why the need of pramaNa. That PramAnA again is a matter of rational faith, which you admit has not been contradicted, above.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

I'll keep it simple. Do not confuse religion and history. The two do not have to go hand in hand.

Yes I like it simple, Hinduism is a way of life based on scriptures, need I say anymore?

When we say king Bharata is not historical, this does not necessarily mean there was no Bharata. It simple means we have no way of knowing for sure that he existed or when he existed and what his circumstances were. If he was real, then the people responsible for recording his life and/or preserving these records, failed to to do a good job.

What a pity they did not have modern recording system, but what we have is an oral system of preserving our way of life, it worked perfectly until we were invaded, they tried very hard to change us yet we didn't, proof enough for me to know we have a gem here worth preserving, that is what they did, it's a matter of opinion weather they did a good job of it or not.

Throughout history, we know that religious books are highly embellished and their intention is not to convey historical facts, but to inspire people towards religious ideals. To that end, they will introduce colorful stories, miracles, prayers and other instruments that help them put the message across. If we choose to interpret these stories as literal facts, then we are missing the purpose of these texts.

How do you know this for fact? It is your choice how you base your faith, purpose of text is a matter of opinion in every field.

The religious value of the Rig-veda is the same regardless of it being 4000 or 40,000 years old, if it was composed by home grown indigenous Indians or by an Aryan tribe that migrated from the Eurasian Steppe. The divinity of Rama cannot be dependent on the existence of talking monkeys and floating stones.

And once you separate history from religion, what is the need to challenge academic research and scientific findings or to support conspiracy theories?

The value of Vedas can only be understood if we listen to what it saying, no belief, no sentiment but the content as it is.

But if you want to put a time limit or Aryan tribe, I am afraid that is where we part company. The myth that was a fabricated, the lie that was spread it is easy to see, now you can understand where a lot of us are coming from. I have no faith in history that is full of lies and fabrications, always viewed from western colourful glass.

Who ever said anything about monkey speaking to establish the divinity of
Ram?

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

--.

Today's India is mostly due to the British rule.

Yes as a result we have Pakistan but worst of all the legacy of corruption that the successive government has carried forward.

As to what we had before can be gauged by what Ahoka's empire spread into.

Jai Shree Krishna

[kallol]

Pranam



Yes as a result we have Pakistan but worst of all the legacy of corruption that the successive government has carried forward.

As to what we had before can be gauged by what Ahoka's empire spread into.

Jai Shree Krishna

Dear GP,

The political boundaries have been dynamic throughout. This is a common phenomenon across the world and India is no different.

However the Sanatana Dharma has been the binding force for this region in all respect. And that is what we should be proud of and not the political boundary.