[TorryJens]

//This evidence centers on the geography of the lands described in the Rig, which does not correspond to the H-M region (this served as the strongest support for the now thoroughly discredited AIT).// described or referred/mentioned?
Surprising that descriptions in Tamil Lit about Kumari Kandam are rejected by some of our hubbers as "legendary" but descriptions in another book Rig Veda (which was orally recited for a long time without being written down making it amenable to interference by ideologists of those times ) are not "legendary".

/ /This evidence centers on the geography of the lands// Does this evidence include any other outside that centre? In other words, what other peripheral matters are there strengthening the evidence, besides the geography?

//thoroughly discredited AIT?// It is disputed not thoroughly discredited. Just for comparison, any archeological evidence found for the Mahabharata War? Muslim invasions? Alexander's invasion?
No evidence does not mean that the incident did not take place. There are so many cases reported each day with no one being arrested or prosecuted because the police cannot find evidence to prosecute. Out of 100 cases prosecuted, more than 70 % are acquittals. All these do not mean that the underlying incidents did not take place. Insufficient evidence does not mean discredited.

prominently featured RIG VEDA is anti-Siva worship.

The pre-Islamic mode of worship in Arabia may have certain identical features with that of ancient India. but it can hardly be described as Vedic. To say so, one has to prove that all the gods being worshipped or worshipped in the past in India are entirely Vedic. Historians aver to the contrary.

[LottiFurmann]

Since you guys claimed to be buying what science says the following link is a real research done in India. Draw your own conclusions
http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/cesmg/peopling.html

[Lillie_Steins]

History as projected by Hindutva ideologues, which is being introduced to children through textbooks and is being thrust upon research institutes, precludes an open discussion of evidence and interpretation. Nor does it bear any trace of the new methods of historical analyses now being used in centres of historical research. Such history is dismissed by the Hindutva ideologues as Western, imperialist, Marxist, or whatever, but they are themselves unaware of what these labels mean or the nature of these readings. There is no recognition of the technical training required of historians and archaeologists or of the foundations of social science essential to historical explanation.

Romilla Thapar (Yr 2000)

The Hindutva ideologues and pro-vedics are similar.

There have been idol worship in not only in Arabia but also in Rome, Greece and Egypt. There was idol worship in Israel too in pre-Moses days. It is doubted that there was such worship during Sangam period except "nadukal". It is too sweepig to say that all these forms of idol worhip were Vedic. How many such idols are mentioned and described in the vedas??

[Fegasderty]

A few questions for Mr Ramraghav.
Originally Posted by ramraghav The literary evidence centers on the fact that Siva is featured prominently in the Rig Veda, implying that acknowledgement of Siva is atleast as old as the Rig Veda. The question then becomes: how old is the Rig Veda?

How do you say that "Siva is featured prominently in the Rig Veda" when He did not exist at all in the Rig?
Your question has led me on an interesting tangent, hope its ok if I take some time to reply to this one!

Originally Posted by ramraghav It is difficult to acertain exactly how old it is, but internal Rig Vedic evidence suggests that atleast a part of it was composed much before the H-M phase of the I-S. This evidence centers on the geography of the lands desribed in the Rig, which does not correspond to the H-M region (this served as the strongest support for the now thouroughly discredited AIT). It turns out that this geography (particularly relating to the river Saraswati) relates closely to the earlier sites in the I-S civ (such as Mehrgarh and Nausharo) but not the newer ones (like Harappa, Mohenjodaro and Dholavira).

How was the geography extracted from a book mainly containing 'chants'. Any ideas on which lines of the Rig matched the geography of the 'earlier' Mehrgarh etc? A few references to the Saraswati river can be found in Rig Veda 2.41.16; 6.61.1-13; 1.3.12. Reference to the Saraswati as having flowed upto the ocean is in 7.95.1-2.
You must be aware that satellite imaging has shown that there existed a major river once flowing through the area (SM Ramasamy, Remote Sensing in Geomorphology and B Ghose, Lost Courses of the Saraswati River in the Great Indian Desert, New Evidence from Landsat Imagery). Along the course of this river a number of 'pre-Harappan' settlements have been found i.e. prior to mid-third millenium BCE (approx 2500 BCE). The Saraswati (or whatever name is to be assigned to this discovered river) started drying out by the end of the third mill. BCE (i.e. close to 3000 BCE) and had ceased to flow by the early second mill. You may want to refer to the above quoted works of Ramasamy and Ghose.

Originally Posted by ramraghav Of late attempts have been made (by Subash Kak and others) to date the Mahabharata. If we were to accept their conclusions regarding this, and accept 3137 BCE as the date of the war, and accept the theory that Vyasa was the author of the Mahabharata and the arranger of the Vedas, it follows that the Vedas (atleast partly) predate the Mahabharata.

What has the date of the war incident got to with the date it was narrated and written down? - That you can safely rely on the date of the incident and ignore the date of its writing and pin-point the date of another writing the Rig-Veda? You are correct. It is difficult to conclusively establish that the Mahabharata was written as a narration of contemporaneous events. This is particularly so since the Mahabharata is essentially a religious text. However, irrespective of this, as I said, if we were to assume
1. Vyasa was the author of the Mahabharata
2. Vyasa was the arranger of the Vedas
it then follows that, for certain, the Vedas predate the Mahabharata (the text, not necessarily the war). As for the exact date of the Mahabharata war (3137 BCE), I only quoted that out of the analysis by Subhash Kak www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/MahabharataII.pdf. If the analysis is wrong, the date probably will not stand scrutiny.

Originally Posted by ramraghav This supposition also makes sense in the light of ¿¡«ø §Å¾ ¦¿È¢ as mentioned in the Purananooru poem (its in the Tamil Lit thread, in case u r interested).

Some songs of the puranaanooru were written after the Vedic period... even during the Bakti period.. Tamils new what existed around them - like the vedas. You are indeed right. However, if you recollect our discussion on the Puranooru poem, you will remember that this poem was written as a narration of contemporaneous events, meaning that
1. The war happened during the lifetime of the poet and the king
2. The poet (and most likely the public too) was aware of the existence of the 4 Vedas.
Now, this would imply that the Vedas (in part, as always) predate the war, wouldnt it?

Originally Posted by ramraghav We can now claim, with significant riders, that
1. The Vedas (atleast in part) predate the Mahabharata war. The Mahabharata war occured in 3137 BCE.

No! The war occured in 3137 perhaps... But when was that story narrated by 'Vyasa'? Answered above

Originally Posted by ramraghav 2. The Rig Veda (atleast in part) can be placed in the Mehrgarh phase of the I-S civilization.

Any lines, as 'internal evidences', from the Rig? The geographical evidence I was talking about.

Originally Posted by ramraghav 3. The Rig Veda (atleast in part) was carried and transmitted by the 7 sages from southern to northern lands (i.e. the earlier sites of the I-S civ). This implies that this part of the Rig Veda (or whatever it was known as at that time) must have been older than the earliest settlements in the I-S.

I don't see the relationship there! 7 sages comming down and the I-S settlement and the Date of the Rig!

And yes, this whole analysis does not directly address the question of exactly how old the Rig Veda is,

Agreed! It does not, at all address the date of the Rig!

for it has led to this further question: how old is the civilization in south India?

Anyway never mind... But how does this question arise?

[/tscii]

Sorry, my fault. I should have elaborated on this yesterday itself, but allow me to do so atleast now.

This short analysis shall address the following:
1. Where does Manu stand wrt the Vedas i.e. what is his role in it?
2. Who were the seven sages and what was their role?

Manu was held in high esteem by the authors of the Vedas. This can be seen by references such as RV 1.36.10, 1.36.19, 1.45.1, 1.112.16, 1.112.18, 1.114.2, 1.128.1, 1.128.2. Now, what Manu did to earn this respect is not very clear from the RV, for though the RV refers to Manu as 'Father Manu', 'Manu's progeny', 'Hero Manu' etc, it does not provide an explicit account what he actually achieved to earn these titles. This explanation is provided rather elaborately in the Bhagavata Purana (8.24), the Sathpatha Brahmana (2.187) and the Mahabharata (3.186). Here, Manu is claimed to have been warned about an impending flood by a fish, who instructs him to stay prepared for travel with the 7 sages, and finally guides them through the flood to the northern mountains where they make landfall. While RV shows great respect for Manu, and holds him as a father-figure and the progenitor of their peoples, the BP and SB go further and state that Manu was responsible for the propagation of their species. As for where exactly Manu's ship made landfall, the Arthava Veda offers some clue in 19.39.8 when it says that the ship descended at the summit of the Himalayas where immortality lies. This claim of making landfall at the Himalayas is reiterated in the Mahabharata 3.186

As for the 7 sages, they too were held in very high esteem and were considered to be forerunners of later sages. They were also supposed to have brought with them ancient knowledge and propagated the same to the current inhabitants of the lands. You may want to see RV 4.42.8, 10.82.2, 10.109.4, 10.130.6-7. And, they were supposed to have negotiated the flood alongwith Manu, and have made landfall in the northern mountains.

To summarize:
1. Manu was held in high esteem and considered to the 'Father' of these people.
2. The 7 sages were also held in high esteem and were considered to have brought with them ancient knowledge (probably an earlier form of the Vedas or whatever they were called).
3. The people of the I-S were descendants of migrants to that place.
4. This migration happened during the period of a great flood.
5. Since the Himalayas (where they made landfall) was considered as being to the north, the place of origin of the journey must have been further south.
6. The people of this place in the south already possesed a high civilization (for the simple enough reason that they had some literary knowledge), and a few of them migrated north.
7. Manu was supposed to have been a Dravidian king before the migration (BP 8.24.13).
8. The date of this migration, as estimated from studies by Ramasamy and Ghose on the the flow of the Saraswati, and by Graham Hancock on the occurrance of the flood, correlates well with the earliest habitational layers at Mehrgarh (around 10000-9000 yrs ago).

Originally Posted by ramraghav This evidence centers on the geography of the lands described in the Rig, which does not correspond to the H-M region (this served as the strongest support for the now thoroughly discredited AIT).

described or referred/mentioned?
Surprising that descriptions in Tamil Lit about Kumari Kandam are rejected by some of our hubbers as "legendary" but descriptions in another book Rig Veda (which was orally recited for a long time without being written down making it amenable to interference by ideologists of those times ) are not "legendary". Yes, 'referred' would have been a better word.

Originally Posted by ramraghav This evidence centers on the geography of the lands

Does this evidence include any other outside that centre? In other words, what other peripheral matters are there strengthening the evidence, besides the geography? Religious-Literary, which I would not bank upon simply because they are subject to faith-based interpretations. There are also references to celestial events, but I am not aware of the details.

Originally Posted by ramraghav thoroughly discredited AIT?

It is disputed not thoroughly discredited. Just for comparison, any archeological evidence found for the Mahabharata War? Muslim invasions? Alexander's invasion?
No evidence does not mean that the incident did not take place. There are so many cases reported each day with no one being arrested or prosecuted because the police cannot find evidence to prosecute. Out of 100 cases prosecuted, more than 70 % are acquittals. All these do not mean that the underlying incidents did not take place. Insufficient evidence does not mean discredited. There is growing overwhelming evidence suggesting that the AIT was seriously flawed. You may want to read Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate by Koenraad Elst, The Myth of Aryan Invasion of India by David Frawley, In Search of the Cradle of Civilization by Feurstein, Kak and Frawley, and Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization by Graham Hancock. Even so, you are right, and 'thouroughly discredited' is probably an inappropriately strong phrase to have been used.

Rig Veda is anti-Shiva worship

Why do you say that?

Ram

[radikal]

Friends,

I was in a hurry, and Bible Old Testament- first five books called Torah was now dated to 400-250BCE, with few ORAL Traditions dated to 8th Cen. BCE, now confusing this with Rig of 2000BCE is meaningless.
Quiet a lot of OT main stories taken from Avestha, i.e from Vedic source.
MANY OF Jesus birth stories have similarities with Lord.KRISHNA; and Germans in early 19th Cen, tried to date Krisna Legends to being taken from Gospels; but when evidences of earlier Krishna came in Germans abandoned it, but local missionaries and Thani-Tamil movement leaders talk of them Denigrating Indian Values.
Uppuma.

[tgs]

Ramraghav wrote:

bis_mala wrote:
Rig Veda is anti-Shiva worship Why do you say that?
http://www.rudrakshanepal.com/history.php says that Siva worship is 125,000 years old!! (= from time immemorial)
He is a god of the vedic age. (He existed then). (Note: not of the vedas but of the vedic age)

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...istoryid=ab75:
The gods of the Aryans: from 1500 BC : And Shiva (under the name of Rudra) had a small and sinister part, prowling in the mountains, shooting humans and animals with his arrows, and both causing and curing diseases.

Now Rudra and Siva were identified as one deity subsequently when Saivism really spread to North India.

It is clear that Siva worship progressed and he reached his highest level in North India probably by Mahabharata age.

According to Gilbert Slater, Rig Veda condemned Linga worship which is an integral part of the Saivam. He says that Siva and Vishnu pre-existed Rig Veda.
Rig Veda assigned to him a lower status as said above (shooting...causing disease). Even later when he rose in power, he was relegated to a position performing destruction (because he is non-Aryan God).

See also "pazan-thamizk koLkaiyE saivasamayam" & "thamizar matham" by Maraimalai Adigal and the references given by him in his books need to be refuted if a contrary view is to be taken.

I am going through other ref. materials in the library too but I would not be able to give you more references for the time being.

[Big A]

Friends,

Siva - the very name doesnot appear any of the texts of Sangam lit, or Tholkappiyam.

Manimekhalai has Saivavathi and the man uses more Vedic taughts and Tholkappiyam and Sangam refers Vedas at many places.

Paripadal has even the name of one of the Vedas.

Muruga's One face is for Vedas as per Thirumurugatrupadai.

uppuma

[doctorzlo]

Friends,

Siva - the very name doesnot appear any of the texts of Sangam lit, or Tholkappiyam.

The words iNaiyam, pErunthu, tholaipEsi, naadaaLumanRam, etc etc., all not in Tolkaappiyam and Sangam Lit. So these are not Tamil words??

Manimekhalai has Saivavathi and the man uses more Vedic taughts and Tholkappiyam and Sangam refers Vedas at many places.

So according to you Manimekalai was written to promote Vedas?
Tolkappiyam is not a grammar book, it's a veda book?
The word vEtham itself is a Tamil word, coming from vEithal , meaning adorning, wearing, thatching, formulating. vid is also from "vithaithtal", planting seeds, inculcating. Metaphorically - inducing knowledge. Vetham does not mean AryavEtham of North India..

Paripadal has even the name of one of the Vedas..

Please reproduce it at the appropriate thread and we can discuss.

Muruga's One face is for Vedas as per Thirumurugatrupadai.

Please reproduce at the appropriate thread and explain. We shall discuss.

The Vedic Past of Pre-Islamic Arabia!! How are Sangam Lit, tolkappiyam and the rest related to the topic??

[Lillie_Steins]

It is said that Abraham is the ancestor of Jews and Arabs. Abraham's God wanted him to sacrifice his son Isaak though it was the tradition to sacrifice a lamb which is pure. Sacrificing animals is also a trdition of vedic India and also still practised in India. Even the Christians say that God sacrificed his son Jesus in order to clean up the man kind.

When Moses came down from mount Sinai with the ten commandments written on stone as the Bible tells, the people were worshipping a golden calf.

So this all mean that the human kind did not worship one God. Instead they had all kind of deities dwelling each and everywhere. Is this vedic? Is this hinduism? It is everything but not monotheism. The Finn, The Vikings, The Greek, the Romans all worshiped Nature Gods. The Germans followed ancestor worship - Do these all mean that it is Hinduism? There will come a day when you you will aknowledge that the God is you and that you are the God!

In the Beginning there was only Darkness! From there everything evolved!
So what is vedic?

Knight of Honour

Judaism was polytheistic before it became monotheistic.

[Paul Bunyan]

Originally Posted by KoH It is said that Abraham is the ancestor of Jews and Arabs. Abraham's God wanted him to sacrifice his son Isaak though it was the tradition to sacrifice a lamb which is pure. Sacrificing animals is also a trdition of vedic India and also still practised in India. Even the Christians say that God sacrificed his son Jesus in order to clean up the man kind.

When Moses came down from mount Sinai with the ten commandments written on stone as the Bible tells, the people were worshipping a golden calf.

So this all mean that the human kind did not worship one God. Instead they had all kind of deities dwelling each and everywhere. Is this vedic? Is this hinduism? It is everything but not monotheism. The Finn, The Vikings, The Greek, the Romans all worshiped Nature Gods. The Germans followed ancestor worship - Do these all mean that it is Hinduism? There will come a day when you you will aknowledge that the God is you and that you are the God!

In the Beginning there was only Darkness! From there everything evolved!
So what is vedic?

Knight of Honour

Judaism was polytheistic before it became monotheistic. The Tora clearly tells that the Monothesim of Jews, Christians and Muslims (chronological order) starts with Abraham, the father of Isaac and Ismail. And Isaac was the father of Jacob and Esau. Jacob had 12 sons who were the ancestors of the 12 tribes of Israel.

But the principle of monotheism is not originating from the Bible. I think it was Amenhotep (IV.) (Echnaton in German and and in English it is Ak(h)en-Aten or Ak(h)enaten) Pharo of Egypt who introduced one God theory. The One and only God was Aton or Aten.

[Lt_Apple]

Originally Posted by SRS Originally Posted by KoH It is said that Abraham is the ancestor of Jews and Arabs. Abraham's God wanted him to sacrifice his son Isaak though it was the tradition to sacrifice a lamb which is pure. Sacrificing animals is also a trdition of vedic India and also still practised in India. Even the Christians say that God sacrificed his son Jesus in order to clean up the man kind.

When Moses came down from mount Sinai with the ten commandments written on stone as the Bible tells, the people were worshipping a golden calf.

So this all mean that the human kind did not worship one God. Instead they had all kind of deities dwelling each and everywhere. Is this vedic? Is this hinduism? It is everything but not monotheism. The Finn, The Vikings, The Greek, the Romans all worshiped Nature Gods. The Germans followed ancestor worship - Do these all mean that it is Hinduism? There will come a day when you you will aknowledge that the God is you and that you are the God!

In the Beginning there was only Darkness! From there everything evolved!
So what is vedic?

Knight of Honour

Judaism was polytheistic before it became monotheistic. The Tora clearly tells that the Monothesim of Jews, Christians and Muslims (chronological order) starts with Abraham, the father of Isaac and Ismail. And Isaac was the father of Jacob and Esau. Jacob had 12 sons who were the ancestors of the 12 tribes of Israel.

But the principle of monotheism is not originating from the Bible. I think it was Amenhotep (IV.) (Echnaton in German and and in English it is Ak(h)en-Aten or Ak(h)enaten) Pharo of Egypt who introduced one God theory. The One and only God was Aton or Aten. Nietzsche explains this somewhat in the "Antichrist." There are still remnants of polytheism in Judaism - angels, archangels, demons, etc.

[Slonopotam845]

The Jewish G-d is was actually known by many different names, viz Elohim and Yahweh.

Elhoim has the strong attribute of a storm god. He was derived in part from the Hittite deities - Indrnil, varunsil. The hittites who inhabited Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Southern Turkey around 2500 BCE were vedic Indo-Europeans.

This is clearly evident from the INSCRIPTION in Bughaz-Kui in Turkey - even found today.

Besides, the great science writer Isaac Asimov has completely analyses the Bible as being nothing more than a twaddling of idiots.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/051...lance&n=283155

[Lt_Apple]

Besides, the great science writer Isaac Asimov has completely analyses the Bible as being nothing more than a twaddling of idiots absolutely true, but a greater number of intellectuals have said that vedas are nothing but twaddling of idiots, they are also correct.
Man made God and Religion buddy and not the other way around

[TorryJens]

Friends,

The Vedic Civilisation had spread from Kanyakumari to Egypt and later Avestha split, and due to the Tamming of Camels in 1200BCE, local Tribe over powered soft Indians and Indians were to settle in India.

The khandara of Mahabaratha is in Afganistan i.e., Kandahar etc., stands proof of the same.

Bible, including Torah is Polytheistic, and worships not the God, but a small diety called yhwh- pronounced as Jehovah, and Bible calls them as God of Abraham-Isaac and Jacob. And Biblical Scholars say its a Syncretism of various god worshippers.

Many portions of Torah are Anti-God thesis, including famous Babel story, where Lord became envy of Man's unity and split them, The Cosmic Flood talked in Novah's period, as per Bible Chronologies can be dated to around BCE2100 to 2200 and Science and also standing Mud Mummies in Egypt confirms the Hallowness of this myth. Quiet a lot of Hebrew words can be traced to Sanskrit and a few to Tamil.

Mala Tells
//According to Gilbert Slater, Rig Veda condemned Linga worship which is an integral part of the Saivam. He says that Siva and Vishnu pre-existed Rig Veda…..
See also "pazan-thamizk koLkaiyE saivasamayam" & "thamizar matham" by Maraimalai Adigal and the references given by him in his books need to be refuted if a contrary view is to be taken.//

I sincerely regret fsg position, It has been explained in the Saivam Thread- that Book tells that Saiva Tamil and Vedic Rudra are same, and also the way MaraimalaiAdigal wrote the book referred above. I QUOTE from MM.Adigal-"thamizar matham" Page number -¸¹Õ i.e.,135.Here he says, close to 2nd Century A.D.,those worshipped SIVA (appan) Pridominantly AND those Who worshipped Umai or Parvathi (ammai) Predominantly got separated and I now quote tamil in full:

þùÅ¢Õ §ÅÚ ÌØÅ¢Éâø «ôÀ¨É Ží̧š÷, «õ¨Á¨Â Ží̧š¨ÃÔõ, «õ¨Á¨Â Ží̧š÷ «ôÀ¨É Ží̧š¨ÃÔõ þÆ¢òÐô §Àº¢ì ¸Ä¡õ Å¢¨Çì¸Ä¡Â¢É÷. þ즸¡û¨¸ô §À¡Ã¢ø þÕ ÌØÅ¢ÉÕõ ¦ÀñÀ¢ÈÅ¢¨Âì ̨ÈÅ¡¸ì ¸Õ¾×õ §Àº×ó ÐÅí¸§Å, «õ¨Á¨Â Å½í¸¢Â ÌØšâø ´Õ ¦ÀÕõ À̾¢Â¡÷ ¸¼×¨Çô ¦ÀñÅÊÅ¢ø ¨ÅòÐÅÆ¢À¡Î Òâ¾ø ¾ÁìÌ þÆ¢¦ÅÉì ¸Õ¾¢ «õ¨ÁÔõ «ôÀɡ츢 «ÅüÌ Á¡§Â¡ý, ¾¢ÕÁ¡ø ±ýÛõ ¦ÀÂ÷¸¨Çô Ò¨ÉóРŢ¼Ä¡Â¢É÷.


ivviru veeRu kuzuvinaril appanai vaNangkuvoor, ammaiyai vaNangkuvooraiyum, ammaiyai vaNangkuvoor appanai vaNangkuvooraiyum iziththup peesik kalaam viLaikkalaayinar. ikkoLkaip pooril iru kuzuvinarum peNpiRaviyaik kuRaivaakak karuthavum peesavu-n thuvangkavee, ammaiyai vaNangkiya kuzuvaaril oru perum pakuthiyaar kadavuLaip peNvadivil vaiththuvazipaadu purithal thamakku izivenak karuthi ammaiyum appanaakki avarkU maayoon, thirumaal ennum peyarkaLaip punainththu vidalaayinar page-134,135

Friends,- THolkappiyam dated to Ist Cen. BCE, Does not have the name Siva, Sangam Lit dated to 200BCE to 200CE does not have Siva- the noun; Thirukural written immediately after Sangam does not have Siva. Where as Tholkappiyam and all has Maayoon- Is the writing of This M.M.Adigal who being Saivite- writing such a meaningless thesis; without any Scriptural support, is of No trust worthy. New Words come from development of accepting other languages or developing of New words. But absence proves its non-use earlier.

He lived in 20th cen. first half; but to quote him now is meaningless. Again Slater’s writings have been well thoroughly out of date and it is Absolute clear All Indians are from Africa and nothing Otherwise as per DNA researches. Gilbert Slater like many other Famous Indologists was clear -DRAVIDIAN Language speakers are not Habitants of India- but only Settlers. Linguistically- Bishop Caldwell, Burrows; A.L.Basham etc., all maintain Proto Dravdian Speakers are not Natives of India. Other than Adichanallur no proper Settlements of humanity and civilization in South has come out. Aadichanallur is yet to be carbon-14 ddted properly.

No use in Backdating 3nd CenBCE inscription of Brami,with few pictograms got in Srilanka-by Professor Indrapala of Jaffna University and purposely misdating it to 1600BCE, and reading it as he wants was done by Dr.Mathiwanan, and his method of Forgery of Indus Script Deciphering can be viewed in the Official website of Harvard University discussed in 2003 meeting Convention.

Translators of Veda did quiet a lot of mistranslations, both due to lack of Knowledge of SANSkrit and Purposfully, and Dayananda Saraswathi protested immediately and Maxmuller has to be later more careful and in his last books he wrote that Translation of Vedas properly is for the Next Cen. Work, and Even Harvard University says the same thing today also. So quoting Authors like Maraimalai Adigal etc., or the Deciphering Forgeries of Indus really do not help. Maraimalai Adigal book saying Vedas- quotes are in Sangam siva reference is already given in Saivam Thread.

Indian Ideas belongs to Indians-there is no Aryan or Dravidian; Tamil and Sanskrit are the Surviving Oldest languages. Sanskrit has Vedas from 2000BCE as per concluded datings by Unbiased International Universities, and Tamil Lit, of Sangam is Concluded to 20o BCE TO 200ce BY AGAIN Unbiased International Universities; NOW not accepting all this and Arguing with authors of doubtful reputation does not help.

If you want I can quote MM.Adigal from the very same book where many times he says His caste is superior to other Tamils etc., I think let us leave this unacceptable Highly Biased works. He contradicts himself on several points several times within this one book.

Tholkappiyam author’s real name was ThiranaThumagni- a Brahmin from the Tribe of Parasuramar (Jamathagni was his father’s name); as per Irayanar Agapporulurai. Tholkappiyam and Sangam Lit. and Thirukural refers Vedas at many places and regards Very Highly.

Most of the Indologists worked on thinking that Veda Authors with such a high level of thinking and knowledge by 2000BCE or earlier cannot be of Indian Origin- brought highly dropped Aryan Invasion (or incoming) myths. Linguistics was hypothesis speculations- every body can say anything; No Archeology or DNA has proved such. Linguists now say Dravidians as Vantherigal, which is not to suit our likings.

Each Biased author tells that so many tamil words are in Rig veda; it is better we stop with Professor Dr.Burrows; who said only 20 Words, and he is more Reputed than others.

Bible dating is much later than Vedas, even Torah can only be 250 - 300 BCE only and it has burrowed many from Vedas or Avesta to be more proper, and if Friends are interested I Can quote a lot of Bible Researchers shortly.

Please see Vedas and Sangam Lit. in one view, and read them as Works of that Period, Calling Manu as Dravidian, and Manusmrithis’s laws of those times as INTERpolation is meaningless. Tholkappiyam and Sangam Lit. talks good of SAthi, Widows being burnt in Husband’s Buiral, which has no Support in Vedas or Manusmrithi, I can quote Slater on Casteism is from Dravidians and not from Vedas also. Please stop quoting selectively, few sentence to your liking.

Friends, Let us all be united, and not be disturbed by meaningless speculations.
Uppuma

[9mm_fan]

Friends,

The Vedic Civilisation had spread from Kanyakumari to Egypt and later Avestha split, and due to the Tamming of Camels in 1200BCE, local Tribe over powered soft Indians and Indians were to settle in India.

Egypt-le kooda va??!! Wow, unbelievable! So the "ancient" (ie, pharaoh) civilisation of Egypt wasn't the original one either......?!

The khandara of Mahabaratha is in Afganistan i.e., Kandahar etc., stands proof of the same. Actually I believe it was called as "Gandhar".......in Mahabharata Shakuni had his kingdom there, he was also known as "Gandhar Naresh".......even his sister Gandhari (mother of Kauravas) got her name from tat place......

Translators of Veda did quiet a lot of mistranslations, both due to lack of Knowledge of SANSkrit and Purposfully, and Dayananda Saraswathi protested immediately and Maxmuller has to be later more careful and in his last books he wrote that Translation of Vedas properly is for the Next Cen. Work This morning at the RK mission I was told in a talk tat Max Muller was originally an ardent follower of Hinduism & Sri Ramakrishna & he spent nearly 16 years of his life studying Hinduism...until the Church powers had him change his attitude towards Hinduism, causing him to turn against the Vedic/Hindu philosophies & thus misinterpret everything, inc. creating a major rift of Aryan-Dravidian etc!

[Slonopotam845]

absolutely true, but a greater number of intellectuals have said that vedas are nothing but twaddling of idiots, they are also correct.

Who are these intellectuals?
-deleted-

[MannoFr]

It is said that Abraham is the ancestor of Jews and Arabs. Abraham's God wanted him to sacrifice his son Isaak though it was the tradition to sacrifice a lamb which is pure. Sacrificing animals is also a trdition of vedic India and also still practised in India. Even the Christians say that God sacrificed his son Jesus in order to clean up the man kind.

When Moses came down from mount Sinai with the ten commandments written on stone as the Bible tells, the people were worshipping a golden calf.

So this all mean that the human kind did not worship one God. Instead they had all kind of deities dwelling each and everywhere. Is this vedic? Is this hinduism? It is everything but not monotheism. The Finn, The Vikings, The Greek, the Romans all worshiped Nature Gods. The Germans followed ancestor worship - Do these all mean that it is Hinduism? There will come a day when you you will aknowledge that the God is you and that you are the God!

In the Beginning there was only Darkness! From there everything evolved!
So what is vedic?

Knight of Honour

[brraverishhh]

This is a very very brief summary of the vast plethora of material available on this subject. I am only providing references for those claims that can not be easily verified by a google search. If you want any reference in particular, please do ask me.

It certainly seems that Siva was known and worshipped during the Harappa-Mohenjodaro phase of the Indus-Saraswati civilization. This is supported by archealogical evidence (as we all read in the textbooks). However, the possibility has now been raised that Siva was known well before this phase and probably even before the earliest known phases (at Mehrgarh and Nausharo) of the I-S civi. These early stratiagraphical layers go well into 9500 yrs before present i.e. roughly 7500 BCE.

That Siva was worshipped before the H-M phase of the I-S (for which clinching archealogical evidence is available), has been inferred mainly from literary evidence. Ofcourse this is open to (and hotly is being the subject of) debate.

The literary evidence centers on the fact that Siva is featured prominently in the Rig Veda, implying that acknowledgement of Siva is atleast as old as the Rig Veda. The question then becomes: how old is the Rig Veda?

It is difficult to acertain exactly how old it is, but internal Rig Vedic evidence suggests that atleast a part of it was composed much before the H-M phase of the I-S. This evidence centers on the geography of the lands desribed in the Rig, which does not correspond to the H-M region (this served as the strongest support for the now thouroughly discredited AIT). It turns out that this geography (particularly relating to the river Saraswati) relates closely to the earlier sites in the I-S civ (such as Mehrgarh and Nausharo) but not the newer ones (like Harappa, Mohenjodaro and Dholavira).

This geographical evidence also tallies with literary evidence in the Puranas and the Upanishads. Of late attempts have been made (by Subash Kak and others) to date the Mahabharata. If we were to accept their conclusions regarding this, and accept 3137 BCE as the date of the war, and accept the theory that Vyasa was the author of the Mahabharata and the arranger of the Vedas, it follows that the Vedas (atleast partly) predate the Mahabharata. This supposition also makes sense in the light of ¿¡«ø §Å¾ ¦¿È¢ as mentioned in the Purananooru poem (its in the Tamil Lit thread, in case u r interested).

However, there are references in the Rig Veda which can not be satisfactorily explained by placing it in the Mehrgarh phase (particularly regarding the horse and the ocean). Then, there are also the curious (but persistent) references to Manu, the Seven Sages and the great flood. These can be explained by according a place of origin for the Vedas different from the I-S region.

As I stated earlier, the Bhagavata Purana claims that Manu was a Dravidian who, accompanied by the 7 sages, sailed from the south to the northern mountains. These 7 sages were supposed to have held the knowledge of the Vedas, and were expected to transmit the same to future generations of humans nurtured in the northern areas (10.130.6-7). Manu's actual name was supposedly Satyavrata (which, translated roughly means 'Keeper of Truth' or 'Keeper of Justice' if I am not wrong. The phrase 'Manu, keeper of justice'........does it ring any bells?). It is interesting to note that the Mahabharata talks of this Manu as having practiced intense penance for 10000 yrs! (Mahabharata 3.186) The Mahabharata (or the Satpatha Brahmana (1.217), where the Manu stories are told), does not verify the claim that Manu was a Dravidian king. On the other hand, it does not make any claim to the contrary either.

We can now claim, with significant riders, that
1. The Vedas (atleast in part) predate the Mahabharata war. The Mahabharata war occured in 3137 BCE.
2. The Rig Veda (atleast in part) can be placed in the Mehrgarh phase of the I-S civilization.
3. The Rig Veda (atleast in part) was carried and transmitted by the 7 sages from southern to northern lands (i.e. the earlier sites of the I-S civ). This implies that this part of the Rig Veda (or whatever it was known as at that time) must have been older than the earliest settlements in the I-S.

As I started off saying, this is a very simplified (and rather simplistic) summary of an intellectual debate of enormous scope and consequence. And yes, this whole analysis does not directly address the question of exactly how old the Rig Veda is, for it has led to this further question: how old is the civilization in south India?

Ram

[Big A]

The Second Part of the article can be found at

Vedic Past of Pre-Islamic Arabia Part-2

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoft...i/vpopia2.html

[TorryJens]

a rather comprehensive take on Ayodhya
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.co...acat/index.htm
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.co.../acat/ch11.htm
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.co...ale/index.html