|
| ||||||||||||
About the English 'day', Dutch 'dag' and German 'tag': The cognate word in Sanskrit is very possibly from the root "dagh/dah". This word is in the nominative case (or Karttr) "dhak". According to some law no two consecutive consonants may have an aspirate, and thus "dagh" is changed into "dhag". According to a rule the voiced stop is changed into an unvoiced stop, thus "dhag" become "dhak". The same case we have with "dugh/duh" in the nominative case becoming "dhuk". We in reality get a glimse of the original word "dhagh" and "dhugh", which became lost, but was reatined in Sandhi and case variations. I hope this may be of some help. |
Friday, July 10, 2009
Re: Please help me understand this.... [Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
|
| ||||||||||||
Just a few words on invaders: I don't believe that the way the former historians mentioned the tribes who "invaded" India is correct. Take for instance the name Turushka, Yavana, Shaka, Parthava, Parshava. Are we really dealing with invasions or are these the tribes who lived in the fringes of ancient India. Turushka, just as Shaka and Yavana became later words for people who reappeared in India but were in older days just within the subcontinent. The Mahabharata mentions King Kalyavana. The Yavanas are called Turvasus. In the Bharata period we come accross Prthuparshava an Anava king who fought against the Sarnjaya Bharatas in the Panjab. This is far before any Parthavas or Parshavas emerging in Iran. Parthava simply means "descendant of Prthu" and Parshava "descenadant of Parashu". I believe the Irani to be more like a mixture of Anu and Arksha Paurava tribes (the name Kuru-sh is very common among Iranis). The Panchala Bharatas had sometimes clashes with their Arksha cousins of Hastinapura. King Sudas had a clash, but later also a Somaka king, who had driven king Samvarana Arksha out of Hastinapura. In those days the Arksha Paurava were living in the Kekaya Anava areas of the Panjab. Later on the offspings of Kuru kings were living in Panjab and beyond, like king Bahlika, family of king Shantanu. Kalhana mentiones in his Rajatarangini the 3 Turushka kings Hushka Jushka and Kanishka, who are not the later Kushana (an Indo-European tribe, related to or equal with the Tocharii of Sinqiang Uighur) of post-78 AD. Those three kings are Shakas. They are not looked upon as really strangers, because the Turvasus were present in western India-Pakistan. They later became the Shaka kshaharatas (kshaha from khshathra=Shah=king and rata=data=given) of Gujarat, when Darius invaded the Panjab in the end of the 6th century BC. (Darius can never have held the Panjab alone to get som much income, if the Shakas were present, they would have ruled in Malwa and the Deccan) Most probably by the invitation of Kalakacharya, the Jain monk, who opposed the Gardabhila king of Malwa, who had insulted his sister. The Shakas must first have acted as khshatrapas of Darius. Especially Nahapana. After him came the Chashtana Dynasty with the Shakas as Shaiva ruling for 420 years till Chandra Gupta II Vikramaditya crushed them in the third century BC. No sign of Shakas being foreign. The even were staunch Shaiva, with names as Rudradaman, etc. Only later on the names Yavana for foreigner (Yamana and Yavana are interchanged, so that the Arabs are also Yavana sometimes) and Turushka for Turk or Mughal reappear. But we have to carefully examine in what cases who is mentioned. So, the Parashu and Prthu as Anu/Anava and the Turushka or Turu-shka Shaka, but also the Yavana as Turvasu had their home in (south)western India, and before somewhere in south(eastern) UP, according to the Puranas and the Mahabharata. The Turvasu, when merging with the Puru into the Bharata, had also offshoots in southern India after the rule of their king Marutta. This gave the first offshoot from Puru-Turvasu Sanskrit into Dravida "Sanskrit". Maybe this explains why Dravidian languages have many features in common with the Sanskrit as we have it today, but must still have archaism and independant developments. Brahui might be an nrthern offshoot or remain. This all is not proven, but has to be investigated properly. I just mention this in line with the Puranas. But if it true, then we might look for cognate words or more within Scythic, Greek and Tamil. Another early and for shure Aryan offshoot was the Sinhali language of pre-Buddhistic age in ShriLanka. This very difficult language has still to be studied properly in relation to the other Aryan languages. What becomes clear is that the problems are more complex and never looked upon from a more textual way to find multidisciplined answers. |
|
| ||||||||||||
Sanskrit was not artificial in Panini's days, for we meet this language again later on in the Gupta courts and again with Harsha Vikramaditya of Ujjain of 57 BC in the plays and other works: Kalidasa. Later we meet Bhavabhuti and still later Bana. (Their dates will be revisoned: not anymore related to the Shaka Era of 78 AD, which was a Shalivahana Era, but related to 552 BC, when Nahapana's father or grandfather Bhumika/Ghsamotika ruled and established the Shaka Era) If, some scholars are right, like prof. Mankad and prof. Pradhan, than the Guptas ruled from 329-82 BC (the barber=of Karaskara tribe=Ghatotkacha, Xandrames=Chandramas Gupta and Sandrocottos=Samudra Gupta), the Mauryas are pushed back more centuries. This means automatically that Patanjali's Great Commentary which is pre-Guptan must also before the Shaka rule. The Imperial Andhras were contemporary with the Shakas, but came long after Pushyamitra Shunga, the patron of Patanjali. if Patanjali is pre 6th century BC, so are the Mauryas and Nandas. And Buddha lived even before, during the Pradyotas of Avanti and Haryankas of Magadha. That must be somewhat near to the time of Panini, who lived before just before Buddhism. |
|
| ||||||||||||
About the Guptas The Imperial Guptas ruled from 329-82 BC. The names of Xandrames and Sandrocottos/Sandrogyptus tally with Chandramas Gupta and Samudra Gupta, but also de deeds Samudra and the so called Ashoka. The Imperial Guptas are descended from the barber (possibly Karaskaras-the later Kakkar, who lived from Panjab/Multan towards Sind and Baluchistan), Ghatotkacha Gupta. The names of this dynasty are these: Chandra Gupta Samudra Gupta Chandra Gupta II Vikramaditya (who succeeded his weak brother Rama Gupta->Shaka episode) Kumara Gupta I Skanda Gupta Puru Gupta Budha Gupta Narasimha Gupta Kumara Gupta II = Vainya Gupta? Vishnu Gupta = Bhanu Gupta? The Guptas of the second period ruled after the fall of the Kushanas (whose power was paralyzed by the Sassanian Arya of Persia), supremely from ca. 320-570 AD, and their power declined after ca. 570 AD: Krishna Gupta Harsha Gupta Jivita Gupta I Kumara Gupta I Damodara Gupta Mahasena Gupta Madhava Gupta Kumara Gupta II Adityasena Deva Gupta Vishnu Gupta contemporary of Harsha and Pulakeshin Jivita Gupta II The confusion is understandable because of duplicate names. Moreover when the Guptas speak of foreigners as invaders, we have to be very cautious about which ones related to which Gupta or other Indian power. We have also to take into account what other power is present in the neighbourhood of the subcontinent, like the Sassanian and Kushana kings in AD and the Shakas in BC. The Chinese mention the movements of the tribes of Yueh Chih (Kushana) which tallies with AD chronolgy. |
|
| ||||||||||||
The oldest name for the Ganga might be "Urvashi". Urvashi is from the Apsarasa tribe. That name has the word ap=water and saras=lake. The Apsarasa lived very close to the Gandharva tribe, thus in the Himalayan area. Urvashi was married to king Pururavas of Pratishthana (Prayaga), where the Ganga meets the Yamuna (named after Yami=Yamuna). Pururavas Aila is the son of Ila and Budha Sauma and grandson of Soma Atreya, who had a quarrel with Brihaspati the Angirasa. We are now in the time of Manu the oldest king of India. The Lunar Dynasty is based on the fusion of Atri and I believe Vasishta: Ila calls Mitravaruna her father. She's wanted by Manu as a daughter because he doesn't have sons. Now Maitravaruna is a pravara name of the Vasishthas. This would explain why Mitravaruna Vasishtha (the father) appointed Sudyumna (the son and brother of Ila) as king of Pratishthana. When Ila's son Pururavas was mature he was the next king. Pururavas was married to Urvashi, clearly the mother of Mana Vasishtha in RigVeda VII-33: Urvashi is the mother, Maitravaruna is the father and Mana the son, also simply called Vasishtha. This makes Pururavas equal to Maitravaruna(grandson of Mitravaruna) and his mother Mitravarunii(=daughter of Mitravaruna). His uncle is Mitravaruni (with short "i" as male ending, like Shakti as son of Shakta Vasishtha. In the older Vedic period the short vowels generally stood for male and the long for female, in names). The Solar Dynasty was of Daksha and Kashyapa descent: Aditi Dakshaputri was married to Kashyapa Maaricha. Their son was Vivasvant, the father of Yama-Yami and Manu. This dynasty was residing in Ayodhya, with The Vasishthas as their Purohita. The oldest names in Indian tradition pulls us toward northeastern UP, partly the Himalayas, partly the plains. I am not quite shure about this, but I think that once some really historical things happened with real people, but afterwords many names and things became deified and mystified (or even lost), until many sages from ancient periods till Veda Vyasa of the Krishna-Parasharya Vasishthas had recollected and rearranged everything and used the information in more scientific ways: names and events of the global sphere (adhibhautika) could be transfered to the psychological (adhyatmika) and the planetary/stellar (adhidaivika). But this last is just a hypothesis, I simply don't know enough about this matter. |
|
| ||||||||||||
Dear Venky, Simply the comparative agreement of languages doesn't prove where a language originally comes from. Take for instance the case of the Kassites. The Elamites of southern Persian swamps mention their arrival before the Kassites ruled. This means that the Kassites entered Persia through the southern area. The cross-cultural developments must have been occurred somewhere close to Bactria, but more like in the steppes of Central-Asia, where the IE were at that moment in those areas semi-nomadic. In the third millennium one branch of IE moved towards the west, the other crossed later over the TienShan (Tukhara/Tushara). We meet the dynastic IE (Hittites, Mittani-Arya, Kassites, Hyksos) in the second millennium. if they are dynastic they must have had some time to settle in the new countries. We simply don't have any proof on any field, be it archeology or tectual, of Arya to have entered in the third or second millennium in the subcontinent. The DNA evidence points out that the people who lived in that area are exactly the same as now. There's totally no break of culture which you would naturally expect after intrusions. The Sarasvati-Sindhu Culture has many features with Vedic practice, like Yajnashalas, but even pictograms which have their parallels in Vedic scriptures, like Pashupata (not only Shiva was lord of the beasts, but also Vedic gods). The Bactrian Bronze Culture of the end of the thirdd and beginning of the second millennium which is Aryan, has the typical Vedic Tripura structure for the city. That culture is very much related to the Sindhu-Sarasvata, but is somewhat changing. This only can mean that the Bactrian and the SIndhu-Sarasvata are related Arya, but still in a differentiating process. This makes me remind of the dichotomy between the Asura worshippers, called Dasa/Daha (proto-Iranian) and the Deva worshippers (around Angra-Angira and Mainyu=Manyu Tapasa name of Aindra Vasishtha), called Paurava Arya. The Puru-Bharatas of Haryana-Panjab-Western UP fought against the Anu tribes: the leader of the Pauravas were Sahadeva and Somaka (Sahadevya) and their Anava adversary is Ishtashva. They are called in the Avesta Hushadaeva(Hushdiv), Haumaka and Vishtaspa. This last name is also found as the patron of Zarathushtra and ruler of Balkh-Bactria. If the forefathers of Somaka, like Sudasa mention the rivers Yamuna and the Parushni and are in Indian territories, how could they come from Central-Asia to India? And what about the the kings who ruled before the Bharatas, who most are linked to eastern India? Like Sagara, Arjuna Karttavirya, the Haihaya-Yadava, Pratardana and Divodasa of Kashi. Harishchandra, Bhagiratha, Yuvanashva, Muchukunda, Nabhaga, etc from Ayodhya? What about Marutta Avikshita of Vaishali Dynasty (Bihar)? All the chakravartin kings, or great conquerors are BEFORE Bharata Daushyanti, who is mentiond in Shatapatha Brahmana as the last great emperor. And all of them ruled In India from MadhyaDesha as centre. The Druhyus have left India many generations before Bharata Daushyanti. Before the Bharatas the supreme power was Ayodhya (from Sagara till Sudas Hamsamukha). Before Sagara the supreme powers were the Haihaya-Yadavas of central India, the Kashi kings like Divodasa II, Pratardana and Vatsa, from Ayodhya were Trishanku, Harishchandra, Rohitashva and Vasumanas, from Vaishali was Marutta Avikshita and The Zenda-Avesta, which is closer to Vedic and pre-Achaemenidian Persian mentions the areas from Balkh through Pakistan to HaptaHindush. Now why would the Bactrians call the Panjab the HaptaHindush the area of daeva worshippers where the 'heat' of AngraMainyush made them flee after they had to leave Airyana Vaizo their home, which became too cold. The movement is from the colder Himalayan mountains of Kashmir, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh towards the very hot Panjabi country. In the Panjab we meet clearly Anava tribes, like Kekayas and Madras. The Madras become Uttara Madras after leaving the Panjab, first called Bahika/Bahlika when in UP the main settlements were, afterwards transferred towards Afghanistan, like the Sarayu for Haroiyu and Harahvatish for Sarasvati. Now Uttara means not only "northern' but also 'later' in Sanskrit, just as 'purva' means 'eastern' but also 'earlier'! So the UttaraMadra (Madda-Medes?) are the Madra who left the Panjab where the Madra had there home. Note that the older name Sarasvati is found in its Prakritic form as Harasvati in Panini's Unadikosha (actually from older pre-Paninian tradition). The change of 's' into "h' which is a general feature of Irani is not met with in Mitanni Aryan language (satta for sapta) . As the Aryan are Vedic in West-Asia, the change must have occurred in more eastern areas. (Panjabi has changes of 's' to 'h') And before this period of great powers was the rule of Yauvanashva who expelled the Druhyus to Gandhara. From there they went to the north to establish many countries in foreign countries. There's the mentioning of the Vaishvamitras leaving to northern countries. What about Manu's son Narishyanta who is mentioned to have ruled in southeastern UP, but later on his descendants reappear as Shakas! about the danube Many names with don/dan are met with in Europe. Even the Irish people call themselves the children of Danu (Tuatha de Danaan), and what to say about the Danaos a Greek tribe. The Celts have a artefact known as the Gundestrup Cauldron on which is depicted Pashupati, just in the same way as the Sindhu-Sarasvati seal. The Celtic artefact is much younger than the Sindhu-Sarasvata seal from the subcontinent! Danu is also the name of Vrtra in Vedic tradition, who had a clash with Indra the son of Aditi. Aditi is the mother of Vivasvant and grandmother of Yama and Vaivasvata Manu, clearly connected with Himavat-Meru and Ayodhya. Now the name Yima in the Avesta and Ymir in the Edda is never met with any other tribe. The name Mannush for the forefather of the Germans is not met with in Greek, etc. For the most western IE myths and gods we have an Indian counterpart, which the some western IE traditions have and others have not. The original guttural sounds, which became palatized according to comparative IE phonology, are present in an Indian Himalayan language, the Bangani! So we have in India the remnants of an older IE period, which would be impossible according to the AIT theries. The originals of the Celts we meet in the Tushara/Tukhara in the TienShan or Sinqiang Uighur in China. The Goths and the Slavs are people who are only mentioned in the historical periods, not in pre-Christian period! The Croats are a southern Salv people, but till the end of the 19th century it was known as a Iranian speaking people. They are mentioned by the Achaemenian Persian as the Harahvata, coming from Harahvatish-Arachosia.. The Croats call themselves Hrvat and their country Hrvatska. So some (southern) Slavs have an Iranian identity. There are too many coincidences that understress the eastern home theory backed up by archeology, philology and modern sciences, like geography. |
|
| ||||||||||||
Dear madan, I have some problems with the chronolgy regarding the pre-KaliYuga period. Take for instance the idea of the Mahabharat War in 3138 BC or so. The Bhagavata Purana 9-22-45 states that from Kshemaka the Pandava rule will end in KaliYuga, and that the (Kuru-)Barhadratha Dynasty will start. This means that the 30th Pandava was preceded by a whole dynasty BEFORE KaliYuga. Now Bhagavata Purana 12-2-27 to 32 mentions king Parikshit in whose reign the saptarshis are in Magha and would be in Purvashadha towards KaliYuga. The saptarshis remain 100 years in a Nakshatra. And from Magha to Purvashadha is 11 Nakshatras, thus 11 x 100 years=1100 years. Most Puranas give the Kuru-Pandavas something like 1115 or 1150 years of rule. These two accounts of the Bhagavata Purana put Parikshita who heard the Bhagavatam in ca. 4200 BC! Whether this is historically possible or not, but the Bhagavata clearly indicates that the KaliYuga is NOT the same as the Yaudhishtira Yuga. I have also problems with the immense numbers for the Yugas. It is more logical to see the 12.000 years multiplied by two as an approximation of the precession period. First things first. We have to reconstruct first what is historical and has multidisciplined academic backing. For instance the mention of Shaishunagas as coming after the Pradyotas is confusing. We know from Buddhist sources that the contemporary of Pradyota of Avanti is the Haryanka king Bimbisara and Ajatashatru of Magadha and Prasenajit of Kosala. Pradyotas daughter Vasavadatta was married to Udayana of Vatsa. That same Udayana was married with the daughter of Darshaka, Ajatashatru's son f Magadha. Now the Shaishunaga list mentions first Shishunaga, then Kshemadhanvan, Kshatraujas and then Bimbisara, Now how can Bimbisara be contemporary with Pradyota and come after the last Pradyota? Udayin the son of darshaka was a contemporary of Vishakhayupa, one of the last Pradyotas. According to Buddhist sources after Shishunaga(=Nagadarshaka?) his son Kakavarnin=Kalashoka came. We now of 10 Kalashokas, but also of 10 Nanda's, of whom only 2 or 3 actually ruled: Mahananda, Mahapadma Nanda and Dhana Nanda, who was killed by Chandragupta Maurya, possibly his son. The Puranas mention dynasties, but they are like the parts of a watch or a puzzle: some dynasties have mutual synchronisms in a generation and some others in another generation. it just fits, but you have to examin everything very carefully. Some point also to reconsider is where Magadha of the Kuru-Barhadrathas was and where the Magadha of the Haryankas, Shaishunagas (who started in Kashi!), Nandas and Mauryas. The capital of the Kuru-Barhadrathas (offsprings of Vasu Uparichara Kauravya) was Girivraja. That was also the name of a city in Kekaya-Panjab. The capital of the Haryankas was Rajagrha, which was in Bihar. Later the capital became Kusumapura and Pataliputra. Was the real capital of the Kuru-Barhadrathas in Kekaya or in Bihar? That we have to find out. Something more to find out is what the role is of Krishna Vasudeva in the older Bharata (24.00 shlokas) and oldest Jaya (8800 shlokas) parts of the Mahabharata. Is Vasudeva Krishna from 3102 BC later than Parikshita Pandava of 4200 BC mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana? The Mahabharata is so vast that many stories have been intermixed. The part played by Krishna in the main story is limited. But another Krishna, namely Vyasa has a greater role in the main story! Harita krishna the pupil of Ghora Angirasa, a RigVedic Rishi is of the harita angirasa gotra, and not a yadava. So we have a huge task to research everything. |
|
| ||||||||||||
Dear Venkat, It is not just replacing the Mauryan for the Guptan dynasty. It fas far reaching implications. It means that the chronology at dates you are mentioning in relation to certain developments are oudated and have to be revisioned. The names of the second Guptan dynasty are known from an inscription. A problem with the Gangetic is that it is more densely populated than the western Indian provinces. And another problem is that the very oldest layers in the Gangetic are just beneath the modern settlements. How can the archeologists excavate a Banaras? The archeologists admit this point. I really don't understand what iron has to do with the shift of the Imperial Guptas to the previous Mauryan era. Another point for instance about the word 'ayas' is that it doesn't mean iron but metal in Sanskrit literature. This is born out of Vedic textual evidence. Many paribhashika or technical words and meanings are a little bit recast in the AIT notion. I wouldn't suggest a non-AIT revision, but rather a neutral revision. Don't forget that the PGW was started from the Gangetic and moved towards western India. The periods of the PGW are: 1. from 1200-1100 BC 2. from 1100-800 BC 3. from the 6th century on The OCP culture is from 2200-1700 BC, the chalcolithic BRW around 2000 BC. I have to admit that I'm not that much at home with the PGW, BRW and OCP cultures. But at least the revisioned dates given to the Imperial Guptas and the Mauryas push the chronology farther back in time. which makes the AIT from another corner again very implausible, besides the archeological, DNA-technical and textual correspondances. The Sindhu-Sarasvata has to many agreements with the late or post Vedic cultures to put easily aside. The AIT has to presume so much to be plausible, all against the evidences. However, the problems aren't solved by that with the non-AIT identities. There's so much work to be done besides revisioning major avoidable mistakes in the chronologies. All the work has to be done with multidisciplinary effort. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
