Understanding Hinduism and Hindu Gods

Taking C's as "source of truth"( words used in Data Warehousing concepts to identify the priority where conflicting data arises) Shiva is a fiction.

As per Wiki, The name "Rudra" (personified as destroyer) come from Veda's ( Rig Veda1500 BC and others) , that became Rudra-Siva later.

Just like in other religions like Christianity, Islam has divisions, the Hinduism also got divided into Vishnu followers and Shiva, who fought with each other at some point in past ( during 1st Millennium). Vishnu and Shiva are very minor characters in Veda's ( 1000 BC) and they became major characters in Purana's( around the beginning of Christian era - 19 major and many many more minor puranas) to the extent that most Purana's can be said to be for Vishnu or Shiva followers. There are few Purana's that contain both equal measure. As Ambedkar wrote, there are some Purana's where Vishnu is superior and in others Siva is Superior. There are some Purana's where Feminine goddess Durga/Kali becomes superior. If we remove divine origins and consider it as a human dynamics (irrespective of intentions or methodologies used), these can be expected.

coming to Krishna. As per Wiki,




4th Century BCE Greek historian who visited India, wrote about Krishna cult in Modern day western state of Gujarat.

Most of the Krishna descriptions of killing Rakshasa's , riding on snake, making music (mainly flute), dancing with innumerable girls ( Gopika's) and so on, made me wonder that, different tribes seen some thing in sky and created their little belief systems ( or cults).

But when rulers range of operations becomes big, different beliefs becomes headache for administrations ( Nanda Empire ( 5th century BCE - 322 BCE) , Mauryan Empire (322-184 BCE ) , so they have to harmonize these belief's to create some amalgamated character or wipe out whom ever they don't want ( like in Pagans in Roman empire). Even though the above empires are secular, the priests who are answerable to the public has to harmonize it as their reach also increases. At least that's how it looks to me.

There is an interesting thesis by Ambedkar on How Krishna got clubbed into Mahabharat and for what purposes.
Thank you you are a very kind person for responding and giving that information and opinion so that we all grow together to keep the energy flowing.
To me something happened to me in the year a dream in 2008 with a being of blue skin was telepathic and I saw this that I will show you in the image although the identity of the being of little more than 2 mts did not need presentation was look and telepathy that took consideration to the Earth.

I saw myself merged in all my infinite fractals as when you superimpose several mirrors on each other and the observer was also the observed, there was unity as replicas of infinite souls.
I felt a respect and awareness towards life as if I fell to earth prostrate recognizing the gratitude of everything.


In order to avoid prejudice, prostrating oneself was not a form of worship, but how can one kneel before one's own conscience?unless it is a symbolic way of explaining the parable of Gurdjieff's chariot (the arrival of the master).
 

Attachments

  • bhagavadgita-kali-yuga.jpg
    bhagavadgita-kali-yuga.jpg
    227.6 KB · Views: 5
  • 1511502_716731801705171_1904257645_n.jpg
    1511502_716731801705171_1904257645_n.jpg
    56.5 KB · Views: 5
To me something happened to me in the year a dream in 2008 with a being of blue skin was telepathic and I saw this that I will show you in the image although the identity of the being of little more than 2 mts did not need presentation was look and telepathy that took consideration to the Earth.

I saw myself merged in all my infinite fractals as when you superimpose several mirrors on each other and the observer was also the observed, there was unity as replicas of infinite souls.
I felt a respect and awareness towards life as if I fell to earth prostrate recognizing the gratitude of everything.


In order to avoid prejudice, prostrating oneself was not a form of worship, but how can one kneel before one's own conscience?unless it is a symbolic way of explaining the parable of Gurdjieff's chariot (the arrival of the master).
I remember reading some accounts of this type of experience( i.e merging - including Laura, If I recount correctly). It seems to happen for some people at critical junction of once life with powerful impact and transform them in one way or other. We all know dreams are of symbolic in nature. we as 3D people will have hard time to understand the reasons, nature of those dreams. At best we can do is network and try to understand them.

It is hard to say dream representation is an indication of its existence (past or present - as it was presented). There are many variations I heard. Here are some:
  • Good person with dream visions of fictional character still can do good. The energies (including our soul) that chose influence us, can take any shape or form to bring it to our attention.
  • There are people who are influenced by good character in vision, can act as a zombie and do bad, while thinking they are doing good.
  • There is another scenario I heard that puzzled me for a long time. During my childhood, there was LOT of controversy about Sathya Saibaba. He had lot of followers including common people, highly educated officials and lot of high profile politicians etc. The miracles he supposed to do seems to be one of the main attraction, while magicians like P.C. Sorcar Jr. exposed them as magic not miracle. What puzzled me the most is why do foreigners fall for the same trick? I read some accounts where foreigners got visitations of him in the dream( even though they never saw or heard him), influenced to the point, they became his life long followers. This raises a question of who is driving this phenomenon? It looks there is cottage industry beyond our 3D senses, we can't understand the motive or purpose, does it for its own purpose in a grand scheme we can't understand, can give individual attention and influence.
So, it is difficult to say it is good or bad.
 
I remember reading some accounts of this type of experience( i.e merging - including Laura, If I recount correctly). It seems to happen for some people at critical junction of once life with powerful impact and transform them in one way or other. We all know dreams are of symbolic in nature. we as 3D people will have hard time to understand the reasons, nature of those dreams. At best we can do is network and try to understand them.

It is hard to say dream representation is an indication of its existence (past or present - as it was presented). There are many variations I heard. Here are some:
  • Good person with dream visions of fictional character still can do good. The energies (including our soul) that chose influence us, can take any shape or form to bring it to our attention.
  • There are people who are influenced by good character in vision, can act as a zombie and do bad, while thinking they are doing good.
  • There is another scenario I heard that puzzled me for a long time. During my childhood, there was LOT of controversy about Sathya Saibaba. He had lot of followers including common people, highly educated officials and lot of high profile politicians etc. The miracles he supposed to do seems to be one of the main attraction, while magicians like P.C. Sorcar Jr. exposed them as magic not miracle. What puzzled me the most is why do foreigners fall for the same trick? I read some accounts where foreigners got visitations of him in the dream( even though they never saw or heard him), influenced to the point, they became his life long followers. This raises a question of who is driving this phenomenon? It looks there is cottage industry beyond our 3D senses, we can't understand the motive or purpose, does it for its own purpose in a grand scheme we can't understand, can give individual attention and influence.
So, it is difficult to say it is good or bad.
You are right about everything I was guessing about the Grail because in fact I had many strange things with that and the first thing that happens is as if you were going to cross the fence and a miniature dog with whiskers appears to you with the intention of stopping you (it happens in the field) but it is not that the dog is bad just acts like that out of fear or who knows what happens to him the point is that we must have more tolerance with people who have certain experiences because many times we lack the theoretical framework or we are not well spoken or erudite. .we know that there are traps that we have to doubt and that is why we are in this forum to help each other cordially because nobody would want karma to knock on our door for "imprudence".
I will take as a compliment what you say and I will study your writings from here I can feel your energy you are on the right path.
 
.In short, summary of evolution of MahaBharata is this.
  1. Original edition By Vyas called 'Jaya' written in 200-400 AD without didactic dialogue based on very ancient tale ( C's say younger dryas event 10900 BC). - 8,800 shlokas.
  2. second edition is done by Vaishampayana called "Bharata" . He recast all the characters done around 200 BC-200AD - 24,000 shlokas
    1. There are 4 other second editions of Bharata by Vyasa's Pupil, Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila and Shuka
  3. third edition is done by Sauti called 'MahaBharata'. - 96,836 Shlokas
  4. It looks it has been modified little here and there until 1200 A.D
As per wiki, Mahabharat may be between 300BCE- 300CE So some confusion w.r.t dates, but atleast gradual evolution details are plausible than some elephant headed Lord Ganesh wrote it when Vyas dictated it.
Here is a article that goes into developmental life versions of Mahabharata - 3 additions, Bhagavad Gita -3 additions, how Bards kept on adding things from Gita, Puranas to Mahabharata according to the needs of local circumstances of that time.
When first narrated, it had only 8,800 slokas and Mahabharata original name was Jaya (Jayam) as written by Ganesha.

When first narrated this tory to king Janamejaya (Parikshit's son and Abhimanyu's grandson) along with additional and elaborated stories. This made it expand to 24000 slokas and was name Vijaya (Vijayam) and the renamed to Bharata.

In the next generation Ugrasravas belong to Suta caste, who were typically the bards of Puranic literature, narrated this story to sage Saunak and other sages in Naimisa forest. The full 100,000 verses of Mahabharata was completed sever centuries later by addition of many stories was finally named as Mahabbharata.

Jaya is about spiritual victory, viajaya was about material civtory, Bharata was the story of clan and Mahabharata included also the wisdom of the land called Bharata Varsha. What began as an auspicious ideas, ended up becoming a massive documentation of realities that frightened the common man.

Bhagavad Gita is one such addition to Mahabharata, which was done during later generations and written according to the conditions of the society that prevailed during those times
. It is placed in Mahabharata's Bhisma parva with 700 slokas divided between 18 chapters. In the epic Mahabharata, Sanjaya, counselleor of the king Dhritarashtra, after returining from the battlefields to announce the death of Bhisma begins recounting the details of Mahabharata war. Bhagavad Gita forms the content of this recollection.

Gita begins before the start of climactic Kurukshetra war, where the Pandava prince Arjuna filled with doubt on the battlefield. Realizing that his enemies are his own relatives, beloved friends and revered teachers, he turns to his charioteer and guide, Krishna, for advice. Responding to Arjuna's confusion and moral dilemma, Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a warrior and prince, elaborating on a variety of philosophical concepts.

Why would Krishna leisurely narrate 700 slokas in 18 chapters to Arjuna, when war was just about to begin. It would take him entire day to recite that much of concept and also showing his Viswaroopam(Infinitude) in the end. would Kaurava army wait for all these preachings to be completed and then start the war? What would both armies be doing when these two were immersed in their own discussions.

Krishna must have simply asked Arjuna to do his duty and leave the result to him and to convince him, he must have shown his Viswaroopam for minute. This will make Arjuna believe that Krishna is god and has already decided the outcome of this war, for which he is a mere pawn.

It is clearly evident that Gita was written by multiple persons as few initial slokas appear in first person narrative and suddenly jumps into third person narrative.

Gajanan Shripat Khair, who researched for 43 years on Bhagavad Gita, concluded in his book Quest for the original Gita that it was written by 3 persons over 400 years and that is why narrative lacks continuity.

Also few inclusions like description/creation of caste system, women, sinners and lower castes being treated similarly etc were according to the society in those years.

In later generations, spiritual gurus have included it in Prasthana Trayuam along with Upanishada's and Brahmasutras, though it is a belief essence of all Upanishads.

Similarly, Vishnu Sahasranama is narrated through Bhisma's character before his death.
This Vishnu Sahasranama is found in the Santi Parava of the Mahabharata is most popular version of the 1000 names of Vishnu. Another version exists in padma purana and Matsya purana. Each name eulogizes one of his counteless greate attributes. This also must have been included into Mahabharata from those puranas.

In fact, both Bhagavad Git and Sahasranamam became popular after Adi Sankaracharya wrote commentaries on them in 8th century AD.

The Mahabharata probably reached its final form by the early Gupta period ( c.4th century) when kings ordered complete rewriting for all Puranas to preserve them for future generations.

Unlike Vedas, which have to be preserved letter-perfect, the epic was a popular work whose reciters would inevitably conform to changes in language and style. So, many additions were made to it by writers of that generation.
 
Bhagavad Gita is considered the gospel of Hinduism. It's famous quotes of detachment is center of it. Just like any ancient text, it is built in different phases, modified according the needs of the time that inevitably raises contradictions questioning the "divine sanctity" of it.
Gajanan Shripat Khair, who researched for 43 years on Bhagavad Gita, concluded in his book Quest for the original Gita that it was written by 3 persons over 400 years and that is why narrative lacks continuity.
B.R. Ambedkar has a alternative theory in his book revolutions and counter-revolution in the ancient India about it- its origin, what it is trying to say and political motivations for it. It is little more complicated and will try to simplify it.

Differences of opinions on the essence of Bhagawat Gita
Turning to the view of the orthodox Pandits, we again find a variety of views. One view is that the Bhagvat is not a sectarian book. it pays equal respect to the three ways of salvation (1) Karma marge or the path of works (2) Bhakti marga or the path of devotion and (3) Jnana marga or the path of knowledge and preaches the efficacy of all three as means of salvation. In support of their contention that the Gita respects all the three ways of salvation and accepts the efficacy of each one of them, the Pandits point out that of the 18 Chapters of the Bhagvat Gita, Chapters I to 6 are devoted to the preaching of the Jnana marga, Chapters 7 to 12 to the preaching of Karma marga and Chapters 12 to 18 to the preaching of Bhakti marga and say that this equal distribution of its Chapters shows that the Gita upholds all the three modes of salvation.

Quite contrary to the view of the Pandits is the view of Shankaracharya and Mr. Tilak, both of whom must be classed amongst orthodox writers. Shankaracharya held the view that the Bhagvat Gita preached that the Jnana marga was the only true way of salvation. Mr. Tilak does not agree with the views of any of the other scholars. He repudiates the view that the Gita is a bundle of inconsistencies. He does not agree with the Pandits who say that the Bhagvat Gita recognizes all the three ways of salvation. Like Shankaracharya he insists that the Bhagvat Gita has a definite doctrine to preach. But he differs from Shankaracharya and holds that the Gita teaches Karma Yoga and not Jnana Yoga.

It cannot but be a matter of great surprise to find such a variety of opinion as to the message which the Bhagvat Gita preaches. One is forced to ask why there should be such divergence of opinion among scholars? My answer to this question is that scholars have gone on a false errand. They have gone on a search for the message of the Bhagvat Gita on the assumption that it is a gospel as the Koran, the Bible or the Dhammapada is. In my opinion this assumption is quite a false assumption. The Bhagvat Gita is not a gospel and it can therefore have no message and it is futile to search for one. The question will no doubt be asked : What is the Bhagvat Gita if it is not a gospel? My answer is that the Bhagvat Gita is neither a book of religion nor a treatise on philosophy. What the Bhagvat Gita does is to defend certain dogmas of religion on philosphic grounds. If on that account anybody wants to call it a book of religion or a book of philosophy he may please himself. But essentially it is neither. It uses philosophy to defend religion. My opponents will not be satisfied with a bare statement of view. They would insist on my proving my thesis by reference to specific instances. It is not at all difficult. Indeed it is the easiest task

Philosophical defense of War:
This philosophic defense of war will be found in Chapter II verses II to 28. The philosophic defense of war offered by the Bhagvat Gita proceeds along two lines of argument. One line of argument is that anyhow the world is perishable and man is mortal. Things are bound to come to an end. Man is bound to die. Why should it make any difference to the wise whether man dies a natural death or whether he is done to death as a result of violence? Life is unreal, why shed tears because it has ceased to be? Death is inevitable, why bother how if has resulted ? The second line of argument in justification of war is that it is a mistake to think that the body and the soul are one. They are separate. Not only are the two quite distinct but they differ in-as-much as the body is perishable while the soul is eternal and imperishable. When death occurs it is the body that dies. The soul never dies. Not only does it never die but air cannot dry it, fire cannot burn it, and a weapon cannot cut it. It is therefore wrong to say that when a man is killed his soul is killed. What happens is that his body dies. His soul discards the dead body as a person discards his old clothes—wears a new ones and carries on. As the soul is never killed, killing a person can never be a matter of any movement. War and killing need therefore give no ground to remorse or to shame, so argues the Bhagvat Gita.

Superficially looking at, it means it's soul that matters, not the body - which is not a bad argument. But, one have to consider the fact that it is Buddhism that is preaching non-violence in the era of conflicts between Brahmanism vs Buddhism of the time. In order to counter the non-violence, god is sanctioning the violence which Brahmanical rituals wants it.

2. Philosophical defense of Chaturvarna: 4 Varnas
Another dogma to which the Bhagvat Gita comes forward to offer a philosophic defence is Chaturvarnya. The Bhagvat Gita, no doubt, mentions that the Chaturvarnya is created by God and therefore sacrosanct. But it does not make its validity dependent on it. It offers a philosophic basis to the theory of Chaturvarnya by linking it to the theory of innate, inborn qualities in men. The fixing of the Varna of man is not an arbitrary act says the Bhagvat Gita. But it is fixed according to his innate, inborn qualities.
This Chaturvarna became important after Mauryan period (184 BC) Brahmanical counter revolution and their Manu Smriti ( 170 BC- 150 BC). So Hindu text has to defend. If we consider Bard's need to impress the local population, they have to keep adding it to to make it relevant to

3. Philosphical defence is the Karma marga (observances/Rituals): The definition of word Karma has changed over time. Ambedkar's argument is contextual meaning Karma is observances and Rituals , not the "action" as is proposed later. i.e. supporting Manu Smriti.
By Karma marga the Bhagvat Gita means the performance of the observances, such as Yajnas as a way to salvation. The Bhagvat Gita most stands out for the Karma marga throughout and is a great upholder of it. The line it takes to defend Karma yoga is by removing the excrescences which had grown upon it and which had made it appear quite ugly. The first excrescence was blind faith. The Gita tries to remove it by introducing the principle of Buddhi yoga[f151][f17] as a necessary condition for Karma yoga. Become Stihtaprajna i.e., 'Befitted with Buddhi' there is nothing wrong in the performance of Karma kanda.

The second excrescence on the Karma kanda was the selfishness which was the motive behind the performance of the Karmas. The Bhagvat Gita attempts to remove it by introducing the principle of Anasakti i.e., performance of karma without any attachment for the fruits of the Karma. Founded in Buddhi yoga and dissociated from selfish attachment to the fruits of Karma what is wrong with the dogma of Karma kand? this is how the Bhagvat Gita defends the Karma marga.4 It would be quite possible to continue in this strain, to pick up other dogmas and show how the Gita comes forward to offer a philosophic defence in their support where none existed before. But this could be done only if one were to write a treatise on the Bhagvat Gita. it is beyond the scope of a chapter the main purpose of which is to assign to the Bhagvat Gita its proper place in the ancient Indian literature. I have therefore selected the most important dogmas just to illustrate my thesis.

Why Bhagavat Gita became necessary?

1. To defend the dogmas of counter revolution: Caste, rituals, social order maintenance.
2. To save them from attack of Buddhism: Gita borrowed many concepts from Buddhism including snkya philosophy and Nirvana concepts
Is the Bhagavat Gita anterior to Buddhism? the question was raised by Mr. Telang:
"We come now to another point. What is the position of the Gita in regard to the great reform of Sakya Muni? The question is one of much interest,having regard particularly to the remarkable coincidences between Buddhistic doctrines and the doctrines of the Gita to which we have drawn attention in the footnotes to our translation. But the materials for deciding the question are unhappily not forth coming. Professor Wilson, indeed, thought that there was an allusion to Buddhism in the Gita.[f161][f27] but his idea was based on a confusion between the Buddhists and the Charvakasor materialists. [f162][f28] Failing that allusion, we have nothing very tangible but the unsatisfactory 'negative argument' based on mere non-mention of Buddhism in the Gita.That argument is not quite satisfactory to my own mind, although, as I have elsewhere pointed out, [f163][f29] some of the ground occupied by the Gita is common to it with Buddhism, and although various previous thinkers are alluded to directly or indirectly in the Gita. There is, however, one view of the facts of this question, which appears to me to corroborate the conclusion deducible by means of the negative argument here referred to. The main points on which Budddha's protest against Brahmanism rests, seem to be the true authority of the Vedas and the true view of the differences of caste. On most points of doctrinal speculation, Buddhism is still but one aspect of the older Brahmanism[f164][f30]. The various coincidences to which we have drawn attention show that, if there is need to show it. Well now, on both these points, the Gita, while it does not go the whole length which Buddha goes, itself embodies a protest against the views current about the time of its composition.

The Gita does not, like Buddhism, absolutely reject the Vedas, but it shelves them. The Gita does not totally root out caste. It places caste on a less untenable basis. One of two hypothesis therefore presents itself as a rational theory of these facts. Either the Gita and Buddhism were alike the outward manifestation of one and the same spiritual upheaval which shook to its centre the current religion, the Gita being the earlier and less thorough going form of it ; or Buddhism having already begun to tell on Brahmanism, the Gita was an attempt to bolster it up, so to say, at its least weak points, the weaker ones being altogether abandoned. I do not accept the latter alternative, because I cannot see any indication in the Gita of an attempt to compromise with a powerful attack on the old Hindu system while the fact that, though strictly orthodox, the author of the Gita still undermines the authority, as unwisely venerated, of the Vedic revelation; and the further fact, that in doing this, he is doing what others also had done before him or about his time ; go, in my opinion, a considerable way towards fortifying the results of the negative argument already set forth. To me Buddhism is perfectly intelligible as one outcome of that play of thought on high spiritual topics, which in its other, and as we may say, less thorough going, manifestation we see in the Upanishads and the Gita[f165][f31]."
...
Those who are interested in pursuing the subject may take up the reference to similarities between Gita and Buddhism given by Telang in the footnotes to his edition of the Bhagvat Gita and satisfy their curiosity. But the illustrations I have given will be enough to show how greatly the Bhagvat Gita is permeated by Buddhistic ideology and how much the Gita has borrowed from Buddhism. To sum up the Bhagvat Gita seems to be deliberately modelled on Buddhists Suttas. The Buddhists Suttas are dialogues. So is the Bhagvat Gita. Buddha's religion offered salvation to women and Shudras. Krishna also comes forward to offer salvation to women and Shudras. Buddhists say, "I surrender to Buddha, to Dhamma and to Sangha." So Krishna says, "Give up all religions and surrender unto Me." No parallel can be closer than what exists between Buddhism and Bhagvat Gita.
From the above perspective of political conflict between Brahmanical and Buddhist theologies of the time (early Christian era), The famous picture of Gita takes completely different meaning.
bhagavadgita-kali-yuga.jpg
"Do It what I say, became I am God" - i.e. follow prescribed social order, Do the observances, Sacrifices and so on​

Is it too much Political reading between the lines in 1500 years old Text?
This is inevitable question. For some reason, Brahmanism became Hinduism and survived, while Buddhism completely disappeared around 1200 AD. People still follow rituals, Caste social order which no longer suits modern world. Caste system made unlawful in 1947 and these changes takes 3 to 4 generations to take out, which was happening once financial stability came during last 2 decades.

B.R. Ambedkar who was a politician (one of his hat) trying to make sense of the situation, found no theories to explain. What else is left, if one removes "Divinity", other than human dynamics over resources ( "politics"). Are there any better explanation? At least I couldn't find it yet.
 
@seek10 , the dating you have put together for Mahabharata and Ramayana events is making more sense combined with C's responses. One thing that intrigues me is that the events captured in the 1st version of Mahabharata occurred before Ramayana's and this is tripping a few researchers out there as the mainstream view is that Ramayana predates Mahabharata (and in some ways it probably does when looking at the character development). In the initial version with 8,000 shlokas, the author likely put to paper the YD event (which would have been passed down generations as a verbal tale) substituting the comets/asteroids with human characters and gods.

I looked into the history of Buddhism a little bit and the events during Budda's time and after, leading up to Ashoka and one thing is pretty clear that they mention not an iota about the “two epics”, or the characters involved. Often an absence or omission of something too pertinent can reveal a lot about the validity of the very thing itself. Not even the Greeks mentioned anything about this even though they have mentioned about the battle with king Porus and their decision to not engage with Nanda empire, which corroborates the Buddhist accounts of the Mauryan empire to a degree. So, the omission is quite telling in my view.

The other interesting observation is your finding on Bhagwad Gita having borrowed from Buddhist sutras (writings) – to me it makes sense given the latter precedes the former and with interpolations and modifications taken into account, a lot of the text seems identical. They even adapted the name “Buddha” to “Budhi” – how dumb is that? I searched a bit in this direction and found below.


Is the Bhagwad Gita a Buddhist Sutra?

1)THUS HAVE I HEARD (Evam Maya Srutam)! This is what almost all Buddhist sutras begin with -- this identifies and differentiates Buddha Vacanam or Buddha's words from all other discourses.

1) Bhagwad Gita ends with Sanjaya exclaiming "Thus have I heard":

Bhagavad Gita 18.74

"Sanjaya said:

Thus have I heard the conversation of two great souls, Krishna and Arjuna. And so wonderful is that message that my hair is standing on end.

2)Buddha is remembered by the faithful since the beginning of Buddhism as "Purisa Dama Sarathi" or Charioteer of men.

2)Krishna is shown as a charioteer and guide of Arjuna.

3)THE CHARIOT: The Noble Eightfold Path: The Buddhist "Divine Chariot" VICTORIOUS IN BATTLE is another synonym for the Buddhist Eightfold Path (see Janussoni Brahmana Sutta).

Buddha says, "The noble vehicle 'Brahma yana;' the vehicle of the teachings, dhamma yana' and the incomparable vehicle of victory in Battle 'anuttaro sangama vijaya' are only different names, Ananda, for the Ariya Path of Eight Constituents."

3)THE CHARIOT: BG 1:24, In the Gita is also drawn by white horses (BG 1.14) which Krishna guides to VICTORY IN BATTLE IN A YOGIC WAR OF DHARMA. This chariot is called " rathottamam" or the best of chariots!

4)REFUGE: Buddhists take "Saranam" or complete refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha of saints -- this is how we become Buddhists and declare victory with this ultimate and highest refuge!

No other refuge do I seek;
The Buddha is my matchless refuge,
By the might of this truth,
May joyous victory be mine!

4)REFUGE: Gita constantly says to take refuge in Buddhi as the ONLY refuge, the true refuge:

buddhau Sharanam anvicchaa (Gita 2:49)
BG 14.2, BG 18.57,
BG 18.66

66. Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone; I will liberate thee from all sins; grieve not.

Also, when examining the Mahabharata and the elaborate descriptions of the war and various battle formations and strategies, I am inclined to think that since, there is a big question mark on whether the war occurred and/or at what scale, the strategies have been likely copied from well-documented Greek and Roman battle strategies and incorporated into the epic. Alexander demonstrated a lot of these highly sophisticated battle strategies in his conquests and particularly during the battle with Porus where the latter had the advantage in numbers and yet failed against the agility and quick maneuvering by the former with limited resources. It is also telling that major part of the Mahabharata epic is dedicated to covering the 18-day war with excruciating detail - seems like someone is trying to produce a fictional and elaborate war account for mass entertainment.

I also came across "the battle of the ten kings" which was between Purus clan and the other North Indian tribes with a clear victory achieved by the Purus after much bloodshed. This would have occurred right around when various Indian trybes were starting to grow into mini provinces, subsequently hatching expansion plans and beginning encroachment on each other. Presumably they have borrowed some elements from that war. The king Bharata and his descendent, Shantanu (father to Bheeshma) are of the Puru lineage.

The Battle of the Ten Kings (Sanskrit: दाशराज्ञ युद्ध, romanized: Dāśarājñá yuddhá) is a battle, first alluded to in the 7th Mandala of the Rigveda (RV), between a king of the Bharatas (tribe) and a confederation of tribes. It resulted in a decisive victory for the Bharatas and subsequent formation of the Kuru polity.


Background​

In Book 3, the Bharatas are noted to have crossed Beas and Sutlej, in their progress towards Kurukshetra where they came across a nascent (and temporary) inter-tribal alliance.[2] This led to the battle, which is described in the 18th hymn (verses 5-21) of Book 7; the exact motivations are doubtful — Michael Witzel argues that it might have been a product of intratribal resentment or intrigues of an ousted family-priest[a] while Ranabir Chakravarti argues that the battle was probably fought for controlling the rivers, which were a lifeline for irrigation.[2][4][5][3] The hymns also makes mention of the tribes seeking to steal cows from the Bharatas.[3]


Battle​

Hanns-Peter Schmidt, whom Witzel deems to have produced the most "detailed, and ingenious reinterpretation" of the hymns, locates a unique poetic moment across the RV corpus, in their extraordinarily abundant usage of sarcastic allusions, similes and puns to mock the tribal alliance.[2][5][6] Some of those allusions seem to be heavily context-specific and (still) remain unrecognized; there exist considerable disputes about interpretations of particular words, in light of the employed figures of speech and other poetic devices.[5][3]


First phase​

The first phase of the battle took place on the banks of the river Ravi (then Parusni) near Manusa, west of Kurukshetra.[2][7] The Bharata King and their priest are respectively mentioned as Sudas Paijavana and Vasistha, in the Rig Veda; however the names change in Samaveda and Yajurveda Samhitas.[2] The principal antagonist is doubtfulhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ten_Kings#cite_note-10 and names of the participating tribes are difficult to retrieve, in light of the phonological deformations of their names.[2][5][3] Plausible belligerents of the tribal union include (in order) — Purus (erstwhile master-tribe of Bharatas), Yadu (probably commanded by Turvasa), Yaksu (relatively unimportant or a pun for Yadu), Matsyas, Druhyus, Pakthas, Bhalanas, Alinas, Vishanins, Sivas, Vaikarna, and Anu.[2][5]

Though seemingly an unequal battle, going by the numbers (this aspect is highlighted multiple times in the hymns), Sudas decisively won against the tribal alliance by strategic breaching of a dyke on the river thereby drowning most (?) of the opponents.[2][6] This sudden change in fortunes is attributed to the benevolence and strategizing of Indra, the patron-God of Bharatas, whose blessings were secured by Vasistha's poetics.[2][3]


Second phase​

Thereafter, the battleground (probably) shifted to the banks of river Yamuna, wherein the local chieftain Bhida was defeated along with three other tribes — Ajas, Śighras, and the Yakṣus.[2][3]


Aftermath​

The Battle of the Ten Kings led Bharatas to occupy the entire Puru territory (Western Punjab) centered around Sarasvati River and complete their east-ward migration.[2] Sudas celebrated his victory with the Ashvamedha ritual to commemorate the establishment of a realm, free of enemies from the north, east, and west. He still had enemies in the Khāṇḍava Forest to the south, which was inhabited by the despised non-Indo-Aryan Kikatas.[2]

A political realignment between Purus and Bharatas probably followed soon enough and might have included other factions of the tribal union as well; this is exhibited from how the core collection of RV prominently features clan-hymns of both the sides.[9][2]


Historicity​

Numerous translators since the 1800s including K. F. Geldner have considered the battle as a historical event, based on the narration-characteristics of the verses.[5] Witzel dates the battle between approximately 1450 and 1300 BCE; he deems the concerned hymns to be late interpolations.[10] Stephanie W. Jamison warns against using it as a major source to reconstruct history since the description of the battle is "anything but clear."[3][7]

Both Witzel and Jamison find the very next hymn (7.19, verse 3) to show a striking shift of allegiance with Indra helping Sudas as well the Purus, who won land.[2][3]


Possible Prototype for the Mahabharata War​

Main article: Kurukshetra War

See also: Historicity of the Mahabharata § The Battle of the Ten Kings

Witzel notes this battle to be the probable archetype/prototype of the Kurukshetra War, narrated in the Mahabharata.[11] John Brockington takes a similar approach.[12] S. S. N. Murthy goes to the extent of proposing the battle as the very "nucleus" of the Kurukshetra War; Walter Ruben adopts a similar stance.[13][14] However, Witzel maintains the nucleus text of the Mahabharata to be in description of some event in the Late Vedic spans; it was since reshaped (and expanded) over centuries of transmission and recreation to (probably) reflect the Battle of the Ten Kings.[2] Alf Hiltebeitel rejects Witzel's and Brockington's arguments as "baffling fancy" and notes a complete lack of means to connect the battle with the "fratricidal struggle" of the Mahabharata.[15][12]


Legacy​

Stephanie W. Jamison notes it to be the most famous historical conflict in RV—in that, it secured the dominance of Bharatas over Vedic tribes—as does Witzel.[3][6]

The territory would eventually become the first South-Asian "state" under the Kuru tribe in post-RV span and serve as the heart-land of Brahminical culture.[2][9] The Purus went on to survive as a marginal power in Punjab; Witzel and some other scholars believe Porus (c. early 300 BC) to be a king from the same tribe.[2][9]

FWIW
 
@seek10 , the dating you have put together for Mahabharata and Ramayana events is making more sense combined with C's responses. One thing that intrigues me is that the events captured in the 1st version of Mahabharata occurred before Ramayana's and this is tripping a few researchers out there as the mainstream view is that Ramayana predates Mahabharata (and in some ways it probably does when looking at the character development). In the initial version with 8,000 shlokas, the author likely put to paper the YD event (which would have been passed down generations as a verbal tale) substituting the comets/asteroids with human characters and gods.
If we assume chronologies as per "Priests" is correct based on their oral tradition, they must have a very strong moral code ( of being truthful) for thousands of years despite all the migrations they had and we have to assume they know what is happening in the sky ( Giant comet disintegration hypothesis) etc. It is highly unlikely. What they had is oral traditions and most importantly they didn't put it on "paper" until 100 BCE (using Brahmi script).

Again, there is a big debate among historians whether Oral tradition is worthy to be considered or not for historical reconstruction or not. Proponents of Oral tradition point out the point out the deliberate propaganda in written texts under the influence of benefactor.

What the priests have is stories of the past, they stitched it together as per their need including genealogies of their benefactors, personified stories of cosmic events in fantastic formats, rituals, social order, Yoga, meditation, Ayurveda, diet, grammar and so on packaged it as theology.

Some comments on Hindu Chronology:

1. I started this thread with a assumption that Vishnu's avatar's are Venus's rotation. That may not be correct. Many of the Vishnu's avatar's that are supposed to have happened in Satya Yuga is clearly NOT the recent one's. So, they CAN'T be based on Venus that settled around 3000 BCE event.
Matsya, the fish, from the Satya Yuga. Lord Vishnu takes the form of a fish to save Manu from a flood, after which he takes his boat to the new world along with one of every species of plant and animal, gathered in a massive cyclone.

Kurma, the tortoise, appeared in the Satya Yuga. When the devas and asuras were churning the ocean in order to get the nectar of immortality, the mount Mandara they were using as the churning staff started to sink and Lord Vishnu took the form of a tortoise to bear the weight of the mountain.

Varaha, the boar, from the Satya Yuga. He appeared to defeat Hiranyaksha, a demon who had taken the Earth, or Prithvi, and carried it to the bottom of what is described as the cosmic ocean in the story. The battle between Varaha and Hiranyaksha is believed to have lasted for a thousand years, which the former finally won. Varaha carried the Earth out of the ocean between his tusks and restored it to its place in the universe.

Narasimha, the half-man/half-lion appeared in the Satya Yuga. The raksha Hiranyakashipu was granted a powerful boon from Brahma, not allowing him to be killed by man or animal, inside or out, day or night, or in earth or the stars, with a weapon either living or inanimate. Vishnu descended as an anthropomorphic incarnation, with the body of a man and head and claws of a lion. He then disembowels the raksha at the courtyard threshold of his house, at dusk, with his claws, while he lay on his thighs.
for example:
  • Matysa (fish) avatar is CLEARLY NOAH's story.
  • Kurma and Varaha avatar's can be some serious asteroid/comet interactions that shook the planet. C's hinted at some serious interactions between comet Venus, Mars, 3600 year cycle comets. If we consider the possibility of heavy clouds and seeing the plasma activity through "sheets of rain", it would have been horrifying/traumatic experience and amygdala hijack. Add the earthquakes from the disturbance of molten rock mantle from the electromagnetic disturbance of the interactions.
  • Who is this lion headed Narasimha from Narasimha Avatar? C's mentioned about the old Aryan tradition of lion headed god Zurvan.
Q: (L) I thought I had checked that pretty deeply. I guess I could read some more. Now, there are those who say that Zurvanism was an attempt to deal with some of the dangling problems that Zoroaster left in terms of his dualism. One of his hymns describes Ahura Mazda and Ahriman as twins, so, they came up with Zurvanism, the ultimate god of space/time as father to the twins to explain this. Is that in fact the case?

A: No. Zurvan was the ancient god of the steppes and the Indo-Aryan peoples.

Q: (L) Okay, I've got a paper here... It seems that Zurvan was perceived as the god of infinite time and space, and was described as, "One Alone, a transcendental neutral god, and without passion. One for whom there was no distinction between good and evil. So, Zurvan had a varied history... So, the problem I want to get to right now is the idea that Zurvan was represented as the lion-headed god. There was a lion man figure found in Hohlenstein-Stadel, which is a German cave. It's carved out of ivory, and it's THE oldest known zoomorphic animal sculpture in the world, and the oldest known uncontested example of figurative art. It has been determined to be about - ready? 40,000 years old!! That was by carbon dating the material which was in the same layer where the figure was found. It was associated with the Aurignacian culture and it was 29cm in height, carved out of mammoth ivory using a flint stone knife. Seven parallel, transverse, carved gouges are on the left arm. The figure of Zurvan is often represented with a serpent coiled around him seven times. It is said that the sculpture shares certain similarities with French cave wall paintings which also show hybrid creatures. The Lion man is several thousand years older. Anyhow, this artifact seems to resemble very closely the lion man figure that was described as being the representation of Zurvan. So, I guess my question is: Are we talking about the same religion or religious ideas or perceptions that were common to the cultures that produced the cave art in Western Europe?

A: Yes

2. There is NO CONSISTENCY about number of avatar's across different Purana's. Ambedkar compared in "Riddles in Hinduism" book.

Vishnus Avatars across Puranas.jpg

3. For the Indo-Aryans, the word "Manu" is very important because "Manu" is nothing but NOAH. That's why Sumati Bhargava (170-150 BCE) and his successors named his Brahmanical counter-revolution script as "Manu Smriti". So they are projecting every thing into remote past for obvious benefits that comes with it.
4. Inconsistency in Cycle with in Cycle theology: From "Riddles in Hinduism"
THE BRAHMINIC EXPLANATION OR AN EXERCISE IN THE ART OF CIRCUMLOCUTION
...

A Kalpa is a reckoning of time adopted by the Vedic Brahmins. The Brahmanic reckoning of time divides time into (1) Varsha, (2) Yuga, (3) Mahayuga, (4) Manvantara and (5) Kalpa. Varsha is easy enough to understand. It corresponds to the term year. What exactly the period of time covered by the term Yuga covers there is no unanimity. A Mahayuga is a period covered by a group of four Yugas:
(1) Krita Yuga,
(2) Treta Yuga,
(3) Dwapar Yuga and
(4) Kali Yuga.
The four Yugas follow one another in a cycle, when the period of the first Yuga is spent it is followed by the second and so on in the order given. When the cycle is complete one Mahayuga is completed and a new Mahayuga opens. Every Mahayuga begins with the Krita Yuga and ends with Kali Yuga.

There is no uncertainty as to the time relation of a Mahayuga and a Kalpa. Mahayugas make one Kalpa. There is however some uncertainty as to the time relation between Mahayuga and Manvantara. A Manvantara is equal to Mahayugas "and something more"'. What exact period of time that 'something more' means, the Brahmins have not been able to state categorically. Consequently the time relation between Manvantara and Kalpa is uncertain.

But this does not matter very much for our present purposes. For the present it is enough to confine our attention to Kalpa. The idea underlying ' Kalpa ' is closely connected with the creation and dissolution of the Universe. The creation of the world is called Srashti. The dissolution of the universe is called pralaya. Time between Srashti and Pralaya is called Kalpa. The idea of the origin of the Vedas is thus more intimately connected with the idea of Kalpa.

According to this scheme of things, what is supposed to happen is that when a Kalpa begins creation begins. With the beginning of the creation there comes into being a new series of Vedas. What Kulluka Bhatt wants to convey is that though in a sense every new Kalpa has a new series of Vedas the same old Vedas are reproduced by Brahma from his memory. That is why he says the Vedas are Sanatan i.e., eternally pre-existing.

What Kalluka Bhatt says is that the Vedas are reproduced from memory. The real question is who made them and not who reproduced them. Even if one accepts the theory of reproduction at the beginning of each Kalpa the question still remains who made the Vedas when the First Kalpa began. The Vedas could not have come into being ex-nihilo. They must have a beginning though they may have no end. Why don't the Brahmins say openly? Why this circumlocution?

Can we reconstruct the chronology of Yuga timelines?: Leaving aside the inconsistencies, focusing on data points we know from C's and others, this is how it looks to me.
  1. Krita or Satya Yuga : around Noah time 10900BCE and afterwards ( based on Satya Yuga avatars Matysa (fish) and so on)
  2. Treta Yuga : end of Treta Yuga as 2300 BCE .
    * I know you want to put Rama to Atlantean times, That is a question to C's. I don't think we can figure out that easily. Again, Characters, events that impacted society that forced to "document" can be of different periods.
    * That raises a complicated question of Criteria for Yuga Identification. For now, I want to have enough data points, before we decide whether this fits into scheme suggested by Hindu texts.
  3. Dwapar Yuga: end 1100 BCE . Originating event can belong to Younger Dryas event.
  4. Kali Yuga: Now? But, Ambedkar wrote about 2 versions of Kali Yuga end dates - one from the first millennium BCE texts and another one from later texts. Those texts initially wrote Kali Yuga as 1000 years, but they later made for ever. This raises very interesting questions.
When did the present Kali Yuga begin ?
There are two different answers to the question.
• According to the Aitereya Brahmana it began with Nabhanedishta son of Vaivasvata Manu.
• According to the Puranas it began on the death of Krishna after the battle of Mahabharata.

The first has been reduced to time term by Dr. Shamshastry [Gavam Ayana] who says that Kali Yuga began in 3101 B.C. The second has been worked out by Mr. Gopal Aiyer with meticulous care. His view is that the Mahabharat War commenced on the 14th of October and ended on the night of 31st October 1194 B.C. He places the death of Krishna 16 years after the close of the war basing his conclusion on the ground that Parikshit was 16 when he was installed on the throne and reading it with the connected facts namely that the Pandavas went of Mahaprasthan immediately after installing Parikshit on the throne and this they did on the very day Krishna died. This gives 1177 B.C. as the date of the commencement of the Kali Yuga.

We have thus two different dates for the commencement of the Kali Yuga 3101 B.C. and 1177 B.C. This is the first riddle about the Kali Yuga.
Given the 3000 years past, 1100BCE date seems reasonable. We know end of Bronze age events around 1100BCE, corroborated by Giant comet disintegration event. But, how long Kali Yuga lasts has some interesting confusions, I will write later.

If we look at the Nilesh Oaks accumulation of astrological descriptions in Ramayana and Mahabharata and his reconciling effort with star position software, there is some what accurate astrological tradition EXIST, though they don't know what the actual mechanism itself except the Brahma in Purusha Sukta (plasma activity) responsible for creation.
 
@seek10, considering Ramayana, the only way to get closer to the truth is to find if Ravana was real and location of his kingdom. I found below from Quora and will try and find the referenced story too. Appears to be another buddhist tale and there is an indication towards Maldives being “The Lanka”.

The question you are asking comes from the name "Sri Lanka", and Raavan's Lanka (The name is Lankapuri in Ramayan, meaning Island city). There is a lot of confusion regarding this in India (in general population and populist media).The word "Lanka" in Sanskrit means island. In Maldivian language, the name of Maldives is "Ahi Lanka" and other countries (foreign) are refered to as "Mahi Lanka".Ramayana (and some other texts) mention Lanka to be 100 yojans from mainland India. 100 yojans is about 1300 kilometers. Valmiki Ramayana mentions that Lanka was in the midst of a series of large island-nations, submerged mountains, and sunken plateaus in the western part of the Indian Ocean.The association of the modern country of Sri Lanka with Ramayan's Lanka is a much later phenomenon. Actual scholars have conflicting interpretaions of the location. Some even believe that it referred to a river island of the river Narmada! They also refer to some formations in Narmada near Hoshangabad to be the Setu built by the sena. The reality is that if you study the actual books, the information is very conflicting. I have even read detailed anaylsis comparing Ramayana with the Helen of Troy and how it could have been influenced by that or even that both the stories are carved out of some even older existing tales. There is a story "Dashrath Jaataka" in which there is king of Banaras called Dashrath and has a son called Ramapandit and his wife's name is Sita. There is also a 12 year exile but not abduction or war with Raavan."Faith" aside, Raavan was not historically known in "Sri Lanka" or "Simhala Dveep" as it was called before. It is relatively recent phenomenon.

On the subject of dating Mahabharata, we can get closer by identifying the actors involved in the war hence why I think they have used “the war of the 10 kings” as the prototype given it was the Puru (Bharata) clan who won. Interesting that they called it Mahabharata and the initial version was Jaya i.e. victory. No other culminating war would have occured between Pandavas and Kauravas as those characters are fictional and/or derivation of others. When C’s say the motivation was to record real events then it seems to indicate towards the mentioned inter-tribe wars (also called the Bharata wars) and the regular cometary/Venus events. These tribes would have formed gradually after the scattering from Mohan Jodaro’s flood, placing them in the modern day Afghanistan (Gandhaar), Pakistan and Northern India. Only the order of the events and dating has been distorted heavily imo.
 
@seek10, considering Ramayana, the only way to get closer to the truth is to find if Ravana was real and location of his kingdom.
Based on what M.M.Mandelkehr's collection of data points in his 2300 BC event books, I am leaning towards Ravana is a fictional ( like arjuna). Most of the cases Rama is depicted as human (obedient son and family man of good virtues) and Ravana is depicted with super powers with ten heads when get hurt.
  • The name Sri Lanka is very recent. Even a century back, it is called Ceylon.
  • Similar situation exist with Ayodhya. The oldest Ramayana dated to 600 BCE, but it is based on old story. Ayodhya doesn't exist later date.
  • There are multiple periods where sri Lanka is linked to India via land as recent as 1480 AD. The water level between the lands fluctuated over the long stretch of time.
  • The Unit of measure of the word "Yojana" in Ramayana is unclear and lot of opinions according to once own inclinations.
2300 BC Volume 3 Page 872

INDIA

The principal followers in Indian mythology are the Maruts. The Maruts are designated as Indra's associates or his troops; he is also said to have generated them [18] called "the lord of the hosts of the Maruts" [19]. Rudra in many places in the literature called the father of Maruts [20]. In Chapter 23, Dyaus has been introduced a representing the heavens. It is said that the Maruts live in Dyaus and are referred to as heroes of Dyaus [20A].

The name Maruts is derived from mr "to shine" [21]. They are particularly linked with lightning. They are brilliant as fire, have spears on their shoulders, and have fiery lightnings in their hands [22]. Three derivations have been offered for the name: ma+ru "which roars in measures", ma+ruc "which shines in measures", mahad+dru "that which runs a great deal". They are said to be suryavarcasah "having the brilliance of the sun" suryatvacah "possessed of sunlike (blazing) bodies, agninam najihva virokinah "brilli like the flames of Agnis (fires) [23]. The name Maruts means "crushers, grinders" [24]

"The Maruts are warriors who are brilliant owing to lightnings, who are armed with weapons of stone...who clothe themselves in a shower of hail" 125]. "They are regarded as fierce and terrible, associated with wrath and evil. They uproot trees and hew the forest; all creatures tremble before them". As in the case of Rudra, they are implored in prayers avert the arrow and stone which they hurl [26]. The following occurs in the Rgveda; "Hitting the world with the flashing weapon of lightning....which burns brightly....they cause the death of men and cattle" [27]; "The great-armed Maruts, with their attacks, injure the enemy with heat as the sky (heats) the earth" [28].

Like Rudra, the Maruts generate sound. In a number of passages, the Maruts are called rudrah "howlers, shouters, roarers" [29]. Again in the Rgveda, "From the shout of Maruts over the whole space of the earth, men reeled forward" [30]; "they roar like lions "they are great roarers"; they "have the voice in the form of wind" [31]. "They are bright sunshine", "the wonderful and bright Maruts shake the heavens during their onward m which is always accompanied by sound" [32]. There are extensive references earthquakes and ground vibrations. Hymns to the Maruts abound in words like cyu to “ shake", rej "to shake violently", and vip "to vibrate" [33]. "The earth trembles through fear of their onslaught. It oozes like a shaking and full-loaded boat moving (in water)" [34] "That strength of yours, O Maruts, which causes the people to shake, causes the mountains to shake"; "....the Earth violently shakes like unfirm things, during their marches along their courses" [35], "all regions, the whole universe and the well-built houses on earth shake in great fear as the Maruts march on" [36]. The Maruts are said to dwell in the Asvattha [37], the World-Tree described in detail in Chapter 38.

Another group of followers are the Rakshasos, described in the literature as huge unshapely giants, similar to clouds, with hair and beards of the color of lightning[38]. They frequently—appear as "thunder-clouds wielding bolts", are said to shower stones, are seen to fall from space [39]. The name Rakshasos is linked to "move", "shake dace”, restless" [40] and also to root words meaning to beguarded against”[41]
Their leader or father is Ravana, whose name is stated to mean "the yeller", and “Screaming" [42]. Hundreds of thousands of Rakshasos are said to have sprung from the body of Ravana in the fight with Rama [43] in the Mahabharata.

In the Rgveda, "the time The Rakshasos have been into this chapter because of a curious characteristic — their strength is said to reach a peak just after midnight [45].
I have come across an extremely Interesting set of curves, relate to this characteristic. The curves show daily meteor rates as determined by a number of independent sources [46]. Three of curves — visual, backscatter cw radar, and forward-scatter cw radar — show activity between midnight and dawn. The fourth curve — backscatter radar — is the only curve that shows the peak a little after dawn. The curve representing visual sightings is the most important, since the ancient cultures did not have electronic sensing systems and had to rely on the reports of observers. This maximum meteoric activity between midnight and dawn is due to the orbital relationship between Earth and the meteoroid stream. This data then forms a possible link between the Rakshasos and a meteoroid phenomenon. The story is considerably strengthened by the fact that in at least one Indian documentv the Kausika Sutra, a falling meteor is regarded as the embodiment of a Rakshasa [47].

The supernatural qualities of the Yaksas have been the subject of awe, veneration and fear. They were said to assume different shapes at will , make ferocious roars and loud noises — they were considered to be creatures of ill-omen [49]. In the early texts, the Yaksas is derived from the root "yaks", and the meaning of the name Yaksas is "wonderful manifestation or strange apparition or show", "something wonderful or terrible", "supernatural being of exalted character supernatural being revealing himself suddenly" They are derived from root words meaning "to flash, to flirt, to flow quickly or crookedly, to rush hither and thither", "restless, swift, mighty, strong"[50b]. Interestingly, they are closely associated with water, and are described as "reclining on the back of the waters, and are described as reclining on the backs of waters…..like the branches of a tree around the trunk" [51]. They are associated with Rudra [52], which would link them to the Maruts. Agni is called out as leader of the Yaksas [53].

There is also a reference to Murukan and his host [54], as an adjunct to the conflict in Chapter 44.
IRAN
Mithra is attended by the Fravashis who are "numbered by hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands", and who may be another manifestation of a multiple meteoroid fall.
The traditions also state that the Fravashis are led by the deity Verethragna [55], which would link them with Ahura Mazda as well as Mithra. The epithets of the Fravashis support the idea of a meteoroid fall — bamya "radiant", uzgerepto-drafsa "possessing banners lifted high", ranjista "most swift", ayo-zaya "possessing metal weapons", urvinyant "crushing", frascandayant "destroying", and xrvisyant "terrible" [56]. "They form many armies, and carry hundreds of weapons; they bear banners, the radiant, who in hot fighting hurriedly descend.." [57]. The appearance of the Fravashis during the event is given by "when the waters burst forth.. ...from the sea Vourakasa and the Ahura Mazda fashioned the hvarnah, then the mighty Fravashis....go forth", "with glistening spears, powerful arrows" [58].

The Fravashis have another characteristic which could be used to identify them with incoming meteoroids. Similar to the Indian Rakshasos, they are commemorated as appearing before dawn [59], corresponding to the actual time of maximum meteor activity. The Fravashis are said to date back to the earliest periods [60]. The name Fravashis originally meant "those who existed before". They became guardian spirits in later Iranian religion through a confusion involving similar sounding words [61].

BRITAIN
Strangely, the meteoroid-related followers in Irish mythology — the Fomorians. Firbolgs, Tuatha de Danaan and Nemedians — could be the various people that are said to have invaded Ireland at various times. The transformation from mythological to historical personages shows up in their features as well as the features of their leaders.
I found below from Quora and will try and find the referenced story too. Appears to be another buddhist tale and there is an indication towards Maldives being “The Lanka”.
May be true, but It is hard to know as there are many definitions to Unit of distance - "yojana". So much happened in between and these itihasa's as Bardic literature changed according to the needs of listeners of those times.

Regarding the environmental changes in 2300 BCE in India and Sri Lanka
CHAPTER 6
EVENTS IN INDIA AND CENTRAL ASIA

Crustal Movements in the Indus Region After 2300 BC

At the lower Mahi Basin, northwestern coastal India, the sea level is reported to have increased at about 2100 BC, with indications that was due to tectonic movements [48]. In the Deccan region in west-central India, river incision took place between about 8000 and 2500 BC followed by deposition from 2500 to 1000 BC, indicating a weaker water flow. A greater water flow Incises or cuts into a river bed since the faster, more powerful flow takes material from the bed and carries it along. This change from incision to deposition could be a result of crustal tilt linked to the other reported crustal movements starting at this time. The lesser water flow might also be indicative of lower precipitation due to the general dryer conditions, but the crustal tilt is a possibility.

There may also have been a land subsidence around 2300 BC in south India. The higher sea level relative to the land areas as a result of the subsidence would then have resulted in the perceived separation of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) from the mainland. The evidence for the subsidence in this case is both ancient traditions and geological evidence. According to the Singhalese tradition in Sri Lanka, 1844 years before the Buddhist era, a major geological event is said to have occurred which severed Sri Lanka from the Indian main assuming the Buddhist era started at his death at 483 BC, the event would be dated at 2327 BC. The regional subsidence is supported by independent Indian Brahmanical records that state that numerous islands in the Indian Ocean were overwhelmed by the sea in 2387 BC [51].

Sri Lanka is not presently connected to the Indian mainland by a land bridge, but rather by a chain of sandbanks not completely above water. The actual connection between Sri Lanka and the mainland is an underwater continental shelf about 50 kilometers wide with an average depth of only 70 meters below sea level. On the western side of this shelf is the hain of sandbanks more than 50 kilometers long, extending between two islands very lose to the coasts of India and Sri Lanka respectively. Some of the sandbanks are above water; no part of the shoal has a greater depth than about one meter at high water. Geological evidence suggests that this chain of sandbanks is the remnant of a former land onnection between Sri Lanka and India [52].

The region around southern India and Sri Lanka IS seismically active. The general conclusion from radiocarbon dating of offshore coral reefs and shell deposits on Sri Lanka is that a number of oscillations occurred around the time periods of interest, with uplifts possibly occurring 500 to 1000 years both before and after 2300 BC [53], thus supporting a subsidence between those two lines. Mathur [54] has produced a sea level curve, shown in Figure 3, the geological evidence. The curve shows a rapid sea level curve rising to a maximum value at about 2000 BC and decreasing slightly thereafter. Even though the separation would have started earlier, the maximum effect would have been around 2000 BC

The separation of Sri Lanka from the mainland is also described in Indian mythology as a part of the overall destructive event, further linking it to 2300 BC. According to Sanskrit texts, the first man and woman dwelt upon an island said to be the Indian Paradise. They were driven off the island by a great convulsion of nature [55].

“….Arriving at last at the extremity of their island, they beheld a smooth and narrow arm of the sea, and beyond it a vast and apparently boundless country, connected with their island by a narrow and rocky pathway, arising from the bosom of the waters." After they crossed the rocky pathway, "no sooner did they touch the shore, than trees, flowers, fruit, birds, all that they had seen from the opposite side, vanished amidst a terrible clamor,....the rocks by which they had crossed sank beneath the waves, a few sharp peaks alone remaining above the surface to indicate the place of the bridge, which had been destroyed by divine displeasure?'

This story is valuable for the links it brings together. First, the land separation is associated with the closing of the Indian Paradise, possibly reflecting the poorer climatic conditions starting at that time. Second, the literature states that the couple was driven out of Paradise by Ravana, the Prince of the Rakshasos [92]. The Rakshasos are shown to represent falling meteoroids in Chapter 46.
When South Indians celebrate Durga Puja ( female goddess) while North Indians celebrate Rama Navami. This puzzled me since my child hood. What convinced me to ask the question to C's is this text.
The western Indian people celebrated their New Year with a festival called Divali or Deepavali, meaning "row or cluster of lights" [43]. The festival took place during the last days of the month Asvin (October) and the first two days of Khartika (November). The name Khartika is related to Krttikas "Pleiades", and was called the month of the Pleiades [44]. During these four days, houses were illuminated with lamps to simulate stars, there were huge bonfires, torches were lit on long poles held aloft, and there were firecrackers and fireworks. This festival marks the New Year [45]. The custom of the torches on the long poles was called raising the Akasapradipa "the skylamp". Following general pattern, a key aspect of the festival was the commemoration of the dead [46]. One of the nights is called Bhuta-Chaturdasi "the night of the ghosts". When the dead who down to Earth at this time were to go back, the skylamps were employed to light their path. At this time, firecrackers were made to burst in mid-air [47], again bringing to mind meteoroid entry phenomena. The use of firecrackers and pole lamps were perhaps among oldest essential features of the festival. They were not part of the merry-making, but were part of the religious beliefs behind the association of the dead ancestors with this holy season [48]. An important part of the festival was the ritual of the consecration of the national fires, the lighting of the year's fires governed by the Krttikas, or Pleiades [49], surprisingly similar to the previously described rituals.

Another festival at this time is Durga Puja, held in honor of the goddess Durga, a destructive goddess, and the commemoration of the conflict between Rama and Ravana. Ravana is the leader of the Rakshasos, identified with meteoroids in Chapter 46 [50]. One of the aspects of the festival is the spectacular displays called Ram Lila, commemorating victory of Rama over Ravana. At the end of October, the Ram Lila ends with the ritual killing of Ravana. Large effigies of Ravana, 100 feet high, are doused with gasoline by the holy men, and flaming arrows are fired into each heart. The effigies then explode in a Qafening roar of fireworks. Burning sticks are retrieved by the watchers to protect their homes in the coming year. This tradition is still followed [51].
The festival had other names in outlying areas. In Nepal, to the northeast of India, the festival was called Deepavali, Tihar, Yama Panchak, and Swanti, and celebrated the New Year. The display of lights and traditions were similar to the other areas. The name Yama Panchak was associated with the presiding deity, Yama, the god of death [52]. On the island of Sri Lanka to the south of India, one author reports a feast associated with the dead at the beginning of November [53]. A festival to the dead called Janthuir Puja was observed by the Sautels of Bengal at the beginning of November [54]. Another name was Navarata, "nine nights" apparently designated as the original national feast to the dead. This festival was specifically said to have been associated originally with the rising of the Pleiades, but was later maintained at the autumnal equinox [55]. In Thailand, Cambodia and Burma, the people floated lamps on the water at this time. In Cambodia, the lamps were an offering to the departed ancestors [56].

IRAN
Almost all of the literature on the commemoration of the corresponding event in Iran describes a festival honoring the Fravashis, the group of entities described in the mythology.
 
On the subject of dating Mahabharata, we can get closer by identifying the actors involved in the war hence why I think they have used “the war of the 10 kings” as the prototype given it was the Puru (Bharata) clan who won.
I too thought the war of the 10 kings has some series importance to the Kurgan Indo-Aryans. the many characters in this wars play important roles in the Hindu texts - King Sudas, Vishwamitra, Vasista etc. Ambedkar had a book called who were the Shudras, in which he theorizes that there is a serious conflicts between Brahmins( priests) and Kshatriyas ( kings/rulers) and killed each other at different times. At one point, priests branded certain line of Kshatriyas as the lowest caste Shudras from the highest caste.
Interesting that they called it Mahabharata and the initial version was Jaya i.e. victory.
Timeline wise, Mahabhaarata is dated any time between 400 BC - 500 AD depending on the source. I think we have to remove 470 years in between 180 BCE - 412 AD. Initial version 'Jaya' doesn't have didactic component of story. 'Jaya' doesn't have all these larger plot, Krishna, Gita, Caste recommendations etc. All these were added during counter revolution (after 180 BCE).

I was reading Will Durant's book "Our Oriental heritage" written in 1935. He also mentions ( like Ambedkar) that there is little text between Ashoka's time ( around 200 BCE- 400 AD) to Gupta's period.
From the death of Ashoka to the empire of the Guptas-i.e., for a period of almost six hundred years-Hindu inscriptions and documents
are so few that the history of this interval is lost in obscurity
." It was not necessarily a Dark Age; great universities like those at Taxila continued to function, and in the northwestern portion of India the influence of Persia in architecture, and of Greece in sculpture, produced a flourishing civilization in the wake of Alexander's invasion. In the first and second centuries before Christ, Syrians, Greeks and Scythians poured down into the Punjab, conquered it, and established there, for some three hundred years, this Greco-Bactrian culture. In the first century of what we so provincially call the Christian Era the Kushans, a central Asian tribe akin to the Turks, captured Kabul, and from that city as capital extended their power throughout northwestern India and most of Central Asia.
There is another issue with dating is this. There is a phase shift in the historical dates published w.r.t East and West's chronological historical reconstructions.

1. The first date of "Sacred Cow" Gupta pillar edicts identified as 412 AD.
2. C's confirm 570 AD comet event as the cause for dark ages. They also say there 470 years addition before that. That is between Caesar and 570 AD comet that contributed to dark ages.
3. C's also say Cow worship dynamic is came because of the dark ages comet.
4. Multiple authors say missing Indian history between 200 BCE to 400 AD. In the West it is before 570 AD.

Historical reconstructions are not a exact science. It is consensus understanding that can change with new data. In the Indian context, written text were given very less importance, so few written texts. One way to reconcile these data points is assuming there is phase shift ( of around 200 years) between historical constructions of India and West.
 
(seek10) The C's mentioned that Hindu god Rama was a high priest influenced by the Confederation. What is his time period?
A: 50k years ago
Few sessions back, C's made a comment on date of Rama as 50,000 years old and I wrote here about the possible link between Nuclear war between Kantakennians and Paranthas that destroyed 50% of India , early origin of psychopathy mutation, Possible role of Rama in the restoring some balance as in "rise of Phoenix". Probably, Rama is Parantha High Priest. This will explain few things:
  • Why Ramayana is popular in South Eastern Asian countries not in other areas.
  • This also gives interesting meaning to C's mentioning of one of the cataclysm that destroyed Paranthas, but other races(Native Americans and Aryans) survived much better in Europe. It basically means Southern hemisphere got some severe hit in that cataclysm.
1997-05-31
Q: You also said once that there was a nuclear war in India and that this was what was being discussed in the Vedas when it talks about the 'blue-skinned' people who weren't really blue because they were Celts, and they were flying in aircraft, and they were engaged in this war, etc. Who were the Celts at war with?

A: The Paranthas.

Q: Now, wait a minute! Who are the Paranthas?! Do we have a new player here?

A: Not new.

Q: Do we know them by another name?

A: Choose.

Q: The Atlanteans? Were the Celts of India at war with the Atlanteans in the Atlantic?

A: Atlantis was merely a home base of an advanced civilisation of 3 races of humans occupying different sections of a huge Island empire, which, in itself, underwent 3 incarnations over a 100,000 year period as you would measure it.

Q: The 3 races were the Celts... and who were the second and third?

A: Or Kantekkians.

Q: Are the Kantekkians different from the Celts?

A: Only in the sense of long term racial and genetic blending.

Q: So, Atlantis had the Kantekkians and who else?

A: Race you would call "Native Americans," and a third, no longer existing race, somewhat resembling Australian or Guinean aborigines, only lighter in complexion.

Q: Was this third group destroyed by the other two?

A: One of the 3 cataclysms.

Q: Paranthas. Who were the Paranthas?

A: Nation of race mentioned above.

Q: So, the Paranthas were the antecedents of the Abos of Australia?

A: Yes, and compare to now existing peoples of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, and New Guinea for similarities, bearing in mind genetic mixing and dilution.


Q: Were the Vedas written by the Paranthas or written by the Celts?

A: Descendants of Parantha, as per "Divine guidance."

Q: That explains a LOT. I was just thinking about it the other day. If these people in India are related to the Celts, as philologists would have us believe due to language roots, there is no way I can understand this because they are simply NOTHING like them in any way. … Okay, I think that you said that this nuclear war happened something like 50,000 years ago. We have taken care of a couple of points; we have 3 races on Atlantis, Celts all over the place... did the Celts conquer the Atlanteans?

A: No.

Q: Did they just move in and hang out?

A: They took over the Northern section.
  • Rama's "Ayodhya" may not be same as Ayodya that arouse in 1st Millennium BC in North India.
  • Valmiki is supposed have written Ramayana in Sanskrit which is associated with Kurgan Indo-Aryans. But, C's confirming Iranian Indo-Aryans also used archaic Sanskrit gives a interesting meaning. This explains why Dravidian languages like Tamil has lot of words in Sanskrit and vice versa. It is a intermixing for 7000 years. Interestingly Ramayan story is also adopted into so many local versions including competing religions (Buddhism and Jainism) which is not the case of Aryan story Mahabharat.
Q: (seek10) What is the language of Iranian farmer migrants into India around 6000 BC? Is it Sanskrit or something else?

A: Close to Sanskrit. But more archaic.

If it is Atlantean story, It must have survived all over the world, given its history ( submerging and subsequent mass migrations). Are there any "proof" for it? Out of all Indian names (which are quite different from the Monotheistic names) the word Rama relatively more in the Western world.
Rama [N]
( Matthew 2:18 ), the Greek form of Ramah.

A city first mentioned in Joshua 18:25 , near Gibeah of Benjamin. It was fortified by Baasha, king of Israel ( 1 Kings 15:17-22 ; 2 Chr. 16:1-6 ). Asa, king of Judah, employed Benhadad the Syrian king to drive Baasha from this city ( 1 Kings 15:18 1 Kings 15:20 ). ( Isaiah 10:29 ) refers to it, and also Jeremiah, who was once a prisoner there among the other captives of Jerusalem when it was taken by Nebuchadnezzar ( Jeremiah 39:8-12 ; 40:1 ). Rachel, whose tomb lies close to Bethlehem, is represented as weeping in Ramah ( Jeremiah 31:15 ) for her slaughtered children. This prophecy is illustrated and fulfilled in the re-awakening of Rachel's grief at the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem ( Matthew 2:18 ). It is identified with the modern village of er-Ram, between Gibeon and Beeroth, about 5 miles due north of Jerusalem. (See SAMUEL .)

A town identified with Rameh, on the border of Asher, about 13 miles south-east of Tyre, "on a solitary hill in the midst of a basin of green fields" ( Joshua 19:29 ).

One of the "fenced cities" of Naphtali ( Joshua 19:36 ), on a mountain slope, about seven and a half miles west-south-west of Safed, and 15 miles west of the north end of the Sea of Galilee, the present large and well-built village of Rameh.

The same as Ramathaim-zophim (q.v.), a town of Mount Ephraim ( 1 Samuel 1:1 1 Samuel 1:19 ).

The same as Ramoth-gilead (q.v.), 2 Kings 8:29 ; 2 Chr. 22:6 .

Recently some body sent a video of how Rama of Ramayan is more wide spread As per the video:
  • Indonesia - largest Muslim nation, national book is Kakawin Ramayana
  • Thailand - Though a Muslim nation, older kings believed to be descendants of Lord Rama.
  • Cambodia - There are depictions in Combodia, that can be related to trade influences from South India in First century.
  • Russia - The video claims it is a statue of Rama. Searching the net I find the same statue mentioning it as Vishnu
  • Iraq - 250 Ramayana statues dated to 1000 years
  • Italy - There are some painting found in Italian villages around 7BC
  • Egyptian Dynasty Ramesis
The word "Rama" plays an very important role in the last 30 years, so it becomes lot more controversial. Few of them:
  • Indian politics (Left vs Right aka Nehru-Gandhi dynasty's congress vs Modi's BJP )
  • British Colonial narrations in the name of "Indology" that places any thing Sanskrit to invading Kurgan Indo-Aryans making any thing else local inferior.
  • Hindu-Muslim antagonism that is prevalent for many reasons. 750 years of Muslim rule, their "kill all Infidels" historical attitude that contributed for destruction of many temples, that is revived by politics of Babri Masjid destruction in 1990's in response to leftist agenda.
  • Western education that places Religion and science at odd's with each other, makes the Rama's so called virtues (Ideal son, husband, human) controversial or out of date or associated with lack of critical thinking that is associated with religion triggering endless discussions.
  • M K Gandhi called his utopian nation as "Rama Raj", though he used minority appeasement as a part of national unity against British Raj. Nehru-Gandhi dynasty took that minority appeasement as a policy. When Nehru-Gandhi dynasty got weakened in late 1980's, Right wing BJP picked up Babri Masjid over Rama's birthplace temple issue for its benefit. When there is so many gods and temples exist and destroyed by Muslims, why Rama's temple is so attractive?
    • There is a long dispute regarding the structure for 200 years. Even the masjid is closed for Hindu's until late 80's. It is Congress Govt. (Rajiv Gandhi) that allowed it to be opened for Hindu's, taking initiative from BJP. To up the 'Ante' BJP went for full replacement of Masjid with Ram temple during the turbulent decade (1984-1994). So much turbulance in politics, country and years of communal tensions that cost at least 3000 lives.
    • Television availability and popularity only started in late 80's in India. One of the main popularity contributor is the TV series Ramayan across the nation.
    • Interestingly, Leftist accuse current Modi's popular government is an attempt to create 'Ram Raj'
Rama's character:
Q: (seek10) What is the evil he fought against?

A: Lizards.


Q: (seek10) Is "Ravana" a fictional character based on cometary activity?

A: Yes

Q: (seek10) The C's mentioned that the Vedas are written by "descendants" of Paranthas. Where were those "descendants" of Paranthas from? Inside the Indian region (archaic ancestors of Tamilians/Dravidians) or outside the Indian region?

A: The former.
Rama's character is ideal son/husband/man who fought against evil by following the command of the father, crossed jungles and oceans to defeat evil Ravana. It is sort of Hero's journey story. How does it fit in as a counter measure to Lizard "influenced" psychopathy? Probably it is a example of his life in promote the "order" in society in a world of disorder psychopathy creates.

The controversy seems to be related to how he treated his wife, when his subjects are questioning (in secret) the chastity of his wife. He seems to have sent his pregnant wife to Jungle. But there are indications that were added later.

so much "drama" over a 50,000 year old Atlantean priest.
 
Back
Top Bottom