Understanding Hinduism and Hindu Gods

[Voyageur]

The entire spiritual heritage of mankind has no value.

Says who? I'm curious (while "entire" is an all encompassing span).

As for the list of 80, it is pretty dizzying on its own without context. Where are you going with this list, who is it attributed to, if any?

 

[Alejo]

18. We were born to turn a fairy tale into dust.

And some of the items in this list kind of don't mean anything either...

29. Trust your feelings - feed the Beast.

And this one, specially after some of the items were about the ego, and illusions, and fear.. sounds contradictory, our feelings would always send us in the path of protecting our ego, so how do we escape illusion and feed the beast at the same time? should this be.. something closer to.. I don't know, become aware of your feelings, and question them.. so as to not feed a beast?

Where did this list come from?

 

[seek10]

@seek10 , there's a fair bit to unpack on Indian history and the books you mentioned seem like good ones to pick up next. Unfortunately, not enough funding has been reserved in India towards archeology which would provide the actual facts and corroboration of data. Until then, we are only left with mythologies and distorted texts. In the absense of concrete data, I generally approach the history with Collingwood in mind.

Actually Ambedkar unpacked a LOT. For many reasons mainstream historians doesn't quote him though they silently read it. Probably they consider him to be too speculative. He calls History of India itself is the battle between Brahmans and Buddhists. Some of the texts clearly says Brahmans and Buddhists are like snake and mongoose.

I heard Ambedkar as "genius and even read Vedas". Ambedkar seems to have claimed to read 6000 pages in 8 days and owned as much 65,000 books in his private collection( which largest private collection). So he can go through the books much faster than any body.

That is reflected in his writings where he can write LOT of stuff ( what texts, what other researchers (West or Indian) said, where he agrees and where doesn't agree and so on) in few pages in clearly understandable way. he read all hindu texts, Budhists texts in Pali language( even created Pali to English dictionary), compared social, theological, political circumstances to come to his conclusions. After reading lot of his work, I have to agree that he is genius.

On the topic of cow worship, I thought Velikovsky has a good explanation i.e. post the destruction from the "seven passes". The way Venus appeared to be bull-like when observed from the particular vantage point, it led to an overnight change in attitudes, likely capitalised upon by the priests of the time. Where bull/cows were being farmed and killed for meat pre-change, the priests forced it upon the populace to start worshiping cows to appease Venus. The story of the holy cow, Kamadhenu can be considered to be based on this decisive event.

When I started this thread almost a decade back, I thought about cow "business" came from sky as Velikovsky suggested. But Ambedkar's research clearly shows it is more of economical reasons during the Post-mauryan period ( 150 BC and later) . This needs some explanation. I will try to summarize it by events at critical junctures in the History- from revolution and counter revolutions in Ancient India book ( which was not completed or published during his life time, but it was collected from his notes with few missing pages after his death and circulated).

Note: All the works ( published/unpublished books, speeches, letters, notes, his constitutional documents, committee reports, communications and so on) of Ambedkar were collected and published as 21 large volumes and available here in public domains.

1. Pre-Buddhist era circumstances ( Before 480 BCE - Romila Thapar thinks 480 BCE is correct date of Buddha's birth not 563 BC): It looks the pain point Buddha trying to solve is related to the suffering of common man due to the influence of Aryan culture on the general population.

• This falls under class warfare between Brahmins ( priests) vs Kshatriyas( warrior class).
• Priests who are surviving on others generosity for their luxuries ( gambling, debauchery) indulged in many deceiving methods ( palm reading, weather forecasting, snake charming, being messengers between people and so on ( the list is too long) )
• Priests demanding animal sacrifices even for a visit that is destroyed their lively hood. i.e. People are ignorant and taken advantage of by these priestly manipulations with these animal sacrifice rituals and take the meat as their fee.
• The question arises what are the things people scared of to take the services of the priest for their detriment? Most probably cosmic event of Bronze age destruction could have been the cause and they needed guidance to navigate the situation, which these Brahmins filled up.
• There are many commentaries on Vedas in the form of Brahmanas, Aranyakas etc. written many priestly people who were in the South India, though Aryan Vedic Janapada territory is limited to North India. This makes me wonder, there is lot of migration of Brahmins into South India, before any official military migration before Buddha.

2. Buddha's 80 years in life ( 480 BC - 400 BC) : After disillusioned with the circumstances ( because he was convinced that people's mind was taken over by the Brahmin tactics), he relinquished every thing and decided to find a solution. He found his religion and converted many people including many brahmins and it is later became official religion of Mauryan Empire. one of the main part of the Buddhism is no unnecessary killing , but there is no restrictions on meat killing. There is no class hierarchies or restrictions on woman and so on. This is what Ambedkar called 'Revolution'

3. Post Buddha era ( Nandas and Mauryan period) (400 BC - 184BC) : This the period in which almost modern day (India + Pakistan + parts of Afghanistan minus deep south India) is occupied by Mauryan (Who were not Kshatriyas) spread the Buddhism. i.e. the livelihood of these Brahmins and their sacrificial fee ( meat or otherwise) dried out. Mauryan empire ended with their Brahmin military commander Pushyaitra Shunga killing the last emperor ( 184 BC). But the Shunga empire occupied only part of North India.

4. Start of Brahmanical Counter Revolution (184 BC - 400 AD) : Though Shunga empire didn't even last for a century, this is the time foundations of Hinduism as we now know started. There are lot of nuts and bolts.

• It started with writing Manusmriti ( Laws of Hindu Social order) : This is the restrictive Caste system with graded hierarchy with Brahmins as top of the pyramid and shudras at the bottom. It is maintained through endogamy, limited inter-caste inter-dining and so on. Ambedkar calls Hinduism as "religion of Superman", where Brahmin as Superman. Ambedkar even identified who the real Manu is.
• It is during this period many puranas were written or started. Given that there is NO centralized govt. control over it, it is all the work of the Brahmins/intellectuals doing all these Purana characters like Marvel productions ( like university professors do).
  • How do we explain all these weird hindu gods and shapes running around in weird vehicles ( ex: Ganesha - A kid with elephant head ,with large fat tummy sitting on little mouse as a vehicle running around killing Rakshasas). Even if some body wrote it, how does the people believe it ? My guess is they saw these shapes in the sky, feared enough to look for answers and these "God's consultants" filled the curiosity for a fee, if one agree for the ideological doctrine. I know that is not that simple.
• It is this Manu's laws propagated through 18 major mahapuranas and Upapuranas (Sub-puranas), adding whatever the god of once liking.
• The Manu's law's are used in Jaimini Sitras, which in turn is used in creating Bhagawat Gita. He has a sequence of what events for the necessity for creation of Bhagwat Gita which was fascinating.
• It is during Gupta period( limited to north India) around 400 AD, inscriptions were found for the first time saying "Killing the cow is equivalent to Killing of Brahmin" and punishable by death.
• While the North India is ruled by Shunga's after 184 BC, South India is ruled by Satavahanas,( also called Andhras) but Ambedkar remarks not much information available about Andhras. That is fishy enough.
• We have this 400 years addition to the timelines problem.
• Then this untouchability that doesn't exist even with ManuSmiriti popped up around Gupta period. Ambedkar's thesis is this
  • Biggest complaint against Brahmans since pre-Buddhist( 500 BC) period is animal sacrifice and its cost. In order to get some lost ground from Buddhists ( expanded to Mauryan empire influence), they plotted a plan to gain lost ground. IF Brahmins stopped eating, both (brahmans and Buddhists) are at the same level. Buddhists doesn't have any restrictions on meat eating, but they follow policy of no unnecessary harm. In order to get upper hand, Brahmins went one level above, used their influence at the Gupta rulers to criminalize cow sacrifice. But some had to discard the dead cow. They have a existing mechanism of unsettled people living outside the village . So they allowed those unsettled people to take dead cow and conveniently added whoever eats cow and Buddhists to the untouchable list. ALL this reminded me BBC serial "SURVIVAL" where outside visitors has to quarantine themselves for few days or week before allowed in to the house.

ALL this made me think, Some serious cosmic event happened that scared the people follow the insane laws of Manu of segregation based on caste (around 100 BC- 400AD). Probably it started as temporary measure , it became ingrained to carry forward. Despite all the restrictions Brahman Counter revolution imposed, it never seriously worked. 4 Varnas split became 3000 castes, 25,000 sub castes.

I must say, Ambedkar can be hyper focused to show only the negative as it is the need of his hour ( before 1947)- It is like pouring cold water over all those chest thumping Arya Samajists, Hindu Mahasabha gang( BJP fore-farther), Hindu proponents in congress and so on. This helped the situation during post-independent India.

Lot more to write and will write later.

 

[sid]

@seek10, I will re-read your summary but on a first glance, is there any mention of Chanakya in Ambedkar's writings? Chanakya was around (321 BCE I think) when Alexander was raiding India and had run out of steam before finally heading back to Macedonia. Chanakya, with help from his pupil Chandragupta, took back the control of North-Eastern India plus a few Northern parts and being a Brahmin himself, would have exerted tremendous influence on the spread of Hinduism etc. If anything, he would have negated a lot of foreign influence on Indian customs and tradition which he felt needed to be more aligned with the old Aryan ways which contradicts Buddhism. He also had some interesting view on women which are now labelled sexist which is quite telling of his character.

 

[seek10]

@seek10, I will re-read your summary but on a first glance, is there any mention of Chanakya in Ambedkar's writings?

Yes, he did and compared the circumstances of Chanakya/Kautilya's time ( 375 BCE- 283 BCE) and Manu's pronouncments ( after 150 BCE approx.)

Chanakya was around (321 BCE I think) when Alexander was raiding India and had run out of steam before finally heading back to Macedonia. Chanakya, with help from his pupil Chandragupta, took back the control of North-Eastern India plus a few Northern parts and being a Brahmin himself, would have exerted tremendous influence on the spread of Hinduism etc. If anything, he would have negated a lot of foreign influence on Indian customs and tradition which he felt needed to be more aligned with the old Aryan ways which contradicts Buddhism.

There is LOT of controversy/confusion related to defining the word "Hinduism". By profession, Brahmin/intellectuals are migrating people, as few people are needed in a given space in a agricultural country like India. So What they did with it, is a different story.

He also had some interesting view on women which are now labelled sexist which is quite telling of his character.

Not as bad as Manu though. I will quote the text as it gives LOT more insight in to the circumstances of the time.

1. On the vices of Aryans ( gambling, drinking, woman) - Page 153 Volume 3

CHAPTER 6
The Ancient Regime: The State of the Aryan Society
This essay consists of 11 typed foolscap pages tagged into a file. From the last sentence it appears that the Chapter is incomplete.—Editors
...
Every king had a hall of gambling attached to his palace. Every king had an expert gambler in his employment as a companion to play with. King Virat had in his employment Kank as an expert gambler.

Gambling was not merely a pastime with kings. They played with heavy stakes. They staked kingdoms, dependents, relatives, slaves, servants.1 King Nala staked everything in gambling with Paskkar and lost everything. The only thing he did not stake was himself and his wife Damayanti. Nala had to go and live in the forest as a beggar.

There were kings who went beyond Nala. The Mahabharat1 tells how Dharma the eldest of the Pandavas gambled and staked everything, his brothers and also his and their wife Draupadi. Gambling was a matter of honour with the Aryans and any invitation to gamble was regarded as an injury to one’s honour and dignity. Dharma gambled with such disastrous consequences although he was warned beforehand. His excuse was that he was invited to gamble and that as a man of honour, he could not decline such an invitation.

This vice of gambling was not confined to kings. It had infected even the common folk. Rig-Veda contains lamentations of a poor Aryan ruined by gambling. The habit of gambling had become so common in Kautilya’s time that there were gambling houses licensed by the king from which the king derived considerable revenue.

Drinking was another evil which was rampant among the Aryans. Liquors were of two sorts Soma and Sura. Soma was a sacrificial wine. The drinking of the Soma was in the beginning permitted only to Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. Subsequently it was permitted only to Brahmins and Kshatriyas. The Vaishyas were excluded from it and the Shudras were never permitted to taste it. Its manufacture was a secret known only to the Brahmins. Sura was open to all and was drunk by all. The Brahmins also drank Sura. Shukracharya the priest to the Asuras drank so heavily that in his drunken state he gave the life giving Mantra known to him only and with which he used to revive the Asuras killed by the Devas—to Katch the son of Brahaspati who was the priest of the Devas. The Mahabharat mentions an occasion when both Krishna and Arjuna were dead drunk. That shows that the best among the Aryan Society were not only not free from the drink habit but that they drank heavily. The most shameful part of it was that even the Aryan women were addicted to drink. For instance Sudeshna2 the wife of King Virat tells her maid Sairandhri to go to Kichaka’s palace and bring Sura as she was dying to have a drink. It is not to be supposed that only queens indulged in drinking. The habit of drinking was common among women of all classes and even Brahmin women were not free from it. That liquor and dancing was indulged in by the Aryan women is clear from the Kausitaki Grihya Sutra I. 11-12, which says;

“Four or eight women who are not widowed, after having been regaled with wine and food are to dance for four times on the night previous to the wedding ceremony.”

That the drinking of intoxicating liquor was indulged in by Brahmin women, not to speak of women of the lower Varnas, as late as the seventh and eighth centuries- A.D. in the Central region of Aryavarta, is clear from Kumarila Bhatta’s Tantra- Vartika I (iii). 4, which states, “Among the people of modern days we find the Brahmin women of the countries of Ahicchatra and Mathura to be addicted to drinking”. Kumarila condemned the practice in the case of Brahmins only, but not of Kshatriyas and Vaishyas men and women, if the liquor was distilled from fruits or flowers (Madhavi), and Molasses (Gaudi) and not from grains (Sura).

The sexual immorality of the Aryan Society must shock their present day descendants. The Aryans of pre-Buddhist days had no such rule of prohibited degrees as we have today to govern their sexual or matrimonial relationship.

According to the Aryan Mythology, Brahma is the creator. Brahma had three sons and a daughter. His one son Daksha married his sister. The daughters born of this marriage between brother and sister were married some to Kashyapa the son of Marichi the son of Brahma and some to Dharma the third son of Brahma.1

In the Rig-Veda there is an episode related of Yama and Yami brother and sister. According to this episode Yami the sister invites her brother Yama to cohabit with her and becomes angry when he refuses to do so.2

A father could marry his daughter. Vashishta married his own daughter Shatrupa when she came of age.3 Manu married his daughter Ila.4 Janhu married his daughter Janhavi.5 Surya married his daughter Usha.6 There was polyandri not of the ordinary type. The polyandri prevalent among the Aryans was a polyandri when kinsmen cohabited with one woman. Dhahaprachetani and his son Soma cohabited with Marisha the daughter of Soma.7

Instances of grandfather marrying his grand-daughter are not wanting. Daksha gave his daughter in marriage to his father Brahma8 and from that marriage was born the famous Narada. Dauhitra gave his 27 daughters to his father Soma for cohabitation and procreation.

I have a feeling that some of the sexual immoralities is related to cosmic plasma phenomenon personified in to the story. That doesn't mean some priests can't misuse that for their benefit. If it is society level vice, it will surely attract the wrath of "Gods" (or rocks). Many of these stories are from Rig-Veda (1500 BC) that is slightly before Bronze age extinction( say around 1000 BC). That is a chicken or the egg causality problem. As usual some degree of both without knowing the percentages?

Regarding gambling: When I was in india, If I say I am going to Tirupathi temple, some body wll give me few bucks and ask to donate it to the God. Here in USA, If I say I am going to Atlanttic city, some body will few bucks will ask me to gamble for them. I always felt this as a striking similarity. Does it mean Non-Aryan Indians (aka indus valley civilization descendants) are addicted to God due to some gene? Does this has any thing to do with C's mentioned related to Mohanjadaro?
1994-10-23

Q: Who built the city of Mohenjo-Daro?

A: Lizards directly. Coatzlmundi legend ties in to this directly look at illustrations on stones now.

Q: Who is Coatzlmundi?

A: Other deity of the Lizards worshipped by the Atlanteans and their descendants because of the direct contact with humans for 1000 years.

Q: Now, you said Mohenjo Daro was built by the Lizzies directly. Did they occupy this city themselves?

A: No.

Q: When was this city last inhabited continually?

A: 3065 years ago.

Q: When was it built?

A: 6092 years ago.

1998-08-22

Q: We watched this television show the other night which talked about the city of Angkor Wat and its orientation to Draco 10,500 BC. You said that Angkor Wat was built 3108 years ago by the Lizzies themselves, and that the city of Mohenjo Daro was also built by the Lizzies 3065 years ago, which is within 30 or 40 years of the same time period. Do you still confirm that the Lizzies themselves built these
cities?
A: Reptilian Beings.
Q: And they did this themselves?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened to the inhabitants of these cities?
A: Taken to another planet.

There is a interesting theory that Jati and Varna system is indegenious system ( i.e. came from IVC, Not Aryan Varna system) that Manu and co simply used it for their graded hierarchy system of Hindu social order as a part of their Brahminical counter-revolution worsened it by British Caste categorizations. I will skip this for now.

2. On shudras (volume 3 Page 421)

SHUDRAS AND THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION
...
The Shudra though belonging to a lower class was nonetheless a free citizen in days before Manu cannot be gainsaid. Consider the following provisions in Kautilya’s Artha Shastra:

“The selling or mortgaging by kinsmen of the life of a Sudra who is not a born slave, and has not attained majority, but is an Arya in birth shall be punished with a fine of 2 panas.”
“Deceiving a slave of his money or depriving him of the privileges he can exercise as an Arya (Aryabhava), shall be punished with half
the fine (levied for enslaving the life of an Arya).”
“Failure to set a slave at liberty on the receipt of a required amount of ransom shall be punished with a fine of 12 panas; putting a slave under confinement for no reason (samrodhaschakaranat) shall likewise be punished.

“The offspring of a man who has sold himself off as a slave shall be an Arya. A slave shall be entitled without prejudice to his master’s work but also the inheritance he has received from his father.”

Why did Manu suppress the Shudra?

Slavery did exist in other places too like in Rome and so on. It is not hereditary. Same is the case Mauryan times (Kautilya times), which "Manu" changed it to make it hereditary.

3. On the status of woman ( Volume 3 Page 433)

THE WOMAN AND THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION
...
In the days of Kautilya women4 were deemed to have attained their age of majority at 12 and men at 16. The age of majority was in all probability the age of marriage. That the marriages were post puberty marriages is clear from Baudhayanas’ Grihya Sutras5 where an expiatory ceremony is specially prescribed in the case of a bride passing her menses on the occasion of her marriage.

In Kautilya there is no law as to age of consent. That is because marriages were post puberty marriages and Kautilya is more concerned with cases in which a bride or a bridegroom is married without disclosing the fact of his or her having had sexual intercouse before marriage with another person or maiden in menses having had sexual intercouse. In the former case Kautilya says6:

“Any person who has given a girl in marriage without announcing her guilt of having laid with another shall not only be punished with a fine but also be made to return the Sulka and Stridhana. Any person receiving a girl in marriage without announcing the blemishes of the bridegroom shall not only pay double the above fine, but also forfeit the Sulka and Stridhana (he paid for the bride). In regard to the latter case the rule in Kautilya7 is:

“It is no offence for a man of equal caste and rank to have connection with a maiden who has been unmarried three years after her first menses. Nor is it an offence for a man, even of different caste, to have connection with a maiden who has spent more than three years after her first menses and has no jewellery on her person.”

Unlike Manu Kautilya’s idea is monogamy. Man can marry more than one wife only under certain conditions. They are given by Kautilya in the following terms1:

“If a woman either brings forth no (live) children, or has no male issue, or is barren, her husband shall wait for eight years (before marrying another). If she bears only a dead child, he has to wait for ten years. If she brings forth only females, he has to wait for twelve years. Then if he is desirious to have sons, he may marry another. In case of violating this rule, he shll be made to pay her not only Sulks, her property (Stridhana) and an adequate monetary compensation (adhivedanika martham), but also a fine of 24 panas to the Government. Having given the necessary amount of Sulka and property (Stridhana) even to those women who have not received such things on the occasion of their marriage with him, and also having given his wives the proportionate compensation and an adequate subsistence (vrutti), he may marry any number of women; for women are created for the sake of sons.”

Unlike Manu in Kautilya’s time women could claim divorce on the ground of mutual enmity and hatred.

“A woman, hating her husband, cannot dissolve her marriage with him against his will. Nor can a man dissolve his marriage with his wife against her will. But from mutual enmity, divorce may be obtained (parasparam dveshanmokshah). If a man, apprehending danger from his wife, desires divorce (mokshamichchhet), he shall return to her whatever she was given (on the occasion of her marriage). If a woman, under the apprehension of danger from her husband, desires divorce,
she shall forfeit her claim to her property.”

A wife can abandon her husband if he is a bad character.

“A woman who has a right to claim maintenance for an unlimited period of time shall be given as much food and clothing (grasacchadana) as necessary for her, or more than is neessary in proportion to the income of the maintainer (yathapurushapari-vapam va). If the period (for which such things are to be given to her with one-tenth of the amount in addition) is limited, then a certain amount of money, fixed in proportion to the income of the maintainer, shall be given
to her; so also if she has not been given her Sulka, property, and compensation (due to her for allowing her husband to re-marry). If she places herself under the protection of any one belonging to her fatherin-law’s family (Svasurakula), or if she begins to live independently, then her husband shall not be sued (for her maintenance). Thus the determination of maintenance is dealt with.”

In the days of Kautilya there was no ban on woman or a widow remarrying:

“On the death of her husband a woman, desirous to lead a pious life, shall at once receive not only her endowment and jewellery (sthapyabharanam), but also the balance of Sulka due to her. If after obtaining these two things she re-married another, she shall be caused to pay them back together with interest (on their value). If she is desirous of a second marriage (kutumbarkama), she shall be given on the occasion of her re-marriage (nivesakale) whatever either
her father-in-law or her husband or both had given to her. The time at which women can re-marry shall be explained in connection with the subject of long sojourn of husbands.

“If a widow marries any man other than of her father-in-law’s selection (svasurapratilomyenanivishta), she shall forfeit whatever had been given to her by her father-in-law and her deceased husband.

“The kinsmen (gnatis) of a woman shall return to her old fatherin-law whatever property of her own she had taken with her while, re-marrying a kinsman. Whoever justly takes a woman under his protection shall equally protect her property. No woman shall succeed in her attempt to establish her title to the property of her deceased husband, after she re-marries.

“if she lives a pious life, she may enjoy it (dharmakama bhunjita). No woman with a son or sons shall (after re-marriage) be at liberty to make free use of her own property (stridhana); for that property of hers, her sons shall receive.

“If a woman after re-marriage attempts to take possession of her own property under the plea of maintaining her sons by her former husband, she shall be made to endow it in their name. If a woman has many male children by many husbands, then she shall conserve, her property in the same condition as she had received from her husbands. Even that property which has been given her with full powers of enjoyment and disposal, a remarried woman shall endow in the name of her sons.

“A barren widow who is faithful to the bed of her dead husband may, under the protection of her teacher, enjoy her property as long as she lives; for it is to ward off calamities that women are endowed with property. On her death, her property shall pass into the hands of her kinsman (Dayada). If the husband is alive and the wife is dead, then her sons and daughters shall divide her property among themselves. If there are no sons, her daughters shall have it. In their absence her husband shall take that amount of money (sulka) which he had given her, and her relatives shall re-take whatever in the shape of gift or dowry they had presented her. Thus the determination of the property of a woman is dealt with.”

“Wives who belong to Sudra, Vaisya, Kshatriya or Brahman caste, and who have not given birth to children, should wait as long as a year, two, three and four years respectively for their husbands who have gone abroad for a short time; but if they are such as have given birth to children, they should wait for their absent husbands for more than a year. If they are provided with maintenance, they should wait for twice the period of time just mentioned. If they are not so provided with, their well-to-do gnatis should maintain them either for four or eight years. Then the gnatis should leave them to marry, after taking what had been presented to them on the occasion of their marriages. If the husband is a Brahman, studying abroad, his wife who has no issue should wait for him for ten years; but if she has given birth to children, she should wait for twelve years. If the husband is a servant of the king, his wife should wait for him till her death; but even if she bears children to a savarna husband (i.e. a second husband belonging to the same gotra as that of the former husband), with a view to avoid the extinction of her race, she shall not be liable to contempt thereof (savarnatascha prajata na’ pavadam labheta). If the wife of an absent husband lacks maintenance and is deserted by well-to-do gnatis, she may remarry one whom she likes and who is in a position to maintian her and relieve her misery.”

Unlike Manu every precaution was taken to guarantee economic independence to a married woman. This is clear from the following provisions in Kautilya’s Arthashastra relating to wife’s endowment and maintenance:

“Means of subsistence (vruti) or jewellery (abadhya) constitutes what is called the property of a woman. Means of subsistence valued at above two thousand shall be endowed (in her name). There is no limit to jewellery. It is no guilt for the wife to make use of this property in maintaining her son, her daughter-in-law, or herself, whenever her absent husband has made no provision for her maintenance. In calamities, disease and famine, in warding off dangers and in charitable acts, the husband, too, may make use of this property. Neither shall there by any complaint against the enjoyment of this property by mutual consent by a couple who have brought forth a twin. Nor shall there be any complaint if this property has been enjoyed for three years by those who are wedded in accordance with the customs of the first four kinds of marriage. But the enjoyment of this property in the cases of Gandharva and Asura marriages shall be liable to be restored together with interest on it. In the case of such marriages as are called Rakshasa and Paisacha, the use of this property shall be dealt with as theft. Thus the duty of marriage is dealt with.”

“A woman who has a right to claim maintenance for an unlimited period of time shall be given as much food and clothing (grasachhadan) as is necessary for her, or more than is necessary in proportion to the income of the maintainer (yatha-purushaparivapamva). If the period (for which such things are to be given to her with one-tenth of the amount in addition) is limited, then a certain amount of money, fixed in proportion to the income of the maintainer, shall be given to her; so also if she has not been given her sulka, property, and compensation (due to her for allowing her husband to re-marry). If she places herself under the protection of any one belonging to her father-in-law’s family (svasurkula), or if she begins to live independently, then her husband shall not be sued (for her maintenance). Thus the determination of maintenance is dealt with.”

Surprising as it may appear in Kautilya’s time a wife could bring an action in a court of law against her husband for assault and defamation. In short in pre-Manu days a woman was free and equal partner of man.

Why did Manu degrade her?

3. On the question of whether Shudhra is an Aryan or not, he wrote ( Volume 7 Page 117) :

Whatever be the interpretation, the fact remains that in the seventh generation2 a Shudra under certain circumstances could become a Brahmin. Such a conception would have been impossible if the Shudra was not an Aryan.

That the Shudra is a non-Aryan is contrary to the view taken by the school of Arthashastra. As a representative of that school, the opinion of Kautilya on that question is of great value. In laying down the law of slavery, Kautilya says:3

The selling or mortgaging by kinsmen of the life of a Shudra who is not a born slave, and has not attained majority, but is Arya in birth shall be punished with a fine of 12 panas.

Deceiving a slave of his money or depriving him of the privileges he can exercise as an Arya (Aryabhava) shall be punished with half the fine (levied for enslaving the life of an Arya).

Failure to set a slave at liberty on the receipt of a required amount of ransom shall be punished with a fine of 12 panas; putting a slave under confinement for no reason (samrodhaschakaranat) shall likewise be punished.

The offspring of a man who has sold himself off as a slave shall be an Arya. A slave shall be entitled not only to what he has earned himself without prejudice to his master’s work but also to the inheritance he has received from his father.

Here is Kautilya, who calls the Shudra an Aryan in the most emphatic and express terms possible.

4. On the the need for reform through HINDU CODE BILL in the parliament (early 1950's) - from DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Volume 14, Page 268

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, in the ordinary course a speech of the sort which I have made is generally regarded not only appropriate but sufficient for the occasion. But it would be futile on my part to disguise the fact that there is a section—if not a large section, a section in the house—which feels a certain amount of compunction over certains parts of the Bill. Neither can I disguise from myself the fact that outside the House there are many people who are not only interested in the Bill but, if I may say so, very deeply concerned about it. I therefore think that it is only right, if you will permit me, to add a few general observations with regard to the points of controversy which I have noticed in several newspapers which I have been persuing ever since the Bill has been on the anvil. I will take this matter also part by part and section by section. I will deal only with what I regard have been considered as points of controversy. Let me take marriage and divorce. Here I find that there are three points of controversy.—The first point of controversy is abolition of castes as a necessary requirement for a valid marriage; the second point of controversy is the prescription of monogamy; and the third point of controversy is permission for divorce.

I will take the first point of controversy, namely—abolition of caste restrictions. So far as this Bill is concerned, what it does is to arrive
at a sort of compromise betweeen the new and the old. The Bill says that if member of a Hindu community wants to follow the orthodox system which requires that a marriage shall not be valid unless the bride and bridegroom belong to the same varna, the same caste or the same sub-caste, there is nothing in this Code which can prevent him from giving effect to his wishes or giving effect to what he regards as his dharma. In the same way if one Hindu who is a reformist and who does not believe in varna, caste or sub-caste, chooses to marry a girl outside his varna, outside his caste, outside his sub-caste, the law regards his marriage also as valid.

So far as the marriage law is concerned there is therefore no kind of imposition at all. The vydhikas, the orthodox, are left free to do what they think is right according to their dharma. The reformers who do not follow dharma but who follow reason, who follow conscience, have also been left to follow their reason and their conscience.
...
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Consequently, what will happen in Hindu society so far as marriage law is concerned if there will be a competition between the old and the new. And we hope that those who are following the new path will win subsequently. But, as I say, if they do not, we are quite content to allow two parallel systems of marriage to be operative in this country and anyone may make his choice. There is no violation of a shastra, no violation of a smriti at all.

With regard to monogamy it may be that it is a new innovation. But I must point out that I do think that any Member in this house will be able to point out having regard to customary law or having regard to our shastras that a Hindu husband had at all times an unfettered, unqualified right to polygamy. That was never the case. Even today, in certain parts of South India there are people who follow this, a section of the Nattukottai Chettiyars— the case has been reported in the Reports of the Privy Council itself, I am not depending on mere heresay evidence—but among the Nattukottai Chettiyars there is a custom that a husband cannot marry a second wife unless he obtains the consent of his wife.

Secondly, when a consent is obtained, he must allot to her certain property which I think in the Tamil language is called moppu. That property becomes her absolute property so that if after her consent the husband marries and ill-treats her, she has a certain amount of economic competence in her own hands to lead an independent life. I cite that as an illustration to show that there has not been an unqualified right for polygamy.

A second illustration whichI would like to give would be from the Arthashastra of Kautilya. I do not know how many Members of the House have perused that book, I suppose many of them have. If they have, they will realise that the right to marry a second wife has been considerably limited by Kautilya. In the first place, no man can marry for the first ten or twelve years because he must be satisfied that the woman is not capable of producing children. That was one limitation. The second limitation imposed by Kautilya on the right of second marriage was that the husband was to return to the woman all the stridhan that she had acquired at the time of marriage. It is only under these two conditions that Kautilya’s Arthashastra permitted a Hindu husband to marry a second time.

Thirdly, in our own country, in the ligislation that has been passed in various Provinces, monogamy has been prescribed. For instance in the marumakkathayam and the aliyasanthanam law both of them prescribe monogamy as a rule of marital life. Similarly, with regard to the recent legislation that has been passed in Bombay or in Madras, similarly in Baroda, the law is the law of monogamy.

I hope the House will see from the instances I have given that we are not making any very radical or revolutionary change. We have precedent for what we are doing, both in the laws that have been passed by various States in India, also in the ancient shastras such as Kautilya’s Arthashastra. If I may go further, we have got the precedent of the whole world which recognises monogamy as the most salutary principle so far as marital relations are concerned.

Ambedkar resigned from Nehru's cabinet for the failure of the passing of Hindu Code Bill, though the bill was passed few years later with some minor modifications. There is enough noise of party line arguments on this subject.

 

[seek10]

On the topic of Buddism, its needs a bit more research as it has been suggested by the author, Anand Neelakantan in Ajaya: Roll of the Dice that the Mahabharata war was indeed a ruse to destroy Buddhism and its proponents who were flourishing in Northern India, well supported by Suyodhana, the prince of Hastinapur (modern Delhi).

I bought 2 books of Anand Neelakantan to get a feel of what he is saying. After reading few chapters I kept it aside for few reasons. What he wrote is fictional account and Telugu language people ( including me) is very familiar with theme of glorification of Anti-Hero characters ( like Karna, Duryodhana, Ravana, Ekalavya etc.) using the inconsistencies/draw back of the supposed Hero/good characters of these myths. We grow up watching Telugu Super Star NTR made so many movies immortalized those characters on Silver screen. As you might know, NTR turned to politics in 1981, founded Telugu Desam Party, then became chief minister and dreamed of becoming Prime minister only to be backstabbed by his son-in-law to die as man rejected by his own family. We as kids excited about him coming to politics and change every thing for better and all the hopes ended in 2 years. That is the Irony of life. I always wondered about the parallels between past legends and the present heros and Villains. The point I am trying to make is I needed something serious. I kept the books aside to finish Ambedkar.

It was essentially, a North vs South war, with great losses on both sides. It is difficult to decipher whether a war even took place or it's just a grand fictional tale concocted to hide multiple skirmishes and/or mass murders conducted on Buddhist monasteries and its followers.

In a funny way, Telugu people (who are sandwiched between Aryan touting North Indians, Dravidian touting Deep south Tamilians) can understand neither and wonder about what the fuss all about. Such is the nation!

Interestingly, Ambedkar wrote about step wise evolution of Mahabharat something made me wonder whether Anand Neelakantan read every thing Ambedkar wrote before he wrote his novels. 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.

From Revolution and Counter Revolution book page 106

The question of determining the date of the composition of the Mahabharata is next to impossible. Only an attempt to fix the period of its composition can be made. The Mahabharat has undergone three editions and with each editor the title and subject matter has changed. In its original form it was known as 'Jaya', Triumph. This original name occurs even in the third edition both in the beginning
as well as in the end. The original edition of the book known as 'Jaya' was composed by one Vyas. In its second edition it was known as Bharat. The Editor of this second edition was one Vaishampayana. Vaishampayan's edition was not the only second edition of the Bharata. Vyas had many pupils besides Vaishampayana ; Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila and Shuka were his other four pupils. They all had learned at the feet of Vyas. Each one of them produced his own. Thus there were four other editions of Bharata.
Vaishampayana recast the whole and brought out his own version. The third editor is Sauti. He recast Vaishampayana's version of Bharata. Sauti's version ultimately came to have the name of Mahabharata. The book has grown both in size and in the subject matter as well.

The 'Jaya' of Vyas was small work having not more than 8800 Shlokas. In the hands of Vaishampayana it grew into 24000 verses. Sauti expanded it to contain 96836 Shlokas. As to subject matter the original as composed by Vyas was only a story of the war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas. In the hands of Vaishyampayana the subject became two-fold. To the original story there was added the sermon. From a purely historical work, it became a diadactic work aiming to teach a right code of social, moral and religious duties. Sauti the last Editor made it an all-embracing repository of legendary lore. All the smaller floating legends and historical stories
which existed independently of the Bharata were brought together by Sauti so that they might not be lost or that they may be found togeher. Sauti had another ambition, that was to make the Bharata a storehouse of learning and knowledge. This is the reason why he added sections on all branches of knowledge, such as politics, geography, archary etc. Taking into account Sauti's habit of repetition, it is no wonder that the Bharata in his hand became Mahabharata.

Now as to the date of its composition. There is no doubt that the war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas is a very ancient event. But that does not mean that the composition of Vyas is as old as the event or contemporaneous with the event. It is difficult to assign specific dates to the different editions. Taking it as a whole Prof. Hopkins says :[f55][f19]
"The time of the whole Mahabharata generally speaking may then be from 200-400 A.D. This, however, takes into account neither subsequent additions, such as we know to have been made in later times, nor the various recasting in verbal form, which may safely be assumed to have occurred at the hands of successive copyists."

But there are other circumstances which definitely point to a later date. The Mahabharat contains a reference to the Huns. It was Skandagupta who fought the Huns and defeated them in or about the year 455 A.D.. Notwithstanding this the invasions of the Huns continued till 528 A.D. It is obvious that the Mahabharat was being written about his time or therefter.

There are other indications which suggest a much later date. The Mahabharat refers to the Mlenchhas or the Muslims. In the 190th Adhyaya of the Vana Parva of the Mahabharat there is a verse 29 wherein the author says that "the whole world will be Islamic. All Yadnas, rites and ceremonies and religious celebrations will cease". This is a direct reference to the Muslims and although the verse speaks of what is to happen in the future, the Mahabharat being a Purana must as in the case of the Purana be taken to speak of the event that has happened. This verse so interpreted show that the Mahabharat was being written after the date of the Muslim invasions of India. There are other references which point to the same conclusion.

In the same Adhyaya verse 59, it is said that "Oppressed by the Vrashalas, the Brahmins struck with fear and finding no one to protect them, will roam all over the world groaning and crying in agony". The Vrashalas referred to in this verse cannot be the Buddhists. There is no particle of evidence that the Brahmins were ever oppressed. On the contrary the evidence is that the Brahmins, during the Buddhists regime, were treated with the same liberality as the Buddhist Bhikshus. The reference to the Vrashalas means the uncultured must be to the Islamic invaders.

There occur other verses in the same Adhyaya of the Vanaparva. They are 65, 66 and 67. In these verses it is said that, "Society will become disarranged. People will worship Yedukas. They will boycott Gods. The Shudras will not serve the twice-born. The whole world will be covered with Yedukas. The Yug will come to an end." What is the meaning of the term ' Yedukas '? By some it has been taken
to mean a Buddhist Chaitya. But according to Mr. Kausambi[f56][f20] this is wrong. Nowhere either in the Buddhist literature or in the Vedic literature is the word Yeduka used in the sense of `Chaitya'. On the contrary according to the Amarkosh as commented upon by Maheshwar Bhatt the word Yeduka means a wall which contains a wooden structure to give it strength. So understood Kausambi contends that the word Yeduka must mean `Idgaha' of the Musalmans before which they say their prayers. If this is a correct interpretation then it is obvious that parts of the Mahabharata were written after the invasion of Mohammad Ghori. The first Muslim invasion took place in 712 A.D. under lbne Kassim. He captured some of the towns in Northern India but did not cause much
destruction. He was followed by Mohammad of Gazni. He caused great destruction of Temples and Viharas and massacred priests of both religions. But he did not engage himself in building Mosques or Idgahas. That was done by Mohammad Ghori. From this it can be said that the writing of the Mahabharata was not complete till 1200 A.D.

 

[seek10]

Regarding spread of Buddhism in the pre christian era, Ambedkar wrote it spread as far as Celtic Britain before Roman conquer of the land.

He left an indelible mark on the Aryan Society and although his name has gone out of India the impression of his teaching still remains. His religion spread like wild fire. It soon became the religion of the whole of India. But it did not remain confined to India. It reached every corner of the then known world. All races accepted it. Even the Afghans were once Buddhists. It did not remain confined to Asia. There is evidence to show that Buddhism was the religion of Celtic Britain.[f15][f15] What was the cause of this rapid spread of Buddhism?

[f15]l)r. Donald A. Mackenzie. 'Buddhism in Pre-Christian Britain, Blackie & Son. l.ondon, 1928.—Editors

Donald A. Mackenzie's book is available in archive.org Here and also on amazon for 700 bucks and few papers on the educational pay walls . After rapid skimming through it, I am not completely convinced.

The evidence seems to be:
- As per rock edicts of Mauryan emperor Ashoka ( 268 BCE - 232 BCE) send delegations all over the places including far away places in Europe and claimed to have made religious conquests.
- They found few Celto-buddhist figures that is associated with Celto-Irish folklore. These figures has characteristics of Buddha pose and horned serpent in one hand.
- They also found figurines with horned serpents in the America's and some seems to associate it with Buddhism- I am not convinced. as symbols of the comet plasma items ( horned snakes) are visible all over the world and hard to say which one caused what.

 

[goyacobol]

Does it mean Non-Aryan Indians (aka indus valley civilization descendants) are addicted to God due to some gene? Does this has any thing to do with C's mentioned related to Mohanjadaro?
1994-10-23

I think it may be connected as everything is in some way.

Session 23 October 1994:

Q: (L) If we had a book with the inscriptions from the city of Mohenjo Daro, would you be able to translate them for us?

A: Maybe.

Session 20 October 1994:

Q: Who built the city of Mohenjo-Daro?

A: Lizards directly. Coatzlmundi legend ties in to this directly look at illustrations on stones now.

Q: Who is Coatzlmundi?

A: Other deity of the Lizards worshipped by the Atlanteans and their descendants because of the direct contact with humans for 1000 years.

Q: Now, you said Mohenjo Daro was built by the Lizzies directly. Did they occupy this city themselves?

A: No.

Q: When was this city last inhabited continually?

A: 3065 years ago.

Q: When was it built?

A: 6092 years ago.

Q: I would like to go back to the subject of the Nephilim. Now you said the Nephilim were a group of humanoid types brought here to earth to be enforcers, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: When were they brought here?

A: 9046 B.C. one reference.

Q: They were giants, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Strangely, as I was trying to make some connections I found some researchers who are finding the sessions and making discoveries that the mainstream are not reporting (therefore not verifiable and may be psyop or a scam but interesting). I think what is found is a small compilation by perhaps a non-professional type curious individual that is trying to put the pieces together. I do not think it is proof of finding "reptilian" hybridization but may be the indication of efforts to create the Nephilim hybrids. I was not going to post it knowing it is someones' speculations but I think the pictures and findings are at least partially factual enough to consider.

The Bloodlines of Zu​

This long-term manipulation of Earthly humanity explains the great abundance of decapitated or mutilated
reptilian hybrid skeletons deposited en masse in deep pits. Human populations rebelled against an imposed
system of worship involving human sacrifices to appease the reptilian gods’ desire for fresh human blood.
Many macabre archeological finds clearly indicate that during later periods of the Atleantean Era, from
~17,000-13,000bp, positive spiritual activities that traditionally involved blood removal for physical
regeneration in the pyramid chambers became entirely subverted as rituals that included animal and even
human sacrifice. The decisively negative spiritual orientation of such regressive ritual activities became
prominent among the people of Mu, when worship of the giant reptilian humanoids became widespread.

The bizarre subject of ritual human sacrifices to a reptilian-inspired deity named Coatzlmundi was directly
addressed in channeled material by a world famous psychic medium decades ago, and remains the most
comprehensive explanation for the many bizarre behaviors exhibited by ancient and modern humans alike.
‘Coatzlmundi’ is a Paleo-Sanskrit votive name composed of eight hieroglyphs reading: c o at z l mu n di ,
meaning “cloud, oh, pervading from within, (the) essence (of ) Mu: (the) presence desirous”.

Quite extensive and highly disturbing information concerning the appearance, homeworld, self-serving
motives and advanced hyperdimensional capabilities of Homo draconis was offered by the Akashic Source
through the Cassiopaea Experiment channel Laura Knight-Jadczyk (given as dialogs compiled from session
dates September 30, October 20 and 22 of 1994; and continued on August 8 and October 14 of 1995):


Q: (L) Was the human race genetically engineered to be slaves? A: Yes.


Q: (L) And who were the genetic engineers of this slavehood? A: Lizard beings [or “Drachomonoids”].


Q: (L) Where do they come from: Earth or another planet? A: Other... Qaddeera.


Q: (L) What star system is that in? A: Zeta Reticuli.


Q: (L) Are the little gray beings from Zeta Reticuli also? A: Yes.


Q: (L) Are the little gray beings... A: Cybergenetic.


Q: (L) Are they created by the lizards? A: Yes…


Q: Who built the city of Mohenjo-Daro?

A: Lizards directly. Coatzlmundi legend ties in to this directly look at illustrations on stones now.

Q: Who is Coatzlmundi?

A: Other deity of the Lizards worshipped by the Atlanteans and their descendants because of the direct contact

with humans for 1000 years.

Q: Now, you said Mohenjo Daro was built by the Lizzies directly. Did they occupy this city themselves? A: No.

Q: When was this city last inhabited continually? A: 3065 years ago.

Q: When was it built? A: 6092 years ago…

Q: (L) Did any aliens at all, and specifically the Lizzies, ever live among mankind and receive worship?

A: They did not live among mankind, but they did interact directly with human beings, at various points in the

past. It was at those points when human beings were ready, willing and able to accept deities appearing directly

from outside sources and then worship them. Such things would not have occurred in the recent past. But,

beware, it may very well occur very soon…

Q: (L) Who built the city of Angkor Wat?

A: That was built by the Lizard Beings themselves. Built approximately 3108 years ago…

Q: (L) Who did they build the cities for?

A: They built the cities for themselves and their worshippers amongst humans...

Q: (L) At one point in a previous transmission it was stated that the Lizard beings altered the human race after a

battle for their own "feeding" purposes. Could you clarify this?

A: It would not be possible for these beings to completely control your existence. If it were you would not be able

to do the things your race has done. There has been interference by the Lizard beings in the physical structure

of the human beings for their own benefit. Remember what we told you before. They have been interfering with

the time cycle experienced on this plane, for quite some time as you measure it. For 74 thousand years they

have been interfering in a backwards and forwards time reference manner in order to set up circumstances that

they perceive to be beneficial for them in the measure of time that you would consider to be forward, that is, in

the future. They have been going backwards and forwards in time to do this. They are suspended in the time

cycle as they do this. So what they perceive as being your equivalent of one hour could be as long as 74

thousand years.

Q: (L) So they haven't been here for 300 thousand years?

A: They originally set up circumstances for their benefit 309 thousand years ago, however, they have been using

the particular bracketed period of the 74 thousand year period to alter things in all the various ways mentioned

earlier…

Q: (L) Who was Arajuna of Tiahuanaco?

A: Well, we believe that you are referring to one of approximately eight hybrids that ruled the area currently

referred to as Central America. Hybrids being a 4th density to 3rd density transfer experiment from the Lizard

race to the human race, which was abandoned after approximately 240 years of experimentation by the Lizard

Beings, due to the lack of success for sustaining physical duplication, or reproduction of the race. It was one of

several attempts by the Lizard Beings to directly transmit their souls into 3rd density environment for permanent

placement there. And, of course it is no longer perceived as necessary by them because their intention is to rule

3rd density beings in 4th density when they arrive there.

Q: (L) Who built the city of Tiahuanaco? A: The Lizard Beings in cooperation with humans.

Q: (L) When was it built? A: Varying time frames since it seems to have been destroyed at two points. We have

to estimate an average of 8,000 years prior to the current time, as you measure it…

(L) In terms of finite numbers, how many of these STS aliens of any different group, or any combination of

groups all together, do we have operating on this planet at the present time? A: Specify.

Q: (L) OK, how many Lizzies are operating on the planet? A: 300,000...

Q: (L) How many grays? A: 2,750,000.

I have been wondering if it is not the interpretation of Cosmic events that causes the creation of these "Gods" and definitions of their attributes. I noticed that "Manu" seems to be defined differently for different groups in different eras.

There is a picture from a 100 year-old book that seems to depict Manu as holding a "trent". It could be a more recent addition so it may not be a typical attribute of Manu but I found it interesting.



Maybe the "Trent" represents the one who holds the power and there is a constant struggle to possess the "Trent" and wars are fought over it. There is also the "Spear of Destiny" which may have a similar or same meaning.

 

[sid]

@seek10, from what you have posted, would you say that the Manusmirti was employed heavily albeit in a modified form by the Brahmans to create an anti-Buddhist sentiment? And in the process, they oversaw rewriting of the Mahabharata and Ramayana epics, inserting more fake or ancient stories of gods etc to create a more didactic narrative. Also, preaching the cow-worship dogma amongst the masses in a "cutting my nose to spite your face" manner? Interestingly, I wonder why they went after the cows. Deeply seated fear of "the Bull", perhaps?

Also, thank you for the effort you are putting into this, its helping clear out a few things.

 

[seek10]

@seek10, from what you have posted, would you say that the Manusmirti was employed heavily albeit in a modified form by the Brahmans to create an anti-Buddhist sentiment?

No. Manusmruti is madman's dream. No body in the right mind will follow the ridiculous socially inequal system ( that places Brahmin to the level of God) when there are very good alternatives like established Buddhism , Jainism, 100 different sects based on Vedic commentaries leaving aside cults based on Krishna and so on. Which no body followed it either initially. In order to give it a some traction, lot of other things were written including purana's and most importantly Bhagawat Gita. There are other factors intervened to give lot more urgency to it at the village level.

Ambedkar called it Manu's madness, he publicly burned books of manusmriti in 1927 to point out the absurdity of it.

Why did Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar publicly burn the Manu Smruti on Dec. 25, 1927? | SabrangIndia

This story was first published on January 26, 2016. (Towards Equality: Why did Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar publicly burn the Manu Smruti on December 25, 1927?). We are re-publishing it today, December 24, 2017. Manusmruti Dahan Din

www.sabrangindia.in

And in the process, they oversaw rewriting of the Mahabharata and Ramayana epics, inserting more fake or ancient stories of gods etc to create a more didactic narrative. Also, preaching the cow-worship dogma amongst the masses in a "cutting my nose to spite your face" manner? Interestingly, I wonder why they went after the cows. Deeply seated fear of "the Bull", perhaps?

It is little more complicated than that and I have to write it in timewise sequence to give some clarity. I will have to do it later as I was heading into HBOT.

 

[seek10]

I have been wondering if it is not the interpretation of Cosmic events that causes the creation of these "Gods" and definitions of their attributes. I noticed that "Manu" seems to be defined differently for different groups in different eras.

The word Manu seems to come few different contexts in the Hindu texts seems to have special significance to Aryan culture.

1. "Person" who wrote Manusmriti: There is a consensus that "Manu" is not a real person. Ambedkar mentioned Manu is the person called Sumati Bhargava created these laws between 170 BC to 150 BC after the demise of Mauryan empire in 185 BC in the hand of Brahmin commander Pushyamitra Sungha who created his own dynasty in 185 BC.

Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India ( pdf page 127)

Another piece of evidence which shows that the origin and purpose of the revolution by Pushyamitra against the Mauryas was to destroy Buddhism and establish Brahmanism is evidenced by the promulgation of Manu Smriti as a code of laws.

The Manu Smriti is said to be divine in its origin. It is said to be revealed to man by Manu to whom it was revealed by the Swayambhu (i.e. the Creator). This claim, as will be seen from the reference already made to it, is set out in the Code itself. It is surprizing that nobody has cared to examine the grounds of such a claim. The result is that there is a complete failure to realise the significance, place and position of the Manu Smriti in the history of India. This is true even of the historians of India although the Manu Smriti is a record of the greatest social revolution that Hindu society has undergone. There can however be no doubt that the claim made in the Manu Smriti regarding its authorship is an utter fraud and the beliefs arising out of this false claim are quite untenable.

The name Manu had a great prestige in the ancient history of India and it is with the object to invest the code with this ancient prestige that its authorship was attributed to Manu. That this was a fraud to deceive people is beyond question. The code itself is signed[f98][f62] in the family name of Bhrigu as was the ancient custom. "The Text Composed by Bhrigu (entitled) "The Dharma Code of Manu" is the real title of the work. The name Bhrigu is subscribed to the end of every chapter of the Code itself.

We have therefore the family name of the author of the Code. His personal name is not disclosed in the Book. All the same it was known to many. The Author of Narada Smriti writing in about the 4th Century A.D. knew the name of the author of the Manu Smriti and gives out the secret. According to Narada it was one Sumati Bhargava who composed the Code of Manu. Sumati Bhargava is not a legendary name, and must have been historical person for even Medhatithe[f99][f63] the great commentator on the Code of Manu held the view that this Manu was 'a certain individual'.

Manu therefore is the assumed name of Sumati Bhargava who is the real author of Manu Smriti. When did this Sumati Bhargava compose this Code? It is not possible to give any precise date for its composition. But quite a precise period during which it was composed can be given. According to scholars whose authority cannot be questioned Sumati Bhargava must have composed the Code which he deliberately called Munu Smriti between 170 B.C. and 150 B.C. Now if one bears in mind the fact that the Brahmanic Revolution by Pushyamitra took place in 185 B.C. there remains no doubt that the code known as Manu Smriti was promulgated by Pushyamitra as embodying the principles of Brahmanic Revolution against the Buddhist state of the Mauryas. That the Manu Smriti forms the Institutes of Brahmanism and are a proof that Pushyamitra Revolution was not a purely personal adventure will be clear to any one who cares to note the following peculiarities relating to the Manu Smriti.

First thing to be noted is that the Manu Smriti is a new Code of law promulgated for the first time during the reign of Pushyamitra.

2. Title of the officer responsible for Hindu order of things in each cycle called "Manvantara": There are many cycles within cycles.
Riddles in Hinduism ( pdf page page 359)

RIDDLE NO. 21
THE THEORY OF MANVANTARA

The Brahmins had a theory of the Government of their country from Heaven. This seems to be the idea underlying what is called a Manvantara.

The idea underlying a Manvantara is related to the political Government of the country. It is founded on the belief that the Government of the world is entrusted to a corporation for a fixed period. This corporation consists of an officer called Manu and Saptarishis (seven Rishis) and one Indra conducting the affairs of the country from their seats in Heaven without consulting the people or ascertaining their wishes. The period of the reign by one corporation is called a Manvantara after Manu the premier authority in the ruling set. When the reign of one Manu is over he is succeeded by another Manu and so on. As in the case of the Yugas, the Manvantaras also move in cycles. Fourteen Manvantaras make one cycle.

The Vishnu Purana gives us an idea of these Manvantaras which is as follows:

"Then Brahma created himself the Manu Swayambhuva, born of, and identical with, his original self, for the protection of created beings; and the female portion of himself he constituted Satarupa, whom austerity purified from the sin (of forbidden nuptials), and whom the divine Manu Swayambhuva took to wife. Stopping here for the moment one might ask—What does this mean?

Does it mean that Brahma was a hermaphrodite? Does it mean that Manu Swayambhu married his sister. Satarupa? How very strange if this is true as the Vishnu Purana seems to suggest. The Vishnu Purana proceeds to say:

" From these two are born two sons, Priyavrata and Uttanpada, and two daughters, named Prasuti and Akuti graced with loveliness and exhalted merit.

Prasuti he gave to Daksha and gave Akuti to the Patriarch Ruchi, who espoused her. Akuti bore to Ruchi twins, Yajna and Dakshina, who afterwards became husband and wife (again a case of a brother marrying his sister) and had twelve sons, the deities called Yamas, in the Manvantara of Swayambhuva."

"The first Manu was Swayambhuva, then came Swarochisha, then Auttami, then Tamasa, then Raivata, then Chakshusha; these six Manus have passed away. The Manu who presides over the seventh Manvantara, which is the present period, is Vaivaswata the son of the sun."

If you want to read the characters ( officer(Manu) and his helpers (Saptarishis's) ) in other cycles (Manvatara's) 14 in total, here is the list.

"I will now, enumerate, says the author of the Vishnu Purana, the presiding Gods, Rishis, and sons of the Manu Swarochisha. The deities of this period (or the second Manvantara) were called Paravatas and Tushitas; and the King of the gods was the mighty Vipaschit. The seven Rishis were Urja, Stambha, Prana, Dattoli, Rishabha, Nischara, and Arvarivat. And Chaitra, Kimpurusha, and others were the Manu's sons.

"In the third period, or Manwantara of Auttamin, Susanti was the Indra, the king of the gods, the orders of whom were the Sudhamas, Satyas, Sivas, Pradersanas, and Vasavertis; each of the five orders consisting of twelve divinities. The seven sons of Vasishtha were the seven Rishis; and Aja, Parasu, Divya, and others were the sons of Manu.

" In the period of Tamasa, the fourth Manu, the Surupas, Haris, Satyas, and Sudhis were the classes of Gods, each comprising twenty-seven. Sivi was the Indra, also designated by his performance of a hundred sacrifices (or named Satakratu). The seven Rishis were Jyotirdhama, Prithu, Kavya, Chaitra, Agni, Vanaka and Pivara. The sons of Tamasa were the mighty kingsNara, Khyati, Santhaya, Janujangha and others."

"In the fifth interval (Manvantara) the Manu was Raivata; the Indra was Vibhu, the classes of gods, consisting of fourteen each, were the Amitbhas, Abhutarasas, Vaikunthas, and Sumedhas; the seven Rishis were Hiranyaroma, Vedasri, Urddhabahu, Vedabahu, Sudhaman, Parjanya and Mahamuni; the sons of Raivata were Balabandhu, Susambhavya, Satyaka, and other valiant
kings."

"These four Manus, Swarochisha, Auttami, Tamasa, and Raivata, were all descended from Priyavrata, who in consequence of propitiating Vishnu by his devotions, obtained these rules of the Manvantaras for his posterity.
"Chakshusha was the Manu of the sixth period in which the Indra was Manojva;the five classes of Gods were the Adyas,Prastutas, Bhavyas, Prithugas, and the magnanimous Lekhas eight of each Sumedhas, Virajas,Havishmat, Uttama, Madhu, Abhinaman and Sahishnu were the seven sages; the kings of theearth, the sons of Chaksusha, were the powerful Uru, Puru, Satadhumna and others."

"The Manu of the present seventh Manvantara is the wise lord of obsequies, and illustrious offspring of the sun called Manu Vaivaswata and deities are the Adityas, Vasus and Rudras; their sovereign is Purandara; Vasishtha, Kasyapa, Atri, Jamadagni, Gautama, Viswamitra and Bharadwaja are the seven Rishis; and the nine pious sons of Vaivaswata Manu are the kings of Ikshwaku, Nabhanidishta, Karusha, Prishadhra, and the celebrated Vasumat." So far the particulars of seven Manvantaras which are given by the Vishnu Purana relate to Manvantaras which had run out at the time when the Vishnu Purana was written. Whether the rule of the Manvantaras was an external one the Brahmins have been silent. But the author of the Vishnu Purana knew that seven more Manvantaras were to come. Below are given the particulars of these seven.

"Sanjana, the daughter of Vishwakarman was the wife of the sun, and bore him, three children, the Manu (Vaivaswata), Yama and the goddess Yami (or the Yamuna river). Unable to endure the fervours of her lord, Sanjana gave him Chhaya as his handmaid, and repaired to the forests to practise devout exercises. The sun, supposing Chhaya to be his wife Sanjana, begot by her three other children Sanaischara (Saturn), another Manu (Savarni) and a daughter Tapati (the Tapti river). Chhaya upon one occasion, being offended with Yama, the son of Sanjana, denounced an imprecation upon him, and thereby revealed to Yama and to the sun that she was not in truth
Sanjana, the mother of the former. Being further informed by Chhaya that his wife had gone to the wilderness the sun beheld her by the eye of meditation engaged in austerities, in the figure of a mare (in the region of Uttara Kuru). Metamorphosing himself into a horse, he rejoined his wife, and begot three other children, the two Aswins, and Revanta, and then brought Sanjana back to his own dwelling. To diminish his intensity, Vishwakaraman placed the luminary on his lathe to grind off some of his effulgence; and in this manner reduced it an eighth: for more than that was inseparable. The parts of the divine Vaishnava splendour, residing in the sun, that were filed off by Viswakaraman fell blazing down upon the earth, and the artist constructed of them the discuss of Vishnu, the trident of Shiva, the weapon of the god of wealth, the lance of Kartikeya, and the weapons of the other gods: all these Viswakarman fabricated from the superflous rays of the sun."

"The son of Chhaya, who was called also a Manu was denominated Savarni, from being of the same caste (Savarni) as his elder brother, the Manu Vaivaswata. He presides over the ensuing or eighth Manvantara; the particulars of which and the following, I will now relate. In the period in which Savarni shall be the Manu, the classes of the gods will be Sutapas, Ambitabhas and Mukhyas: twenty-one of each. The seven Rishis will be Diptimat, Galava, Rama, Kripa, Drauni; my son Vyasa will be the sixth and the seventh will be Rishyasringa. The Indra will be Bali, the sinless son of Virochana who through the favour of Vishnu is actually sovereign of part of Patala. The royal progeny of Savarni will be Virajas, Arvarivas, Nirmoha, and others."

" The ninth Manu will be Dakshasavarni. The Paras, Marichigarbhas and Sudharrnas- will be the three classes of divinities; each consisting of twelve, their powerful chief will be the Indra Adbhuta Savana, Dyutimat, Bhavya, Vasu, Medhatithi, Jyotishaman and Satya, will be he seven Rishis Dhritketu, Driptiketu, Panchahasta, Nirmaya, Prithusrava, and others will be the sons of the Manu. " In the tenth Manwantara the Manu will be Brahma-savarni; the gods will be the Sudhamas, Virudhas, and Satasankhyas; the Indra will be the mighty Santi; the Rishis will be Havishaman, Sukriti, Satya, Appammurthi, Nabhaga, Apratimaujas and Satyaketu; and the ten sons of the Manu will be Sukshetra, Uttamaujas, Harishena and others."

" In the eleventh Manwantara the Manu will be Dharma-savarni; the principal classes of gods will be the Vihangamas. Karnagamas, and the Nirmanaratis, each thirty in number; of whom Vrisha will be the Indra; the Rishis will be Nischara, Agnitejas, Vapushaman, Vishnu, Aruni, Havishaman, and Anagha; the kings of the earth, and sons of the Manu, will be Savarga, Sarvadharma, Devanika, and others."

"In the twelfth Manvantara the son of Rudra-Savarni, will be the Manu; Ritudhama will be the Indra; and the Haritas, Lohitas; Sumanasas and Sukramas will be the classes of gods, each comprising fifteen Tapaswi, Sutapas, Tapomurti, Taporti, Tapodhriti, Tapodyuti and Tapodhana will be the Rishis; and Devas, Upadeva, Devasreshtha and others will be the manu's sons, and mighty monarchs on the earth."

"In the thirteenth Manvantara the Manu will be Rauchya; the classes of gods, thirty-three in each, will be Sudhamanas, Sudharmans and Sukarmanas, their Indra will be Divaspati; the Rishis will be Nirmoha, Tatwadersin, Nishprakampa, Nirutsuka, Dhritimat, Avyaya and
Sutapas; and Chitrasena, Vichitra, and others will be the kings."

" In the fourteenth Manvantara, Bhautya will be the Manu; Suchi, the Indra; the five classes of gods will be the Chakshushas, the Pavitras, Kanishthas Bhrajiras and Vavriddhas; the seven Rishis will be Agnibahu, Suchi, Sikra, Magadha, Gridhra, Yukta and Ajita; and the sons of the Manu will be Uru, Gabhir, Gabhira, Bradhna and others who will be kings, and will rule over, the earth." Such is the theory of Manvantaras. We now hear of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Brahmanic theory was just the opposite of it. It was a theory of the Dictatorship over the Proletariat by the Heavenly fathers.

Be that as it may the question that primarily comes to one's mind is: How these fourteen Manus who succeeded one another rule the people? What laws did they make for the governance of the people? The only place where one can get an answer is the Manusmriti.

How Manusmriti positioned this "divine order" as follows

Referring to the first chapter of Manusmriti we get the following answer:

Ch. I. 1. The great sages approached Manu, who was seated with a collected mind, and, having duly worshipped him spoke as follows:
2. Deign, divine one, do declare to us precisely and in due order the sacred laws of each of the (four chief) castes (Varna) and of the intermediate ones.
3. For thou, O Lord, alone knowest the purport of the rites and knowledge of the Soul taught in this whole ordinance of the Swayambhu (Manu) which is unknowable and unfathomable. Manu replies to them saying:
5. This universe existed in the shape of darkness unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly immersed as it were in deep sleep.
8. Swayambhu Manu desiring to produce beings of many kinds from his own body, first with a thought created the waters and placed his seed in them.
9. That (Seed) became a golden egg, in brilliancy equal to the sun; in that Egg he himself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole world.
34. Then, I, desiring to produce created beings performed very difficult austerities and thereby called into existence ten great sages, lords of created beings.
35. Marichi, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Prachetas, Vashishta, Bhrugu and Narada.
58. But he having composed these Institutes of the sacred law, himself taught them, according to rule, to me alone in the beginning: next I taught them to Marichi and the other sages.
59. Bhrigu will fully recite to you these Institutes; for that sage learned the whole in its entirety from me.

From this it appears that the only Manu who made laws was the Swayambhu Manu. According to Vishnu Purana, each Manvantara had its own Manu. Why did they not make laws for their own Manvantara. Or was it the laws made by Swayambhu Manu were to be Eternal. If so, why did the Brahmins have separate Manvantara.

Template the Smriti's and later Hindu corpus were constructed during the Counter Revolution phase ( 185 BC) is as follows.

Smrtis represent the remembered, written tradition in Hinduism.[8] The Smrti literature is a vast corpus of derivative work. All Smriti texts are regarded to ultimately be rooted in or inspired by Shruti.[1]

The Smrti corpus includes, but is not limited to:[8][9]

1. The six Vedāngas (grammar, meter, phonetics, etymology, astronomy and rituals),[8][19][20]
2. The Itihasa (literally means "so indeed it was"), Epics (the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyana),[8][10]
3. The texts on the four proper goals or aims of human life:[21]
   1. Dharma: These texts discuss dharma from various religious, social, duties, morals and personal ethics perspective. Each of six major schools of Hinduism has its own literature on dharma. Examples include Dharma-sutras (particularly by Gautama, Apastamba, Baudhayana and Vāsiṣṭha) and Dharma-sastras (particularly Manusmṛti, Yājñavalkya Smṛti, Nāradasmṛti and Viṣṇusmṛti). At the personal dharma level, this includes many chapters of Yogasutras.
   2. Artha: Artha-related texts discuss artha from individual, social and as a compendium of economic policies, politics and laws. For example, the Arthashastra of Chanakya, the Kamandakiya Nitisara,[22] Brihaspati Sutra,[23] and Sukra Niti.[24] Olivelle states that most Artha-related treatises from ancient India have been lost.[25]
   3. Kama: These discuss arts, emotions, love, erotics, relationships and other sciences in the pursuit of pleasure. The Kamasutra of Vātsyāyana is most well known. Others texts include Ratirahasya, Jayamangala, Smaradipika, Ratimanjari, Ratiratnapradipika, Ananga Ranga among others.[26]
   4. Moksha: These develop and debate the nature and process of liberation, freedom and spiritual release. Major treatises on the pursuit of moksa include the later Upanishads (early Upanishads are considered Sruti literature), Vivekachudamani, and the sastras on Yoga.
4. The Purānas (literally, "of old"),[8][10]
5. The Kāvya or poetical literature,[8]
6. The extensive Bhasyas (reviews and commentaries on Shrutis and non-Shruti texts),[8]
7. The sutras and shastras of the various schools of Hindu philosophy[27]
8. The numerous Nibandhas (digests) covering politics, medicine (Caraka Samhita), ethics (Nitisastras),[7] culture, arts and society.[8]

In some ways, The entire Brahmanical theology ( or order of things for Hindu society trickled down from cosmos) are based on PurushaSukhta. PurushaSukhta is some thing written in Micheal Witzel's 'The origins of World Mythologies'. It is a cosmic phenomenon that was visible at some point in the past ( probably rig veda time1500BC or before) and each culture interpreted in their own way. Even in India, PurushaSukhta doesn't have much importance before Manusmiriti ( 170 BC-150 BC). They saw some human shaped plasma activity called it God Brahma.


Brahma, Brahmin and Brahmi

• Brahma is the word comes up with PurushaSukhta and is mentioned as 3 headed God of creation, one of the trinity of Gods in India. It is human shaped phenomenon as a result of cosmic bodies.
• Brahmin is priest/intellectual class and they performed specific function in Ancient Aryan society.
• Brahmi is the script that is used to write both Aryan languages ( Sanskrit and downwards to current day Hindi) and Dravidian spoken languages ( Tamil, Telugu etc.) . Origins of the Brahmi script is unknown. According to one hypothesis, it came from Indus Valley civilization (IVC). If it came from IVC, why so much difficulty in deciphering IVC inscriptions is a mystery. So there is no consensus on it. Despite all archiac dates like 1500 BC for Rig veda, all the Aryan scriptures were written down around 100 BC using Brahmi script from verbal traditions.

 

[seek10]

@seek10, from what you have posted, would you say that the Manusmirti was employed heavily albeit in a modified form by the Brahmans to create an anti-Buddhist sentiment? And in the process, they oversaw rewriting of the Mahabharata and Ramayana epics, inserting more fake or ancient stories of gods etc to create a more didactic narrative. Also, preaching the cow-worship dogma amongst the masses in a "cutting my nose to spite your face" manner? Interestingly, I wonder why they went after the cows. Deeply seated fear of "the Bull", perhaps?

Documentation wise, Caste hierarchies and its regulations ( endogamy, restrictions on meal sharing) etc. started with ManuSmriti ( 170 BC-150 BC). Though Ambedkar gives lot of importance to it, but NONE of the other Historians gives too much importance to it. Given that popular nationwide Buddhist empire existed until 185BC, writing of a document doesn't make much difference as kingdoms/Kings keep on changing, as advisors Brahmins have limited power in enforcing it and also it is gigantic task. If we look the rulers and their religious preference, they are always changing, impossible to get clear pattern. So every historian or leader leaves Caste origins as a unsolvable puzzle or Manusmriti.

Challenge with defining Caste and its regulations: Every body followed irrespective of location ( within India),followers of Hindu/Brahmanism, Buddhists, Jains, All sects that are fighting with each other and later Muslims. But it only mentioned in Manusmriti and later texts - later versions of MahaBharata, Gita, all the Puranas. Caste is not something enforced from the top, it is something enforced with in by themselves voluntarily. Ambedkar calls it something "deep" in the psyche of the land that forced them to do it, though people have no issues praying to Hindu gods, Allah, Buddha or Jesus all at once. That is "Peculiarity" of the Caste.

But, if We plug-in C's comments of cosmic event, addition of 470 years, everything will fall in place nicely. In a less than century after Manusmriti written, some cosmic event came, animals start dying, so every body hunkered down, be careful with whom to mix. So naturally credit goes to Manusmriti and it revitalizes Hinduism and all sorts of Puranas returned their template of fantastic gods, good over evil, rituals to please those gods, society order and rules, geneological records of local rulers and so on, making Vedas Infallible( As chaturvarna- 4 castes is based on PurushaSuktha from RigVeda).

The origins of Ambedkar's thesis is based on few observations - Most of the beef eaters are untouchables and there are places untouchables demand dead cow as theirs. And most of them are Buddhists. Given that no body has answer, he decided to dig into all the literature of Hinduism, Buddhism and Western commentators and so on and came up with his hypothesis. If we add C's confirmation, Cosmic event came first, so Brahmins have no option to switch diet ( Make Lemonade, when one only have lemon) and conveniently used it as a propaganda piece as a superior over Buddhism and influenced the rulers whomever they can. Even after all that, Buddhism survived for 800 years and their national university flourished after that, before Muslim invaders completely eliminated ot.

Challenge with dates in the Indian context: Most of the dates are from the rock edicts or titles to temples and other structures or religious texts ( written or oral). the general problem with religious texts is they tend to contains some sort of exaggerations. so Historians, cross relate them and fill the gaps. Error in one reference point will lead to others. So hard to say exact date only range of dates. As usual these texts evolve in phases/iterations to address issues of those times. Here is a table of flow of events I can make of

Period​	Phase​	Important events that contribute to Modern day noise.​
1500 BC - 500 BC​	Around the end of Bronze Age​	Vedas: Rigveda(1500 BC) Atharvana Veda, Sama Veda, Yajurveda (black Veda) Bharata Tribe Wars (1200 BC): Vishwamitra, Sudas, - During this period Yahurveda is called black veda and is in opposition to other Vedas. In any case, Vedas are compilations of observations of Aryans. - Ramayan (original version wihtout didactic portions) : original version is long before 600 BC . - Many Vedic commentaries Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishands. - Initially Upanishads are anti-Ritual ( Anti-Veda)​
500 BC - 185 BC​	Buddha and Mauryan Empire ( Buddhist Revolution)​	400 BC: Mahabharata: Initial Version. - Buddha ( 480 BC - 400 BC) , Mauryan Empire ( 400 BC - 180 BC) - Ashoka ( 300 BC) -Social/religious equality/tolerance , Building of Transport facilities ( Roads, travel routes and shelters) , equal rights for all sexes, spread of Buddhism etc. - In this period Veda's are NOT sacrosanct and at one phase Vedas are lowest in the order of authority. - As per 300 B.C Greek Megasthene's Indica. Village as a "cell" Sacrosanct and NO warring faction ruined them. Mentions about Krishna cult in Surashena (today's Gujarat) :​
185 BC - 400 AD ( with assumption of added 470 years It really is ONLY 100 years)​	Post Mauryan period and start of Brahminical Counter Revolution.​	- Manu Smriti ( 170 BC - 150 BC) ; first phase of 3 phases of evolution of ManuSmriti using Purushasuktha of Rigveda. - At the time of Cosmic events ( 412 AD) ; Brahmanical switch to vegetarianism and Untouchability. Advent of rules of Rigidity. - Vedas starts becoming Infallable. - Caste system as group responsibility for enforcement, not Individual. - Start of caste as DNA in the Village "Cell"​
400 AD - 1000 AD​	So-called "Hindu Golden Age ( Gupta Period 400-600 AD) and other players into Indian scene ( like Rajputs), Eastern Huns etc.​	- Other phases of Manu Smiriti leading to Dharma Sastras and to Bhagawat Gita as a philosophical justification to silence the opposition. - Veda's as infallable source. - Reading Veda's under the control of Brahmin( education) only - Mostly Purana's written in this phase. (Mix of cosmic events, interspersed with Veda and Veda commentary philosphies, Yoga, Ayurveda, Grammar, Genealogies and Manu's graded social hierarchies) - Too many , - South India: Start of Bhakti movement, that spread to north. - Competition between Vishu and Shiva sect followers, Battle between in Brahminical religion vs Buddhism. Intitial setback to Buddhism. - Popular Indian Mathematicians/Astronomers of the time: Aryabhata ( 476 - 550 AD) , BrahmaGupta ( 598 - 670_AD), Varahamihira ( 505-587 AD) ; Bhaskara I ( 600 AD - 680 AD) . Timing of these astronomers is another indication that something happened.​
1000 AD - 1300 AD​	Early Islamic Invasion Phase ( Kill ALL Idolators )​	- Buddhists are the first to create massive Idols to promote Buddha since Mauryan times. Brhamins followed it. So "Kill them all- priests" phase. - Both Buddhists and Hindu Priests were Perished . Brahminism survived beacause non-priestly Brahmins picked up the reigns due to their strong social rules, carried on, but non-priestly Buddhists converted to Islam to avoid heat from Muslims and Hindus. - Invaders have enough to loot in temples and so on, so villages and their self governing village democracies are untouched until British Company days around 1800. Albaruni's India ( 1000 AD): Theology he wrote is similar to what we hear now.​
1300 BC - 1800 BC​	Islamic settlement Phase ( and other Hindu empires)​	- South India: Vijayanagara Kingdoms in South India ( 1500 AD) and Mughals later - North India: Islamic empires. - End less 3rd way guru's/fakhirs promoting their findings across all all religions.​
1800 AD - 1947 AD​	Company/Crown Phase​	- Company/Crown phase or Making of "Human Cattle" phase: sucking out every thing from village (cellular) level to London for their empire building that reached 24% of the world by 1920's. Using India as a human Lab for their European racial theories of the 19th centuries in the name of "Science" end up in WW II. - Ambedkar recreated balance sheets of East India company based on crumbles from cooked up company books. It clearly shows how British destroyed village economy in 20 years which Muslims couldn't do it 500 to 800 years inside out mode that comes with its PR that utilizes the peculiarities of the natives to justify the continuation.​

 

[seek10]

I came across the work of a Chemical engineer Nilesh Oak who gathered astronomical observations in Ramayana and Mahabharata and used them in identifying the dates using Voyager 4.5 software from Carina Soft based on planet processions etc. He claims to have found 200+ astronomy observations in Mahabharata and found similar observations in Ramayana. Hinduism has well formed list of Stars in its astronomy and widely used in these epics.

His dating puts Mahabharata as 5561 BCE and Ramayana as 12209 BCE. He has his own blog and wrote few books on the subject. He mentions about comet Enke as Lakshmana comet dated to 12209 BCE . He tries explain the entire story of Ramayan astrological observations as the validation of epic characters existence. In some places, He suggests that epic author's imagination to use fantastic sky phenomenon to represent the what is going on the ground.

Leaving aside the "religious gloss", here are some video's.

Dating of the Ramayana and Mahabharata | Nilesh Oak ​

I felt that his methodology sounds reasonable to me, but the dates are very different from what C's were suggesting. C's put Ramayan as 2300 BC event , Mahabharata is combination of few events (110 BCE)including younger dryas event ( 12000 years back). I wondered whether planetary tilts contributed for the differences. C's suggest 2 planetary tilts during these periods. There may be more, but 2 times mentioned in the sessions. 7 degrees tilt for younger dryas event and 20 degrees for 2300 BC event.

07-May-2016​

(Pierre) Two quick questions about flash-frozen mammoths. [laughter] The cometary body that impacted Earth, I would like to know what was the location of the north geographic pole before and after the impact?
A: 7 degrees different.
Q: (Pierre) Well, 7 degrees... I was asking for the location of the north geographic pole before and after the impact.
A: Close to South Central Canada.
Q: (Pierre) That's before?
(L) Didn't you ask before?
(Pierre) I asked where was it before and after. I guess that's before.
(L) I think they're talking about the tilt of the axis with the 7 degrees.
(Pierre) Okay, relative to the ecliptic.
(L) And 7 degrees change in the tilt of the axis will certainly change climate conditions.
(Pierre) Of course.
A: Yes
Q: (L) So you're saying that the lithosphere slipped that much?
A: Yes
Q: (L) Not only did the axis change, but the lithosphere slid. That would explain why all those piles and piles and piles of bones were just... I mean, they had like practically islands of bones all jumbled together in the Arctic! Almost entire islands. Just crazy.
(Pierre) South Central Canada is before?
A: Before.

cometary body that impacted Earth, during younger dryas event

22-Mar-2014​

Q: (Mr. Scott) So if you want to go to 4D, you need a bigger piece of paper so you can write a bigger set. Piece of cake. (L) Okay, are we done? (Pierre) Did the catastrophic events that occurred around 2300 BC modify the axial tilt of our planet?
A: Yes.
Q: (Pierre) How many degrees?
A: 20. Not in an "instant" but quickly enough taking scale into account.

I sent him a email with relevant C's sessions and suggesting the possibility of recalculating the dates based on the tilts C's mentioned.

 

[humbertoemigar1977]

In my current understanding this 3 pronged weapon( or Trishul) is representation of plasma phenomenon, but who puts this in which mythological character's hand ( Siva or somebody else) depends on the aim of the person who is characterizing it.

I think there is a variation in interpertation of the word 'High Priest' C's mentioned - Atlantian high prieest, Tribal high priest ( before 6000 BC invasion) or may be some tribes after Iranian farmer invasion to India ( around 6000 BC). My thought process is if the overlap happens, cosmic event first and people are overlapped over it. I was thinking Rama may be after 2300 BC event and before 110BC event.

Your question and C's answer surprised me as if it is documentation of legitimate event and led me to interesting journey. How will they document. My Initial attempt is look for clues. More I researched at it at the beginning, more confusing and frustrating it became and bringing question of what is the point of the obsession. Honestly, I want to understand my past impression of childhood, but it looked too much to ask for as I find the scenario of mind numbing complexity. At that moment I thought of reading some books as I was not much aware of the Indo-Aryans popping up exept Arya Samaj and some Aryan references in Mahabharata. I read few Romila Thapar's books and tried to make sense of them. They helped in filtering out lot of noise in the chaotic narration.

1. Indology started as a necessary furniture of British empire. British took the narration of the Brahmin's version of 4 varna's as castes. But, Early 20th century census showed at least 3000 castes. Caste is English word simplification for the Jati and Varna.
2. There are some European scholars who were fascinated by Indian culture, others repulsed by it, spent LOT of time translating it into English and analyzing it. But, most of them based on Brahmanical interpretation.
3. How it is received in India is of big controversy even today ( congress ( left/appeasers/sicularists/in to India theory) vs BJP as recent version ( Hindu dominance, Aryan, Out of India theory etc. ). Add Aryan vs Dravidian narration into it. Most picked what they thought is correct (according to their experience) and rejected many to be only mocked by others as hypocrites. May of them are participants of Independence movement. But the post independence historiography focused on sociological aspects and considered many aspects british version didn't consider - Late 1st millennium Bhakti movements, split of Hinduism into Shaivism and Vaishnaivism and their struggle with each other, influence of numerous 3rd way guru's whose ever adapting versions of Hinduism that influenced the situation over the time.

When I was wondering about how to go about this, I came across one of the Mind matters show, the guest talked about splitting the situation into mythological, philosophical, theological, historical and so on. I decided to stick to the mythological portion and possible cosmological event with the clues of long duration small scale plasma activity depicted as a arrows of the battle( we grew up watching Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan). Though I thought it is a silly way of going about it and there is no other clues and it looks it has some validity.

After C's "close enough" comment, I decided to drop the subject, but one thing bugged me is this - If the Indo-Aryans are Semi-nomadic pastorilists, they can't be vegetarians. How did it happen?

This reminded me "The myth of Holy Cow" book mentioned in the forum and decided to read it. The author D.N.Jha, a Delhi University history professor who got death threats over this book, laid out his argument that earlier veda's or its derivative versions brahmanas, aranyakas , upanishads (500 BC) or even Mahabharata( 400 BC) allowed meat eating and first sign of ban on beef eating started in Gupta period in 400 A.D. The theory is not even his and he added few chapters from B.R. Ambedkar's hypothesis as appendix. I was FASCINATED by B.R. Ambedkar's theory. This 180 degree switch from beef butchering to cow worshipping is EXTRAORDINARY even to the modern day identity politics of India (or any where).

This led me to 'what else Ambedkar said'. I thought I will read 1 or 2 books/booklets, but it went into more than a dozen and no where near completion. It was shocking to read the quotes of these Hindu scriptures on social hierarchy and FASCINATING at the same time about his brilliant logic. His extraordinary intellect in pulling out few needles in haystack and connect the dots while addressing (supporting or criticizing) every other theory existed about Hinduism's insanity towards its subjects. This opened a door that is always there, but didn't know it existed. Of course, I haven't shown interest either until recently either.

I was fascinated by his depth of knowledge (every aspect of life - scriptures, relevance to comparative society/religion/law etc. ), his meticulous research, ruthlessness in showing the mirror for all other versions/researches, clarity in pointing out the myriad intricacies ( like Jordan B Peterson)

I will write more in the next post.

How interesting what you say you have a lot of knowledge do you believe that Lord Krishna and Shiva exist as such?

In the "Bhagavad Gita" says the divinity speaking through the mouth of Krishna: "Listen to this profound secret: although I am beyond birth and rebirth and am the Lord of all that exists, because everything emanated from me, I manifest myself in my Universe and I am born by my power, my thought and will. Know thou that when virtue and justice decay in the world and vice and injustice are enthroned, then I, the Lord, manifest myself in the world in visible form as a man among men and by my influence and teachings destroy evil and injustice and restore virtue and justice. Many times have I thus appeared. Many times will I appear again."

 

[seek10]

do you believe that Lord Krishna and Shiva exist as such?

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.

30-Sep-1994​

Q: Who was the Queen of Sheba?
A: Fictional.
...
Q: Who was Arjuna?
A: Same as Sheba.
Q: Who is Shiva?
A: Same.
Q: Rama?
A: Indian. High priest influenced by Confederation.

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

The word Shiva is used as an adjective in the Rig Veda (c. 1700–1100 BCE), as an epithet for several Rigvedic deities, including Rudra.[26] The term Shiva also connotes "liberation, final emancipation" and "the auspicious one"; this adjectival usage is addressed to many deities in Vedic literature.[24][27] The term evolved from the Vedic Rudra-Shiva to the noun Shiva in the Epics and the Puranas, as an auspicious deity who is the "creator, reproducer and dissolver".[24][28]

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,

The tradition of Krishna appears to be an amalgamation of several independent deities of ancient India, the earliest to be attested being Vāsudeva.[41] Vāsudeva was a hero-god of the tribe of the Vrishnis, belonging to the Vrishni heroes, whose worship is attested from the 5th-6th century BCE in the writings of Pāṇini, and from the 2nd century BCE in epigraphy with the Heliodorus pillar.[41] At one point in time, it is thought that the tribe of the Vrishnis fused with the tribe of the Yadavas/Abhiras, whose own hero-god was named Krishna.[41] Vāsudeva and Krishna fused to become a single deity, which appears in the Mahabharata, and they started to be identified with Vishnu in the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita.[41] Around the 4th century CE, another tradition, the cult of Gopala-Krishna of the Ābhīras, the protector of cattle, was also absorbed into the Krishna tradition.[41]

The Vrishnis (Brahmi: vri-shņi) were an ancient Vedic Indian clan who were believed to be the descendants of Vrishni. It is believed that Vrishni was the son of Satvata, a descendant of Yadu, the son of Yayati. He had two wives, Gandhari and Madri. He has a son named Devamidhusha by his wife Madri. Vasudeva, the father of Krishna was the grandson of Devamidhusha.[4] According to the Puranas, the Vrishnis were residents of Dvaraka.

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.