tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post447813105345744489..comments2024-03-18T22:56:06.696+05:30Comments on Jayasree Saranathan: Maruttas as progenitors of Mundas and Asurs (Mundas-9)Jayasree Saranathan http://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-80039635659809032462014-04-22T12:23:43.679+05:302014-04-22T12:23:43.679+05:30Thanks for the link Mr Shiva.
The Kannada words g...Thanks for the link Mr Shiva. <br />The Kannada words given there are Tamil based or rather Kodum Tamil- based. Just go through them, you can make out. I know little kannada as I resided in Karnataka for some years in the past. <br /><br />Kodum Tamil can be aptly called as Proto-Tamil which was spoken by everyone in Indian subcontinent, by Manu, by his forefathers who were spread from Africa to Indonesian archipelago (Sundaland). The branch that stayed in Then-Madurai (early Pandyans)introduced grammar to Tamil which we call Senthamizh.<br /><br />Comimg to connection with Anatolia, I have written an article earlier here:-<br />http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2012/12/celts-from-kelta-and-anatolia-from.html<br /><br />There is a Tamil version of it also by me the link of which is given in that article. This is about a migration during Yayati's son's times. The first major split in Indian kins happened then.During Parashurama's times (later to yayati, but coinciding with Rama)Asurs and Paraswashis have sprung up which is discussed in the current series you are reading now. There is one more migration from South Indian sea to Greece which you will read in Greek vs Vedic astrology series. All these merged at some time, diverged at some time but lent Indian base to Europe at large. <br /><br />May be sometime in future after writing all these separately, I would do a series by putting them all together. <br /> Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-9912470737821464302014-04-22T08:41:05.141+05:302014-04-22T08:41:05.141+05:30>>>Among the early list of Assyrian kings...>>>Among the early list of Assyrian kings “who lived in tents”, the name of the first king was "Tudiya" . <br /><br />May be you have already come across the below blog..if not may be it's worth going through once... I guess the author of the below blog is also thinking along similar lines like linking collapse of IVC to the sudden appearance of Hittites in Anatolia.<br /><br />http://storyofkannada.blogspot.com/2009/10/karnata-kannada-and-anatolian-altaic.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04376061963114919833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-10885993395846630062014-04-19T19:50:40.909+05:302014-04-19T19:50:40.909+05:30it is hopeless to advocate here about anything.May...it is hopeless to advocate here about anything.May be everyone believes what has written here.But there is more truth besides here and that in our scriptures written in vaidic sanskrit and not translations.<br /><br />P.S:Thank for Ramanthan's article on samskaras.....smkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16570882731081141225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-46878201640849794062014-04-19T14:02:01.324+05:302014-04-19T14:02:01.324+05:30This is for clarification for the regular readers ...This is for clarification for the regular readers who have read most of my articles. Let them not get confused with comments by Mr smk. These readers know the kind of interpretations enshrined in Puranas from my many articles. <br /><br />The status of the 5th Veda is given precisely to Mahabharata and generally to both Mahabharata and Ramayana (Ithihasas). Verses 208 and 209 of first chapter of Adhi parva is quoted to say that Mahabharata was the 5th Veda.<br /><br />It runs thus:<br />208 catvāra ekato vedā bhārataṃ caikam ekataḥ<br /> samāgataiḥ surarṣibhis tulām āropitaṃ purā<br /> mahattve ca gurutve ca dhriyamāṇaṃ tato 'dhikam<br />209 mahattvād bhāravattvāc ca mahābhāratam ucyate<br /> <br />This means that when the four vedas were placed on one side and Bharata on the other side of the Balance, the side with Bharata was heavier. It was because of this Bharata came to be called as Mahabharata. This was interpreted to mean that Mahabharata was equal to all the 4 Vedas and that it is the 5th Veda.<br /><br />Valmiki Ramayana was by itself considered as the incarnation of the Veda Matha. When Rama (Brahman or Veda Purusha) to Dasaratha, Veda Matha could not remain without the Veda Purusha. Therefore she was born as Ramayana to Valmiki (Prachethas). This is based on the Vedic aphorism that Vedas always speak about the Brahman. The verse saying is a popular one used as part of Dhyana sloka for parayana of Ramayana. Author unknown.It runs thus:<br /><br />Veda vedhye pare pumsi jathe dasaradhathmaje,<br />Veda prachethasa daseeth sakshath Ramayanathmana. <br /><br />Because of these 2 reasons, Mahabharta and Ramayana are considered as Vedas themselves. This status is not given to Puranas which were told, retold and modified through ages until after the start of the Christian Era. <br /><br />Puranas are historic accounts that could span from millions of years to a few thousand years ago. They contain historic, geological and symbolic narrations whereas the Ithihasas are true incidents to the core. Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-45335284299769470612014-04-19T12:36:29.424+05:302014-04-19T12:36:29.424+05:30In various puranas,taittriya,brhad aranyaka upanis...In various puranas,taittriya,brhad aranyaka upanishad etc.. it is mentioned that vedas will be neglected in kali so inorder for people to understand them vyasa will condense already existing puranas into understandable one from the original veda(some section call Yajur some other Rg veda)because of this there will be some discrepancies and thus cannot be rejected on the same.<br /><br />Both Puranas and ithihasas are called fifth veda as per traditions.smkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16570882731081141225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-15203038258924463242014-04-17T18:21:29.948+05:302014-04-17T18:21:29.948+05:30Only Ithihasas (Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata) ...Only Ithihasas (Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata) are considered to be 5th Vedas. Puranas are likely to have some discrepancies. Valmiki Ramayana is taken as authentic text for reference by Acharyas like Ramanuja. Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-67553027191246219412014-04-17T17:54:20.708+05:302014-04-17T17:54:20.708+05:30@Jayasree
In all there is somewhat difference in ...@Jayasree<br /><br />In all there is somewhat difference in puranas,mahabharata & ramayana Reason for this is that for generations there was less writing like now,it was only oral recitation but during some period(may be in kali age)due to ignorance errors have crept into scriptures and during british rule it has been distorted to present versions.<br /><br />One more thing puranas & ithasas are part of veda and details included in them happened in VARIOUS KALPAS(TOTAL 30) so there will be minor differences in details like place,character etc...smkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16570882731081141225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-61819488763816698322014-04-17T14:05:27.616+05:302014-04-17T14:05:27.616+05:30Dr S. Kalyanaraman writes,
//Enjoyed going throug...Dr S. Kalyanaraman writes,<br /><br />//Enjoyed going through your brilliant exposition on Marutthas... Asur are our pitr-s who created dagoba, dhaatu garbha to venerate the purve yajnikaa...<br /><br />करडी [ karaḍī ] Safflower: Rebus: karandi 'fire-god' (Remo language).<br />Non-random-Thoughts: Aṣṣur, Asur and their Meluhha speech in ancient Near East//Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-52495047792159148652014-04-16T18:39:51.263+05:302014-04-16T18:39:51.263+05:30On Balika mentioned in that chapter in Bhagavatham...On Balika mentioned in that chapter in Bhagavatham, it was the name of a person and not country. Balika was the son of Asmaka and he was always surrounded by women. Therefore Parashurama thought that he could not have possessed kshatriya qualities and therefore spared him. This shows that this Balika was a contemporary of Parashurama. His was a different dynasty of Amshuman.Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-18337236875603916352014-04-16T18:34:21.568+05:302014-04-16T18:34:21.568+05:30@smk
# Checked Bhagavatham. The list of kings giv...@smk<br /><br /># Checked Bhagavatham. The list of kings given there is different from that given in Valmiki Ramayana. Valmiki Ramayana list gives the names of eldest sons who took over Ikshwaku throne. Srimad Bhagavatham list in the chapter 9-9 is about Amshuman dynasty. It is possible that this list contains the names of other sons who however ruled some other parts of the country. <br /><br /># It is Madayanthi and not Damayanthi.<br /><br /># The name Sudas appears in both Solar dynasty and Lunar dynasty. Vishnupurana does mention Sudas in Solar dynasty after Bhagiratha but much before Rama. This concurs with Bhagavatham list of Amshumam dynasty that you have mentioned. But this name (Sudas) is absent in Valmiki thereby showing that he was not the eldest crown prince of the lineage. <br /><br /># Another Sudas appears in Lunar dynasty, mentioned in Vishnu Purana. There Sudas is mentioned as grand son of Divodasa.<br /><br /># But Rig Veda 7-18-25 refers to Divodasa as the father of Sudas. <br /><br /># Nothing is told in Bhagavatham of Sudas who was the father of Saudasa. But Sudas of Rig Veda defeated 10 kings (in which context Arya – dasyu issue was seized upon by AIT proponents). Sudas of Vajasaneti samhita defeated 30m kings! If this is the same Sudas referred to by Bhagavatham, why there is no mention of all these victories? It shows there were different Sudas’es in different time periods.<br /><br /># Vasishta is connected with Sudas of Bhagavatham . In the Mahabharata narration, Parasara’s name appears. The son of Saudasa was protected by Parasara.<br /><br /># The time period of Saudas or Sudas of Amshuman dynasty narrated in Bhagavatham is far earlier to the period of Rama. The context of Saudasa’ s son in my article is contemporary of Parashurama and hence almost close to the time of Rama. <br /><br /># Therefore Saudasa in this context is different from Saudasa of Bhagavatham.<br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-57613267900580134792014-04-16T14:11:21.200+05:302014-04-16T14:11:21.200+05:30Please check whether it is "Sarvakama" o...Please check whether it is "Sarvakama" or "sarva karma".<br /><br />Mahabharata narration is "Sarvakarman". It is not his original name. Since he did any work that was given to him, he was called as "Sarva karman". <br /><br />The lines are (MB 12-49)<br />68 tathānukampamānena yajvanāthāmitaujasā<br /> parāśareṇa dāyādaḥ saudāsasyābhirakṣitaḥ<br /> 69 sarvakarmāṇi kurute tasyarṣeḥ śūdravad dhi saḥ<br /> sarvakarmety abhikhyātaḥ sa māṃ rakṣatu pārthiva Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-13226102491538890572014-04-16T14:04:59.322+05:302014-04-16T14:04:59.322+05:30The names are as per Mahabharatha version for whic...The names are as per Mahabharatha version for which I have given the chapter number. That narration was given by Krishna who was repeating what Goddess Earth was supposed to have told sage Kashyapa. Any further analysis of the antecedents of those people mentioned by him is by itself a separate research which I am not doing here. If you can please research and give the details. <br /><br />But one presumption in such a research is that their time must coincide with Parashurama / Rama / Ravana. The Marutta episode that I took was cross checked with Ravana's meeting with him. If they don't fit in, know that they were different from the entities told by Goddess Earth in this context. <br /><br />I am interested in Balika material that you have written. I will read it. However the name "Mulaka" rings a different note as to whether it is similar to Mushika. It is because Parashurama crowned the one of Mushika race and born to a Haihaya woman according to an inscription. Details of it would appear in the next and last article. Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-36182703177019601382014-04-16T12:48:42.585+05:302014-04-16T12:48:42.585+05:30////Viduratha’s son of Puru’s race (protected by “...////Viduratha’s son of Puru’s race (protected by “bear” like people)////<br /><br />I find this name in yadu lineage>Krosta>Kratha>Vrsni>Chitraratha>Viduratha(outline) only as per bhagavatam.<br /><br />///{3} Sarvakarman, son of Saudasa////<br /><br />One doubt according to bhagavatam<br />9.9.18 Sarvakama son is Sudasa and his son is Saudasa who was the husband of Damayantī and not the other way<br /><br />according to 9.9.40 because Balika was surrounded by women and was therefore saved from the anger of Parasurama, he was known as Nārikavaca.When Parasurama vanquished all the kshatriyas, Balika became the progenitor of more kshatriyas and known as Mulaka, the root of the kshatriya dynasty.<br /><br />This is as per bhagavatam.smkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16570882731081141225noreply@blogger.com