r2i forum

Desi If you are claiming that Vedas are historical, then you should show at least some things as to what is historical in them. Quote a few sentences of what is historical in them.
[/quote]
Desi,

Your exchange was with sandeepskar. But I take the liberty to divert your attention. Do you think the analysis done here is valid or invalid to prove that the Krishna and Vedas resided at one time in India?
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-age_fs.html

Thanks.

RaReSha3;90927Desi,

Your exchange was with sandeepskar. But I take the liberty to divert your attention. Do you think the analysis done here is valid or invalid to prove that the Krishna and Vedas resided at one time in India?
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-age_fs.html

Thanks.[/quote]

RRS,

Any specific links that I should look into. I clicked on the link and was unsure which link. I perused a few links a bit. But some more direction on the roadmap please.

I am looking at Vedic archealogy and vedic Discoveries and will post my comments tomorrow.
Vedic Archaeology
Vedic Discoveries

The above two are the links I am looking at. Please add any other specific links that I should look at.

Desi;90933RRS,

Any specific links that I should look into. I clicked on the link and was unsure which link. I perused a few links a bit. But some more direction on the roadmap please.[/quote]
My apologies; didn't pay attention that the link stays same for subtopics. I was interested to see your view on vedic archeology pgs 1 and 2.

Thanks.

RaReSha3;90927Desi,

Your exchange was with sandeepskar. But I take the liberty to divert your attention. Do you think the analysis done here is valid or invalid to prove that the Krishna and Vedas resided at one time in India?
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-age_fs.html

Thanks.[/quote]
RRS,

Comments on Part 1:

Only archaelogical evidences put forth by the Part 1 in that link are the following:

1. That there is a Heliodorus column claimed to be from 113 BC. ( I have no specific reasons to research its authenticity further - I take it on face value).

2. That the column was erected by Heliodorus.

3. Information about Heliodorus origins.

4. That Heliodorus erected a Garuda column dedicated to a god named Vasudeva whom Heliodorus called God of Gods.

5. At one point the translation has referred to God as "Vasudeva (Visnu)". I am presuming that "Visnu" in parenthesis is insertion by the translator. (Note that Visnu is mentioned as one of the deities in Vedas, but not Krishna, the dieties in vedas start with Agni and Indra and so on).

6. If you read the Sanskrit portion written in English, you will see that actually whether even "Vasudeva" is not mentioned but mentioned as Vavasa. The sude is inserted to interpret it as Vasudevasa.

7. The other item mentioned is that Chandogya Upanishad mentions Krishna. this I do not call archaeological evidence. The various texts over the centuries have been susceptible to corruption. However putting that aside, all the mention in Krishna in Chandogya Upanishad is open to interpretation whether that is a reference to God, or to a historical person.

The following link may give a slightly different picture.

Megasthenes, references to Herakles is being interpreted as reference to Krishna. Why could Herakles be not Hercules?

I have always held that the Sun God, Dyas Pitr (Helios, Zeus), the chariot in the sky and the Jagannath Puri sun temple all are correlated. Couple centuries before Heliodorus, Alexander the Great had already made rounds of India. The Greek influence existed in India. The Heliodorus column is one of the obelisks that were being built in that time. Type Obelisk and search in Google Images and see some Roman Obelisk.

The inscription on the column reveals that Vasudeva or Vavasa was worshipped as God of Gods. No one denies that Krishna hsa been worshipped as God from a long time.

I wanted to do some research on some of the names mentioned in part 1, especially because the site reminded my of Stephen Knapp stuff, but I could not find much information on some names mentioned.

Regarding part II, I want to do some research before I post comments on part II. I have heard / read but never dug deep in the pasts of coins showig "Balram" but I would not be able to put my finger on it now.

More tomorrow.

RaReSha3;91540Desi,

May be these posts related to the authenticity/non-fictional part of epics/Vedas belong to a different thread or a place holder that we can update as we get new information.

Thanks for all your information and the time spent in gleaning new information. My curiosity started after reading 'Parva' from a Kannada author who spent considerable years in researching the origin of 'Gandharvas' near Himalayas and the custom of 'Niyoga' of getting insemination from a fertile source to get offspring if the male partner is impotent, prevalent in those areas (how Ambika/Kunti/Gandhari etc became mothers relates to that practice); he also found out that polyandry isn't uncommon in those tribes(Panchali having 5 husbands). He was inspired by the similar works of a Marathi historian/author (I forget his name).

My logic is : we have authentic sources from christian era that Jesus lived once. Analyzing Bible and Koran, holy books of two main religions of the world indicate that referenced characters in those books were real people living in those eras. So only Vedas/Hindu epics cannot be exception that characters in only these holy books are fictional. In 2005, a new excavation near Haryana uncovered several new evidences that Kurukshetra/Mahabharata is a possibility.Elevation of humans to gods is human doing and we are seeing those elevations even in 21st century. But I will be open minded if the information contrary to my beliefs emerge from archaeological evidences.[/quote]


RRS,

I will open a new thread on archaelogy or some similar heading.

That some real events and real Humans may have inspired Ramayana and Mahabharata is very very possible and that then they were elevated to being worshipped either then as it was written or during subsequent morphings is all very possible and probable also. I have never had a contention with that part.