~| Whatever you want to argue about |~ - Page 72

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

https://www.boloji.com/articles/15119/abraham-and-brahma-part-i

https://www.boloji.com/articles/15273/brahma-and-abraham-part-ii

The author is Anonymous, but I'm almost certain this is Indrajit Bandhopadhyay. The writing style is too similar.

This is scholarly work while the below is not.

http://www.worldofsai.org/html/krishna_melchizedek.html

Good work these are, but I somehow feel it's written with a confirmation bias.

Although the trade relations between ancient Bharat and Ur/Sumeria can not be denied, could is instead be that slowly the features of the God of one area got imbibed into the other?.

Ahmediya texts for example (and also Baha'i faith) consider Krishna as one of the prophets in Abrahamic religions. Even the ISCON people in West are trying to draw parallels between Christ n Krishna

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Fan Fanfiction forum , it had mythological section , I m asking coz I was planning 2 write one but don't where 2 post. If u can guide me .

It should be posted in mythological masti corner or fan fiction corner

All FFs go to fan fiction forum now

Thankyou Chiilli so this is under the belief that both Zoroastrian n Vedic civilization developed here

Zoraastrian and Vedic civilizations have common root/origin that is accepted by both vedic scholars and avestan scholars. They have compared both Rigveda and Zend Avesta hymns and found that bulk of the hymns are common and language similar. Deities same. Only the lead scholar group or poetic group changed. So at some point differences arose which led to a divergence. However Zoroastrians still follow the yagna centric nature worship while we have anthromorphised the gods and moved to idolatory.

You are against Aryan invasion Theory then?

Yes . There were no aryans who came in their chariots and pushed the dravidians to the south.

Lot of migration happened to and fro and intermixing of communities. People moved in search of food. From near equator till tropic of cancer initially and as ice age ended flooding happened, some moved towards poles for safety. Some stayed back. Once waters receded more people from colder north moved back south near the river plains and settled there.

And slowly moved south wards to find place to settle. Some survivors who stayed back mixed with new guys coming down. Some didnt.

Aside Zoroastrians are Asurs, while Shukracharya is Daitya Guru, apppnd ancient literature os clear that Asurs and Daityas are different? Similarly Muslims are mostly from Arab, Persia is pretty far from it.

Muslims have nothing to do with vedas or avesta. When Islam rose with mohammed they were confined to a small region. But then the mongol Ghenghiz Khan became muslim and he on the blade of his sword and his descendents converted everyone to Islam. On the way a few rituals and traditions were taken in by them that is all. A few remaining zoroastrians are only in Iran and few came as refugees and settled in India.

Puranic Asura are not the same guys as these. Asura became a label for anti whoever is in power group. When Vaishnava became powerful whoever was anti vaishnava became an Asur.Even Rakshas Naga Daitya Danava groups were included in this group as they rebelled against the kings Vaishnava were patronized by.

But they were never anti veda.

So any Shiva or Devi worshipper became a default bad guy or Asur. Though like I explained in the case of Krishna and Arjun they really werre doing the same things. Just not worshipping Vishnu

Could you give more details on Kavya usaana? Is that name mentioned in Avesta.

Yes like we have a whole book of rigveda authored by brihaspati. It is book nos 6 of rigveda , we have a similar book of avesta authored by kavya usana, i dont remember the number

Agreed on your point about Avesta and Vedas been followed by similar set of people (either they were same set or they stayed together for long enough to have affected each other)

But the point is where exactly did this intermingling/split happen. You opine that it would have happened around the Saraswati Sindhu region, but majority historians feel that it happened in the areas of present day Iran when these people were on their way from Central Asia to the Indian regions. Ancient Persia had rivers like Harhavati and Harayu(Saraswati and Saryu if you replace H by S), small references to river Shifa of Iran can also be noticed in Vedas,Vedas hardly refers to Ganga Yamuna, so most probably major parts of Vedas were compiled before they reached India and the divine place they remembered was actually the middle east countries.

Even in Mahabharata Arjun meets and visits Indra, that definitely wouldn't have been some local king since that would have not gone unnoticed, so probably they still took the middle east as Indra's abode.

Aryans were definitely not the race here, Nagas, Daityas, Danavas (I think they were Indus valley people since they are said to be great architects and we know how great Indus valley buildings were. Actually In prefer calling in Saraswati Sindhu civilization) even today you wouldn't find as beautiful temples in North India as they are in South India although demolition by invaders could also be a cause for it) Caucasian's race isn't predominant to India. Indus valley genes don't match the north Indians of today. Saraswati Sindhu civilization flourished for at least 3000 years, that was definitely not Vedic civilization else we might have got at least a few Vedic gods inscriptions there

Aryans definitely didn't interact with them much.

I disagree that Aryans came around 1500 BCE because that's a very small duration, but they might have come around 2000-2200 BCE. Can we completely discredit this invasion Theory?

Thank you for giving me details on Shukracharya being a major composer of Avesta.

It's such an irony that the followers of opposing set of gods who were always at fight stay together in India now

By the way I just realized isn't the Yayati Devyani Shamishtha story similar to Abraham Sarah and Hagar story too though the names are very different??

You know husband, wife, slave woman, jealousy from the sons of slave woman's son etc.??

Aside since Krishna was a Yadav, doesn't he become a direct descandent of Shukracharya?

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

By the way I just realized isn't the Yayati Devyani Shamishtha story similar to Abraham Sarah and Hagar story too though the names are very different??

You know husband, wife, slave woman, jealousy from the sons of slave woman's son etc.??

Aside since Krishna was a Yadav, doesn't he become a direct descandent of Shukracharya?

They're not at all similar.😕

Abram was married to Sara who wanted a kid and got her maid as surrogate.

Actually as the articles say, the story does have similarities with Brahma story. Sara was supposed to be Abram's half sister or cousin or such. THAT similarity ends there. Plus, the names: Abram, Sara, Hagar / Brahma, Saraswati, Ghaggar

Sara was drop dead gorgeous and Abram got worried he'd get killed if he claimed her or such. He got her married to the king. But because she was technically Abram's wife, a lot of calamities supposedly happened to king who finally said take her back.

Then, problems continued with men after her for her beauty, and Abram again offered to marry her to another king.

The second king already knew who she was and refused.

By the time Abram and Sara were living together as husband and wife, both were somewhat old. Sara wanted a kid. Abram seems to have been ambivalent. She pressured him into surrogacy. Then, she herself got pregnant.

The maid and the son got upset because they clearly thought they'd inherit. Abram gave them money and sent them away. Sara's son is supposed to be the forefather of the Jews. The maid's son the forefather of the non Jewish middle easterners.

----------

The names are similar, so they either borrowed from Indian stories, or there was outward migration from Indian subcontinent. Aristotle (or his student) calls them descendants of Kalani tribe from India. I don't know who Kalanis are.

Yup Krishna was direct descendent of shukracharya.

These pauranic stories if you strip them of divnity. Actually are quiet historical. Also of you read the essays posted by Hear me Roar, they also point the same thing. At some point things were common. Then people spread out. Some continued interacting even after moving out, progressing and expanding and developing together through trade and marriages and alliances. Some like Jarawa in Andamans isolated themselves completely.

Yayati father of Puru lived east of Indus but he married the daughter of Kavya Usanas devyani as well as Sharmishtha daughter Vishraparva King of Asuras. Or king of Ahura the people who lived on the west as well as their guru.

Everyone had same ancestors. They fought with each other like kouravas and pandavas did.

Wars used to happen for land but there was no outsider insider. Winners stayed losers moved into uninhabited territories. Built settlements and cities, infighting used to happen then wars and then again some people would.move out

Eg. Poster boy of Dravidians is Ravan. But he is as much aryan as ram. His father is rishi pulastya mother a descendent of kashyap rishi. He and his stepbrother kuber fought. Kuber lost and was pushed out of lanka and he found a new place in gandhamadana mountains near nepal and settled there with his people

Sometimes moving out used to happen because of geological reasons as well like flooding or drought or freezing weather. Or plagues. Like Hastinapur was evacuated when Ganga changed course and plains of kousambi became the new urban centre for kurus.

Its like everyone started at common point and spread out across the earth.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

They're not at all similar.😕

Abram was married to Sara who wanted a kid and got her maid as surrogate.

Actually as the articles say, the story does have similarities with Brahma story. Sara was supposed to be Abram's half sister or cousin or such. THAT similarity ends there. Plus, the names: Abram, Sara, Hagar / Brahma, Saraswati, Ghaggar

Sara was drop dead gorgeous and Abram got worried he'd get killed if he claimed her or such. He got her married to the king. But because she was technically Abram's wife, a lot of calamities supposedly happened to king who finally said take her back.

Then, problems continued with men after her for her beauty, and Abram again offered to marry her to another king.

The second king already knew who she was and refused.

By the time Abram and Sara were living together as husband and wife, both were somewhat old. Sara wanted a kid. Abram seems to have been ambivalent. She pressured him into surrogacy. Then, she herself got pregnant.

The maid and the son got upset because they clearly thought they'd inherit. Abram gave them money and sent them away. Sara's son is supposed to be the forefather of the Jews. The maid's son the forefather of the non Jewish middle easterners.

----------

The names are similar, so they either borrowed from Indian stories, or there was outward migration from Indian subcontinent. Aristotle (or his student) calls them descendants of Kalani tribe from India. I don't know who Kalanis are.

I didn't mean a 100% match, I simply meant similarity. Once Isaac was born, Sarah did grew suspicious/jealous of Hagar n Ishmael and wanted them out just like Devyani got jealous after knowing about Shamishtha n her kids. Again Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah 90+ when Isaac was born, Yayati faced an old age at the time his sons were still young.

Aage to definitely there is no match.

Ishmael is actually considered to be the forefather of Muslims. In fact according to Quran, Hagar (or Hajra as she is called there) is a legally wedded wife of Ibrahim just like Sarah. Ibrahim takes both Hajra and Ishmael to the area of Mecca and they constructed the Kaba there. But this is a very later story and I don't think we shall consider it to be more authentic than old testament if Divinity and Allah protecting the book angle is removed

Yes I read all the articles you shared and those were really thought provoking. Not only the names they have given other resembles as well. Like Abraham's son was being killed by Abraham, on God's order when he was replaced by a ram, Brahma's son was killed and his head was replaced by that of a ram.

The half sister/daughter thing is another resembles as you mentioned. When they reached out to that king pf Egypt, Abraham clearly says that Sarah is his sister (which is true) and Saraswati is referred to as both daughter n wife of Brahma.

We definitely have nomenclature resemblance with Greek-Roman Gods, biggest being the father God

Dyaus Pitra- Zues Patter- Jupiter

Therefore I do feel that all the people did interact even during those early ages and accepted each other's gods with some customisation. They weren't as hard bound as the people of today

I will try to find out more about Kalini tribe and respond

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Yup Krishna was direct descendent of shukracharya.

These pauranic stories if you strip them of divnity. Actually are quiet historical. Also of you read the essays posted by Hear me Roar, they also point the same thing. At some point things were common. Then people spread out. Some continued interacting even after moving out, progressing and expanding and developing together through trade and marriages and alliances. Some like Jarawa in Andamans isolated themselves completely.

Yayati father of Puru lived east of Indus but he married the daughter of Kavya Usanas devyani as well as Sharmishtha daughter Vishraparva King of Asuras. Or king of Ahura the people who lived on the west as well as their guru.

Everyone had same ancestors. They fought with each other like kouravas and pandavas did.

Wars used to happen for land but there was no outsider insider. Winners stayed losers moved into uninhabited territories. Built settlements and cities, infighting used to happen then wars and then again some people would.move out

Eg. Poster boy of Dravidians is Ravan. But he is as much aryan as ram. His father is rishi pulastya mother a descendent of kashyap rishi. He and his stepbrother kuber fought. Kuber lost and was pushed out of lanka and he found a new place in gandhamadana mountains near nepal and settled there with his people

Sometimes moving out used to happen because of geological reasons as well like flooding or drought or freezing weather. Or plagues. Like Hastinapur was evacuated when Ganga changed course and plains of kousambi became the new urban centre for kurus.

Its like everyone started at common point and spread out across the earth.

Agreed on your point

Most of the people did have a common origin or else they did interact with each other enough to influence one another.

I was confused about whether the Aryans came here or did they go from here and spread their culture

Mittani treaty of 12th century AD is very similar to Sanskrit yet different from them, which means people had changed a lot by then

Zoroastrians are very similar to Vedic people but have a single God and a single demon concept like the Abrahamic religions

Hence even I feel that even if Aryan invasion happened it happened much before 15th centuryBCE.

Could it be that Indus Valley and Vedic co existed?? Just that they stayed at different places and didn't intervene into each others daily affairs? Yet being close door neighbours they had huge cultural interchanges. In fact even today we might find Sanskrit encroachment into Tamil.

I think we might get much more Answers once the Indus valley script is decoded. Hopefully that happens soon

By the way guys do watch SindhuGatha on DD1 at 10:00 AM, it gives good insights on Saraswati Sindu civilization. In fact I never knew we had so many sites of the civilization which are still in India, much more than in Pakistan. Mohan JoDaro and Harappa are just first sites to be found, there are many more which in fact were more developed

P.S. could you please share some links on Kavya Usaana and his contribution in Avesta? I tried looking for it but couldn't find itm

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I didn't mean a 100% match, I simply meant similarity. Once Isaac was born, Sarah did grew suspicious/jealous of Hagar n Ishmael and wanted them out just like Devyani got jealous after knowing about Shamishtha n her kids. Again Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah 90+ when Isaac was born, Yayati faced an old age at the time his sons were still young.

Aage to definitely there is no match.

Ishmael is actually considered to be the forefather of Muslims. In fact according to Quran, Hagar (or Hajra as she is called there) is a legally wedded wife of Ibrahim just like Sarah. Ibrahim takes both Hajra and Ishmael to the area of Mecca and they constructed the Kaba there. But this is a very later story and I don't think we shall consider it to be more authentic than old testament if Divinity and Allah protecting the book angle is removed

Yes I read all the articles you shared and those were really thought provoking. Not only the names they have given other resembles as well. Like Abraham's son was being killed by Abraham, on God's order when he was replaced by a ram, Brahma's son was killed and his head was replaced by that of a ram.

The half sister/daughter thing is another resembles as you mentioned. When they reached out to that king pf Egypt, Abraham clearly says that Sarah is his sister (which is true) and Saraswati is referred to as both daughter n wife of Brahma.

We definitely have nomenclature resemblance with Greek-Roman Gods, biggest being the father God

Dyaus Pitra- Zues Patter- Jupiter

Therefore I do feel that all the people did interact even during those early ages and accepted each other's gods with some customisation. They weren't as hard bound as the people of today

I will try to find out more about Kalini tribe and respond

@Bold. It was the other way around. Ishmael grew up thinking he'd inherit. Suddenly found out he wouldn't and started attacking Isaac.

I would love to know about the Kalani tribe.

Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their name from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for the name of their city, it is a very awkward one, for they call it Jerusalem." Josephus, Contra Apionem, I, 22.