Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Eternal Love CC # 9 - Page 108

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I don't think you're getting my point re: genetics.

I'm not arguing current south Indians and north Indians are Aryan/Dravidian. There has been a lot of intermixing. No geneticist worth his degree would make the mistake of comparing Rakhigarhi DNA with current south Indian genome.

Comparison can only be between RG and ancestral south Indian DNA which NOT modern south Indian DNA. Has there been comparison between RG and the tribal population mentioned? AFAIK, no. Because if they are similar to RG (ie, lacking the particular gene), there would a political problem.

Which is actually something I don't understand because modern Indians have too much intermixing to be considered Aryan or Dravidian. Yes, some were conquerors and some were victims, but we carry the blood of both.

Still, closing our eyes to science is usually not good in the long run.

I understood your point. That isn't something which I am saying or countering.

The point is simple that the mere absence of gene group from two skeletal samples at a place doesn't mean that the genome was completely absent from whole country during that era (i e during the times of the Rakhigiri flourishing) especially when we have found the evidence of the same group earlier and have housed the earliest of that in the world. Scientifically it is more probable that R1A gene group would have developed in India and not elsewhere because earliest sample of its parent gene has been found here. This finding simply means we need more excavation and research.

Its like my parents are Indian an established fact, now just because my elder grandson is found to be born in Steppes, can be conclude that my younger grandson would have come from outside?

The R group genome follows this transformation level/stage

R-->R1-->R1a

Now skeletons of ancient India has R genome (oldest in the world), it's daughter genome R1(oldest in the world), the daughter gene or R1, R1a( absent from one area excavated in the country and not the oldest in the world).

Just because of this, if someone concludes that R1A was not present anywhere in India at the time the humans whose skeletons we tested lived then that's a Scientific wrong inference. Giving this statement isn't closing eyes to science but simply avoiding the twisting of scientific discovery to suit one's objective.

I am happy they didn't find R1a genome in Rakhigiri though else they would have said that the people of Indus valley had Steppes origin.

Secondly even if we assume that there was a mass migration yet that doesn't prove that these migrants were the composers of the RigVeda.

We literally don't know who were the RigVedic composers to compare them with tribals

Anyhow as I Said the origins of PIE urahimat or original homeland is the greatest historical debate of the era and I consider myself too small or ignorant to even make a comment on this

Originally posted by: Chiillii

I'll explain this with an example...

Water in Sanskrit is popularly called Jal. The alternative synonyms are apa and neer.

In Hindi however water is popularly called Pani.

Many assume that Pani is urdu word absorbed in Hindi like many words are.

But it is not. It is derived from sanskrit Paniya which is another synonym of water.

Same one word has multiple synonyms that get used in different regions. While north Indian hindi uses Pani, UP uses Jal

As I mentioned Vyasa collected different versions of Vedas from different rishis.

You will find the variations in nouns and verbs across the texts not just in one or two chapters.

Also vedas are prose (metered poems) a tool used to make them easy to memorize without mistakes. So to match the meter, different synonomns get used at different places.

However Vedic Sanskrit did evolve a lot in terms of grammar as well as usage of nouns and verbs, and formalised by Panini. It was like Sanskrit and Khadi boli Hindi but in reverse.

Language was essentially the same, but regional variations were always there. Since Vedas are not from a single source or location, those variations are natural in the text

Vedic Sansksrit has evolved no doubt, lot of changes have happened to it as well, however what I wanted to say is that it is still not the Panini of the classical Sansksrit.

I specifically gave the example of night because it shows the changes.

"Natt" as a word is the closest to the words used by all the European languages like "night" so probably this was the original word for night in the Proto Indo European language or else was a close derivative to it.

Later the European branch separated and the word for Night slowly became "Shab". Wherever they were, till this time probably Indo Iranians were together. Slowly Iranians separated and retained the word Shab for night and spread it into the middle east (like Shab e Baraat)

Post this separation Indo Aryans slowly changed from Shab to Ratri and this word even spread to the Dravidian languages.

The three terms for night actually show three levels of language development in the Rig Vedics and all these words have been retained.

My point was that Vedas were never translated to Panini's language

Ok back to Krishna.

We understand that Radha despite being a non Historical figure has been taken as centre stage but what actually demolished the importance of Satyabhama when compared to Rukmini?

Both seem to hold immense importance in Krishna's life

Another question what are your opinion on the views of the likes of Romila Thapar that Mahabharatha is actually a fictionalised tale women around th e historical Dashragya Yudh

@FP

The point of RG DNA was not to prove migration EVER. It was to check if there was migration AFTER IVC.

If RG had the same DNA, it would've disproved AIT/AMT being source of vedic litt.

IVC people migrating from Steppes would be immaterial because vedas were composed AFTER IVC.

THAT is the political sore point.

As far as there being migration EVER... unless we believe life originated separately in the Indian subcontinent, there definitely was migration before IVC, too.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Ok back to Krishna.

We understand that Radha despite being a non Historical figure has been taken as centre stage but what actually demolished the importance of Satyabhama when compared to Rukmini?

Both seem to hold immense importance in Krishna's life

I only have theory no concrete evidence for this.

We have Janmejaya effect on Mahbabharat where we see over glorification of Arjuna, Subhadra, Abhimanyu and uttara because the story's first narration was done in a question answer format to Janmejaya. Arjuna's great grandson. He was more interested in knowing about his immediate family and so other than those events and involved charachters that are related directly or indirectly to the war, only Arjuna's family with subhadra gets prominence. Even Nakul and Sahadev are sidelined. Nakul has just two dialogues in the entire epic.

Similarly we see Vajra effect On Krishna's life story.

Vajra was son of Anirudh and Rochana Rukmavati and grandson Pradyumna and Shubhangi Rukmavati and greatgrandson of Rukmini.

He established Krishna worship, by building temple for Krishna in IP, mathura as well as commissioned his idols in a large scale to be sent to the allies for similar worship.

Whom do you think will he place by the side of Krishna, his great grandmother or her co wife.

Yadava had been chased out of Mathura and Vajra returned as a refugee in Indraprasth. He diefied Krishna to establish his legitimacy to rule as the direct descendent of Vishnu Avatar Krishna. Now why will he put Satyabhama there and not Rukmini, his primary source of legitimacy.

Would it not make sense for him to make his grandmother Lakshmi, instead of Satyabhama.

But Satyabhama could not be forgotten, Her influence in Krishna's life was too well known for Vajra to cover it conpletely. Hence stories as her being short tempered, childish, upstaged by Rukmini, taught a lesson in humility by Pradyumna etc. And given a secondary title Bhudevi.

She was as awesome as Bhima in MB. No amount of glorification of Arjuna can overshadow Bhima. Similarly over glorification of Rukmini could not overshadow Satya completely..she was present in all major events of Krishna's life and not just that but actively involved in that.

It is logically impossible for Rukmini to be Krishna's first wife.

As I mentioned before, she was betrothed to Shishupal. Who was born after Dwarka was built. It was 16 years later in fact. Balram was married before Dwarka was built, the land for Dwarka was his wife's dowry. There cannot be 16 year gap between marriage of Balram and Krishna. Specially since age wise Balram was only 1 year older than Krishna.

So Rukmini being first wife / chief wife / most important wife / Lakshmi etc was most likely done by Vajra

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

@FP

The point of RG DNA was not to prove migration EVER. It was to check if there was migration AFTER IVC.

If RG had the same DNA, it would've disproved AIT/AMT being source of vedic litt.

IVC people migrating from Steppes would be immaterial because vedas were composed AFTER IVC.

THAT is the political sore point.

As far as there being migration EVER... unless we believe life originated separately in the Indian subcontinent, there definitely was migration before IVC, too.

The point for RG DNA was just an analysis. If RG had R1a genome it would have simply meant that IVC people in themselves migrated from Steppes and maybe later composed Vedas. That would have still remained the AIT/AMT just the timeframe would have shifted back by a couple of millennium. (From 1500 BCE to 3500 BCE).

To be honest it was only after RG gene sampling that it could be concluded that the people of IVC started with the agriculture on their own, else earlier they opined that these people could have been Mesopotamians who brought farming with them

In that way everyone has migrated from Africa at some point of time or other. The discussion here was if the civilization that flourished was indegeneous or external. India has shown continued inhabitants since last 1 lakh years unlike any non African region in the world. Even the Toba castrophe couldn't Completely finish us.

Our country hosts the oldest samples parent genes for all the non African genome haplogroup (including that of R1a genome code as we discussed).

People from Steppes weren't needed for a civilization here.

Anyhow to come to this discussion. I am only against your assumption that this discovery is Scientifically conclusive about Aryan invasion/migration which it certainly isn't. Sharing the pointers

1) Only two skeletal samples has been checked. One is that of a female and the said R1a genome group is not found in any female, it's a male genome code. None of us females of India has anything from that genomes group. The other sample was a male, but even the lab confirmed that it could be slightly contaminated. Anyhow yes that sample too didn't have R1a genome code. However let's not forget that even today many people (males) of North West India don't carry even a bit of R1a group genome. However that doesn't mean that no one in the entire country or even that region has this genome presence. Same was the case back then too, just because one male didn't have this DNA didn't mean no one in the country had. The sample size needs to be much larger to be conclusive that R1a genome was absent there.

2) Even if we think that R1a genome actually entered later, that isn't any evidence that the bearers of this R1a genome were the composers of Vedas

3) The ancestors of R1a genome bearers (i.e those having R and R1 genes) were Indians Living in Himalayan foothills. If R1a is present it Steppes that simply show's a migration of these Indians to the areas of Steppes before changing into R1a genome group and not vice versa. Now we can not conclude that the descandents of R1 genome bearers who stayed in Himalayan foothills and didn't migrate out never mutated into R1a group basis a sample from Western Indian skeleton

No. The concern about AIT or AMT is not that there was migration ever.

Saying so obfuscates the very real political problem in the issue.

If IVC peeps had the same gene, it would've proved conclusively any migration happened BEFORE Vedic period, thus putting an end to the talk about Vaishnavism/Shaivism, Aryan/Dravidian divide etc.

There wasn't. Regardless of whether it was 2 skeletal samples, the theory of migration stays alive. Linguistic analysis actually supports it as well. The only way to.prove things one way or other would be genome mapping of entire world.

The outmigration theory is also not difficult to prove or disprove with mapping and dating. If Steppes DNA found in Steppes is older than the same found in Kndia, then migration was inward. If not, outward.

Also, saying India has the oldest non African genetic material (which i need to check on) signifies exactly what? That the land was more fertile and less dangerous to human habitation? Of course it was. That would've been the reason for migration.

I don't believe anyone has claimed ancient Indians were taught cultivation by anyone else. They taught others some things and learned from others as well.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

I only have theory no concrete evidence for this.

We have Janmejaya effect on Mahbabharat where we see over glorification of Arjuna, Subhadra, Abhimanyu and uttara because the story's first narration was done in a question answer format to Janmejaya. Arjuna's great grandson. He was more interested in knowing about his immediate family and so other than those events and involved charachters that are related directly or indirectly to the war, only Arjuna's family with subhadra gets prominence. Even Nakul and Sahadev are sidelined. Nakul has just two dialogues in the entire epic.

Similarly we see Vajra effect On Krishna's life story.

Vajra was son of Anirudh and Rochana Rukmavati and grandson Pradyumna and Shubhangi Rukmavati and greatgrandson of Rukmini.

He established Krishna worship, by building temple for Krishna in IP, mathura as well as commissioned his idols in a large scale to be sent to the allies for similar worship.

Whom do you think will he place by the side of Krishna, his great grandmother or her co wife.

Yadava had been chased out of Mathura and Vajra returned as a refugee in Indraprasth. He diefied Krishna to establish his legitimacy to rule as the direct descendent of Vishnu Avatar Krishna. Now why will he put Satyabhama there and not Rukmini, his primary source of legitimacy.

Would it not make sense for him to make his grandmother Lakshmi, instead of Satyabhama.

But Satyabhama could not be forgotten, Her influence in Krishna's life was too well known for Vajra to cover it conpletely. Hence stories as her being short tempered, childish, upstaged by Rukmini, taught a lesson in humility by Pradyumna etc. And given a secondary title Bhudevi.

She was as awesome as Bhima in MB. No amount of glorification of Arjuna can overshadow Bhima. Similarly over glorification of Rukmini could not overshadow Satya completely..she was present in all major events of Krishna's life and not just that but actively involved in that.

It is logically impossible for Rukmini to be Krishna's first wife.

As I mentioned before, she was betrothed to Shishupal. Who was born after Dwarka was built. It was 16 years later in fact. Balram was married before Dwarka was built, the land for Dwarka was his wife's dowry. There cannot be 16 year gap between marriage of Balram and Krishna. Specially since age wise Balram was only 1 year older than Krishna.

So Rukmini being first wife / chief wife / most important wife / Lakshmi etc was most likely done by Vajra

This could very well be the actual cause but that would mean that Vajra was indeed Anirudh's son and not the biological son of Bhanu Suthanu given to Anirudh for adoption like we used to discuss earlier else he would preferred his biological grandmother over the foster grandmother of his foster father.

You are very right about the Janamejay thing. The epic Completely ignored Nakul Sahdev, while all the Kauntyas including Karna were made very important part of the epic probably because they were born to Janamejay's great great grandmother all the epic definitely highlights Karna's ill doing but even that tries to somehow also shower him with a few good qualities too. That could be because if Jaimini's Bharat is true and Vrishketu actually existed, he would have been kind of father figure to Parikshit since everyone else in his father's generation were dead, making Karna kind of pseudo foster great grandfather to Janamejay

More than Bheem I think Ghatochkach. The guy was actually one of the greatest warriors yet his importance was substantially decreased whereas the entry of Abhimanyu into the Chakravyu which was a brave yet a strategically suicidal move was made the most important event of the war

@HMR I guess both of us have made our points clearly and now it's going in circles. I think continuing that discussion especially here (a thread about eternal love of Krishna) might get us a warning here 😂😂

Originally posted by: Chiillii

I only have theory no concrete evidence for this.

We have Janmejaya effect on Mahbabharat where we see over glorification of Arjuna, Subhadra, Abhimanyu and uttara because the story's first narration was done in a question answer format to Janmejaya. Arjuna's great grandson. He was more interested in knowing about his immediate family and so other than those events and involved charachters that are related directly or indirectly to the war, only Arjuna's family with subhadra gets prominence. Even Nakul and Sahadev are sidelined. Nakul has just two dialogues in the entire epic.

Similarly we see Vajra effect On Krishna's life story.

Vajra was son of Anirudh and Rochana Rukmavati and grandson Pradyumna and Shubhangi Rukmavati and greatgrandson of Rukmini.

He established Krishna worship, by building temple for Krishna in IP, mathura as well as commissioned his idols in a large scale to be sent to the allies for similar worship.

Whom do you think will he place by the side of Krishna, his great grandmother or her co wife.

Yadava had been chased out of Mathura and Vajra returned as a refugee in Indraprasth. He diefied Krishna to establish his legitimacy to rule as the direct descendent of Vishnu Avatar Krishna. Now why will he put Satyabhama there and not Rukmini, his primary source of legitimacy.

Would it not make sense for him to make his grandmother Lakshmi, instead of Satyabhama.

But Satyabhama could not be forgotten, Her influence in Krishna's life was too well known for Vajra to cover it conpletely. Hence stories as her being short tempered, childish, upstaged by Rukmini, taught a lesson in humility by Pradyumna etc. And given a secondary title Bhudevi.

She was as awesome as Bhima in MB. No amount of glorification of Arjuna can overshadow Bhima. Similarly over glorification of Rukmini could not overshadow Satya completely..she was present in all major events of Krishna's life and not just that but actively involved in that.

It is logically impossible for Rukmini to be Krishna's first wife.

As I mentioned before, she was betrothed to Shishupal. Who was born after Dwarka was built. It was 16 years later in fact. Balram was married before Dwarka was built, the land for Dwarka was his wife's dowry. There cannot be 16 year gap between marriage of Balram and Krishna. Specially since age wise Balram was only 1 year older than Krishna.

So Rukmini being first wife / chief wife / most important wife / Lakshmi etc was most likely done by Vajra

Satyabhama being childish, arrogant, and petty is stated in all Krishna texts, including MBh.

She was involved more in Krishna's life, for sure, but it was usually not in a positive way except for the marriage bringing him more power.

Even the Naraka incident is highly suspect because there another Bhudevi avatar is seen approaching Krishna with the jewelry, and there is no mention of Satyabhama in the scene!

Her behavior with Panchali was petty and cruel which has nothing to do with Janmejaya or Vajra wanting to promote Rukmini, so I don't believe that was an interpolation. The wife of Krishna was a spoilt, petty brat in the scene, when she was out of sight of Krishna or the Pandavas, when there was no one else around to reprimand her for the bullying she tried. That Panchali herself snaps Satyabhama back into her place is immaterial. It only means Satyabhama badly underestimated Panchali's capabilities.😆