Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. You have put too many open ended questions, as if you want me to write an essay here. When a language and religion travels places, some changes are expected - so the incest relation may not be exact. Siva in his form as Rudra is the son of Brahma in Indian scriptures - I do not know what you want me to explain there. Ambika is the most popular name of Parvati in Gujarat where Yadavas used to live, which is why Rebecca has been derived from Ambika. Put the name side by side and see - Brahma - Abraham Iswar - Issac Ambika - rebecca Meru - Moriah Saraswati - Sarai Ghaggar - Hagar Jaiganesh - Jacob Sami - Esau (name sami or swami originally belonged to skanda in Dwapar yuga) Gayatri - Ketura Ishbak - Aswin Daksha - Zoksha Midian - Mithra The essay I have given in this thread is just five pages. I have written nearly 90 pages to show Jewish connection to India. If the essay given here atleast arouses your suspicion, you would be interested in more. But, if it has not even aroused your suspicion, then forget it; Just consider that I am living in a fairyland. Thanks Prithvi
  2. It is not about incarnation of Siva. Jews (Yadavas) have rejected the Vedic religion in favor of worship of Krishna, and they have listed the names of the Hindu Gods under their covenant as different allegorical characters.
  3. I have given already given the name association for the entire Hindu pantheon.
  4. Please go by the name association in its totality, not just one or two names. If I show you just two name associations, you can argue in this manner. If I show you twenty name associations, this argument is not valid.
  5. Please do not think that what ever you read in your scriptures in final. There are legends associating Krishna, Buddha, and even Siva with crucifixation - If you read the vast amont of literature available, you will know. At one point of time, the legend of crucified God was so popular that each and every divinity had to be associated with crucifixation to be considered divine.
  6. Hundreds of scholars have spent their lifetimes in researching the crucified savior phenomenon that was spread across the world even before christianity ever came into existence. You want to call this vast amount of research as fairy tale and torture? A large number of books have been written at the time of Christ about Jewish history and no author has ever made any mention of Jesus, putting a question mark on whether Jesus ever existed. A book "Antiquities of Jews," published in 93 AD gives a detailed view Jewish history until then - it talks about Herod, John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate and others, but it does not talk about any Jesus; and it does not talk about Herod wanting to kill kids aged below 2 years in his kingdom. So who is living in fairyland, you or me? The name of Christ has been derived from Greek "Kristos." - this is widely acknowledged. Check wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ. Western scholars do not want to acknowledge that Kristos has been been derived from Krishna. In south India, people named after Krishna are called Krishnan, Krishnudu, Kristiah etc - does this mean that these names are not derived from Krishna? If Kristiah is derived from Krishna, then why Kristos is not derived from Krishna? Is this some sort of a selective derivation so as to fit into your religious beliefs? Please live in your own fairyland; I do not want to disturb it.
  7. (sorry, message garbled. so repeating it) There are hundreds of books being written out there that the Christ legend is not an original one and is borrowed from other legends - the two most important being Krishna of India and Heru of Egypt. It is funny that you call this a fairy tale after such huge amounts of research by such a large number of scholars. Christ is just one of a large number of crucified saviors in the whole world. Here is a list - Adad of Assyria Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece Alcides of Thebes Attis of Phrygia Baal of Phoenicia Bali of Afghanistan Beddu of Japan Buddha of India Crite of Chaldea Deva Tat of Siam Hesus of the Druids Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ character34 Indra of Tibet/India Jao of Nepal Krishna of India Mikado of the Sintoos Mithra of Persia Odin of the Scandinavians Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece Quetzalcoatl of Mexico Salivahana of Bermuda Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the disciple Thomas35) Thor of the Gauls Universal Monarch of the Sibyls36 Wittoba of the Bilingonese Xamolxis of Thrace Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia Zoar of the Bonzes Sources: Jesus Lived in india, by Holger Kersten World's Sixteen crucified Saviors, by Kersey Graves . The Christ conspiracy:The Greatest Story Ever Told, by S.Acharya Searching for God -- Now a Valid Science, by Gene Matlock This is just a sample; you can fill a library with books written to show that the legend of Christ has been made up by borrowal from other sources. You can search for them in Amazon and get them. The only point these books do not cover is about the Vaishnavite trinity. That would be an additional evidence from my book. Also westerners trace Christ to Chrestos, but they would not acknowledge Chrestos to Chrishna, because of sectarian considerations. Thanks
  8. There are hundreds of books being written out there that the Christ legend is not an original one and is borrowed from other legends - the two most important being Krishna of India and Heru of Egypt. It is funny that you call this a fairy tale after such huge amounts of research by such a large number of scholars. Christ is just one of a large number of crucified saviors in the whole world. Here is a list -Adad of Assyria Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece Alcides of Thebes Attis of Phrygia Baal of Phoenicia Bali of Afghanistan Beddu of Japan Buddha of India Crite of Chaldea Deva Tat of Siam Hesus of the Druids Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ character34 Indra of Tibet/India Jao of Nepal Krishna of India Mikado of the Sintoos Mithra of Persia Odin of the Scandinavians Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece Quetzalcoatl of Mexico Salivahana of Bermuda Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the disciple Thomas35) Thor of the Gauls Universal Monarch of the Sibyls36 Wittoba of the Bilingonese Xamolxis of Thrace Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia Zoar of the Bonzes Sources: Jesus Lived in india, by Holger Kersten World's Sixteen crucified Saviors, by Kersey Graves . The Christ conspiracy:The Greatest Story Ever Told, by S.Acharya Searching for God -- Now a Valid Science, by Gene MatlockThis is just a sample; you can fill a library with books written to show that the legend of Christ has been made up by borrowal from other sources. You can search for them in Amazon and get them. The only point these books do not cover is about the Vaishnavite trinity. That would be an additional evidence from my book. Also westerners trace Christ to Chrestos, but they would not acknowledge Chrestos to Chrishna, because of sectarian considerations. Thanks
  9. The name of Isa is not Christ. The name Christ, meaning savior, has been derived from Greek Chrestos; and Chrestos has been derived from Chrishna of India. Even the name of Jesus is derived from Krishna - Krishna's full name is Krishna Jesues. Krishna is called Yesu Krishna in some places in India. The reason why Christians worship trinity is because they are Vaishnavites who left India and settled abroad; they are following the Vaishnavite trinity. As per beliefs, Vishnu incarnated as Narayan (Krishna) and Nar (Arjun) at the time of Mahabharat; so you get the vaishnavite trinity - Vishnu, Narayan, Nar. ThanksPrithvi
  10. It has already been long pointed out by several historians that Abraham of Jews and Brahma of Hindus are too close by name to miss. Additionally Sarai is too close to Hindu goddess Saraswati, the wife of Brahma, and the connection cannot be missed. As per Hindu legends, Saraswati is the daughter of Brahma because he has created her. And together with her, he fathers the people of this world and creates all living beings. So Brahma’s relationship with Saraswati is an incestual relationship. And the same is the case with Abraham and Sarai of the Abrahamic world. Sarai is the half-sister of Abraham. In that sense, his relation with her is an incest. And as in Hindu legends, Abraham along with Sarai fathers a large number of nations across the world. This relation between Brahma and Abraham, Sarai and Saraswati has already been recognized by several historians. And Mount Moriah itself is pointed out to be Mount meru of the Hindus. We cannot miss the similarities. Despite such close connections being shown, the similarity of two or three names does not seem to break much ice; one problem with these similarities is the causative factor. It can be argued both ways – that Jews have copied from Hindus or that Hindus have copied from Jews. And as long as the argument stays at this deadlock, it does not progress much in capturing public as well as scholarly imagination. So let me show that there is more resemblance than just two names here. Abraham’s son Issac is none other Iswar aka Siva of the Hindus! the similarity of names and the concept cannot be missed. In Hindu legends, Iswar is the son of Brahma, he is even called Brahmaputra meaning son of Brahma. And in Jewish legends, Issac is the son of Abraham. Rebeccah, the wife of Issac is none other than Ambica, the wife of Siva of the Hindus. Ambika/Rebecca – the names are quite similar. Rebeccah of Jews is portrayed as a pleasing and benign woman. And just like in Jewish legend, the ambika of Hindus is actually a benign and pleasing goddess, it is durga who is of the ferocious form. The most revealing connection is that of Hagar, the handmaiden of Sarai. This is nothing but the tributary of river Saraswati, the river by name Ghaggar in India!. Ghaggar/Hagar - the resemblance is overwhelming. And the relations they have with Sarai/Saraswati are quite revealing in themselves. Ghaggar is a tributary to river Saraswati and this relation of being tributary is being described as that of handmaiden. Saraswati is the mighty river and Ghaggar is small tributary to it. Similarly Sarai is the real mistress holding all the powers while Hagar is just handmaiden under her. And what does the son Ishmael of Hagar signify? Ishmael is just a morphed form of Ishalay (Isha + Alay) meaning temple of Ishwar or Siva. Why would a temple of Siva be made the son of Hagar the tributary of Saraswati? This entire covenant of Abraham is nothing but an agreement amongst Yadavas that henceforth, they are not going to worship any god other than Krishna/Yahweh. So having made such an agreement, it was necessary to show that they have discarded other gods of Hinduism. Which all gods did they discard? They listed down the entire Hindu pantheon as the descendants of Abraham! They are just symbolically representing the gods rejected as Abraham and his descendants. These gods named under Abraham are henceforth to be considered as humans and not as divine. And then they have woven all of their experiences in India, after Krishna’s time, into these legends, with Abraham and others as central characters. So the experiences of Abraham and his descendants are nothing but symbolic allegories of all the difficulties faced by Yadavas during their time of stay in India. So the gods who are rejected by Yadavas are listed under the covenant as different characters. Who all have they rejected? They have rejected Brahma (Abraham). They have rejected Saraswati (Sarai), they are no longer going to consider her as a goddess, if anything, she would be shown as a human woman who would be dependent on the grace of Yahweh/Krishna as much as the Yadavas are. They have rejected Siva (Issac). They are no longer going to worship him. They have rejected Amibka, Siva’s wife (Rebecca), she would henceforth be considered as human. Siva is an important god of the Hindu pantheon, his worship was strong in the Gujarat region. So it is likely that some Yadavas were reluctant to completely give up the worship of Siva. It might not be that they wanted to worship Siva alone but they probably wanted to continue worshipping the Hindu religious trinity of Brahma/Vishnu/Siva and the Vedic Gods they probably did not want to completely discard the worship of everyone, especially Siva. Such Yadavas have been left in India on the banks of Hagar river. Yadavas were traveling from Gujarat region along the banks of Saraswati river towards Kashmir in search of water. As the famine drew stronger, it was necessary to find water and people just about migrated to any place where they thought that they could find water. Right from the next day of Krishna’s death, they are likely to have had an agreement that they are no longer going to worship anyone other than Krishna. On their way to Kashmir, it looks like they had a disagreement in this regard. Obviously the strongest of faiths can wither at the onslaughts of such dramatic famines of hundreds of years. And some Yadavas are likely to have lost faith in this new religion of theirs. They wanted to go back to the old Vedic religion where they worshipped all Vedic gods including Siva and mother goddesses. A disagreement arose and such Yadavas who wanted to go back to the pre-Krishna religion were discarded. This separation probably took place on the banks of river Ghaggar probably near some Siva temple. So they have recorded it in their scriptures in the form of Hagar and Ishmael. Jews did not take these people along with them to Kashmir and later to Israel. And then after they broke away from this faction, the Yadavas then had a serious discussion amongst themselves about their religion. Once again they took oaths amongst themselves that henceforth they are not going to worship anyone else other than Krishna. In order to prove that they abide by this agreement, it is likely that various measures were taken by the Yadavas. For example any idols of Siva or other gods had to be thrown away, such other idols should not be kept with anyone. From then on, no one would even utter the name of Siva and other gods. This has been symbolically represented in their scriptures when Isaac is taken to mount Moriah and is offered as sacrifice to Yahweh. Mount Moriah is nothing but Mount meru of Vishnu/Krishna. Vishnu/Krishna is believed by vaishnavites to reside there. Abraham takes Isaac there and offers him as sacrifice before he is stopped in the last minute. This is symbolic representation of the fact that, in favor of Vishnu/Krishna, they would henceforth give up Issac/Iswar/Siva worship completely; his worship is given up as a sacrifice unto/in favor of Krishna. The sacrifice of Isaac on mount meru is an allegory that is representative of an agreement between the Yadavas, whereby any small remnant of Siva worship is thenceforth given up by them completely and they would henceforth have nothing more to do with his worship. They have rejected Brahma, Saraswati, Siva and Ambika/Parvati. Who else did they reject? Obviously Siva’s sons Ganesha and Skanda have to be rejected. And they have been rejected. Issac’s sons Jacob and Esau are none other than Siva’s sons Ganesh and Skanda! Ganesh is many a times called Jaiganesh in the north. In fact people are named as Jaiganesh and this particular habit of prefixing jai is a peculiar habit of this deity alone. For other deity names, they also append Sri along with Jai, for example JaiSriram. More over no one is named as Jaisriram. However I have seen people being named as Jaiganesh. Jai means ‘Hail’. They have done a lot of cutting the names right in the middle. For example, we can see that the long name of Saraswati is cut right in the middle and only Sarai portion of it is retained. Similarly in Ishwar, only Ish has been retained and a consonant has been suffixed to get Isaac. Similarly in Jaiganesh, only Jaiga has been retained and a consonant has been added to it as suffix to make it Jagob or Jacob. Similarly Siva’s other son is named as Swamy. Not many are aware of it that Siva’s second son is named as Swamy. I once read an article of a tamil scholar who claimed that the word Swamy originally belonged to Skanda. Later on it started being applied to all other gods. So for example tirupati Balaji is called Venkateswara swami. After pointing out all of this, the scholar claimed that, this is indicative of the fact that Venkateswara Swamy and Skanda are one and the same and likewise all forms of worship are different manifestations of the same god, he argued. Esau is none other than Swami (again cut in half like other names), Siva’s second son. In south India, Ganesha is considered elder to swami. However in north India he is considered to be younger, Swami is considered as elder. The resemblance between the characters is quite striking. In Hindu legends, Swami is a warrior god, he is fit and agile and served as the commander general of the armies of gods. This fits in with the description of Easu who is said to be an agile and able hunter. Obviously Jewish forefathers could not write that Esau is the chief of armies of gods because they want to consider Easu as human in their legends. The legend needed to be suitably modified to fit in the new realm. Similarly in Hindu legends Ganesha is a rotund personality who is no where near as agile or as able as his brother. However he is said to be high in intellect. This is quite similar to the description of Jacob. Jacob is not so able but is considered to be an intellect. There are several legends that show that Ganesha and Swami/Skanda fought with each other for various things. Ganesha’s original name as Vignesa (lord of obstacles) and not Ganesha (lord of ganas). How did he get this name, the legend runs as follows: Once Siva and Parvati decided to make one of their sons as the chief or lord of the ganas (warriors or attendants who accompany Siva and live along with him on kailas) of Kailas. Considered to be an extremely important post, both the brothers fight for the post. In order to break the deadlock, it is declared that whoever goes around the world and comes back first would be made the lord of the ganas. Skanda immediately starts on his peacock and goes around the world at a fast pace and comes back in seven days. To his surprise however, his brother Ganesha is happily seated munching sweets on mount kailas, and is declared as the winner of the contest and is given the title of Ganapati/ganesha or the lord of the ganas. How did he get the title? Simple. As per scriptures, circulambulating around one’s parents seven times is considered equal to circulambulating the world. So after Skanda went away, Ganesha promptly bowed down to his parents and then ambulated around them seven times. That was it, he won the contest! Skanda feels cheated by this development and he in fact goes away from Kailas to far away place in the south. This legend has other variations. For example, in another variation, they were fighting for the two grand daughters of Brahma. Whoever wins the contest gets both their hands in marriage. In another variation, something else. But all these legends carry the same framework. There is something to be gained for which Skanda leaves home and goes out. In his absence the less able Ganesha wins the booty through guile/wisdom. And needless to say that this is the same framework that was adopted for the fight of Jacob and Esau in the Jewish bible. Abrahamic legacy is the booty to win to attain which, the more able Esau goes out. In his absence, Jacob wins the booty through guile/wisdom. On his comeback, Esau feels extremely cheated. In both cases it is about the title and legacy. Ganesha in Hindu legends becomes the lord of ganas whereas Jacob in Jewish legends gets the title of Israel and is bestowed with abrahamic legacy. The legends of the Jewish bible have been appropriately modified to fit them with human beings. The legends of Hindus are obviously pertaining to godly figures. So they need to be suitably modified so as to fit them and show them as legends about mortals. Some modifications are done here and there to fit the legend of godly figures into the legends of mortals. For example, to justify the attainment of title by Jacob, they have shown Esau as a bad figure, otherwise it would be difficult to justify the guile with which Jacob had acted. They have rejected Brahma, Saraswati,Siva, Ambika, Ganesh, Skanda. Who else? Well the Vedic gods. Even they need to be rejected and discarded. Obviously they would have taken a decision to discard all Vedic gods as well? And the answer to that is yes. They have rejected the Vedic gods as well! At the ripe old age of 137 years, Abraham is said to have married another woman, termed as concubine, named Ketura. And he is said to have fathered six sons through her. And the names of these six sons along with their meanings are as follows : Zimran – Celebrated, Vine Dresser Zokshan – Hardnes, knocking Medan – contention, conflict Midian – Strife, Judgement Ishbak – Leaving Shuah – Ditch, Humiliation Let us start with Ketura. Ketura is none other than Hindu goddess Gayatri, considered to be the mother of Vedas. And she is considered to be the second wife of Brahma! And the most important Gayatri mantra of the Hindus belongs to her, it is in her name. In terms of importance as a wife of Brahma, she is only second to Saraswati. And this nicely tallies with Ketura, Abraham’s second wife. And Gayatri being considered as the mother of Vedas, the Vedic gods have been represented as her sons in the Jewish legends. The six sons of Abraham through Ketura are none other than the Vedic gods of India. Showing the connection between the six sons and the Vedic gods requires some Linguistic analysis; it would not be possible to show the analysis here. Just to capture the results of the analysis, Zimran is Devendra, Zokshan is Daksha, Medan is Marut, Midian is Mithra, Ishbak is Aswins and Shuah is Rudra. One important thing to notice is that they have not listed Pancha Bhutas or the five elements and Sun and Moon in this list of six sons; probably because they considered these to be the manifestations of Krishna on earth. All six sons of Ketura are Vedic gods! Since she is the mother of Vedas, they have been listed as her sons. It is said that Abraham sent them to the east, far away from his son Issac. This symbolically represents the fact that they had left the worship of these Vedic gods in the east, in India. The Jews no longer wanted to have anything to do with these Vedic gods. To put it succinctly, the entire covenant with God of Abrahamic religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam is nothing but an agreement amongst Yadavas to worship only Krishna/Yahweh and to reject all other Hindu gods in favor of Krishna. So given that Vaishnavite Jews/Yadavas who had forsaken Vedic religion were considered to have been in central Asia by 1800 BC itself after migrating from India, does it make sense to say that some Aryans invaded or migrated into India in 1500 BC and formed Vedas and epics after that date in India? Indian civilization is extremely ancient; and Indian and world civilizations are 19000 years in the making.
  11. India originally had four most sacred places, just after Ram’s time, called Kumbhamela spots – Haridwar, Prayag, Ujjain, and Nasik. The legend connecting these four places is a Vaishnavite legend – nectar fell down on earth at these four places when Vishnu was distributing nectar amongst Devas. Haridwar is the place where Ganges emerges onto the plains from Vishnu’s feet called Hari ki Pauri; Haridwar itself means Gateway to Hari or Vishnu. Prayag is the sangam of rivers Ganga, Yamuna and Saraswati. Ujjain has Ram Ghat and Nasik has Ram Kund, which are believed to wash away sins of a lifetime. These tanks are majorly associated with the Kumbhaela festivals. After these four places came another set of pilgrimages called seven holy cities, after Krishna’s time – Haridwar, Kasi, Dwarka, Mathura, Ayodhya, Ujjain, and Kanchi. Out of these, Haridwar, Ayodhya, Mathura, and Dwarka are clearly Vaishnavite. Most people do not know about it, but the most sacred spot in Kasi is not the Siva temple, but it is a slab of stone containing foot prints of Vishnu near a place called Chakra-Pushkarini. The reason for this is, as per several beliefs, it was a Vaishnavite spot before it became associated with Siva. For example, Vaman Purana says that Vishnu used to reside there before he gave the place of Kasi to Siva. Kanchi is a place where Parvati did penance and propitiated Vishnu to get her golden color back; it shows complete Vaishnavite superiority. Ujjain is considered to wash away sins not because of Siva temple, but because of Ram Ghat; Ram is believed to have stayed and bathed there. Then came four holy cities that should be visited by every Hindu atleast once during his life time, generally attributed to Sankaracharya – Badrinath, Dwarka, Puri, and Rameswaram. The first three are clearly Vaishnavite. Rameswaram is a claimed to be a place where Ram worshipped Siva; However, as is well known, Valmiki Ramayam does not contain anything about Ram worshipping Siva, this concept is of latter origin. It was a Ram temple that was later converted into Siva shrine. All four are Vaishnavite shrines. Saivites have now rejected these four places because it shows Vaishnavite domination. They now have separate four holy shrines that should be visited by every Saivite atleast once during his lifetime, at four corners of India – Kasi, Kanchi, Somnath, and Bhubaneswar. We have already discussed Kasi and Kanchi that show Vaishnavite superiority. Somanth is a place where Moon was supposed to die because of a curse. He then prayed to Siva who alleviated his curse. Because of Siva’s grace, the Moon that was supposed to fade out completely, began to wax and wane. I am sure moon never did such a thing at Somnath; the reason why the place of Somnath has been considered holy since time immemorial is because it is the sangam of Saraswati river with Sea. Also, Krishna is believed to have died at a nearby place, so post-funeral rites are done closeby. The legend of Bhubaneswar tells us that the place originally belonged to Vishnu. Siva requested Vishnu to give him this place and Vishnu acceded. Siva was grateful for Vishnu’s grace and, as a token of gratitude, wished to be worshipped here in half Vishnu and half Siva form. If we leave aside these traditional places, let us just take a look at the four most frequented sacred spots of India today – Tirupati, Vaishno Devi, Kaila Devi, Sabarimala. Tirupati, drawing 15 million devotees per annum, does not need introduction. Vaishno devi, drawing five million devotees per annum, is the wife of Ram as per beliefs; she is waiting to become one with Ram at the end of Kaliyug. Kaila Devi in Rajasthan, drawing six million devotees per annum, is popularly called Mahalaxmi, she is a manifestation of Laxmi. Sabarimala of Ayyppa, drawing more than four million devotees per annum, is situated at a place where Sabari, the devotee of Ram, attained salvation. Even though Ayyappa is considered to be the son of Vishnu and Siva, he is always shown with a Vaishnavite mark on his forehead, indicating that he is more of a Vaishnavite deity than a Saivite deity. Even the prayer read out to him every day is called Hari-varasanam and not Hari-hara-varasanam. All of this shows a certain complete Vaishnavite domination of the Indian spiritual scenario telling us that Vaishnavism must have preceded Saivism by several thousand years; Vaishnavism is the original religion of India. Yet, historians have been telling us for the last two hundred years that Saivism is older than Vaishnavism and that Vaishnavite Aryans came from outside about 1500 BC. Even though Aryan Invasion theory has been given a burial recently, it has been replaced by what is called Aryan Migration – Aryans did not invade India, they only migrated to India around 1500 BC – Indians continue being told by both Indian and western historians that Saivism is the older religion, and that Indus Valley is Dravidian. And the guiding force for all of these assertions is the presence of some seals of Siva at Harappa. The study of Indian history started with these seals and ended with these seals; no other study has ever been done. The truth is that Vedic religion preceded Dravidianism by several thousand years. All those archaeological sites of India belong to Vedic religion. Indian history needs to be completely re-written. For example, a site has been recently found at Gulf of Cambay where fired pottery was noted from 16000 BP (Before Present) and advanced civilization has been noted from around at 13000 BP. This site belongs to Indo-European Vedic people and not to Dravidians. Vedas, Ramayan, Mahabharat, and Buddhism came into existence anywhere in the last 15000 years and not after 3000 BP as given by current historians. Mesopotamians are Indians who migrated to Mesopotamia. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all Vaishnavites who migrated out of India about four thousand years ago. Their God Yahweh/Allah is none other than Krishna. Anyone who writes this would be branded as a Vaishnavite with ulterior motives and sponsored approach. But, should we stop writing about the glory of Indian history just because we would be branded as sectarians? Source: Excerpts from Prithviraj’s forthcoming book to be released in about a month’s time on all online bookstores - 19000 YEARS OF WORLD HISTORY: The Story of Religion. Prithvi’s blog – http://19000years.blogspot.com Prithvi’s mail – prithvi.book@gmail.com
  12. I just wanted to clarify on this Ravan worshipping Siva thing. Ravan worshipping Siva is purely of later origin and has nothing to do with original Ramayan. The legend of the temple at Gokarna of Karnataka tells us about this. Here is an excerpt from my book regarding this shrine - We come to Gokarna, considered to be the holiest Siva shrine in the state of Karnataka. Localites consider it to be holier than Kasi itself. The temple is supposed to hold an atma linga. Atma means soul. So atma linga means the very essence of Siva is present in the linga here. The legend of the temple is as follows – "Once Ravan, the antagonist of Ram, propitiated Siva and obtained his atma linga. He was on his way to Lanka to get it installed there. Siva tells him that the linga should not be dropped anywhere until he reaches Lanka; if he does so, the linga would stay put wherever it is dropped. Devas are worried that the demon would become invincible if he is allowed to take the atma linga of Siva. He needs to be stopped from taking it. They request Ganesh and Vishnu to block Ravan. Vishnu blocks the Sun and makes the world dark. As it has become dark, being a Brahmin, Ravan considers it necessary to perform his evening rites. There appears Ganesh there in the form of a small shepherd boy. Ravan calls him and requests him to hold the linga for a few minutes, while he does his rites. As soon as Ganesh receives the linga, he puts it down and vanishes. Atma linga got put there; the more Ravan tried, the more it went deep into the earth; because of his efforts, it even got twisted because of which it now resembles the shape of a cow’s ear; this is the reason why the place got called as Gokarna, which menas cow’s ear. Today, the atma linga is visible just three inches above the ground." And the most important thing is that this linga is encased in a square Saligram! Saligram is extremely sacred for Vaishnavites, and they consider it as a manifestation of Vishnu himself. This is evidence that it was a probably Vaishnavite shrine before being converted into Saivism. Ravan, the opponent of Ram in Ramayan, lived in Treta Yuga, and Dravidians started moving into these parts from Gujarat in Kali Yuga. I am not so confident that Ravan had anything to do with the shrine. The tank of water near the temple is called Koti Theertham; people take a dip in the shrine before visiting the temple. A dip in the tank is considered purifying, and pilgrims perform rituals for departed souls after bathing in the tank. And this is a tank that is believed to have been created by Vishnu’s vehicle Garuda. A dip is taken in a Vaishnavite tank before a Saligram Siva is worshiped! Incidentally, there is Vaishnavite legend associated with the place. Vishnu, after killing the thousand-armed Banasur, performed penance here. On the south side of the tank, there is another Vishnu shrine. And there are many other Vaishnavite shrines nearby, including a Ram temple. Vishnu, Ravan, Saligram, Garuda – all of these tell us about extremely strong Vaishnavite connections. As per a rarely given legend, Siva performed penance at this spot inside the netherworld. Mother earth took the form a cow and Siva emerged from her ear. Because of this, the place is called Gokarna. It is too much of an extraordinary coincidence that Siva and Vishnu perform penance at exactly the same spot; only one of these legends is likely to have been original. Given the Vaishnavite association of Garuda and Saligram, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Vaishnavite legend must have been the original one. The original legend must have been that Vishnu did penance and came out of cow’s ear; therefore the place was called Gokarna. Vaishnavites chanced upon a Saligram, embedded into the earth in the form of Cow’s ear. They hold Saligram very sacred; so they came up with this legend that Vishnu did penance inside the earth and came out through cow’s ear. After Saivites took over, they changed the legend to mean that Siva came out of the earth after doing penance. However, this created a confusion with the the legend of Vishnu’s penance; so they changed the legend to that of Ravan. The legend of Siva’s penance is rarely given by sources; most sources avoid giving this legend because it creates a confusion with the penance legend of Vishnu. The most sacred Siva shrine of Karnataka could be a converted Vaishnavite shrine telling us that Vaishnavism preceded Saivism in the region of Karnataka.
  13. Hi abmind I did not want to argue with you not because I do not respect your opinions, but because the views of creationists and historians will never converge even they argue for hundred years. Well, thanks for your insights and best of luck. Regards Prithvi
  14. << I read it. Your puranic interpretation is not valid. Well.. If you go by History to understand religion, you have to wait another few thousand years. Because Hindu religious writings are prehistoric and the origin was time immortal. >> There are two kinds of people - one who think religion exists since time immortal, and another who think that religion started sometime back in history. The opinion of these two kinds of people is completely opposite to each other and they should never argue with each other. Do you really think we should argue with each other? Frankly speaking, I do not want to argue with you; but I do not want to sound rude, so I shall answer your other questions. << I am surprised how can you claim Vimanas were used in Lanka basing on History. Can you provide some archelogical references. >> Scientists have found an ancient TESLA grid used for powering aircraft. At first they thought that this grid might belong to the legendary Atlantis, believed to have submerged into atlantic ocean. However, to their surprise, they found the image carved at one of the places in Canada to be that of an Indian, indicating to us that this grid could belong to Indians. Our ancestors had a knowledge of aircraft; Ramayan is not lying to us when it tells us about Pushpak Viman carrying Ram from Lanka to Ayodhya. Here is the reference - http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/a/atlantis_power_grid.html << It is funny. Go to South India and compare the traditions among Dravidians with that of Gujaraties. You find the differences. Ravanausra is a devoted Shivaite and he observed severe penace for Shiva. Your rejection is ridiculous. >> I have not invented the concept of Pancha Dravidas. It is well known amongst knowledgeable Dravidians. In fact, I came to know about it through a tamil friend of mine. He came to me and told me that Siva worship was pretty dominant all along the west coast of India, along Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka, because all these regions are Dravidian regions. Thats when I came to know about Pancha Dravidas. Though it is generally known amongst the erudite, not much research has gone into it; so you would not get any scholarly references. One explanation for this is that Dravidians used to live in Gujarat, aryans came and invaded them and pushed them to south; they then traveled through Maharashtra, karnataka, andhra to Tamilnadu. However, aryan invasion theory is now dead, so we need to provide an alternative explanation. However, after the recent demise of AIT, not much research has gone into this concept of pancha dravidas and no one has bothered to provide an alternate explanation. As per me, there was an extremely aridic drought period of three hundred years that devastated Indian civilization around 2200 BC (I have not invented this, this drought is well known to all historians and geologists, though they have not realized its significance). It is my firm opinion that Dravidians were displaced by this drought from Gujarat. They then came to South India through the Pancha Dravida regions. I have dealt with this topic extensively in the book. Here is some discussion that goes on about Pancha Dravidas - http://forumhub.com/tlit/15496.27572.06.19.32.html
  • Create New...