Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical reality !!!

December 22, 2008

Narasimha Garu & Members,

There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical

reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/events.

Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.

I would try to give some view points gathered from all these years

from various sources and my own thinking as well-

1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he

thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be unable

to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...

2) How can parents name their children as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan'

etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies

something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed some

light on this.

3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent author,

Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and krsihna

was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.

!.....!.....!

1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written that Shri

Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an

*Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract

millions of people for thousans of years.

2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat to

satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features in the

story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY

he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata. why

he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.

3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints of

yesteryears, saw his form.

One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that

perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme

reality...the supreme power can take any form for the Bhakta.

The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and

Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form of

Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion & desire

they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?

!....!....!

Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth in

this case?

Warm Regards,

Utpal

December 22, 2008

Namaste Utpal ji,Ramayana and Mahabharata are collectively referred as itihAsa in our tradition. The word itihAsa translates literally to "so it happened".Also, please refer to the numerous close attempts at astronomically dating the Mahabharata by Shri Narahari Achar , Shri P V Vartak etc. that confirms the time period according to internal references within the epic. And my brief responses to your questions are as follows1) Mahatma Gandhi, the Great Soul he indeed was, wasn't a scholar in Indic traditions and studies (religious, historical etc). He had other nobler tasks to concentrate his energies on. So we need not rely on his judgement/opinions on these matters 2) The original names were 'suyOdhan, sushAsan' etc. The 'du' prefix was substituted after the fact to indicate the negative side of ethics and morality these people were.3) This looks just an opinion with no substantiation and hence I'll leave this.4) Shri Raman's reasoning is valid but not sufficient (if that is all he stated and not any more)5) Very true. By extendsion and generalization, if vyAsa was a con artist, what does he have to benefit from painting a character as God?6) I don't think there is any dispute about whether Rama or Krishna were born. True that there are disputes on their era, divinity etc. but I did not come across any disputes about their very existence many millenia ago. To establish any Truth conclusively, it is not possible by relying on others but by genuinely embarking on the search ourselves and employing all our faculties towards that. Otherwise, it just remains our prejudiced choice of which scholar's opinion to value over other. Regards,-Prasad , "utpal pathak" <vedic_pathak wrote:>> Narasimha Garu & Members,> > There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical > reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/events.> > Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.> > I would try to give some view points gathered from all these years > from various sources and my own thinking as well-> > 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he > thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be unable > to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...> > 2) How can parents name their children as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan' > etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies > something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed some > light on this.> > 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent author, > Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and krsihna > was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.> > !.....!.....!> > 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written that Shri > Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an > *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract > millions of people for thousans of years.> > 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat to > satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features in the > story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY > he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata. why > he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.> > 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints of > yesteryears, saw his form.> One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that > perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme > reality...the supreme power can take any form for the Bhakta.> The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and > Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form of > Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion & desire > they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?> > !....!....!> > Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth in > this case?> > > Warm Regards,> > Utpal>

December 22, 2008

Dear Prasad Bhai,

namaste !!!

Thank you very much your very nice response.

yes, i belive that krishna was a realiry, with in my heart that is

without doubt. It is just, the *head* comes in questioning when some

skeptics question about the very existence of Mahabhaarat or

Raamaayan. some time it is a sincere query also. some time you think

yourself also about it.

yes it is 'Iti Haas'. 'it Happened' and not epic.

in case of mahatma Gandhi, I just gave opinion of him but i don't

endorse his view in this matter.

Su-Yodhan and Su Shaasan - its a revealation for me.i never new

this. Thanks but can you give me reference about that and who

changed the names? - this will be very good point which has bothered

me.

Regarding, prooving the Mahaabhaarat events with astronomical

combination, can hardly be taken as proof because while writing his

creation, Maharshi Vyaasa would have taken combination of those

times. - this is just another argument by Logical view.

Swami Vivekananda, in his work 'Shri Krishna & Bhagvad Gita'

mentions That whether Shri Kishna was a reality or Not, gita's

message is great. it gives eternal knowledge.

I've made argument with some people in the past that " if modern

History has not recorded the world events does not mean that the

existance of human beings was not there on the earth. in other words

modern history can never be the only 'Pramaan' for judging reality

of ancient events and personalities.

Finally it seems, that it might remain, matter of our heart and

beliefs.

Best Regards,

Utpal

, " vvootla " <vvootla wrote:

>

> Namaste Utpal ji,

>

> Ramayana and Mahabharata are collectively referred as itihAsa in

our

> tradition. The word itihAsa translates literally to " so it

happened " .

>

> Also, please refer to the numerous close attempts at astronomically

> dating the Mahabharata by Shri Narahari Achar

>

<http://sarasvati96.googlepages.com/reclaimingthechronologyofbharatam

%3A\

> narahariachar%28july2006%29> , Shri P V Vartak

>

<http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_varta

k.h\

> tml> etc. that confirms the time period according to internal

> references within the epic.

>

> And my brief responses to your questions are as follows

>

> 1) Mahatma Gandhi, the Great Soul he indeed was, wasn't a scholar

in

> Indic traditions and studies (religious, historical etc). He had

other

> nobler tasks to concentrate his energies on. So we need not rely

on his

> judgement/opinions on these matters

>

> 2) The original names were 'suyOdhan, sushAsan' etc. The 'du'

prefix was

> substituted after the fact to indicate the negative side of ethics

and

> morality these people were.

>

> 3) This looks just an opinion with no substantiation and hence I'll

> leave this.

>

> 4) Shri Raman's reasoning is valid but not sufficient (if that is

all he

> stated and not any more)

>

> 5) Very true. By extendsion and generalization, if vyAsa was a con

> artist, what does he have to benefit from painting a character as

God?

>

> 6) I don't think there is any dispute about whether Rama or

Krishna were

> born. True that there are disputes on their era, divinity etc. but

I did

> not come across any disputes about their very existence many

millenia

> ago.

>

> To establish any Truth conclusively, it is not possible by relying

on

> others but by genuinely embarking on the search ourselves and

employing

> all our faculties towards that. Otherwise, it just remains our

> prejudiced choice of which scholar's opinion to value over other.

>

> Regards,

> -Prasad

>

> , " utpal pathak " <vedic_pathak@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Narasimha Garu & Members,

> >

> > There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical

> > reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/events.

> >

> > Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.

> >

> > I would try to give some view points gathered from all these

years

> > from various sources and my own thinking as well-

> >

> > 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he

> > thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be

unable

> > to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...

> >

> > 2) How can parents name their children

as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan'

> > etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies

> > something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed

some

> > light on this.

> >

> > 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent

author,

> > Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and

krsihna

> > was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.

> >

> > !.....!.....!

> >

> > 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written that

Shri

> > Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an

> > *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract

> > millions of people for thousans of years.

> >

> > 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat

to

> > satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features in

the

> > story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY

> > he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata.

why

> > he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.

> >

> > 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints

of

> > yesteryears, saw his form.

> > One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that

> > perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme

> > reality...the supreme power can take any form for the Bhakta.

> > The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and

> > Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form

of

> > Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion &

desire

> > they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?

> >

> > !....!....!

> >

> > Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth

in

> > this case?

> >

> > Warm Regards,

> >

> > Utpal

> >

>

December 23, 2008

Dear Utpalji,

So far my limited knowledge is concerned, Shri Krishna was a historical reality. He was born and the time given in Notable Horoscope is also correct. Ved Vyasji was also alive in the same period when Shri Krishna was alive. Ved Vyasji tried to spread knowledge of Vedas and Upanishadas to common men and he wrote lots of Puranas and long poem of Mahabharat. Mahabharat was a reality but was not in the same form as narrated by Vyasji. Vyasji has given immaginary characters and incidents but his intention was to spread knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita. There was a discussion between Krishna and Arjuna in a normal form and not in Sanskrit. He advised Arjuna to start war after giving him the theory of Karma. Vyasji just gave a poetic form in sanskrit.Dr.Ashwin Rawal--- On Tue, 23/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak

wrote:

utpal pathak <vedic_pathak Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical reality !!! Date: Tuesday, 23 December, 2008, 12:17 AM

Narasimha Garu & Members,There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/ events.Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.I would try to give some view points gathered from all these years from various sources and my own thinking as well-1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be unable to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...2) How can parents name their children as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan' etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed some light on this.3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent author, Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and krsihna was just a

'imaginary' central character of his grand work.!.....!..... !1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written that Shri Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract millions of people for thousans of years.2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat to satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features in the story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata. why he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints of yesteryears, saw his form.One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme reality...the supreme power can take any form for the

Bhakta.The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form of Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion & desire they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?!....!....!Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth in this case?Warm Regards,Utpal

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

December 23, 2008

Namaste,

I am in North Carolina right now, with limited internet connectivity. I will

write more later. But the funny thing is that this is exactly the topic of a

project on which Manish and I worked during our India trip in last summer.

Manish is busy working on wrapping this project up.

> Regarding, prooving the Mahaabhaarat events with astronomical

> combination, can hardly be taken as proof because while writing his

> creation, Maharshi Vyaasa would have taken combination of those

> times. - this is just another argument by Logical view.

But the problem is that modern Indologists do not accepe that Vyasa lived 5000

years back and he wrote Mahabharata. They think that Mahabharata was put

together in 500 BC - 500 AD timeframe! If astronomy proves that the positions

given MB really happened 5000 years back and if that strongly suggests that a

person having the ability to observe planets actually wrote MB 5000 years back,

it is a very big jolt to the standard views of Indologists.

Defensive and diffident attitude of Hindu historians and their reluctance to

view Hindu historical texts as history stems from concerted efforts by biased

European Indologists from old times. When time comes, those early works need to

be discredited thoroughly and Hindu consciousness needs to be awakened.

I will write more later.

Best regards,

Narasimha

---- utpal pathak <vedic_pathak wrote:

> Dear Prasad Bhai,

> namaste !!!

>

> Thank you very much your very nice response.

>

> yes, i belive that krishna was a realiry, with in my heart that is

> without doubt. It is just, the *head* comes in questioning when some

> skeptics question about the very existence of Mahabhaarat or

> Raamaayan. some time it is a sincere query also. some time you think

> yourself also about it.

>

> yes it is 'Iti Haas'. 'it Happened' and not epic.

>

> in case of mahatma Gandhi, I just gave opinion of him but i don't

> endorse his view in this matter.

>

> Su-Yodhan and Su Shaasan - its a revealation for me.i never new

> this. Thanks but can you give me reference about that and who

> changed the names? - this will be very good point which has bothered

> me.

>

> Regarding, prooving the Mahaabhaarat events with astronomical

> combination, can hardly be taken as proof because while writing his

> creation, Maharshi Vyaasa would have taken combination of those

> times. - this is just another argument by Logical view.

>

> Swami Vivekananda, in his work 'Shri Krishna & Bhagvad Gita'

> mentions That whether Shri Kishna was a reality or Not, gita's

> message is great. it gives eternal knowledge.

>

> I've made argument with some people in the past that " if modern

> History has not recorded the world events does not mean that the

> existance of human beings was not there on the earth. in other words

> modern history can never be the only 'Pramaan' for judging reality

> of ancient events and personalities.

>

> Finally it seems, that it might remain, matter of our heart and

> beliefs.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Utpal

>

> , " vvootla " <vvootla wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Utpal ji,

> >

> > Ramayana and Mahabharata are collectively referred as itihAsa in

> our

> > tradition. The word itihAsa translates literally to " so it

> happened " .

> >

> > Also, please refer to the numerous close attempts at astronomically

> > dating the Mahabharata by Shri Narahari Achar

> >

> <http://sarasvati96.googlepages.com/reclaimingthechronologyofbharatam

> %3A\

> > narahariachar%28july2006%29> , Shri P V Vartak

> >

> <http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_varta

> k.h\

> > tml> etc. that confirms the time period according to internal

> > references within the epic.

> >

> > And my brief responses to your questions are as follows

> >

> > 1) Mahatma Gandhi, the Great Soul he indeed was, wasn't a scholar

> in

> > Indic traditions and studies (religious, historical etc). He had

> other

> > nobler tasks to concentrate his energies on. So we need not rely

> on his

> > judgement/opinions on these matters

> >

> > 2) The original names were 'suyOdhan, sushAsan' etc. The 'du'

> prefix was

> > substituted after the fact to indicate the negative side of ethics

> and

> > morality these people were.

> >

> > 3) This looks just an opinion with no substantiation and hence I'll

> > leave this.

> >

> > 4) Shri Raman's reasoning is valid but not sufficient (if that is

> all he

> > stated and not any more)

> >

> > 5) Very true. By extendsion and generalization, if vyAsa was a con

> > artist, what does he have to benefit from painting a character as

> God?

> >

> > 6) I don't think there is any dispute about whether Rama or

> Krishna were

> > born. True that there are disputes on their era, divinity etc. but

> I did

> > not come across any disputes about their very existence many

> millenia

> > ago.

> >

> > To establish any Truth conclusively, it is not possible by relying

> on

> > others but by genuinely embarking on the search ourselves and

> employing

> > all our faculties towards that. Otherwise, it just remains our

> > prejudiced choice of which scholar's opinion to value over other.

> >

> > Regards,

> > -Prasad

> >

> > , " utpal pathak " <vedic_pathak@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Narasimha Garu & Members,

> > >

> > > There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical

> > > reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/events.

> > >

> > > Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.

> > >

> > > I would try to give some view points gathered from all these

> years

> > > from various sources and my own thinking as well-

> > >

> > > 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he

> > > thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be

> unable

> > > to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...

> > >

> > > 2) How can parents name their children

> as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan'

> > > etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies

> > > something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed

> some

> > > light on this.

> > >

> > > 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent

> author,

> > > Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and

> krsihna

> > > was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.

> > >

> > > !.....!.....!

> > >

> > > 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written that

> Shri

> > > Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an

> > > *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract

> > > millions of people for thousans of years.

> > >

> > > 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat

> to

> > > satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features in

> the

> > > story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY

> > > he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata.

> why

> > > he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.

> > >

> > > 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints

> of

> > > yesteryears, saw his form.

> > > One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that

> > > perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme

> > > reality...the supreme power can take any form for the Bhakta.

> > > The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and

> > > Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form

> of

> > > Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion &

> desire

> > > they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?

> > >

> > > !....!....!

> > >

> > > Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth

> in

> > > this case?

> > >

> > > Warm Regards,

> > >

> > > Utpal

> > >

> >

>

> ---

>

> || Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

>

December 23, 2008

When time comes, those early works need to be discredited thoroughly and Hindu consciousness needs to be awakened.

Yes Sir, very well said. I and a lot of people like me feel pained when we see our religion and culture being disrespected, discredited and trivialized by others for unscrupulous reasons. Specially the left leaning pseudo-secular "intellectuals".

The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra--- On Tue, 23/12/08, Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr wrote:

Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr Re: Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical reality !!! Cc: "utpal pathak" <vedic_pathakTuesday, 23 December, 2008, 9:57 PM

Namaste,I am in North Carolina right now, with limited internet connectivity. I will write more later. But the funny thing is that this is exactly the topic of a project on which Manish and I worked during our India trip in last summer. Manish is busy working on wrapping this project up.> Regarding, prooving the Mahaabhaarat events with astronomical > combination, can hardly be taken as proof because while writing his > creation, Maharshi Vyaasa would have taken combination of those > times. - this is just another argument by Logical view.But the problem is that modern Indologists do not accepe that Vyasa lived 5000 years back and he wrote Mahabharata. They think that Mahabharata was put together in 500 BC - 500 AD timeframe! If astronomy proves that the positions given MB really happened 5000 years back and if that strongly suggests that a person having the ability to observe planets actually wrote MB

5000 years back, it is a very big jolt to the standard views of Indologists.Defensive and diffident attitude of Hindu historians and their reluctance to view Hindu historical texts as history stems from concerted efforts by biased European Indologists from old times. When time comes, those early works need to be discredited thoroughly and Hindu consciousness needs to be awakened.I will write more later.Best regards,Narasimha---- utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ > wrote: > Dear Prasad Bhai,> namaste !!!> > Thank you very much your very nice response.> > yes, i belive that krishna was a realiry, with in my heart that is > without doubt. It is just, the *head* comes in questioning when some > skeptics question about the very existence of Mahabhaarat or > Raamaayan. some time it

is a sincere query also. some time you think > yourself also about it.> > > yes it is 'Iti Haas'. 'it Happened' and not epic.> > in case of mahatma Gandhi, I just gave opinion of him but i don't > endorse his view in this matter.> > Su-Yodhan and Su Shaasan - its a revealation for me.i never new > this. Thanks but can you give me reference about that and who > changed the names? - this will be very good point which has bothered > me.> > Regarding, prooving the Mahaabhaarat events with astronomical > combination, can hardly be taken as proof because while writing his > creation, Maharshi Vyaasa would have taken combination of those > times. - this is just another argument by Logical view.> > Swami Vivekananda, in his work 'Shri Krishna & Bhagvad Gita' > mentions That whether Shri Kishna was a reality or Not,

gita's > message is great. it gives eternal knowledge.> > I've made argument with some people in the past that "if modern > History has not recorded the world events does not mean that the > existance of human beings was not there on the earth. in other words > modern history can never be the only 'Pramaan' for judging reality > of ancient events and personalities. > > Finally it seems, that it might remain, matter of our heart and > beliefs.> > Best Regards,> > Utpal> > , "vvootla" <vvootla > wrote:> >> > Namaste Utpal ji,> > > > Ramayana and Mahabharata are collectively referred as itihAsa in > our> > tradition. The word itihAsa translates literally to "so it

> happened".> > > > Also, please refer to the numerous close attempts at astronomically> > dating the Mahabharata by Shri Narahari Achar> > > <http://sarasvati96. googlepages. com/reclaimingth echronologyofbha ratam> %3A\> > narahariachar% 28july2006% 29> , Shri P V Vartak> > > <http://www.hindunet .org/hindu_ history/ancient/ mahabharat/ mahab_varta> k.h\> > tml> etc. that confirms the time period according to internal> > references within the epic.> > > > And my brief responses to your questions are as follows> > > > 1) Mahatma Gandhi, the Great Soul he indeed was, wasn't

a scholar > in> > Indic traditions and studies (religious, historical etc). He had > other> > nobler tasks to concentrate his energies on. So we need not rely > on his> > judgement/opinions on these matters> > > > 2) The original names were 'suyOdhan, sushAsan' etc. The 'du' > prefix was> > substituted after the fact to indicate the negative side of ethics > and> > morality these people were.> > > > 3) This looks just an opinion with no substantiation and hence I'll> > leave this.> > > > 4) Shri Raman's reasoning is valid but not sufficient (if that is > all he> > stated and not any more)> > > > 5) Very true. By extendsion and generalization, if vyAsa was a con> > artist, what does he have to benefit from painting a character as > God?> >

> > 6) I don't think there is any dispute about whether Rama or > Krishna were> > born. True that there are disputes on their era, divinity etc. but > I did> > not come across any disputes about their very existence many > millenia> > ago.> > > > To establish any Truth conclusively, it is not possible by relying > on> > others but by genuinely embarking on the search ourselves and > employing> > all our faculties towards that. Otherwise, it just remains our> > prejudiced choice of which scholar's opinion to value over other.> > > > Regards,> > -Prasad> > > > > > , "utpal pathak" <vedic_pathak@ >> > wrote:> > >> > >

Narasimha Garu & Members,> > >> > > There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical> > > reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/ events.> > >> > > Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.> > >> > > I would try to give some view points gathered from all these > years> > > from various sources and my own thinking as well-> > >> > > 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he> > > thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be > unable> > > to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...> > >> > > 2) How can parents name their children > as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan'> > > etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies> > >

something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed > some> > > light on this.> > >> > > 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent > author,> > > Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and > krsihna> > > was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.> > >> > > !.....!..... !> > >> > > 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written that > Shri> > > Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an> > > *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract> > > millions of people for thousans of years.> > >> > > 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat > to> > > satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself

features in > the> > > story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY> > > he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata. > why> > > he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.> > >> > > 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints > of> > > yesteryears, saw his form.> > > One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that> > > perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme> > > reality...the supreme power can take any form for the Bhakta.> > > The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and> > > Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form > of> > > Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion & > desire> > > they got to

see the form of Shri Krushna?> > >> > > !....!....!> > >> > > Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth > in> > > this case?> > >> > >> > > Warm Regards,> > >> > > Utpal> > >> >> > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------> > || Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||>

December 24, 2008

Namaste Ahwin Bhai,

>Shri Krishna was a historical reality

>Vyasji has given immaginary characters and incidents but his

>intention was to spread knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita

The above two statements gives contradictory views.

However, the point is to find out the truth or atleast go as near as

we can get collectively.

Best Regards,

Utpal

, Ashwin Rawal <ashwinrawal

wrote:

>

> Dear Utpalji,

> So far my limited knowledge is concerned, Shri Krishna was a

historical reality. He was born and the time given in Notable

Horoscope is also correct. Ved Vyasji was also alive in the same

period when Shri Krishna was alive. Ved Vyasji tried to spread

knowledge of Vedas and Upanishadas to common men and he wrote lots

of Puranas and long poem of Mahabharat. Mahabharat was a reality but

was not in the same form as narrated by Vyasji. Vyasji has given

immaginary characters and incidents but his intention was to spread

knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita. There was a discussion

between Krishna and Arjuna in a normal form and not in Sanskrit. He

advised Arjuna to start war after giving him the theory of Karma.

Vyasji just gave a poetic form in sanskrit.

>

> Dr.Ashwin Rawal

>

> --- On Tue, 23/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak wrote:

>

> utpal pathak <vedic_pathak

> Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical

reality !!!

>

> Tuesday, 23 December, 2008, 12:17 AM

Narasimha Garu & Members,

>

> There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical

> reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/ events.

>

> Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.

>

> I would try to give some view points gathered from all these years

> from various sources and my own thinking as well-

>

> 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he

> thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be

unable

> to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...

>

> 2) How can parents name their children as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan'

> etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies

> something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed some

> light on this.

>

> 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent

author,

> Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and

krsihna

> was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.

>

> !.....!..... !

>

> 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written that Shri

> Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an

> *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract

> millions of people for thousans of years.

>

> 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat to

> satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features in

the

> story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY

> he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata. why

> he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.

>

> 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints of

> yesteryears, saw his form.

> One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that

> perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme

> reality...the supreme power can take any form for the Bhakta.

> The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and

> Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form of

> Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion &

desire

> they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?

>

> !....!....!

>

> Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth

in

> this case?

>

> Warm Regards,

>

> Utpal

>

Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite

group at http://in.promos./groups/

>

December 25, 2008

No my dear. My statement is not contradictory. I have said that Shri Krishna is a reality and Ved Vyasji was also in the same time. This is what I have read. But the Mahabharat is a story full of immaginations. Most of the characters are immaginary.Dr.Ashwin Rawal--- On Thu, 25/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak wrote:

utpal pathak <vedic_pathak Re: Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical reality !!! Date: Thursday, 25 December, 2008, 7:26 AM

Namaste Ahwin Bhai,>Shri Krishna was a historical reality>Vyasji has given immaginary characters and incidents but his >intention was to spread knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru GitaThe above two statements gives contradictory views.However, the point is to find out the truth or atleast go as near as we can get collectively.Best Regards,Utpal, Ashwin Rawal <ashwinrawal@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Utpalji,> So far my limited knowledge is concerned, Shri Krishna was a historical reality. He was born and the time given in Notable Horoscope is also correct. Ved Vyasji was also alive in the same period when Shri Krishna was alive. Ved Vyasji tried to spread knowledge of Vedas and Upanishadas to common men and he wrote lots

of Puranas and long poem of Mahabharat. Mahabharat was a reality but was not in the same form as narrated by Vyasji. Vyasji has given immaginary characters and incidents but his intention was to spread knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita. There was a discussion between Krishna and Arjuna in a normal form and not in Sanskrit. He advised Arjuna to start war after giving him the theory of Karma. Vyasji just gave a poetic form in sanskrit.> > Dr.Ashwin Rawal> > --- On Tue, 23/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...> wrote:> > utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...>> Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical reality !!!> > Tuesday, 23 December, 2008, 12:17 AM> > > > > >

> Narasimha Garu & Members,> > There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical > reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/ events.> > Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.> > I would try to give some view points gathered from all these years > from various sources and my own thinking as well-> > 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he > thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be unable > to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...> > 2) How can parents name their children as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan' > etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies > something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed some > light on this.> > 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by

super-intelligent author, > Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and krsihna > was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.> > !.....!..... !> > 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written that Shri > Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an > *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract > millions of people for thousans of years.> > 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat to > satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features in the > story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY > he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata. why > he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.> > 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints of >

yesteryears, saw his form.> One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that > perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme > reality...the supreme power can take any form for the Bhakta.> The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and > Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form of > Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion & desire > they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?> > !....!....!> > Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth in > this case?> > Warm Regards,> > Utpal> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite group at http://in.promos. / groups/>

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

December 26, 2008

Dear Dr. Rawal,

Today itself, i saw in AAJ TAK channel, that they discovered some proof

of King Acheekak, who was killed by Bhima, though i was not seen the

complete commentary, but it was enough convincing.

I hope you know this character in the Mahabharat. Their is not a single

fictitious character in Mahabharat.

One of my close has old scripture which completely described about the

aeroplane and its making.

It has many chapters in Sanskrit stanzas devoted to it. He is looking

for the translation. This Granth is written by Rishi Bhardwaj.

We have certainly lost huge knowledge in last 1500 yrs.

Best Wishes,

Vijay Goel

Jaipur.

December 26, 2008

Namaste Ashwin ji,

>>> But the Mahabharat is a story full of immaginations. Most of the

characters are immaginary

Can you elaborate with quoting a few samples of those 'imaginations'

and why you think that they are absolutely 'imaginations' and not

'reality'? However, if you are not sure and the above was just a

statement intended to share 'what you like to believe' then it is okay

and we respect that right of yours.

Regards,

-Prasad

, Ashwin Rawal <ashwinrawal wrote:

>

> No my dear. My statement is not contradictory. I have said that Shri

Krishna is a reality and Ved Vyasji was also in the same time. This is

what I have read. But the Mahabharat is a story full of immaginations.

Most of the characters are immaginary.

>

> Dr.Ashwin Rawal

>

> --- On Thu, 25/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak wrote:

>

> utpal pathak <vedic_pathak

> Re: Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical

reality !!!

>

> Thursday, 25 December, 2008, 7:26 AM

Namaste Ahwin Bhai,

>

> >Shri Krishna was a historical reality

>

> >Vyasji has given immaginary characters and incidents but his

> >intention was to spread knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita

>

> The above two statements gives contradictory views.

>

> However, the point is to find out the truth or atleast go as near as

> we can get collectively.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Utpal

>

> , Ashwin Rawal <ashwinrawal@ ...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Utpalji,

> > So far my limited knowledge is concerned, Shri Krishna was a

> historical reality. He was born and the time given in Notable

> Horoscope is also correct. Ved Vyasji was also alive in the same

> period when Shri Krishna was alive. Ved Vyasji tried to spread

> knowledge of Vedas and Upanishadas to common men and he wrote lots

> of Puranas and long poem of Mahabharat. Mahabharat was a reality but

> was not in the same form as narrated by Vyasji. Vyasji has given

> immaginary characters and incidents but his intention was to spread

> knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita. There was a discussion

> between Krishna and Arjuna in a normal form and not in Sanskrit. He

> advised Arjuna to start war after giving him the theory of Karma.

> Vyasji just gave a poetic form in sanskrit.

> >

> > Dr.Ashwin Rawal

> >

> > --- On Tue, 23/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...>

> > Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical

> reality !!!

> >

> > Tuesday, 23 December, 2008, 12:17 AM

> >

> > Narasimha Garu & Members,

> >

> > There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical

> > reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/ events.

> >

> > Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.

> >

> > I would try to give some view points gathered from all these years

> > from various sources and my own thinking as well-

> >

> > 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he

> > thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be

> unable

> > to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...

> >

> > 2) How can parents name their children as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan'

> > etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies

> > something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed some

> > light on this.

> >

> > 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent

> author,

> > Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and

> krsihna

> > was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.

> >

> > !.....!..... !

> >

> > 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written that Shri

> > Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an

> > *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract

> > millions of people for thousans of years.

> >

> > 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat to

> > satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features in

> the

> > story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY

> > he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata. why

> > he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.

> >

> > 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints of

> > yesteryears, saw his form.

> > One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that

> > perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme

> > reality...the supreme power can take any form for the Bhakta.

> > The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and

> > Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form of

> > Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion &

> desire

> > they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?

> >

> > !....!....!

> >

> > Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth

> in

> > this case?

> >

> > Warm Regards,

> >

> > Utpal

> >

> > Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite

> group at http://in.promos. / groups/

> >

>

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, on

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html/

>

December 26, 2008

Dear Members,

I've come across the press release on net which gives intresting account. I am happy to see that serious efforts are being made by wellmeaning scholars to *put the record straight*.

Our history books needs to be re-written and Dr. Narahari Achar has really provided momentum for that.

!....!....!

PRESS RELEASE

Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of Indian Civilization

Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological and astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization and its human population is indigenous.

In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia.

Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were presented by two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University in California. Their results generally contradict the notion Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian civilization.

Underhill concluded "the spatial frequency distributions of both L1 frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating from India", referring to a Y chromosome marker. He, however, put several caveats before interpreting genetic data, including "Y-ancestry may not always reflect the ancestry of the rest of the genome"

Dr. Kashyap, on the other hand, with the most comprehensive set of genetic data was quite emphatic in his assertion that there is "no clear genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into India, [and] establishment of caste system and gene flow."

Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the idea of Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times, continued to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not provide the time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in Aryan presence in India.

Dr. Kashyap's reply was that even though the time resolution needs further work, the fact that there are clear and distinct differences in the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian and European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan invasion or migration into Indian Subcontinent.

Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for his theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present in the conference and raised many questions. Some of his commentaries questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses from other participants.

Rig Veda has been dated to 1,500 BC by those who use linguistics to claim its origin Aryans coming out of Central Asia and Europe. Archaeologist B.B. Lal and scientist and historian N.S. Rajaram disagreed with the position of linguists, in particular Witzel who claimed literary and linguistic evidence for the non-Indian origin of the Vedic civilization.

Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from University of Memphis clearly showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067 BC, thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic people.

Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer to Aryan invasion theory.

Dr. Bal Ram Singh, Director, Center for Indic Studies at UMass Dartmouth, which organized the conference was appalled at the level of visceral feelings Witzel holds against some of the scholars in the field, but felt satisfied with the overall outcome of the conference.

"I am glad to see people who have been scholarly shooting at each other for about a decade are finally in one room, this is a progress", said Singh.

The conference was able to bring together in one room for the first time experts from genetics, archeology, physics, linguistics, anthropology, history, and philosophy. A proceedings of the conference is expected to come out soon, detailing various arguments on the origin of Indian civilization.

The conference was sponsored by the Center for Indic Studies at UMass Dartmouth (www.umassd.edu/indic) with co-sponsorship from Educator's Society for the Heritage of India (www.eshiusa.org).

Bal Ram Singh, Ph.D. Director, Center for Indic Studies University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 285 Old Westport Road Dartmouth, MA 02747

Phone: 508-999-8588 Fax: 508-999-8451 Email: bsingh

Internet address: http://www.umassd.edu/indic

!.....!....!

, "vvootla" <vvootla wrote:>> Namaste Ashwin ji,> > >>> But the Mahabharat is a story full of immaginations. Most of the> characters are immaginary > > Can you elaborate with quoting a few samples of those 'imaginations'> and why you think that they are absolutely 'imaginations' and not> 'reality'? However, if you are not sure and the above was just a> statement intended to share 'what you like to believe' then it is okay> and we respect that right of yours.> > Regards,> -Prasad> > , Ashwin Rawal ashwinrawal@ wrote:> >> > No my dear. My statement is not contradictory. I have said that Shri> Krishna is a reality and Ved Vyasji was also in the same time. This is> what I have read. But the Mahabharat is a story full of immaginations.> Most of the characters are immaginary.> > > > Dr.Ashwin Rawal> > > > --- On Thu, 25/12/08, utpal pathak vedic_pathak@ wrote:> > > > utpal pathak vedic_pathak@> > Re: Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical> reality !!!> > > > Thursday, 25 December, 2008, 7:26 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Ahwin Bhai,> > > > >Shri Krishna was a historical reality> > > > >Vyasji has given immaginary characters and incidents but his > > >intention was to spread knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita> > > > The above two statements gives contradictory views.> > > > However, the point is to find out the truth or atleast go as near as > > we can get collectively.> > > > Best Regards,> > > > Utpal> > > > , Ashwin Rawal <ashwinrawal@ ...> > > wrote:> > >> > > Dear Utpalji,> > > So far my limited knowledge is concerned, Shri Krishna was a > > historical reality. He was born and the time given in Notable > > Horoscope is also correct. Ved Vyasji was also alive in the same > > period when Shri Krishna was alive. Ved Vyasji tried to spread > > knowledge of Vedas and Upanishadas to common men and he wrote lots > > of Puranas and long poem of Mahabharat. Mahabharat was a reality but > > was not in the same form as narrated by Vyasji. Vyasji has given > > immaginary characters and incidents but his intention was to spread > > knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita. There was a discussion > > between Krishna and Arjuna in a normal form and not in Sanskrit. He > > advised Arjuna to start war after giving him the theory of Karma. > > Vyasji just gave a poetic form in sanskrit.> > > > > > Dr.Ashwin Rawal> > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...> wrote:> > > > > > utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...>> > > Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical > > reality !!!> > > > > > Tuesday, 23 December, 2008, 12:17 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha Garu & Members,> > > > > > There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical > > > reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/ events.> > > > > > Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.> > > > > > I would try to give some view points gathered from all these years > > > from various sources and my own thinking as well-> > > > > > 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he > > > thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be > > unable > > > to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...> > > > > > 2) How can parents name their children as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan' > > > etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies > > > something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed some > > > light on this.> > > > > > 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent > > author, > > > Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and > > krsihna > > > was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.> > > > > > !.....!..... !> > > > > > 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written that Shri > > > Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an > > > *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract > > > millions of people for thousans of years.> > > > > > 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat to > > > satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features in > > the > > > story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY > > > he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata. why > > > he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.> > > > > > 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints of > > > yesteryears, saw his form.> > > One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that > > > perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme > > > reality...the supreme power can take any form for the Bhakta.> > > The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and > > > Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form of > > > Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion & > > desire > > > they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?> > > > > > !....!....!> > > > > > Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth > > in > > > this case?> > > > > > Warm Regards,> > > > > > Utpal> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite > > group at http://in.promos. / groups/> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, on> http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html/> >>

December 26, 2008

Dear Members,

Please go through the 2 nos. 'Audio files' of Interview of Dr.

Narahari Achar over the issue on his reseach for Mahabhaarata War

Date.

http://www.sanatanadharmafoundation.com/index.php?

option=com_content & task=view & id=47 & Itemid=32

Best Regards,

Utpal

, " utpal pathak "

<vedic_pathak wrote:

>

> Dear Members,

>

> I've come across the press release on net which gives intresting

> account. I am happy to see that serious efforts are being made by

> wellmeaning scholars to *put the record straight*.

>

> Our history books needs to be re-written and Dr. Narahari Achar

has

> really provided momentum for that.

>

> !....!....!

>

> PRESS RELEASE

>

> Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of

Indian

> Civilization

>

> Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological and

> astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in

> Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization

and its

> human population is indigenous.

>

> In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian

Subcontinent

> may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural

> origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia.

>

> Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were

presented by

> two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National

> Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of

Stanford

> University in California. Their results generally contradict the

notion

> Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian

civilization.

>

> Underhill concluded " the spatial frequency distributions of both L1

> frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating

from

> India " , referring to a Y chromosome marker. He, however, put

several

> caveats before interpreting genetic data, including " Y-ancestry

may not

> always reflect the ancestry of the rest of the genome "

>

> Dr. Kashyap, on the other hand, with the most comprehensive set of

> genetic data was quite emphatic in his assertion that there is " no

clear

> genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into India,

[and]

> establishment of caste system and gene flow. "

>

> Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the idea

of

> Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times,

continued

> to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not provide

the

> time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in

Aryan

> presence in India.

>

> Dr. Kashyap's reply was that even though the time resolution needs

> further work, the fact that there are clear and distinct

differences in

> the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian and

> European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan

invasion or

> migration into Indian Subcontinent.

>

> Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for his

> theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present

in the

> conference and raised many questions. Some of his commentaries

> questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses from

> other participants.

>

> Rig Veda has been dated to 1,500 BC by those who use linguistics to

> claim its origin Aryans coming out of Central Asia and Europe.

> Archaeologist B.B. Lal and scientist and historian N.S. Rajaram

> disagreed with the position of linguists, in particular Witzel who

> claimed literary and linguistic evidence for the non-Indian origin

of

> the Vedic civilization.

>

> Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from University of Memphis clearly

> showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in

3,067 BC,

> thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic

people.

>

> Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the

> audience, that he and his colleagues no longer to Aryan

> invasion theory.

>

> Dr. Bal Ram Singh, Director, Center for Indic Studies at UMass

> Dartmouth, which organized the conference was appalled at the

level of

> visceral feelings Witzel holds against some of the scholars in the

> field, but felt satisfied with the overall outcome of the

conference.

>

> " I am glad to see people who have been scholarly shooting at each

other

> for about a decade are finally in one room, this is a progress " ,

said

> Singh.

>

> The conference was able to bring together in one room for the

first time

> experts from genetics, archeology, physics, linguistics,

anthropology,

> history, and philosophy. A proceedings of the conference is

expected to

> come out soon, detailing various arguments on the origin of Indian

> civilization.

>

> The conference was sponsored by the Center for Indic Studies at

UMass

> Dartmouth (www.umassd.edu/indic <http://www.umassd.edu/indic> )

with

> co-sponsorship from Educator's Society for the Heritage of India

> (www.eshiusa.org <http://www.eshiusa.org/> ).

>

> Bal Ram Singh, Ph.D. Director, Center for Indic Studies University

of

> Massachusetts Dartmouth 285 Old Westport Road Dartmouth, MA 02747

>

> Phone: 508-999-8588 Fax: 508-999-8451 Email: bsingh

> <bsingh

>

> Internet address: http://www.umassd.edu/indic

> <http://www.umassd.edu/indic>

>

> !.....!....!

>

> , " vvootla " <vvootla@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Ashwin ji,

> >

> > >>> But the Mahabharat is a story full of immaginations. Most of

the

> > characters are immaginary

> >

> > Can you elaborate with quoting a few samples of

those 'imaginations'

> > and why you think that they are absolutely 'imaginations' and not

> > 'reality'? However, if you are not sure and the above was just a

> > statement intended to share 'what you like to believe' then it

is okay

> > and we respect that right of yours.

> >

> > Regards,

> > -Prasad

> >

> > , Ashwin Rawal ashwinrawal@

wrote:

> > >

> > > No my dear. My statement is not contradictory. I have said

that Shri

> > Krishna is a reality and Ved Vyasji was also in the same time.

This is

> > what I have read. But the Mahabharat is a story full of

immaginations.

> > Most of the characters are immaginary.

> > >

> > > Dr.Ashwin Rawal

> > >

> > > --- On Thu, 25/12/08, utpal pathak vedic_pathak@ wrote:

> > >

> > > utpal pathak vedic_pathak@

> > > Re: Mahabhaarat is an epic or

historical

> > reality !!!

> > >

> > > Thursday, 25 December, 2008, 7:26 AM

> > >

> > > Namaste Ahwin Bhai,

> > >

> > > >Shri Krishna was a historical reality

> > >

> > > >Vyasji has given immaginary characters and incidents but his

> > > >intention was to spread knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru

Gita

> > >

> > > The above two statements gives contradictory views.

> > >

> > > However, the point is to find out the truth or atleast go as

near as

> > > we can get collectively.

> > >

> > > Best Regards,

> > >

> > > Utpal

> > >

> > > , Ashwin Rawal

<ashwinrawal@

> ...>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Utpalji,

> > > > So far my limited knowledge is concerned, Shri Krishna was a

> > > historical reality. He was born and the time given in Notable

> > > Horoscope is also correct. Ved Vyasji was also alive in the

same

> > > period when Shri Krishna was alive. Ved Vyasji tried to spread

> > > knowledge of Vedas and Upanishadas to common men and he wrote

lots

> > > of Puranas and long poem of Mahabharat. Mahabharat was a

reality but

> > > was not in the same form as narrated by Vyasji. Vyasji has

given

> > > immaginary characters and incidents but his intention was to

spread

> > > knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita. There was a

discussion

> > > between Krishna and Arjuna in a normal form and not in

Sanskrit. He

> > > advised Arjuna to start war after giving him the theory of

Karma.

> > > Vyasji just gave a poetic form in sanskrit.

> > > >

> > > > Dr.Ashwin Rawal

> > > >

> > > > --- On Tue, 23/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...>

> > > > Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical

> > > reality !!!

> > > >

> > > > Tuesday, 23 December, 2008, 12:17 AM

> > > >

> > > > Narasimha Garu & Members,

> > > >

> > > > There is a long pending question with me and that is

Historical

> > > > reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/

events.

> > > >

> > > > Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.

> > > >

> > > > I would try to give some view points gathered from all these

years

> > > > from various sources and my own thinking as well-

> > > >

> > > > 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a

reality.he

> > > > thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be

> > > unable

> > > > to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...

> > > >

> > > > 2) How can parents name their children

as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan'

> > > > etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it

implies

> > > > something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can

shed some

> > > > light on this.

> > > >

> > > > 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent

> > > author,

> > > > Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and

> > > krsihna

> > > > was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.

> > > >

> > > > !.....!..... !

> > > >

> > > > 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written

that Shri

> > > > Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an

> > > > *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract

> > > > millions of people for thousans of years.

> > > >

> > > > 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of

Mahabhaarat to

> > > > satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features

in

> > > the

> > > > story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then

WHY

> > > > he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e.

Bhaagavata. why

> > > > he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.

> > > >

> > > > 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many

Saints of

> > > > yesteryears, saw his form.

> > > > One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that

> > > > perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme

> > > > reality...the supreme power can take any form for the Bhakta.

> > > > The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and

> > > > Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that

form of

> > > > Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion &

> > > desire

> > > > they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?

> > > >

> > > > !....!....!

> > > >

> > > > Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the

Truth

> > > in

> > > > this case?

> > > >

> > > > Warm Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Utpal

> > > >

> > > > Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite

> > > group at http://in.promos. / groups/

> > > >

> > >

> > > Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, on

> > http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-

08.html/

> > >

> >

>

December 27, 2008

Namaste,

If 3067 BCE is now reasonably confirmed with Planetorium Software,

then Two popular beliefs are immediately shattered:

1) Shri Krishna's birth date as 19.july.3228 BC

2) His Departure in 3102 BC

Some other 'completely false' & poisonous doctrain injected in mind

of our people & world at large such as

- Aryan were foreigners & invaded India

- Aryan/Dravid clashes

i am actually excited with these topic. till now i really didn't

look for findings in this matter and really missed article of Shri

Narhari till now.

.....

Shri Goel's information about discovery of proofs of Achhekak's

existence, among other already available proofs such as Vrindawan,

Dwaraka etc.. gives me a good material to form a logical opinion

about MB's Historical reality.

I am also looking for informations from project of Narasimha &

Manish bhai.

Warm Regards,

Utpal

, " utpal pathak "

<vedic_pathak wrote:

>

> Dear Members,

>

> Please go through the 2 nos. 'Audio files' of Interview of Dr.

> Narahari Achar over the issue on his reseach for Mahabhaarata War

> Date.

>

> http://www.sanatanadharmafoundation.com/index.php?

> option=com_content & task=view & id=47 & Itemid=32

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Utpal

>

> , " utpal pathak "

> <vedic_pathak@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Members,

> >

> > I've come across the press release on net which gives intresting

> > account. I am happy to see that serious efforts are being made by

> > wellmeaning scholars to *put the record straight*.

> >

> > Our history books needs to be re-written and Dr. Narahari Achar

> has

> > really provided momentum for that.

> >

> > !....!....!

> >

> > PRESS RELEASE

> >

> > Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of

> Indian

> > Civilization

> >

> > Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological

and

> > astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in

> > Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization

> and its

> > human population is indigenous.

> >

> > In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian

> Subcontinent

> > may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and

cultural

> > origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and

Asia.

> >

> > Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were

> presented by

> > two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National

> > Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of

> Stanford

> > University in California. Their results generally contradict the

> notion

> > Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian

> civilization.

> >

> > Underhill concluded " the spatial frequency distributions of both

L1

> > frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating

> from

> > India " , referring to a Y chromosome marker. He, however, put

> several

> > caveats before interpreting genetic data, including " Y-ancestry

> may not

> > always reflect the ancestry of the rest of the genome "

> >

> > Dr. Kashyap, on the other hand, with the most comprehensive set

of

> > genetic data was quite emphatic in his assertion that there

is " no

> clear

> > genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into

India,

> [and]

> > establishment of caste system and gene flow. "

> >

> > Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the

idea

> of

> > Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times,

> continued

> > to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not

provide

> the

> > time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in

> Aryan

> > presence in India.

> >

> > Dr. Kashyap's reply was that even though the time resolution

needs

> > further work, the fact that there are clear and distinct

> differences in

> > the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian

and

> > European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan

> invasion or

> > migration into Indian Subcontinent.

> >

> > Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for

his

> > theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present

> in the

> > conference and raised many questions. Some of his commentaries

> > questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses

from

> > other participants.

> >

> > Rig Veda has been dated to 1,500 BC by those who use linguistics

to

> > claim its origin Aryans coming out of Central Asia and Europe.

> > Archaeologist B.B. Lal and scientist and historian N.S. Rajaram

> > disagreed with the position of linguists, in particular Witzel

who

> > claimed literary and linguistic evidence for the non-Indian

origin

> of

> > the Vedic civilization.

> >

> > Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from University of Memphis

clearly

> > showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in

> 3,067 BC,

> > thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic

> people.

> >

> > Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the

> > audience, that he and his colleagues no longer to Aryan

> > invasion theory.

> >

> > Dr. Bal Ram Singh, Director, Center for Indic Studies at UMass

> > Dartmouth, which organized the conference was appalled at the

> level of

> > visceral feelings Witzel holds against some of the scholars in

the

> > field, but felt satisfied with the overall outcome of the

> conference.

> >

> > " I am glad to see people who have been scholarly shooting at

each

> other

> > for about a decade are finally in one room, this is a progress " ,

> said

> > Singh.

> >

> > The conference was able to bring together in one room for the

> first time

> > experts from genetics, archeology, physics, linguistics,

> anthropology,

> > history, and philosophy. A proceedings of the conference is

> expected to

> > come out soon, detailing various arguments on the origin of

Indian

> > civilization.

> >

> > The conference was sponsored by the Center for Indic Studies at

> UMass

> > Dartmouth (www.umassd.edu/indic <http://www.umassd.edu/indic> )

> with

> > co-sponsorship from Educator's Society for the Heritage of India

> > (www.eshiusa.org <http://www.eshiusa.org/> ).

> >

> > Bal Ram Singh, Ph.D. Director, Center for Indic Studies

University

> of

> > Massachusetts Dartmouth 285 Old Westport Road Dartmouth, MA 02747

> >

> > Phone: 508-999-8588 Fax: 508-999-8451 Email: bsingh@

> > <bsingh@>

> >

> > Internet address: http://www.umassd.edu/indic

> > <http://www.umassd.edu/indic>

> >

> > !.....!....!

> >

> > , " vvootla " <vvootla@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste Ashwin ji,

> > >

> > > >>> But the Mahabharat is a story full of immaginations. Most

of

> the

> > > characters are immaginary

> > >

> > > Can you elaborate with quoting a few samples of

> those 'imaginations'

> > > and why you think that they are absolutely 'imaginations' and

not

> > > 'reality'? However, if you are not sure and the above was just

a

> > > statement intended to share 'what you like to believe' then it

> is okay

> > > and we respect that right of yours.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > -Prasad

> > >

> > > , Ashwin Rawal ashwinrawal@

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > No my dear. My statement is not contradictory. I have said

> that Shri

> > > Krishna is a reality and Ved Vyasji was also in the same time.

> This is

> > > what I have read. But the Mahabharat is a story full of

> immaginations.

> > > Most of the characters are immaginary.

> > > >

> > > > Dr.Ashwin Rawal

> > > >

> > > > --- On Thu, 25/12/08, utpal pathak vedic_pathak@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > utpal pathak vedic_pathak@

> > > > Re: Mahabhaarat is an epic or

> historical

> > > reality !!!

> > > >

> > > > Thursday, 25 December, 2008, 7:26 AM

> > > >

> > > > Namaste Ahwin Bhai,

> > > >

> > > > >Shri Krishna was a historical reality

> > > >

> > > > >Vyasji has given immaginary characters and incidents but his

> > > > >intention was to spread knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru

> Gita

> > > >

> > > > The above two statements gives contradictory views.

> > > >

> > > > However, the point is to find out the truth or atleast go as

> near as

> > > > we can get collectively.

> > > >

> > > > Best Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Utpal

> > > >

> > > > , Ashwin Rawal

> <ashwinrawal@

> > ...>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Utpalji,

> > > > > So far my limited knowledge is concerned, Shri Krishna was

a

> > > > historical reality. He was born and the time given in Notable

> > > > Horoscope is also correct. Ved Vyasji was also alive in the

> same

> > > > period when Shri Krishna was alive. Ved Vyasji tried to

spread

> > > > knowledge of Vedas and Upanishadas to common men and he

wrote

> lots

> > > > of Puranas and long poem of Mahabharat. Mahabharat was a

> reality but

> > > > was not in the same form as narrated by Vyasji. Vyasji has

> given

> > > > immaginary characters and incidents but his intention was to

> spread

> > > > knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita. There was a

> discussion

> > > > between Krishna and Arjuna in a normal form and not in

> Sanskrit. He

> > > > advised Arjuna to start war after giving him the theory of

> Karma.

> > > > Vyasji just gave a poetic form in sanskrit.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dr.Ashwin Rawal

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Tue, 23/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...>

> > > > > Mahabhaarat is an epic or

historical

> > > > reality !!!

> > > > >

> > > > > Tuesday, 23 December, 2008, 12:17 AM

> > > > >

> > > > > Narasimha Garu & Members,

> > > > >

> > > > > There is a long pending question with me and that is

> Historical

> > > > > reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/

> events.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would try to give some view points gathered from all

these

> years

> > > > > from various sources and my own thinking as well-

> > > > >

> > > > > 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a

> reality.he

> > > > > thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to

be

> > > > unable

> > > > > to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...

> > > > >

> > > > > 2) How can parents name their children

> as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan'

> > > > > etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it

> implies

> > > > > something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can

> shed some

> > > > > light on this.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-

intelligent

> > > > author,

> > > > > Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and

> > > > krsihna

> > > > > was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.

> > > > >

> > > > > !.....!..... !

> > > > >

> > > > > 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written

> that Shri

> > > > > Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that

an

> > > > > *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire &

attract

> > > > > millions of people for thousans of years.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of

> Mahabhaarat to

> > > > > satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself

features

> in

> > > > the

> > > > > story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but

then

> WHY

> > > > > he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e.

> Bhaagavata. why

> > > > > he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many

> Saints of

> > > > > yesteryears, saw his form.

> > > > > One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that

> > > > > perticular Form, they could see the same form of the

supreme

> > > > > reality...the supreme power can take any form for the

Bhakta.

> > > > > The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda

and

> > > > > Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that

> form of

> > > > > Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without

devotion &

> > > > desire

> > > > > they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?

> > > > >

> > > > > !....!....!

> > > > >

> > > > > Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the

> Truth

> > > > in

> > > > > this case?

> > > > >

> > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Utpal

> > > > >

> > > > > Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your

favourite

> > > > group at http://in.promos. / groups/

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, on

> > > http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-

> 08.html/

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

December 29, 2008

Dear Prasadji,

In this regard I would like to invite you to read a book, Gita Tatva Chintan written by Swamy Atmanandji- a unique book in this kinds published by Shri Ramkrishna Mission. In the preface he has logically written so many things. As per his write up, 'Vyasji has created 18 Puranas for the common people to explain the philosophy of Dharma through different stories who were unable to understand Vedas and Upanishadas.Every Puran has multiple stories. Even Shrimad Bhagvat is also containing lots of stories and deities.'- I will not comment here anything for Most revered Ved Vyasji but my point is every narration in Mahabharat can not be accepted as true. Mahabharat is a history, I have already admitted but there must be immaginary characters with some immaginary story too. And yes, this is my openion, you have rightly said. Everybody is free to believe whatever he is convinced.Dr.Ashwin Rawal--- On Fri, 26/12/08, vvootla <vvootla wrote:

vvootla <vvootla Re: Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical reality !!! Date: Friday, 26 December, 2008, 8:36 PM

Namaste Ashwin ji,>>> But the Mahabharat is a story full of immaginations. Most of thecharacters are immaginary Can you elaborate with quoting a few samples of those 'imaginations'and why you think that they are absolutely 'imaginations' and not'reality'? However, if you are not sure and the above was just astatement intended to share 'what you like to believe' then it is okayand we respect that right of yours.Regards,-Prasad, Ashwin Rawal <ashwinrawal@ ...> wrote:>> No my dear. My statement is not contradictory. I have said that ShriKrishna is a reality and Ved Vyasji was also in the same time. This iswhat I have read. But the Mahabharat is a story full of immaginations.Most of the characters are immaginary.> > Dr.Ashwin

Rawal> > --- On Thu, 25/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...> wrote:> > utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...>> Re: Mahabhaarat is an epic or historicalreality !!!> > Thursday, 25 December, 2008, 7:26 AM> > > > > > > Namaste Ahwin Bhai,> > >Shri Krishna was a historical reality> > >Vyasji has given immaginary characters and incidents but his > >intention was to spread knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita> > The above two statements gives contradictory views.> > However, the point is to find out the truth or atleast go as near as > we can get collectively.> > Best Regards,> > Utpal>

> , Ashwin Rawal <ashwinrawal@ ...> > wrote:> >> > Dear Utpalji,> > So far my limited knowledge is concerned, Shri Krishna was a > historical reality. He was born and the time given in Notable > Horoscope is also correct. Ved Vyasji was also alive in the same > period when Shri Krishna was alive. Ved Vyasji tried to spread > knowledge of Vedas and Upanishadas to common men and he wrote lots > of Puranas and long poem of Mahabharat. Mahabharat was a reality but > was not in the same form as narrated by Vyasji. Vyasji has given > immaginary characters and incidents but his intention was to spread > knowledge of Vedas/Upanishadas thru Gita. There was a discussion > between Krishna and Arjuna in a normal form and not in Sanskrit. He > advised Arjuna to start war after giving him the theory of Karma.

> Vyasji just gave a poetic form in sanskrit.> > > > Dr.Ashwin Rawal> > > > --- On Tue, 23/12/08, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...> wrote:> > > > utpal pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...>> > Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical > reality !!!> > > > Tuesday, 23 December, 2008, 12:17 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha Garu & Members,> > > > There is a long pending question with me and that is Historical > > reality or otherwise of our many revered personalities/ events.> > > > Take for instance, 'Mahabhaarat' & 'Shri Krishna'.> > > > I would try to give some view points gathered from all these years > > from various

sources and my own thinking as well-> > > > 1) Mahatma Gandhi didn't belive that Mahabhaarat was a reality.he > > thought that it was 'epic'-creation of a poet. he seems to be > unable > > to belive logically the creation of 100 sons etc...> > > > 2) How can parents name their children as 'DURYodhan', 'Du:Shasan' > > etc.. i am not sure about the meaning of the names but it implies > > something perverted. knwoledgable person in sanskrit can shed some > > light on this.> > > > 3) Mahabhaarat was a Grand Poem created by super-intelligent > author, > > Maharshi Vyaas and hence Gita was also his own creation and > krsihna > > was just a 'imaginary' central character of his grand work.> > > > !.....!..... !> > > > 1) Dr. Raman, in Notable Horoscopes has strongly written

that Shri > > Krishna was a historically reality. His reasoning was that an > > *Imaginery creation* of some poet can never Inspire & attract > > millions of people for thousans of years.> > > > 2) If Maharshi Vyaas has written imaginery story of Mahabhaarat to > > satisfy his poetic genious then how come he himself features in > the > > story? if let's consider even that as a possibility but then WHY > > he'll write another book just on Shri Krishna i.e. Bhaagavata. why > > he'll himself Worship his own 'Kaalpanik Paatra'.> > > > 3) If Shri Krishna was never born, then how come so many Saints of > > yesteryears, saw his form.> > One can argue that becuase of their intense worship of that > > perticular Form, they could see the same form of the supreme > > reality...the supreme power can take

any form for the Bhakta.> > The solid counter argument is that, Paramhamsa Yogananda and > > Maharshi Aurobindo, it seems, never were a Devotee of that form of > > Shri Krishna, then how come in their case, without devotion & > desire > > they got to see the form of Shri Krushna?> > > > !....!....!> > > > Any thoughts about this? How to conclusively establish the Truth > in > > this case?> > > > Warm Regards,> > > > Utpal> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite > group at http://in.promos. / groups/> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, onhttp://help. / l/in// mail/mail/ tools/tools- 08.html/>

Be the first one to try the new Messenger 9 Beta!

Mahabhaarat is an epic or historical reality !!!

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads