ing readA interesting analysis on the Vedic times.

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

I am quoting an analysis done by a very learned individual, on some aspects of

the Vedic times. One my find it an interest read.

 

The possible extent of India in the past.

 

" The earth's landmass to the extent known to Indians was quite extended and was

known interchangeably as their own country or the world...

 

 

1. Geography:

The political boundary of India was immaterial. The whole landmass known to

Indians was known both as " Bharata " and " Vishwa " interchangeably, as per the

scriptures. This mythology is maintained in history insofar as playwright

Kalidasa's works are concerned. There are no movement restrictions imposed by

the army of any king in the journey of Shakuntala or, much later, of Arjuna.

Even mudraas (currency) are the same everywhere they go. If not, they must be

fully convertible at whatever exchange rates were prevalent at that time (I did

not read about such convertibility though).

 

• 2. Moral science:

When Krishna tells Arjuna,

" & #2360; & #2381; & #2357; & #2343; & #2352; & #2381; & #2350; & #2375;

& #2344; & #2367; & #2343; & #2344; & #2350; & #2381;

& #2358; & #2381; & #2352; & #2375; & #2351; & #2307;

& #2346; & #2352; & #2343; & #2352; & #2381; & #2350; & #2379;

& #2349; & #2351; & #2366; & #2357; & #2361; & #2307; (it's better to die doing one's own

duty than attempt the job of somebody else, which is fraught with danger), " does

he mean non-Kshatriyas are non-Hindus? No, clearly " dharma " means duty here --

in Arjuna's case, Kshatriya-specific duty (that to fight the enemy) -- not

religion.

 

• 3. Religion:

Back to Kalidasa, religion-wise, Gandhaara and Siam have been depicted to have

the same gods and goddesses as today's India. The corollary: there was no other

religion to talk about.

 

• 4. Sociology:

Before casteist Manu, the dos and don'ts were not strictly defined. Yet certain

things were taboo and, by that definition, irreligious. Cannibalism, for

example. I have mentioned Kaliya Yaman already. The Mahabharata says many people

in his kingdom were cannibals. Which means the Vedas couldn't possibly have been

followed in the region that is now known as the Middle East. However, you cannot

call the citizens of another country criminals because they do not follow your

country's laws. That means, the Vedic laws applied to the Middle East, but the

people living in that region didn't give it a damn. Thus, that region was a

renegade province and not a foreign country.

 

• 5. Linguistics:

(a) If you study Sanskrit grammar you will appreciate that it's far more

detailed than Latin. The eight wibhaktis and several exceptions* in each are

somewhat paralleled only by seven such classifications in Arabic. You may note

that details in grammar diminish gradually as we move westward. Arabic

nominative, genitive and accusative are explicit and varied whereas ablative,

locative, dative and instrumental cases are only implied, not categorised as

such. Sambodhana (address) is not considered a case in Arabic. Greek has less

details and some flaws in categorisation of cases. Latin has the least details.

 

(b) The dwiwachana (dual) number in between singular and plural was prevalent in

Ancient Greek (more similarities in Indo-European languages:

http://www.friesian.com/cognates.htm). Arabic is Afro-Asiatic, not

Indo-European, but it has the dual number too. In Africa, some modern dialects

have the dual number, but in ancient times, there was no language contemporary

as well as literary in Africa corresponding to Arabic in Asia. And only advanced

languages have the dual. So how come grammarians in the stretch between India

and Greece through Arabia made rules that were so similar? And why did the

details disappear or reduce drastically in Latin? Why are roots less

scientifically graded in Greek? No philologist has the answer. They only

guesstimate Sanskrit, Greek and Latin may have had a common root**.

 

* {a classic example of exceptions within the same wibhaktis in Sanskrit: It's

& #2309; & #2361; & #2306; & #2350; & #2350;

& #2350; & #2367; & #2340; & #2381; & #2352; & #2360; & #2381; & #2351;

& #2327; & #2371; & #2361; & #2375; & #2327; & #2330; & #2381; & #2331; & #2366; & #2350; & #2367;

(I'm going to my friend's place), but

& #2348; & #2369; & #2342; & #2381; & #2343; & #2350; & #2381;

& #2358; & #2352; & #2339; & #2350; & #2381;

& #2327; & #2330; & #2381; & #2331; & #2366; & #2350; & #2367; (lit.: I'm going in the

path/to the shelter of the Buddha; in proper English: I'm seeking the

Buddha/embracing Buddhism) and not

& #2348; & #2369; & #2342; & #2381; & #2343; & #2360; & #2381; & #2351;

& #2358; & #2352; & #2339; & #2375; & #2327; & #2330; & #2381; & #2331; & #2366; & #2350; & #2367;!

Note that " of " – `-sya' in the first instance but `-am' in the second; " to " –

`-e' in the first but `-am' in the second}

 

Therefore the four classical languages show similar thought processes. ** The

" common root " of Sanskrit, Greek and Latin can be researched further from the

papers of Asiatic Society, Park Street, Kolkata. They do not claim Arabic to

have the same root. Neither do I. I am simply intrigued by the similar studies

of cases in Sanskrit and Arabic.

 

All the above together indicate that the then world as known to Indians behaved

like a singular country defined by a single culture, albeit the influence of

India reduced as we moved westward. "

 

 

 

-Regards

Rajarshi