Difference between Puloman and Pulomavi

[Guest guest]

Good point sir. However, we should remember that common origin is traced usually to prajapati, the son of Brahma. That is the origin of life and not of any civilization. The same son of Prajapati was the originator of different "tribes" - yaksha, rakshasa, deva, danava and so on. But yes, civilizational difference is questionable because the asuras too are said to have followed the same sastras, worshiped the same devatas, though they have a separate asura dharma. Hindus follow the same Jata Patha for the Veda as given by Ravana-asura. Though not by Vaidikas (they follow Baudhayana's version), the Mahanyasa as given by Ravana is followed. Ramayana does not picturize any difference in the Vedic

learning or sastric knowledge of asuras and the so-called aryans. venkata krishnan <bcvk71 Sent: Monday, October 6, 2008 2:28:39 PMRe: Re: Difference between Puloman and Pulomavi

 

Dear All,

I would like to make one important clarification rather correction of blunder committed by all historians and archaeologists. You people have been call the Devas as Aryan and Asuras as Nonaryan which is wrong.According to Vedas and allied Literature Both the Devas and Asuras are ARYAN since they are born of same Father Prajapati Maharshi KASHYAPA but different mothers.The Daityas and Danavas are together called ASURAS .The sons of Diti are called Daityas and the sons of Danu are called Danavas.The Devas , son s of Aditi are called Adityaas. How can brothers of same fathers be differentiated culturally?

B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN .

website: vedascience. com--- On Mon, 10/6/08, Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst@ telenet.be> wrote:

Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst@ telenet.be> Re: Difference between Puloman and PulomaviMonday, October 6, 2008, 1:18 AM

 

 

, "kishore patnaik" <kishorepatnaik09@ ...> wrote:> > However, there is another name Puloman which is attested by Chinese> chronology.> > The name Puloma (fem.) or Puloman occurs in scriptures and almost always> denoted Demons i.e. tribes which were opposing Indra.> > In Mbh, they are associated with Nivata Kavaca , the Asuric tribes of South> India annihilated by Agastya. These Pulomas were conquested by Arjuna.> Thus, we can say that Pulomas are a " non Aryan" South Indian tribe.>> That Indra has come to South India from Iran , before he made his progress> towards Sapta Sindhu also is supported by this attestation of Pulomas.> Indra has married Saci by

force and her father was an Asura by name>

Puloma. Indra has killed him so that he can marry Saci.> What confusion. As plentifuly discussed on this list, "Arya" has gone through several changes of meanings, including in the time lapse considered here. Which non-Aryan were those Pulomas?Indra was out of fashion by the age of the MBh, you're talking of a Vedic situation concerning Indra, a pre-Vedic peregrination of Indra from Iran through South India to Sapta Sindhu, a post-Vedic conquest by Arjuna, and all this gets "attested" by Chinese sources from after 648 CE: > > Pouloumein of Chienese annals (Ho-lo-mien) died in 648 CE, according to De> Guignes (A.R. IX.87) . There is a further identification in the case of> Ho-lo-mien, which makes it certain that a prince of India was intended, as> he was called by the Chinese Potoli-tse-Ching (son of Potoli) . While some> have tried to identify

this with Pataliputra, especially in view of the word> son, it is clear that Pataliputra has lost its fame by then and in any> case, was not ruled by any South Indian at that time. ( Magadha was being> ruled by One Purnavarman, who called himself a heir to Priyadarsi ; he was> a v assal of Harsha)> > Thus, it is clear that Pulomein of Chinese annalas was of Potali , Bodhan> in Andhra Pradesh.> At this point I must repeat: When a Hindutva history-rewriter says "Thus, it is clear that..." or any similar logical connector ("so", "therefore", "now you can no longer deny that..."), you'd better reach for your gun. A fallacy is coming. Why should Po-to-li be Bodhan?> Bodhan was traditionally connected to the kingdom of Asmaka or Assaka , who> have later ruled Magadha, before Andhra bhrityus for 442 years. They were> replaced by

their own servants but continued to be a powerful kingdom in> the South as attested by Megasthanese.>who wrote in ca. 300 BC, yet in your account manages to confirm a Chinese account thousand years younger about a king who died in 648 CE. This is a pretty dramatic illustration, yet one more, of the Hindu lack of any sense of history, i.c. of time depth. For you, history is a canvas without depth, with all events from all ages at the same distance.Kind regards,KE