Thanks for the maps, but where are they - uploaded to File section ????
Again I find "no one have still given me a proper answer for what I highlighted from the original Mahabharatha".
"Do you think you could enlighten me on same".
We will simply forget for the time being what the other Scholars say re the dates of Mahabharatha Epic, or what has been pointed out at various conferences, but I will like some one to only answer my questions on the text which is reproduced below. This is to findout how Sage Viyasa came about with the list of royal dynasties of India all of whom belong to the historical period after B.C.500.
Reproduced:
".....My simple argument is - how is that the royal dynasties of India such as Cheras, Cholas, Pandiyas, Keralas, Karnatakas, Andhras, Sinhalas (of Sri Lanka),Maghadas, Kalingas, Hunas, Parasikas, Sakas,Yavanas Chinas, etc "all of the historical period after B.C.500" are mentioned in the original Sanskrit Mahabharatha of Sage Viyasa.
There are references in Mahabharatha - that Cholas Pandiyas and Sinhalas were present at the Yaagam conducted by Prince Tharuma of the Pandavas, and all the Tamil kings of that period - the Cheras (Keralas), Cholas and Pandiyas have participated in the Mahabharatha War.
Sinhala history starts only from a period around B.C.550. Yavanas originally referred only to Greeks, and we are aware king Alexander invaded India only around B.C.550. Then there is a reference to the Maghada king Jayatsena as follows from the Maiyyam article.
[23] "........... and the king of Magadha Jayatsena of great strength brought with him for Yudhishthira an Akshauhini of troops. And similarly Pandya who dwelt on the coast-land near the sea, came accompanied by troops of various kinds to Yudhishthira the king of kings....."
MAHABHARATHA - UDYOGA PARVA, PAGE 31
Now Jayatsena was a Mauriya king of Magahada who ruled around second century B.C. He is said to have participated in the Mahabharatha war.
Just a food for thought... I see Marco Polo's map contains a sea route "through" the sethu... which begs the question - If this region was navigable during Marco Polo's time, does it mean that the setu did not exist then?
Am asking this question, as I have heard people claim that the sethu existed for a long time, and that there are literary evidences till the 11th Century AD, IIRC.
Another question that arises to my mind, if this region was navigable then, was it because the vessels were much smaller in size then? Or was it maintained (I hear that sand fills up pretty quick in that region - which I would presume it would owing to the big land masses, and the numerous small islands, that can block large amounts of sand) for navigation? Any thoughts?
Another question that arises to my mind, if this region was navigable then, was it because the vessels were much smaller in size then? Or was it maintained (I hear that sand fills up pretty quick in that region - which I would presume it would owing to the big land masses, and the numerous small islands, that can block large amounts of sand) for navigation? Any thoughts?
I am looking for the gallery/pictures too, where are they?
Dear Virarajendra, I think Venkat made a true attempt to address your POV. I will try once again to the extent possible. The Mahabharat, as I said before was a narrative of three phases. It is very hard to say what was said in which phase and by whom. One. Second,anything that is so many years old will have lot of interpolations and interpretations of various manner. Third, we have seen via thala puranams and other means that there are several fictitious kings with dynasty names assigned as chola/pandya etc, does not mean they really existed. Many times these connections are created to make the king or royal family look bigger in eyes of the public as that was one of the means they had in those days.
Lastly the most simple answer - we don't know and we will possibly never know how much of this is 'factual'. The Mahabharat is not a history book. Our love for the epic is not equal to obsession with making it every line of it factual - it does not make Vyasa or Valmiki or anyone liars, they never intended it to be 'factual truth' more of a narrative with great moral and spiritual value. Rajaji states this clearly in his Vyasar Virundhu that Vyasa created the classic to enhance the moral and spiritual well being of the world.
> Again I find "no one have still given me a proper answer for what I > highlighted from the original Mahabharatha". > > Dear Vira rajendra I think you should get a paper ready on your hypothesis and send it to the organisers of the mahabarat conference.( which seems to be frequently held) you may get a chance to present it before others who have worked on that subject.
venketesh
"Do you think you could enlighten me on same". > > We will simply forget for the time being what the other Scholars say > re the dates of Mahabharatha Epic, or what has been pointed out at > various conferences, but I will like some one to only answer my > questions on the text which is reproduced below. This is to findout > how Sage Viyasa came about with the list of royal dynasties of India > all of whom belong to the historical period after B.C.500. > > Reproduced: > > ".....My simple argument is - how is that the royal dynasties of India > such as Cheras, Cholas, Pandiyas, Keralas, Karnatakas, Andhras, > Sinhalas (of Sri Lanka),Maghadas, Kalingas, Hunas, Parasikas, > Sakas,Yavanas Chinas, etc "all of the historical period after B.C.500" > are mentioned in the original Sanskrit Mahabharatha of Sage Viyasa. > > There are references in Mahabharatha - that Cholas Pandiyas and > Sinhalas were present at the Yaagam conducted by Prince Tharuma of the > Pandavas, and all the Tamil kings of that period - the Cheras > (Keralas), Cholas and Pandiyas have participated in the Mahabharatha War. > > Sinhala history starts only from a period around B.C.550. Yavanas > originally referred only to Greeks, and we are aware king Alexander > invaded India only around B.C.550. Then there is a reference to the > Maghada king Jayatsena as follows from the Maiyyam article. > > [23] "........... and the king of Magadha Jayatsena of great strength > brought with him for Yudhishthira an Akshauhini of troops. And > similarly Pandya who dwelt on the coast-land near the sea, came > accompanied by troops of various kinds to Yudhishthira the king of > kings....." > > MAHABHARATHA - UDYOGA PARVA, PAGE 31 > > Now Jayatsena was a Mauriya king of Magahada who ruled around second > century B.C. He is said to have participated in the Mahabharatha war. > > --------- > > Anbudan - Virarajendra > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > --- In [email protected], vancheeswaran gopal
> > Again I find "no one have still given me a proper answer for what I > > highlighted from the original Mahabharatha". > > > > "Do you think you could enlighten me on same".
Dear Vira rajendra your theory on mahabaratha after king ashoka is unique and must be the only one such hypothesis available. but are you aware it will upset the dasavathara theory( putting krishna after buddha.) it will also be contradicted by the archeological dating of the under sea dwarka. surely its tough to imagine a war of the scale of mahabaratha after alexanders visit.