reply to post by serbsta
I think the truth is between mythology and history. In all ancient texts we find mythology and history is mixed up, such as with the Illiad. The
Mahabharata is basically the Indian version of the Illiad, and just as is the case of Illiad, there is historical evidence existing that suggests the
Mahabharata really did take place. However, to what extent the real Mahabharata has been mythologised in the epic is open to wide questioning. If it
is not mythologised at all, then we must accept these descriptions of intercourse between gods and other non-human beings to be real and other
miracles and magical occurences, as well as these divine weapons. But more likely than not, there is mythology present and we need to separate them
The Mahabharata war by Indian dating took place in 3139 BCE, and a geneology of kings from that period to the Gupta period is recordered by many
Indian texts. There are also Greek records which corroborate the same dates. This places the Mahabharata war in the Indus Valley civilisation
timeframe and certainly the descriptions of the cities found in the Mahabharata correspondly with the Indus valley cities.
However, Western scholarship do not accept the Indian dates for the Mahabharata and the geneology of kings, because it would mean that the Vedic age
precedes the Indus valley civilisation by a long margin, making the Indus valley a late-vedic civilisation. This would mean Western scholarship would
have to completely discard their current timeline of Indian history and accept the Indian subcontinent as the homeland of the original
According to Western dating of Indian history the Indus valley civilisation is not Vedic but Dravidian. The Dravidians were the original dark skinned
natives of India, that were driven out of their cities and into South India by the invading Indo-Aryans or Vedic people, who were nomadic, barbarian
and anti-urban. This event took place in 1500BCE and in 1200BCE the Vedic age began with the writing of the Vedas. The first texts within this age
were the Vedas, followed up by the Upanishads, then the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata, and finally the Puranas. This narrative of Indian history is
the most widely accepted and taught as fact in the modern education system. The fact that it is completely contradicts India's own recorded history
However, recently in Indology the accepted history of India is now being challenged by scholars. There are many problems with this narrative, and I
will mention some
1. Frawley's paradox: On one hand we have masses of archeaological evidence of ancient Indian cities with no textual evidence associated with them,
and on the other hand we have masses of texual evidence associated with the Vedics but no archeological evidence associated with them.
2. Historical development is too fast: In the narrative the early Vedic people are primitive, pastrol, anti-urban, ritualistic, polytheistic around
1200BCE. By 1000BCE Vedics are sophisticated, democratic, philosophical, urban and scientific with monotheistic systems of thought.
By 500BCE entirely new religions are already forming like Buddhism and Jainism.
3. There are no records in Indian dating of the Vedics having a home outside of India. On the contrary, the Vedic texts describe the geography of
India and refer to it as their only homeland. Interesingly, the Vedic engineering texts describe brick houses and prescribe standardized ratios for
bricks which match the Indus valley brick houses.
4. Most of the scientific dating of the Vedas and Mahabharata that has been undertaken gives very early dates of up to 7000BCE, pushing the Vedic age
to 10,000 years ago.
5. The Indus valley civilisation in terms of its general aesthetic, customs and values is continious with later Indian society, even up until modern
6. Max Muller, the author of Aryan invasion theory, himself admitted it was purely speculative in his later life and said the Vedas could be thousands
of years older than he initially proposed. There is actually no evidence for the 1200BCE date, it seems to be an outright fabrication.
After my research I have concluded that the Indian dating is in fact correct and that it is most probable the Mahabharata took place in 3139BCE and
the Western dates have been fabricated for colonial agendas. This basically forces us to reevaulate the history of human civilisation. As it suggests
as early as 3000BCE, human civilisation on this planet was as complex in philosophical, scientific and urban thought as described in the Mahabharata.
Now here is more food for thought if the Mahabharata really did take place around 3000BCE and the decriptions of the weapons used are real, it would
explain why the first Indus valley excavations revealed masses of skeletons on the roads as if a huge calamity had befallen them and the rumoured
radiation and vitrified rocks. There possibly is a massive archeological cover-up here as it could suggest an advanced civilisation prior to the
traditional 10,000 year timeframe.
Edit: Too correct Indian dates of the Mahabarata
[edit on 4-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]