Kamath

India

#27 Sep 15, 2008
Prabhu wrote:
Hi Vikram,
I am intrigued by your statement that the haplogroup J2 is considered to be of Middle-Eastern origin and found in a lot of higher-caste Indians. In fact, my haplogroup is J2 (M172)and I have documented evidence that I am a gaud saraswat brahmin. Could you please provide me with the literature source on which your statement is based? Thank you.
Regards
Prabhu
Hey Prabhu,
Can u furnish some information on ur mtDNA and ur gotra.

Thanks,
Kamath
Agashe

Whitehorse, Canada

#29 Feb 8, 2009
Hi,

I'm just starting to take interest in my heritage and my lineage and I just can't seem to find a coherrant source of information on the internet. Being a Koknastha (Chitpavan) Brahmin from the coast, all my life I've been preached fragments of my people's historic past. But I would like someone to put those pieces together in a logical way. I'm more interested in the ancient origin of my people, as opposed to their vatican-like behaviour from the past 3 centuries. In a previous post, I read that migrants from Eastern Europe and Turkey and such came to Konkan and settled there as Brahmins (?) 2000 years ago. Does this mean that koknastha brahmins were not around when the vedas were written, and around the time of Ram and Krishna? I'm confused....
I'm an engineer and I realize that all this might be heresay and a matter of opinions. But one contiguous account is still better fragmented bits of history to me. Any enlightenment on the subject is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Aryans white

Manchester, CT

#30 Feb 17, 2009
I did not know that there are so many white (aryan)people in India LOL. Try telling an American that you are white LOL. Guys get a life.
Most African americans in US have more white blood than our so called Aryans. Yet, African Americans are considered Black. Why do you look so different from white people? That is because you have african gene. If we apply the same standard, you are black Aryan (LOL).
vikram wrote:
"The wisdom of the ancients has been taught by the philosophers of Greece, but also by people called Jews in Syria, and by Brahmins in India."
-Megasthenes, Greek Ambassador to Gupta Empire of India (now Afghanistan, Pakistan and Northern India), writing around 300 BC.
Arun

Manchester, CT

#32 Feb 17, 2009
Most Indians love to be associated with white race. Some complex it is. In reality we Indians are mixed race. We have had countless invasions and migration through ages. You can imagine the mixups that must have happened. 99% of Indians are darker. We can not define Aryans and dravidians by ignoring 99% dark Indians. The gene variation between a white race and so called Aryan Indians is so wide. The gene variation among Indians is almost nothing.

If some one is fair, good for you, you are a second class citizen in most countries towards your west. Your Aryan theory is not going to buy you any race waiver. You are not white, not black, not asian. Asian is for Mongoloid race. You are raceless.

Jai Hind.
Arun
Hind wrote:
This term Aryan and Dravidians are highly confusing for Non-Indians.
We have the same type of people throughout India.
India is diverse country.
Now people classify people on Language Group-
Sanskrit based Languages and Tamil Based Languages group.
I could not understand one thing-
Hindi has less in common with sanskrit and
South Indian Languages are closer to sanskrit.
Then how did researchers brand one language group as Aryan and the other as Dravidian?
For me all Indians are mixed up lot.
The direct Mixup can be found in MadhyaPradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, WBengal, Bihar and UP.
Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal have little mix up.
Rajastan and Gujarat is almost the same as South Indian mixup.
So there is no Aryan and Dravidian. Only Indian.
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#36 Mar 12, 2009
whatever happenned to my comments given y'day?
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#37 Mar 12, 2009
whatever happenned to my comments posted y'day?
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#39 Mar 12, 2009
what's all happenning to deatailed comments being given here?
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#40 Mar 12, 2009
chitpawan brahmins are dwivedis as against the present rule of single veda.it indicates that they separated from the main land upite brahmins long ago when the original one veda was the rule .it was split into rig yaju etc by veda vyasa around 5000 years ago and one-veda branch rule took some time to establish. the ancestors migrated soon after ved vyasa's branching the vedas .hence they have preserved their identity as dwivedis -actually trivedis-since sama is just the melodi in rig richas.thus chitpawans are indeed the oldest available tradition of vedic brahmins.
Roger Hacks

Plymouth, UK

#41 Mar 12, 2009
hiranyakeshin wrote:
chitpawan brahmins are dwivedis as against the present rule of single veda.it indicates that they separated from the main land upite brahmins long ago when the original one veda was the rule .it was split into rig yaju etc by veda vyasa around 5000 years ago and one-veda branch rule took some time to establish. the ancestors migrated soon after ved vyasa's branching the vedas .hence they have preserved their identity as dwivedis -actually trivedis-since sama is just the melodi in rig richas.thus chitpawans are indeed the oldest available tradition of vedic brahmins.
Neeegaaars
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#42 Mar 12, 2009
the ancestors of chitpawan brahmins were the shashtik brahmins in common with those of reverred sri raghavendra swami as per korti sri niwasrao's book "sri raghavendra swamigalu charitra".they hailed originally from ahichchatrapur in up/ujjain in mp and migrated to the south -presumably in the dandakaranya on the banks of godavari river nr paithan. later on some of them went to vanavasi nr shimoga in karnataka on the invitation of king mayursharma for ashwamaedha sacrifices.they settled there.mayursharma's time ids supposedly 230 bc or even earlier.some of these families further migrated to konkan nr ratnagiri-chiplon where they came to be known as chitpawans. thus thier ancestry can be traced back to at least 5000 years ago.-pl see my earlier comments
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#43 Mar 12, 2009
continued from prior post----the chitpawans were agnihotris and hence they were called agnihotrapawan.in time it was transformed to pawan and then chitpawan.chit means the heart in sanskrit.chitpawan meant their hearts were pure-refined by the constant unerring practice of agnihotra over many a generation.the famous invincible bajirao peshwa the 1st who vanquished the mughals and the nizam was from these chitpawans and also many bhakt sampradayiks of madhwa tradition were from the same ancestry of shashtik brahmins-as per korti sri niwas rao's ref adduced above in my earlier posts.i am very thankful to this gentleman for giving the cogent history of our ancestors backed with ref to shilalekhas etc.
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#44 Mar 12, 2009
scholars say there was only one veda to begin with .as it became unweildy ,veda vyasa trifurcated it into rig,yajus and sama-some say into the fourth atharva.these branches were taught to his desciples separately-one branch to one desciple.however until this rule of one branch in one sub-sector of brahmins came in vogue, other branches practiced the older discipline of all the vedas together.chitpawans go by this original dictum and even today they practice two vedas-rig and yajus together in their community unlike others who practice either rig or yajus.samaveda is inherent in rig as it is a way of melodious singing of rig richas. hece basically the original veda as a whole is current in chitpawans. they are the oldest traditionalists amongst the brahmins as such adhering to what was practiced even before the times of veda vyasa.
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#45 Mar 12, 2009
i had posted ref to my previous notings they are not displayed.
what's happenning?
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#46 Mar 12, 2009
ref for korti sri niwas rao's notings as above:
1.Aradhyavanshavali by Rudrabhatta
2)anthology by gangadharbhatta
Shashtikanvaya by Keshava
4)mallika-kusum nichaya
5)Shashtik vansh ratnakar by vyasaraya
6)Raghavendra saraswat parinaya3)
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#47 Mar 12, 2009
contd----7)Kadamba raj vijaya by karnapaya
8)engravings on stone pillars/slabs at Shikaripur,Talgunda
9)Vyasaraya abhyudaya byVijayendra bhikshu
10)Gungunratnamala bySudhindra yogi
11)Akbarnama by Farukhsiyar
all this evidence leads to prove that chitpawanas and other vaidiks are all original indians. they are not coming as foreigners but are indideneous folks.
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#48 Mar 12, 2009
Apart from all the evidence adduced by me in earlier posts,suffice it to say that the chitpawans have so many illustrious persons in their ranks who faught for the freedom of our country from rule of mughals and the british .to name a few-lokmanya tilak ,vasudev balwant phadke,agarkar,vir sawarkar,vinoba bhave,sane guruji,and many others that no one can ever imagine calling them foreigners except the wicked ones who may have a different axe to grind on this out dated issue.why would people fight for your country selflessly if they were foreigners?it is all idiotic imagery of idle drunk people i feel.the chitpawans and all the other vedic castes are thoroughly indian and indigenous people!
Jhakaas

Anonymous Proxy

#49 Mar 12, 2009
Guyz
please beware!
specially @hiranyakeshin

this thread has been created by pakistanis to divide indians on basis of cast,clas,region,religion and whatever you can imagine.
They are not interested in whether you are rig vedi saryu paryen brahamana, chitpawan, GS.

this is just for information.you may carry on the debate but don't fight amongst each other please

Thanks

@hiranyakeshin - you are right

1.initially there was just one veda...but the need to divide it into three others arose out of the 'three' different level of meanings hidden in the shrutis.

2.the yajurveda again is krishna and shukla.

2. rig vedi,dwivedi,trivedi and chaturvedi classification happened much later
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#50 Mar 12, 2009
ctd---another important consideration in my search for chitpawan brahmin's ancestral roots was that for these people settled in the konkan for all their known recent past,how comes that the Yogeshwari devi of Ambajogai in the distant Marathwada region of beed dist happens to be their Kuldevata in majority of the chitpawan families?even it is said that those who do not so rekon her have forgotten their kuldevata in the flow of time.the kuldevata has to be certainly the one with whom they were physically close at some time.as the shashtik ancestors of the chitpawans were settled for long in the deccan nr paithan/beed and ambajogai in marathwada, before emigrating to vanavasi/ratngiri,it was but natural for them to worship the Yogeshwari devi of Ambajogai which definitely was a prestine proto-historic goddess much reverred where they had settled for may be many a millenia ,at least 800 years.that is why the chitpawans with a few exceptions still worship this devi Yogeshwari of Ambajogai.
hiranyakeshin

Mumbai, India

#51 Mar 12, 2009
ref Jhakas----i am not so much paranoid of the pakis.there are some our own people who try to take advantage of the much discredited Aryan invasion theory to say that all the vaidik groups,especially the brahmins are foreigners and have no place here.i am trying to precisely prove that we are all indians and indegenous.even some eminent leader working for the uplift of the down trodden masses had sometime challenged the theory of aryan invasion stating that even the down troddens in the hindus were none other than the trai-varnikas. such dictums by their own fatherly personalities are usually forgotten by these self driving persons.my aim is to dispel their wrong notions and also to impress upon our own people the olden golden indian heritage of which we are heirs and not of some imaginary race like the Aryans.no one has proved the existance of any race called aryans. as the dravidian and aryan etc are the terms which do not help the indian ethos for its integration,we should be ever alert to these matters,i feel

Since: Mar 09

Germany

#52 Mar 12, 2009
hiranyakeshin wrote:
ref Jhakas----i am not so much paranoid of the pakis.there are some our own people who try to take advantage of the much discredited Aryan invasion theory to say that all the vaidik groups,especially the brahmins are foreigners and have no place here.i am trying to precisely prove that we are all indians and indegenous.even some eminent leader working for the uplift of the down trodden masses had sometime challenged the theory of aryan invasion stating that even the down troddens in the hindus were none other than the trai-varnikas. such dictums by their own fatherly personalities are usually forgotten by these self driving persons.my aim is to dispel their wrong notions and also to impress upon our own people the olden golden indian heritage of which we are heirs and not of some imaginary race like the Aryans.no one has proved the existance of any race called aryans. as the dravidian and aryan etc are the terms which do not help the indian ethos for its integration,we should be ever alert to these matters,i feel
I concur completely
am also enjoying the reference you are quoting.
(If you quote online links place spaces between the url.that could be one reason for your posts getting removed)
On the topic (the aryan-dravidian myth debunk):
----------
[[Source:Indian Council of Historical Research at Hyderabad on March 17-18, 2001]]

Archealogical evidences
"Bridget and Raymond Allchin, The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan (New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 331.
----------
"Culturally, the megalithic people of the South shared many beliefs and practices with megalithic builders elsewhere in the subcontinent and beyond. Yet certain practices and artefacts were at least compatible with the Vedic world and may well have prepared for a ready acceptance of Vedic concepts.hus several cists surrounded by stone-circles have four vertical slabs arranged in the shape of a swastika"

literary evidence

Tolkappiyam Marabus 71, 72, 77, 81, quoted by S. Vaiyapuri Pillai in Life of Ancient Tamils.
----------
"Tolkappiyam,uses the same eight forms of marriage found in the Dharmashastras. Moreover, it mentions the caste system or fourfold jathis in the form of Brahmins, Kings, Vaishyas and Vellalas,and calls Vedic mantras:the exalted expression of great sages."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hindu Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Girls ke number yha se le or de 2 min nimit 11,709
kisne apni mom ya didi kp pesaab karte dekha hi (Jun '12) 2 min atharv 403
Kitne ne apni mama,bua,mausi ki beti ko choda h... (Dec '11) 3 min xyz 987
Gay sex baroda gujarat (Mar '12) 3 min wolverine1995 33,652
true frndship fake not allwd 3 min me dehli se ho 660
Mainu kodi karke meri fudi maro (Jan '12) 3 min Sarbjeet Mehta 5,051
bhopal indore ujjain,sehore,raisen mandideep gay (Oct '12) 3 min rahul bottom 29,339
Delhi gay sex (Feb '13) 14 min Sima9583870613 111,404
mera husband bohot mota h mujh ko sex kar nahi ... 16 min sonu 2,978
Sex samasya aur samadhan (Oct '11) 21 min nishu 33,349
housewife 47 min me dehli se ho 21,772
More from around the web