The pioneer of modern mahAbhArata studies, Sukthankar noted that the Mbh had probably been redacted by the bhR^igu clan. Here are the # occurrences of the bhR^igu/bhArgava & mArkaNDeya across the 18 parvan-s. bhR^igu & his descendants through paulomI are frequently mentioned from
from the R^igveda onward in the saMhitA-s. However, the 2nd line from bhR^igu's wife khyAti doesn't receive any notable mentions. However, in the mahAbhArata we find the emergence of a key member of this lineage mAkarNDeya. While missing the vedic saMhitA-s, tradition remembers
mArkaNDeya as an encyclopedic polymath: he composed the earliest of the paurANika narratives which form part of parvan 3; he's remembered as the composer of the first H work on painting; in H medicine he's remember as embryological theorist though his ideas were rendered false by
other authors. This mArkaNDeya is also remembered as a teacher of vaiShNava lore& the 1 made immortal by rudra himself. His occurrence with respect to the other bhR^igu-s in the Mbh are not correlated. This suggests that there might have been two distinct bhR^iguization episodes
One by the classic paulomid bhArgava-s and the other by the mArkaNDeya-s. A member of the mArkaNDeya lineage appears in the early dravidian tradition as a pArpAn (draMiLa for v1) author, suggesting that they were among the early Arya immigrants to south India.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1 of the major proponents of Macro-Altaic Robbeets who for some reason gives it a new name "Transeurasian" has rehashed some of their arguments with supposed support from genetics. Now, I used to believe in some form of Altaic. I'm of the non-Greenbergian nature.com/articles/s4158…
opinion that to truly weigh in on some language phylogeny you need to have intimate knowledge of not just the linguistic tendencies but also the philology. Hence, I can hardly considered myself qualified to comment but some commonsense inferences from the general evolutionary
theory definitely applies, &I can comment on that basis. 1. The genetic relationships among the speakers of these language is not entirely surprising given that they come from a similar region. Yes, genetics can have bearing on linguistic relationships (like firming of I-Ir+Bl-Sl
This is a topic I have commented a lot on, nevertheless: "same DNA" thing is what in America goes under the name racism. Race & religion are topics that evoke great passion& there is nothing surprising about it. But people need to have an objective look at it. Theory accurately
predicts that organisms will favor kin. In visual animals like humans this will involve looking for people who appear similar. They are likely to be kin -- nothing peculiar. Hence, there is an innate tendency to favor those who look like you against those who dont. However,
in biology the conflicts span many levels. As some culture had a proverb me against my brother; my brother & me against my cousin; my bro+cousins against tribe, tribe against other tribes etc. or something like that. It is conceivable that groups of people who look more similar
The mentions of kubera in the 18 parvan-s of the mahAbhArata & the 7 kANDa-s of the rAmAyaNa. The normalization is by number of hemistiches (dala-s) which is reasonable given their metrical similarity with anuShTubh/triShTubh dominance. When normalized the rAmAyaNa mentions
kubera 1.96 times more frequently than the mahAbhArata. kubera is most frequently mentioned in parvan 3 of mahAbhArata which houses the rAmopAkhyAna, rich in allusion to the kaubera tradition. This supports the contention that the rAmAyaNa grew within a milieu where the kubera
cult was dominant, even if its main deity is to a degree presented "via supersession" to magnify the ikShvAku heroes. In the rAmopAkhyAna that is less so.
The so called fountain stones, which adorn sacred water outlets in Himachal, have a range of interesting iconography that has been poorly explored. Let's consider a few: This e.g. from Sahi has in the panel above the outlet viShNu nArAyaNa flanked by 4 water goddesses. The top
panel has an interesting combination of shaiva & vaiShNava deities. The central rudra is flanked immediately by saMkarShaNa & vAsudeva. To their flanks are gaNesha and skanda
A fountain stone from the Chamba region showing rudra flanked by gaNesha and likely skanda.
On this one there is a tricephalic rudra on the top; below that a li~Nga. In central left panel rudra & umA with a bull can be seen, center 3 water goddesses; right 2 unidentified deities
This exemplar from Sai, HP has a li~Nga above the outlet; a top panel with the moon& sun archons flanking viShNu, rudra, brahman; 2 goddesses like umA (L) & ga~NgA (R); the 2 figures flanking the li~Nga are likely ritualists.
How did the Hinduization of the east happen? One hypothesis has been cultural diffusion. It is currently the preferred hypothesis among the "mainstream" academics of the Abrahamosphere. Additionally they emphasize a role for Buddhism while downplaying any biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
role of H. This hypothesis believes that it was largely a memetic transfer with little actual admixture of people from India. However, we know from at least as early as the 500s of BCE the H were deeply involved in East Asian trade. Moreover, the East Asian traditions themselves
e.g. that from Khmer acknowledge the role of the H kauNDinya in their foundation mythology (also found in chIna sources). This suggested that the H were physically moving into the east to found kingdoms. This latest article from Changmai et al shows the clear presence of an