<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bharatavarshe (Akhanda Bharatam) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Even the name Bharatam refers to the complete, Ancient Bharatam (from Uppaganistan in W to modern land called 'Bangladesh' in E, though all of Bengal's original name was Bangladesha - it too is a Hindu name).
Bharatam is the same as Bharatavarsha: refers to the historic geography of Hindu civilisation named after Bharata.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bharatavarsha refers to a greater landmass then the Republic of India covers today<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So, Hindu civilisation's geography is that "greater India". It is our historic country.
The following was already posted in #8. Yes, it describes the N-S bounds of ancient Hindu land:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â Â "Uttaram yat samudrasya Himdreschaiva daksinam
  Varsham tat Bharatam nama Bharati yatra santati"
  (The region spanning in between the Himalayas in the north to the
  Indian ocean in the south is called Bharatavarsham and the natives
  of this region are called Bharatiyas (Indians)]]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>the Ideology of King Bharata is </b>considered by some people to be a <b>Mythology</b> in the Mahabarata, not factual evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->"The ideology of Bharata... mythology".
<i>No</i> (and this is part of what I meant when I said Indians - including myself of course - speak bad Angelsk). "The ideology of Bharata" was Hindu Dharma. Nothing mythological about that.
As for Bharata himself, I don't care about "some people"'s opinion. Some people think our Gods are a myth too <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> The only myth is jeebus. Don't know why everyone presumes that just because the religion and pseudo-history of the christolie is a lie, that it therefore follows that the history of Bharatavarsha, Chung Kuo, Nippon, Koryo, Parsa and other lands are too.
Why does christoism get the benefit of the doubt (when it certainly doesn't deserve it), whereas countries known not to lie about their history where it matters get doubted from the get-go? Christo-conditioning.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It isnt actually called Bharatavarsha by any of them, <b>I consider</b> Bharatavarsha to be India's mythological name for an area that covered a larger part then modern India / Bharat does today.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Good that you qualified it with a "you consider". It's a free world, one can consider as one chooses to. Opinions are free. Opinions need have no relation to facts though.
You can imagine whatever you want as myth and imagine whatever it is you want to be factual. Doesn't make it so, of course. For instance:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The word India originates from Indus, and is the western name for India. The word Bharat originates from the Mahabharata, and is the correct native name for India if speaking in one of India's languages is Bharat (No idea why it is called India in Tamil though).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wrong on two counts. The word India originates from the native Hindu word Sindhu for our River. Why stop at the point of India's etymology where Sindhu was turned to Indus and declare that "therefore Indus was the originating word for India"? No, it wasn't. If we hadn't called the River Sindhu, no one would have later come to call our country India. Thought that was obvious.
Two: the word Bharat does not "originate" from the Mahabharatam. It exists in Hindu Traditions that are pre-Mahabharatam. From Bharata came forth many Hindu dynasties, people who in our literature trace their ancestry to Bharata himself. And from his ancestors, there came other Hindu dynasties as well.
Dynasties in written literature (and some living Hindu communities even today) trace themselves back through so-and-so to Bharata or his parents or ancestors. For a recent post that refers to such things see one written by Ishwa.
Our history of Kings is not like some vague Biblical mess that puts towns where they couldn't ever have been or gives dates and other details to events such that they couldn't ever have happened (example, the alleged census in the NT: utterly impossible, as it is completely wrong about known historic facts - things that would have been known to anyone living at the time and place referred to).
Dharmics of our country always kept track of who our ancestors were, just like the Japanese and Chinese. (And like the Zarathusthrians of Parsa and the Hellenes used to do until the dreaded christoislamism destroyed their civilisations.)
Psecularism instills the sort of reactionary 'reasoning' whereby character X of a Natural Tradition's history is assumed to be a myth because (s)he was from a time before "The Beginning of the World According to the Babblehhh" or is otherwise a problem to theology. Of course, psecular after-arguments are then applied to make the reasoning <i>appear</i> more rationalised/less biblical to those not <i>consciously</i> christo-influenced.
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch46.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Puranic history reaches back beyond the starting date of the composition of the Vedas. In the king-lists, a number of kings are enumerated before the first kings appear who are also mentioned in the Rg-Veda. In what remains of the Puranas, no absolute chronology is added to the list, but from Greek visitors to ancient India, we get the entirely plausible information such a chronology did exist. To be precise, the Puranic king-list as known to Greek visitors of Candraguptaâs court in the 4th century BC or to later Greco-Roman India-watchers, started in 6776 BC.47 Even for that early pre-Vedic period, there is no hint of any immigration.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/arti...icevidence.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shrikant Talageriâs survey of the relative chronology of all Ågvedic kings and poets, recently made public in several lectures, has been based exclusively on the internal textual evidence (see Talageri: The Ågveda, a Historical Analysis, Delhi, forthcoming), and yields a completely consistent chronology. Its main finding is that the geographical gradient of Vedic Aryan culture in its Ågvedic stage is from east to west, with the eastern river Ganga appearing a few times in the older passages (written by the oldest poets mentioning the oldest kings), and the western river Indus appearing in later parts of the book (written by descendents of the oldest poets mentioning descendents of the oldest kings).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->When no persons of the ancient past remains now to confirm, deny or correct the written and oral traditions regarding Natural Traditions' "ur" history (i.e. pre modern-western history), can't figure out how some self-appoint themselves to decide what is myth and what is not.
Bharatam is the same as Bharatavarsha: refers to the historic geography of Hindu civilisation named after Bharata.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bharatavarsha refers to a greater landmass then the Republic of India covers today<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So, Hindu civilisation's geography is that "greater India". It is our historic country.
The following was already posted in #8. Yes, it describes the N-S bounds of ancient Hindu land:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â Â "Uttaram yat samudrasya Himdreschaiva daksinam
  Varsham tat Bharatam nama Bharati yatra santati"
  (The region spanning in between the Himalayas in the north to the
  Indian ocean in the south is called Bharatavarsham and the natives
  of this region are called Bharatiyas (Indians)]]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>the Ideology of King Bharata is </b>considered by some people to be a <b>Mythology</b> in the Mahabarata, not factual evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->"The ideology of Bharata... mythology".
<i>No</i> (and this is part of what I meant when I said Indians - including myself of course - speak bad Angelsk). "The ideology of Bharata" was Hindu Dharma. Nothing mythological about that.
As for Bharata himself, I don't care about "some people"'s opinion. Some people think our Gods are a myth too <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> The only myth is jeebus. Don't know why everyone presumes that just because the religion and pseudo-history of the christolie is a lie, that it therefore follows that the history of Bharatavarsha, Chung Kuo, Nippon, Koryo, Parsa and other lands are too.
Why does christoism get the benefit of the doubt (when it certainly doesn't deserve it), whereas countries known not to lie about their history where it matters get doubted from the get-go? Christo-conditioning.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It isnt actually called Bharatavarsha by any of them, <b>I consider</b> Bharatavarsha to be India's mythological name for an area that covered a larger part then modern India / Bharat does today.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Good that you qualified it with a "you consider". It's a free world, one can consider as one chooses to. Opinions are free. Opinions need have no relation to facts though.
You can imagine whatever you want as myth and imagine whatever it is you want to be factual. Doesn't make it so, of course. For instance:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The word India originates from Indus, and is the western name for India. The word Bharat originates from the Mahabharata, and is the correct native name for India if speaking in one of India's languages is Bharat (No idea why it is called India in Tamil though).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wrong on two counts. The word India originates from the native Hindu word Sindhu for our River. Why stop at the point of India's etymology where Sindhu was turned to Indus and declare that "therefore Indus was the originating word for India"? No, it wasn't. If we hadn't called the River Sindhu, no one would have later come to call our country India. Thought that was obvious.
Two: the word Bharat does not "originate" from the Mahabharatam. It exists in Hindu Traditions that are pre-Mahabharatam. From Bharata came forth many Hindu dynasties, people who in our literature trace their ancestry to Bharata himself. And from his ancestors, there came other Hindu dynasties as well.
Dynasties in written literature (and some living Hindu communities even today) trace themselves back through so-and-so to Bharata or his parents or ancestors. For a recent post that refers to such things see one written by Ishwa.
Our history of Kings is not like some vague Biblical mess that puts towns where they couldn't ever have been or gives dates and other details to events such that they couldn't ever have happened (example, the alleged census in the NT: utterly impossible, as it is completely wrong about known historic facts - things that would have been known to anyone living at the time and place referred to).
Dharmics of our country always kept track of who our ancestors were, just like the Japanese and Chinese. (And like the Zarathusthrians of Parsa and the Hellenes used to do until the dreaded christoislamism destroyed their civilisations.)
Psecularism instills the sort of reactionary 'reasoning' whereby character X of a Natural Tradition's history is assumed to be a myth because (s)he was from a time before "The Beginning of the World According to the Babblehhh" or is otherwise a problem to theology. Of course, psecular after-arguments are then applied to make the reasoning <i>appear</i> more rationalised/less biblical to those not <i>consciously</i> christo-influenced.
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch46.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Puranic history reaches back beyond the starting date of the composition of the Vedas. In the king-lists, a number of kings are enumerated before the first kings appear who are also mentioned in the Rg-Veda. In what remains of the Puranas, no absolute chronology is added to the list, but from Greek visitors to ancient India, we get the entirely plausible information such a chronology did exist. To be precise, the Puranic king-list as known to Greek visitors of Candraguptaâs court in the 4th century BC or to later Greco-Roman India-watchers, started in 6776 BC.47 Even for that early pre-Vedic period, there is no hint of any immigration.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/arti...icevidence.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shrikant Talageriâs survey of the relative chronology of all Ågvedic kings and poets, recently made public in several lectures, has been based exclusively on the internal textual evidence (see Talageri: The Ågveda, a Historical Analysis, Delhi, forthcoming), and yields a completely consistent chronology. Its main finding is that the geographical gradient of Vedic Aryan culture in its Ågvedic stage is from east to west, with the eastern river Ganga appearing a few times in the older passages (written by the oldest poets mentioning the oldest kings), and the western river Indus appearing in later parts of the book (written by descendents of the oldest poets mentioning descendents of the oldest kings).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->When no persons of the ancient past remains now to confirm, deny or correct the written and oral traditions regarding Natural Traditions' "ur" history (i.e. pre modern-western history), can't figure out how some self-appoint themselves to decide what is myth and what is not.