Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

[johneeG]

>>I don't even understand what you are objecting to. What does 'wtf' mean? What exactly are you objecting to and why? I am posting some great original research. Ideally, I should be appreciated and rewarded.

That is why I'm saying start your own blog. What you are doing is speculating wildly (Marduk is not properly understood by mainstream historians?) Associating this out of India thing with Gilgamesh, and then quietly slipping this in: "The original MB would have happened around 2300 BCE, if it actually happened". This is what I mean by muddying the waters.

Repeatedly quoting wiki and making random connections, "it seems" and "probably" is mentioned so often that no one notices later on when you start talking about the same stuff as fact. I repeat, there are non-experts reading these threads.

Everybody can, with a little bit of thinking, sit down and create such connections - we'll even find some link to Geronimo for heaven's sake... It's a bit like numerology. Fine, do it, but do it on you own blog an then link it if you wish... You can then judge from the interest how powerful your case is. On BRF, you have become like the guy shouting at a dinner table so long and so often that everything else is drowned out. At least for politeness sake make succinct posts.

>>And when did you tell me this before? I don't remember you telling me anything, atleast not on this thread.

I've told you before not to write these humongously long posts that take up the entire thread. Such advise is not meant only for one thread. Hence the blog recommendation again. People will read, you can link off here if you wish. Then you will see whether it has value. You might even be appreciated and rewarded.

I am not going to sit down and refute every single leap of logic you are making here, there are too many. But here is one:

>>"So, you see Anunnaki means descendent of Anu. MB tells us that Anu was a son of Yayathi and brother of Puru".

So? Who says it is the same Anu...you will note that "anu" was pronounced in many different ways in the Sumerian tongue.

>>"I'll quote the relevant scriptures if you want. Anu, Dhruhyu and Puru are brothers according to MB."

Please don't.

>>Vedhas tell us that Anu, Dhruhyu and Puru participated in Dhasharajanya war. Anu and Dhruhyu opposed Puru. What happened to Anu? That is not known. All kinds of speculations exist.

Hmmm...

>>That part is clarified by the middle-eastern epic Gilgamesh. It shows that the descendents of Anu went and settled further west after the Dhasharajanya war. What is 'wtf' about this?

Everything is WTF about this!!! It is neither "clarified", no does it "show" the "descendents of Anu went and settled further west after the "Dhasharajanya" war... This is storyline and sequence you have created with the flimsiest of back-up.

Create your own blog. It's easy. Those on BRF who are interested in being enlightened by you can then refer to it, link useful parts off it and nitpick if they wish.

I don't even know what to say.

Now, you may not be convinced by my arguments. Fine. But, I don't understand why you want me to stop posting on the thread. Please tell me how are my posts any different from all other posts on this thread.

If you want me to quote only the mainstream historians, then I think thats not really practical. The premise of this thread itself is not accepted by the mainstream historians. Most mainstream historians(including the genetic studies and linguistic studies) seem to accept AIT or AMT directly or indirectly. Atleast, none of them even remotely indicate OIT. Those like Talageri who talk about OIT also accept Aryan and Dhravidian divisions. And Talageri is not mainstream.

So, I am doing the next best thing i.e. quoting from wiki(which follows the mainstream historians) on the points where even they agree with my original research. And then showing how they are connected. You mean I shouldn't make those connections here because you don't like it?

But, this is how connections are made in any history research. Please see any mainstream history. Thats the way it is done. Aryan Invasion Theory. Sheet Anchor Theory. or any other history theory is like that only. They make their connections and go about justifying it. If people are not going to connect dots, how are they going to prove or disprove OIT(or any other history theory) which is supposed to be the premise of this thread?

Descendents of Anu living in middle-east have no connection with their next door neighbours living in Bhaarath? Is that your contention? And the mention of Anu in MB and Vedhas is just co-incidence?

I don't mind if you want to believe its co-incidence. I would like to believe it is not. I generally don't believe in co-incidence. I have argued my case and let people come to their decisions. Those who will be convinced will be convinced. Those who won't, won't. But, saying that its 'muddying waters' seems unreasonable to me.

BTW, if you say its co-incidence, then the same argument can be used to thwart every other connection anyone else might want to make in favour of OIT. In that case, every connection in this entire thread could be explained away as co-incidence or duplicates.

About the size of posts: I do remember asking you to clarify about the size of the posts. Even now you haven't really said exactly how long is too long. It seems you want to rule as you wish and make up rules as you go along. If you don't like long posts, I can divide it into 3/4/10/15 posts if you want. Please clarify the required size and I'll post accordingly.

About your advise of blogging. Thanks for the suggestion.

[JE Menon]

What you are doing is not in favour of OIT. It is the opposite. Maybe you don't realise it. Don't assume others are ignorant as you have done in your earlier post, just because they don't post on a subject.

If marutuk (marduk) and maruts are the same or connected, why is Baal not the equivalent of Indra and connected? Whose case are you making while saying "if the MB war happened", and that there is "confusion about Maruts" in Hindu scriptures?

About the size of posts, use common sense. I have already cautioned you, and you restrained yourself for a while - and it has started again in this thread.

[johneeG]

What you are doing is not in favour of OIT. It is the opposite. Maybe you don't realise it. Don't assume others are ignorant as you have done in your earlier post, just because they don't post on a subject.

If marutuk (marduk) and maruts are the same or connected, why is Baal not the equivalent of Indra and connected? Whose case are you making while saying "if the MB war happened", and that there is "confusion about Maruts" in Hindu scriptures?

About the size of posts, use common sense. I have already cautioned you, and you restrained yourself for a while - and it has started again in this thread.

I never understood your caution and did not take note of it because you didn't really clarify what is supposed to be the right size. I use my common sense and post as long as the subject requires. You seem to dislike long posts but don't want to specify exactly what is supposed to be the correct length. How do you expect me to know what you think is the right size?

My main point was the common connection of Anu between middle-east and Bhaarath. Marduk and Maruth only follows from it. If you think that connects Baal with Indhra, thats your logic not mine. Why am I supposed to think like you? And moreover, if Baal is Indhra, is that problematic? I don't even understand what point you are trying to make.

About confusion regarding Maruths in Hindhuism:
I really think you don't know about this issue. I already wrote about the confusion regarding the Maruths and you still seem to be unable to understand or unwilling.

Ok, let me requote(but, I am afraid that is going to lengthen the post, see the posts get lengthened in trying to cover all points):

The origins of Maruths is clearly from the Dhaithya i.e. sons of Dhithi. They were accepted into pantheon. Originally, they were meant to kill the Indhra. Further, the whole group was one which was divided into seven and again into further seven. Its one but many, sort of.

The other such gods who were accepted into the Hindhu pantheon are Ashwins. Ashwins are the sons of Sun. But, the Ashwins seem to have been accepted pretty early.

So, 33 Gods were :
12 Adhithyas
11 Rudhras
8 Vasus
2 Ashwins

12+11+8+2=33.

Now, there is no mention of Maruths in this whole scheme. And the portrayal of Maruths seems to be confused or evolving in the Bhaarath. Some times Maruths are listed as seven. Sometimes as seven of seven...etc. Later, the Maruths were added to Rudhra as the followers. And Vaayu was made the leader of Maruths. Vaayu was already the leader of Vasus. So, Maruths as a group seem to have caused some confusion or evolution in Hindhu scriptures.

Anyway, the whole things shows that Anu are Bhaarathiyas who went to middle-east and settled there.

Vayu is supposed to be one of the Vasus. In some cases, he is listed as the leader of Vasus. But, the same Vayu is also the leader of Maruths. But, Maruths are not placed in the Vasu group. Instead, they are placed in Rudhra group. How and why did they get into the Rudhra group is not clear.

Maruths happen to be the only 'Asuras' who were accepted as part of the pantheon.

The exact number of Maruths itself seems to be under change. Anyway, thats not the substantial point. The substantial point is the common node: Anu.

The connection between Marduk and Maruths follows from the common node Anu.

As for MB, it seems to me that it describes events before 2000 BCE. 2000 BCE is the date for Saraswathi drying up. During MB, Saraswathi had not yet dried up. But, it was on the verge of drying up. So, it must be somewhere around 2300 BCE or 2200 BCE. Now, I don't know if MB actually happened or not. I said, if it really happened as it is described, then it must be in this period.

As for whose case I am arguing, I think I am arguing for OIT. But, if you want to stifle all thoughts, then it will only leave AIT as dominant which it already is. If you want every argument of mine to be in exact consonance with your thoughts, then I think thats not really practical.

Anyway, it seems that no one else seems to think these connections are absurd except you.

[JE Menon]

>>My main point was the common connection of Anu between middle-east and Bhaarath. Marduk and Maruth only follows from it. If you think that connects Baal with Indhra, thats your logic not mine.

It is neither your logic, nor mine. Both the marutuk and baal connection to Marut and Indra have been made before by AIT proponents and their ilk (including Max Muller - if my memory serves). Do your research. Properly.

>>Why am I supposed to think like you? And moreover, if Baal is Indhra, is that problematic? I don't even understand what point you are trying to make.

I know. That's why I said earlier that "maybe you don't realise" you are building a case opposite to OIT.

[johneeG]

>>My main point was the common connection of Anu between middle-east and Bhaarath. Marduk and Maruth only follows from it. If you think that connects Baal with Indhra, thats your logic not mine.

It is neither your logic, nor mine. Both the marutuk and baal connection to Marut and Indra have been made before by AIT proponents and their ilk (including Max Muller - if my memory serves). Do your research. Properly.

>>Why am I supposed to think like you? And moreover, if Baal is Indhra, is that problematic? I don't even understand what point you are trying to make.

I know. That's why I said earlier that "maybe you don't realise" you are building a case opposite to OIT.

You mean because a connection can be used in reverse direction also, that connection must not be made? In that case, every connection can be used in reverse direction also.

Max Muller's argument is not based on Baal==Indhra. His basic argument is that Vedha belong to 1500 BCE. He seems to believe that exodus can be dated to 1500 BCE. So, he put the dates of Vedha later than the Jewish religion. So, any connection between Vedhas and Jewish religion can be used as Hindhus copying from Jews. On the other hand, if the Vedhas are older than the Jewish religion, then the same connections will prove the other way around. So, even if Baal == Indhra, its not going to prove AIT or OIT unless one shows which came first Baal or Indhra.

In this case about Anu:
middle-eastern civilization only talks about Anu's descendents. Vedhas and MB talk about Anu, Anu's descendents and Anu's antecedents. It also tells us why Anu had to go to middle-east because they lost a war. It also tell us what happened to the group that lost the war. So, the direction of flow is clear.

Actually, if you prove Baal== Indhra, that would be quite helpful to OIT and might fit in with the larger scheme of middle-east copying from Bhaarath. But, I don't quite know how or why Baal== Indhra. Maybe because both are supposed to be related to water/rain. But, in Bhaarath, Indhra is connected to yagnyas. Yahwe seems to be connected to fire. Subash Kak shows that the word 'Yahwe' itself is found in Vedhas in connection to fire. Moses' god seems to be represented by fire.

[ShauryaT]

Johneeg: If you are going to quote Subhash Kak on the subject, at least quote him properly.
Yahvah And Yahweh

It would be foolish to deduce that if Yahvah and Yahweh are identical names then the Vedas become the source of the Abrahamic traditions or Christianity the fulfillment of the Vedas. The Indic gloss on the matter is that names in themselves are mere sequence of syllables and they mean nothing; it is not names but the way of seeing reality that matters. The Western and Indian spiritual traditions as they exist now are quite different and they represent the unique genius of each region. But perhaps the commonality of origin could help people see the universality of the spiritual quest and help build bridges across cultures in these difficult times.

Subhash Kak does try to make these linkages but is honest enough to understand the limitations of the suppositions made. What Kak does is to try to show that there were links between in the Eurasian regions, with movement of peoples and ideas.

[Nilesh Oak]

Out of India......

Must read and must have.. by my dear friend...Wim Borsboom

with quotes from at least 2 of BRFites on the back cover.

http://www.amazon.com/Alphabet-Abracada ... m+borsboom

[Nilesh Oak]

JohneeG wrote..

As for MB, it seems to me that it describes events before 2000 BCE. 2000 BCE is the date for Saraswathi drying up. During MB, Saraswathi had not yet dried up. But, it was on the verge of drying up. So, it must be somewhere around 2300 BCE or 2200 BCE. Now, I don't know if MB actually happened or not. I said, if it really happened as it is described, then it must be in this period.

It is ok to speculate, however time has come to avoid logical errors made by previous researchers.

Even assuming drying up of Sarasvati in 2000 BCE, does not lead, in any way, even as speculation, to a time interval of 2300 BCE - 2200 BCE for the timing of MBH war.

Never mind the fact that new evidence refers to timing of ~4000 BCE for the drying up of Sarasvati and even still more for drying up of Sarasvati even much earlier..but also rejuvenation of Sarasvati over the period of 9000 BCE through 4000 BCE.

This is such a complex phenomena and mixed evidence (because there are layers of drying and rejuvenation) that it can be used as evidence to corroborate something but NOT DEFINE IT.
--
Another point...

When someone researches something, one, of course, assumes that one could be wrong. That is trivially true truism! However, in exploring a certain conjecture, one must be firm on what it is.

Either Mahabharata war happened or it did not (and thus in latter case, it was a story/fiction concocted by some author). Either of them can be valid conjectures...not both.. then it is tautology and thus useless for the growth of knowledge.

[Vayutuvan]

Nilesh: The proposition (OR a (NOT a)) (in LISP syntax) is a tautology if one accepts the principle of excluded middle. May be johneeG believes in intuitionism (constructive). In that case, this is an unsolvable until and unless one finds either incontrovertible physical evidence of MB or the negation which is some kind of a inscription which says that it is a story.

At this point we have to simply accept that we do not know. Inability to prove or disprove of course in noway negates OIT though. OIT could be true whether MB has actually happened or it is just historical fiction.

I have some question regarding ekalavya and drona. One of my friends i doing some digging into this aspect to butress a partially written soliloquy. I will send you an email.

[sudarshan]

Never mind the fact that new evidence refers to timing of ~4000 BCE for the drying up of Sarasvati and even still more for drying up of Sarasvati even much earlier..but also rejuvenation of Sarasvati over the period of 9000 BCE through 4000 BCE.

This evidence of rejuvenation between 9000 BCE through 4000 BCE - is it literary evidence, or archaeological? JohneeG has been arguing in another thread that - Ramayana refers to a dried up Saraswati, MB to a "live" Saraswati - therefore - MB time frame is before Ramayana. I responded saying the Saraswati could have dried up and been reborn multiple times. To which JohneeG said - a river being reborn in a desert is such a romantic theme, why don't we have any descriptions of this phenomenon at all, if you claim that it happened?

Do we have archaeological evidence of multiple dry-ups and rebirths of the Saraswati?

[johneeG]

Johneeg: If you are going to quote Subhash Kak on the subject, at least quote him properly.
Yahvah And Yahweh

It would be foolish to deduce that if Yahvah and Yahweh are identical names then the Vedas become the source of the Abrahamic traditions or Christianity the fulfillment of the Vedas. The Indic gloss on the matter is that names in themselves are mere sequence of syllables and they mean nothing; it is not names but the way of seeing reality that matters. The Western and Indian spiritual traditions as they exist now are quite different and they represent the unique genius of each region. But perhaps the commonality of origin could help people see the universality of the spiritual quest and help build bridges across cultures in these difficult times.

Subhash Kak does try to make these linkages but is honest enough to understand the limitations of the suppositions made. What Kak does is to try to show that there were links between in the Eurasian regions, with movement of peoples and ideas.

Please re-read my sentence, then you will see that I did not quote him or even paraphrase him. I gave credit to Subash Kak for discovering that Yahwe is a word in Vedhas related to fire. His interpretation of it seems to be that the Jews and Bhaarathiyas had same origin. This seems to be an indirect way of referring to the possibility of AIT. Of course, it keeps the door open for OIT also. Anyway, his interpretations are his opinions. But, what is important is the fact that Yahwe is a word in the Vedhas. I think its an amazing discovery and Subash Kak deserves the credit for it. So, I gave the credit where it was due.

If someone can show that 'Baal' is a word in Vedhas related to Indhra or water, then that would be tremendous discovery for which they must get the credit.

[johneeG]

JohneeG wrote..

As for MB, it seems to me that it describes events before 2000 BCE. 2000 BCE is the date for Saraswathi drying up. During MB, Saraswathi had not yet dried up. But, it was on the verge of drying up. So, it must be somewhere around 2300 BCE or 2200 BCE. Now, I don't know if MB actually happened or not. I said, if it really happened as it is described, then it must be in this period.

It is ok to speculate, however time has come to avoid logical errors made by previous researchers.

Even assuming drying up of Sarasvati in 2000 BCE, does not lead, in any way, even as speculation, to a time interval of 2300 BCE - 2200 BCE for the timing of MBH war.

Never mind the fact that new evidence refers to timing of ~4000 BCE for the drying up of Sarasvati and even still more for drying up of Sarasvati even much earlier..but also rejuvenation of Sarasvati over the period of 9000 BCE through 4000 BCE.

This is such a complex phenomena and mixed evidence (because there are layers of drying and rejuvenation) that it can be used as evidence to corroborate something but NOT DEFINE IT.
--
Another point...

When someone researches something, one, of course, assumes that one could be wrong. That is trivially true truism! However, in exploring a certain conjecture, one must be firm on what it is.

Either Mahabharata war happened or it did not (and thus in latter case, it was a story/fiction concocted by some author). Either of them can be valid conjectures...not both.. then it is tautology and thus useless for the growth of knowledge.

I don't know about 4000 BCE date for Saraswathi drying up. Anyway, 2000 BCE seems to be the accepted date these days and I haven't come across any substantial reasons to doubt it.

Whether the events of MB actually happened or not, the work is set at the time when the Saraswathi river was drying. So, regardless of the historicity of the events themselves, the timing of it is that it is set around 2300 - 2200 BCE when the river was drying up.

I think there seem to be a series of wars fought on the banks of Saraswathi or its tributaries. Dhasha-rajanya war also happens to be one such war. If MB happened, then it would also be one such war. MB itself talks about another war between Parashu-Raama and royal class in the same place. MB also talks about a war between Parashu-Raama and Bhishma. MB talks about a war between Chithra-ratha and Bhishma's step brother on the saraswathi banks.

So, largely the point seems to be that a series of wars happened on the banks of Saraswathi and its tributaries. MB is centered around one such war. The war episodes of MB seem to be inspired from the series of wars taking place at the time on the banks of these rivers. So, it seems to be similar to most semi-fictional works which are inspired from real events. So, I think MB is based on some historical core. I think the prequel and sequel to the war is fictional in MB and justification for the war. Thats my personal opinion.

The larger point is that regardless of whether its a fiction or history, it does give us a picture of social and political situation of those days because its set in those days.

Out of India......

Must read and must have.. by my dear friend...Wim Borsboom

with quotes from at least 2 of BRFites on the back cover.

http://www.amazon.com/Alphabet-Abracada ... m+borsboom

This is a very wonderful thesis at a cursory glance.

[johneeG]

The connection of the number of Seven, Agni and Maruths, very enlightening article:

The seven-fold agni and the seven-fold troops of the maruts

In the agnichayana/agniShToma the following sequence of rituals are performed:
1)At the yajamAna’s gArhapatya the oblations to prajApati vishvakarman are made.
2)The adhvaryu carries forth the fire in the eastern direction (agni-praNayana)
3)The adhvarAhUti-s are performed in the fire established in the new AhavanIya altar.

In course of #2 the adhvaryu and hotar recite their yajushes and R^iks, while the prastotA sings the sAman-s. In the agnichayana the maitrAvaruNa additional chants the war-like aprathirathaM to indra.

The fire is laid in the new AhavanIya with a long yajurvedic chant (KYV-TS 4.6.5), in course of which the connection between agni and the bhR^igu-s, the first fire sacrificers is remembered:

agne prehi prathamo devayatAM chakShur devAnAm uta martyAnAm | iyakShamANA bhR^igubhiH sajoShAH suvar yantu yajamAnAH svasti ||
O agni, advance, first of deva-sacrificers, eye of the deva-s and mortals; advancing in unison with the bhR^igu-s, let the sacrificers attain light and well-being.

Then savitA is then invoked and the early a~Ngiras ritualist kaNva is also remembered:

tAm savitur vareNyasya chitrAm AhaM vR^iNe sumatiM vishvajanyAm | yAm asya kaNvo aduhat prapInAm sahasradhArAm | payasA mahIM gAm ||
That excellent, many-formed, all-encompassing pleasantness of savitA, I choose; that mighty well-endowed cow of his which kaNva milked, with a thousand stream of milk.

The final part of this recitation is that of the heptads of agni and the marut-s.
agni is first invoked, being described as a series of 7 heptads:

sapta te agne samidhaH sapta jihvAH saptarShayaH sapta dhAma priyANi |
sapta hotrAH saptadhA tvA yajanti sapta yonIr A pR^iNasvA ghR^itena ||
That is: 1) 7 fuel sticks; 2) 7 tongues of agni; 3) 7 R^iShi-s; 4) 7 dear abodes of agni; 5) 7 oblations; 6) the 7-fold worship of agni 7) the seven sources of agni, which are filled with ghee.

Of course this association of 7 with agni is often encountered right from the RV itself.

Then 5 sets of seven fold maruts are invoked and asked to come to the sacrifice of the ritualist and aid him:

IdR^i~N chAnyAdR^i~N chaitAdR^i~N cha pratidR^i~N cha mitash cha sammitash cha sabharAH |
shukrajyotish cha chitrajyotish cha satyajyotish cha jyotiShmAmsh cha satyash chartapAsh chAtyamhAH |
R^itajich cha satyajich cha senajich cha suSheNash chAntyamitrash cha dUre-amitrash cha gaNaH |
R^itash cha satyash cha dhruvash cha dharuNash cha dhartA cha vidhartA cha vidhArayaH |
IdR^ikShAsa etAdR^ikShAsa U Shu NaH sadR^ikShAsaH pratisadR^ikShAsa etana |
mitAsash cha sammitAsash cha na Utaye sabharaso maruto yaj~ne asmin |
indraM daivIr visho maruto .anuvartmAno yathendraM daivIr visho maruto .anuvartmAna evam imaM yajamAnaM daivIsh cha visho mAnuShIsh chAnuvartmAno bhavantu ||

1:
1)IdR^i~N 2) anyAdR^i~N 3) etAdR^i~N 4) pratidR^i~N 5) mita 6) sammita 7) sabharas
2:
1) shukra-jyoti 2)chitra-jyoti 3) satya-jyoti 4) jyotiShmAn 5) satya 6) artapA 7) atyamhas
3:
1) R^itajit 2)satyajit 3) senajit 4) suSheNa 5)antyamitra 6) dUre-amitra 7) gaNa
4:
1) R^ita 2) satya 3) dhruva 4) dharuNa 5) dhartA 6) vidhartA 7) vidhAraya
5 (this last list is merely a plural representation of the first set, probably representing them with their troops:
1) IdR^ikSha-s 2) etAdR^ikSha-s 3) sadR^ikSha-s 4) pratisadR^ikSha-s 5) mita-s 6) sammita-s 7) sabhara-s

This is one of the few places in the veda where the marut-s are explicitly named. List 1 and 2 are again invoked in the KYV-TS in 1.8.13, in the same order, in rite of the mounting of the quarters in the rAjasUya ritual. It is of interest to note that two of these names are those of the seizing vinAyaka-s of the vinAyaka shAnti: mita and saMmita. Thus, the link between the vinAyaka and the vedic sons of rudra may be established (first proposed by the great savant Pandurang Kane).

The number 7 is associated with the marut-s from the earliest vedic period down to the classical Hindu lore, as seen in the RV itself:
RV 5.52.17: Here the maruts are said be 7*7 (sapta me sapta)
RV 8.28.5: Here the maruts are described as being 7-fold, bearing 7 spears and 7 glories.
RV 10.13.5:Here the maruts are again said to be 7 fold.
Additionally RV 8.92.20 might have an oblique reference to the 7-fold troops of the maruts in the phrase: “saptá saMsádaH”.

In both the KYV and SYV the association is reiterated in many ways:
In SYV-mAdhyamdina 9.32 (~KYV-TS 1.8.9) the maruts are said to win 7 domestic animals with the aid of the 7-syllabled mantra.
In SYV-M 25.4 (~T.S 5.7.21) the seventh rib of the ashvamedha horse is offered to the marut-s.
In many yajurvedic ritual injunctions the maruts are made offerings on 7 kapAla-s.
In KYV-TS 2.2.5, 2.2.11, 2.3.1, 5.4.7 it is stated that the marut-s are made offerings on 7 kapAla-s because they comprise of 7 gaNa-s.

Despite all these allusions the choice of 5 lists of 7 each is a bit puzzling, given that none of the above explicitly mention 5*7. The only possible mention is seen in RV 10.55.3:
A rodasI apR^iNAdota madhyaM pa~ncha devAn R^itushaH sapta-sapta |
chatustriMshatA purudhA vi chaShTe sarUpeNa jyotiShA vivratena ||
This is from a sUkta describing the universal form of indra, and is one of those cryptic sUkta-s filled with hidden astronomical allusions. The essential sense of the first hemistich of the above mantra may be approximated thus: “He(indra filled the two hemispheres of the universe and all that is contained within them, encompassing the 5-fold gods in the 7 (or 7*7) fold orders.” This appears to be a possible allusion to indra’s companions the marut-s ordered thus, but this sUktaM being so confounding one cannot be sure. There is a number 34 mentioned in the second hemistich (=35-1), which is traditionally interpreted in this context to mean 27 nakShatra-s+sun+moon+5 visible planets.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the “7” connection of the marut-s is also seen in their successor and paralogous deity, skanda. We had earlier discussed in our note on the marut-s being being “para-skanda”, how kumAra was made commander of the seven-fold troops of maruts. This connection is further seen in ancient triannual rite to kumAra, known as the dhUrta-homa and bali (the sacrifice to the roguish skanda) preserved in the bodhAyana tradition. The recommended date for its performance is the shukla-saptami of phalguna month. Again, in an invocatory verse used in this rite kumAra is described as born on the the seventh day and being a manifestation of the seventh moon phase. These points further strengthen the connection between the marut-s and kumAra: before the more popular ShaShTi connection over took the kaumAra tradition there was a parallel tradition that connected him to saptami-s, consistent with the 7-fold nature of the marut-s.

Link

This article also finds it puzzling that 5*7 about Maruths. That corroborates my point that the exact number of Maruths was evolving or confusing.

One can see that several different types of winds are mentioned by the Gilgamesh epic.

“Thou who hast opened the gates for the herd to escape, for thee the heavens brighten and the animals awaiteth thy rosy light. Let thy bride Aya the fearless remindeth thee to entrust Gilgamesh to the stars, the watchers of the night. May thou maketh the days long and the nights short while Gilgamesh treads the road to the Forest of Cedar. Let him be resolute. Let him pitch camp at eventide. Let thy bride Aya the fearless remindeth thee that on the day Gilgamesh and Enkidu doeth battle with Humbaba that thou shalt unleasheth all the winds, the winds of the south, north, east, and west, the hurricane, the tempest, the typhoon, the gale, the frost-wind, and the devil-wind, the blast and counterblast, and the tornado. Let the thirteen winds darken the face of Humbaba that Gilgamesh might reach him with his weapons! Why thine own flames art kindles, O Shamash, then turn thy face unto thy supplicant! Thy fleet-footed mules shall carry thee; a restful bed shall be thine. The gods, thy brethren, shall bring food for thee. Aya the bride shall dry thy face with her robe.”

Link

This is very similar to different types of fires mentioned by Hindhus. That shows that they worshiped Winds while Hindhus worshiped fire. After some time, Maruths i.e. wind gods were accepted into the pantheon by Hindhus.

“Then I let everything go out unto the four winds, and I offered a sacrifice. I poured out a libation upon the peak of the mountain. I placed the censers seven and seven, and poured into them calamus, cedar-wood, and sweet incense. The gods smelt the savour; yea, the gods smelt the sweet savour; the gods gathered like flies around the sacrificer. But when now the lady of the gods (Ishtar) drew nigh, she lifted up the necklace with precious jewels which Anu had made according to her wish (and said):

Link

Anyone who knows about Maruths would immediately recognize the seven and seven reference. This is a meme that is found in Maruth story also.

Link

[johneeG]

I remember reading a post about horse symbols on the houses in Europe in this thread. Can anyone find those posts? I am unable to find them.

Just found the wiki reference:

Ašvieniai are divine twins in the Lithuanian mythology, identical to Latvian Dieva deli and the Baltic counterparts of Vedic Ashvins.[1]

Wiki Link

[Vayutuvan]

JohneeG search in your own posts. I rember seeing in one of your (overly?) long posts. Sorry for being a little curt

[johneeG]

JohneeG search in your own posts. I rember seeing in one of your (overly?) long posts. Sorry for being a little curt

I don't mind the curt reply if it was sensible and helpful. I wouldn't have asked if it was my own post. And I clearly mentioned that I read the post, not write it.

----
Interesting blog on the syria and its plausible connections to ancient Bhaarath:
Link to blog

[JE Menon]

Singha posted this in Nukkad

Nice writeup and pix of a trek in sindh
http://www.dawn.com/news/1199246/from-s ... -travelled

Scroll down the photos and amid what are referred to as "prehistoric engravings" you find a Horse, with engraved on the horse what look like spoked wheels - chariot? Age of the engraving?

Also a bit further down a carving of what appears to be fish heads, alongside a fern ... And interestingly further below that another photo shows the guide looking at engravings below a series of lines on the rock that seem to suggest serious silting rather than a cataclysmic explosion or something.

These are all totally untrained observations. Have a look at the photo, someone might know better.

[Nilesh Oak]

Never mind the fact that new evidence refers to timing of ~4000 BCE for the drying up of Sarasvati and even still more for drying up of Sarasvati even much earlier..but also rejuvenation of Sarasvati over the period of 9000 BCE through 4000 BCE.

This evidence of rejuvenation between 9000 BCE through 4000 BCE - is it literary evidence, or archaeological? JohneeG has been arguing in another thread that - Ramayana refers to a dried up Saraswati, MB to a "live" Saraswati - therefore - MB time frame is before Ramayana. I responded saying the Saraswati could have dried up and been reborn multiple times. To which JohneeG said - a river being reborn in a desert is such a romantic theme, why don't we have any descriptions of this phenomenon at all, if you claim that it happened?

Do we have archaeological evidence of multiple dry-ups and rebirths of the Saraswati?

Definitely from Archeology, paleo-hydrology, paleo-climatology, etc.

Scriptural evidence could also be there. Of course, Ramayana and Mahabharata has descriptions, but they by themselves can not be used as evidence to establish the course (time and geography) of Ancient river Sarasvati...since we will quickly run into both 'tautology' and 'degrees of freedom' (for independent information) issues.

Samhita, RigVeda, Brahmana etc. where descriptions of Sarasavati occur are good sources for additing to the picture.. however, dating of these have their own challenges.
--
Not sure what specific subjects were discussed on another thread (you, JohneeG and others)..but mention of 'Maru-bhumi' (desert) in Ramayana by itself does not mean Sarasvati had dried up. Sarasvati and Maru-bhumi can coexist. (e.g. Nile and Sudan/Egypt). Besides fast flowing Sarasvati is described in Ramayana.

Having said that, the evidence does point to a much downgraded status of Sarasvati (in comparison to descriptions of Rigveda) at the time of Ramayana.

[vishvak]

So, even if Baal == Indhra

Are there any resources that states such a thing, or is it just part of narrative written at 'international' level during the times of colonialism when literature about Aryan Invasion etc abounded. A cursory observation of recent events at Baal (Baal temple at Palmira?) merely indicates that Baal is the deity at the temple situated at crossroads of cultures, that has been made into a common villain god narrative ('devil'), and people enslaved are called devil worshipers and so on and so forth. Baal==Indra seems to be another attempt to carefully disguise what is but mixing religion and state, this time in the name of Indra and Baal, which has no place in history writing to begin with. Fact is that ideas like this ( or fallen angel concept) have no place in fire worship of Parsis or worship at temple of Baal probably. Since there are not many followers of Baal, it is difficult to even presume such things.

[JE Menon]

>>Are there any resources that states such a thing, or is it just part of narrative written at 'international' level during the times of colonialism when literature about Aryan Invasion etc abounded.

This is exactly what it is, in my opinion of course.

There is mention of the linkage in a book which I read a long time ago, but can't for the life of me remember it's name. It must be on googlebooks. It's an old one.

More recently, there's this sort of thing:

Dragon Slayers: Indra, Marduk, Yahweh, and Baal; A Literary Comparison Part 3 of 4 - By, A.D. Wayman

https://religionthink.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/119/

[sudarshan]

This evidence of rejuvenation between 9000 BCE through 4000 BCE - is it literary evidence, or archaeological? JohneeG has been arguing in another thread that - Ramayana refers to a dried up Saraswati, MB to a "live" Saraswati - therefore - MB time frame is before Ramayana. I responded saying the Saraswati could have dried up and been reborn multiple times. To which JohneeG said - a river being reborn in a desert is such a romantic theme, why don't we have any descriptions of this phenomenon at all, if you claim that it happened?

Do we have archaeological evidence of multiple dry-ups and rebirths of the Saraswati?

Definitely from Archeology, paleo-hydrology, paleo-climatology, etc.

Scriptural evidence could also be there. Of course, Ramayana and Mahabharata has descriptions, but they by themselves can not be used as evidence to establish the course (time and geography) of Ancient river Sarasvati...since we will quickly run into both 'tautology' and 'degrees of freedom' (for independent information) issues.

Samhita, RigVeda, Brahmana etc. where descriptions of Sarasavati occur are good sources for additing to the picture.. however, dating of these have their own challenges.
--
Not sure what specific subjects were discussed on another thread (you, JohneeG and others)..but mention of 'Maru-bhumi' (desert) in Ramayana by itself does not mean Sarasvati had dried up. Sarasvati and Maru-bhumi can coexist. (e.g. Nile and Sudan/Egypt). Besides fast flowing Sarasvati is described in Ramayana.

Having said that, the evidence does point to a much downgraded status of Sarasvati (in comparison to descriptions of Rigveda) at the time of Ramayana.

Thanks saar. Any references to this Sarasvati rejuvenation?

JohneeG, what you're applying is classic inductive logic. People keep mistakenly saying that Sherlock Holmes made "deductions." He didn't. He applied inductive logic. Your point about "Sarasvati rejuvenation would be such a romantic theme, why don't we have scriptural descriptions of this, whereas we have so much description of the drying up of the Sarasvati and the resulting 12 years of famine" - well, that is basically the same as the "dog that did not bark" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adven ... lver_Blaze). This dog that did nothing is great to arrive at an initial conjecture, but you can't build an entire case on inductions like this. It would (rightly) be ruled out as "circumstantial evidence" in court. Inductive logic works great to impress readers in detective novels, but it's not such a great idea for scientific research, or even for detective work in real life. This is because there are multiple pitfalls associated with this kind of logic - and looking at the leaps of logic you're making, you also seem to be succumbing to these (no offense).

[Nilesh Oak]

Thanks saar. Any references to this Sarasvati rejuvenation?

There indeed are. They are spread out all over and one has to read good number of them to start putting the picture together. This is mainly because the studies done are with very different objectives and not purely change in monsoon intensity. Also focus of geographical area changes.

I will send you some via email.

[johneeG]

JohneeG, what you're applying is classic inductive logic. People keep mistakenly saying that Sherlock Holmes made "deductions." He didn't. He applied inductive logic. Your point about "Sarasvati rejuvenation would be such a romantic theme, why don't we have scriptural descriptions of this, whereas we have so much description of the drying up of the Sarasvati and the resulting 12 years of famine" - well, that is basically the same as the "dog that did not bark" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adven ... lver_Blaze). This dog that did nothing is great to arrive at an initial conjecture, but you can't build an entire case on inductions like this. It would (rightly) be ruled out as "circumstantial evidence" in court. Inductive logic works great to impress readers in detective novels, but it's not such a great idea for scientific research, or even for detective work in real life. This is because there are multiple pitfalls associated with this kind of logic - and looking at the leaps of logic you're making, you also seem to be succumbing to these (no offense).

Saar,
you are just holding on to possibilities...maybe that happened...maybe this happened. Possibilities are infinite. But, the probabilities are finite and narrow it down. If Saraswathi river had reappeared, then it would be have been a much bigger event than its drying out. It would have been hailed as a miracle. Remember Saraswathi is not just a lifeline river but a Goddess river like Ganga. Do you really think that the scriptures would have been silent if the river had reappeared at any time during the period that they cover?

About what happened before the time-frame covered by scriptures is not unknown and all kinds of possibilities exist.

[JE Menon]

Quoting myself in an earlier post: "There is mention of the linkage in a book which I read a long time ago, but can't for the life of me remember it's name. It must be on googlebooks. It's an old one."

Found the bugger... "The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel"...

https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=1yM ... ra&f=false

[vishvak]

When it comes to Indra, motifs are very clear in temples of Indra. In case of Baal, there is not much of motif there except for textual references. If Baal==Indra, then Baal temple of Palmyra is most probably not a temple of Indra.

We have nothing but textual references to such Baal==Indra. Let me give a clear reference to Indra temple:
link from open source wikipedia. The motifs are very clear in the Indian subcontinent including countries like Thailand, Cambodia. So where are the temple motifs in case of Baal. There have to be but there are none whatsoever.

I think we are not able to see this with clarity simply because our own culture has been attacked several times since 800 AD onwards, from the land and from the sea. On the other hand, Cambodia and Thailand have had dispute w.r.t. Preah Vihear temple (constructed during Khmer times). Sun temples in India (Kashmir, for one) show attacks very clearly, for example. So let me give an idea, about the views during the times when theories such as Aryan Invasion were written. These were the times when Europeans allowed pirates to plunder under Royal decree, when hundreds of years of naval warfare in the Arabian ocean was very normal, when looting and pillaging nations the size of India was considered progressive, when Railways were constructed without any standards and connection between the east coast and the west coast, when growing opium and dumping on the Chinese, as plunder of war, was considered legit, and so on and so forth. Such was the 'global viewpoint' at the time; therefore there is no point mentioning thousands of years of 'history' so casually, and extending any courtesy in such fashion, while overlooking total warfare forced on natives everywhere.

Such histories are written by the very people who have no connection whatsoever with any deity, Baal or Indra even. We are looking at 'history' from totally contemporary angle, probably from post-modern angle as defined by western standards - and not any earlier - while mentioning about thousands of years.

[Agnimitra]

X-post from Iranian Identity Faultlines thread:

Here's more material on ...
1. How Iran's "Aryan" heritage involved an infusion of Indian Veda into their existing priesthoods
2. And subsequently the infusion of knowledge traditions further north and west

The Magi & Zoroaster
The 4th century CE, Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus made the following observations in his Rerum gestarum libri 23.6.31-36:

"31. They have also as many cities as Media, and villages as strongly built as towns in other countries, inhabited by large bodies of citizens. In short, it is the richest residence of the kings.

32. In these districts the lands of the Magi are fertile; and it may be as well to give a short account of that sect and their studies, since we have occasion to mention their name. Plato (at Ax. 371D; Isoc. II.28, 227A), that most learned deliverer of wise opinions, teaches us that Magias is by a mystic name Machagistia (Mazdayasni? If so, one of the few Western references to this name which is the Zoroastrian name for their religion and means 'Worship of God'), that is to say, the purest worship of divine beings; of which knowledge in olden times the Bactrian Zoroaster derived much from the secret rites of the Chaldaeans; and after him Hystaspes, a very wise monarch, the father of Darius.

33. When Zoroaster had boldly made his way into the unknown regions of Upper India, he came to a certain woody retreat, of which with its tranquil silence the Brahmans, men of sublime genius, were the possessors. From their teaching he learnt the principles of the motion of the world and of the stars, and the pure rites of sacrifice, as far as he could; and of what he learnt he infused some portion into the minds of the Magi, which they have handed down by tradition to later ages, each instructing his own children, and adding to it their own system of divination (an interesting reference and we can only wonder about Marcellinus' source).

34. From his time, though many ages to the present era, a number of priests of one and the same clan has arisen, dedicated to the worship of the gods. And they say, if it can be believed, that they even keep alive in everlasting fires a flame which descended from heaven among them; a small portion of which, as a favourable omen, used to be borne before the kings of Asia.

35. Of this class the number among the ancients was small, and the Persian sovereigns employed their ministry in the solemn performance of divine sacrifices, and it was profanation to approach the altars, or to touch a victim before a Magus with solemn prayers had poured over it a preliminary libation. But becoming gradually more numerous they arrived at the dignity and reputation of a substantial clan; inhabiting towns protected by no fortifications, allowed to live by their own laws, and honoured from the regard borne to their religion.

36. It was of this clan of Magi that the ancient volumes relate that after the death of Cambyses, seven men seized on the kingdom of Persia (cf. Smerdis), who were put down by Darius, after he obtained the kingdom through the neighing of his horse.

37. In this district a medical oil is prepared with which if an arrow be smeared, and it be shot gently from a loose bow (for it is extinguished in a rapid flight), wherever it sticks it burns steadily, and if any one attempts to quench it with water it only burns more fiercely, nor can it be put out by any means except by throwing dust on it.

38. It is made in this manner. Those skilful in such arts mix common oil with a certain herb, keep it a long time, and when the mixture is completed they thicken it with a material derived from some natural source, like a thicker oil. The material being a liquor produced in Persia, and called, as I have already said, naphtha in their native language."

8. The Extent of the Zoroastrian-Magian-Persian Corpus of Knowledge
According to Martin Haug, Hermippus, the philosopher of Smyrna (ca. 250 BCE), "is reported by Pliny (Historia Naturalis 30.2.4) to have made very laborious investigations in to all Zoroastrian texts, which were said to comprise two million verses, and to have stated the contents of each book separately." Pliny credits Callimachus' pupil Hermippus with having "written on this art in the most exact fashion, while also making accessible, by the contents-lists prefaced to his volumes, the two million verses composed by Zoroaster" (qui de tota ea arte diligentissime scripsit, et viciens centum milia versuum a Zoroastre condita, indicibus quoque voluminum eius positis explanavit). Hermippus' work has been lost.

A copy of the corpus of Hermippus' work (or a portion of it) was said to reside in a library at in Egypt at Alexandria - which was at one point part of the Persian empire. That copy has also been lost to us.

2nd century CE Greek philosopher, Celsus stated that "Zoroaster and Pythagoras formulated their doctrines in books" which were conserved until his time, an observation affirmed by a medieval textual commentator of Alcibiades who stated that Zoroaster had left philosophical writings.

If Zoroaster lived before the advent of writing, then the writings credited to him were likely written by his followers including the magi. We take these various references to Zoroastrian texts to mean that Zoroastrian texts had been committed to writing at some stage and that these texts were extensive in both size and the breath of content.

ZOROASTRIAN HERITAGE
AUTHOR: K. E. EDULJEE

[sudarshan]

Saar,
you are just holding on to possibilities...maybe that happened...maybe this happened. Possibilities are infinite. But, the probabilities are finite and narrow it down. If Saraswathi river had reappeared, then it would be have been a much bigger event than its drying out. It would have been hailed as a miracle. Remember Saraswathi is not just a lifeline river but a Goddess river like Ganga. Do you really think that the scriptures would have been silent if the river had reappeared at any time during the period that they cover?

About what happened before the time-frame covered by scriptures is not unknown and all kinds of possibilities exist.

Probabilities are finite and narrow it down. I agree. Now where does the disagreement come from? Right here:

There's scriptural evidence, astronomical evidence, archaeological evidence (that's what we're talking of right now, of course there are other sources of evidence as well). If we go with Ramayana before MB, we have:

* Scriptural evidence is silent on intervening rejuvenation of Saraswati
* Astronomical evidence is in agreement with the hypothesis
* Archaeological evidence does not disagree (i.e., we seem to have archaeological evidence of rejuvenation of Saraswati between 9000 and 4000 BC)

If we go with your MB before Ramayana hypothesis:
* Astronomical evidence does not agree
* Archaeological evidence does not disagree (i.e., we might have archaeological evidence of rejuvenation of Saraswati between 9000 and 4000 BC, but both Ramayana and MB could be written after this)
* Scriptural evidence does not disagree [Edit: When I say "does not disagree," I'm discounting the multiple references to Rama and Ramayana in the MB, and the complete lack of references to the MB in the Ramayana - actually, this fact does disagree with your hypothesis, and at best, the scriptural evidence is conflicted]

The difference in the two cases is the astronomical evidence. I personally consider this to be hard evidence, much more significant than lack of scriptural evidence. You seem to be of a different opinion, and in fact in another thread, you said "I don't understand how this astronomical dating works." So it seems you want to discount the negative astronomical evidence which disagrees with your hypothesis, simply because you don't understand how this astronomical dating works, and instead focus on the lack of scriptural records which favors your hypothesis. IOW, if something significant happened, and if people had started writing scriptures by then, then it must be described in the scriptures. So basically, if it does not exist in the scriptures, then that means:

a. It did not happen
OR
b. It happened before people started writing scripture

What I say is, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Lack of description in the scriptures of a rejuvenating Saraswati could be due to other reasons, like we might have lost those scriptural records over the millennia.

The AIT folks made this same mistake of going with linguistic/scriptural sciences, which are not (yet) such hard sciences as astronomy and archaeology. If astronomy and archaeology say something, that carries a lot of weight, more than lack of written or oral records. That's what I feel.

[vishvak]

Indians have, over last decades, presented a lot of archaeological evidence, but such efforts are literally brushed off (hand-waving by scholars). On the other hand, when European scholars take references from religious books, it is not about superstition AND utter dishonesty; but about the same network of scholarship that is typing out history.

So who are these people typing out histories for? Not for the most powerful country like USA, where intelligent design always finds way back to schoolbooks. The histories are types out of heathein and pagains onlee by the same network who, in their most glorious days of colonial times, gassed about Aryan Invasion theory. This is the record of European scholars, and there is no point talking about thousands of years in the terms set by Europeans - this time in the name of Baal==Indra, and so on and so forth therein.

It is but Aryan Invasion theory in another form, to have excuses ready when some things crystallize one way or another. It is as dishonest and superstitious as it was, when the Europeans could not record themselves looting off colonies and total war on natives. If it was about honesty then Europeans could have seen by themselves when they could not loot enough.

It does not take an expert, from within or from outside, to see that the temples of Baal is not temple of Indra. Pictures of now destroyed temple are on the internet, and no one can state such so and so bla bla without support of any archaeological evidence whatsoever.

[sudarshan]

Here's one more thing to think about, when arguing about this "lack of description in the scriptures" about the rejuvenating Saraswati.

We had the first world war in the last century. How many hundreds or thousands of authors wrote books or memoirs about it? How about the second world war? The Korean war? Vietnam? Fall of the Soviet Union?

Now we have the MB war, which was a fundamental turning point, not just in the history of Bharatavarsha, but supposedly, the marker of the end of one Yuga and the beginning of another. How many people wrote about that one? We have surviving records from the times from *ONE* author (forget the knock-offs that came thousands of years later).

How about the Ramayana? Supposedly, if Sage Narada hadn't encouraged Valmiki to write about it, we would have no surviving records. So once again - contemporary records from *ONE* author. Actually not even contemporary, but let that be for now. We have no memoirs prepared by the vanaras of their interactions with Rama, no memoirs by Vibhishana, nor by Jambavan. Nor did they hire Brahmins or scribes to ghost-write their memoirs. Why not? At least during MB times, we can argue that there was near-total destruction, so only Vyasa was available to write about it.

If there were other records of the Ramayana or the MB, what happened to them? Were they lost? In that case, why couldn't we have similarly lost records of this rejuvenating Saraswati? If there were no other records of the Ramayana or the MB from contemporary authors, then what does that imply about Indian history? That unless some exceptional person took an interest in preparing records, even extremely unusual or cataclysmic events were not recorded. Then why be surprised that we have no contemporary records of the miraculously rejuvenating Saraswati? Maybe there was no exceptional person to record it when it was happening. Aren't we better off with astronomical and archaeological evidence?

OTOH, if the Ramayana and MB were fiction, and some author or group of authors deliberately took the trouble to make it seem that the Ramayana occurred before the MB (even though it was written later) - well, in that case, these authors would have indeed omitted all references to the MB in the Ramayana, and added references to the Ramayana in the MB. I guess these authors were also sophisticated enough, and knowledgeable enough about astronomy, and more importantly, had an astoundingly accurate database of planets, comets, meteors, their masses and distances and orbital periods, etc. to insert extremely consistent astronomical references in both the MB and the Ramayana, and to specifically point them to certain epochs, and to also keep the chronology of unfolding events - people traveling, meeting each other, fighting, kissing and making up - all consistent with corresponding planetary and stellar positions in the sky over the days and years!!! Astounding, but possible.

But then these authors were so naive, that they didn't realize that their descriptions of the dried up Saraswati in the Ramayana, and of the flowing Saraswati in the MB, would give them away? It takes researchers from the 18th, 19th, or 20th century to realize this? Or were these authors aware that the Saraswati had really rejuvenated in the interim, between their claimed times of occurrence of the Ramayana and the MB?

That's the trouble with inductive logic.

[johneeG]

Saar,
you are just holding on to possibilities...maybe that happened...maybe this happened. Possibilities are infinite. But, the probabilities are finite and narrow it down. If Saraswathi river had reappeared, then it would be have been a much bigger event than its drying out. It would have been hailed as a miracle. Remember Saraswathi is not just a lifeline river but a Goddess river like Ganga. Do you really think that the scriptures would have been silent if the river had reappeared at any time during the period that they cover?

About what happened before the time-frame covered by scriptures is not unknown and all kinds of possibilities exist.

Probabilities are finite and narrow it down. I agree. Now where does the disagreement come from? Right here:

There's scriptural evidence, astronomical evidence, archaeological evidence (that's what we're talking of right now, of course there are other sources of evidence as well). If we go with Ramayana before MB, we have:

* Scriptural evidence is silent on intervening rejuvenation of Saraswati
* Astronomical evidence is in agreement with the hypothesis
* Archaeological evidence does not disagree (i.e., we seem to have archaeological evidence of rejuvenation of Saraswati between 9000 and 4000 BC)

If we go with your MB before Ramayana hypothesis:
* Astronomical evidence does not agree

There doesn't seem to be any one fixed date arrived at by so-called astronomical evidence if we accept it as evidence in the first place. There seem to be varying dates proposed by different people. And everyone can pick the date that they find convenient to their hypothesis. It shows that the astronomical data by itself can satisfy varying dates and are inconclusive even if we one argues that they can be used for dating.

I personally don't think that astronomical data was put in as a dating mechanism in those scriptures. I think they are astrological omens rather than astronomical observations.

* Archaeological evidence does not disagree (i.e., we might have archaeological evidence of rejuvenation of Saraswati between 9000 and 4000 BC, but both Ramayana and MB could be written after this)

I don't know about this rejuvenation thing. But, if there is archeological evidence suggesting that Saraswathi river rejuvenated in 4000 BCE and again dried up in 2000 BCE. And the scriptures only talk of drying up and not rejuvenation, then it means that the scriptures are recording a time after 4000 BCE. The scriptures don't seem to know about any rejuvenation that happened.

* Scriptural evidence does not disagree [Edit: When I say "does not disagree," I'm discounting the multiple references to Rama and Ramayana in the MB, and the complete lack of references to the MB in the Ramayana - actually, this fact does disagree with your hypothesis, and at best, the scriptural evidence is conflicted]

I'll address this point later.

The difference in the two cases is the astronomical evidence. I personally consider this to be hard evidence, much more significant than lack of scriptural evidence. You seem to be of a different opinion, and in fact in another thread, you said "I don't understand how this astronomical dating works." So it seems you want to discount the negative astronomical evidence which disagrees with your hypothesis, simply because you don't understand how this astronomical dating works, and instead focus on the lack of scriptural records which favors your hypothesis. IOW, if something significant happened, and if people had started writing scriptures by then, then it must be described in the scriptures. So basically, if it does not exist in the scriptures, then that means:

a. It did not happen
OR
b. It happened before people started writing scripture

What I say is, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Lack of description in the scriptures of a rejuvenating Saraswati could be due to other reasons, like we might have lost those scriptural records over the millennia.

Actually, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in some situations. If I describe a room in a very detailed manner but do not mention any elephant in the room. Do you think the absence of description of the elephant is the evidence that the elephant is absent in the room or not?

The AIT folks made this same mistake of going with linguistic/scriptural sciences, which are not (yet) such hard sciences as astronomy and archaeology. If astronomy and archaeology say something, that carries a lot of weight, more than lack of written or oral records. That's what I feel.

AIT folks assumed that AIT happened and proceeded to fit scriptural and linguistic evidences to fit their prejudice. The scriptures seem to be saying the opposite i.e. OIT.

Here's one more thing to think about, when arguing about this "lack of description in the scriptures" about the rejuvenating Saraswati.

We had the first world war in the last century. How many hundreds or thousands of authors wrote books or memoirs about it? How about the second world war? The Korean war? Vietnam? Fall of the Soviet Union?

Now we have the MB war, which was a fundamental turning point, not just in the history of Bharatavarsha, but supposedly, the marker of the end of one Yuga and the beginning of another. How many people wrote about that one? We have surviving records from the times from *ONE* author (forget the knock-offs that came thousands of years later).

I think the nature of MB scripture has to be first understood. MB makes a very important claim in the very beginning. That it contains everything. Now, what kind of book would contain everything? Encyclopedia.

The point I am trying to make is that MB is kind of encyclopedia. I don't mean to say that MB started off as encyclopedia. No. But, as more and more stories were being added to MB, at some point, it seems that MB was turned into an encyclopedia and all kinds of stories were added to it. So, just because a story is in MB, does not mean its true or that it happened during the time of MB. This is especially true about the side-stories.

I think the only part of MB with historical basis is the war. Because the scripture seems to be based around the war.

Anyway, if one insists that the entire main-story is important, still it would be a stretch to argue that every side-story is important to construct chronology. So, Raamayana being part of MB is not a surprise and does not show that Raamayana came before MB. Simply because all kinds of stories seem to be part of MB.

How about the Ramayana? Supposedly, if Sage Narada hadn't encouraged Valmiki to write about it, we would have no surviving records. So once again - contemporary records from *ONE* author. Actually not even contemporary, but let that be for now. We have no memoirs prepared by the vanaras of their interactions with Rama, no memoirs by Vibhishana, nor by Jambavan. Nor did they hire Brahmins or scribes to ghost-write their memoirs. Why not? At least during MB times, we can argue that there was near-total destruction, so only Vyasa was available to write about it.

If there were other records of the Ramayana or the MB, what happened to them? Were they lost? In that case, why couldn't we have similarly lost records of this rejuvenating Saraswati? If there were no other records of the Ramayana or the MB from contemporary authors, then what does that imply about Indian history? That unless some exceptional person took an interest in preparing records, even extremely unusual or cataclysmic events were not recorded. Then why be surprised that we have no contemporary records of the miraculously rejuvenating Saraswati? Maybe there was no exceptional person to record it when it was happening. Aren't we better off with astronomical and archaeological evidence?

There are actually several versions of Raamayana in Sanskruth itself apart from various other languages. The interesting question is: But there is only one MB. Why?

The hint is: That single MB is very very large.(much larger than Raamayana).

So, I think all the newer stories were directly added into the original MB itself instead of keeping them separate.

OTOH, if the Ramayana and MB were fiction, and some author or group of authors deliberately took the trouble to make it seem that the Ramayana occurred before the MB (even though it was written later) - well, in that case, these authors would have indeed omitted all references to the MB in the Ramayana, and added references to the Ramayana in the MB. I guess these authors were also sophisticated enough, and knowledgeable enough about astronomy, and more importantly, had an astoundingly accurate database of planets, comets, meteors, their masses and distances and orbital periods, etc. to insert extremely consistent astronomical references in both the MB and the Ramayana, and to specifically point them to certain epochs, and to also keep the chronology of unfolding events - people traveling, meeting each other, fighting, kissing and making up - all consistent with corresponding planetary and stellar positions in the sky over the days and years!!! Astounding, but possible.

But then these authors were so naive, that they didn't realize that their descriptions of the dried up Saraswati in the Ramayana, and of the flowing Saraswati in the MB, would give them away? It takes researchers from the 18th, 19th, or 20th century to realize this? Or were these authors aware that the Saraswati had really rejuvenated in the interim, between their claimed times of occurrence of the Ramayana and the MB?

The initial authors of Raamayana and MB were not necessarily keen to show any sort of chronology one way or the other. They just seem to be telling their story. It seems like a later belief that Raamayana came first and then MB.

And there are many areas(particularly chronologies) where all these epics differ with each other. So, there is no consistency across the scriptures about pre-2000 BCE chronologies. The chronologies after 2000 BCE seem to be consistent across the scriptures. It it the historians who have distorted them.

That's the trouble with inductive logic.

It seems to me that deductive logic is directly or indirectly depended on inductive logic.

[johneeG]

X-posting:

I was wondering about the word Mlechccha.

Could it be that it derives somehow from Mul + cchod (leaving base), or some Sanskrit variant of it. Could it be a word used for people in general who LEFT Aryavarta earlier, thus losing contact with the Vedic traditions?

Could it mean "Foreignized Indians" rather than just "Foreign"?

What do gurus think?

Yes, saar. Its such a strange word. I think its connected to Accha. Accha means 'nice' or 'clean'. I think 'mleccha' is sort of reverse of 'accha'.

It seems there is a verb called 'mleccha' also. Link It means 'speaking indistinctly'.

There is another verb connected to 'mlai'. Link It seems to mean 'cast down', 'fade', 'vanish', ...etc. So, its definitely possible that the word 'mleccha' might mean people who 'vanished', or 'faded out' or were cast down. This seems to indicate some defeated people who vanished. And who spoke 'indistinctly'.

johneeG garu,

I think the "academic view" is that Mlechcchas were


1) of non-Indian ethnicity
2) coming into India from outside India
3) speaking non-Sanskrit or non-Indic based languages,
4) non-Arya
5) non-Vedic, devoid of Brahmins
6) fallen or degraded
7) defeated
8 ) pushed out of India in past

I think the word for 3) would be Barbaras if there is no specific name for the race.

The issue is whether we can exclude 1) and 3) from definition of Mlechccha. It would help against AIT.

RajeshA saar,

I don't know if 3) is directly related to 1). I think 3) could easily support OIT.

Lets consider all the data points:
- Dhasharajanya war tells us that the war was won by Sudhasa because of a flood brought by Indhra. They are presumed to have run away to some quarters.
- MB tells us that Anu was the ruler of Mlecchas. And that he was not made the successor of Yayathi.
- The word 'mleccha' means 'speak indistinctly'. There is a verb for it as well. The word 'mlai' means 'fade away' or 'cast down'.
- Gilgamesh tells us that Anunnaki(i.e. descendents of Anu) lived in Babylonia.
- Old Testament tells us that Babylonia is named after the 'tower of babel'. The 'tower of babel' story goes that earlier there used to be same language but the god(rain god) brought floods and made the 'language indistinct.' The word 'babel' means 'speak indistinctly'.After the flood, there was a west-ward migration.

I think all these data points are nicely fitting together. Each of them is supporting what the other is saying.

So, broadly, they are all saying that there was a flood. And the language became 'babbling' due to the scattering of the flood. Different sources are telling us the same story. Vedhas, MB, Gilgamesh, and Old Testament.

Actually, the word 'mleccha' seems to be directly related to 'babel' i.e. 'babbling' which is related to 'Babylonia'.

Link to post

[Prem]

The Same great Tamilian

[sudarshan]

There doesn't seem to be any one fixed date arrived at by so-called astronomical evidence if we accept it as evidence in the first place. There seem to be varying dates proposed by different people. And everyone can pick the date that they find convenient to their hypothesis. It shows that the astronomical data by itself can satisfy varying dates and are inconclusive even if we one argues that they can be used for dating.

I personally don't think that astronomical data was put in as a dating mechanism in those scriptures. I think they are astrological omens rather than astronomical observations.

Responding to this part first, since it caught my eye. Haven't read your whole post yet.

OK, so let's see.

We had the 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan. In both these wars:

1. India claims victory
2. Pakistan claims victory

How can both sides be victorious in the same war? So I guess the goras are right after all, bloody brownies keep trying to one-up each other, and Indu-Paw-kee ikwal-ikwal wonlee.

Have you actually taken a good look at the various dating "attempts" using the astronomical data? There are over a hundred astronomical observations mentioned in the MB. If I take one of those observations - say a phase of the moon, I can claim that the MB war happened yesterday, since the moon phase matches what is mentioned in the MB. If I take two observations - say, moon phase and Mars in a specific nakshatra - I can maybe claim that the MB war happened three months ago. To actually make the dating work, you need to consider the full set of observations.

Now, moon phases, planetary positions, comet sightings, eclipses - all these phenomena are periodic. So dating based on these will give you the latest possible date when those phenomena lined up. However - there is at least one non-periodic phenomenon, that Nilesh ji talked about during his dating attempt - the proper motion of stars (so far as we know, this is not periodic). [Edit: I think I might be wrong about this non-periodicity of proper motion - it seems to be because of the rotation of stars around the galactic center. However, for the sun, the rotation period seems to be of the order of 200 million years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion. So over 10 to 20,000 years or so, the phenomenon is practically linear.]

When you say - "astronomical dating attempts don't even agree with each other, each guy comes up with his own date" - you are doing the same Indu-Paw-kee ikwal argument, since most of these attempts feature a limited set of observations, and the authors seem to focus on their own specific sub-sets and ignore the rest of the observations which don't support their pet hypothesis. The manner in which they selectively lavish their attention on their cherished sub-set of data makes it hard to believe that they are not motivated by their own agendas. But - when P. V. Vartak made an attempt to use the full set of astronomical observations, he also carefully pointed out that these observations were omitted by other authors, that they did not match the timeline proposed by the previous authors.

I don't know what dataset Vartak used (still trying to figure this out), but I believe it was traditional Panchang data. When Nilesh ji made his attempt to use all the data in the MB, he used software (which I believe uses a database developed by the NASA JPL), and he ended up with pretty much the same date as Vartak. Both dating attempts which try and consider all the observations do indicate the same date for the MB, and this seems to me to be pretty strong corroboration of the validity of the method. So the ikwal-ikwal argument in your post basically taints the genuine dating attempts with the same lack of credibility that the agenda-driven dating attempts richly deserve.

I don't think anybody is claiming that the astronomy observations were inserted in the MB as a dating mechanism (by the original author(s), I mean). They could have been omens, or whatever, but they certainly serve the dating purpose very well, since they point to a consistent timeline, and are in agreement with seasonal observations in the MB as well. Certainly if you pick 20 random events like planetary positions, moon phase, etc., you have a great chance of finding a time when these positions match. But the MB astronomical observations go further. They consistently describe the sky patterns over the days and years, and the seasonal and precession-related observations are also in agreement with all this. The precession of the earth follows a 26,000 year cycle. Plus, as described by Nilesh ji, there was one critical observation which only made sense when one considered the non-periodic phenomenon [Edit: See disclaimer above] of "proper motion of stars."

[Nilesh Oak]

Sudarshan ji,

But what if JohneeG does consciously chooses not to read astronomy works, because it might stop his search/thought experiments etc. as far as timing of Ramayana or Mahabharata is concerned.

Otherwise JohneeG can grasp astronomy arguments of my books in no time.

--
on a side bar, AV observation would lead to only one time interval of 11091 BCE - 4508 BCE, as described in Mahabharata text, in last (how about) ~10 Million years. That should put all speculation to rest. And in case that is not enough , Bhishma Nirvana references (23 of them together) leads to Mahabharata sometime before 4000 BCE, independent of AV observation.

[Pulikeshi]

Some light reading (bit off topic) for those interested. We should certainly entertain such a book for Indian history taught in class rooms today... a real academic effort based on the latest we know today is begging to be written... if only there was money in doing this

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong
Lies My Teacher Told Me

[sudarshan]

Sudarshan ji,

But what if JohneeG does consciously chooses not to read astronomy works, because it might stop his search/thought experiments etc. as far as timing of Ramayana or Mahabharata is concerned.

Otherwise JohneeG can grasp astronomy arguments of my books in no time.

Yessir, I remember the merry-go-round ride with Peter on this same subject. Not that I cared a fig about convincing Peter, his cognitive dissonance was so obvious. The idea then was to knock a couple of fence-sitters off their cozy perches.

With JohneeG, I do believe he's sincere, and I've also learned a lot from him on this forum earlier. So I was trying to return the favor in one of the few subjects that I know something about.

[RajeshA]

The Same great Tamilian

This Tamilian gentleman is doing good work, if only he can get over his affliction to the AIT and "North Indian Hinduism".

[RajeshA]

But what if JohneeG does consciously chooses not to read astronomy works, because it might stop his search/thought experiments etc. as far as timing of Ramayana or Mahabharata is concerned.

Here however we still need to admit that there is an incompatibility between archeoastronomical and textual/traditional evidence - October 16, 5561 BCE vs 3138 BCE.

[sudarshan]

I think Vartak already talked about that (I could be wrong). Something about how an inscription was found from Chandragupta Maurya's time, saying X generations of kings had passed since the beginning of the Kali Yuga. And people in later eras, when back-calculating from Chandragupta's time, arbitrarily assumed that each king ruled for Y years (20?). But Vartak argued that Y was too low a figure, that looking at the average tenure of kings in Bharatavarsha, Y should be much higher, so with that higher figure of Y, his (Vartak's) dating of the MB was actually a much better fit.

[SaiK]

DNA ties Ashkenazi Jews to group of just 330 people from Middle Ages
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... story.html

Now the rest of linking discussions has this rider.