Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 27 Aug 2012 17:40

ManishH ji,

While many participants of this thread are senior members of BRF forum, I joined a month ago. I am making progress, albeit slow, to read previous posts from this and other threads. Admittedly, my progress is slow.

Would you be so kind to state your position as it relates to AIT and OIT, so that I can follow your input better...

(1) AIT has more evidence to back it up - linguistics, horses, Rigveda etc.
(2) OIT has no evidence, at least not as solid as AIT
(3) We don't have sufficient evidence for either AIT or OIT
(4) Or positions exactly opposite of (1) through (3) or one from many other possible alternatives.

Linguistics is not my forte and while I am willing to admit that you are additing value and enlightening many forum participants, at times I am at complete loss. I illustrate it with an observation I made when I was growing up.

I remember an old lady, not very old (~60) who would sit with pile of rice/dry beans/lentils to clean it from stones/extraneous stuff, but instead of separating 'cleaned' rice/lentils from the mixed pile, as she removed the stones, she would simply pick stones randomly from the edible stuff... unfortunately while the % of stones/extraneous stuff went down over time, the edible stuff ...rice/beans/lentils were never ready for consumption.

If you are worried about OIT enthusiasts position such as ...."look here.. I found horse teeth before 1500 BC, bingo.. OIT is established", I get it and I am with you. The logic/evidence employed why one is rejecting AIT (I mean leavel of immaturity shown by past and current proponents of it) can not be the reason to accept OIT. If this is your concern, I get it.

On the other hand, you randomly showing (not even picking them up) some extraneous stuff, in otherwise edible pile of rice, is distraction for those who are exploring these trecherous but exciting hike path.

Appreciate your help,

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 27 Aug 2012 17:48

Nilesh Oak wrote:Horse debate is back again. Glad to know it is live and well.

This thread is 100 pages long. I read ravi-g suggesting that this thread be archived. I definitely want to figure out where to access archived threads, however here is what I suggest.. irrsepective of whether this thread is archived right away or not.

Why don't we have two threads... OIT-1 and OIT - 2

OIT -1 will discuss Horse and domesticated horses, Science of Linguistics, Rhetorics, PIE and stuff.

OIT - 2 will discuss Genetics, Geology, psedo science of Archeo-astronomy, Historical records/genealogies from ancient Indian Literature.

Rigveda and Archeology can be discussed in either forums. I have no secret desire of making OIT-1 stream handicapped in any fashion.

Did that too Nilesh ji

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... s#p1283248

In fact a Linguistics thread was opened up for the benefit of ManishH ji and other members but didnt work out well.

Anyhow Nilesh ji, the problem is:
1. OIT needs to kill AIT
2. AIT is tied up to Linguistics only
3. Linguists bring in Archeology (in fact only the Cabalus Horse) because they cannot take AIT much beyond 1500 BC because they are hamstrung by the circular argument in the case of ‘Sanskrit, Old Iranian, Mittani, Akkadian conundrum’. Basically they want to avoid having to move dates. Latest ideas like tying language to agriculture is basically to creat more horse arguments.
4. Ergo AIT needs to shift the onus of proof onto OIT people
5. Unfortunately for them OIT does not require Horse.

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 27 Aug 2012 17:50

Nilesh Oak wrote:Why don't we have two threads... OIT-1 and OIT - 2
OIT -1 will discuss Horse and domesticated horses, Science of Linguistics, Rhetorics, PIE and stuff.
OIT - 2 will discuss Genetics, Geology, psedo science of Archeo-astronomy, Historical records/genealogies from ancient Indian Literature.

People are swinging between these sections/subjects of the debate too vigorously and frequently. The debate would lose cohesion if threads were multiple.
Also, many posts are comprehensive and cover multiple subjects areas.
Just my two cents.

Regards,
Virendra

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 27 Aug 2012 17:56

ManishH wrote:When convenient, Shri Talageri terms the anukramaṇi authoritative. When inconvenient, they are "fictitiously attributed". This is setting new standards in data interpretation.

I have to agree with ManishH on this one. Not only Talageri, but anyone (including ManishH himself) that is trying to find historical dates in the RV, is practising sheer quackery. I cannot believe there are people claiming that one Mandala is "younger" than the other and so forth. Before getting down to such details, this entire effort must pass higher-level rational and logical tests. It DOES NOT pass. So why do you spend your time on it ? This is like "window shopping", i.e. going to the market with no money yet spending the whole day making comments on the merits of different articles etc.

Maṇḍala VI is a Bharadvāja kula-maṇḍala. It was maintained by that clan for generations. Labelling the entire maṇḍala as belonging to "earlier period" is a spurious claim.

Whether it was "maintained" by Bharadvaja clan or a Scheduled Caste clan leaves absolutely no room or leeway for starting speculations regarding the "age" of the Veda.

This claim is totally wrong. The maṇḍala 5 mentions kubhā, krumu, sindhu - all are rivers in the west ...

RV_05.053.09.1 mā vo rasānitabhā kubhā krumur mā vaḥ sindhur ni rīramat
RV_05.053.09.2 mā vaḥ pari ṣṭhāt sarayuḥ purīṣiṇy asme īt sumnam astu vaḥ

So much for the "not a single place in the west". In the boundless enthusiasm to place genesis of ṛgveda in the area of Ganga river, Shri Talageri has forgotten to refer to the altas.

Shri Talageri has also forgotten the need to take a reality check before these types of nonsensical claims. According to Kazanas, Talageri does not know any Sanskrit, so even his capability to perform word-associations to the RV is suspect. In any case, RV 5.53 is one of a set of Suktas referring to the Maruts. If Talageri (or ManishH) claim that 5.53.9 is referring to an earthly river "sindhu", then they also need to tell us how (as mentioned in the SAME Sukta 5.53.7) the "Maruts" are releasing multiple "sindhus" (specifically, "tatardAnAh sindhavah"). While such an act makes no sense from an earthly point of view, it also deflates the claim that "sindhu" mentioned in 5.53.9 is a particular river "Sindhu" (Indus), since 5.53.7 clearly refers to a plural.

KL

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 27 Aug 2012 18:04

ravi_g wrote: Did that too Nilesh ji
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... s#p1283248

Reminds me a quote by very wise man, "If you ever think you have an ingenious idea, first.. read old books"

In fact a Linguistics thread was opened up for the benefit of ManishH ji and other members but didnt work out well.

Anyhow Nilesh ji, the problem is:
1. OIT needs to kill AIT
2. AIT is tied up to Linguistics only
3. Linguists bring in Archeology (in fact only the Cabalus Horse) because they cannot take AIT much beyond 1500 BC because they are hamstrung by the circular argument in the case of ‘Sanskrit, Old Iranian, Mittani, Akkadian conundrum’. Basically they want to avoid having to move dates. Latest ideas like tying language to agriculture is basically to creat more horse arguments.
4. Ergo AIT needs to shift the onus of proof onto OIT people
5. Unfortunately for them OIT does not require Horse.

The situation is similar to 'Indraya Takshakaya swaha' (various interpretations, but here is one by Vinoba)

Takshaka swolled Indra. Indra is not dying since he is 'Amar'. Takshak is not giving up since he is strong. Mexican standoff!

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 27 Aug 2012 18:38

KLP Dubey wrote:In any case, RV 5.53 is one of a set of Suktas referring to the Maruts. If Talageri (or ManishH) claim that 5.53.9 is referring to an earthly river "sindhu", then they also need to tell us how (as mentioned in the SAME Sukta 5.53.7) the "Maruts" are releasing multiple "sindhus" (specifically, "tatardAnAh sindhavah"). While such an act makes no sense from an earthly point of view, it also deflates the claim that "sindhu" mentioned in 5.53.9 is a particular river "Sindhu" (Indus), since 5.53.7 clearly refers to a plural.
KL

I'm no expert but could this be because of multiple streams (at/near the origin) of the river that later condense into one?
Or is there a geological principle that says a river cannot have multiple streams in its first section?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 18:49

KPL Dubey ji,

the point is that while most of the learned fraternity of traditional Vedic scholars in India were trying to impress the inquisitive Westerners about the deep knowledge of the Vedas and other Shastras, the Westerners were planning the apaharan of Rig Veda.

Snakes that they are they have almost swallowed the whole Rig Veda claiming its Sanskrit as theirs, claiming its mythology and deities as theirs, and asserted their view of history as Aryans bringing civilization to us Indians.

Now the "Indigenists" may not have tried to touch Rig Veda or any Veda with interpretations and the like, but when the whole Rig Veda is almost completely in the belly of the beast, then we too need to touch the feet of Rig Veda and to pull it back out of the belly!

The West will not stop doing their interpretations and building their edifice of fake history on the bones of the Truth of Indian Civilization, just because now the learned Vedic fraternity in India wishes to conduct a philosophical debate with them. They may send somebody to talk with the traditional Vedic scholars, and perhaps peek their hope that something would be done, but at the end of the day, they will continue with the AIT Project.

What is important is that the learned Vedic fraternity in India needs to realize that it is not a philosophical debate any more. That was over a long time ago! They need to now start an education offensive in India and try to correct the very wrong version of history that has spread like poison through the veins of the Indian Civilization. For this the learned Vedic fraternity in India would have to mobilize their resources and to rethink their role in the Indian society anew!

The international tug of war of ownership of Sanskrit and Rig Vedic Gods between the West and Indics is really in full flow and philosophical debate among learned men would not decide it!

The danger is that the learned Vedic fraternity of India thinking this is all a philosophical debate may end up tearing down the Indics themselves, who are trying to fight off the AIT-Nazis!

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 27 Aug 2012 19:34

Virendra wrote:I'm no expert but could this be because of multiple streams (at/near the origin) of the river that later condense into one? Or is there a geological principle that says a river cannot have multiple streams in its first section?

This is precisely the type of thinking that has got us into the AIT/OIT/PIE mess. When one nonsensical claim does not stand up to reason, another equally absurd speculation is invented to get around it. And so on.

Fact of the matter is that *absolutely none* of the sounds found in RV 5.53 (or any other RV sukta for that matter) can be consistently or reliably identified with any earthly object. If it is not an earthly river in the first place, why do you worry about multiple streams ? Just like the current attempts, in the distant past someone decided to use the sound "sindhu" from the RV to derive a Sanskrit meaning. The sum total of such efforts, along with the deduction of roots and grammatical rules from the RV, led to the composition of the Sanskrit language. But obviously, such derived meanings cannot be used to "reverse-engineer" the RV.

We are not talking about esoteric philosophical debate here, this is rationality in its most pointed form. As I said, the moment "Veda-based" chronology is brought into the picture, the whole debate has no epistemologic validity at all. It is all sheer nonsense.

I am also not the first to assert this. It has already been done before, and it is also the reason that we are still "Hindus" today instead of (for example) being a bunch of "shunyavadi" Buddhists holding begging bowls.

Namaskar,

KL

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 27 Aug 2012 19:45

Dear RajeshA,

RajeshA wrote:The international tug of war of ownership of Sanskrit and Rig Vedic Gods between the West and Indics is really in full flow and philosophical debate among learned men would not decide it!

The danger is that the learned Vedic fraternity of India thinking this is all a philosophical debate may end up tearing down the Indics themselves, who are trying to fight off the AIT-Nazis!

I agree with most of your post, but two main points to keep in mind:

1) This is not a *philosophical debate*. That needs to be very clearly stated. The question is of taking the entire debate from the realm of irrational and ad hoc beliefs to a firm foundation of reason and logic. In other words, high-level rational and logical tests MUST be passed before getting into nitty-gritties. It seems everyone has a favorite "anchor point" that they harp on. Tha AIT has their horse and chariot, Talageri has his anukramani-based claims. However, none of these claims stands the tests of reason. Other methods must be used, not RV-based chronology. You are most welcome to use the Puranic literature (as you and others seem to be doing in this thread) if you can substantiate the claims you are making. These are authored works using an already composed language (Sanskrit).

2) There is no "Indic victory" in replacing western quackery with Indian quackery. If after the AIT is defeated, we are just going to be teaching our children that the RV is in fact not "3500 years old" but rather "3500+X years old", what is the victory in that ? Essentially the OIT folks are "trying to be better westerners than the westerners themselves". This is a fundamental trap that Indians have fallen into. In 1947 "we" did kick out the European from India, but in place of that we got another "white guy at heart" wearing an Indian cap and Indian clothes. As it turned out, this event was not much of a victory at all. The real Indic victory is in reasserting the Indian ethos and status quo of the eternal Veda. Nothing else is important and nothing else distinguishes the Indian from the westerner. The PIE/AIT can be overthrown using other methods which are also being discussed in this thread.

Best Wishes,

KL

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Aug 2012 20:07

Folks, youll have to excuse me for posting large inline images. One of the problems I find among BRFites is not only lack of knowledge of Sanskrit (like Talageri) but complete ignorance of the cultural context of the rituals that stem from the vedas. Learn from this please.

For example, read the passage below. You see the Konark temple from 1300 AD and the Puri Jagannath chariots are examples of India's horse cult borrowed from central Asia Sintashta 2000 BC

Now here are images of the Puri chariot which proves the horse cult. Check the spoked wheels which indicate great speed in battle.

Here is an image of the Konark temple. See. Spoked wheels. Made for speed. A light lithe chariot of the type that can be buried (in a grave the size of the Giza pyramid) are all proof of the similarity between the 2000 BC culture of Sintashta and the Rig Veda.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 27 Aug 2012 20:12

I 300% agree with KLP Dubey-ji.

The AIT Nazis want us to remain entangled in superficial cosmetic issues, completely distancing us from core of the vedas, revival of Indic knowledge and further research and progress in these fields.

The need of the hour is to stop giving ghaas to AIT Nazis denying them any kind of advantage in playing on their term. AIT/AMT/Linguistics/ANIASI/Aryan Dravid etc will be replaced by new bs theories of beggars and losers and we will keep on strategizing in reaction.

The time is to have proactive approach in reviving studies of vedas, vedants, itihaas, philosophy, all the studies of our shastras in ayurved, science, astronomy, mathematics etc and thus prove without defending ourselves what we were and what we are capable of.

100% to also keep OIT like strategies and other such material to keep them busy instead.

This makes 400%

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 27 Aug 2012 20:31

Oh from the images of Spoked chariot wheels without horses, i remembered a shlok from Sri Suktam of Rigveda:

अश्वपूर्वां रथमध्यां हस्तिनाद प्रबोधिनिं
श्रियं देवी मुपःह्व्ये श्रीर्मा देविजुषुताम

Goddess laxmi is invited in a chariot (not sure with or w/o spokes) driven by horse and the coming is heralded by elephant's naada

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 27 Aug 2012 20:39

From Carl-ji's post in Sansrkit Nukkad thread:

Sanskrit is the ideal tool to engender the cultural renaissance of India. Without Sanskrit, we would be at a loss to appreciate the meanings of our names, our literature, our practices, our philosophical concepts, and prayers. How can one appreciate what the word ‘Bhaaratam’ means without knowing the Sanskrit language? ‘Bhaa’ means light, knowledge; ‘ratam’ means immersed. A person or a society, immersed in knowledge is ‘Bhaaratam’. No matter how solid a translation that is provided, the power of this language is woefully lost in any such effort.

These AIT Nazis wants to see us वाद रत instead of भा रत, drowned in useless and endless exercise of proving ourselves in something which does not have much to do with the actual studies of shastras and revival.

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 27 Aug 2012 20:46

KLP Dubey wrote:
Virendra wrote:I'm no expert but could this be because of multiple streams (at/near the origin) of the river that later condense into one? Or is there a geological principle that says a river cannot have multiple streams in its first section?
This is precisely the type of thinking that has got us into the AIT/OIT/PIE mess. When one nonsensical claim does not stand up to reason, another equally absurd speculation is invented to get around it. And so on.

Sorry Guru ji .. like I said I'm no expert. Just tried to address it with what little I could think of.

I know it wasn't a factual conclusion that could be thrusted/asserted. I already placed it like a query/speculation.
By the way Dubey ji is there an email Id, website or blog to keep in touch with you or whatever you write?

Regards,
Virendra

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 27 Aug 2012 20:59

Murugan wrote:I 300% agree with KLP Dubey-ji.
The AIT Nazis want us to remain entangled in superficial cosmetic issues, completely distancing us from core of the vedas, revival of Indic knowledge and further research and progress in these fields.
The need of the hour is to stop giving ghaas to AIT Nazis denying them any kind of advantage in playing on their term. AIT/AMT/Linguistics/ANIASI/Aryan Dravid etc will be replaced by new bs theories of beggars and losers and we will keep on strategizing in reaction.
he time is to have proactive approach in reviving studies of vedas, vedants, itihaas, philosophy, all the studies of our shastras in ayurved, science, astronomy, mathematics etc and thus prove without defending ourselves what we were and what we are capable of.
100% to also keep OIT like strategies and other such material to keep them busy instead.
This makes 400%

The two strategies can be called....

(1) AIT vs. OIT
(2) Ancient Indian Civilization and its spread/impact on today's world. No reason to exclude what it would have borrowed from other civilizations, however emphasis is on exploring (not agenda, not dogma) what is Indian civilization. Genetics, archeology, anthropology, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, dating of ancient events/documents, etc.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 27 Aug 2012 20:59

I have a very nube question:

How horse domestication is superior to elephant domestication.

It was only elephants who kept the loser gay alexander's horses and chariots at bay when they wanted to invade Bharat. Does not this prove that elephants are more powerful and useful animal than horses. They can also be used for other laborious and domestic work + give a sword (mardana) and it will kill horses eventually.

Also note that the Romans were so frightened of Elephants, that they forced their enemies not to use elephants in battle. Nothing that sort of fear for Horses.

I think elephant domestication is only genius in the ancient time. But now dont tell me that first elephant was domesticated in Arctic.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 27 Aug 2012 21:00

Yes, Nilesh-ji.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 27 Aug 2012 21:08

Murugan wrote: I think elephant domestication is only genius in the ancient time. But now dont tell me that first elephant was domesticated in Arctic.

Don't know about domestication of elephants, first, in arctic.

However, there is plausible/indirect evidence for domestication of not only two tusked elephants, but more than two (this is deliberate..since my research is not conclusive yet) tusked elephants in ancient India.. here I have to go for Indian subcontient --including surrounding islands.. Sri Lanka.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 27 Aug 2012 21:35

In My VHO, AIT/AMT/Linguist/ANIASI are various types of traps to hunt down ragtag remaining asmita of Indians and make them asmita nude.

The strategy to counter these AIT Nazi bustards in their own game sanctuary is to make them extinct playing their own game. They are obsessed with horses, chariots, dates (see every wiki article starts with date), hard evidence, 'facts', manuscripts. We will keep on 'giving' them all these at one hand, overload them with evidence, facts and script, let them decipher and come with various other traps, let them stu-die conspiring life time.

On the other hand, we have to, on urgent basis, reorganize our knowledge, see our shastras in new light, our purans and epics with new understanding including their probable dates too, way and means to start study centres, schools, classes, chat groups and institutions, re-compiling/re-interpreting our philosophy, ayurved, astronomy, alchemy, metallurgy and all other skills, war strategies, making them relevant to new time, adding new understandings and knowledge; all with new vigour.

Just imagine, we would have run 100+ pages discussing these too simultaneously in another thread. How great our knowledge base would have been by now..

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 27 Aug 2012 22:06

Another behaviour of AIT Nazis completely beats me is suddenly caring for dates and timings of our civilization and achievements, languages, tech., social system and education system.

Nowhere in the world one can find such a still well preserved millenniums old knowledge and wisdom, perfectly structured languages, time tested medicinal system, yoga, meditation, social setup and festivals which are being celebrated for so long. There is not single word appreciating this.

Barbaric language, 200 year old medicinal system, knowledge and wisdom not more than to digest others civilization and their values, deteriorating social setups and no festival as such think they are superior and telling others what they are, lying, bluffing, mocking and insulting...

It is little more than open fly torn shirt argument:

Jab apne kapde phate hue ho, andar kucchh bhi nahi pahena aur andar ka sab kuchh dikh raha hai, fir bhi doosre ko ungli karne jaana is tantamount to utter dishonesty and unsafe act...

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 27 Aug 2012 22:15

If there is no Indian knowledge appropriation, we can be left alone to really focus on the problem of rejuvenating the Vedic parampara, revitalizing what we long forgot or rekindle it again. That actually addresses one aspect of the problem, but it would be like filling a bucket with holes in my opinion for the reason that, when the narration of how vedas are to be interpreted lies with the west...now that they conclusively proved that Anatolia is the birth place of Sanskrit, Indians won't be considered the only champions of Vedic corpus anymore. We have to 'listen' to the neo Vedic scholars.

So on one hand we go about ignoring the wrong interpretation of Vedic corpus, while the 'real Aryans' go about completely assimilating Vedic corpus as the work of their ancestors with horses, languages, science everything. Again the Indian will be left with nothing in the end, just a lingering doubt that may be we might have composed the vedas and which won't know for sure for the dearth of Indian scholars and for the dearth of people who don't shy away from reclaiming what is really ours.

But I do see the danger of playing their game and getting sucked into it trying to interpret the Vedas as a historic document just to counter AIT proponents. You need a thorn to remove a thorn.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Aug 2012 22:24

Folks the thread is over 100 pages now. Its time for some of you to summarize the thread. State the issues and refute them. Otherwise it will be just another long thread.

Thanks, ramana

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Aug 2012 22:43

venug wrote:
Moreover, in the 2nd millenium BC, there was no composite bow yet.
What is a composite bow now? There are cave paintings in Bhimbetka supposedly dating back to 12000 BC depicting usage of bow and arrows, if one cant say they are not composite, one can't say they aren't either.

Just to add a little sugar.. composite generally need to be necessarily man made or engineered material based. It could be composites of natural materials..

for example: ply wood is a composite too. add some resins, or even rice gum like the chinese have used for great wall of china, is enough to bond two materials.. perhaps pressure compressed by huge rocks and heat to bond into one, could be classified as composite.

another good example of composite is our common good old "BRICK".

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Aug 2012 23:11

KLP Dubey wrote:If Talageri (or ManishH) claim that 5.53.9 is referring to an earthly river "sindhu", then they also need to tell us how (as mentioned in the SAME Sukta 5.53.7) the "Maruts" are releasing multiple "sindhus" (specifically, "tatardAnAh sindhavah"). While such an act makes no sense from an earthly point of view, it also deflates the claim that "sindhu" mentioned in 5.53.9 is a particular river "Sindhu" (Indus), since 5.53.7 clearly refers to a plural.

KL

Just to remind all, the Witzel type response to this would be that the Vedic people were prone to boasting and exaggeration.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Aug 2012 01:18

ramana wrote:Folks the thread is over 100 pages now. Its time for some of you to summarize the thread. State the issues and refute them. Otherwise it will be just another long thread.

Thanks, ramana

ramana garu,

The summary would fill up a whole book!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Aug 2012 01:18

KLP Dubey wrote:1) This is not a *philosophical debate*. That needs to be very clearly stated. The question is of taking the entire debate from the realm of irrational and ad hoc beliefs to a firm foundation of reason and logic. In other words, high-level rational and logical tests MUST be passed before getting into nitty-gritties. It seems everyone has a favorite "anchor point" that they harp on. Tha AIT has their horse and chariot, Talageri has his anukramani-based claims. However, none of these claims stands the tests of reason. Other methods must be used, not RV-based chronology. You are most welcome to use the Puranic literature (as you and others seem to be doing in this thread) if you can substantiate the claims you are making. These are authored works using an already composed language (Sanskrit).

KPL Dubey ji,

Indians were once great timekeepers and astronomers, however the quality of dating of many of our scriptures still leaves a lot to be desired. May be it was thus desired. I don't know. Our Itihaas does not have any dates!

For a long long time, it did not bother the Indians. We knew that our Itihaas happened. It was not necessary to know exactly when. Our emphasis lay in learning the wisdom embedded in our Itihaas, learning how to better understand our Dharma, our values!

Indian religion was never history-centric. We could preserve our Dharmic traditions regardless of whether something happened or not, when it happened, the philosophical foundations were far more important, unlike with the Christians and Muslims. In these Abrahamic traditions the historicity of the prophets was important, and the religion stood or fell based on this historicity, thus making them history-centric. Thus the importance and emphasis on history!

Due to the later military and economic domination of these faiths, they were able to convince the people that history is central to superiority. The Hindus don't have any specific reason to contradict this, and thus historicity has become central to civilizational claims over land and faith.

This is simply what we now have! Every day more Indians are convinced that those who have history are superior and their claims are superior. and Indian civilizational leadership has not been able to provide the population with a history with dates, especially for those chapters of our history, which are intimately connected with our faith - Vedas hearing, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, etc.

For various reasons this has become our Achilles heel, the weakness in our civilizational defenses.

Strategy demands that the Indic Dharmic fortress would have to be protected from all sides. So Indics cannot really afford to leave the Rig Vedic side of the fortress unmanned and undefended!

I wrote some time back on a bipolarity in Dharmic Nationalism - Historicists vs Itihaasists, and I said it would be healthy for us considering the challenges.

Actually I am very happy that you feel that you have reason on your side, and through purva paksha with Buddhism you have strengthened your arguments in favor of apaurashya, eternal Vedas. I don't know whether you have tested the strength of Vedic philosophy in view of many Western models but that too should be done!

I would in fact also be in favor of a continuous attack and pressure by the Itihaasists on the Historicists! I actually think this is healthy! So when you are tearing down Historicists, among whom I consider myself, I find it very positive.

If you wish, you may call the Historicists the bad cops, those who do the dirty work, so that the good cops can look good! Or one can compare the Historicists with the CIA, who again do the dirty work, but the American President, by constantly criticizing human rights violations etc, and by remaining unaware of all the dirty CIA jobs, can look good and exude morality!

KLP Dubey wrote:2) There is no "Indic victory" in replacing western quackery with Indian quackery. If after the AIT is defeated, we are just going to be teaching our children that the RV is in fact not "3500 years old" but rather "3500+X years old", what is the victory in that ? Essentially the OIT folks are "trying to be better westerners than the westerners themselves". This is a fundamental trap that Indians have fallen into. In 1947 "we" did kick out the European from India, but in place of that we got another "white guy at heart" wearing an Indian cap and Indian clothes. As it turned out, this event was not much of a victory at all. The real Indic victory is in reasserting the Indian ethos and status quo of the eternal Veda. Nothing else is important and nothing else distinguishes the Indian from the westerner. The PIE/AIT can be overthrown using other methods which are also being discussed in this thread.

I believe it is not quite clear what is at stakes. As I said, Indians have not been overly fixed on historicity, so whether Rig Veda is to be dated to 23,500 or or to 3,500 it doesn't really make much of a difference. The date is really unimportant.

However the stakes are high! Our unanchored history has allowed the West to change our chronology as they pleased.

What has West achieved with AIT?

It tells Indians, we are a people without a history, all our Mahabharata and Ramayana, all our Itihaas is either fiction, or it has so many lies and exaggerations that it is worthless as history!
It tells Indians that they have been taken for a ride and made fools of by claiming that the Hindu elite purposefully lied about the Itihaas being reality even though it is all fiction! Nothing in it can be trusted!
The West can concoct any history for Indians using their academic and economic dominance, which suits their purposes.
By changing the relative chronology between Indians and Europeans, it has managed to claim that Indian innovations were actually only copied from the Greeks and others, and thus our intellectual genius is overhyped and actually absent! We have had mediocre accomplishments!
It has used a narrative of invaders and invaded to seed feelings of racial superiority, victimization complex, ethnic divisions, foreigners and natives, cultural oppression, etc.
It has pushed the line that almost everything Hindu - Vedas, Itihaas, etc. is a culture and civilization of outsiders and not of natives, and thus it needs to be discarded, as it has been imposed through elite domination by alleged foreigners!
It has pushed the line that because the invading Aryans subjugated the natives of India, now they cannot complain if the Islamic invaders and later the British did the same to them.
It has pushed the line the Islam actually liberated the true natives from the oppression of the foreign Hindu Aryan elite, and thus has more right to be in India!
Historically it has pushed the line that the Europeans also being Aryans, even truer Aryans, had the right to rule over India, and bring up the fallen Aryans to their level.
Using all the above mentioned devices, finishing off self-pride, trust in own history, trust in own culture, mistrust of the others, victimization complexes, racism, etc. among Indians, Christian missionaries and mullahs are busy converting the people!

As such it is of paramount importance that true Indian history be reinstated!

Otherwise India would soon either be Christian or Islamic or Yuppy Atheist or Communist, everything but Hindu. Indian Civilization would be dead. It would become simply a museum civilization with India's learned Vedic fraternity teaching Sanskrit to only Western kids in the West, whereas common Indians become junior partners of some other civilization, as Dhimmis!

What Indics need is Pride and Trust in Own Culture! If pride is lost, Indians would want to distance themselves from own culture. If trust is lost, no matter how great the philosophy of Dharma may be, it would fail to find a market.

Pride is reinstated by telling Indians about their antiquity and their accomplishments as a civilization. Trust is reinstated by having a comprehensive historical narrative for our civilization as well as social solidarity!

So it is not just a matter of educating more Indians about Hindu philosophy and scriptures! That is very important! But all that can click only if the psychological needs of pride and trust are attended to in parallel!

And all that is at stake!

Indian Indigenism or even Out-of-India Theory is designed to reestablish pride and trust among Indians in themselves. Social Solidarity is an goal beyond the portfolio of this thread.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Aug 2012 04:41

Friends, did you read about this?

The Narmada Woman 600,000 years old
http://ancientindians.wordpress.com/200 ... nstruct-1/

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Aug 2012 06:54

In Islamism, as we discussed in years gone by, the person who knew Arabic would overrule everyone else and say that he knew the word of God because he knew Arabic. Before the reformation in Europe, and the invention of the printing press, Latin was the language of science which propagated bullshit like earth being center of the universe.

What I have seen on this thread is the suggestion that "X knows Sanskrit and therefore only his word is to be believed".

Now let me show you what these modern day Sanskrit scholars are asking me to believe. They are telling me "You twit with no knowledge of Sanskrit, here is an example of the graves described in the Rig Veda"

I am asked to believe that the Rig Veda describes the construction of three story graves with the bottom story containing a chariot, the middle story above that bearing a human body and the top story containing horses. I may not be a Rig Veda scholar but my bullshit meter rings really loudly when I am asked to believe this.

Here is a picture of a "Vedic"

grave that archaeologists insist is the very design of grave that linguists told them is mentioned in the Rig Veda. The linguists who claim knowledge of the Rig Veda are cooking up things and feeding that to the archaeologists who lap it up eagerly

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Aug 2012 08:12

If this is the culture of the Rig veda preserved in "deep linguistic links" here it is in China. The horse has 36 ribs. Wandering Vedic bards could not count perhaps?

The graves are in Central Asia and China. The language is in India. No graves. Yet Indian culture is said to be that of central Asia and Chinese culture with enormous garves holding chariots and horses, gets no mention in the theory of spread of language. There is only deep bullshitting as far as I can see.

The ageda is to promote a partictular theory by a small clique of lingusits and archaeologists

Web Page-Click Here

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 28 Aug 2012 09:01

Dear Virendra,

Virendra wrote:Sorry Guru ji .. like I said I'm no expert. Just tried to address it with what little I could think of. I know it wasn't a factual conclusion that could be thrusted/asserted. I already placed it like a query/speculation.

I was not admonishing you personally. I was simply cautioning against the type of thinking that you were tending towards in that moment.

By the way Dubey ji is there an email Id, website or blog to keep in touch with you or whatever you write?

I do not have any website or blog for posting comments on the Veda. I post all relevant comments here. However if you are interested in receiving the RV recitations once in a while, you may contact me on klpd2011 att gomgast dawt nett. Replace all "g"s with "c"s.

Namaskar,

Kishen Lal

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Aug 2012 09:12

Rahul M wrote:
Moreover, in the 2nd millenium BC, there was no composite bow yet.
not true. and even if it was, I fail to see the relevance.

Without them, the kind of balance needed to either hurl a spear or keep a bow steady is not possible.
and yet the parthians did this impossible thing for 100's of years to great effect !

sorry, this is laughably ill-informed. the numidian cavalry, to name another example were famed for their spear throwing prowess but used neither stirrups nor saddles. there are many other examples.
The longbow makes it even more
clumsy to carry on a horse.
no one ever used longbows on horses, with or without stirrups. your point being ?

Rahul, the arguments that were thrown at you seem to be based on the web page linked below, material by the author of the Web Page, David Anthony who saw kings being buried with horses in the Rig Veda

http://users.hartwick.edu/anthonyd/harn ... power.html

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 28 Aug 2012 09:30

for PIR reviews rivaj, a subhasit (!) from Carl-ji's quote in sanskrit nukkad

Another one that's particularly brutal:

उष्ट्राणां च विवाहेषु गीतो गायन्ति गार्दभानि
परस्परं प्रशंसयन्ते अहो रूपं ! अहो ध्वनि !

"And asses sing songs at the wedding of camels,
Their mutual praise: Aha, how beautiful! How melodious!"

and pentaiah-ji's rehash

Donkeys bray to
Chimes of camels wedding
In unison exclaim
Melodious and sounds beautiful
Butt of flattery
If not what else?

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 28 Aug 2012 13:52

shiv wrote:I am asked to believe that the Rig Veda describes the construction of three story graves with the bottom story containing a chariot, the middle story above that bearing a human body and the top story containing horses. I may not be a Rig Veda scholar but my bullshit meter rings really loudly when I am asked to believe this.

This is what happens when a bunch of low-level quacks are allowed to run amok with no checks and balances, no "scientific" peer-review (outside of their own clique/cabal), nor any reality checks. In these "backwaters-of-academia" fields like modern linguistics, south asia studies, etc, tenure is awarded for generating a lot of BS (it's got to smell just right) and sucking up to the "right" people. It's very much a corrupt, poor, and non-accountable setup.

In some science and engineering departments, even the janitors are probably smarter than the professors in the linguistics department...

As mentioned earlier, the rational and logical basis of these fields is extremely shaky. In these times of economic shake-ups, one must do all that one can to convince universities to fire these unproductive and dishonest morons. That has happened anyway in all but a small number of "liberal", "pinko-friendly" institutions.

The good news is that while there is an increasing number of Indians becoming aware of the machinations of these people, at the same time these AIT-related fields are dying a slow death in the west. For example, in the case of our "cunning linguist" at Hardvar (sorry for wrong spelling), the old weasel will be likely "archaeological material" in a decade or so. For someone that is not even 70, he looks pretty dead-beat:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/athirathram/5612092439/

Most of the Indian quacks will also be gone in a couple of decades. There are not too many left.

As PV Narasimha Rao said: "time itself is the solution to many problems"....

KL

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 28 Aug 2012 14:15

Dated Articles:

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisp ... spx?id=715

Exchanges between ex-marxist Indian historian and one distinguished professor of Harvard (HP)

HP Proposed

He (HP) proposed a time bracket of 1500-1250 BC for composition of the Rgveda and suggested Book IV and Book VI were the oldest, advantage Book IV.

Indian Historians IH says:

You have reordered the Rgvedic strata, rating IV and VI to be the oldest and the rest belonging to intermediate and late stages. I have no objection to your sequence, but find your chronology miserably on the lower side. There is a reference to white pottery in one verse in Book IV (4.27.5). White pottery is a distinctive feature of Hakra Ware dated to 3000 BC. This goes against your dating of 1500-1250 BC for the Rgveda.

HP

He tried to explain that the sequence arranged by him was based on the number of verses in a book, the smallest being the oldest. It caused Kapila ji and others to smile openly. I could not make out the reason and reminded him that Book IV is shorter than Book VI; but the shortest book is Book II! So here again, he was caught on the wrong foot.

HP

There is no evidence of chariot or horse in India earlier than the mid-second millennium.

IH

But Professor, the asva in Rgveda, whatever could it have been, was brought from sea bound areas, even the asva in the horse sacrifice, mentioned in Book I, hymn 163.

IH

You say that the wheel and chariot were invented by Aryans when they were in Central Asia, but in the Book IV itself, Bhr.gus are given the credit for manufacturing wheels (4.16.20). Chariot and wheel was therefore not Aryan, but a Dravidian invention.

IHs

The problem with you, Professor, is that you are not familiar with the content of Book IV even. Hymn 57 of Book IV gives a graphic depiction of advanced agriculture, with a plough almost similar to the one that was common in India up to the mid-twentieth century, drawn by a pair of bullocks and driven by a ploughman in service. And in one of the Rics, the poet talks of milking the earth as a cow, year after year. It testifies to advanced agricultural activities with sedentary population and belies the myth of nomadism, pastoralism, and barbarity

HP Likes Usa Sukta, He says it is Beautiful, IH tells him

“not only Usa Suktas professor, the entire Rgveda. Some of it could never be surpassed, such as the Nasdiya Sukta, with such expression as tama asit tamasa gulhmagre, darkness was entrapped within darkness.

SDRE took on TFTA HP !!!

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 28 Aug 2012 14:48

Thats Bhagwan Singh rattling him at IIC, Delhi

Reacting to this, N S Rajaram said our Hardvar professor gave the same dumstruck, twitching and biting looks when Rajaram once confronted him somewhere else. Must've been like IIC-prequel !
Our dear professor OTOH said to his following something like this .. "Nothing happened. There was ofcourse this hindutva vadi watchman..."
Irony is .. the watchman (aka Bhagwan Singh) is/was in lefty camp

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Aug 2012 15:32

By B. N. Narahari Achar
Professor, Physics Department,
University of Memphis, USA
An examination of the chronology of RgVeda based onastronomical references using Planetarium Software

The dates derived from astronomical references span a range from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE.The references are derived from almost all the books of RgVeda These dates areconsistent with the date of Mahabharata war derived on the basis of astronomicalreferences and planetarium software by the author. However, the range of dates for RgVeda based on astronomical references and verified by planetarium software does notagree with either the relative or absolute chronology proposed by Talageri

Upon this Shri Shrikant Talageri had made a good critique of Narahari Achar's archaeo-astronomical work. That critique is not on the Internet, so no links. Those who wish to have it may contact me!

Also Nilesh Oak ji, is also not in agreement with some of Narahari Achar's arguments!

Journal: Vedic Venues, No. 1, 2012
By B. N. Narahari Achar
Professor, Physics Department,
University of Memphis, USA
Chronology of Vedic Rshis: An Archaeoastronomical Approach

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Aug 2012 16:24

Authors: Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat and Michael Witzel
The Collapse of the Indus Script Thesis: The Myth of a Literate Harappan Civilization

Asko Parpola gave a response.

First Published: 2005, Japan; Current Edition: 2008
By Asko Parpola
Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system?

Published on May 03, 2009
By Iravatham Mahadevan
The Indus ‘non-script’ is a non-issue: The Hindu

Science 29 May 2009:
Vol. 324 no. 5931 p. 1165
Entropic Evidence for Linguistic Structure in the Indus Script
Authors: Rajesh P. N. Rao¹, Nisha Yadav²+³, Mayank N. Vahia²+³, Hrishikesh Joglekar⁴, R. Adhikari⁵, Iravatham Mahadevan⁶ [Full]

¹ Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
² Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005, India.
³ Centre for Excellence in Basic Sciences, Mumbai 400098, India.
⁴ 14, Dhus Wadi, Laxminiketan, Thakurdwar, Mumbai 400002, India.
⁵ The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai 600113, India.
⁶ Indus Research Centre, Roja Muthiah Research Library, Chennai 600113, India.

------------------------------------------------

This is all just to say, that the duo of Witzel and Farmer are really really scared of the Indus Script. If anything from all the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization turns up that makes the Indus Script decipherable, then they and the whole AIT gang can pack up and jump into a well!

That is why any proposal of a deciphering of Indus Script would meet from them with a single kind of response - so what is so special about this deciphering. It is just one out of many! That was what Witzel told Sue Sullivan when she showed him his dictionary!

A Rosetta stone, a Behistun Inscription would be useful! Or some way to show how the Indus Script gradually changed into Brahmi - a bit like showing man evolved from apes!

However it is also a case of GoI support to a deciphering or at least unanimous or majority support from Indian Academics which would tilt the balance!

Steve Farmer wants to show that he is so sure of his conviction that the Indus Script is not a language, that he had put up a prize money of $10,000 if one can show some inscription which is at least 50 symbols long!

As long as nobody can show he can jump around with his challenge laughing at everybody else, claiming that evidence of language can only be deduced if a seal is found with more than 50 symbols.

If anybody has noticed, this is just another straw-man, just like the Horse Evidence Demand!

Until you find a seal at least 50 symbols long, Harappans are to be considered illiterate. Until you find conclusive horse-bones in India from before 1,500 attested by Western archaeo-biologists, Indo-Aryans came from the Northwest and brought Sanskrit!

They set up an archaeological challenge based on an illogical demand. Until the archaeological challenge is not met, they get to rule and their arbitrary claims get precedence! If the archaeological challenge is met, it would be contested and claimed fraud, e.g. the stratification of horse-bones was tampered with, the archaeology was done not professionally, it is not a true horse, the seal is a fake, etc. etc. It is cheap PR with high results!

Something we should also think about!

How about "Show me five words written in PIE in Central Asia or Anatolia" and you get $xx,xxx.00!"

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Aug 2012 17:21

Published on July 2011
By Nicholas Kazanas
Vedic and Avestan

. In this essay I examine independent linguistic evidence, often provided by iranianists like R. Beekes, and arrive at the conclusion that the Avesta, even its older parts (the gāθās), is much later than the Ṛgveda. Also, of course, that Vedic is more archaic than Avestan and that it was not the Indoaryans who moved away from the common Indo-Iranian habitat into the Region of the Seven Rivers, but the Iranians broke off and eventually settled and spread in ancient Iran.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 28 Aug 2012 17:22

RajeshA wrote:Also Nilesh Oak ji, is also not in agreement with some of Narahari Achar's arguments!

I do not agree with ANY of his arguments. The bigger point I want to make is Achar's work (I will limit my comments to his work in the context of Talageri) cited above is superficial, to say the least, lacks rigor and no science to be found anywhere.

Planetarium software outcome is irrelevant to the discussion.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Aug 2012 19:07

Murugan wrote:Another behaviour of AIT Nazis completely beats me is suddenly caring for dates and timings of our civilization and achievements, languages, tech., social system and education system.

For a long time, it was more than sufficient when we knew such and such thing happened a long time back. If we wanted to be more specific we used to say it happened 5000 year ago!

But from all the discussion here I have noticed just how vulnerable this attitude of ours has left us!

What separates fact from fiction? Two things - a grounding in the timeline and a belief among the people whether something happened or not!

1) The grounding in the timeline means one has some date of an event or existence with some level of precision. If not that at least one has a relative chronology relative to other importance events or existences. This grounding requires testimony of witnesses, reports on it, which themselves are dateable, some historical claim of date by the party itself, archaeological evidence, etc. In order to perpetuate this grounding, it is recorded in books, logs, and other media.

2) Belief among the people of something happening: Ultimately it all comes to this. A memory can live within a people for thousands of years, if it has been passed on faithfully from generation to generation. This is emotional, where one generation inherits the beliefs of the parents, the preceding generation. Each generation thinks why would their parents lie to them, so there is an inherent trust.

The historicity of our Itihaas depends solely on the second part. By not having much of a grounding in the timeline, mischief-makers are free to move around everything. As an example, instead of Rigveda Early period being perhaps 15,000 years ago, it can be moved 1,500 years ago! Instead of Mahabharata taking place in 5561 BCE (Vartak, Oak), the date can be moved to 847 BCE (Rajesh Kochhar).

Can one notice the huge differences! And all that space is used by mischief-makers to their maximum advantage! This way one can get control over the narrative for the origins of a civilization as well as over its evolution, including by bringing in factors which are not attested to in Itihaas!

Secondly if something is not grounded, and Itihaas has a level of poetry and shows some literary freedom in exaggeration, then that makes the whole Itihaas unhinge from a level of credibility. Thus something is not seen as a writer's freedom to make some historical happenings interesting, but rather as the whole story being a fabrication. If Itihaas was chronologically grounded, then the trust level would be there, and all the incredulous aspects would simply be looked at a writer's imaginative script-writing but the story would remain as history.

Just because Jesus walked on water, one doesn't really doubt whether he existed or not! Most don't anyway! Even though Muhammad spoke to Jabriel, one doesn't doubt that the person lived.

As Indian population entered the 21st century, much has changed. Ramayana and Mahabharata are steadily moving from History into nice Children's Stories area of interesting made-up stories of yore for entertainment! With the focus shifting to technology, second-exact timekeeping, fantasy and science-fiction writing and film entertainment, use of special effects and computer animation, a person has to deal with so many possibilities of what is possible and what can be fake, that his faculties of credulity are exacted to the extreme.

Also the average citizen has become much closer to the governments through the medium of newspapers, television and Internet and the default stance of each one is one of skepticism and lack of trust, especially in leadership. In area of history study, the situation is even more dire. First the school-going children and even later on, they are taught falsehoods, and when it comes to a debate later on on what is truth, what was our past, it basically ends up in argumentative claims and counter-claims, and the common man is even more confused!

And then one throws in stuff about pushpak vimanas and brahmastras and nuclear wars in ancient times, often in a bragging mode, and the person's credulity takes a nosedive to nil very quickly!

As things stand, I have a feeling Indian Civilization is down to one more generations which would still believe that Ramayana and Mahabharata really happened.

The only recourse we have is to ground our scriptures and our Itihaas in timeline with extreme care, due diligence and rigor. That is the only way of increasing trust in our Itihaas, our old books and the composition/hearing of our scriptures.

Anything of our cosmology, history, philosophy, customs, knowledge, that is not firmly grounded and tethered in the timeline with context and testimony is basically a cow roaming freely around which any AIT-Nazi can take home to make beef-stew of her!