Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[RajeshA]

OTOH if he lived in the 18th-15th century BCE (fitting with the Mauryas of 1500 BCE thing), what was the aam admi language and what script did Panini use? Unlike hymns, a corpus of this scale and scope cannot be codified and transmitted in purely oral fashion, right? Also Panini does mention a script.... and there are threads which tie the 7th-5th century BCE timeline to origin theories of Kharoshti and Brahmi scripts. But if he was from the 15th cent. BCE, the script and the aam admi language questions remains, no?

Anand K ji,

The Kharoshti and Brahmi script, I believe are older, going back to before the true Mauryan period starting in 1534 BCE. It is written in the Lalitavistara Sutra, that young Siddhartha (1887 - 1807 BCE) learned writing in his childhood perhaps around 1882 BCE. This is all however in the East. Panini was in the West.

It would help to have a better understanding of Panini's India.

[RajeshA]

The Bakhshali Manuscript is an Ancient Indian mathematical manuscript written on birch bark which was found near the village of Bakhshali in 1881 in what was then the North-West Frontier Province of British India (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, in Pakistan). It's written in Śāradā script and in Gatha dialect (which is a combination of the ancient Indian languages of Sanskrit and Prakrit). The manuscript is incomplete, with only seventy leaves of birch bark, many of which are mere scraps. Many remain undiscovered. The Bakhshali manuscript, which is currently too fragile to be examined by scholars, is currently housed in the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford (MS. Sansk. d. 14). d Its date is uncertain.
______________________________

Interesting that they did not do any dating of the birch bark itself!!!

[RajeshA]

Zarathustra

With respect to Iran, we should remember that Zoroastrianism may have had a very early beginning and even been accepted by the kings, but later on it may have remained the religion of a people covering only a small area, and only with the Achaemenids did it again enjoy the patronage of an imperial dynasty.

I am trying to explain the very early mentions of Zoroastrianism in Indian texts, as well as the similarities of the Avesta with the Vedas which have a very old antiquity, and the very late appearance of the Achaemenids on the scene.

Some Westerners tried to equate Vishtaspa, one of the early patrons of Zoroastrianism with Hystaspes, the father of Darius, and thus tried to date Zarathustra.

Date of Zarathustra as per Wiki:
The date of Zoroaster, i.e., the date of composition of the Old Avestan gathas, is unknown. Classical writers such as Plutarch proposed dates prior to 6000 BC. Dates proposed in scholarly literature diverge widely, between the 18th and the 6th centuries BC.

Until the late 17th century, Zoroaster was generally dated to about the 6th century BC, which coincided with both the "Traditional date" (see details below) and historiographic accounts (Ammianus Marcellinus xxiii.6.32, 4th century AD). However, already at the time (late 19th century), the issue was far from settled.

The "Traditional date" originates in the period immediately following Alexander the Great's conquest of the Achaemenid Empire in 330 BC. The Seleucid kings who gained power following Alexander's death instituted an "Age of Alexander" as the new calendrical epoch. This did not appeal to the Zoroastrian priesthood who then attempted to establish an "Age of Zoroaster." To do so, they needed to establish when Zoroaster had lived, which they accomplished by counting back the length of successive generations until they concluded that Zoroaster must have lived "258 years before Alexander." This estimate then re-appeared in the 9th- to 12th-century texts of Zoroastrian tradition, which in turn gave the date doctrinal legitimacy, especially since it was made ​​plausible also by the observational history of the Pleiades in the Geoponica that indicates Zoroaster as a principal source of some observations. In the early part of the 20th century, this remained the accepted date (subject to the uncertainties of the 'Age of Alexander') for a number of reputable scholars, among them Hasan Taqizadeh, a recognized authority on the various Iranian calendars, and hence became the date cited by Henning and others.

By the late 19th century, scholars such as Bartholomea and Christensen noted problems with the "Traditional date," namely in the linguistic difficulties that it presented. The Old Avestan language of the Gathas (which are attributed to the prophet himself) is still very close to the Sanskrit of the Rigveda. Therefore, it seemed implausible that the Gathas and Rigveda could be more than a few centuries apart, suggesting a date for the oldest surviving portions of the Avesta of roughly the 2nd millennium BCE.

A date of 11th/10th century BC date is sometimes considered among Iranists, who in recent decades found that the social customs described in the Gathas roughly coincide with what is known of other pre-historical peoples of that period. Supported by this historical evidence, the "Traditional date" can be conclusively ruled out, and the discreditation can to some extent be supported by the texts themselves: The Gathas describe a society of bipartite (priests and herdsmen/farmers) nomadic pastoralists with tribal structures organized at most as small kingdoms. This contrasts sharply with the view of Zoroaster having lived in an empire, at which time society is attested to have had a tripartite structure (nobility/soldiers, priests, and farmers). Although a slightly earlier date (by a century or two) has been proposed on the grounds that the texts do not reflect the migration onto the Iranian Plateau, it is also possible that Zoroaster lived in one of the rural societies that remained in Central Asia.

[Murugan]

rohitvats is perhaps suggesting this:

http://www.rhythmhouse.in/Detail.aspx?p ... ing=110812


I also suggest:

The True Essence of (all four) Ved, By Brahmashankar Vyas. It has geeti and ritual versions, two CDs each set, total 8 CDs, 4 Sets

http://www.rhythmhouse.in/Search.aspx?q ... =1&p=0&s=0

[Murugan]

Carl-ji

Maharshi Aurobindo also mentions

go == light
aswa == energy

Whatever is discussed here including philology is discussed thread bare by Aurobindo in his book The Secrets of The Veda. He was far ahead of all, so many years ago!

He discussed sound, history, purana, philology and psychology of vedas in is 600+ page work. PDFs are also available online.

[RajeshA]

Zarathustra



Publication Date: 24 Sep 1993
Author: Solomon Nigosian
The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research [Google] [Amazon]


Page 15

Dates
The first group of writings to be considered are the classical references that place Zoroaster at a time earlier than 6000 BCE¹⁰. Diogenes Laertius (230 CE) says that, according to Xanthus of Lydia (ca. 450 BCE), Zoroaster lived six thousand years before the invasion of the Persian King Xerces (ca. 480 BCE). This would date Zoroaster at about 6480 BCE. A variant reading in the text of Diogenes puts Zoroaster six hundred years before Xerces, which would then place Zoroaster a little earlier than 1000 BCE. However Diogenes also states that according to Hermodorus (ca. 400 BCE), Zoroaster lived five thousand years before the Trojan War (ca. 1200 BCE). In that case, Zoroaster lived around 6200 BCE. Plutarch (ca. 46-120 CE) too seems to support this last dating scheme for Zoroaster. Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE) cites Eudoxus (ca. 365 BCE) in placing Zoroaster six thousand years before the death of Plato (347 BCE), that is around 6300 BCE. Needless to say, the sources that date Zoroaster at such an exaggeratedly early period are suspect and therefore unacceptable to critics.

¹⁰ For Greek and Roman writers re date of Zoroaster, see Clemen, Fontes religionis Persicae, 42, 48, 74; Fox and Permberton, Passages in Greek and Latin Literature, 45-6, 80, 126; Benveniste, The Persian Religion According to the Chief Greek Texts, 15; for the current state of teh question see Gnoli, Zoroaster's Time and Homeland, 163-5.

_________________

Who are we to oppose the wisdom of the ancient Greeks?

Thus the references to Zoroastrianism in Mahabharata and Upanishads posted earlier make perfect sense.

I think this is really a smoking gun, with which we can say that Greek and Indian testimony coincide with respect to Zarathustra, so who are these AIT-Nazis who wish to upturn it?!

If we bring in Talageri's relative chronology, then we get a pretty good idea about the lower limit of when the Vedas were "received" and compiled.

[Anand K]

The Kharoshti and Brahmi script, I believe are older, going back to before the true Mauryan period starting in 1534 BCE. It is written in the Lalitavistara Sutra, that young Siddhartha (1887 - 1807 BCE) learned writing in his childhood perhaps around 1882 BCE. This is all however in the East. Panini was in the West.

The alternate timeline proposed may be true but I personally can't believe something based overwhelmingly.... or rather, solely on written sources. Specifically, texts with profound allegorical and religious meaning (and perhaps a social-control objective and a target audience). Maybe the numbers have some astronomical/theological significance in themselves? Maybe the list of kings in the Puranas follow the "as in the heavens/other-worlds, so in Earth" principle so prevalent in most ancient religions? Archaeological corroboration from secular sources such as coinage, metalwork, pottery, ruins, epigraphy etc is necessary. An explanation on social-economic-anthropological terms of how such a system rose at that time.... and how it evolved and decayed is also a must.

I don't believe in the AMT anymore since too many pieces (covering multiple disciplines) do not fit with the "narrative"..... by the same yardsticks I would not yet put trust in the "Mauryas of 1534 BCE" thingie. Still, this is a theory that should be pursued....

JMHO.

[RajeshA]

Anand K ji,

written testimony is of paramount importance. Archaeological finds can be easily misinterpreted and misdated based on confused historical theories.

Basically there is no reason for us to doubt our chronology just on the basis of Sir William Jones and Max Müller fixing an arbitrary sheet anchor of Indian history with Sandrokottus == Chandragupta Maurya! Of course we can pursue research into our history on a different basis but we must be sure that the reason for this research and doubting our history is NOT this muddled thinking.

[Anand K]

Agreed. No reason why the sheet anchors and the inductive/deductive logic used should not be scrutinized.

The impact of the acceptance of the revised timeline would be tremendous. There will be a rethink on all social sciences.... maybe the entire corpus of human knowledge (except pure sciences & technology). The inertia, legacies and personal stakes that have to be overcome are perhaps greater. IMO going to this battle armed with just written texts and featuring proponents who do not have training in history/anthropology/archaeology just won't cut it, right?

How seriously are they going to take a Vartak claiming he regularly projects himself astrally to Mars or an Achar with his one-trick pony?

Talk about written sources and astronomical dating:- They tried to do Archaeo-Astronomy with the Sothis Cycle basis for ancient Egypt and it caused such a muddle that they dont even talk about it anymore.... This is one reason astronomical dating is not favored anymore. Now, this is the case with Egypt which has established and high volume, highly visible, highly corroborated archaeological/epigraphical evidence from 5000 BC.... whats going to happen here with us SDREs who just have a giant-a$$ bath house in a$$ end of Pakistan to boast of.

[RajeshA]

Some Greek Primary Sources relevant to Dating of Zarathustra




Publication Date 1920
Author: Carolus Clemen
Fontes Historiae Religionis Persicae

Pages 42, 48, 74 should be interesting.




Publication Date: 1928
Translator: William Sherwood Fox
Passages in Greek and Latin Literature relating to Zoroaster & Zoroastrianism

Pages 45, 46, 80, 126 should be interesting




Publication Date: 1929
Author: Émile Benveniste
The Persian Religion According to the Chief Greek Texts

Page 15 should be interesting


Publication Date: 1980
Author: Gherardo Gnoli
Zoroaster's Time and Homeland: A Study on the Origins of Mazdeism and Related Problems

Pages 163, 164, 165 should be interesting

[RajeshA]

Continuing from earlier



Publication Date: 1928
Translator: William Sherwood Fox
Passages in Greek and Latin Literature relating to Zoroaster & Zoroastrianism

Pages 45, 46, 80, 126 should be interesting

[RajeshA]

It seems when Xerces I invaded Greece mainland in 480 BCE, the Greeks were then exposed to Persian rule and they started to inquire much more about the religion of the Persians. So Greek historians like Herodotus (c.484 – 425 BC), Xanthus of Lydia (ca. 450 BCE), Hermodorus (ca. 400 BCE), Eudoxus (ca. 365 BCE), etc. studied the Persian religion and wrote about it.

They must have inquired the Persians about Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism and Persians must have told them their history based on their calendars and timekeeping.

So there is no real reason to doubt these historians, nor is there any reason to doubt the Persians who told the Greeks about themselves.

[JE Menon]

Anand K,

Seems to me that the people who first need convincing are us SDREs ourselves. The trouble is most of these won't stay fooled or away from Satyam for very long; so if bullshit is being peddled by Weasels, Pindigenists or Indigenists it will be called out... sooner or later. And that's a good thing. Satyameva Jayate after all.

For instance, if Talageri is peddling bull along with his bread and butter arguments, then he needs to be called out. If he's doing it unknowingly, then he can amend his argumentation. If he is knowingly doing it, then he's not on my side. And I certainly am not on his.

[RajeshA]

JE Menon saar,

I would be interested to know what part of Talageri's work you found wrong!

As far as I'm concerned, there are few, who have done more for India academically!

[ShauryaT]

As far as non-European and non-traditionalists views of the Veda are concerned, I go by Sri Aurobindo and Swami Dayananda Sarasvati. Here is Sri Aurobindo writing on the works of Dayanada Sarasvati.

We are aware how modern scholars twist away from the evidence. This hymn, they say, was a late production, this loftier idea which it expresses with so clear a force rose up somehow in the later Aryan mind or was borrowed by those ignorant fire-worshippers, sun-worshippers, sky-worshippers from their cultured and philosophic Dravidian enemies. But throughout the Veda we have confirmatory hymns and expressions: Agni or Indra or another is expressly hymned as one with all the other gods. Agni contains all other divine powers within himself, the Maruts are described as all the gods, one deity is addressed by the names of others as well as his own, or, most commonly, he is given as Lord and King of the universe attributes only appropriate to the Supreme Deity. Ah, but that cannot mean, ought not to mean, must not mean, the worship of the One; let us invent a new word, call it henotheism and suppose that the Rishis did not really believe Indra or Agni to be the Supreme Deity but treated any god or every god as such for the nonce, perhaps that he might feel the more flattered and lend a more gracious ear for so hyperbolic a compliment! But why should not the foundation of Vedic thought be natural monotheism rather than this new-fangled monstrosity of henotheism? Well, because primitive barbarians could not possibly have risen to such high conceptions and, if you allow them to have so risen, you imperil our theory of the evolutionary stages of human development and you destroy our whole idea about the sense of the Vedic hymns and their place in the history of mankind. Truth must hide herself, common sense disappear from the field so that a theory may flourish! I ask, in this point, and it is the fundamental point, who deals most straightforwardly with the text, Dayananda or the Western scholars?

But if this fundamental point of Dayananda’s is granted, if the character given by the Vedic Rishis themselves to their gods is admitted, we are bound, whenever the hymns speak of Agni or another, to see behind that name present always to the thought of the Rishi the one Supreme Deity or else one of His powers with its attendant qualities or workings. Immediately the whole character of the Veda is fixed in the sense Dayananda gave to it; the merely ritual, mythological, polytheistic interpretation of Sayana collapses, the merely meteorological and naturalistic European interpretation collapses. We have instead a real Scripture, one of the world’s sacred books and the divine word of a lofty and noble religion.

All the rest of Dayananda’s theory arises logically out of this fundamental conception. If the names of the godheads express qualities of the one Godhead and it is these which the Rishis adored and towards which they directed their aspiration, then there must inevitably be in the Veda a large part of psychology of the Divine Nature, psychology of the relations of man with God and a constant indication of the law governing man’s Godward conduct. Dayananda asserts the presence of such an ethical element, he finds in the Veda the law of life given by God to the human being. And if the Vedic godheads express the powers of a supreme Deity who is Creator, Ruler and Father of the universe, then there must inevitably be in the Veda a large part of cosmology, the law of creation and of cosmos. Dayananda asserts the presence of such a cosmic element, he finds in the Veda the secrets of creation and law of Nature by which the Omniscient governs the world.
Neither Western scholarship nor ritualistic learning has suc- ceeded in eliminating the psychological and ethical value of the hymns, but they have both tended in different degrees to minimise it. Western scholars minimise because they feel uneasy whenever ideas that are not primitive seem to insist on their presence in these primeval utterances; they do not hesitate openly to abandon in certain passages interpretations which they adopt in others and which are admittedly necessitated by their own philological and critical reasoning because, if admitted always, they would often involve deep and subtle psychological concep- tions which cannot have occurred to primitive minds! Sayana minimises because his theory of Vedic discipline was not ethical righteousness with a moral and spiritual result but mechanical performance of ritual with a material reward. But, in spite of these efforts of suppression, the lofty ideas of the Veda still reveal themselves in strange contrast to its alleged burden of fantastic naturalism or dull ritualism. The Vedic godheads are constantly hymned as Masters of Wisdom, Power, Purity, purifiers, healers of grief and evil, destroyers of sin and falsehood, warriors for the truth; constantly the Rishis pray to them for healing and purification, to be made seers of knowledge, possessors of the truth, to be upheld in the divine law, to be assisted and armed with strength, manhood and energy. Dayananda has brought this idea of the divine right and truth into the Veda; the Veda is as much and more a book of divine Law as Hebrew Bible or Zoroastrian Avesta.

So, what is Talageri's sense of the Veda, before he find history in them?

[rohitvats]

rohitvats is perhaps suggesting this:

http://www.rhythmhouse.in/Detail.aspx?p ... ing=110812


I also suggest:

The True Essence of (all four) Ved, By Brahmashankar Vyas. It has geeti and ritual versions, two CDs each set, total 8 CDs, 4 Sets

http://www.rhythmhouse.in/Search.aspx?q ... =1&p=0&s=0

Yes Sir, it is the one marked by you.

[JE Menon]

RajeshA,

I cannot myself find a logical rebuttal to KLP Dubey's argument. That raises a problem. Now that does not mean talageri is wrong about that issue, which is why I have said "if Talageri is peddling..." I have difficulty seeing how he can get around it though. this does not render all the rest of his case erroneous.

For myself, I would much rather that OIT not be based on even a fragment of falsity. If we don't know, we must accept that we don't. Else OIT will face the same fate as witzels rubbish years down the line...

I understand the need to tangle with the ait nazis. But while we choose to fight with the pigs in the sty though we know they like it, we don't have to wear our best clothes or sacred thread while at it. Neither do they merit it, nor do we deserve it...

[Nilesh Oak]

Whether or not you believe The Hymns of Atharvan Zarathushtra by Jatindra Mohan Chatterji, he shows yet another way of looking at the whole issue, which is Iran (upto Armenia) and Sapta Sindhu as part of one large cultural complex for several thousand years. In that sense AIT/OIT is a false dichotomy induced by the greatly shrunken boundaries of Indic culture. Rather, Vedics and close relatives occupied a large area (and were in this area from the beginning of human memory), and this area was whittled away over the last 2500 years, until we see much of that area as non-India.

This is probably the right approach. Also, may well be likely that BMAC was an extension of this same large cultural complex that developed at some stage when it expanded northwards.

My $0.02

Baudhayana Srautasutra refers to descendants of Pururava (Pururava times ... at least 55 generations before MBH War) migrating to the west and to the east. Descendants of Amavasu going to west and they were referred as Gandhara, Parashu and Arratta. Descendatns going to east were Kashi -Videhas and Kuru Panchalas.

Baudhayana Srautasutra is (maybe) late text, however it is pointing to much ancient migration.

The key point I want to make is ..even this late text (not sure of its timing per AIT/Indology BS or otherwise) is not referring to areas of Gandhara, Parashus, Arrata as some foreign lands, but simply stating areas where descendants of Pururava have spread, i.e. it is not making any distiction (foreign/distant) etc. between Gandhara/Parashus/Arrata vs. Kashi Videha/Kuru Panchala.

[member_22872]

Menon ji, I do take vedas as pramaana and knowledge a priori, very well explained by Carl ji. And thanks to Dubey ji for defending the Vedic tradition. But I think it is late in the game. We already started playing the game of dissecting Vedas knowingly or willingly or not. We should have put the foot down couple of centuries back and said we won't play the game of dissecting the Rg Veda based on nouns and interpretations as Rg Veda is beyond word analysis. Now if we want to redefine new rules and say "hey I now realized that Vedic Corpus is knowledge a Priori, so I can't let you touch it" I don't think that will take us far, because of our defensive stand they think they now can dominate the argument, as we will then fight the factual battle with one hand tied as we can't touch the Vedic Corpus.

Now I am not sure if I can have faith in Talageri's analysis based on anukramis. I wish he gives a good defense of it or he defends his analysis independent of rishi listing. I think we better concentrate on dating through other means, not because we are wrong, because it's our stand not interpret Vedic corpus the way AIT camp does.

[RajeshA]

So, what is Talageri's sense of the Veda, before he find history in them?

ShauryaT ji,

1) Talageri is trying to explain history. He is not in the business of preaching Dharma or trying to show why the Vedas are relevant for the spiritual health of Indians, like Sri Aurobindo or Sri Dayanand Saraswati. He is probably aware that others can do that better, so why should he jump into the field?!

2) Talageri has basically tried to show through the structure of the Mandalas, the Anukramanis with their priests and rishis, the meter of the suktas, the proper nouns which are used for flora and fauna, that the knowledge of the Vedas spread from East to West, and not from West to East. He basically used the distribution of the flora, fauna, river names and the rishis and priests associated with the various Mandalas, sūktas, ṛcas to chart the course from East to West. He found the relative chronology of the spread of Vedas. He even used the Avesta to make his arguments.

3) Now one would see orthodox Mimamsakas, who would criticize him bitterly because he used the Sanskritic reading of the Rigveda to do his analysis, and the former say the Vedas are ahistorical and ageographical and its proper nouns do not refer to anything worldly, or that nobody knows what they refer to.

4) The thing is I think the Talageri position can be aligned with the position of the Mimamsakas. However the Mimamsaka in house, Shri KLP Dubey ji, would rather pour scorn than propose the right vocabulary for use, when associating rishis with the Vedas or when dealing with the proper nouns.

5) The Vedas might be eternal and apaurusheya, but the Vedas as part of human society have both a history in it as well as a geography in it. Shrikant Talageri showed it. But Mimamsakas are not happy! What to do?

6) What Talageri has written is a wonderful piece of analysis, which has the ability to castrate all the arguments of AIT-Nazis when they refer to the Rigveda.

7) One problem that I see here is that just because one member has been pouring scorn on Shrikant Talageri incessantly, others have picked it up and are going with tide, without as much as looking at what Shrikant Talageri has really written down. What does that show? That pouring scorn is effective! That is a pity!

[Nilesh Oak]

Anand K ji wrote

The impact of the acceptance of the revised timeline would be tremendous. There will be a rethink on all social sciences.... maybe the entire corpus of human knowledge (except pure sciences & technology). The inertia, legacies and personal stakes that have to be overcome are perhaps greater.

Agreed.

IMO going to this battle armed with just written texts and featuring proponents who do not have training in history/anthropology/archaeology just won't cut it, right?

Also agree, except don't understand what you mean by 'featuring proponents'.

Why restrict to history/anthropology/archaelogy? In fact with the exception of Archeology from your list, the other two disciplines have too many theories which are useless (historicism/eugenics, races) developed over last 300 years. I would rather not have these 'yes men' trained in those theories. I do want them to be aware of the biases and origins of such theories.

But to your broader point, I agree. We need people trained in ancient Indian (and non Indian) literatue and also in modern sciences of genetics, astronomy, oceonography, geology,... many others.. don't mean to limit in any way.

How seriously are they going to take a Vartak claiming he regularly projects himself astrally to Mars or an Achar with his one-trick pony?

Who are they? If by 'they', you mean human beings....then they will take Vartak as seriously as they took Newton's Alchemist endeavors or Kepler's astrological predictions. But they may also take Vartak's claims of dating of ancient events as seriously as Kepler's elleptical orbits or Newton's laws of gravity.

Talk about written sources and astronomical dating:- They tried to do Archaeo-Astronomy with the Sothis Cycle basis for ancient Egypt and it caused such a muddle that they dont even talk about it anymore.... This is one reason astronomical dating is not favored anymore. Now, this is the case with Egypt which has established and high volume, highly visible, highly corroborated archaeological/epigraphical evidence from 5000 BC

Not sure when you stopped reading about Egypt research. Has field of archeo-astronomy produced nonsense? Sure. You don't have to go as far as Egypt or Bolivia. Here in Indian context, we have lot of it. On the other hand, Arecho-astronomy is also making strides when it comes to researching 'Indian or Egyptian antiquity" that has falsified and is falsifying much of Egyptologist and Indologist research of yesteryears but more importantly Archeoastronomy findings/proposals are being corroborated by additiona/indpendant evidence from fields of genetics and geology

[JE Menon]

>>>But I think it is late in the game. We already started playing the game of dissecting Vedas knowingly or willingly or not. We should have put the foot down couple of centuries back and said we won't play the game of dissecting the Rg Veda based on nouns and interpretations as Rg Veda is beyond word analysis. Now if we want to redefine new rules and say "hey I now realized that Vedic Corpus is knowledge a Priori, so I can't let you touch it" I don't think that will take us far, because of our defensive stand they think they now can dominate the argument, as we will then fight the factual battle with one hand tied as we can't touch the Vedic Corpus.


No point going back to what we should have done boss. And the dissection of the Vedas will happen regardless because it is out there. But we can still proclaim, practice and perpetuate. And we can stick to the truth and what is known. We do not have to fabricate or concoct.

RajeshA,

Re your point 7 above, I don't know if I'm included in the "some members" but if so, I'm not entirely ignorant of talageris writings. This is an issue im keenly interested in. I don't post much because I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in my opinion across the breadth of subjects this covers. Others post more lucidly and with greater insight. But Talageris own reply to Dubey posted in this thread is frankly disappointing.

As for your own assumptions about people not reading talageri and going with the tide and so on, I hope it is a matter of temporary irritation and that you will revert to your fearlessly unbiased and skeptically inquisitive spirit.

[Nilesh Oak]

But Talageris own reply to Dubey posted in this thread is frankly disappointing.

I felt the same way. Having said that, anyone trying to defend against.... 'Rigveda can not be interpreted and no true meaning of its words can be understood'....position is fighting to refute something that is 'irrefutable' and thus fighting against unscientific proposal (by unscientific I don't mean false, untrue, etc...but only that a theory that does not allow scrutiny on logical/rational/empirical grounds).

As Venug ji suggested, it will be interesting to see where Talageri thesis would stand sans Anukramanika. To that extent Dubey ji has done great service by generating legitimate doubt about a data point that needs to be removed (stepwise regression speak) and re-state the proposals (re-run regression and compare with the old).

Also important to recognize, that a subset of 'pro-India' crowd is glad that they found evidence to move timing of Rigveda from 1500 BC (AIT position) to say 4000 BC (position of this subset of 'pro India' researchers), but then they are stuck in their own pond, as much as AITer are stuck in theirs. The 4000 BC pond may be bigger, cleaner and closer to destination....but still a pond.

[shiv]

I did not understand the Panini-Avestan link. Care to explain?
<snip>
Whatever be the case, the Achameneids were not philistines who invested in Kulturkampf and destruction of local identities.

Also, if Panini lived in the 7th-5th century BCE the aam admi languages were probably the "Prakirits" or the so-called Middle Indo-Aryan languages. In this timeline, it is possible he could have created his great work even though it was under a Persian satrap, who was prolly interested in tax collection and army levies only.

OTOH if he lived in the 18th-15th century BCE (fitting with the Mauryas of 1500 BCE thing), what was the aam admi language and what script did Panini use? Unlike hymns, a corpus of this scale and scope cannot be codified and transmitted in purely oral fashion, right? Also Panini does mention a script.... and there are threads which tie the 7th-5th century BCE timeline to origin theories of Kharoshti and Brahmi scripts. But if he was from the 15th cent. BCE, the script and the aam admi language questions remains, no?

The so called "old Avestan" and Vedic Sanskrit are nearly identical. Avestan was the language used in Zoroastrian holy texts called the Zend Avesta. There is a great degree of commonality of names as well between the names in the Zend Avesta and the later Vedas, except that the Asuras were dissed in the later Vedas and Devas praised. The Zend Avesta deifies Asuras, starting from Ahura Mazda, who is said to be an Asura. The Devas are the bad guys in Zend Avesta. That apart the language and the culture were apparently initially identical and the differences are attributed to a rift among rishis.

Looking at AIT dates, both the start of the Vedic period and the birth of Zoroaster are placed at 1200 BC. Despite the very great similarities, AIT linguists are not keen on citing a common origin for Avestan and Sanskrit. Be that as it may, AIT scholars have dated Zororoaster to 1200 BC and since the Zend Avesta springs from him, a definite AIT nazi date for Avestan and vedic sanskrit can be taken as 1200 BC.

What happened after 1200 BC to Sanskrit and Avestan according to the AIT nazis?

1. Sanskrit: In the case of Sanskrit, the Vedas and Upanishads were composed from about 1200 BC to 600 BC. Panini (accodring to AIT history) lived around 600 BC and he created "Classical Sanskrit" which was used after Panini.

2. Avestan remained solely a language of the holy texts, and died out as a spoken language. By the time of Darius in 550 BC, Old Persian was the Iranian language, not Avestan. Avestan remained the language in which the Zend Avesta, the Zoroastrian holy book was chanted. The Zend Avesta itself incorporates parts of the Atharva veda, and the origin of the name Zend Avesta is from "Chand Upastha" meaning "Vedic hymns". Panini is said to have commented on the derivation of the word "upastha" in his work. Panini himself lived in Gandhara which he named as one of the Vedic Kshatriya kingdoms - i.e. one of the Mahajanapadas. Gandhara itself was known to be Iranian and Vedic at some remote time in the past - most likely in the late Vedic period when the Avestan and Vedic priests were merely two different schools living in neighboring areas.

What about Gandhara?

Gandhara has two histories - or two periods of history.

One is the earlier Vedic period known from Vedas and the Mahabharata which mentions Gandhara as one of the Mahajanapadas

The second is post 600 BC Gandhara known from Achaemenid records and Herodotus. Nothiong much is known about Gandhara between Vedic times and 600 BC. Anything that you read about Gandhara is always 600 BC or later, including the date for Panini. Even the Mahajanapadas that clearly date from earlier times are listed as 600 BC. Your post is also the same - post 600 BC

What happened to Gandhara between Vedic times and 600 BC? Not only does no one know, but no one even wants to ask.

Panini lived in a Vedic Gandhara and dealt with Vedic Sanskrit. The Gandhara of 600BC is Achaemenid Gandhara. Panini could have been in Gandhara at any time between Vedic times and 600 BC. Apart from AIT Nazi dates there are so many other dates for Panini from Indian and at least one Zoroastrian source. All those dates are prior to 1500 BC.

Why should Panini have lived in Gandhara in 600 BC? Why not 800 BC? Or 1000 BC? In fact considering that Panini deals with Vedic languages and Panini too, like the Vedas and the Mahabharata lists Janapadas it is more likely that he lived closer to Vedic times than 600 BC which is merely the date after which there are a lot of historical records.

[Nilesh Oak]

As far as I'm concerned, there are few, who have done more for India academically!

Academically!!!

RajeshA Ji,

Why insult Sri. Talageri. He works in the bank (per my last update of his profession). I also hesitate to compare his work with anyone from academia, since that may also be insult to Sri. Talageri.

By 'acadmically', if you mean "he has challenged those sitting in ivory towers of 'linguistics', 'history', 'Indology' academic departments", then I do agree.

The names we hear ---Arabindo, Dayananda, Tilak, Vartak, Talagari.. none of them from hardcore academia. And those who are from academic profession (e.g. RN Iyengar, Prasanna, Kak, etc.) who have contributed well, are from distant fields (distant with respect to subject matter) such as civil/seismic, materials/geology, Computer/EE, respectively.

It is amazing to see consistent theme (both in the east and west) of breakthrough research coming from those who are distant from the 'field of interest' based on their academic training and who are interested in multiple disciplines.

Disclaimer: While I am critical of 'academics' I have nothing against the profession of 'Academia (I am aware of glaring contradiction in my thought process). I consider it as highly rewarding profession. I also realize it can be hard to get in and also more painful to keep it (write those peer reviewed papers). My criticism of them is party driven by my envy.

[RajeshA]

Nilesh Oak ji,

you're right. May be "academically" was the wrong word! Let's say 'scholarly'! Or you can propose a different word!

[Avinash R]

5000 year old cows

A 4000 year old Leper’s Tale

[RajeshA]

RajeshA,

Re your point 7 above, I don't know if I'm included in the "some members" but if so, I'm not entirely ignorant of talageris writings. This is an issue im keenly interested in. I don't post much because I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in my opinion across the breadth of subjects this covers. Others post more lucidly and with greater insight. But Talageris own reply to Dubey posted in this thread is frankly disappointing.

As for your own assumptions about people not reading talageri and going with the tide and so on, I hope it is a matter of temporary irritation and that you will revert to your fearlessly unbiased and skeptically inquisitive spirit.

My sincere apologies, JE Menon saar, if my words sounded harsh! The "anger" in the post was by no means directed at you. It was actually a general observation.

Regarding Talageri's reply
There is a lot that has been said here against Shri Talageri, and I think he perhaps could not really grasp the essence of the opposition to his stance. He may never have faced any ire from orthodox Hindus, so he may not either expect it or know how to respond to it. He may simply have understood a few keywords in the critique and gone ahead to formulate a response thinking the critique comes from the AIT crowd.

>>>But I think it is late in the game. We already started playing the game of dissecting Vedas knowingly or willingly or not. We should have put the foot down couple of centuries back and said we won't play the game of dissecting the Rg Veda based on nouns and interpretations as Rg Veda is beyond word analysis. Now if we want to redefine new rules and say "hey I now realized that Vedic Corpus is knowledge a Priori, so I can't let you touch it" I don't think that will take us far, because of our defensive stand they think they now can dominate the argument, as we will then fight the factual battle with one hand tied as we can't touch the Vedic Corpus.

No point going back to what we should have done boss. And the dissection of the Vedas will happen regardless because it is out there. But we can still proclaim, practice and perpetuate. And we can stick to the truth and what is known. We do not have to fabricate or concoct.

I am wholehearted with you in the above sentiments.

For example, if the AIT-Nazi crowd says that Rigveda says that horses were sacrificed and buried in a very special way, something they have discovered in Sintashta in Russia, and as such Indo-Aryans came from Central Asia and kicked Dravidian butt, then such crap deserves a response.

Now if the Indigenists (those who think Aryans are native Indians) respond and say that is not true, that is not what is written in Rigveda at all, but rather that the Horse sacrifice was a symbolic ritual, or something of the sort, then one becomes open to attacks by Mimamsakas, that how can we see history in Rigveda.

If Indigenists say that Aryans were Indians as they speak of Saraswati, then again one would be attacked by Mimamsakas of how can we postulate that the proper noun 'Saraswati' refers to the river, and one must be a buffoon, fraud, quack to think so!

So the thing is that this situation gives the AIT-crowd a free licence to abuse the (Sanskritic reading of the) Rigveda and formulate their theories of AIT accordingly.

What I have been requesting KLP Dubey ji, is to formulate certain disclaimers that one can use, so that when one deals with the Rigveda in a historical and geographical sense, one does not hurt the sensitivities of the orthodox Hindus. That is a far healthier approach than to pour scorn on those who are trying to defend the Indian position.

What angers me is the following!

There are Vedic scholars in India, but in the last two centuries during which the West has propagated all types of lies about Indian history and Indian texts, very few Vedic scholars have really come forward to refute them and hardly anybody who has been able to refute them thoroughly.

Today we Indians have to depend upon those whose line of work was computer science and bank clerks to come forward and to defend Indian heritage! These defenders of Indian heritage may even not have had the opportunity and privilege to have a proper and thorough education in Sanskrit and the texts. But still they have produced works of impeccable quality. And these Vedic scholars have no compunction in pouring abuse on these defenders.

Why are we in the position we are today? Because for two centuries and more, Indians have allowed the British to dictate our history and the meaning of our texts! Why were there not enough Indians who rose to the occasion, saw through the designs of the British, and responded adequately? When one speaks of the Western assault on our traditions, what one hears from Mimamsa scholars is that they were able to respond well to Buddhists, Nyaya-Vaisesika, Sankhya, etc. so AIT poses to them no major challenge! And they continue to model the current challenge on the same lines as the ones earlier as if the rules of the game are the same. Even today, in our schools we learn AIT being taught. Have we seen any focused demonstrations by the Vedic scholars against this? No! Is it that we care so little about our heritage, that it is not even worth saving it, even as it is abused everyday in our schools?

So basically the audacity of "Vedic scholars" to come on a thread meant to negate Western narratives of India and to start to pour scorn and abuse at one of the brightest and courageous intellectual defenders of India for looking at the Sanskrit in the Vedas and not simply chanting it, is somewhat beyond my levels of tolerance. So I protest!

Let me put down the differences in the worldviews, and the readers can themselves decide if Shrikant Talageri deserves scorn or encouragement!

Talageri: The rishis composed the Vedas.
KLP Dubey: The Vedas do not have any authors.

Talageri: Sanskrit language was first developed, and then the Rigveda was composed in Sanskrit.
KLP Dubey: Rigveda was first received by man, and then the Sanskrit was gleaned from it and developed.

Talageri: Proper Nouns refer to fauna, flora, rivers, people, weather phenomena of the area in which Rigveda was composed.
KLP Dubey: Proper Nouns are sounds which nobody knows what they refer to as in every context they are (may be) used differently. There is no geography in Rigveda.

Talageri: The deities mentioned in Rigveda are those, in whom the people of the region believed in and prayed to.
KLP Dubey: The "deities" have validity only within the corpus of the Veda, and do not refer to any external beings or phenomena.

Talageri: There is some history in Rigveda, e.g. the Battle of the Ten Kings.
KLP Dubey: Rigveda is ahistorical. There is no history there. Those meaning of the names of the kings and priests are unknown and do not refer to people at all.

Talageri: The Vedas is inspired poetry by the rishis in praise of the deities, nature, and those favorable to the good functioning of society(, made possible through wisdom and higher levels of consciousness of the rishis ?).
KLP Dubey: The Vedas essence and power lies in the chanting of the Vedas. Nobody can truly understand what the Vedas mean.

I hope, I am not misrepresenting the positions of the two sides.

Now I have tried over many posts to try to formulate a number of disclaimers and qualifiers which non-religious scholars of the Vedas can use to avoid hurting the sentiments of the orthodox Hindus. I have also tried to fuse the two views with possible narratives. I have also tried to show how this conflict can snowball and in fact hurt both sides. However the Hindu orthodox position seems to be in no mood for relenting.

Now I am not claiming that Talageri's position is right or wrong in understanding the "true essence" of the Vedas, but I think he has a right to have this position, especially as he is respectful of the text. In fact, for the purpose of defeating the AIT's obnoxious attacks it is necessary to have this position, which can refute AIT-position based on the text and context of Rigveda itself (as apparent from its Sanskritic reading).

In fact, ideologically I may be closer to KLP Dubey ji's position, but there is a certain imperative in Shri Shrikant Talageri's position and it has a right to be there and be respected.

[Dan Mazer]

I felt the same way. Having said that, anyone trying to defend against.... 'Rigveda can not be interpreted and no true meaning of its words can be understood'....position is fighting to refute something that is 'irrefutable' and thus fighting against unscientific proposal (by unscientific I don't mean false, untrue, etc...but only that a theory that does not allow scrutiny on logical/rational/empirical grounds).

I understood his claim to be that a consistent set of meanings cannot be derived for many of the words in the Rig Veda taken in its entirety. I have no idea if this claim is supported by evidence or not, but it seems perfectly refutable. All one has to do is to take an example of such a word (or a set of words) and show that it can be ascribed a meaning such that all the statements using the word still remain sensible.

[Agnimitra]

The study notes strong linkages between Parsi and Gujarati genes, but limits speculation regarding cause to Iranian men intermarrying with Gujarati women after landing in India. The actual genetic linkage may be much more ancient.

The generally propagated version among Parsis is that when they landed here some of their men married local widows. Some are eager to specify that they were "Brahmin" widows (wouldn't want to mix with those low castes now, would we? -- that would take one a few notches further down the British colonial race theory ladder).

But its true that the linkages could also be more ancient. It is well known that Iranic populations are of at least two genetically distinct types - western and eastern. The eastern part of ancient Persia (khaavar) was actually the cultural center. This was centered in present day Tajikistan, south Ozbekistan and north Afghanistan. A lot of the early Parsi migrants came from that area. But with the subsequent centuries, that whole eastern Iranian civilization has been totally destroyed -- not just in terms of religious conversion or usurpation of physical resources, but even genetically genocided or overwhelmed. Today most of the population of that area is genetically Turko-Mongol (including the Persian-speaking Tajiks).

Thus, when the above extract talks about comparing Indian Parsi genes with "combined Iranian", it is not taking into consideration that what remains of the "combined Iranian" is about half of what used to be the combined Iranian 1400 years ago. A typical case of historians using present-day data to project backwards and reconstruct history.

[Agnimitra]

Carl I think that author has bent things too far. Rewiring of the brain from language is well known, but claiming that the rewiring led to the initiation of "disappearance of goddesses, the abhorrence of images, and, in literacy's early stages, the decline of women's political status. Patriarchy and misogyny followed" is in my view, complete nonsense because the man seems to be referring to Abrahamic religions with zero insight into India. Goddesses and images did not disappear in India where society is just as patriarchal. The business of Gotras discussed earlier is patriarchal and was designed to keep the oral tradition alive and error free.

Shiv ji, of course. That author was exaggerating things and trying to make a statement. The actual number of factors is more variegated, and their interplay can create numerous types of pathways. That's why I said that even with written cultures, the types of writing, etc can make a big difference. Nevertheless, the basic thrust of left-brain right-brain dichotomy is interesting. Note that even in India, the "gods and goddesses" culture was dominant or had a psychological grip over the less literate castes, while the more literate castes may have patronized it but indulged numerous other inclinations as part of their group-dharma. Major Vedantic sampradayas divided the actual types of sadhana as dAsa-kUTa (for the masses) and vyAsa-kUTa (for the patrician elites).

[Agnimitra]

It depends on what you mean by "studying" the Veda. If you are talking about memorizing and reproducing the sounds of Rgveda as much as you can (indeed the most "useful" way of connecting with the RV), you need to have an oral recording, a reliable text, and the pratishakhya with you.

If you are intending to study the Vedic words "academically", then it is better to become proficient in Sanskrit first. If you already know Sanskrit, then you can use a Vedic grammar and reader (Macdonell is excellent) to get familiar with.

Thank you Dubey ji. I would like to do both if possible, given the opportunity and time and aptitude.

Its interesting you did not suggest any guru-shishya parampara was necessary. Yet, in the Namboodri tradition that is there, with personalized training using body movements and the trainer maintaining a solid physical comm line with the student. Any reason you thought this was not necessary?

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

Murugan ji, I agree. In modern times, Swami Dayananda, Aurobindo, etc took this line very strongly. Aurobindo did express an indebtedness to Madhvacharya's RgBhashya.

[member_22872]

For example, if the AIT-Nazi crowd says that Rigveda says that horses were sacrificed and buried in a very special way, something they have discovered in Sintashta in Russia, and as such Indo-Aryans came from Central Asia and kicked Dravidian butt, then such crap deserves a response.

Now if the Indigenists (those who think Aryans are native Indians) respond and say that is not true, that is not what is written in Rigveda at all, but rather that the Horse sacrifice was a symbolic ritual, or something of the sort, then one becomes open to attacks by Mimamsakas, that how can we see history in Rigveda.

If Indigenists say that Aryans were Indians as they speak of Saraswati, then again one would be attacked by Mimamsakas of how can we postulate that the proper noun 'Saraswati' refers to the river, and one must be a buffoon, fraud, quack to think so!

So the thing is that this situation gives the AIT-crowd a free licence to abuse the (Sanskritic reading of the) Rigveda and formulate their theories of AIT accordingly.

Rajesh ji, I concur with this dilemma, this is what I meant in my post when I said we have to fight a battle with one hand tied behind. But I also agree with Menon ji, we are also after truth and in the pursuit of it we can't base our arguments based on somewhat shaky ground. What you said is also true about Talageri's response, may be he should have been given a context of our reservations about anukramanis, may be he would have defended better.

[Arjun]

Frankly Talageri has gone about looking for answers to the question of RV dating, in the manner of a person looking to solve a complex jigsaw puzzle in a highly systematic & logical manner.

The basic premise of the argument is quite simple: The RV has 10 Mandalas (1 - 10) and there are a number of clues in the RV that point to a chronological ordering of these 10 Mandalas - ie that these Mandalas were not all composed / 'received' in unison, and that there is an internal chronological ordering to when these Mandalas were composed / 'received'. He utilizes all of these clues to arrive at this final conclusion regarding the internal chronology:

In conclusion: we have conducted a full examination and analysis of the Rigveda from all the relevant angles, namely:

1. The interrelationships among the composers.
2. The references to composers within the hymns.
3. The references to Kings and RSis.
4. The family structure of the MaNDalas.
5. The system of ascription of hymns in the MaNDalas.

The chronological picture that we obtain, jointly and severally, in other words unanimously, from all these angles is that the chronological order of the MaNDalas is: VI, III, VII, IV, II, V, VIII, IX, X (The upa-maNDalas of MaNDala I covering the periods of MaNDalas IV, II, V, VIII).

Then, Talageri proceeds to prove that the earlier Mandalas (ie VI, III, VII and so on) have geographical references that pertain more to the east / Gangetic plains...while the later ones increasingly mention geographical features that occur towards the west. This therefore points to an east-west migration of the RV tribes, which disproves AIT.

As you can see from the list above (Items 1 - 5) from which the internal chronology has been derived, only #1 seems to depend on the Anukramani - the others refer to other kinds of internal clues found within the RV.

It seems to me that many of the arguments presented so far on this topic are way too high-level to be of any use whatsoever. This is an intricate jigsaw-puzzle that has been painstakingly solved by Talageri. You will find details of his approach here: The Chronology of the Rig Veda

Now, I like solving puzzles. I am sure many out here do as well.....So, rather than come up with 50000-feet level objections, I suggest those who are interested in refuting Talageri join the game ( and it is a rather interesting one, I must say) - and very specifically point out why PIECE A or PIECE D of the jigsaw puzzle do not necessarily fit into where Talageri has placed them.

Lets be fair to the person - lets play the game to the level of detail he has gone into and then determine whether his piecing together of the picture brings up something different from what it is supposed to.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh ji, I concur with this dilemma, this is what I meant in my post when I said we have to fight a battle with one hand tied behind. But I also agree with Menon ji, we are also after truth and in the pursuit of it we can't base our arguments based on somewhat shaky ground. What you said is also true about Talageri's response, may be he should have been given a context of our reservations about anukramanis, may be he would have defended better.

venug ji,

I concur fully with the position of JE Menon ji.

However before declaring something as shaky we need to formulate our reasons in detail, why we find something shaky (or objectionable), otherwise it can also be just an assumption based on hearsay and propaganda!

[member_22872]

This is my view:

If we take a epistemological stand that Vedic knowledge is a priori, and Vedic sounds are not manufactured, then we have to ask, how come rishi names are attached to hymns. And also we might have to address the accent issue of anukramanis raised by Dubey ji. Can Rg Vedic rishis be thought of as mere maintainers than composers of hymns? if so I think anukramanis still stands, the reason is, it still validates the stand that Vedas are eternal and they are not composed. Since we anyway are analyzing historicity of the vedas after they are put in textual form, the argument that the anukramanis is mere a list of the maintainer rishis than that of composers can be made.

[RajeshA]

venug ji,

this is how I would formulate the issue.

The rishi names can be considered as the names of those rishis who either
a) composed the Vedic mandalas, sūktas and ṛcas, possibly with divine inspiration, or
b) received as first the eternal and apaurusheya Vedas, from whichever source, possibly non-human.

I had also proposed another model in the beginning (perhaps half-baked).

All rishis and priest families and guru paramparas are in fact maintainers, and no single rishi whose name is in the Anukramanis can be considered as the maintainer as such, for that is a collective responsibility.

The various Vedic ashrams were designed to prepare the shishya for either
a) composing the Vedas in the right spirit, or
b) learning the "interface" language, customs and state of mind suitable for receiving the Vedas,

as well as to maintain the Vedas.

The present Anukramanis may simply be the latest that are available and in fact have been written later on, however they build upon a tradition of Anukramanic knowledge coming from the time when the Vedas were first introduced into the human society, by whichever means.

[Nilesh Oak]

I felt the same way. Having said that, anyone trying to defend against.... 'Rigveda can not be interpreted and no true meaning of its words can be understood'....position is fighting to refute something that is 'irrefutable' and thus fighting against unscientific proposal (by unscientific I don't mean false, untrue, etc...but only that a theory that does not allow scrutiny on logical/rational/empirical grounds).

I understood his claim to be that a consistent set of meanings cannot be derived for many of the words in the Rig Veda taken in its entirety. I have no idea if this claim is supported by evidence or not, but it seems perfectly refutable. All one has to do is to take an example of such a word (or a set of words) and show that it can be ascribed a meaning such that all the statements using the word still remain sensible.

Great. I would encourage you to take this up with KLP Dubey ji and see if he accepts (not that that is a condition..i.e. he has to accept your refutation) your refutation of his position.

[member_22872]

but it seems perfectly refutable. All one has to do is to take an example of such a word (or a set of words) and show that it can be ascribed a meaning such that all the statements using the word still remain sensible.

Say there is a very simple sentence like this in Veda:

"I am atman". what is "I" here? the body? is it the God himself? already we have two meaning which can lead to different understanding.

Now say there is another sentence else where:

"I am not atman"

just the same words but with a negative which can mean the opposite of the prior statement above sentence and both are sensible. The sentences are the same but for the negative, but still one can have different interpretations leading you to completely contrary understanding of the same phrase. The result is that one is left still unclear of the meaning of "I".

[RajeshA]

I felt the same way. Having said that, anyone trying to defend against.... 'Rigveda can not be interpreted and no true meaning of its words can be understood'....position is fighting to refute something that is 'irrefutable' and thus fighting against unscientific proposal (by unscientific I don't mean false, untrue, etc...but only that a theory that does not allow scrutiny on logical/rational/empirical grounds).

I understood his claim to be that a consistent set of meanings cannot be derived for many of the words in the Rig Veda taken in its entirety. I have no idea if this claim is supported by evidence or not, but it seems perfectly refutable. All one has to do is to take an example of such a word (or a set of words) and show that it can be ascribed a meaning such that all the statements using the word still remain sensible.

Great. I would encourage you to take this up with KLP Dubey ji and see if he accepts (not that that is a condition..i.e. he has to accept your refutation) your refutation of his position.

I think the Mimamsakas have done an amazing thing making the Vedas infallible. One cannot make an instrument of faith into something fallible.

However arguments like
a) Anukramanis have rishi names without accents.
b) One cannot derive consistent meanings from proper nouns in the Sanskritic reading of the Rigveda.

are all fallible! They just need a good explanation, i.e. once the various alleged inconsistencies have been listed. So I just don't think that is the way to go. The better way is for Vedic scholars to build up a consistent narrative and a literature around it explaining how their stand is perfectly plausible. They need to show how Sanskrit was gleaned and developed based on Rigveda, and offer some theories as to how the proper nouns were assigned as they were. Furthermore they could develop a list of disclaimers and qualifiers which "secular" scholars are encouraged to follow, so that they do not cause any hurt to the sentiments of the orthodoxy or even Hindus at large. If the Vedic scholars can postulate a narrative which makes the Vedas immune from any scientific analysis, historical reading, geographic placements, etc., it takes away the need for a conflict, and thus people are not required to pick sides.

Without these narratives, rational people outside the Dharmic upbringing would consider the Vedics simply cookoos for thinking Rigvedas to be sounds given to humans by non-human agencies and that Sanskrit was developed based on those sounds and not in the natural way many other languages of the world came about. The Vedics need to work to offset any such impression that may emerge.