Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 05 Oct 2012 00:58

matrim garu, yes you are right about context, but in Dan Mazer ji original question, I thought he meant for a given set of sensible words without taking context into consideration. Later to another question, I did bring in relevancy of context. But in your post you are binding "I" to atman. But from just the statement alone: "I" am atman, it is not clear if "I" refers to God or the body.Without further explanation or providing context it is difficult to understand what "I" means. If so what can you binding atman to?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Oct 2012 01:30

Nilesh Oak wrote:I have addressed this broader issue of MBH as 'science fiction' vs. 'history'.. briefly at the end of my book. Even if one accepts MBH as 'science fiction' to get away with 'inconvenient' description of 'sophisticated weapons', one simply CAN NOT get away with 'sophisticated technology, calendrics, and multi-millemnium long tradition of astronomy observations and documentation'. It's time to apply 'Occum's razor'.

I know you are not suggesting entire MBH as fiction, but rather referring to 'embellishments'. I do get your point. All I would say is.... it is critical to remember that what one may consider 'embellishments' depends on his/her vision of what is possible for 'technology of 6th Millennium BC'. Don't forget....likes of C V Vaidya and P V Kane considered 'AV' observation as 'embellishment' and 120+ MBH researchers considered it 'embarrasment' to the extent they avoided mentioning it alltogether.

Nilesh Oak ji,

here is how I see it. This is really an issue of narration style. That was the style of the ancients to tell their stories, and we have to accept it. There should be absolutely no criticism of it, because any criticism done would be culturally subjective. It is our "modern" worldview and our exposure to various forms of literature, which says what is normal and what is abnormal, what is to be approved and what is to be disapproved. The ancients simply had a different way of looking at things.

The thing is that the issue of "embellishments" should not be seen as a problem in Indic texts, something to be denigrated. It is in fact a challenge for modern Indics to to do the threshing and to separate "truth" from embellishment. Just because we have been given an intellectual challenge, it does not mean we start running down the scriptures and their composers.

What we need is an intellectual way to proceed in analyzing our texts and the history in them. We can simply speak of vimanas and bhasmastras as "to be considered as a literary embellishment according to the current scholarly opinion and research"! As for all the rest, one can proceed to consider everything as attested history.

Instead what we get are two camps - one saying our itihaas is all "science fiction" and never happened, while the other camp is pinning for nuclear bombs, space ships and billions of years of human history, and between the true extremes the history in our Itihaas gets flushed away, and is not taken seriously.

Sure it is somehow possible that all the "embellishments" like vimanas and nuclear bombs may have been the truth, but the debate over the truth content of these issues can not be allowed to sabotage the scholarly study of the texts and to distill the truth in the rest portion of the texts.

Our texts deserve more respect than simply some acknowledgements in fringe groups who deal with UFOs or chest-thumping "Hinduism", nor should our history be relegated to scorn, "science-fiction" and "nice poetry"!

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 Oct 2012 01:41

Arjun wrote: Why do you think dating of Smritis is easier than dating the Shrutis? The latter is more 'pristine' and is assumed to have far less of interpolations - which would imply dating of the latter is easier.

Shouldn't the motto be 'Satyameva Jayate' only ? ( I like the way this phrase is bandied about by every camp )

I did not mean to imply the Purans. The examples were were shastra smritis aka law books. The do not have poetry in them and are directly linked to kingdoms, where they were enforced. Much easier to date them than the Purans or Shruti texts. If one thinks about why the western indologists are obsessed with dating RV amongst 1000's of our other texts, which are kept quite well and not largely corrupted. See the question of corruption comes into purnas if it was ever meant to record our history. It was not. The design intent of purans was entirely different. Its intent was to supplement, elaborate and packaged for mass consumption the codes and high philosophies of the Shrutis. So, corruption in context of violation of core tenets of shruti could be there but not in context of history, which was never its intent. It does not mean there is no history and name, places and events in them are fictitious. It is the message and not the actual sequences that were important.

Anyways, should be much easier to date the dharma shastras, them being straight forward codes of civilian, criminal and social law.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 Oct 2012 01:52

RajeshA wrote: What we need is an intellectual way to proceed in analyzing our texts and the history in them. We can simply speak of vimanas and bhasmastras as "to be considered as a literary embellishment according to the current scholarly opinion and research"! As for all the rest, one can proceed to consider everything as attested history.....

Our texts deserve more respect than simply some acknowledgements in fringe groups who deal with UFOs or chest-thumping "Hinduism", nor should our history be relegated to scorn, "science-fiction" and "nice poetry"!

Damn, you will get Jihad from me, if there is any suggestion of removing the "poetry". Ask this question, why was a text like MBH written? What was its design intent? To maintain history? Nah, the history is incidental. The key design intent of the Purans is to communicate the message of the "shrutis". Its audience was the aam aadmi. How many will sit through a lecture of the 10 key Upanishads or chants of the vedas? Now, spice the message up with real events, jealousies and human emotions, mix it with some MIRV's and TN weapons and powers of magic and something people can relate to, you will get something popular. Did not TV kill radio? Did Google not kill newspaper advertising. Till today the gurus of various sampradayas rely on our purans to communicate the messages of dharma and its expositions. Try this even today. Explain the concepts of Dharma to an audience with no aid of the purans and see how quickly people turn off and you will get Yawns from most.

What sells documentaries or soaps?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Oct 2012 02:01

ShauryaT ji,
the comment about "nice poetry" simply means that the West says there is no history to glean from our Itihaas - Ramayana did not happen, Mahabharata did not happen! It is simply "nice poetry and nothing more"!

For many of us, our Itihaas - Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Puranas are in fact history, albeit with small portions that one cannot understand or believe today, and hence are to be considered for the moment as "embellishments"!

I concur with you that works like Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas, etc. all help one to understand Dharma and the world better, and they are to be used as aids to that effect also. But just because something is poetic and useful as a learning aid, does not mean that it is untrue!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Oct 2012 02:12

ShauryaT, Some modern mind asked what were the two armies doing while the 700 slokas of Gita were being recited by Sri Krishna to Arjun? This is the kind of half -(fill in your favorite animal) type of thinking that modern Indians have developed. They are neither full Western nor Hindu.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 05 Oct 2012 02:16

shiv wrote:You know what? I am beginning to get suspicious of Greek dates in Greece. At least some of that is bullshit.

Without a doubt... These are guys who still pretend in history books they teach to kids that emperor Constantine was Greek and Christian ...

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 05 Oct 2012 02:23

Few other things mentioned in Publishers Note of Jatindra Mohan Chatterji's book "The Hymes of Atharvan Zarathustra" (in no particular order):

[*]Ahura Mazda is Hari Medha and quotes Vedic references in support of that
[*]Shiv already mentioned Zend Avesta is derived from Chanda Upasta and how Panini specifically addresed the word Upasta.

TretaYuga Timeline
[*]Kaikay Raj is today’s Cacausus (Armenia in particular) - very similar sounding
[*]Bharat (Kaikayi's son) describes that he goes to KaiKay via a place that is identified geographically along the way to Armenia
[*]Parasu Rama ofcourse is Rama of Parasu; distinct from Raghu Rama of Ayodhya

Dwapar yuga timeline:
[*]Wifes of Dhrutarashtra (Gandhari), Pandu (Madari), and Vidur (Bahlika?) are all from Northwest
[*]After MBH, part of weakened Kuru vanshi turned northwest and directly related to Kourus/Cyrus the great
[*]Chatterji translates "Kshyathiya" in the Behinstun inscription as "Kshatriya" straight
[*]He refers Daravayus as Daryabahu

Kali Yuga
[*]As Gupta ji pointed out, the confusion about Histashpa/Vistashpa is similar to Chandra Gupta of (Gupta vs Maurya), and resulting mess up of time in terms of millenia

[*]He equates Saraswati with Sindhu - Saraswati being "Religious name" and Sindhu being "secular" name of the same river
[*]he quotes 6-61-10 / 7-36-6 that appear to talk about "saptathi sindhumata" or not sure if I read he says somewhere as Saraswati being "sapta rupini"

Overall he draws the Avesta timeline parallel to that of later part of Vedas but synergetic with OIT at a much grander scale (India to caspian sea (kashyap) to Assyria to Egypt).

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 05 Oct 2012 02:29

ShauryaT wrote:
See the question of corruption comes into purnas if it was ever meant to record our history. It was not. The design intent of purans was entirely different. Its intent was to supplement, elaborate and packaged for mass consumption the codes and high philosophies of the Shrutis. So, corruption in context of violation of core tenets of shruti could be there but not in context of history, which was never its intent. It does not mean there is no history and name, places and events in them are fictitious. It is the message and not the actual sequences that were important.

Puranas assert that they have 5 fold objective. I don't rember what they are..but something on the lines of Cosmogany (origin of universe), Geneologies of the Kings/history/Janapadas, Descriptions of geography, stories of past.. history...etc.

True, history is not the only objective, and even there, the emphasis is not on accuracy..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Oct 2012 02:38

Satya_Anveshi, Thanks for the summary. BTW in Valmiki Ramayana Sugriva gives a very extensive geographical search area to his sena. It covers a lot of modern Central Asia.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 05 Oct 2012 02:47

ShauryaT wrote: Ask this question, why was a text like MBH written? What was its design intent? To maintain history? Nah, the history is incidental. The key design intent of the Purans is to communicate the message of the "shrutis".

Not true (or partially true).
Vyasa tells Dhritarashtra in no uncertain terms that he (vyasa) plans to write down in detail of the MBH war but also history of Kuru dynasty. So yes, He wanted to write history of Kuru Dynasty.

Now, he definitely used that occassion to accomplish many other thigns and he is equally clear about them.

e..g. 'Prajwalito jnanamaya pradipah" ( I am alighting this torch of knowledge/widsom)

also,

e..g. (his frustration).. Urdhwa bahu viromeshya na cha kashit shrunoti mam, Dharmad, arthas cha kamas cha, sa dharma kim na sevyate?"

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 05 Oct 2012 02:51

ramana wrote:Satya_Anveshi, Thanks for the summary. BTW in Valmiki Ramayana Sugriva gives a very extensive geographical search area to his sena. It covers a lot of modern Central Asia.

Sugriva's descriptions can be corrborated (some better than others)....

To North .. upto Arctic sea(Siberia) via Gobi
To west... via Iran...all the way to either eastern part of mediterrian (assuming mediterian sea existed) or upto west coast of Spain.
To East.. Burma, Thailand, Indonesia..~ Japan.. crossing Pacific upto coastal areas of Chile/Peru
To south - Lanka, but could be as far as Antartica.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Oct 2012 03:15

So how did Adikavi Valmiki know all that?

From the wandering Aryans?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 05 Oct 2012 03:20

Nilesh: that's interesting. Do you have the names Sugriva used for these places?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 Oct 2012 03:22

Oak Ji: I am not going by a verse here or a a verse there and who said what. It is these straws that lead us astray. There have been many kings and kingdoms. There is only one reason why MBH amongst all was maintained. Chandragupta II and Ashoka or even Raja Chola had vast kingdoms, but we do not have purans for them. MBH was written to teach the key messages of Dharma through the conduct and lives of its main characters with the central role being played by a personification of the Narayana himself. The Gita - who's design intent is one of a Moksha Shastra is just that. Now, if a Lokmanya Tilak wants to read political messages in it, then he may be able to some degree or if a self styled modern appraisal of the Gita wants management lessons from it, then maybe you can, as maybe you are doing, look for astronomical clues in MBH text to do its dating. What I have been taught is on extremely good authority on what the Gita and MBH are and after reading umpteen versions of its messages can safely vouch for, what was its design intent. The biggest proof of which is to simply see how it is being used.

Ramayan for example has extensive mention of India's geography, in fact I teach Ancient India's geography to young kids using the Ramayan. It is an interesting way for kids to learn India's geography, which i recommend teachers should use because kids can actually relate to it rather than, give me all the capitals of all the states in India, blah, blah. However, this does not make the purpose of the Ramayan to teach geography, which is incidental and interesting and wraps a story. The purpose or the design intent of Ramayan is to teach Dharma through the example of Ram's life.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 05 Oct 2012 04:01

ShauryaJi:
There is huge difference between puranas and Ithihaasas. There is a reason why Ramayana and Mahabharata are known as Mahaithihasas and not as puranas.

They both (Ramayana and Mahabharata) are better than histroy++ if you wish. These two Mahaithasas are recordings of the events by the contemporary authorities who were present when the events described occurs. To some extents they are also pathra dharis in those events. They are not Puranas.

Puranas are recollections from a very very ancient period.

Ithihaas are testimony to the events as they happened. It establishes the fact that the events happened and next question is when it happened. Their main intention could be anything, but first and foremost they are ithihasas., which means they are written records of events. period. To repeat they are not to be confused as puranas. Vyasa muni and Valmiki were responsible for the recordings, and were present when events unfolded. It is not a narration of tales that happened sometime before their times.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 05 Oct 2012 04:10

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1347006

from this particular post of RajeshA,
as a aam aadmi with little knowledge of the vedas.... I find more comfortable accepting Talageri's position. It seems logical and true. My replies are in blue.

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. ( some one of high intelligence should have done this-- Rishis of course)
KLP Dubey: The Vedas do not have any authors. ( looks illogical- people should have vedas. it cannot arise just like a fountain)

Talageri: Sanskrit language was first developed, and then the Rigveda was composed in Sanskrit.(logical and common sense- )
KLP Dubey: Rigveda was first received by man, and then the Sanskrit was gleaned from it and developed. ( illogical- who conceived vedas if not man-- to create vedas one requires language.If another man receives the vedas he should understand it if not by sanskrit(or proto sanskrit) then by what language?? .

Talageri: Proper Nouns refer to fauna, flora, rivers, people, weather phenomena of the area in which Rigveda was composed.(again more logical to think, considering other works of puranas,epics etc etc)
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.(illogical- some how does not jell in my aam aadmi mind)

Talageri: The deities mentioned in Rigveda are those, in whom the people of the region believed in and prayed to.(logical -- more common to believe in this)
KLP Dubey: The "deities" have validity only within the corpus of the Veda, and do not refer to any external beings or phenomena.( highly illogical)

Talageri: There is some history in Rigveda, e.g. the Battle of the Ten Kings.(yes easy to believe)
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.(illogical--does not make sense. just because one does not know names of kings, priests etc does not mean there is no history. Rigveda is ahistorical in some sense is completely wrong.)

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 ?).( logical- easy to believe)
KLP Dubey: The Vedas essence and power lies in the chanting of the Vedas. Nobody can truly understand what the Vedas mean.(everything in this world has some meaning, saying "nobody" can truly understand it is )

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.

for my point of view Talageri has more sense than others like KLPDubeyji.

This is purely from this particular post by RajeshA. Nothing else.

Frankly speaking I dont understand a great deal here but still I follow this thread due to interest of my own ancestors. I want the truth not falsehoods.

JMT.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 05 Oct 2012 04:41

Nilesh Oak wrote:Sugriva's descriptions can be corrborated (some better than others)....

To North .. upto Arctic sea(Siberia) via Gobi
To west... via Iran...all the way to either eastern part of mediterrian (assuming mediterian sea existed) or upto west coast of Spain.
To East.. Burma, Thailand, Indonesia..~ Japan.. crossing Pacific upto coastal areas of Chile/Peru
To south - Lanka, but could be as far as Antartica.

Nilesh ji, thanks for touching on this example so seriously. If the yuga of Ramayana is taken to be treta, then that was about 4 million years back. Then, according to continental drift techtophysics, geography and the relative positions in each direction would have been entirely different from today! Indian subcontinent + Tibet even spent time wandering around as an island for a long period during this history!

Consider the question: which place is "bhArata-khanda" or "jambu-dvipa"? How can India be a dvipa (island) or continent? Was this literal, in which case we would have to derive dates based on Wegener's continental drift theory, but even that can keep happening again and again, so which iteration to consider? Or perhaps it was actually some other island, like Australia? Or were those words just metaphorical, the way "Europe" considers itself a separate continent from "Asia"? The denizens of the Arabian peninsula also have a tribal tradition of being an "island" - al-jazeerah. Who knows?

Anyhow, keeping in mind just this continental drift and all we know about plate techtonics... this is how the physio-biological material forms keep changing shape, over and over, one plate subsuming another and swallowing up the "evidence" as it does so. In a continuous convection current, surface "evidence" is swallowed up and smelted in the Earth and then re-cycled to created new raw forms.

And from this constantly changing field you want to gather evidence to postulate the meanings of Vedic (or even Ramayana itihasic) words? That's why KLPDubey ji said it was a joke. Are "archaeologists" going to read the "mind" of this Earth to find out?? Because its certainly impossible to find accurately out from this Earth's physical body. Only a trace can be discerned.

Even if Dubey ji is wrong and if Vedic words were indeed derived (?) from the environmental conditions of that time, there is simply no way you can research what exactly those circumstances were. No way. That was the logical point he was making. Its got nothing to do with the "faith" of "orthodox Hindus". historians even today are nervous about letting dates go back as far as 5000 yrs, forget yugas.
------------

krisna ji, what appears "logical" in one scope of spacetime is ridiculous in another scope of spacetime. So if you believe what you believe about the Veda, then nothing can be said about them, all you're left with is sounds and some semantic speculations. In which case I would rather go by the speculations of the still extant continuous tradition rather than those of outsiders.

Or otherwise we can take the position that the semantics of the Vedas have nothing to do with the relation of words to physical "objects". Rather, the marriage of words to physical objects is a subsequent, conditional, transitory and time-binding application of Veda.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 05 Oct 2012 05:04

Nilesh Oak wrote:Leave aside the claim that one can not find consistent meanings for Rigveda words and leave aside 'Mimamsk' for a minute; Arbitrary insistance of 'Arya samaj' to treat each proper-noun (let's say 'proper noun sounding word') as not proper noun led to all kinds of ridiculous things....these experimetns at least establish that if one is hell bent on proving a point, they may do it no matter how ridiculous the outcome.

"A superstition is a premature explanation that overstays its time." -- George Iles

IMHO, Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayananda was making a fundamental point. Its a fundamental point meaning it was to be a point of departure for a process of correction and redirection. It has validity in that context. If someone is going to prematurely insist on it in a different context, then that's a neurosis. Organizations built around ideas will usually end up doing that and perpetuating superstition of one sort or another. But it doesn't invalidate the fundamental point, as a meme that has usefulness and value.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 05 Oct 2012 05:18

Carl wrote:
<snip>

krisna ji, what appears "logical" in one scope of spacetime is ridiculous in another scope of spacetime. So if you believe what you believe about the Veda, then nothing can be said about them, all you're left with is sounds and some semantic speculations. In which case I would rather go by the speculations of the still extant continuous tradition rather than those of outsiders.

Or otherwise we can take the position that the semantics of the Vedas have nothing to do with the relation of words to physical "objects". Rather, the marriage of words to physical objects is a subsequent, conditional, transitory and time-binding application of Veda.

As a common man living at present time, I would like some one to present in a simple way what one thinks of vedas. I dont like the esoteric stuff which I dont understand. i find it hard to believe. Not that it is wrong just that one has failed to convince simple folks like me. that is all.
In that context my previous post about Talageri and others is very relevant.
I can quote the same to you as per your own post.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 05 Oct 2012 05:29

krisna wrote:As a common man living at present time, I would like some one to present in a simple way what one thinks of vedas. I dont like the esoteric stuff which I dont understand. i find it hard to believe.

I think that's perfectly the right attitude to have, and I share that sentiment. Note that I was not saying anything about the Vedas per se, just about "logic". Its "scientific" not "esoteric". For instance, we could discuss how language and words itself developed. Let's take any starting point you prefer - Darwinian evolution, or Creationism, etc. Let's say some kind of primitive ancestor, as yet without the fully blossomed faculty of speech. How did the agreement for common words come about?

krisna wrote:I can quote the same to you as per your own post.

Certainly. A theory holding for one scope seems absurd in another. The only difference here is, which scope can be seen to be broader than the other, containing the other as a special case of its own laws. E.g. Newtonian mechanics can be derived as a special case from the laws of the theory of relativity, at much slower speeds than the speed of light.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 05 Oct 2012 05:33

Prem Kumar wrote:Nilesh: that's interesting. Do you have the names Sugriva used for these places?

In the link below, select Kishkindha Kanda and then Chapters 40-43 (both inclusive). 4 chapters for 4 directions - Sugriva description. Select option translation with verses and then within that Sanskrit verse and translation.

As a highlight, Here are 2 from East direction:

When you read chapter 40 and after you read Kishkindha 40:41-45 (go to google and type vampire bats)

And after you read Kishkindha 40:53-54 (refer to my post on this thread.... just after RajeshA ji had posted 'elephant in South America/Copan-Hounduras).

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1332084

Enjoy.

http://valmikiramayan.net/

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Oct 2012 06:00

Prem Kumar wrote:
I'm not sure if this is directed at me - if so, you are tilting at imagined windmills. My cellphone analogy has nothing to do with acceptance of the Kurgan hypothesis or AIT. Nor am I claiming that the reliability of cellphones can be extended to archaeology. Nor did I say that ancient oral records are nonsense. I said we need to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Not specifically directed at you but directed at the genre of arguments that use current day society as an example of what is great and good to contrast with the primitive nature of ancient societies making the insinuation that anything that appears comparable to the modern day is legend/exaggeration/myth and that solid archaeological proof is needed to convince anyone.

I was having my fill by taking a vicious dig at the fallibility of archaeology and I can see how archaeologists and linguists use one set of lack of faith arguments against people whose archaeology they want to dismiss, while the reliability of modern science and western labs is the plank on which other archaeological finds are supported.

There is an unholy copulation in progress between archaeologists and linguists where each group pick and choose what is convenient and feed on each others' work. In the last few days I read one paper where one archaeologist had argued that it was no longer enough for them to classify and code pottery shards, but they need to look at what linguists are doing and try and come up with findings that match linguists conclusions. So we have the spectacle of one set of people making chronological deductions using sound change theories ("This was earlier, that is later") and another set of people saying these graves were those people.

And very very early in this thread I had pointed out how one Hock had expressed surprise that historical linguistics might cause so much controversy which he only expected as a reaction to the more destructive

sciences like nuclear physics. The statement reveals a psychological attitude where the man genuinely believes that they can creatively cook up history without and accountability or protest because its the "other guys" in fields like nuclear physics who are doing all the bad bad things

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 05 Oct 2012 06:06

Carl wrote: Anyhow, keeping in mind just this continental drift and all we know about plate techtonics... this is how the physio-biological material forms keep changing shape, over and over, one plate subsuming another and swallowing up the "evidence" as it does so. In a continuous convection current, surface "evidence" is swallowed up and smelted in the Earth and then re-cycled to created new raw forms.

And from this constantly changing field you want to gather evidence to postulate the meanings of Vedic (or even Ramayana itihasic) words? That's why KLPDubey ji said it was a joke. Are "archaeologists" going to read the "mind" of this Earth to find out?? Because its certainly impossible to find accurately out from this Earth's physical body. Only a trace can be discerned.

Carl ji,

(1) Consider both (a) Continental drift and (b) Earth Crust displacement.

(2) (as Novalis said) Theories are like nets. Whoever casts may catch.

Goal of generations of researchers is to make the net as finer as one can...basically... by building upon nets of predeccessors. There is no guarantee that one will catch, but if one is curious, one must cast, knowing well, that one has to be lucky. Those of us who enjoy doing this know well that many theories come and go (just like bubbles in stirrred water), many of them simply in the head of a researcher and never see the light of the day.

This is a risky profession --one is not paid, one must be willing to be content with passion as its own reward and one better be ready for ridicule.

In words of Sir Ken Robinson...

“If you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original.”
― Ken Robinson, The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything

(3) I am not in a position (not qualified) to decide Dubey ji is right or wrong. All I can tell you is that his posts/discussions did add to my knowledge. As to Talageri, Arjun ji has summarized his work at high level. I agree with that summary 100%.

(4) Oh, and my research of Ramayana is not taking me beyond 100K years, so never mind 4 MM years.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 05 Oct 2012 06:16

Nilesh Oak wrote:Goal of generations of researchers is to make the net as finer as one can...basically... by building upon nets of predeccessors.

Nilesh ji, that's true. In a previous post to Dubey ji, I said: "seeded with any particular set of postulates, the semantic residual will keep raising further questions and speculation until it becomes vanishingly small. I think multiple, ordered supersets of such postulates can be created, depending on what the epistemological starting point is, all tending towards an optimum balance."

What I had in mind was that his point does not necessarily invalidate Talageri ji's effort, or the efforts on this thread, which has been an educational for me. Talageri ji has tackled the AIT folks within their own scope. In that sense it has validity. The danger Dubey ji seems to be referring to is that identity politics should not occlude the fact that Vedas in its most native sense has a much broader set of scopes of interpretation.

Using Veda as a psychohistorical device to speculate on recent history is interesting within its own scope. But it will definitely leave a "residual" of its contents that just slip through the "net". That alone must indicate that a finer net or broader scope is to be sought, which can happen only by a logico-philosophical re-postulate. In that sense Talageri ji's work can be considered as one of a series of ordered sets of such postulates. He is certainly clearer about his assumptions than his AIT purvapaksha, and in fact he is forcing them to fess up about their implicit or bogus assumptions.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Oct 2012 06:18

Satya_anveshi wrote:
[*]He equates Saraswati with Sindhu - Saraswati being "Religious name" and Sindhu being "secular" name of the same river

Pandit Vamadeva Sastri, aka David Frawley says much the same thing in the sense that Sindhu is often used as a generic term for river.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Oct 2012 06:47

Folks, some interesting data points.

AIT dates for Vedas and philosophy that followed ends by 600 BC. Socrates and Plato lived after that. If the following is not out of India I welcome you to come and rip off my balls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word

Philosophers have found words objects of fascination since at least the 5th century BC, with the foundation of the philosophy of language. Plato analyzed words in terms of their origins and the sounds making them up, concluding that there was some connection between sound and meaning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

Socrates inverts the common man's intuition about what is knowable and what is real. While most people take the objects of their senses to be real if anything is, Socrates is contemptuous of people who think that something has to be graspable in the hands to be real.<snip>. In other words, such people live without the divine inspiration that gives him, and people like him, access to higher insights about reality.

and

Socrates's idea that reality is unavailable to those who use their senses is what puts him at odds with the common man, and with common sense. Socrates says that he who sees with his eyes is blind,

and

The Theory of Forms (Greek: ἰδέαι) typically refers to the belief expressed by Socrates in some of Plato's dialogues, that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only an image or copy of the real world. <snip> Socrates sometimes seems to recognise two worlds: the apparent world, which constantly changes, and an unchanging and unseen world of forms, which may be a cause of what is apparent.

Compare with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28il ... ta_Vedanta

The mystic teachings in Vedanta are centered on a fundamental truth of the universe that cannot be reduced to a concept or word for the ordinary mind to manipulate. Rather, the human experience and mind are themselves a tiny fragment of this truth

Expect a re dating of Socrates to 1000 BC and vedas to 500 BC

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 Oct 2012 07:10

JwalaMukhi wrote:Vyasa muni and Valmiki were responsible for the recordings, and were present when events unfolded. It is not a narration of tales that happened sometime before their times.

JM Ji: I was with you till we reached here. This is where issues of dating, authorship and the entire debate starts. There is no way to prove that Rishi Ved Vyas was a single individual, who wrote the MBH, the Purans and Veda all in one life. Appreciate the difference between itihaas and puran's relative age differences but their use is not so different, but as you noted my thrust was on its "design intent", which at least to me is very clear.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 Oct 2012 07:39

shiv wrote: Not specifically directed at you but directed at the genre of arguments that use current day society as an example of what is great and good to contrast with the primitive nature of ancient societies making the insinuation that anything that appears comparable to the modern day is legend/exaggeration/myth and that solid archaeological proof is needed to convince anyone.

Shiv ji: You are not alone in feeling this way. Here is Sri Aurobindo:

Yet these obscure and barbarous compositions have had the most splendid good fortune in all literary history. They have been the reputed source not only of some of the world’s richest and profoundest religions, but of some of its subtlest metaphysical philosophies. In the fixed tradition of thousands of years they have been revered as the origin and standard of all that can be held as authoritative and true in Brahmana and Upanishad, in Tantra and Purana, in the doctrines of great philosophical schools and in the teachings of famous saints and sages. The name borne by them was Veda, the knowledge, — the received name for the highest spiritual truth of which the human mind is capable. But if we accept the current interpretations, whether Sayana’s or the modern theory, the whole of this sublime and sacred reputation is a colossal fiction. The hymns are, on the contrary, nothing more than the naive superstitious fancies of untaught and materialistic barbarians concerned only with the most external gains and enjoyments and ignorant of all but the most elementary moral notions or religious aspirations. Nor do occasional passages, quite out of harmony with their general spirit, destroy this total impression. The true foundation or starting-point of the later religions and philosophies is the Upanishads, which have then to be conceived as a revolt of philosophical and speculative minds against the ritualistic materialism of the Vedas.

But this conception, supported by misleading European parallels, really explains nothing. Such profound and ultimate thoughts, such systems of subtle and elaborate psychology as are found in the substance of the Upanishads, do not spring out of a previous void. The human mind in its progress marches from knowledge to knowledge, or it renews and enlarges previous knowledge that has been obscured and overlaid, or it seizes on old imperfect clues and is led by them to new discoveries. The thought of the Upanishads supposes great origins anterior to itself, and these in the ordinary theories are lacking. The hypothesis, invented to fill the gap, that these ideas were borrowed by barbarous Aryan invaders from the civilised Dravidians, is a conjecture supported only by other conjectures. It is indeed coming to be doubted whether the whole story of an Aryan invasion through the Punjab is not a myth of the philologists.

My gut says, these folks went after the RV not to find its antiquity but to destroy and belittle its message, make the message look trivial and primitive and bereft of any lofty ideals, seek to divorce it from its land and its peoples. IOW: A clear agenda, colored by colonial and race constructs prevalent at that time. Witzel just uses more subtle techniques of PIE for the same end goal.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 05 Oct 2012 07:49

ShauryaT wrote: I was with you till we reached here. This is where issues of dating, authorship and the entire debate starts. There is no way to prove that Rishi Ved Vyas was a single individual, who wrote the MBH, the Purans and Veda all in one life.

ShauryaT ji,

It is challenging enough to 'disprove' something. 'Proving' something is beyond the scope of this thread/forum/discussion/books/science/humanity!

One can certainly speculate potential for confusion for 'all works.. MBH, Bhagavat, Harivamsha.. puranas, editing/recasting of Veda etc.' to be that of ' Single individual and may propose a conjecture such as:

(1) series of his disciples may have been called 'Ved Vyasa' or

(2) he was 'Editor -in -chief' and worked with his able disciples (Jaimini, Vaishampayan, Paila, etc.) to compile all of this.

But these remain conjectures, that must be tested against avaialble evidence.

A while ago, I think it was ravi-g, who raised the doubt if single individual was capable of writing MBH - a long work of 100-125K verses. I had responded to that by referring to work of Savarkar and Saint Ekanath.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Oct 2012 08:30

ShauryaT wrote: My gut says, these folks went after the RV not to find its antiquity but to destroy and belittle its message, make the message look trivial and primitive and bereft of any lofty ideals, seek to divorce it from its land and its peoples. IOW: A clear agenda, colored by colonial and race constructs prevalent at that time. Witzel just uses more subtle techniques of PIE for the same end goal.

Your gut is right. And here is attestation

1. Macaulay's minute from 1835
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/prit ... _1835.html

It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same.

and

2. Macaulay's letter to his father 1836
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/prit ... later.html

Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. We find it difficult, indeed at some places impossible, to provide instruction for all who want it. At the single town of Hoogley fourteen hundred boys are learning English. The effect of this education on the Hindoos is prodigious. No Hindoo who has received an English education ever continues to be sincerely attached to his religion. Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy. But many profess themselves pure Deists, and some embrace Christianity.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 05 Oct 2012 13:01

One reason why Indians take to English like ducks to the water is because it is ultimately derived from Sanskrit.....

Now the above statement is largely true, since PIE and Sanskrit are closest of all languages- but irrespective of the actual 'accuracy', would be good to popularize this among Indians as a 'strategic manouvre'. Maybe Twitter would be useful ?

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 05 Oct 2012 13:45

Quotation of comments from various posters, and my replies. I will have time to write more later.

Nilesh Oak wrote:We also know that Vyasa is credited with recasting of Vedas (MBH has reference to this effect). Could this be then the time when Anukramanis might have been inserted? I am not asking Q or insisting that you agree, but rather suggesting an educated guess.

The Veda may have been rearranged many times in history. Vyasa may have been one such personage. Shakalya may be another.

Nilesh Oak wrote:How are these Suktas/Mandalas chanted in our times in Ved Pathashalas? Do they refer to name of Rishi, etc. from Anukramanika, before begining new Sukta?

As far as I know neither the Nambudiris of KL, nor the brahmans of TN have any such tradition in actual recitation of the Veda. During instruction of beginner students, the names of the devata, rishi, etc may be mentioned. Listen here, for example, to the entire Rgveda samhita.

https://vedavichara.com/vedic-chants/rig-veda.html

The Anukramani has never been considered a legitimate part of any Vedanga. It is telling that the Mimamsa shows no regard to it. For example, there is a detailed discussion in Mimamsa on the following question: "How does one determine the devata of a particular Sukta?" In many cases it is obvious, since the Sukta only describes one devata. But in cases of there being more than one devata mentioned, there is a procedure recommended to determine the actual devata, or "divide" the Sukta among devatas, etc. It is important to note that nobody ever came up with the following answer: "Just look up the answer in the Anukramani". The people deliberating these matters were very much the elite of the Vedic system and they were very well aware of the Anukramanis.

From the following elementary "Wikipedia quote":

Mayrhofer (2003) discusses the personal names contained in the Rigveda Anukramani, counting 543 items. Academic opinion regarding the age and authenticity of the tradition of these names is not unanimous. Mayrhofer suggests that Hermann Oldenberg (1888) was essentially correct in assuming that

"the editors of the lists of authors [...] [possessed] a correct notion of the families associated with these Mandalas [the Rigvedic "family books" 2–7], possibly rooted in tradition. Beyond this, they do not betray as much as the slightest sign of any genuine tradition on the hymn authors." (p. 229)

Furthermore, the lack of Vedic accent on the names is already a dead giveaway as to the authenticity of the Anukramani. Despite so much obvious evidence, it is really unfortunate that people who do not know anything about the Veda or the Vedic mind keep on insisting there is "something there". There are many well-wishers providing sane and experienced advice, I do not understand why these folks cannot take it in the right spirit. Talageri is not a worthwhile or authentic interpreter of the Veda. The use of grossly wrong assumptions leads to absurd and misleading results. I do not understand why some people are so keen to defend him, when the same tendencies shown by others like Witzel have already led to disastrous results.

Nilesh Oak wrote:Then are you suggesting that during the time of rearrangement of Manadalas..or sometime before or after, immediate to this rearrangment, a fraud took place, and group of peole (Chanter of Rigveda, Brahmins, priests, whoever) took upon themselves as owner/responsible for certain Sukta and ensured their names were arranged which subsequently became Anukramanika?

Why do you call it a fraud ? It is simply an understandable human tendency to assign identities that strengthen one's links with things that one deeply cares about. The Anukramani was simply an index, it never pretended that the names listed there were the authors. This misconception has been pushed only in recent times. Now you are turning around and using that recent misconception to utter words like "fraud". Please read what both Yaska and Katyayana have to say about the "rishi":

Yaska (in Nirukta): "rshirdarshanat" (the rshi is so-called by virtue of seeing).
Katyayana (in Sarvanukramani): "yasya vakyam sa rshih" (he who speaks it is the rishi).

Neither of them says anything about authorship. Neither uses the straightforward word "krta", "virachita" (authored by/composed by), when it is common practice by authors to do so. It is discussed in detail by Kumarila in Tantravarttika. When a particular rishi spoke the Rks, he was only uttering what he already knew from someone else.

I have never seen this in any scientific field: people who simply have no background in the Vedic disciplines are going on and on about stuff that they do not know about. When they are given proper advice, they ignore it. Such folks will not listen to any words of sanity on their "missionary" quest to dislodge the AIT and replace it with the OIT version pushed by Talageri, Elst, and other quacks.

RajeshA wrote:The Anukramaṇī are hence bogus. The time, place and means of introduction of Vedas into human society is not known. Who received the Vedas is not known. There is no way to ascertain geography or history as such - not just of the Vedas (which we consider eternal), but also the history and geography of introduction of the Vedas into human society is unknown. The The Anukramaṇī shed no light on this as it is bogus anyway!

The process of developing Sanskrit from the Ṛgveda can also not be analyzed or researched. Point is we can't say anything!

This is really silly. Unfortunate that you are reduced to such arguments. Do you know the name of your own paternal ancestor from 500 BCE, let alone 5,000 or 10,000 BCE? Are you willing to "research" and analyze this ?

There are some details about the past that simply cannot be known. Live with that. Channel your energies into more useful and productive pursuits than digging for "fool's gold".

As for Sanskrit, I have already told you the answer. The humans who received the Rgveda began to analyze and interpret it over thousands of years, just as humans learned to analyze and interpret their physical surroundings. Is that so difficult to understand ?

When asked to suggest alternate view of history and geography pleads inability because everything is lost, and everything available is bogus.

You are lying. I have already told you the "alternate" view of history and geography. Why is it so important to you to know if the river Sarasvati was flowing or not in 3000 BCE? It is a trivial question, and truly it is impossible to answer it from looking at the Rgveda (though I very much doubt if you have ever read the Rgveda). Here is important history: the Indians developed Sanskrit from the RV and spread it to much of the world. Trace that spread. Do not worry about the RV itself.

Again, at the end of the day: I think you are just writing a load of nonsense about things you have never "read", "researched", or "analyzed". I have already given you sound advice. Read the RV, even if you can't speak it. It will take at least a year of full-time effort. Then come back and tell me about history and geography. If you are not planning to do that, I will assume that your long posts are just a substitute for a lack of knowledge of what is important.

RajeshA wrote:The Vedas are considered eternal and authorless, so how can a ṛṣi's name become part of the Vedic corpus? The ṛṣi's name can at best be considered an attachment, which is spoken out just before chanting the Veda sūktas. The name can never become part of the sūkta!

You obviously do not know that the Sukta itself was not an indestructible unit of the RV. The Rks can be arranged into various Suktas and this arrangement had changed in the past as well. Please read carefully:

1) If the vedas are eternal and authorless, there is obviously NO QUESTION of the rishi's name being affixed, all such names being fictitious.

2) On the other hand if the rishi composed the Rk and attached his name to it, it is A MUST that the name needs to be propagated exactly along with the recitation itself. There was no other way. The Veda was an oral transmission. Thus it would become PART of the Veda itself.

Either way, the authenticity of the Anukramani - beyond the fact that certain families maintaining the Veda had associated themselves with certain words in the Veda (such as Vasishtha, Angiras etc) - is completely fictituous. Only fools like Talageri, Elst, and Witzel's academic spawn would consider it authentic, just for the purpose of cranking out fictituous literature.

RajeshA wrote:The Vedic school of thought should never be seen as opposing or being vindictive about scientific inquiry, even in the Vedas.

First of all, analysis of the past is NOT scientific inquiry, whether it is AIT, OIT or any other such effort. It is simply an exercise in finding a consistent explanation for some past observations, some of which may not even be authentic and obviously can never be repeated. And for that reason, pointing out umpteen inconsistencies in your "pie in the sky" claims is more than enough to refute it. Not to mention the thousands of years of sensible Indian tradition which contradicts most of your claims.

venug wrote:Just curious, who authored Bible? What is Stand of Church on this? If Bible is off limits to scrutiny, why is that we don't take the same stand with regards to Vedic corpus? But again I do understand whether Bible has a author or not, Vedic Corpus can be considered given in the first place.

You are talking about authored works. The work in question is well known to have been authored by a motley crew of middle eastern characters: the oldest author (a fellow named Moses) was a wanted murderer who fled Egypt and was considered some kind of hero in Israel. Other authors include barbers, carpenters, shepherds, etc.

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

First of all, the whole idea that Anukramanis are historically authentic is false. Secondly, the idea that the RV refers to real persons, rivers, animals, etc is false (but Talageri, nor his devotees, have likely never read the RV).

Here's a real way to find out for yourself. Try the following exercise: pick any one of the following words: "gO/gau", "ashva", "sarasvati", "ratha", "vasishtha", "vishvamitra"; and list all the sentences in the Rks that refer to the word. Then tell me whether there is grounds for claiming that there are "cows", "horses", "rivers", "chariots" etc in the Rgveda.

RajeshA wrote: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.

Please do not start a new nonsensical terminology of "orthodox Mimamsakas" in order to misrepresent my position. Earlier it was the "metaphysical position", now it is this. I am asking pointed rational questions and providing ONLY information that is fully corroborated by sources. Your information is coming from people who have obviously never checked any of the primary sources. Talageri does not know any Sanskrit, let alone Vedic.

RajeshA wrote: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.

Stating the same lie in 150 pages of this thread will not make it a truth. Talageri has basically conjured up a fantasy, and he is not the first one to do it. If you read his "Rigveda Historical Analysis" book, he is so wrapped up in his fantasy that he decides it is time to "correct" the Anukramani and assign the "correct" authors for Suktas that he found to have "strange/dubious authors". Now after this admirable assertion, who does he end up assigning as authors to these suktas ? Hold your breath:

Agastya, Vasishtha, Kakshivan, Vishvamitra, Kutsa, Vamadeva, etc. In other words, the EXACT same words which have already been taken from the Rgveda and used as monikers by families. The exact same words which obviously (if one actually reads the RV) are not referring to any human authors at all. But neither you nor Talageri seems to have any idea of these facts. You go on and on about absolutely nothing.

Dan Mazer wrote: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.

Exactly. I saw your post scrolling down the thread, after writing the same thing to RajeshA. I just gave the same exercise for him to try.

Carl wrote: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?

It may be necessary if you planned to memorize the whole Veda from the age of 8. I assume you are an adult and are not planning to memorize it all. People of average or higher intelligence can easily grasp the Rgvedic recitation by careful listening, careful reading, and reference to the phonetic texts when in doubt. The Samaveda is more difficult and likely requires reference to an expert. If you are truly planning to memorize it fully, join a Vedic school.

Whatever you do, I recommend not contacting a Nambudiri or a Bengali since unfortunately the pronunciation (shiksha) is of such a corrupted quality that no benefit can be derived. Exception is if the person has consciously erased speech defects/influence of vernaculars by exercising their vocal apparatus correctly. So far I have not come across a single such case. All shishyas learn the same corrupted words from the guru

. You mentioned being connected with Tamil Nadu. Most of the Vedic experts there have an excellent pronunciation.

KL

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Oct 2012 14:15

ShauryaT wrote:There have been many kings and kingdoms. There is only one reason why MBH amongst all was maintained. Chandragupta II and Ashoka or even Raja Chola had vast kingdoms, but we do not have purans for them. MBH was written to teach the key messages of Dharma through the conduct and lives of its main characters with the central role being played by a personification of the Narayana himself. The Gita - who's design intent is one of a Moksha Shastra is just that. Now, if a Lokmanya Tilak wants to read political messages in it, then he may be able to some degree or if a self styled modern appraisal of the Gita wants management lessons from it, then maybe you can, as maybe you are doing, look for astronomical clues in MBH text to do its dating. What I have been taught is on extremely good authority on what the Gita and MBH are and after reading umpteen versions of its messages can safely vouch for, what was its design intent. The biggest proof of which is to simply see how it is being used.

ShauryaT ji,

Ramayana and Mahabharata are considered Itihaas. Itihaas means "as indeed it was". It is an account of historical events.

The reason you can view Ramayana and Mahabharata as a teaching aid in understanding Dharma, is because Dharma is in fact the thread that weaves that history together. Dharma is the lens through which this account of events is being seen. Dharma is the scales being used to weigh each and every protagonist and his deeds.

Every age has its way of seeing the world. For the rishis of yore, for these seers, for the kings, for the common man, the lens through which to perceive the political world was the moral standard, the Dharma. So of course the folding of events were seen from the perspective of Dharma - who adhered to it and when, and who failed to abide by it. And if one were to read such a work, one would of course notice that the history is being told from a PoV where everything revolves around the axis of Dharma. Dharma is the focus.

If one were to read a transcript of running commentary of a cricket match, one would notice that the lens used to see all the going-ons is "who is winning and who is losing"! Winning and Losing are the focus.

If one were to read a protocol log of a business meeting one notices that the lens used is "agreement and decision". The meeting would be viewed from the PoV of how far the various parties are from reaching an agreement or arriving at a decision.

So yes Indian Itihaas, one can say, is an account of unfolding events, from the perspective of Dharma. But there can be no doubt that it is Indian History.

ShauryaT wrote:my thrust was on its "design intent", which at least to me is very clear.

Sure one can write fiction and claim the sole aim of the work to be that of a teaching aid in Dharma. But how considerations of Dharma were weighed by the various protagonists in a true unfolding history are a lot more worth and inspiring than something fictional. With true history behind it, the use of Itihaas as a teaching aid to teach Dharma is far more effective!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Oct 2012 14:27

YouTube video below about Vedic maths. Watch for about 3 minutes from here - starts at about 9 min into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUP5rtwv ... age#t=581s

Watch the whole 34 minutes if you like but I had a sudden thought after hearing the idea that there were many words for any given number. One advantage of having multiple words for a number such as horse, chariot, Sindhu, enemy etc for numeral 1 and something else for numeral 2 etc is that you can express numbers and concepts in the form of stories or little rhymes. They may not make much sense, but they encode something different.

In fact this somehow seems to fit in with what Dubeyji said. You see if you encode cosmic sounds in word like packages, you can compose what seems to be a verse that carries meaning but may not necessarily be a narrative or a history. The use of "words" is only an aid for memorization.

If you are still interested, here is an article on the Vedic sources of maths

http://vedicmaths.org/Free%20Resources/ ... ansara.asp

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Oct 2012 15:01

shiv wrote:YouTube video below about Vedic maths. Watch for about 3 minutes from here - starts at about 9 min into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUP5rtwv ... age#t=581s

At ~21:15, Alex Bellos says, "and now Indians are learning again, well actually they are really learning it from us"

. So even though the knowledge is Indian, the Brits still want to jump in and claim some glory as the teachers of India!

Also check at 12:22. Below Adi Shankaracharya's image, the date of his birth and death are given! 507 BCE - 475 BCE. Alex Bellos of course adds that according to more "reliable sources", he is dated to 8th century AD (789 CE).

The guy is talking about it, but one can see he is both excited about what he found out but also extremely uncomfortable accepting an Indian narrative.

Anand K · Post by **Anand K** » 05 Oct 2012 15:02

What is the actual purpose of the Vedas..... if the meaning and methodology is highly complex.
I mean, we didn't have Gods who demanded obedience and sacrifices and prayers all the time or a book that says "this is all you need". Also, is there an explicit contract between the powers and man saying "pour some ghee everyday into the fire for the shiny things in the sky and we will give you rain" like in semitic faiths? (Well, it is true that there are "exceptions" like Vedic marriage ceremony where you have to defeat/weasel out of 3 Gods who own the maiden..... or a rather menacing Lord Varuna who can cast you into the House of Clay. But this is not the prevalent theme right?).

So why so much innate complexity and why the later voluminous thought on the Vedas? The Ancient Chinese don't have this, right? Where does the directive/imperative of doing all these rituals stem from? Why exactly does Indian philosophy stem from Vedas? Also, this was different from Sumerians who built little Axis Mundis and pyramids and performed rituals saying that this is a replica of the heavens. It is also different from the fertility cults with sacrificed kings & virgins (like in hacked to death and strewn over the fields)....

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 05 Oct 2012 15:06

KLPDji,
I want to express my appreciation for your inputs.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Oct 2012 17:00

RajeshA wrote:
Ramayana and Mahabharata are considered Itihaas. Itihaas means "as indeed it was". It is an account of historical events.

It is worth reading the beginning of the MbH carefully.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01002.htm

Then the greatly glorious Vyasa, addressing Brahma Parameshthi, said, "O divine Brahma, by me a poem hath been composed which is greatly respected. The mystery of the Veda, and what other subjects have been explained by me; the various rituals of the Upanishads with the Angas; the compilation of the Puranas and history formed by me and named after the three divisions of time, past, present, and future; the determination of the nature of decay, fear, disease, existence, and non-existence, a description of creeds and of the various modes of life; rule for the four castes, and the import of all the Puranas; an account of asceticism and of the duties of a religious student; the dimensions of the sun and moon, the planets, constellations, and stars, together with the duration of the four ages; the Rik, Sama and Yajur Vedas; also the Adhyatma; the sciences called Nyaya, Orthœphy and Treatment of diseases; charity and Pasupatadharma; birth celestial and human, for particular purposes; also a description of places of pilgrimage and other holy places of rivers, mountains, forests, the ocean, of heavenly cities and the kalpas; the art of war; the different kinds of nations and languages: the nature of the manners of the people; and the all-pervading spirit;--all these have been represented. But, after all, no writer of this work is to be found on earth.'

Itihaas == History is a modern usage.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Oct 2012 17:09

KLP Dubey wrote:
RajeshA wrote:The Anukramaṇī are hence bogus. The time, place and means of introduction of Vedas into human society is not known. Who received the Vedas is not known. There is no way to ascertain geography or history as such - not just of the Vedas (which we consider eternal), but also the history and geography of introduction of the Vedas into human society is unknown. The Anukramaṇī shed no light on this as it is bogus anyway!

The process of developing Sanskrit from the Ṛgveda can also not be analyzed or researched. Point is we can't say anything!
This is really silly. Unfortunate that you are reduced to such arguments. Do you know the name of your own paternal ancestor from 500 BCE, let alone 5,000 or 10,000 BCE? Are you willing to "research" and analyze this?

If my family tradition passes me a family tree account going back thousands of years, I will not be tearing it up and saying it was bogus anyway and that I have no clue who my ancestor was in 500 BCE. I'll gladly take it and thank those who maintained it!

KLP Dubey wrote:There are some details about the past that simply cannot be known. Live with that. Channel your energies into more useful and productive pursuits than digging for "fool's gold".

On this thread, the energies are being channelized to first negate AIT, and then offer own version of the spread of Indo-"European" language AND culture originating from India.

Are you doing the same on this thread?

No! But still your inputs are valuable to understand how an influential school of Vedic thought in India thinks about the historicity content the Vedas.

Also the information on Pratisakhyas and on sound change was quite valuable, but that has not been the focus of your posts. Your focus has remained on dissing Indian scholars who have batted for the Indian side, calling them frauds, quacks and buffoons.

KLP Dubey wrote:As for Sanskrit, I have already told you the answer. The humans who received the Rgveda began to analyze and interpret it over thousands of years, just as humans learned to analyze and interpret their physical surroundings. Is that so difficult to understand ?

Yes it is difficult to understand! It is counter-intuitive. Ask any rational human and he will tell you it is difficult to understand. It is difficult because all of the phonetic substance produced across the various civilizations of the world, all of the phonetic substance, in oral or textual format, being produced today is essentially done by first using knowledge of speech and then creating a phonetic work.

Even all the scriptures that are called "revealed" and thus not of human agency, are essentially also considered as "revealed" in the language already known by those to whom it was revealed. Even they don't say, that the proper nouns in the revelation were all gibberish and not understandable.

So in this way, the Vedas are unique. So it IS difficult to understand! So why not make it simpler for those who have this difficulty?

So what I am asking Vedic scholars to do is to produce a full theory of what part of the Vedic phonetics was already understood, why was it already understood, which portions were not, and how did the Vedics go about assigning physical objects to those names. What you have at the moment is an idea. You need to flesh out the theory! Give me a detailed theory on the genesis of Sanskrit from the Rigveda, and then you can come back and ask me if it is too difficult to understand.

KLP Dubey wrote:
RajeshA wrote:When asked to suggest alternate view of history and geography pleads inability because everything is lost, and everything available is bogus.
You are lying. I have already told you the "alternate" view of history and geography. Why is it so important to you to know if the river Sarasvati was flowing or not in 3000 BCE? It is a trivial question, and truly it is impossible to answer it from looking at the Rgveda (though I very much doubt if you have ever read the Rgveda). Here is important history: the Indians developed Sanskrit from the RV and spread it to much of the world. Trace that spread. Do not worry about the RV itself.

Here is the truth I haven't read the Rigveda in Sanksrit and I haven't chanted much! I have only read Rigveda in the English translation of its Sanskrit reading.

So on the question of Rigveda, I am NOT your opponent! If I have locked horns with you on any issue, then it is solely based on the logic of it.

But there are loads of Indian scholars, who have taken up on themselves to refute the claims of AIT-Nazis about the content of the Sanskritic reading of the Rigveda.

If you can't understand the relevance of Sarasvati River and its mention in the Rigveda, perhaps it is you who has to do some reading as well.

KLP Dubey wrote:the Indians developed Sanskrit from the RV and spread it to much of the world. Trace that spread. Do not worry about the RV itself.

Well first please deliver to me the exact process of how Sanskrit was developed from RV. Is this already there? Also you are telling me, I should "trace that spread"! I am sorry, but it is the job of Vedic scholars and Indic Sanskrit linguists to do so! And if I may say so, in all the 200 years plus of AIT, these experts have not done their duty and have let India down!

And instead of doing your job, you want to come on this thread and abuse scholars who have done more than their part even though they were just bank clerks! Yes, I talk of Shri Shrikant Talageri!

KLP Dubey wrote:Again, at the end of the day: I think you are just writing a load of nonsense about things you have never "read", "researched", or "analyzed". I have already given you sound advice. Read the RV, even if you can't speak it. It will take at least a year of full-time effort. Then come back and tell me about history and geography. If you are not planning to do that, I will assume that your long posts are just a substitute for a lack of knowledge of what is important.

Since it is the season of handing out sound advice, it may not be a bad idea to once in a while take your head out of Mimamsa and check out how far the Indian civilization has been gutted due to the Western narrative in the Indian education and a political system fully discontinuous with Indian past, and how poorly the Vedic scholars have really performed in countering this narrative. Perhaps even poor performance could have been excused if they had put in some effort at all.

I think those who failed to even try, cannot really give moral lectures to those tried, especially to those who succeeded, e.g. to Talageri!

KLP Dubey wrote:
RajeshA wrote:The Vedas are considered eternal and authorless, so how can a ṛṣi's name become part of the Vedic corpus? The ṛṣi's name can at best be considered an attachment, which is spoken out just before chanting the Veda sūktas. The name can never become part of the sūkta!
You obviously do not know that the Sukta itself was not an indestructible unit of the RV. The Rks can be arranged into various Suktas and this arrangement had changed in the past as well. Please read carefully:

1) If the vedas are eternal and authorless, there is obviously NO QUESTION of the rishi's name being affixed, all such names being fictitious.

2) On the other hand if the rishi composed the Rk and attached his name to it, it is A MUST that the name needs to be propagated exactly along with the recitation itself. There was no other way. The Veda was an oral transmission. Thus it would become PART of the Veda itself.

Either way, the authenticity of the Anukramani - beyond the fact that certain families maintaining the Veda had associated themselves with certain words in the Veda (such as Vasishtha, Angiras etc) - is completely fictituous. Only fools like Talageri, Elst, and Witzel's academic spawn would consider it authentic, just for the purpose of cranking out fictituous literature.

1) Why do you ignore the possibility that the rishi's name was affixed because he was the first human or Indic receiver of the Rigvedic sūkta or ṛcas?

2) Why do you think that the Anukramaṇī are being claimed as reference works to tell a Vedic chanter how to pronounce the ṛṣi's name? That is not their function.

KLP Dubey wrote:
RajeshA wrote:The Vedic school of thought should never be seen as opposing or being vindictive about scientific inquiry, even in the Vedas.
First of all, analysis of the past is NOT scientific inquiry, whether it is AIT, OIT or any other such effort. It is simply an exercise in finding a consistent explanation for some past observations, some of which may not even be authentic and obviously can never be repeated. And for that reason, pointing out umpteen inconsistencies in your "pie in the sky" claims is more than enough to refute it. Not to mention the thousands of years of sensible Indian tradition which contradicts most of your claims.

The Anukramaṇī tradition is also a sensible Indian tradition. Why such a maniac desire to rubbish it?

If the analysis of the past is based on available data like the Anukramaṇīs, then it is a scientific inquiry.

KLP Dubey wrote:
RajeshA wrote:I would be interested to know what part of Talageri's work you found wrong!
First of all, the whole idea that Anukramanis are historically authentic is false. Secondly, the idea that the RV refers to real persons, rivers, animals, etc is false (but Talageri, nor his devotees, have likely never read the RV).

Whether a particular Anukramaṇī in all its details is completely correct or not, one can't say, but the Anukramaṇī tradition is old, and basically you don't have much going to disprove this.

KLP Dubey wrote:Here's a real way to find out for yourself. Try the following exercise: pick any one of the following words: "gO/gau", "ashva", "sarasvati", "ratha", "vasishtha", "vishvamitra"; and list all the sentences in the Rks that refer to the word. Then tell me whether there is grounds for claiming that there are "cows", "horses", "rivers", "chariots" etc in the Rgveda.

Please point out specific ṛcas for comparison!

KLP Dubey wrote:
RajeshA wrote: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.
Please do not start a new nonsensical terminology of "orthodox Mimamsakas" in order to misrepresent my position. Earlier it was the "metaphysical position", now it is this. I am asking pointed rational questions and providing ONLY information that is fully corroborated by sources. Your information is coming from people who have obviously never checked any of the primary sources. Talageri does not know any Sanskrit, let alone Vedic.

No you are not asking ONLY pointed rational questions! You are abusing Indics who are fighting back the challenge of AIT and calling them names like 'buffoons' and 'quacks' and 'frauds' and 'fools'.

So why not be happy with being called an "orthodox Mimamsaka". Does it sound that bad?

KLP Dubey wrote:
RajeshA wrote: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.

Stating the same lie in 150 pages of this thread will not make it a truth. Talageri has basically conjured up a fantasy, and he is not the first one to do it. If you read his "Rigveda Historical Analysis" book, he is so wrapped up in his fantasy that he decides it is time to "correct" the Anukramani and assign the "correct" authors for Suktas that he found to have "strange/dubious authors". Now after this admirable assertion, who does he end up assigning as authors to these suktas ? Hold your breath:

Agastya, Vasishtha, Kakshivan, Vishvamitra, Kutsa, Vamadeva, etc. In other words, the EXACT same words which have already been taken from the Rgveda and used as monikers by families. The exact same words which obviously (if one actually reads the RV) are not referring to any human authors at all. But neither you nor Talageri seems to have any idea of these facts. You go on and on about absolutely nothing.

It is interesting how you are sourcing your critique of Talageri from the pages of Witzel and his puppies. If you do this you will only get confused over what Talageri's actual position is!

Even if one were to accept the position that Vedas are apaurushiya and not of human-origin, what stops the rishis who first received the Vedas to adopt these proper nouns available in the Vedas as their own names or their epithets?

What I see is that the Western scholars are busy creating and fabricating their history from pieces of stones and fragments of paper. What I see is that the Vedic scholars are busy destroying our history because it does not suit the dogma!

Anukramanis are being called fiction. Atharva Veda is being dispossessed of its authority as a Veda. In the end one starts getting cognitive dissonance.