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

[RajeshA]

Ptolemy's Geographia

The maps in surviving manuscripts of Ptolemy's Geography, however, only date from about 1300, after the text was rediscovered by Maximus Planudes. It seems likely that the topographical tables in books 2–7 are cumulative texts – texts which were altered and added to as new knowledge became available in the centuries after Ptolemy. This means that information contained in different parts of the Geography is likely to be of different dates.

Geographia as such could include all that Ptolemy collected from previous sailors, mappers and explorers, as well as new information which became available after Ptolemy.

As such Ptolemy's exact can hardly be discerned from data in Geographia extending over a time period starting centuries before him to centuries after him. The case for "contemporariness" of certain historical figures with Ptolemy cannot be made, just because there is mention of them in Geographia.

[johneeG]

There is some kind of gotala going on about Ptolemy. Islamic middle ages arabic writers thought Ptolemy as the King of Egypt from Ptolemy dynasty. That dynasty ended with Roman conquest around 30 BCE. So, this Ptolemy has to be atleast 50 BCE according middle ages arabic writers.

[RajeshA]

True. I agree. ...particularly Tiastani bit. I noticed it just after posting that earlier post. Tiastani does not sound like Castana from any angle.

The Śaka empire ruled India for 305 years between 583 BCE or a little before that till 278 BCE when Chandragupta II of the Imperial Guptas, i.e. Chandragupta-Vikramāditya, personally killed the Śaka king and threw the Śakas out of India.

Colonial eminent historians put it at 317 years, but then as said the invasions and occupation could have started a little before 583 BCE, when the coronation of the Śaka king took place. According to them, Śaka rule was between 78 CE till 395 CE.

[RajeshA]

For clarity, there was another Śaka king, Rummakeśa, who was killed by Harsha-Vikramāditya around 57 BCE, based on whose name a calendar Chaitradi Vikrama Era was introduced by astronomers. Alberuni points out that Vikramaditya killed Rummakeśa around Karur, somewhere between Multan and Loni castle.

So there are

1) Kārttikādi Vikrama Era (719-718 BCE), when Vikramāditya I throws out the Śakas, who had invaded in 723.

2) Śaka Era (583 BCE), when the Śaka king, Chastana was coronated

3) No Era - 278 BCE, when the Śaka king, Rudrasimha III was killed by Chandragupta-Vikramāditya, i.e. Chandragupta II.

4) Chaitradi Vikrama Era (57 BCE), in memory of Harsha-Vikramāditya who killed Śaka king, Rummakeśa. This is also called Vikrama Saṁvāt. Established by astronomers.

5) Śālivāhana Era (78 CE), in this case there was also a Śaka king's death, but the calendar was renamed to avoid confusion. The name is taken from a king, who lived in 9th century, who too is in legends associated with some King Vikramāditya, in some legends as a descendant and in others as an opponent. Established by astronomers.

[johneeG]

I was just going through Nellore inscriptions. One inscription says that Krishnaddva Raya was ruling in Shakha 1444. If Shakha era starts from 583 BCE, then Krishnadeva Raya would be ruling around 861 CE!

[RajeshA]

I was just going through Nellore inscriptions. One inscription says that Krishnaddva Raya was ruling in Shakha 1444. If Shakha era starts from 583 BCE, then Krishnadeva Raya would be ruling around 861 CE!

As mentioned above, in all the five eras/calendars, there is some connection with either Śaka or Vikramāditya or both, so it does get somewhat confusing. Śaka could be used in many contexts. There were however certain expressions and qualifiers used to differentiate between the various calendars. Sometimes these qualifiers are missing in some inscriptions and as such one has to use other means like historical knowledge, paleaography, etc. to find out which era is meant. Use of "Śaka" alone may not reveal the truth. The qualifiers would have to be studied as well.

[A_Gupta]

An interesting article:
http://indiafacts.org/flawed-sheet-anch ... n-history/
"Flawed Sheet Anchors of Indian History"

[peter]

An interesting article:
http://indiafacts.org/flawed-sheet-anch ... n-history/
"Flawed Sheet Anchors of Indian History"

Is it possible to devise any litmus tests to nail this forever?
What would be wrong if we date the material used to build delhi iron pillar? Any idea why we are not doing it? Anyway how do you date metal reliably?

"R. Balasubramaniam explored the metallurgy of the pillar and the iconography based on analysis of archer-type Gupta gold coins.[9] In his view, the pillar, with a wheel or discus at the top, was originally located at the Udayagiri caves, situated near Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh.[10] This conclusion was partly based on the fact that the inscription mentions Viṣṇupadagiri (meaning "hill with footprint of Viṣṇu"). This conclusion was endorsed and elaborated by Michael Willis in his Archaeology of Hindu Ritual, published in 2009.[11] The key point in favour of placing the iron pillar at Udayagiri is that this site was closely associated with Chandragupta and the worship of Viṣṇu in the Gupta period. In addition, there are well-established traditions of mining and working iron in central India, documented particularly by the iron pillar at Dhar and local place names like Lohapura and Lohangī Pīr (see Vidisha). The king of Delhi, Iltutmish, is known to have attacked and sacked Vidisha in the thirteenth century and this would have given him an opportunity to remove the pillar as a trophy to Delhi, just as the Tughluq rulers brought Asokan pillars to Delhi in the 1300s."

[peter]

Published on Jan 04, 2001
Inscription throws light on Afghan Hindu ruler: PTI

PRESS TRUST OF INDIA
Kolkata, Jan 4: A stone inscription in Sanskrit, recovered from the city of Mazar-i-Sharif of northern Afghanistan a few years ago, has thrown new light on the reign of the Hindu Shahi ruler `Veka' in that country.

The recovery and significance of the inscription, telling a story of the Hindu ruler Veka and his devotion to lord `Siva', was told by leading epigraphist and archaeologist Prof Ahmad Hasan Dani of the Quaid-E-Azam University of Islamabad at the ongoing Indian History Congress here.

If historians, preferred to revise the date of the first Hindu Shahi ruler Kallar from 843-850 AD to 821-828 AD, the date of 138 of present inscription, if it refers to the same era, should be equal to 959 AD which falls during the reign of Bhimapala'', Dani said in a paper `Mazar-i Sharif inscription of the time of the Shahi ruler Veka, dated the year 138'', submitted to the Congress.

The inscription, with eleven lines written in `western Sarada' style of Sanskrit of 10th century AD, had several spelling mistakes. ``As the stone is slightly broken at the top left corner, the first letter `OM' is missing'', he said.

According to the inscription, ``the ruler Veka occupied by eight-fold forces, the earth, the markets and the forts. It is during his reign that a temple of Siva in the embrace with Uma was built at Maityasya by Parimaha (great) Maitya for the benefit of himself and his son''.

The inscription was brought from Mazar-i-Sharif, where the tomb of Hazrat Ali, son-in-law of Prophet Mohammed is located, to Pakistan and is currently housed at the Islamabad Museum, Dani said.

Dani said ``the inscription gives the name of the king as Shahi Veka Raja and bestows on him the qualification of `Iryatumatu Ksanginanka'.... and (he) appears to be the same king who bears the name of Khingila or Khinkhila who should be accepted as a Shahi ruler''.

Dani further said ``he may be an ancestor of Veka deva. As his coins are found in Afghanistan and he is mentioned by the Arab ruler Yaqubi, he may be an immediate predecessor of Veka deva...... Both the evidences of inscription and coins suggest that Veka or Vaka should be accepted as an independent ruler of northern Afghanistan.

``Thus we find another branch of the Shahi ruler in northern part of Afghanistan beyond the Hindukush. Veka is said to have conquered the earth, the markets and the forts by his eight-fold forces, suggesting that he must have himself gained success against the Arab rulers of southern Afghanistan''.

Dani observed that going by the findings it seemed that during the rule of the Hindu Shahi ruler Bhimapala there was a break in the dynasty -- one branch, headed by Jayapala, ruled in Lamaghan and Punjab, and another branch, headed by Veka, ruled in northern part of Afghanistan.

``The northern branch must have come to an end by the conquest of Alptigin in the second half of tenth century AD'', he said.

Is anybody aware of what Maitya, Maityasya mean? Also of what era the year 138 could be?

al beruni noted that current afghanistan had majority hindu population in his time.

[peter]

Christianity that we know today is not what it started as. Some hold rather strongly and with reasonable evidence that early christians believed in transmigration of soul. Later pope etc got rid of all this. I will post a link to a book by an english author on this.
Transmigration of Christ
Please see the last para.

This is not surprising. Soul migration, or metempsychosis occurs in Greek philosophy as well and was not an unknown idea. It is possible that the concept may have come down from India from an even earlier era

Until Alexander the Greeks were "blocked" from access to India by the Zoroastrian empire. The Greeks had knowledge of Zoroaster and that religion, but Greek philosophers sometimes said things that were eerily like Vedantic concepts.

I recall reading (from multiple sources) that the Atharva Veda was like a book of spells with incantations to achieve certain goals. The Parsi holy book was supposed to be the Bhargava Atharva Veda and it also featured incantations and spells. That apart Zoroastrians too were apparently up to date with the type of Astrology used in India and the "Magi" of early Persia were known and sometimes feared for their predictions and magic. The word magic is derived from Magi as you probably know, and the story of the the 3 Magi who follow a star as an indicator of the birth of Yesu (Jesus) stinks of Astrologers and magic men from the East.

So these ideas of soul transmigration could well have been generally known in the middle east where the myth of Christ comes from.

However the point I am making is that dvaita or advaita the concept of the supreme being is one and the same in Hindu thought. It is not a God who made man in his own image who sits in an anthropomorphic fashion separate from and above his creation. Concatenating those two concepts is ignorance at best. Or snake oil of the type I would expect from a closet evangelist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Origins

[johneeG]

An interesting article:
http://indiafacts.org/flawed-sheet-anch ... n-history/
"Flawed Sheet Anchors of Indian History"

Is it possible to devise any litmus tests to nail this forever?
What would be wrong if we date the material used to build delhi iron pillar? Any idea why we are not doing it? Anyway how do you date metal reliably?

"R. Balasubramaniam explored the metallurgy of the pillar and the iconography based on analysis of archer-type Gupta gold coins.[9] In his view, the pillar, with a wheel or discus at the top, was originally located at the Udayagiri caves, situated near Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh.[10] This conclusion was partly based on the fact that the inscription mentions Viṣṇupadagiri (meaning "hill with footprint of Viṣṇu"). This conclusion was endorsed and elaborated by Michael Willis in his Archaeology of Hindu Ritual, published in 2009.[11] The key point in favour of placing the iron pillar at Udayagiri is that this site was closely associated with Chandragupta and the worship of Viṣṇu in the Gupta period. In addition, there are well-established traditions of mining and working iron in central India, documented particularly by the iron pillar at Dhar and local place names like Lohapura and Lohangī Pīr (see Vidisha). The king of Delhi, Iltutmish, is known to have attacked and sacked Vidisha in the thirteenth century and this would have given him an opportunity to remove the pillar as a trophy to Delhi, just as the Tughluq rulers brought Asokan pillars to Delhi in the 1300s."

I think metals can't be dated directly.
I think all these pillars belong to Gupthas. I think Ashoka's inscriptions also belong to Ashoka Guptha.

[johneeG]

Published on Jan 04, 2001
Inscription throws light on Afghan Hindu ruler: PTI

PRESS TRUST OF INDIA
Kolkata, Jan 4: A stone inscription in Sanskrit, recovered from the city of Mazar-i-Sharif of northern Afghanistan a few years ago, has thrown new light on the reign of the Hindu Shahi ruler `Veka' in that country.

The recovery and significance of the inscription, telling a story of the Hindu ruler Veka and his devotion to lord `Siva', was told by leading epigraphist and archaeologist Prof Ahmad Hasan Dani of the Quaid-E-Azam University of Islamabad at the ongoing Indian History Congress here.

If historians, preferred to revise the date of the first Hindu Shahi ruler Kallar from 843-850 AD to 821-828 AD, the date of 138 of present inscription, if it refers to the same era, should be equal to 959 AD which falls during the reign of Bhimapala'', Dani said in a paper `Mazar-i Sharif inscription of the time of the Shahi ruler Veka, dated the year 138'', submitted to the Congress.

The inscription, with eleven lines written in `western Sarada' style of Sanskrit of 10th century AD, had several spelling mistakes. ``As the stone is slightly broken at the top left corner, the first letter `OM' is missing'', he said.

According to the inscription, ``the ruler Veka occupied by eight-fold forces, the earth, the markets and the forts. It is during his reign that a temple of Siva in the embrace with Uma was built at Maityasya by Parimaha (great) Maitya for the benefit of himself and his son''.

The inscription was brought from Mazar-i-Sharif, where the tomb of Hazrat Ali, son-in-law of Prophet Mohammed is located, to Pakistan and is currently housed at the Islamabad Museum, Dani said.

Dani said ``the inscription gives the name of the king as Shahi Veka Raja and bestows on him the qualification of `Iryatumatu Ksanginanka'.... and (he) appears to be the same king who bears the name of Khingila or Khinkhila who should be accepted as a Shahi ruler''.

Dani further said ``he may be an ancestor of Veka deva. As his coins are found in Afghanistan and he is mentioned by the Arab ruler Yaqubi, he may be an immediate predecessor of Veka deva...... Both the evidences of inscription and coins suggest that Veka or Vaka should be accepted as an independent ruler of northern Afghanistan.

``Thus we find another branch of the Shahi ruler in northern part of Afghanistan beyond the Hindukush. Veka is said to have conquered the earth, the markets and the forts by his eight-fold forces, suggesting that he must have himself gained success against the Arab rulers of southern Afghanistan''.

Dani observed that going by the findings it seemed that during the rule of the Hindu Shahi ruler Bhimapala there was a break in the dynasty -- one branch, headed by Jayapala, ruled in Lamaghan and Punjab, and another branch, headed by Veka, ruled in northern part of Afghanistan.

``The northern branch must have come to an end by the conquest of Alptigin in the second half of tenth century AD'', he said.

Is anybody aware of what Maitya, Maityasya mean? Also of what era the year 138 could be?

Maitya & Maityasya may be a reference to an ancient kingdom called Mathsya. Maadhri ( step-mother of Arjuna) was a princess of Mathsya. Sathi Saavithri is also a princess of Mathsya.

[RajeshA]

An interesting article:
http://indiafacts.org/flawed-sheet-anch ... n-history/
"Flawed Sheet Anchors of Indian History"

Is it possible to devise any litmus tests to nail this forever?
What would be wrong if we date the material used to build delhi iron pillar? Any idea why we are not doing it? Anyway how do you date metal reliably?

"R. Balasubramaniam explored the metallurgy of the pillar and the iconography based on analysis of archer-type Gupta gold coins.[9] In his view, the pillar, with a wheel or discus at the top, was originally located at the Udayagiri caves, situated near Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh.[10] This conclusion was partly based on the fact that the inscription mentions Viṣṇupadagiri (meaning "hill with footprint of Viṣṇu"). This conclusion was endorsed and elaborated by Michael Willis in his Archaeology of Hindu Ritual, published in 2009.[11] The key point in favour of placing the iron pillar at Udayagiri is that this site was closely associated with Chandragupta and the worship of Viṣṇu in the Gupta period. In addition, there are well-established traditions of mining and working iron in central India, documented particularly by the iron pillar at Dhar and local place names like Lohapura and Lohangī Pīr (see Vidisha). The king of Delhi, Iltutmish, is known to have attacked and sacked Vidisha in the thirteenth century and this would have given him an opportunity to remove the pillar as a trophy to Delhi, just as the Tughluq rulers brought Asokan pillars to Delhi in the 1300s."

I think metals can't be dated directly.
I think all these pillars belong to Gupthas. I think Ashoka's inscriptions also belong to Ashoka Guptha.

Well I thought so too, that may be the inscriptions ascribed to Aśokavardana Maurya are actually of Samudragupta-Aśokāditya . However at the time of Samudragupta-Aśokāditya , there were also Śaka rulers to India's west, other than Greeks, and during Aśokavardana Maurya's rule there were none, only Yavanas. Megasthenes, who lived around Samudragupta-Aśokāditya's time, among other Greeks, also mentions these Śakas.

Since in the inscriptions only Yavana rulers are named to be ruling India's west, the inscription would indeed be from Aśokavardana Maurya.

_________

BTW, does anybody here know why Southern Gujarat was earlier called Lāta?

[johneeG]

I want to show the similarities between Old Testament and Hindhu scriptures. My theory is that OT stories are copies.

Mahabharatha, Vana Parva, Section 188 talks about creation which is remarkably similar to Genesis 1 creation( except garden of eden which is based on Greek stories). Noah's flood story is similar to the story of universal flood from Mahabharatha, Vana Parva, Section 154. Genesis talks about Tower of Babel story that jews and others migrated from east(somewhere in Iran) to west(Palastine). The story of Noah's sons is similar to the story of Yayathi's sons in Mahabharatha, Adi Parva, Section 45. The word Noah seems to be a corruption of the word Nahusha(father of Yayathi).

I think Exodus story has some kernel of truth. But, the Moses story has many memes similar to Shri Krushna's story from Bhaagavatham. So, Exodus seems to have been embellished using Bhaagavatham's Shri Krushna.

Book of Jobs is remarkably similar to the story of trails of King Harishchandhra in Markandeya Puraana.

Proverbs of Solomon seem very similar to Buddha's sayings.

I think Genesis, Exodus, Kings, & Solomon Proverbs books were composed orally around 700 BCE during the rule of Solomon. I think all Hindhu scriptures are earlier than that. Solomon was trading with Ophirs of distant land according to Book of Kings. Ophirs seems to be a corruption of Abhiras who were ruling in North-west India in 700 BCE after the collapse of Shaathavaahanas.

----
RajeshA saar,
I don't think any inscription from Maurya period will survive till now. Also, there are no inscriptions from other Mauryans. There are plenty of other Gupthan inscriptions. So, these Ashoka inscriptions also belong to Gupthas.
----
If someone can find the text of Nashik inscription of Shaathavaahanas, please post.

[RajeshA]

Maitya & Maityasya may be a reference to an ancient kingdom called Mathsya. Maadhri ( step-mother of Arjuna) was a princess of Mathsya. Sathi Saavithri is also a princess of Mathsya.

Thanks.

Matsya or Mathsya however refers to the Matsya Janapada (Northeastern Rajasthan), also from the time of King Virata, who were allies with the Pandavas. Madri, AFAIK, was from Madra (Western Punjab?), sister of Shalya.

Maitya & Maityasya sounds like something else to me, and so I wondered.

[johneeG]

Maitya & Maityasya may be a reference to an ancient kingdom called Mathsya. Maadhri ( step-mother of Arjuna) was a princess of Mathsya. Sathi Saavithri is also a princess of Mathsya.

Thanks.

Matsya or Mathsya however refers to the Matsya Janapada (Northeastern Rajasthan), also from the time of King Virata, who were allies with the Pandavas. Madri, AFAIK, was from Madra (Western Punjab?), sister of Shalya.

Maitya & Maityasya sounds like something else to me, and so I wondered.

Oh sorry, Maadhri is from Madhra. But, Maitya & Maitasya seem like corruptions of Mathsya.

[UlanBatori]

I c that u guys have done a nice jaab of conphirming Aryan Tourist Theory. AFAIK, there is no way to get from Afghanistan (Hazari whatever or Gaandahar) to Patna (Pataliputra?) except by crossing the mountains (Kyber / Bolan?). Yet I have seen very little discussion of this formidable trek, like "jo Gaandhara mein Gaandoo, woh Pataliputra mein bhi Gaandoo". So it was not something 'they' did a lot of.

Per Google maps, Kandahar International Airport to Patna rail station is 2347 km, takes only 474 hours to walk at a steady pace, strolling through the mountains etc. At 40 hours a week, that would be only 12 weeks, no dilly-dallying. (Hmm! I am beginning to see how the Kabuliwallaj could have reached Tagore's house, easily).

So Arjuna's Mom came strolling from there by rolling down the Khyber in her unstable top-heavy Ratha? Or carried by 4 hefty Pallak-bearers? Or riding an elephant? How old was she when she left, and how old was she when she reached wherever she married? Rode the Rajdhani express to Patna? At several months of riding on elephant-back, she would have been sea-sick for the next 6 months. Pretty hardy bibis, these!

So it is clear that yindoos came from Afghanistan, & the Ramayana and Mahabharatha were written in Afghanistan, and brought to the sdre-infested plains by the TFTA Aryans, ancestors of Shahid Afridi. AOA!

[peter]

I c that u guys have done a nice jaab of conphirming Aryan Tourist Theory. AFAIK, there is no way to get from Afghanistan (Hazari whatever or Gaandahar) to Patna (Pataliputra?) except by crossing the mountains (Kyber / Bolan?). Yet I have seen very little discussion of this formidable trek, like "jo Gaandhara mein Gaandoo, woh Pataliputra mein bhi Gaandoo". So it was not something 'they' did a lot of.

Per Google maps, Kandahar International Airport to Patna rail station is 2347 km, takes only 474 hours to walk at a steady pace, strolling through the mountains etc. At 40 hours a week, that would be only 12 weeks, no dilly-dallying. (Hmm! I am beginning to see how the Kabuliwallaj could have reached Tagore's house, easily).

So Arjuna's Mom came strolling from there by rolling down the Khyber in her unstable top-heavy Ratha? Or carried by 4 hefty Pallak-bearers? Or riding an elephant? How old was she when she left, and how old was she when she reached wherever she married? Rode the Rajdhani express to Patna? At several months of riding on elephant-back, she would have been sea-sick for the next 6 months. Pretty hardy bibis, these!

So it is clear that yindoos came from Afghanistan, & the Ramayana and Mahabharatha were written in Afghanistan, and brought to the sdre-infested plains by the TFTA Aryans, ancestors of Shahid Afridi. AOA!

I do not know what your point is. But grand trunk which is attributed to sher shah was actually built by the mauryas and ran from patna to modern kabul through khyber pass.

[KLP Dubey]

Matsya or Mathsya however refers to the Matsya Janapada (Northeastern Rajasthan), also from the time of King Virata, who were allies with the Pandavas. Madri, AFAIK, was from Madra (Western Punjab?), sister of Shalya.

Maitya & Maityasya sounds like something else to me, and so I wondered.

Oh sorry, Maadhri is from Madhra. But, Maitya & Maitasya seem like corruptions of Mathsya.

If Maitya is considered a bonafide Sanskrit word, it can only be derived from "Miti". For example "Daitya" from "Diti".

In the Veda "miti" is proposed to have the meaning "to establish".

Maityasya simply means "belonging to/of the Maityas".

In the news item posted above, words like Veka, Khingila etc do not appear to be of Sanskrit origin. This seems to be an originally non-Indian tribe that was Sanskritized and given a different name.

[shiv]

I c that u guys have done a nice jaab of conphirming Aryan Tourist Theory. AFAIK, there is no way to get from Afghanistan (Hazari whatever or Gaandahar) to Patna (Pataliputra?) except by crossing the mountains (Kyber / Bolan?). Yet I have seen very little discussion of this formidable trek, like "jo Gaandhara mein Gaandoo, woh Pataliputra mein bhi Gaandoo". So it was not something 'they' did a lot of.

Per Google maps, Kandahar International Airport to Patna rail station is 2347 km, takes only 474 hours to walk at a steady pace, strolling through the mountains etc. At 40 hours a week, that would be only 12 weeks, no dilly-dallying. (Hmm! I am beginning to see how the Kabuliwallaj could have reached Tagore's house, easily).

So Arjuna's Mom came strolling from there by rolling down the Khyber in her unstable top-heavy Ratha? Or carried by 4 hefty Pallak-bearers? Or riding an elephant? How old was she when she left, and how old was she when she reached wherever she married? Rode the Rajdhani express to Patna? At several months of riding on elephant-back, she would have been sea-sick for the next 6 months. Pretty hardy bibis, these!

So it is clear that yindoos came from Afghanistan, & the Ramayana and Mahabharatha were written in Afghanistan, and brought to the sdre-infested plains by the TFTA Aryans, ancestors of Shahid Afridi. AOA!

It's actually very zimbly eggsplained. Chariots were buried in Europe. The word "rotate" is related to the word "ratha". Therefore ratha came rotating down the road. It is another matter that Al Sikander was unable to take chariots up that road.

[johneeG]

Batori saar,
distance between Amritsar and Chennai is 2135 KM. Distance between Karachi and Kolkatta is 2185 KM.

These distances are manageable.
Lets say a bullock cart with a speed of around 2.5 KM per hour travels for 12 hrs per day. That would be 30 KM per day. In 90 days (3 months), it can cover a distance of 2700 KM.

On the other hand, if someone wants a quick journey, then its sort of possible. Lets say they travel using fast horses changing horses at certain halts, then its possible to travel much faster. Travelling at 30KM per hour for 16 hours, one can cover 480 KM per day. So, they can cover a distance of 2400 KM in 5 days.

Anyway, Gaandhaari is supposedly part of MB. Even otherwise, Gaandhaara remained part of Indian civilization.

----
Dubey saar,
there is a good possibility of misreading or wrong reading also.

[shiv]

I want to show the similarities between Old Testament and Hindhu scriptures. My theory is that OT stories are copies.

From another thread

How are Hammurabi or Moses different from Manu, Baudhayana, Apasthambha,...etc? Except very fine details, they all seem similar to me in terms of basic principle.

Is this secularism? Or digestion?
http://rajivmalhotra.com/big-ideas-2/miscellaneous/

Malhotra contends that the worldviews of Abrahamic religions are history-centric: they accord more significance to truth-claims based on specific historical narratives, than to spiritual messages of the scriptures themselves
...
Both Western and Dharmic civilizations have cherished the unity of the universe as a philosophical ideal; yet, each has emphasized a very different view of the nature, origins and process of this “unity”. Malhotra posits a crucial distinction between what he considers the “synthetic unity” of Western systems, which gave rise to a static, intellectualistic worldview, as opposed to the “integral unity” of Dharma systems, which evolved into a dynamically oriented, experiential worldview.

In Malhotra’s view, history-centric religions are characterized by the belief that divine creation is intrinsically disparate or atomistic, and that it is the divinely ordained mission of mankind to impose a synthetic unity on creation while acting as the privileged representatives of a God above.

Video from this point on explains digestion.
https://youtu.be/kjhoC4rprm0?t=101

Twisting diverse beliefs to list similarities are the first step in digestion. Discard the differences and use the similarities to "digest" one into the other.

Yo BRFites? Wassup? You guys ahead of curve or what?

[johneeG]

How can you prove out of India without showing similarities? And only west can do the digestion? It seems that fear of western digestion is interfering with clear thinking.

Its possible that west might try to digest Indian culture. In that case, one should be on offensive. I don't think defense works. You are not only suggesting defense, but even attacking others who might try offense.

[Prem]

It's actually very zimbly eggsplained. Chariots were buried in Europe. The word "rotate" is related to the word "ratha". Therefore ratha came rotating down the road. It is another matter that Al Sikander was unable to take chariots up that road.

Chariot= Char(4) Aar/Ara or Aarin or Char-ratha ( Ratha =2 wheels)
And Euro thought of it like Char-idiot.

[RajeshA]

johneeG garu,

One of the main tools of proving OIT and disproving AIT, all types of similarity considered, is chronology itself.

I disagree with you regarding the very low antiquity you sometimes offer. There is extremely deep antiquity to India. In many ways all of the 50,000 years of antiquity humans have in India, is in our collective memory in one legend or another in some form or another.

The fact that we now have exact dates for our calendars, e.g. Mahavira Nirvana of 1189 BCE, just in case Kali Yuga of 3102 BCE is not believed, and dates of several old calendars after that e.g. 719 BCE of Malava Gana Era and Saka Era of 583 BCE means that we are already anterior to anything Greeks have to offer. If we throw in Puranic and Epic history for which mostly we have texts only, history gets thrown back thousands of years.

With hard dates like that, all those eminent historians who like to dwell on speculations revolving around sound changes and absence of horses and undecipherable scripts, simply can't keep up and spin nonsense out of biogas.

It is all fine to explore sound changes, archaeological findings and Indus script, but let's not do that in the chronological context waved around by eminent historians, battling it out in a battlefield chosen by them, expending our energy trying to disprove their useless horse theories. Let's explore all that that but on our terms.

[shiv]

One of the main tools of proving OIT and disproving AIT, all types of similarity considered, is chronology itself.

I disagree with you regarding the very low antiquity you sometimes offer.

Let me offer some perspectives from my unclear mind, clouded by words like digestion.

Rajiv Malhotra points out that Abrahamic religions are "history centric" - that is the dates of their prophets and events are critical to their narrative rather than the words of the prophets themselves or any spirituality. History centricity requires dates and the western method is to reject dates that are cannot be fixed by datable written texts. If it is some old memory or narrative is is always questioned. From the Hindhoo viewpoint it is the content and not the date - with the date being a separate issue, because the spiritual content is timeless and independent of when the history of the prophet was written.

History centricity demands that the dates are fixed from visible written artefacts such as inscriptions.

I will quote examples of posts that concentrate on history centricity - about 4 out of the last 7-8 posts from JohneeG

Also, since Shakha era is at the center of it all, why not also focus its origins. It seems that some inscriptions claim that Shakha era started by Rudrsdaman around the time of Satakarni of Shathavahaana. Now, Shatakarni must be around the time of 900 BCE according to my understanding of Puranic Chronology. So, Shakha 500 would come to around 400 BCE! So, I am confused.

This Rudradaman inscription seems suspicious to me.

There is some kind of gotala going on about Ptolemy. Islamic middle ages arabic writers thought Ptolemy as the King of Egypt from Ptolemy dynasty. That dynasty ended with Roman conquest around 30 BCE. So, this Ptolemy has to be atleast 50 BCE according middle ages arabic writers.

I was just going through Nellore inscriptions. One inscription says that Krishnaddva Raya was ruling in Shakha 1444. If Shakha era starts from 583 BCE, then Krishnadeva Raya would be ruling around 861 CE!

If someone can find the text of Nashik inscription of Shaathavaahanas, please post.

This concentration on inscriptions as evidence is history centricism and is in stark contrast to millennia of pre-inscription scholarship in India. Dharma and Vedic studies do not require a specific timeline for their validity because the content is independent of a prophet and his timelines.

History centricism on this forum per se may not indicate much, but my personal observation is that converted Tamil/other southern evangelists are part of the process of making connections between Biblical history and Indian tradition. This not only aids gradual conversion, but it also works as a prelude to digestion. Once you deny spirituality and deny Advaita (as JohneeG has done) and brings the dates down to believable dates - you are setting the stage for digestion of Sanatana Dharma into Christianity - which is exactly what Malhotra warns about.

I see people who profess deep knowledge of Hindhoo texts along with apparent great familiarity with Biblical texts as a warning sign because the only way is to be aware of Indian traditions and biblical texts.

With no disrespect I view JohneeG's views as that of a Tamil (or other South Indian - possibly Andhra) Christian who has the scholarly clout to gradually weasel out spiritual and undateable Hindhoo traditions and make a connection with dated history - eventually proving the the Lord God is the One. The technique is what I am seeing and I am a firm believer in WYSIWYG. Something is either very intelligent, or too clever by half here

Please ignore as the rant of an unclear mind if necessary, but I write my thoughts.

[Vayutuvan]

shiv ji: you might have some interest in this story I found at wikipedia Gymnosophists

Ancient accounts

The term was used by Plutarch in the 1st century CE, when describing an encounter by Alexander the Great with ten gymnosophists near the banks of the Indus river in now in Pakistan.

He (Alexander) captured ten of the Gymnosophists who had done most to get Sabbas to revolt, and had made the most trouble for the Macedonians. These philosophers were reputed to be clever and concise in answering questions, and Alexander therefore put difficult questions to them, declaring that he would put to death him who first made an incorrect answer, and then the rest, in an order determined in like manner; and he commanded one of them, the oldest, to be the judge in the contest. The first one, accordingly, being asked which, in his opinion, were more numerous, the living or the dead, said that the living were, since the dead no longer existed. The second, being asked whether the earth or the sea produced larger animals, said the earth did, since the sea was but a part of the earth. The third, being asked what animal was the most cunning, said: "That which up to this time man has not discovered." The fourth, when asked why he had induced Sabbas to revolt, replied: "Because I wished him either to live nobly or to die nobly." The fifth, being asked which, in his opinion, was older, day or night, replied: "Day, by one day"; and he added, upon the king expressing amazement, that hard questions must have hard answers. Passing on, then, to the sixth, Alexander asked how a man could be most loved; "If," said the philosopher, "he is most powerful, and yet does not inspire fear." Of the three remaining, he who was asked how one might become a god instead of man, replied: "By doing something which a man cannot do"; the one who was asked which was the stronger, life or death, answered: "Life, since it supports so many ills." And the last, asked how long it were well for a man to live, answered: "Until he does not regard death as better than life." So, then, turning to the judge, Alexander bade him give his opinion. The judge declared that they had answered one worse than another. "Well, then," said Alexander, "thou shalt die first for giving such a verdict." "That cannot be, O King," said the judge, "unless thou falsely saidst that thou wouldst put to death first him who answered worst." These philosophers, then, he dismissed with gifts...
— Plutarch, Life of Alexander, "The parallel lives", 64-65.

Diogenes Laertius (ix. 61 and 63) refers to them, and reports that Pyrrho of Elis, the founder of pure scepticism, came under the influence of the Gymnosophists while travelling to India with Alexander, and on his return to Elis, imitated their habits of life; however, the extent of their influence is not described.

I suspect etymology of the word "pyrrhic" is in someway related to Pyrrho (or his philosophy). I haven't checked that though. The wikipedia page on Gymnosophy has some interesting information.

[Vayutuvan]

Why do we need to show link? Isn't it simpler to digest by co-opting their symbols into Indian pantheon? or is the intention is to play fair? A kind of dharma yuddha (just war? may not be equivalent but could b close) so to speak!

[shiv]

shiv ji: you might have some interest in this story I found at wikipedia Gymnosophists

NIce

Greek philosophy is something that I "brushed across" - i.e read a little but not in enough detail to recall the dozens of names and the theories they propounded. I have yet another book on the subject waiting on the shelf. The problem about Greek philosophy (for me) is that it is again coloured by the English translations I read. Furthermore even original texts have been interpreted and reinterpreted in fancy ways to suit European norms. But there is a lot in old Greek thought that mimics Vedanta - or at least makes suggestions that sound like concepts lifted out of Vedanta. Clearly there were ancient connections between Greece and India before Alexander.

I read most of Plato's "Republic" in translation. Let me simply quote something that Plato said, which should ring a bell (lifted from the internet)

One of Plato's main assertions is the Theory of the Forms, that people see shadows of the ideal forms of things and that those ideal forms exist above and beyond people's experience. What people can see, Socrates and Plato, is a copy or a version of the ideal form of something; and only by practicing reason and intense contemplation can people come close to experiencing that ideal.

This sounds like a fairly close approximation of the relationship between the maya we sense and the reality of Brahman

But I digress. Plato envisioned an ideal republic in which what was spoken about was "rational" and credible to the human mind. He wanted that even authors of stories should stop writing about gods with superhuman powers that were outside of human experience. It is this ideal that has now been taken up by the Western world - particularly Protestant who have given birth to modern capitalism and universalism. Christ and his life were the last "miracles" that were accepted. No more miracles after Christ. Everything rational and recorded by observers. The lack of possibility of miracles after Christ is a schism between the Catholic church and Protestants

[RajeshA]

shiv saar,

Rajiv Malhotra's prescriptions on caution regarding similarities between Indic and Biblical worlds are restricted to "religion" only and that too as far as "adhikāra" or authority is concerned. Biblical adhikāra is based on history-centricity while ours is content-based.

This cautionary advice does not however preclude that both religious traditions have a history of evolution, perhaps not the Vedas but the rest. It refers to since when Indians had access to what aspects of our faith and who were the agents and authors and thinkers who enabled that access.

For us any exploration of that in itself does not trample upon the issue of "adhikāra" as say it would in case of Abrahamic religions. In fact, this is also their weakest point.

I agree they have a far better academic and propaganda infrastructure to try to use and abuse any similarities, hence Rajiv Malhotra''s sage advice.

However addressing the issue of history based on our inscriptions and texts, has little to do with religion, around which Rajiv Malhotra's advice is useful. This is purely and simple "history".

[johneeG]

Shiv,
That was a cheap shot to accuse me of being a crypto-christian. I could turn around and accuse you of the same. For the record, I am not a christian...neither by birth nor choice. I don't believe in historical jesus or jesus of faith.

If Abrahamic religions are more history centric and Indic religions are more philosophy centric, then why are you opposing my post which shows similarity in historical narratives?

There is lot of muddled thinking in your post. If you think that a converted christian would try to show similarities between Indic & Abrahamic scriptures, then I think you are wrong. Generally, they seem to believe in Aryan Invasion, St Thomas, ...etc.

Next, cultural digestion and familiarity with various cultures:
If west is able to digest other cultures, then its because they support their intellectuals(not just PhDs either). Infact, they seem to immediately adopt any deconstruction of competing cultures. In contrast, not many indics do research and deconstruction of other cultures, and even if someone does it, no one pays attention. Further, people may start making all sorts of baseless allegations.

Next, dates and written texts:
This is the problem. This topic clearly illustrates my point on deconstruction. Dates and written texts are actually a big problem for Abrahamic religions particularly christianity and islam. Atleast, Indic religions are so ancient that they can hide behind time. Historicity is actually much more harmful to claims of Christianity and Islam.

About Oral Traditions:
Oral traditions are not unique to any group. Every culture can boast of oral traditions. Generally, oral traditions are easily corrupted and not easy to date. Vedhas(excluding Vedhaantha) might be the only oral tradition which is geared to stop corruption. All other oral traditions would be corrupted to varying degree. Most would be completely corrupted.

Finally, when did I deny Adhvaitha? Ok, I think that if there is one philosophy which has some merit, then it is Adhvaitha( or even Vedhantha in general). Of course, I dont completely buy tradition completely because I think most of it is based on Mimamsa.

[shiv]

Shiv,
That was a cheap shot to accuse me of being a crypto-christian. I could turn around and accuse you of the same. For the record, I am not a christian...neither by birth nor choice. I don't believe in historical jesus or jesus of faith.

Cheap shot to you. Honest and up front to me. Good thing you got that out of the way.

If Abrahamic religions are more history centric and Indic religions are more philosophy centric, then why are you opposing my post which shows similarity in historical narratives?

There is lot of muddled thinking in your post. If you think that a converted christian would try to show similarities between Indic & Abrahamic scriptures, then I think you are wrong. Generally, they seem to believe in Aryan Invasion, St Thomas, ...etc.

You say what you think. I say what I think

Dates and written texts are actually a big problem for Abrahamic religions particularly christianity and islam. Atleast, Indic religions are so ancient that they can hide behind time. Historicity is actually much more harmful to claims of Christianity and Islam.

No. Not the way arguments are constructed.

Oral traditions are not unique to any group. Every culture can boast of oral traditions. Generally, oral traditions are easily corrupted and not easy to date. Vedhas(excluding Vedhaantha) might be the only oral tradition which is geared to stop corruption. All other oral traditions would be corrupted to varying degree. Most would be completely corrupted.

This is rhetoric. Not fact. Oral tradition that Muslims killed Hindus can be stated as "completely corrupted"

Once you start doubting oral traditions randomly based on what you feel might be right in terms of amount of corruption (where "completely corrupted means totally false" then you are scoring the very goals that Abrahamic religions are trying to score. You need not agree with this but we are going to disagree if you do.

Finally, when did I deny Adhvaitha? Ok, I think that if there is one philosophy which has some merit, then it is Adhvaitha( or even Vedhantha in general). Of course, I dont completely buy tradition completely because I think most of it is based on Mimamsa.

You said:

creationism is not same as christianity. Even Vedhas and Puraanas preach creationism

and

Sayana himself being Vedhanthin would have had great temptation to interpret Vedhas using Upanishadhs. But, he didnt do it. Instead, he gave a ritualustic interpretation, so that should carry some weight.

and in another thread you said:

How are Hammurabi or Moses different from Manu, Baudhayana, Apasthambha,...etc? Except very fine details, they all seem similar to me in terms of basic principle.

I see these arguments leading to your favouring Sayana's Dvaita over Advaita. You even choose to read Sayana's mind and say that "He must have been tempted to do blah blah but did not" You see Manu and Moses as similar. You see creationism as one and the same as preached in Christianity and in Puranas.

You also said

Vedhas are man made. Vedhas having non-human origin is a nonsensical dogma of Mimamsa school

So here you are rejecting some basic tenets of Hindu belief.

Then you say:

Every culture can boast of oral traditions. Generally, oral traditions are easily corrupted and not easy to date. Vedhas(excluding Vedhaantha) might be the only oral tradition which is geared to stop corruption.

That means Vedanta could be corrupt because it is excluded from the method to stop corruption. You also say that you do not fully accept things that are based on mimamsa

So you have a conditional acceptance of some things from Hindu knowledge, and you are unable to see how the things that you do believe are different from things that are dogma in Christianity like creationism.

You are narrowing down the time range and breadth of Hindu philosophy and equating with Christianity and you say that you are not a closet evangelist. My mind might be muddled, but it would not require too much thought on your part to understand that it is your posts that are muddled. There is nothing clear about what you say other than dogmatic argument and disagreeing with what you don't like. But then you don't seem to care much for critical thought.

[shiv]

However addressing the issue of history based on our inscriptions and texts, has little to do with religion, around which Rajiv Malhotra's advice is useful. This is purely and simple "history".

We have had some discussions around this issue.

"History" was defined after Christ as that which is recorded. That rules out anything that does not exist as a written document that can be dated. It also explains how written history proliferated after Christ, but before Christ only a few existing texts and inscriptions are accepted and wild guesses made about dates. No narrative is accepted except where convenient.

This also means that India has no history before the oldest inscription found in India. The definition of history and religion are closely intertwined and it is not as if history is secular and unconcerned with religion. The concept of history as chronicle is a Christian construct that accepts Biblical truths and rejects (or casts doubt), using various mechanisms, on anything that which is older.

Puranas are therefore "not history" while the Bible is History. Once you start playing their "inscriptions" and "recorded chronicles game" they have you by the proverbials. That is the only point I wish to make. You will never find history through a route that was meant to give Europeans a history they could take pride in

[RajeshA]

A few more words to history-centricity:

I think we need to draw some distance between Hindu Dharma and its history on the one hand Bharata's political history. Inscriptions go a long way in clarifying our political history and with respect to religious issues, these inscriptions are completely neutral.

If we are talking about Śaka Era, or Mālava-Gaṇa Era, there is nothing religious about it. That is political history. Buddhism and Jainism have some history-centricity about them, but even there most are not really bothered about the when some Nirvāṇa happened, only that it happened. Still their own records have a tradition of dating.

For Buddha-Nirvāṇa, some dates in question are 2134 BCE, 1807 BCE and 1658 BCE. These dates are important not from the sense of religion but because political history like that of Mauryas is connected to it. Similarly Mahāvīra-Nirvāṇa would be 1189 BCE. Again the age of some political dynasties are referred to in terms of this era.

Some of us have for some reason come to think that when we talk about Hindus, only Dharma and its contents are of relevance and ancient political, commercial, military, architectural, literary and scientific history is unimportant. There is a lot more to Indics than just Yoga, Dhyana and Bhajan. And all of that rest has history, and that history is ancient and it is important.

I would separate the eras in

1. Modern (1947 CE - *) ...... Starting with Indian Independence
2. Colonial (1757 CE -1947 CE) ...... Starting with the British conquest of Mainland India
3. Medieval (1000 CE -1757 CE) ...... Starting with the Muslim conquest of Mainland India
4. Classical (200 BCE - 1000 CE) ...... Starting with End of Gupta period
5. Imperial (1616 BCE - 200 BCE) ...... Starting with Mahapadma Nanda taking over
6. Epical (3500 BCE - 1616 BCE) ....... Starting with the Mainstream Traditional Account of Mahabharata continuing with the Hastinapura Empire, including the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization period
7. Puranic (13,000 BCE - 3,500 BCE) ..... Starting with the Ramayana period and including 1st and 2nd Sangam
8. Mythological (* - 13,000 BCE) ....... "Satya Yuga" mythological interpretations

Most of what constitutes the foundations of Indian philosophy and civilization were already laid down before the Imperial Era began. Some would argue that these were already laid down before the start of Kali Era (3102 BCE).

I am not saying we "need" dates for anything which constitutes our religious texts or personalities, or happenings which took place in the "Puranic" and "Mythological" period, but there is a lot of historical data after that as well, which we would find interesting.

I am not bringing in Veda or Vedic at all in the above classification.

However addressing the issue of history based on our inscriptions and texts, has little to do with religion, around which Rajiv Malhotra's advice is useful. This is purely and simple "history".

We have had some discussions around this issue.

"History" was defined after Christ as that which is recorded. That rules out anything that does not exist as a written document that can be dated. It also explains how written history proliferated after Christ, but before Christ only a few existing texts and inscriptions are accepted and wild guesses made about dates. No narrative is accepted except where convenient.

This also means that India has no history before the oldest inscription found in India. The definition of history and religion are closely intertwined and it is not as if history is secular and unconcerned with religion. The concept of history as chronicle is a Christian construct that accepts Biblical truths and rejects (or casts doubt), using various mechanisms, on anything that which is older.

Puranas are therefore "not history" while the Bible is History. Once you start playing their "inscriptions" and "recorded chronicles game" they have you by the proverbials. That is the only point I wish to make. You will never find history through a route that was meant to give Europeans a history they could take pride in

If one does not want to use the word history, then one can use the word, "Date-able Past" or "Chronology".

However I think this is a defeatist attitude. It is throwing up our hands in front of a people who have no history of themselves (North-Europeans) from before 1000 CE and live on borrowed history of Greeks, Hebrews, Egyptians and Babylonians. It is like letting oneself be bullied by a loud toddler with a mood.

Why were all those dynasties in India putting out date-able inscriptions? Why did they establish so many calendars? Why were they being so precise with the position of Sun, Moon, and the eclipses? I don't think they anticipated that their descendants would feel so cowered by some Mlechchhas to even touch the concept of chronology!

Our "date-able inscriptions" were not put up there by Europeans! These inscriptions were made by our monarchs, by Indians, and these inscriptions deserve our attention and respect. What do they have to do with Europeans? Nothing. These inscriptions were there before Europeans came to India.

Sure Europeans have their own interpretations of these inscriptions but as I mentioned earlier as well, most of the mess and confusion they created, has already been clarified. There really isn't anything there to be afraid of anymore.

[shiv]

If one does not want to use the word history, then one can use the word, "Date-able Past" or "Chronology".

However I think this is a defeatist attitude. It is throwing up our hands in front of a people who have no history of themselves (North-Europeans) from before 1000 CE and live on borrowed history of Greeks, Hebrews, Egyptians and Babylonians. It is like letting oneself be bullied by a loud toddler with a mood.

I agree with your attitude, but the minute white man walks in and says that something is not "attested" by textual or archaeological find, you find Indians falling in line behind him. This problem cannot be wished away easily. It is because of this that all of Indian history is based on numismatics, inscriptions and tattle tales of Al Beruni and Chinese travellers.

[UlanBatori]

Oral traditions..

I just found a stone in my backyard that came up when I was digging a ditch. It said:

Moxxxxxd was here. 4500 BCE.

Or so I write on BRF in 1192 ME (Malloostani Era). This post will be archived by the Google Bot and the Hing Tsiau Bot and of course the NSA bot so it will be documented in 3 places of unquestionable Authority.

1000 years from now, those Decoding the Google Code and the Hing Tsiau Code will independently verify this Clear Documented Proof that Islam existed in Mongolia looooong b4 the westerners say He appeared in Makkah. And this is oral tradition because I have said so. If you also say it then I will turn around and tell shiv that I heard it from you. And he will say that there is documented evidence, and then everyone will believe him.

[JE Menon]

>>Mahabharatha, Vana Parva, Section 188 talks about creation which is remarkably similar to Genesis 1 creation( except garden of eden which is based on Greek stories).

The only similarity that I can see is that there is reference to creation. Neither the manner in which it was done, nor the associated statements have similarity unless you really stretch it, in which case you can say it has similarity with any creation story. Furthermore, if the argument is that the Genesis creation myth was derived from the Vana Parva description then what are the interim points on the way there… The garden of Eden mythology is from Mesopotamia originally, not Greece (actually have never heard any Greek connection to it).

>>Noah's flood story is similar to the story of universal flood from Mahabharatha, Vana Parva, Section 154.

Checking through this section, I found no reference to a universal flood story. I suppose you mean the Vana Parva section 154 (Tirtha Yatra Parva). I’m no expert on the Mahabharatha, not even a casual one – so please point out which reference you are pointing to exactly.

>>Genesis talks about Tower of Babel story that jews and others migrated from east(somewhere in Iran) to west(Palastine). The story of Noah's sons is similar to the story of Yayathi's sons in Mahabharatha, Adi Parva, Section 45. The word Noah seems to be a corruption of the word Nahusha(father of Yayathi).

Again, I might be looking in the wrong place, but Adi Parva, Section 45 (Astika Parva), is mainly the story of the penance of Jaratkaru, the Pithris and the value of children. Please clarify if this is what you are referring to, and if yes, there’s no mention of Yayathi or his sons except for a reference to the Yayavara sect.

>>I think Exodus story has some kernel of truth. But, the Moses story has many memes similar to Shri Krushna's story from Bhaagavatham. So, Exodus seems to have been embellished using Bhaagavatham's Shri Krushna.

Not sure what you are saying here. That the Exodus story has truth in it is not much disputed any more. But the only real similarity between the Moses story and that of Krishna is that of the saved child, his triumph over evil, but in that sense it is not too different from the “link” between the Jesus story and the Krishna story. From there to the following “so, Exodus seems to have been embellished using Bhaagavatham’s Shri Krushna” is fantastic.

>>Proverbs of Solomon seem very similar to Buddha's sayings.

Only to the extent that common sense is very similar to the Proverbs of Solomon. One only needs to read it https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... verbs%2010 to understand how rustic and agrarian/settled community focused it is – compared to the profundity of the thought of the Buddha. For instance, consider this gem from Captain Obvious: “Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth”. No shyte? You do a severe injustice to Buddhism here.

I have made my concerns about your approach clear in a post in the previous page.

[JE Menon]

Oral traditions..

I just found a stone in my backyard that came up when I was digging a ditch. It said:

Moxxxxxd was here. 4500 BCE.

If that's what it said, it must have been Anal Tradition... petrified

[JE Menon]

OK, peoples we are straying way OT... This is the Out of India Thread. Historical discussions, please take to Towards a New History of India.

[RajeshA]

OK, peoples we are straying way OT... This is the Out of India Thread. Historical discussions, please take to Towards a New History of India.

JE Menon saar,

As such I agree with you, however here I would like to convey in context of this thread that there has been a new and I would say a revolutionary development, which is of central importance to the OIT mission statement.

Till a few months ago, there was confusion reigning regarding our chronology. With Vedveer Arya's Book, a qualitative change has come about. Most of the confusion has dissipated. In fact, the weight of inscriptional data is so much against the theories of eminent historians, that it makes AIT completely untenable.

We had a problem earlier in using Puranic data to counter colonial theories. That problem is gone. Inscriptional evidence has sounded the permanent deathknell of AIT and as such it needed to be mentioned here.