sudarshan wrote:johneeG wrote:
Sudarshan,
stop commenting on me and my thinking and all that. Counter the posts(if you can) not the posters. Elementary etiquette.
There was no comment about you, your motives, your private life, no name-calling, or anything like that. Yes, I *was* commenting about the thinking behind the post. Are you saying the thinking behind a post is above criticism, and only the post itself should be countered? IOW, the thinking is separate from the post? I have countered your posts in the past (or agreed with them as well, as the case may be), but if I see a repeated pattern of thought, that should not be called out? Is that your idea of posting etiquette?
Anyway, to address your specific post:
The star canopus is called Agasthi.
The Rushi is named Agasthya.
The star name is not derived from the Rushi's name. On the other hand, its the Rushi's name which is derived from the star name. Canopus is a prominent southern star. I think Agasthya(related to Agasthi) simply means southerner.
How do you categorically state that the Rishi's name is derived from the star, simply from the word endings? Both names could be corruptions of the original names. In which case, it is impossible to tell what is derived from what. Or "Agasthya" could be the original name, which could mean anything - it could be a flower, a pot, a southerner - all of those speculations are there on this very thread. Agasthya the sage could have decided to name the star after himself, and named it as "Agasthi," meaning "this is the star from which I have come." The relation could be in his own mind. But the star's name is in that case still derived from the Rishi's name, not the other way round. There is no basis for the categorical statement you made. This is a comment on your post and certainly also on the logic (thinking) behind it, not on you.
P.S.: If anybody else here sees a repeated and flawed pattern in the thought process behind my posts, please do (politely) point it out. No name calling, no personal attacks, no belaboring the point, just a clear indication of what pattern I'm falling into, and why you think it is flawed. I'd be grateful for the opportunity to improve my thinking.
This is called an an adhominem attack: " Unfortunately, that is
very often the standard of johneeG's logic. Sherlock Holmes style leaps from observation to conclusion, which sounds great in detective novels, but doesn't work so well in real life."
And the worst part of your post was that you never even got into showing why that particular logic was wrong. And this seems to be the basic pattern. I saw the same pattern involving the same set of members in archeo-astronomy thread when Peter was raising some points. Now, its very well possible that both sides may have some a valid and invalid points. But, one set seems to be indulging in ad hominem attacks rather than sound arguments to support their points.
Now, the second problem with your post is that you missed the context of my post and flow of discussion. Atleast, if you had read my reply to Pulikeshi's post, you wouldn't have basically asked the same questions for which I already answered in that post. So, before you leap on to your namecalling pattern, atleast make sure you understand the context and flow of discussion by reading a few posts related to that post. If you don't have the time or interest to follow a discussion, then atleast don't reply with adhominems to some random post without understanding the context.
The flow of discussion was that Nilesh and Rajesh were discussing about the connection of Star Canopus and Rushi Agasthya based on Abhyankar's article. I pointed out that in that context that the star name is not Agasthya but Agasthi. And Agasthi cannot be derived from Agasthya. The reverse is possible. Then, I stated my view that I think Agasthya is derived from Agasthi. And then Pulikeshi jumped over it and you started trolling and namecalling. Then, when I point that out, you are trying to justify that. You basically did this same namecalling thing in Epics discussion thread. So, its not one off. Its a pattern. The problem is that you are not even understanding the difference between shooting the message and shooting the messenger. If you counter a post with some good logic or arguments, I don't mind that even if its my post. I might even agree with your arguments. But, if you are not capable of doing that, then atleast please don't launch into ad hominems and silly ganging up to troll.
Now, some of the points you make in this post:
- How do you categorically state that the Rishi's name is derived from the star, simply from the word endings?
How do I make this conclusion simply from word endings? Just as anyone who understands some english would say that 'unmoving' is derived from 'moving' and reverse is not possible. Similarly, Sthya does not become Sthi. Sthi can become Sthya. So, no possibility of Agasthi being derived from Agasthya and the possibility of Agasthya being derive from Agasthi is there.
- Both names could be corruptions of the original names. In which case, it is impossible to tell what is derived from what. Or "Agasthya" could be the original name, which could mean anything - it could be a flower, a pot, a southerner - all of those speculations are there on this very thread
Yes, its possible to get several kinds of etymologies on Agasthya and Agasthi separately with some cognates. But, you are missing the context. The context is: are the two directly related to each other or not. I am not categorically stating that Rushi's name is derived from the star. I am saying that if they are connected, then only Rushi's name can be derived from the star, not the other way around. If they are not related, then well they are not related.
- Agasthya the sage could have decided to name the star after himself, and named it as "Agasthi," meaning "this is the star from which I have come."
Nilesh Oak wrote:JohneeG writes..
Nilesh,
I am not really making any claim in that particular post. I was point out that you are making two claims:
1) there are no astronomical inconsistencies in Ramayana & MB.
2) astronomical observations can be used to show that a work has no interpolations.
So, the burden of proof is on you.
What nonsense!
Above post of yours has significant logical problems. The pure lack of misunderstanding of a scientific process is the cause of all this illogic.
--
I would encourage you to go back to AV observation and stay there until you figure out why that is an astronomy observation among the list of omens, that is testable, while many others, especially non-astronomy observations, are not!
(The fact I have tested all astronomy observations of chapter 2 and 3 and have corroborated them for 5561 BCE is a proof enough that they are factual observations of the sky.)
Then have a look at my work (reading a book, multiple times could be a good start). Irrespective of the path chosen, until and unless one is convinced that AV observation is an observation that was tested (by me) in an subject independent fashion and that leads to a lower bound of 4508 BCE for the timing of Mahabharata war, there is no point going any further.
Let me know when you are convinced of AV observation and its implication. At that point, we may have something to discuss that would in turn lead to further growth of knowledge.
No, Nilesh. You are jumping all over the place.
1) Are you making the following claims or not. Clarify.
a) there are no astronomical inconsistencies in Ramayana & MB.
b) astronomical observations can be used to show that a work has no interpolations.
2) If you are making above claims, then you will have to back them up right?
3) In the earlier post you had said that your date for MB didn't depend on the Arundhati at all and there was some 92 days of Bhishma to prove your date for MB. So, is your date of MB depending on Arundhathi or not?
4) The Bhishma Parva section 2 & 3 are not omens or anything. They are just impossibilities. Rivers don't flow in reverse. Idols don't laugh and vomit blood. They are impossibilities.
5) You say that Astronomical observations of Bhishma Parva are still valid even if all the non-astronomical stuff does not make sense. Then I ask you, do you take literal meanings of those astronomical observations or do you have to be innovative in your interpretation to make sense of it? If you have to be innovative to make sense of it, it shows that it literally makes no sense.
6) The whole tone of those two sections is of abnormality and, unprecedentedness. If your date for MB is true, then why should anybody be surprised about Arundhathi being ahead of Vashista? That would be expected and normal.