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

[Pulikeshi]

If you carefully trace the lineages and genealogies mentioned in various scriptures, then you will reach the only conclusion that most of them are related to each other and belong to a very small time-period(about 100-200 yrs).

You are quite correct - if you examine the book religions carefully - the characters: Ibrahim (Abraham), Yeshuva (Jesus), Yusuf (Joseph), Yohanna (John), Sarika (Sara), Mani, Zartosht (Zoroaster), Yakub (James), Muhammed (Mohammed), Ali, A'isha (Ayesha) & Me lived within a span of 100-200 yrs - relatively close together. Explains why they had to other the other!

Now before you get angry and respond - realize that my guess is as good as yours and even more valid in my opinion!

[RajeshA]

All children, disciples (especially if they did not stick to another lineage, as their name) and descendants of these are Vasisthas too.

We have 'deified' Vasistha (in the form of Star Mizar) at the time of Ramayana itself. There is Vasistha in Ramayana (12209 BCE) and there is Vasistha in Mahabharata (5561 BCE).

There is Valmiki in Mahabharata, too (5561 BCE), of course descendant of Ramayana Valmiki.

Not just Vashishta, but many other sages are mentioned commonly in most of the Hindu and Buddhist works.Most of the characters like Vasishta(Koshala), Vishwamithra(of Magadha), Dhaumya(Koshala), Upamanyu, Uddalaka Aruni(of Paanchala), Swethasvathara, Katyayana, Maitreya(of Kashi), Jaimini, Yagnyavalkya Vajasenaya(of Vidheha), Satyakama Jabala(of Shibhi), Ashvalayana(of Koshala), Garga(of Saurashtra), Sukesha Bharadhwaja, Bhargava(of Vidharbha), Jamadhagni, Apasthmba, Asitha, Dhevala, Dhalbhya, Shunaka, Agasthya(from South), Baudhayana, Gauthama(Nyaya), Shukra, Bruhaspathi...etc are mentioned in various scriptures.


They are used as characters in Ramayana, Mahabharatha, Puraanas, Upanishadhs & Vedhas. Most of these figures are related to each other. Either they are contemporaries. Or sons or grandsons. Or disciples...etc. In short, this whole thing set of people lived in, not more than 100-200 yrs. Some of the older Vedhic rushis like Vashishta & Vishwamithra may be slightly older that that.

Now, the traditional or conservative interpreters try to justify the long timeline by giving huge lifetimes to these figures. But, that doesn't work because not only do these works commonly mention sages, but they also mention many common kings in various Hindu & Buddhist scriptures.

Kings of Upanishadh period:
Janaka Vidheha
Ashvapathi Kaikeya
Pravahana Jaivali - Paanchala
Ajathashatru - Kaashi

Ajathashathru is mentioned in Buddhist works as a contemporary of Buddha. Puraanas say that Ajathashathru was King of Magadha. Upanishadhs call Ajathashathru as King of Kashi while they remain silent on Maghadha kingship. So, one would have to conclude that Ajathashathru conquered Kaashi while he was ruling Maghadha. Buddhist and Jain works tell about Ajathashathru conquering Licchavis of Vaishali. Mention of Ajathashathru proves that point that Upanishadhs were contemporary of Buddha.

Next,
Ashvapathi of Kekeya is mentioned as the uncle of Bharatha in Baala Kaanda of Ramayana. Janaka of Vidheha is mentioned as the father-in-law of Raama in Baala Kaanda of Ramayana.

Now, the traditionalists try to argue that sages can live for long periods. But, how will they explain the common Kings?

The next argument is to say that this is not the same person but a different person:
If one argues to that the reference is to different people, then every time a name is mentioned, one can assume that its new person. That would lead to absurdity. If its a different person, then his differentiating quality would be mentioned in the scripture. If nothing is mentioned, then we have to assume that the reference is to the original guy.

Since, Baala Kaanda of Raamayana contains a lot of references to Vedhic rushis like Vashishta and Vishwamithra, I think Baala Kaanda is not part of the original Raamayana. Rather, Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda are a later prequel and sequel to Raamayana.

----
If you carefully trace the lineages and genealogies mentioned in various scriptures, then you will reach the only conclusion that most of them are related to each other and belong to a very small time-period(about 100-200 yrs).

If one reduces these ancient ṛṣi seats to just one person, then one might as well condense all of Indian history to a couple of centuries and be done with it. Sadly it is premature and an extremely counter-productive form of speculation.

Even today one simply speaks of Dalai Lama. In most references pertaining to Dalai Lama, there is no mention of the number (current being the 14th) or the original name of the Dalai Lama (current's name being Tenzin Gyatso), so from where arises this certainty that in any mention of Vaśiṣṭha, there ought to be a further details on which Vaśiṣṭha, if there were more than one.

How can we be sure what exactly was the reason for our historians to use the same title, e.g. Vaśiṣṭha? It can be any number of reasons, one simply being that when one becomes a brahmacharya/sanyasi/jogi, one cuts off all familial ties. May be the head of a ṛṣi order was always called Vaśiṣṭha. May be everybody belonging to the specific ṛṣi order were called Vaśiṣṭha and as such there were multiple Vaśiṣṭhas at any given time. May be it was a title that disciples received when they had attained a certain level of knowledge. May be all the deeds that anyone called Vaśiṣṭha did were meant to be ascribed to the whole ṛṣi lineage and not just one person, as the person was considered to have elevated himself above his personal boundaries and have become one with the lineage itself. There are several reasons for use of the name of Vaśiṣṭha.

To be frank, this is the kind of speculation that AIT-Nazis in the West and "Eminent" Historians in India indulge in, any method available to compress the chronology. I don't understand why you have chosen to do so too.

[Muppalla]

Muppalla: Textbook jollies again?

Yes sir. In the past we only has BRF and few blogs to take care. The deracinated under the garb of Hindu right has risen multi fold and few lines of casual gyan spread is not sufficient. Folks need academic level responses because gawaads are considers as untouchables. In the new battleground, I have to brush up details.

I was reading this thread versions but max only browsing thorugh. I don't know what the hell this Y-chromosomes like anthrax spread mean an invasion.

In the current scenario, the blogosphere is filled with different types of fan clubs. Sri Sri fans, RM fans, MT fans and bakts (gawaads). Bakts always gets pushed out by these new Columbia/Stanford types of the Indian RW. With the spare time I have, I am attempting to battle harden and trying to get equipped.

[UlanBatori]

The snooty ones cut and run like the Flee Syrian Almy when faced with real opposition: they squeal and come to the likes of us at the 11th hour 59th minute. Most of the fan clubs are just that, fan clubs.
Like the RuAF, our strike craft may be old but they are not useless.

On textbooks though, my take is that there are enough rich desis out there now, to be able to render the official textbooks completely useless, if they want. We can teach kids entirely through the Internet and Amazon and laugh the other side out.

[Nilesh Oak]

JohneeG writes...

If you carefully trace the lineages and genealogies mentioned in various scriptures, then you will reach the only conclusion that most of them are related to each other and belong to a very small time-period(about 100-200 yrs).

If you carefully read Ramayana and Mahabharata, and especially with my two books (specific references from Bala Kanda and Uttara kanda- in case of Ramayana, and Shanti Parva, Anushasan parva - in case of Mahabharata), you will realize, without a shed of doubt, that all of them are written within a 50-100 years of each other (Kanda in case of Ramayana and parva in case of Mahabharata). If that is later and early to you, no issues.

The references (astronomy, seasons, chronology) are so consistent across Ramayana and Mahabharata (internal to each Arsha-Kavya), that only someone incapable to rational logic would see them as later additions.

Also 12209 BCE for Ramayana and 5561 BCE for Mahabharata stands on a solid ground. So, JohneeG, a useful exercise (not on this OIT thread, but say on Archeo-astronomy thread) would be for you to critique my work - brutally! Of course rationally. It would be useful to all of us.

Just a suggestion.

[peter]

Mahabharata war has some connection to data in Surya Siddhanta which states that the sun was 54 degrees away from the vernal equinox when Kali-yuga began on a new moon day. This corresponds to February 17/18, 3102 at Ujjain (75deg47minE 23deg 15 min N).

I wonder if you know whether Nilesh has an explanation for this and if he would be willing to share it?

Perhaps reading the book can help. If you don't find a satisfactory explanation, do let Nilesh Oak know about it.

Peter ji,

Here is what I wrote, in my book, in 2011. No additional data has surfaced (either due to my own research or those of other researchers).

The Mahabharata War & KaliYuga

Numerous researchers have proposed years for the Mahabhara-ta War that fall within the time interval of 3102 B.C. +/- 500 Years. Most of ......

The key is this statement:
"Krishna, in order to pacify angry Balara-ma on the last day of War, asks Balarama to consider (pre-tend/assume) the time as if it was KaliYuga and thus forgive Bhi-ma144. This means that even when the War was over, the KaliYuga had not begun."

Kaliyuga had not begun because of Krishna's presence Nilesh. What is your take on Surya Siddhanta statement that I posted earlier?

[peter]

Johnneeg: The key for identifying Saraswati in Ramayana is the river Ikshumati.

अभिकालम् ततः प्राप्यते बोधिभवनाच्च्युताम् |
पितृपैतामहीम् पुण्याम् तेरुरिक्षुमतीम् नदीम् || २-६८-१७

Note the use of the word Pitrapaitamahi. This adjective has been explained by drawing a connection with the ancestors of the Ikshavakus or frequented by the ancestors of Dashratha.

Instead the adjective simply means created by God Brahma who is also known as Prapitamaha. In other sanskrit works Saraswati river is described as his first creation among rivers.

Furthermore the adjective Pitrapaitamahi cannot be related to Ikshvakus or Dashratha because it is being used in the context of messengers who were not of Ikshvaku lineage.

Your interpretation of 'Pithrupaithamaheem' is wrong. Brahma is called Pithamaha.

Nope. See Vaman Purana:
tatra devīṃ dadarśātha puṇyāṃ pāpavimocanīm /
plakṣajāṃ brahmaṇaḥ putrīṃ harijihvāṃ sarasvatīm // VamP_23.13 //
Here Saraswati is her daughter.

pūrvaṃ prajeyaṃ prapitāmahena sṛṣṭā samaṃ bhūtagaṇaiḥ samastaiḥ /VamP_23.44.1 /
Here Saraswati is his first creation amongst rivers.

Note the word prapitāmahena which is what we encountered in Ramayana.

[peter]

All children, disciples (especially if they did not stick to another lineage, as their name) and descendants of these are Vasisthas too.

We have 'deified' Vasistha (in the form of Star Mizar) at the time of Ramayana itself. There is Vasistha in Ramayana (12209 BCE) and there is Vasistha in Mahabharata (5561 BCE).

There is Valmiki in Mahabharata, too (5561 BCE), of course descendant of Ramayana Valmiki.

Not just Vashishta, but many other sages are mentioned commonly in most of the Hindu and Buddhist works.Most of the characters like Vasishta(Koshala), Vishwamithra(of Magadha), Dhaumya(Koshala), Upamanyu, Uddalaka Aruni(of Paanchala), Swethasvathara, Katyayana, Maitreya(of Kashi), Jaimini, Yagnyavalkya Vajasenaya(of Vidheha), Satyakama Jabala(of Shibhi), Ashvalayana(of Koshala), Garga(of Saurashtra), Sukesha Bharadhwaja, Bhargava(of Vidharbha), Jamadhagni, Apasthmba, Asitha, Dhevala, Dhalbhya, Shunaka, Agasthya(from South), Baudhayana, Gauthama(Nyaya), Shukra, Bruhaspathi...etc are mentioned in various scriptures.


They are used as characters in Ramayana, Mahabharatha, Puraanas, Upanishadhs & Vedhas. Most of these figures are related to each other. Either they are contemporaries. Or sons or grandsons. Or disciples...etc. In short, this whole thing set of people lived in, not more than 100-200 yrs. Some of the older Vedhic rushis like Vashishta & Vishwamithra may be slightly older that that.

Now, the traditional or conservative interpreters try to justify the long timeline by giving huge lifetimes to these figures. But, that doesn't work because not only do these works commonly mention sages, but they also mention many common kings in various Hindu & Buddhist scriptures.

Kings of Upanishadh period:
Janaka Vidheha
Ashvapathi Kaikeya
Pravahana Jaivali - Paanchala
Ajathashatru - Kaashi

Ajathashathru is mentioned in Buddhist works as a contemporary of Buddha. Puraanas say that Ajathashathru was King of Magadha. Upanishadhs call Ajathashathru as King of Kashi while they remain silent on Maghadha kingship. So, one would have to conclude that Ajathashathru conquered Kaashi while he was ruling Maghadha. Buddhist and Jain works tell about Ajathashathru conquering Licchavis of Vaishali. Mention of Ajathashathru proves that point that Upanishadhs were contemporary of Buddha.

Next,
Ashvapathi of Kekeya is mentioned as the uncle of Bharatha in Baala Kaanda of Ramayana. Janaka of Vidheha is mentioned as the father-in-law of Raama in Baala Kaanda of Ramayana.

Now, the traditionalists try to argue that sages can live for long periods. But, how will they explain the common Kings?

The next argument is to say that this is not the same person but a different person:
If one argues to that the reference is to different people, then every time a name is mentioned, one can assume that its new person. That would lead to absurdity. If its a different person, then his differentiating quality would be mentioned in the scripture. If nothing is mentioned, then we have to assume that the reference is to the original guy.

Since, Baala Kaanda of Raamayana contains a lot of references to Vedhic rushis like Vashishta and Vishwamithra, I think Baala Kaanda is not part of the original Raamayana. Rather, Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda are a later prequel and sequel to Raamayana.

----
If you carefully trace the lineages and genealogies mentioned in various scriptures, then you will reach the only conclusion that most of them are related to each other and belong to a very small time-period(about 100-200 yrs).

If one reduces these ancient ṛṣi seats to just one person, then one might as well condense all of Indian history to a couple of centuries and be done with it. Sadly it is premature and an extremely counter-productive form of speculation.

Even today one simply speaks of Dalai Lama. In most references pertaining to Dalai Lama, there is no mention of the number (current being the 14th) or the original name of the Dalai Lama (current's name being Tenzin Gyatso), so from where arises this certainty that in any mention of Vaśiṣṭha, there ought to be a further details on which Vaśiṣṭha, if there were more than one.

How can we be sure what exactly was the reason for our historians to use the same title, e.g. Vaśiṣṭha? It can be any number of reasons, one simply being that when one becomes a brahmacharya/sanyasi/jogi, one cuts off all familial ties. May be the head of a ṛṣi order was always called Vaśiṣṭha. May be everybody belonging to the specific ṛṣi order were called Vaśiṣṭha and as such there were multiple Vaśiṣṭhas at any given time. May be it was a title that disciples received when they had attained a certain level of knowledge. May be all the deeds that anyone called Vaśiṣṭha did were meant to be ascribed to the whole ṛṣi lineage and not just one person, as the person was considered to have elevated himself above his personal boundaries and have become one with the lineage itself. There are several reasons for use of the name of Vaśiṣṭha.

To be frank, this is the kind of speculation that AIT-Nazis in the West and "Eminent" Historians in India indulge in, any method available to compress the chronology. I don't understand why you have chosen to do so too.

But Rajesh how do we reconcile 30 odd generations between ramayana and mahabharata as our scriptures suggest?

[johneeG]

If you carefully trace the lineages and genealogies mentioned in various scriptures, then you will reach the only conclusion that most of them are related to each other and belong to a very small time-period(about 100-200 yrs).

You are quite correct - if you examine the book religions carefully - the characters: Ibrahim (Abraham), Yeshuva (Jesus), Yusuf (Joseph), Yohanna (John), Sarika (Sara), Mani, Zartosht (Zoroaster), Yakub (James), Muhammed (Mohammed), Ali, A'isha (Ayesha) & Me lived within a span of 100-200 yrs - relatively close together. Explains why they had to other the other!

Now before you get angry and respond - realize that my guess is as good as yours and even more valid in my opinion!

This post is not worth a reply but just want to clarify that I was not guessing but stating the conclusion of my study.

If one reduces these ancient ṛṣi seats to just one person, then one might as well condense all of Indian history to a couple of centuries and be done with it. Sadly it is premature and an extremely counter-productive form of speculation.

Even today one simply speaks of Dalai Lama. In most references pertaining to Dalai Lama, there is no mention of the number (current being the 14th) or the original name of the Dalai Lama (current's name being Tenzin Gyatso), so from where arises this certainty that in any mention of Vaśiṣṭha, there ought to be a further details on which Vaśiṣṭha, if there were more than one.

How can we be sure what exactly was the reason for our historians to use the same title, e.g. Vaśiṣṭha? It can be any number of reasons, one simply being that when one becomes a brahmacharya/sanyasi/jogi, one cuts off all familial ties. May be the head of a ṛṣi order was always called Vaśiṣṭha. May be everybody belonging to the specific ṛṣi order were called Vaśiṣṭha and as such there were multiple Vaśiṣṭhas at any given time. May be it was a title that disciples received when they had attained a certain level of knowledge. May be all the deeds that anyone called Vaśiṣṭha did were meant to be ascribed to the whole ṛṣi lineage and not just one person, as the person was considered to have elevated himself above his personal boundaries and have become one with the lineage itself. There are several reasons for use of the name of Vaśiṣṭha.

To be frank, this is the kind of speculation that AIT-Nazis in the West and "Eminent" Historians in India indulge in, any method available to compress the chronology. I don't understand why you have chosen to do so too.

No, colonial indologists were working in a different way. They concluded that west had two legacies:
- Judeo-Christian
- Greco-Roman.

They determined that the earliest historical figures(atleast semi-historical figures) related to these civilizations, must be Moses for Judeo-Christian and Alexander for Greco-Roman. Then, they determined that dates for Moses is 1600 BCE and Alexander is 325 BCE.

Then, they searched for parallel heritages and figures of India. They found Rig Vedha as the starting point of Indian civilization and Mauryan empire as the first empire of India. They simply put the Indian dates as later than the parallel western figures to show the supremacy of western civilization over Indian civilization.

So, Rig Veda's date was put at 1500 BCE because its later than 1600 BCE date of Moses.
Similarly, Mauryan date was put at 350 BCE because its later than 325 BCE date of Alexander.

This is carefully constructed to show that western figures came before Indian figures. But, anything that disrupts this by giving earlier dates for Indian civilization (even slightly earlier dates than western figures), disrupts the western supremacy. Any date for Indian civilization which is before 1600 BCE, undermines the supremacy of Judeo-Christian heritage by introducing the possibility of Out of India theory in that context. Any date of Mauryan empire before 325 BCE disrupts the supremacy of Greco-Roman heritage by introducing the idea of possibility of Out of India in that context.

If we win the race, we win the race. It does not matter whether we win the race by 100 year or 1000 years. We don't have to come up with all sorts of silly theories or illogical ideas to show that Indian civilization was the first civilization. We can do that by sticking to logic and common sense.

Now, why is the idea of assumption of multiple figures absurd?
If the text does not make it clear that they are mentioning a different person explicitly, then we cannot just assume that its a different person. If we want to assume that its a different person by default, then it will lead to absurdity. I'll explain this by an counter rhetorical question:
How do we know that Ramayana talks of only one Ravana? Why can't I assume that there are 10 different Ravanas spread through out Ramayana?
I hope you understood why starting out by this kind of assumptions leads to absurdity. In short, the burden of proof to show that the reference is to different people is on those claiming they are different people. And the proof has to be furnished for all those different figures.

The traditionalists realize that the person being mentioned in the scriptures is one and the same person. They also realize that this person is being mentioned in huge time-frames. Thats why they take refuge in long life-lines for those characters. But, they don't realize that even Kings are mentioned in similar manner. Then, perhaps, they will try this argument that its different people.

If you know of any instance where two Vashishtas or two Vishwamithras are mentioned, then please show it. Actually, even if you succeed in showing that, even that won't be enough because you actually need to show about 100 - 150 different Vashishtas and Vishwamithras if you say that Ramayana happened in 12000 BCE and MB happened in 5000 BCE. But, I think scriptures don't even mention two Vashishta and two Vishwamithras leave alone 100 or 200. Several Vaishwamithras(i.e. descendents of Vishwamithra) are mentioned. But, there is only one Vishwamithra. And same applies to other famous figures.

JohneeG writes...

If you carefully trace the lineages and genealogies mentioned in various scriptures, then you will reach the only conclusion that most of them are related to each other and belong to a very small time-period(about 100-200 yrs).

If you carefully read Ramayana and Mahabharata, and especially with my two books (specific references from Bala Kanda and Uttara kanda- in case of Ramayana, and Shanti Parva, Anushasan parva - in case of Mahabharata), you will realize, without a shed of doubt, that all of them are written within a 50-100 years of each other (Kanda in case of Ramayana and parva in case of Mahabharata). If that is later and early to you, no issues.

The references (astronomy, seasons, chronology) are so consistent across Ramayana and Mahabharata (internal to each Arsha-Kavya), that only someone incapable to rational logic would see them as later additions.

Also 12209 BCE for Ramayana and 5561 BCE for Mahabharata stands on a solid ground. So, JohneeG, a useful exercise (not on this OIT thread, but say on Archeo-astronomy thread) would be for you to critique my work - brutally! Of course rationally. It would be useful to all of us.

Just a suggestion.

Nilesh,
I think you are depending on the Bheeshma Parva chapter 2 & 3 for your date of 5561 BCE. Bheeshma Parva Section 2 and Section 3(particularly Section 3) is filled with literary device of paradox and oxymorons to build up the reader's excitement before the war. Astronomical observations in those two chapters should be not taken literally at all. They seem to be more like literary devices or astrological device. For example, those chapters say that the rivers are flowing in reverse. It says that the idols of gods are laughing and vomiting blood simultaneously. It says that all sorts of crops are growing in all season which generally does not happen because crops are seasonal. This sort of narrative is seen throughout the section 2 and section 3 of Bheeshma Parva. The whole thing can be summarized as,"this is paradoxical and unusual, it is happening now because a great war is about to happen". And this is done in a exaggerated fashion. Its quite clear from reading the section that the section is woven around exaggerated paradox and oxymorons. So, I don't think the astronomical observations mentioned in these 2 sections should be taken seriously. They are part of a literary device to build reader's curiosity by telling them that impossible is happening. In that sense, the astronomical observations mentioned in these two sections seem to be sort of impossible or unlikely to occur in normal circumstances. The researchers and translators seem to understand this by intuition and some of them go about translating the text in different ways to make it fit. What they need to understand is that these two sections are employing paradox and therefore they are not supposed to fit.

This section also contains a reference to Arundhati walking ahead of Vashishta. The idea being conveyed is that Arundhati walking ahead of Vashishta is an impossibility in the timeframe of this work. Because this section only mentions the impossibles.


Nilesh,
I wanted to ask you: what do you think of Vedveer Arya's idea of 500 BCE as the start of Shakha date?

Nope. See Vaman Purana:
tatra devīṃ dadarśātha puṇyāṃ pāpavimocanīm /
plakṣajāṃ brahmaṇaḥ putrīṃ harijihvāṃ sarasvatīm // VamP_23.13 //
Here Saraswati is her daughter.

pūrvaṃ prajeyaṃ prapitāmahena sṛṣṭā samaṃ bhūtagaṇaiḥ samastaiḥ /VamP_23.44.1 /
Here Saraswati is his first creation amongst rivers.

Note the word prapitāmahena which is what we encountered in Ramayana.

I knew you would say some variation of this. But, you are wrong. Pra-pithamaha means great-grandfather. The word used in Ramayana is Pithru-paithamaha i.e. 'related to fathers & grandfathers'. There is a lot of difference between pra-pithamaha and Pithru-pithamaha. Pithru-Pithamaha means Fathers & Grandfathers.

[RajeshA]

Now, why is the idea of assumption of multiple figures absurd?
If the text does not make it clear that they are mentioning a different person explicitly, then we cannot just assume that its a different person. If we want to assume that its a different person by default, then it will lead to absurdity. I'll explain this by an counter rhetorical question:
How do we know that Ramayana talks of only one Ravana? Why can't I assume that there are 10 different Ravanas spread through out Ramayana?
I hope you understood why starting out by this kind of assumptions leads to absurdity. In short, the burden of proof to show that the reference is to different people is on those claiming they are different people. And the proof has to be furnished for all those different figures.

The traditionalists realize that the person being mentioned in the scriptures is one and the same person. They also realize that this person is being mentioned in huge time-frames. Thats why they take refuge in long life-lines for those characters. But, they don't realize that even Kings are mentioned in similar manner. Then, perhaps, they will try this argument that its different people.

If you know of any instance where two Vashishtas or two Vishwamithras are mentioned, then please show it. Actually, even if you succeed in showing that, even that won't be enough because you actually need to show about 100 - 150 different Vashishtas and Vishwamithras if you say that Ramayana happened in 12000 BCE and MB happened in 5000 BCE. But, I think scriptures don't even mention two Vashishta and two Vishwamithras leave alone 100 or 200. Several Vaishwamithras(i.e. descendents of Vishwamithra) are mentioned. But, there is only one Vishwamithra. And same applies to other famous figures.

Well actually at least two Vaśiṣṭhas are known. We know of one Vaśiṣṭha who was a contemporary of King Nimi and is supposed to have died as a consequence of the counter-curse pronounced by King Nimi. Another Vaśiṣṭha is supposed to have been born through the semen of Mitra-Varuna. This even the "traditionalists" accept.

Our scriptures have a certain form of narration, which prescribes atemporality. Deification of certain personalities means that these personalities are simply considered as a single Ātman which adopts various bodies either through birth or through inspiration in the given tradition. We are talking of reincarnation.

According to tradition it is the same Dalai Lama, who is born again and again under various names and contexts.

As such, our puranic tradition does not deem it necessary to differentiate these personalities based on the circumstances of their repetitive births. In fact, such differentiation would go counter to the equation of the person being the Ātman and not the body.

Assuming the person is the Ātman, why should our historians feel the urge to explain to those outside this worldview, exactly which reincarnation is being talked about.

I personally find it counter-logical for people to try to build chronology of Ancient Bharata using Ṛṣi or Deva associations. These are not supposed to be temporal. Kings however are not ṛṣis or devas in that sense, and they do have temporality, unless some king is raised to divya status, as say Harishchandra or Viśvāmitra.

[peter]

Nope. See Vaman Purana:
tatra devīṃ dadarśātha puṇyāṃ pāpavimocanīm /
plakṣajāṃ brahmaṇaḥ putrīṃ harijihvāṃ sarasvatīm // VamP_23.13 //
Here Saraswati is her daughter.

pūrvaṃ prajeyaṃ prapitāmahena sṛṣṭā samaṃ bhūtagaṇaiḥ samastaiḥ /VamP_23.44.1 /
Here Saraswati is his first creation amongst rivers.

Note the word prapitāmahena which is what we encountered in Ramayana.

I knew you would say some variation of this. But, you are wrong. Pra-pithamaha means great-grandfather. The word used in Ramayana is Pithru-paithamaha i.e. 'related to fathers & grandfathers'. There is a lot of difference between pra-pithamaha and Pithru-pithamaha. Pithru-Pithamaha means Fathers & Grandfathers.

To help clear the confusion please answer:
a) Who do you think the adjective पितृपैतामही is used for? What entity, Male or female?

b) Is it related to the messengers?(already reason given why it cant be)

c) Is it related to Ikshavakus? (already reason given why it cant be)

Now you have to explain why the adjective पितृपैतामही is used for your answer to a) b) or c).

This should help clear the confusion.

[RajeshA]

But Rajesh how do we reconcile 30 odd generations between ramayana and mahabharata as our scriptures suggest?

There is a listing of Suryavanshi kings, where Rama is 64th and Brihadbala is 94th at whose time Mahabharata is supposed to have taken place. Actually after Agnivarna, the 88th king, there seems to be a some interruption in the narrative and the eight kings after him are listed separately. I can't say whether that interruption means there was a lot more to the list which was lost, or not. In any case 30 kings are the ones one can claim to be the minimum number, and may not represent the absolute number.

I do not claim to have an explanation which reconciles this list of 30 kings with the time difference between Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Still archaeoastronomy is much more trustworthy than a list with possibly missing names.

[Nilesh Oak]

JohneeG writes..

Nilesh,
I wanted to ask you: what do you think of Vedveer Arya's idea of 500 BCE as the start of Shakha date?

JohneeG,

I have no understanding of either (or multiple claims) for beginning of many recent (post 5561 BCE) eras... Shaka, Gupta, Maurya, Yudhishthir, etc.

Someone with better grasp of the subject may able to answer it.

[Nilesh Oak]

JohneeG writes..

Nilesh,
I think you are depending on the Bheeshma Parva chapter 2 & 3 for your date of 5561 BCE.

JohneeG.

It is obvious that you have NOT read my book. Does 'Bhishma on the bed of arrows for >92 days' ring a bell? If so, this set of references related to Bhishma Nirvana (that does not include AV observation) falsifies any claim for Mahabharata war that falls after 4000 BCE! NO IFS AND BUTS.

These 21+ references of Bhishma Nirvana are from multiple parvas of Mahabharata that include - Bhishma, Drona, Karna, Shalya, Sauptic, Stri, Shanti and Anushasan.
--
And your struggle with references from Bhishma Parva, Adhaya 2 and 3 is due to your confusion related to 'testable' and 'non-testable' evidence.

To wit...

Narration of King Shivaji includes Goddess Bhavani 'personally' offering 'Bhavani' sword to King Shivaji. Same narration also refers to King Shivaji visiting Agra or going to South India to Jinji and Tanjore.

While incident of "Bhavani' is not testable, other incidents mentioned above (in the narration of Shivaji) are testable.

[Nilesh Oak]

Peter wrote..

Kaliyuga had not begun because of Krishna's presence Nilesh

Is this statement 'testable' in the sense of empirical evidence? If yes, it will solve all the confusion surrounding 'beginning of Kaliyuga'.

[Nilesh Oak]

Peter ji writes..

The key is this statement:
"Krishna, in order to pacify angry Balara-ma on the last day of War, asks Balarama to consider (pre-tend/assume) the time as if it was KaliYuga and thus forgive Bhi-ma144. This means that even when the War was over, the KaliYuga had not begun."

Kaliyuga had not begun because of Krishna's presence Nilesh.

That is why I state that Kaliyuga truly began in 5525 BCE, when Krishna's physical presence was no longer on this planet. This is the same year when Dwarka was destroyed by seawater and/or flooding and/or earthquakes etc.

[RajeshA]

Nilesh Oak ji,

the story about Agastya crossing the Vindhyas, is said to be in the direction from North to South, however the star Canopus's (Agastya) visibility "crosses" Vindhyas from South to North.

Shouldn't the direction of both match!

Secondly the visibility of Canopus in Kanyākumari around 10,000 BCE cannot be used as the earliest knowledge of the star Canopus, since Tamil Sangam literature says that the First Sangam was in Thenmadurai which sank. Thenmadurai could have been much further to the South, where the Canopus star could have been visible even earlier.

India in 16,000 BCE

[Nilesh Oak]

^
RajeshA ji,

Your point is extremely valid. However, I am frustrated at the act of Prof. K D Abhyankar, to come up with a theory for which there is no evidence of original statement anywhere, specifically: Agastya crossing Vindhayas as the time when Canopus was named as star Agastya.

Of course, it this is indeed true (I do not know what reference he had in mind....or if this was his own speculation..for I have not seen any reference quoted by him or anyone else from Puranas), then based on my Ramayana timing (12209 BCE), the first sighting of star Agastya and also crossing of Vindhya by sage Agastya must have had occurred prior to 14000 BCE, and most likely sometime during 16000 BCE - 23000 BCE.

If additional corroborative evidence for Sangam is found (or even otherwise.. the sangam narration itself) supports Agastya's time in the south long before 5000 BCE speculated by Prof. K D Abhyankar.

[Nilesh Oak]

But Rajesh how do we reconcile 30 odd generations between ramayana and mahabharata as our scriptures suggest?

There is a listing of Suryavanshi kings, where Rama is 64th and Brihadbala is 94th at whose time Mahabharata is supposed to have taken place. Actually after Agnivarna, the 88th king, there seems to be a some interruption in the narrative and the eight kings after him are listed separately. I can't say whether that interruption means there was a lot more to the list which was lost, or not. In any case 30 kings are the ones one can claim to be the minimum number, and may not represent the absolute number.

I do not claim to have an explanation which reconciles this list of 30 kings with the time difference between Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Still archaeoastronomy is much more trustworthy than a list with possibly missing names.

I am adding another illustration about the incomplete nature of list of kings.

(from page 38 of my book - 'The Historic Rama')
--
Ramayana Balakanda 66:8, Devarata is described as son of Nimi, on the other hand Ramayana Balakanda 71:3-6 the descendants are described as Nimi-Mithi-Janak-Udavasu-Nandivardhan-Suketu,-Devarata.

[peter]

But Rajesh how do we reconcile 30 odd generations between ramayana and mahabharata as our scriptures suggest?

There is a listing of Suryavanshi kings, where Rama is 64th and Brihadbala is 94th at whose time Mahabharata is supposed to have taken place. Actually after Agnivarna, the 88th king, there seems to be a some interruption in the narrative and the eight kings after him are listed separately. I can't say whether that interruption means there was a lot more to the list which was lost, or not. In any case 30 kings are the ones one can claim to be the minimum number, and may not represent the absolute number.

I do not claim to have an explanation which reconciles this list of 30 kings with the time difference between Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Still archaeoastronomy is much more trustworthy than a list with possibly missing names.

I am adding another illustration about the incomplete nature of list of kings.

(from page 38 of my book - 'The Historic Rama')
--
Ramayana Balakanda 66:8, Devarata is described as son of Nimi, on the other hand Ramayana Balakanda 71:3-6 the descendants are described as Nimi-Mithi-Janak-Udavasu-Nandivardhan-Suketu,-Devarata.

Ok. If we go scientifically then the error in the number of kings has to have some distribution. Even if we double the number of kings still we are short by 2x.

[peter]

Peter wrote..

Kaliyuga had not begun because of Krishna's presence Nilesh

Is this statement 'testable' in the sense of empirical evidence? If yes, it will solve all the confusion surrounding 'beginning of Kaliyuga'.

Hanumanji says that Kaliyuga is about to start in his conversation with Bhim that you gave reference to some posts back.

Purans say that the sandhya between kali and the earlier yuga is on the order of 100 years.

Surya Siddhanta gives the start of kaliyuga with a certain configuration of sky which is testable.

[Nilesh Oak]

^ I am glad I don't have to see messages unless I really want to. What a waste of precious time.

Vent Off.

[UlanBatori]

Very interesting map. 16000 BCE shows a river flowing past Jaffna. By 12209 BCE, was this region already under water, so that a causeway had to be built for the Vanara Sena to cross?

Only the land link to "Ten Madurai" seems a bit contrived: Ocean is not that shallow between Kerala Coast and Lakshadweep/ Maladweep which are volcanic-rim archipelagos.

Lakshadweep rises as a sharp cliff from the ocean floor, last I remember checking Google maps.

Corrected a minute later: Yes, the sea IS very shallow, extending south from Kanyakumari for some significant distance. Wow! KK used to be some 300 miles from the sea! Whole Indian coast seems to have receded uniformly all round. Surprising to see Ganga/Brahmaputra delta hasn't expanded over the years, with all the mud and silt and pakis washed down there.

[Nilesh Oak]

Very interesting map. 16000 BCE shows a river flowing past Jaffna. By 12209 BCE, was this region already under water, so that a causeway had to be built for the Vanara Sena to cross?

Only the land link to "Ten Madurai" seems a bit contrived: Ocean is not that shallow between Kerala Coast and Lakshadweep/ Maladweep which are volcanic-rim archipelagos.

Lakshadweep rises as a sharp cliff from the ocean floor, last I remember checking Google maps.

Corrected a minute later: Yes, the sea IS very shallow, extending south from Kanyakumari for some significant distance. Wow! KK used to be some 300 miles from the sea! Whole Indian coast seems to have receded uniformly all round. Surprising to see Ganga/Brahmaputra delta hasn't expanded over the years, with all the mud and silt and pakis washed down there.

UlanBatori,

Am glad you asked. Based solely on MSL (mean sea levels) the area between Srilanka and India was such that there would have been no need for a bridge.

Of course this is assuming that the level of sea bottom between India and Srilanka was what it is today.

Thus purely based on MSL, Nala-setu for 12209 BCE becomes a problem.

On the other hand, what we do know is that:

(1) As the MSL goes up, so does the level of ocean floor. This is been well documented around the world.

(2) Catastrophic changes can do very unpredictable things (land masses going up or down, sea floors going down or up, land emerging from the sea and land turning into bottom of the sea.

[vishvak]

This is carefully constructed to show that western figures came before Indian figures. But, anything that disrupts this by giving earlier dates for Indian civilization (even slightly earlier dates than western figures), disrupts the western supremacy.

This is where focus of 'international' outlook should be. Western story tellers peddling their own wares shouldn't get any more elbow room. I think B. B. Lal disapproved the AIT very well and concluded there was no evidence whatsoever even by Archaeology which was one of the few research fields for fixing history.

[Nilesh Oak]

Nilesh Oak ji,

the story about Agastya crossing the Vindhyas, is said to be in the direction from North to South, however the star Canopus's (Agastya) visibility "crosses" Vindhyas from South to North.

Shouldn't the direction of both match!

Secondly the visibility of Canopus in Kanyākumari around 10,000 BCE cannot be used as the earliest knowledge of the star Canopus, since Tamil Sangam literature says that the First Sangam was in Thenmadurai which sank. Thenmadurai could have been much further to the South, where the Canopus star could have been visible even earlier.

Star Agastya was closest to the point of SCP (South celestial pole) at around 12000 BCE (11983 BCE to be precise). This is then the time when it would be least (or not) visible from specific place(s) in India. Prior to this -going backwards, it would have been visible in India ~14000-16000 BCE or earlier, and also of course, 10000 BCE and later and into our times.

All this is, as anyone would guess, due to the 'Ayana' aka 'the precession of equinoxes'.

[johneeG]

Nope. See Vaman Purana:
tatra devīṃ dadarśātha puṇyāṃ pāpavimocanīm /
plakṣajāṃ brahmaṇaḥ putrīṃ harijihvāṃ sarasvatīm // VamP_23.13 //
Here Saraswati is her daughter.

pūrvaṃ prajeyaṃ prapitāmahena sṛṣṭā samaṃ bhūtagaṇaiḥ samastaiḥ /VamP_23.44.1 /
Here Saraswati is his first creation amongst rivers.

Note the word prapitāmahena which is what we encountered in Ramayana.

I knew you would say some variation of this. But, you are wrong. Pra-pithamaha means great-grandfather. The word used in Ramayana is Pithru-paithamaha i.e. 'related to fathers & grandfathers'. There is a lot of difference between pra-pithamaha and Pithru-pithamaha. Pithru-Pithamaha means Fathers & Grandfathers.

To help clear the confusion please answer:
a) Who do you think the adjective पितृपैतामही is used for? What entity, Male or female?

b) Is it related to the messengers?(already reason given why it cant be)

c) Is it related to Ikshavakus? (already reason given why it cant be)

Now you have to explain why the adjective पितृपैतामही is used for your answer to a) b) or c).

This should help clear the confusion.

I think the adjective पितृपैतामही is used for the messengers(and thereby all the residents of Khosala kingdom). I think the river Ikshumathi may have some connection to Ikshuvaku because Ikshvakus seem to be the rulers of Khosala and since the words Ikshvaku and Ikshumathi share the cognate Ikshu. Anyway, I think Ikshumathi is some small time river as it is mentioned very less. Most importantly, it has never been said anywhere that Ikshumathi river is another name of Saraswathi river.

JohneeG writes..

Nilesh,
I think you are depending on the Bheeshma Parva chapter 2 & 3 for your date of 5561 BCE.

JohneeG.

It is obvious that you have NOT read my book. Does 'Bhishma on the bed of arrows for >92 days' ring a bell? If so, this set of references related to Bhishma Nirvana (that does not include AV observation) falsifies any claim for Mahabharata war that falls after 4000 BCE! NO IFS AND BUTS.

These 21+ references of Bhishma Nirvana are from multiple parvas of Mahabharata that include - Bhishma, Drona, Karna, Shalya, Sauptic, Stri, Shanti and Anushasan.
--
And your struggle with references from Bhishma Parva, Adhaya 2 and 3 is due to your confusion related to 'testable' and 'non-testable' evidence.

To wit...

Narration of King Shivaji includes Goddess Bhavani 'personally' offering 'Bhavani' sword to King Shivaji. Same narration also refers to King Shivaji visiting Agra or going to South India to Jinji and Tanjore.

While incident of "Bhavani' is not testable, other incidents mentioned above (in the narration of Shivaji) are testable.

True. I have not yet read your book. But, I have seen your posts where you talked of epoch of Arundhati. I think Arundhati plays the central role in your book in dating MB. And that part is contained in Bhishma Parva Section 2 & 3 which are not to be taken literally.

I didn't understand the other point you were making about Bhishma being on deathbed for 92 days. Why is it not possible for it to happen after 4000 BCE?

But, I was curious about a claim you made in an earlier post:

If you carefully read Ramayana and Mahabharata, and especially with my two books (specific references from Bala Kanda and Uttara kanda- in case of Ramayana, and Shanti Parva, Anushasan parva - in case of Mahabharata), you will realize, without a shed of doubt, that all of them are written within a 50-100 years of each other (Kanda in case of Ramayana and parva in case of Mahabharata). If that is later and early to you, no issues.

The references (astronomy, seasons, chronology) are so consistent across Ramayana and Mahabharata (internal to each Arsha-Kavya), that only someone incapable to rational logic would see them as later additions.

Also 12209 BCE for Ramayana and 5561 BCE for Mahabharata stands on a solid ground. So, JohneeG, a useful exercise (not on this OIT thread, but say on Archeo-astronomy thread) would be for you to critique my work - brutally! Of course rationally. It would be useful to all of us.

Just a suggestion.

How can astronomy show that there no later interpolations? or how can astronomy show that these works were written within a 100 or 200 yr period?

Why can't someone with some astronomical knowledge put these interpolations?(taking the claim on face value that astronomical observations in these works are always consistent) Or Even those without much astronomical interest or knowledge might have made interpolations or those who try to use astronomy as some kind of omens might have made interpolations.(if we accept that these works do have astronomical inconsistencies which the later researchers try to iron out by coming with various interpretations, theories and dates)

[johneeG]

Nilesh Oak ji,

the story about Agastya crossing the Vindhyas, is said to be in the direction from North to South, however the star Canopus's (Agastya) visibility "crosses" Vindhyas from South to North.

Shouldn't the direction of both match!

Secondly the visibility of Canopus in Kanyākumari around 10,000 BCE cannot be used as the earliest knowledge of the star Canopus, since Tamil Sangam literature says that the First Sangam was in Thenmadurai which sank. Thenmadurai could have been much further to the South, where the Canopus star could have been visible even earlier.

Star Agastya was closest to the point of SCP (South celestial pole) at around 12000 BCE (11983 BCE to be precise). This is then the time when it would be least (or not) visible from specific place(s) in India. Prior to this -going backwards, it would have been visible in India ~14000-16000 BCE or earlier, and also of course, 10000 BCE and later and into our times.

All this is, as anyone would guess, due to the 'Ayana' aka 'the precession of equinoxes'.

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.

[RajeshA]

A possible derivation for Agastya could be

'aga' - water-jar
'asti' - exist, become, live, happen

happen (born) in a water jar

Agastya is known as "born in a jar". Agastya is also known to have brought a water-jar along from the north, which became a river on being spilled.

[UlanBatori]

Very interesting map. 16000 BCE shows a river flowing past Jaffna. By 12209 BCE, was this region already under water, so that a causeway had to be built for the Vanara Sena to cross?

UlanBatori,

Am glad you asked. Based solely on MSL (mean sea levels) the area between Srilanka and India was such that there would have been no need for a bridge.
Of course this is assuming that the level of sea bottom between India and Srilanka was what it is today.
Thus purely based on MSL, Nala-setu for 12209 BCE becomes a problem.
On the other hand, what we do know is that:
(1) As the MSL goes up, so does the level of ocean floor. This is been well documented around the world.
(2) Catastrophic changes can do very unpredictable things (land masses going up or down, sea floors going down or up, land emerging from the sea and land turning into bottom of the sea.

My guess is that the only fordable place was where they built the causeway joining clumps of high land. MSL notwithstanding, the whole area could well have been tidal marshland. SE coast of USA is like that - a few miles of marshland separating hard land from a narrow strip of land at the beach. They have to use causeways with either very high bridges or draw-bridges to cross over to the beach. The channels in the marsh are deep enough for boats to navigate. The river mouth could well have been a huge delta.

[Pulikeshi]

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.

What is your basis for such a conclusion?

Even today in several languages including Sanskrit (Agasti) is the name used for Sesbania Grandiflora (Humming Bird plant). This plant is found all over South India and goes all the way to Northern Australia. So Agasthya could mean one who comes from the region where the Sesbania Grandiflora. So I conclude that Agasthya is from Northern Australia. The Sage Agasthya then donated his name to the Star Canopus.

Seriously - what kind of trivial speculation is being presented as fact!

[Nilesh Oak]

JohneeG writes..

Why can't someone with some astronomical knowledge put these interpolations?(taking the claim on face value that astronomical observations in these works are always consistent) Or Even those without much astronomical interest or knowledge might have made interpolations or those who try to use astronomy as some kind of omens might have made interpolations.(if we accept that these works do have astronomical inconsistencies which the later researchers try to iron out by coming with various interpretations, theories and dates)

Anyone can do anything anywhere!

That is why one must put forward a theory, in this case if someone has a theory of astronomical interpolations. Then follow the steps of scientific process--1, 2, 3. Things will become clear.

Until then it is useless speculation.
--
To your second point , JohneeG.

I am NOT accepting that these works have astronomical inconsistencies. Of course, any scientific theory by definition can be shown to be inadequate in explaining something. That is true of Newton's theory and Einstein's theory, theories of evolution and theories of Quantum mechanics.

All I can say is that the quality of my theory and its subsequent predictions and corroborations (for both Ramayana and Mahabharata) rival theories and predictions of likes of Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Wheeler and others.

Naturally, limitations of successful scientific theories would also apply to mine, mine being subset of successful scientific theories.

[sudarshan]

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.

What is your basis for such a conclusion?

Even today in several languages including Sanskrit (Agasti) is the name used for Sesbania Grandiflora (Humming Bird plant). This plant is found all over South India and goes all the way to Northern Australia. So Agasthya could mean one who comes from the region where the Sesbania Grandiflora. So I conclude that Agasthya is from Northern Australia. The Sage Agasthya then donated his name to the Star Canopus.

Seriously - what kind of trivial speculation is being presented as fact!

I think he's going by the word endings. "Agasthya" means "from Agasthi" (does it, really? My Sanskrit is at a very elementary level, so I'm not really sure), therefore "Agasthya" the sage must be named after "Agasthi," the star. 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.

[johneeG]

I think he's going by the word endings. "Agasthya" means "from Agasthi" (does it, really? My Sanskrit is at a very elementary level, so I'm not really sure), therefore "Agasthya" the sage must be named after "Agasthi," the star. 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.

Sudarshan,
stop commenting on me and my thinking and all that. Counter the posts(if you can) not the posters. Elementary etiquette.

JohneeG writes..

Why can't someone with some astronomical knowledge put these interpolations?(taking the claim on face value that astronomical observations in these works are always consistent) Or Even those without much astronomical interest or knowledge might have made interpolations or those who try to use astronomy as some kind of omens might have made interpolations.(if we accept that these works do have astronomical inconsistencies which the later researchers try to iron out by coming with various interpretations, theories and dates)

Anyone can do anything anywhere!

That is why one must put forward a theory, in this case if someone has a theory of astronomical interpolations. Then follow the steps of scientific process--1, 2, 3. Things will become clear.

Until then it is useless speculation.
--
To your second point , JohneeG.

I am NOT accepting that these works have astronomical inconsistencies. Of course, any scientific theory by definition can be shown to be inadequate in explaining something. That is true of Newton's theory and Einstein's theory, theories of evolution and theories of Quantum mechanics.

All I can say is that the quality of my theory and its subsequent predictions and corroborations (for both Ramayana and Mahabharata) rival theories and predictions of likes of Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Wheeler and others.

Naturally, limitations of successful scientific theories would also apply to mine, mine being subset of successful scientific theories.

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.

Anyway, as for the astronomical inconsistencies, almost every researcher acknowledges them directly or indirectly in their own works. And then tries to give some kind of alternative interpretation. The inconsistencies are the simplest sign of interpolations or later additions. Even if we assume there are no astronomical inconsistencies, I still don't understand how that shows a work does not have interpolations or was written in 100-200 yr time frame.

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.

What is your basis for such a conclusion?

Even today in several languages including Sanskrit (Agasti) is the name used for Sesbania Grandiflora (Humming Bird plant). This plant is found all over South India and goes all the way to Northern Australia. So Agasthya could mean one who comes from the region where the Sesbania Grandiflora. So I conclude that Agasthya is from Northern Australia. The Sage Agasthya then donated his name to the Star Canopus.

Seriously - what kind of trivial speculation is being presented as fact!

what trivial speculation?! You are actually proving my point. Humming Bird Plant is also found only in south-India(in India) and it is also called Agasti or Agastya proving the point that the word is equivalent to mean 'South'. (As for Australia or Antarctica, its irrelevant).

Anyway, in Sanskruth, 'Sthya' is derived from 'Sthi'. Now, if your argument is that Agasthi & Agasthya are unconnected to each other, I don't really have any problem with that(Because I haven't studied that angle, so I can't comment). My post was in the context that if Agasthi & Agasthya are related to each other then Agasthya has to derived from Agasthi, not the other way around. And more importantly, I was making the point that the star canopus is called Agasthi, not Agasthya. So, please understand context of the post and flow of the discussion before you launch into your polemics.

A possible derivation for Agastya could be

'aga' - water-jar
'asti' - exist, become, live, happen

happen (born) in a water jar

Agastya is known as "born in a jar". Agastya is also known to have brought a water-jar along from the north, which became a river on being spilled.

Ga means moving. Aga means unmoving. And that can be applied to lot of things and lot of things can be derived from there.

[sudarshan]

I think he's going by the word endings. "Agasthya" means "from Agasthi" (does it, really? My Sanskrit is at a very elementary level, so I'm not really sure), therefore "Agasthya" the sage must be named after "Agasthi," the star. 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.

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.

[Nilesh Oak]

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.

[johneeG]

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."

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.

[Pulikeshi]

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.

JohneeG,

I have honestly challenged you to prove your assertions on Agasthya and/or Agasti. You honestly seem to think - picking fact(1) and then picking fact(2) and speculating on them together to make fact(3) is all that is needed to prove something. Seems to bit incredulous to someone with common sense, but you are welcome to suspend disbelief and peddle your wares. Somehow the BRF denizens want to let your baseless assertions go unchallenged. I am done responding to you... for all I know you are trolling this thread with blessings.

what trivial speculation?! You are actually proving my point. Humming Bird Plant is also found only in south-India(in India) and it is also called Agasti or Agastya proving the point that the word is equivalent to mean 'South'. (As for Australia or Antarctica, its irrelevant).

Anyway, in Sanskruth, 'Sthya' is derived from 'Sthi'. Now, if your argument is that Agasthi & Agasthya are unconnected to each other, I don't really have any problem with that(Because I haven't studied that angle, so I can't comment). My post was in the context that if Agasthi & Agasthya are related to each other then Agasthya has to derived from Agasthi, not the other way around. And more importantly, I was making the point that the star canopus is called Agasthi, not Agasthya. So, please understand context of the post and flow of the discussion before you launch into your polemics.

You did exactly what I suspected you would. You used the fact I provided that Agasti is the Humming Bird Plant and you deny me my conclusion (as baseless as yours) that Agastya came from North Australia.

Anyway, I do not know what this thread is about anymore - there is a bunch of folks that are trying to extract History from Ithihasa & Purana -
It is sad to see that in the process of de-deracination - one becoming the other!
futile as dating the Rig Veda or tying it to time and humans - good luck!

[JE Menon]

As predicted repeatedly, we "seem" to be heading Towards a New History of India. Both threads are beginning to "look similar".

Take this stuff to that thread. Or continue there. Don't use BRF threads that become popular as your personal blog, stick to allocated threads that you are already using for that purpose.

This is the last caution on this matter.

[RajeshA]

A possible derivation for Agastya could be

'aga' - water-jar
'asti' - exist, become, live, happen

happen (born) in a water jar

Agastya is known as "born in a jar". Agastya is also known to have brought a water-jar along from the north, which became a river on being spilled.

Ga means moving. Aga means unmoving. And that can be applied to lot of things and lot of things can be derived from there.

Aga as "unmoving" is rational but it also means "water-jar".

There can be other theories as well:

Asta can refer to "setting", in which case it would mean "setting of the unmoving (star?)"

Asta also refers to the "seventh lunar mansion", in which case it would mean "unmoving in the seventh lunar mansion"?

Just putting out the various theories!

_____________

Ṛṣi Agastya's movement from North to South, which may be or may not be connected to the movement of Star Canopus, happens to be a central theme in the integration of India, of North India with South India. The movement of the Star Canopus could provide a clue.

The integration of North India and South India and any proposed theories on timing of it do have a bearing on the subject of movement of people and the development of language in the Indian Subcontinent.

However, as JE Menon saar points out, we can discuss it in the "Towards a New History of India" thread.