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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2308
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 03 Jul 2017 14:40

Shiv: in the cooked-up-shit category, we have Max Mueller who cooked up dates for the Vedas, based on a ghost story in Kathāsaritsagara! He arbitrarily said that the "Katyayana" mentioned in this story is the same one who composed some Sutras. He assigned 200 years (once again arbitrarily) for each Upanishad and made up dates for Rig Veda. In this, he was careful to ensure that the dates fit with the Biblical creation date of 4000 BC.

This is the kind of shit on which AIT is based. Its taken as "unassailable truth" by all Westerners & most brainwashed Indians.

Read Kazanas interview where he describes this: https://www.newsgram.com/vedic-sanskrit-older-than-avesta-baudhayana-mentions-westward-migrations-from-india-dr-n-kazanas/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2017 14:53

Prem Kumar wrote:
This is the kind of shit on which AIT is based. Its taken as "unassailable truth" by all Westerners & most brainwashed Indians.

The interesting part is that some colonized Indians who are "well read" in western methods (like the rest of us) and who are "highly successful' in the west then turn back towards India and start lecturing Indians as to how they should go about things when Indians start saying stuff that conflicts with western theory that made our men successful.

When one tries to point out that western linguists and historians have been bullshitting the invariable argument is about the greatness of western science - which is always a deviation of subject from historians and linguists who are not accountable at all for their work as people of science have to be.

No matter how good science may be - if its conclusions are applied to garbage we get garbage only. Bullshit + ice cream=bullshit only

If linguists say "Aryans came in 1500 BC" and geneticists show gene flow in 1500 BC it does not prove that language came in 1500 BC or that the people who came called themselves Aryan. But geneticists end up writing papers that say that "Hey we found gene flow in 1500 BC - these were probably Aryans bringing language to India"

I repeat: bullshit + ice cream = bullshit onlee

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2017 14:55


I have reached the same conclusions using sources vetted in the west (so that AITans do not get worked up about RW agenda) - will eventually publish somewhere.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11603
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 03 Jul 2017 15:51

One should not imagine that everything in the AIT camp is prima facie bogus.

1. E.g., "Ayas" is mentioned in the Rg Veda. 'Ayas' probably means 'metal', and some interpret it as "iron", based on the modern meaning.

2. Now though iron rusts, may be recycled, etc., the iron smelting furnaces or crucibles and the slag byproduct and so on leave archaeological remains. And iron is also preserved in the archaeological record. Remnants of the fuel used yield carbon dating dates.

3. Archaeology, so far, has put the oldest iron working in India to around 3800 years before present. (3800 ybp is the earliest date anyone has claimed, there are some claims of 3500 ybp, and as we get to 3000 ybp, iron is widespread.)

4. If "ayas" in the Rg Veda is indeed "iron" then that puts an upper limit on its date of 1800 BC; it must be younger than that.

-- Some of the AITers try to date the Rg Veda based on this argument.

5. Of course, "ayas" in the Rg Veda could mean bronze. Bronze in India goes back to 5300 ybp, we are told by the archaeologists.

6. "Ayas" in the Rg Veda could also mean copper, which would take us back another 1000 ybp relative to bronze.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2308
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 03 Jul 2017 16:50

Dating Rig Veda based on 1 word reminds me of another much-abused word in RV that was used to "prove" AIT. The word is Anas (funnily enough, close to Ayas). All the AIT-wallahs jumped up & down like monkeys in heat. They thought that Anas meant "noseless". This word comes from a verse where the enemy is described as Anas. From this, they extrapolated that the tall, fair, tight-assed, blond haired, blue eyed, sharp-nosed Aryans defeated the noseless, black, short, dark, rice eating Dravidians.

Except there is a grain of sand in this particular spinach salad. Turns out Anas actually means those who cannot pronounce the Vedic mantras properly. This phrase was used derogatorily by one Vedic tribe against the other. No Dravidians. No nothing. (As an aside, this tendency to look down upon people who cannot pronounce words properly is prevalent even today in India.)

Just like Katyayana in a Ghost story, entire India's history is sought to be written by a mistranslated word.

Coming to Ayas: the funny part is that till recently, the mighty Western Science dated Iron Age at 1300 BCE. Turns out they were dead wrong, when Indian archaeologists discovered Iron in Uttar Pradesh dated 1800 BCE & later (in Andhra, I think) dated even earlier at 2100 BCE. So much for these iron-clad dates!

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 03 Jul 2017 16:56

^ Presence of 'narrow' knowledge base can be interesting and their arguments serves as good base for learning how such minds work. Unfortunately, learning from such interactions reach a limit, too soon.
--

Sri Sri joined San Pietro, in my list of 'To be ignored'. Om! Amen!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2017 17:19

I must draw the distinction here between
1. brutal dharmic honesty
2. racist lies
3. The needs of science

An example of brutal dharmic honesty is Arun's statement:
A_Gupta wrote:One should not imagine that everything in the AIT camp is prima facie bogus.

Perfectly true of course.

Racist lies told by AITians is also true and documented in many instances, if not right across the spectrum of information that they put out

The needs of science are constrained by the fact that in all scientific publications one must write about one's original work and compare and contrast that with information previously available on that subject and on related subjects. Scientists need to show brutal dharmic honesty but science is hobbled by the fact that the information that scientists use in the form of publications and "prior knowledge", depending on the subject is weighed down by publications put out by racist liars and just plain liars trying to force fit facts to their biases.

So when a scientist produces brutally honest information by way of research or hard work, but starts searching for related prior publications on the subject - he will sometimes come across the bullshit produced by racists which has been accepted by the mainstream as published academic knowledge. The Aryan invasion/migration theory is one such where we find detailed genetics papers with 60-70 cross references at the end including 1 or 2 publications by racist historians about "Aryan invasions"

Whatever way one looks at it it is absolutely essential to call out bullshit. I for one am perfectly willing to declare every AITian word as bullshit simply because that is one way of dealing with the issue - as a sceptic. I call it bullshit and demand that people prove to me that it is not. This is a fun thing because
1. I have no cares or responsibility to be honest in accepting any AIT source as being true, just like linguists and racists in the past said about texts they did not like
and
2. This attitude of "You prove that what you have is right" is exactly what AITians did to any Indian source back then or now.

There is no reason why I need to be brutally honest when I deal with the voluminous information put out by linguists, anthropologists, Indologists and even archaeologists who have written supporting AIT and equally any honest scientists who use the former groups' work as a cross reference at the end of a publication will also have to be scrutinized for bullshit coming out of his brutally honest work. After all a drop of piss in a glass of water makes it piss.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2017 17:30

Prem Kumar wrote:Dating Rig Veda based on 1 word reminds me of another much-abused word in RV that was used to "prove" AIT. The word is Anas (funnily enough, close to Ayas). All the AIT-wallahs jumped up & down like monkeys in heat. They thought that Anas meant "noseless". This word comes from a verse where the enemy is described as Anas. From this, they extrapolated that the tall, fair, tight-assed, blond haired, blue eyed, sharp-nosed Aryans defeated the noseless, black, short, dark, rice eating Dravidians.

Except there is a grain of sand in this particular spinach salad. Turns out Anas actually means those who cannot pronounce the Vedic mantras properly. This phrase was used derogatorily by one Vedic tribe against the other. No Dravidians. No nothing. (As an aside, this tendency to look down upon people who cannot pronounce words properly is prevalent even today in India.)

Absolutely typical of what is taken as mainstream information today and pushed by enthusiastic acolytes.

The word "Aryan" is itself the pinnacle of a pile of despicable lies.

"Aryan" does not occur anywhere in any text. Arya does. My own laptop underlines "Arya" in red as a spelling error/typo and accepts "Aryan". Aryan is not "noble people". It is simply people who do not follow the dictates of dharma. Dharma also gets that red "here's a typo" line. No one knows or cares.

As an aside I ask, why does our "Infotech prowess" with Infosys etc not produce and "Indian English" dictionary that does not underline shiv, Prem, Arun, dharma and arya? But I digress..
Last edited by shiv on 03 Jul 2017 18:34, edited 1 time in total.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2308
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 03 Jul 2017 17:35

LOL. There is a saying in Tamil, which translates to: "So what if there is poop at the bottom of the rasam? Serve from the top" (meant sarcastically, of course)

Looking for truth in AIT is like trying to filter out a little bit of clear liquid from a mass of poop.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2017 21:21

Now this is the kind of science I like to read about in conjunction with AIT
http://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news ... 85769.html
In-house investigators at Duke University believe a former lab tech falsified or fabricated data that went into 29 medical research reports, lawyers for the university say in their answer to a federal whistleblower lawsuit against it.

Duke’s admissions concern the work of Erin Potts-Kant, and a probe it began in 2013 when she was implicated in an otherwise-unrelated embezzlement. The lawsuit, from former lab analyst Joseph Thomas, contends Duke and some of its professors used the phony data to fraudulently obtain federal research grants. He also alleges they ignored warning signs about Potts-Kants’ work, and tried to cover up the fraud.

The university’s lawyers have tried to get the case dismissed, but in April, a federal judge said it can go ahead. The latest filings thus represent Duke’s first answer to the substance of Thomas’ allegations.

Up front, it said Potts-Kant told a Duke investigating committee that she’d faked data that wound up being “included in various publications and grant applications.”

The committee reviewed at least 36 research reports, and in many cases found that she’d tinkered with data before sending it along other investigators. In a few, she simply made things up, Duke said.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news ... rylink=cpy

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11603
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 03 Jul 2017 23:27

Prem Kumar wrote:Coming to Ayas: the funny part is that till recently, the mighty Western Science dated Iron Age at 1300 BCE. Turns out they were dead wrong, when Indian archaeologists discovered Iron in Uttar Pradesh dated 1800 BCE & later (in Andhra, I think) dated even earlier at 2100 BCE. So much for these iron-clad dates!


Simply following the evidence. If you haven't found any archaeological or otherwise datable evidence for iron before 1300BC; and what you do find at 1300 BC doesn't appear to be very evolved (i.e., product of an evolution indicating a start much before 1300BC), then you place the date at 1300BC. What basis do you or anyone else have for placing it anywhere else, do tell? No scientist claims omniscience.

And then when Indian archaeologists (very much following the same scientific methodology) find other evidence, then like scientists always do, the scientific community revises their ideas.

So what about Shiv's complaint about AITers?

The problem is firstly that this is a multi-disciplinary area involving linguistics, archaeology, genetics, etc. e.g., the archaeologists were told that they would find evidence of Aryan invasions and so initially that is how they interpreted some early findings found at one spot. Then as they excavated more and more areas, they found that these early findings were not part of a pattern, but simply a one-of. Today, the consensus among archaeologists, both Indian and Western, is that there is no archaeological evidence of an invasion or massive migration; the archaeological record in north/northwestern India is characterized more by continuity than by any disruption of a invasion of massive migration. There have been conferences and such organized to try to reconcile the linguists and the archaeologists. The problem is that as hyper-specialists, they are aware of their limitations, and are diffident to go out of their specialization. They will take the statement of the outside specialists as being correct in that area.

Here is where the polymath generalist who can produce a new synthesis of the available knowledge is yet to appear.

Then also, as with climate change science, which is theoretically and empirically very well-founded, but the acknowledgement of which threatens economic and political interests, the status quo is hard to shake - there is something more than science that is driving the agenda.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5177
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 03 Jul 2017 23:54

Last names
Bedi means "People who can pronounce one Veda"
Dwidedi means "People who can pronounce two vedas"
Trivedi means "People who can pronounce three vedas"
Chaturvedi means "People who can pronounce four vedas"

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5177
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 04 Jul 2017 00:05

I remember Arya and Aryaputra to refer to each other! Now Putra is part of Punjabi and it has been replaced by Beta in Hindi. Any other languages use Putra as Son?

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 04 Jul 2017 00:35

A_Gupta wrote:Simply following the evidence. If you haven't found any archaeological or otherwise datable evidence for iron before 1300BC; and what you do find at 1300 BC doesn't appear to be very evolved (i.e., product of an evolution indicating a start much before 1300BC), then you place the date at 1300BC. What basis do you or anyone else have for placing it anywhere else, do tell? No scientist claims omniscience.


That is fine as long as the inference was, based on the evidence, that "It appears iron usage existed as early as 1300 BCE and NOT 'IRON USAGE DID NOT EXIST BEFORE 1300 BCE"

When inference such as IN BOLD is drawn, it is a faulty inference. Logical and rational inference allows for growth of knowledge.

e.g. when evidence for 1800 BCE usage of iron was found, the statement can be revised to "It appears that, based on new evidence, iron usage existed as early as 1800 BCE". This statement does not conflict with previously stated correct inference.

On the other hand, extrapolated, inductive and thus faulty inferences are simply waiting to be proved WRONG.


The problem is that as hyper-specialists, they are aware of their limitations, and are diffident to go out of their specialization. They will take the statement of the outside specialists as being correct in that area.


Really? Prof B B Lal interpreted a set of data in support of AIT. Currently he is using that 'very set of data' in support of Mahabharata war in around ~800 BCE - 1000 BCE (PGW and NPBW pottery). And is unwilling to see the logical fallacy of his claim of connecting 'some pottery, fishing hooks, and some burnt food' with that of Hastinapur of Mahabharata.

Then also, as with climate change science, which is theoretically and empirically very well-founded, but the acknowledgement of which threatens economic and political interests, the status quo is hard to shake - there is something more than science that is driving the agenda.

What is been described here along the lines of what likes of Thomas Kuhn tried to 'describe' - Why science progress is slow, goes through stagnation phase until old farts go away and new generation comes up, already aware of new theories and comfortable with it.

He is describing how progress in science becomes accepted at large.

This is different from how science should progress and actually how and why it does progress... as amply explained by likes of Karl Popper.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4444
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby hanumadu » 04 Jul 2017 00:44

SBajwa wrote:I remember Arya and Aryaputra to refer to each other! Now Putra is part of Punjabi and it has been replaced by Beta in Hindi. Any other languages use Putra as Son?


Telugu - Putrudu. Putri for daughter.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11603
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jul 2017 04:23

For the time period in Gandhara that Shiv is looking at, 1500-500 BC, it is called archaeologically the Gandhara Grave Culture. Does it show evidence of the relevant groups, I don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara_grave_culture

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2017 06:04

SBajwa wrote:I remember Arya and Aryaputra to refer to each other! Now Putra is part of Punjabi and it has been replaced by Beta in Hindi. Any other languages use Putra as Son?

Kannada. Putra is son

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2017 06:09

A_Gupta wrote:For the time period in Gandhara that Shiv is looking at, 1500-500 BC, it is called archaeologically the Gandhara Grave Culture. Does it show evidence of the relevant groups, I don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara_grave_culture

Arun there is a lot more information about Gandhara in non-Veda texts and ancient Greek texts that no AITian has ever looked at. They are available freely online. Archaeology is not the only source as archaeological tomes themselves show - they look for ancient texts. This whole business for searching for a history older than Assyrian history and then grabbing Sanskrit was part of that effort.

Part of the problem, like AIT itself, was Church chauvinism. A whole lot of works about India - especially from Greeks like Ctesias were simply destroyed - leaving only fragments and retelling of Ctesias's work by later Greeks.

I will leave this for later. I have an article about genetics for dummies coming up

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2017 08:10

hanumadu wrote:
SBajwa wrote:I remember Arya and Aryaputra to refer to each other! Now Putra is part of Punjabi and it has been replaced by Beta in Hindi. Any other languages use Putra as Son?


Telugu - Putrudu. Putri for daughter.

We used to jokingly refer to the names of two authors of authoritative internal medicine reference texts as Harrisu-putrudu for Harrison and Davidu-putrudu for Davidson.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11603
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jul 2017 08:42

The role of the Soviets/Russians in pushing AIT should not be overlooked.
Here is an example:
http://www.samorini.it/doc1/alt_aut/ek/klejn.htm
Introductory Remarks

The author has been investigating the archaeological remains under consideration. viz., the Bronze Age catacomb graves of the Ukraine and south Russia, since 1951. In general these graves have been under study since the last century, and by now a total of no less than eight thousand graves have been studied. Their proposed identification with the Aryans was announced by the author on two previous occasions in 1979 - at the Leningrad University and at the Hermitage Museum; and it was well received by the Soviet archaeologists and linguists dealing with the problem. The present paper is a translation and enlarged version of the first Russian publication containing the author’s views (Klejn 1980).

The Problem

The Rgveda and other texts of the ancient Indian religion reveal the gradual colonization of India by the Aryans moving in a northwest to south-east direction, but they do not give any indications of their original homeland. The Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture (dated between 1300 and 800 B.C.), which surely belongs to the Vedic Aryans, was already developed in India. The problem however is: what culture did their ancestors possess and where did they live?


Finally, a special sequence concerning the cultural connections between India and Russia follows from this review. The principal episode of Indra’s activities, the main God of the Early Vedic period, was his victory over the evil force Vritra whom Indra killed with his vajra, thereby paving the way to the great mythical river Danu. Vritra turned into stones, while the river ran through them (Rgveda, 1. 32: 2. 12.3; 11; 4, 18.6-7). The name Vritra means "dam", but the question arises: where was the river Danu? The names of all the great rivers of the Pontic steppes [67] contain the stem dan: Don (ancient Tanais), Donets (-ets is a Russian suffix), Dnieper (ancient Danapr), Dniester (ancient Danastr) and Danube, but it is only the Dnieper which flowed through big cataracts. By its origin, the Indra story appears to be the explanatory myth (aetiological or topological) of these well-known rapids. So it is the Dnieper that was the real body of Danu-the great mythical river of the Vedic Aryans.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 04 Jul 2017 08:49

SBajwa wrote:I remember Arya and Aryaputra to refer to each other! Now Putra is part of Punjabi and it has been replaced by Beta in Hindi. Any other languages use Putra as Son?


Putra and Putri are still very much part of Hindi vocabulary, they have not been discarded! Punjabi is very similar to Hindi. Many linguists consider Punjabi as a dialect of Hindi, similar to Braj Bhasha, Awadhi, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Magadhi etc.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 04 Jul 2017 09:19

^^ Also spoken Russian/Ukrainian etc. sound so much like Sanskrit prose being read, I noticed that by watching videos on YouTube, and overhearing Russian conversations, another reason why Russians and other Balto-Slavic language family speakers would think that their language is related to Sanskrit.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2017 09:41

As discussed years ago on this very thread "Indo -European" languages have "cognates" or words that have a similar origin.

For example "Agni" and "ignis" are cognates as are "sarpa" and "serpent"

The curious fact is as follows (I have the refs - need to dig them up from my archives):

Sanskrit has more cognates with every other language that they have with each other. IIRC there are some languages that show up their Indo-European character because of a connection with Sanskrit. Russian and Sanskrit are pretty similar. Even closer connections exist between Sanskrit and Slovenian. So there is something odd and unique about Sanskrit. The entire field of linguistic grammar and phonetics was derived from Panini's work.

The only problem with Sanskrit (as far as AITians are concerned) is that it is the only language whose history is accepted as going back over 3000 years ybp. It is also unique in having preserved the phonology and pronunciation in voluminous orally transmitted poems. But the biggest problem of all is that everything known about Sanskrit existed in India. But everyone wants a piece of the action and wants to claim it as his own.

There is yet another issue which I have stated in the past and I state again. Let me quote from The Doors
Jim Morrison wrote:You need meat? Go to the market
You need bread? Try a bakery.
If you need lovin, look here baby
I got just-a-what you need"

The point is you need a plumber to fix pipes and a doctor to fix piles.

So have linguists asked Vedic scholars about the Vedas? Balls. They have not They have lifted from various translations and made literal translations as if the Vedas are a story.

No Vedic scholar will ever tell you that the Vedas are the story of Indra the God fuking around rescuing cows. The Vedas only have a spiritual interpretation, not a literal meanings in translations. This is information that only Hindu Vedic scholars can give you and the AITians have not asked anyone.

Here is a great introductory article on the Vedas if anyone wants to step outside of Jones/Max Muller trash (url edited courtesy Arun Gupta)
www.yabaluri.org/Web%20(1978%20-%202008)/somethoughtsonthevedaanditsstudyjan78.htm
Last edited by shiv on 04 Jul 2017 10:03, edited 3 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2017 09:45

I have located the Excel file that lists all th IE langauges and the cognates they have with some words. I will upload and link that file later. Right now the Chinese are attacking me . I recover from an HDD crash but my net connection is going down several times a day...


Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 04 Jul 2017 11:44

An interesting talk by Martin Lewis (Geographer/Historian ?) & Asya Pereltsvaig (Linguist) of Stanford, I stumbled onto on YouTube. This talk tries to refute Atkinson and Gray's Anatolian Hypothesis, more specifically their 2012 paper. Needless to say, the speakers seem to take steppe origin of Indo-European for granted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDF8o5bX6YY

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2308
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 04 Jul 2017 15:03

Someone asked if B.B Lal was pro or anti AIT. He was pro-AIT earlier. But after examining the voluminous archaeological evidence that attested to a cultural continuity in IVC, he changed his mind and became anti-AIT.

In this, he is worthy of respect. As a good scientist, he let evidence reign supreme and changed the theory to fit the evidence. Not the other way around, which is what 100% of AIT'ians do

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2017 15:20

Let me ask a rhetorical question.

Why should the words of any linguists or archaeologists be considered when we speak of where languages came from and where they went?

The question may sound stupid because the likely answer is that these are the people who spend lifetimes studying languages and archaeological finds and if you don't consult them you will be wrong because they are the experts. Fine. Fine. After all did I not say that you need a plumber to repair pipes - a doctor won't do it, and you need a doctor to repair piles, the plumber won't do it.

But using the same standards, whom do you consult about the Vedas? I say that you must consult an expert in the Vedas. Not as person who simply knows and speaks Sanskrit of whom there are many. Learning Sanskrit is different from learning the Vedas. But if you ask any Veda scholar he or she will point out that the Vedas are not a story, They are not a history either.

The jumbel of words that make up the Vedas can be interpreted as a disjointed and boring and overly-long story told by half wits - not worth a second hearing by any sane person

Anyone ever tried reading Ralph Griffith's translation of the Rig veda?
Here's a sample: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01009.htm
1 COME, Indra, and delight thee with the juice at all the Soma feasts,
Protector, mighty in thy strength.
2 To Indra pour ye forth the juice, the active gladdening juice to him
The gladdening, omnific God.
3 O Lord of all men, fair of cheek, rejoice thee in the gladdening lauds,
Present at these drink-offerings.
4 Songs have outpoured themselves to thee, Indra, the strong, the guardian Lord,
And raised themselves unsatisfied.
5 Send to us bounty manifold, O Indra, worthy of our wish,
For power supreme is only thine.
6 O Indra, stimulate thereto us emulously fain for wealth,
And glorious, O most splendid One.
7 Give, Indra, wide and lofty fame, wealthy in cattle and in strength,
Lasting our life-time, failing not.
8 Grant us high fame, O Indra, grant riches bestowing thousands, those
Fair fruits of earth borne home in wains.
9 Praising with songs the praise-worthy who cometh to our aid, we call
Indra, the Treasure-Lord of wealth.
10 To lofty Indra, dweller by each libation, the pious man
Sings forth aloud a strengthening hymn.


What sort of bullshit is this? Which moron will consider this valuable literature?

There is a simple explanation enunciated by many but the link above (Arun Gupta's post) is useful and I quote:

Veda is a heap of words (Sabdarasi) made up of Mantras and Brahmanas

The Veda is that which makes known the transcendental means of obtaining the desirable and avoiding the undesirable

if there are any passages in the Veda which appear to deal with history or empirical facts, they do not form intrinsic parts of it.


And the best one yet: :D
As Sankaracharya said, a hundred Vedic texts cannot make a pot a cloth. What is known beyond doubt through historical research and what is demonstrated as truth through scientific investigations cannot be contradicted by the Veda.


If we reject what is said by Veda scholars then we can think that the Vedas are a narrative or history and a very idiotic sounding one. And once the Vedas are declared a narrative we can look for profane meanings like "Indra came from the sky o horses and rescued 10,000 cows'
or
"Let the horse be cooked. Let the vapor rise" (or some similar idiocy)

Only after the Vedas are fu(ked in this manner do we get ideas about soma drinking etc so the Witzels can claim that Soma is ephedra and Indra came from Azerbaijan

This fundamental issue - though abstract and complex needs to be know by educated Indians. We have lot our connection with the purpose of the Veda and have connected ourselves with Ralpl Griffiths translation and we don't even have the brain power to point out that as a sacred set of verses it is worse than Ravanti p0.rn

This fundamental fact is important in the Aryan Migration debate because the stories are all based on translations. And teh translations are faukty because the Vedas are not a story or a history.

On the one hand we (educated Indians) believe that Indians do not have a sense of history and do not record history. Then we have a set of orally recited verses that have been "translated" into prose that may look like a disjointed history written by drunks. And we accept that as history and we accept that the history sounds like horses in Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan. wtf?

When we argue with AITians we need to argue with actual facts - not the information that they have cooked up, starting with fake translations. Until that happens AIT will not die.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 04 Jul 2017 16:12

Prem Kumar wrote:Excellent piece once again, Shiv!

I've responded to Elst in the article's comments. AIT may be an intellectual exercise for him, but is much more serious for us. Its like that story of a chicken & a pig opening a ham-n-eggs restaurant. The pig refuses because he "is committed" but the chicken is only "involved".

All of Rajiv Malhotra's book start out by tracing the lineage of some Western Theory, going back a couple of centuries. It shines an important light on the origin & motivations of the said theory. And social sciences is not physics. Here, motivations, players, lens-used - everything matters. To understand the plant, we need to examine the seed. All this might be irrelevant or "already known" to Elst. But its unknown to nearly 100% of Indians. So, you are doing a very important job of educating the average Indian.


+108

Adrija
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 19:42

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

Postby Adrija » 04 Jul 2017 16:53

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 091109.ece

HAs this been critiqued already please? My sincere apologies if a repeat, but was keen to get a perspective from the learned gurujan including Hakim sa'ab et al

TIA

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2017 16:55

Adrija wrote:HAs this been critiqued already please?


It has. Start from page 52 of this thread

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

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

Postby Primus » 04 Jul 2017 22:23

Adrija wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/how-genetics-is-settling-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19091109.ece

HAs this been critiqued already please? My sincere apologies if a repeat, but was keen to get a perspective from the learned gurujan including Hakim sa'ab et al

TIA


I came back to this thread because a classmate of mine of the same ilk as the author of this farticle posted it on the FB page of our class as further 'proof' that he is indeed from the long-disadvantaged 'Dravidian' race, thus justifying his current 'privileged' status. For complex reasons, I am told, many EJ types particularly in the South are fervent believers in and promoters of the AIT.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5177
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 04 Jul 2017 22:25

Even though potatoes, tomatoes were brought to India by merchants still the roots and vegetables like colocasia, yams, onions, many fruits like lemons, oranges, Mangoes are native to India. Indians just start preparing potatoes like they use to prepare colocasia(arvi) or Yams.

There is evidence that Mustard, Sesame, Brinjal were being used at Indus valley civilization (7000 BCE)
There is evidence that humped cow was domesticated in Indus valley civilization.
There is evidence that Turmeric, Cardamom, black pepper, mustard being used 3000 BCE.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2017 22:34

Primus wrote:
Adrija wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/how-genetics-is-settling-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19091109.ece

HAs this been critiqued already please? My sincere apologies if a repeat, but was keen to get a perspective from the learned gurujan including Hakim sa'ab et al

TIA


I came back to this thread because a classmate of mine of the same ilk as the author of this farticle posted it on the FB page of our class as further 'proof' that he is indeed from the long-disadvantaged 'Dravidian' race, thus justifying his current 'privileged' status. For complex reasons, I am told, many EJ types particularly in the South are fervent believers in and promoters of the AIT.


Primus could you please give him a link to my article on Swarajya. Tell him its me
https://swarajyamag.com/culture/aryans- ... y-scholars

I also have a follow up to that one which I will link after it goes online somewhere

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

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

Postby Primus » 04 Jul 2017 22:44

SriJoy wrote:
You need to give an explanation on how a city can exist prior to farming - or atleast show us what could've been farmed in 12,000 BC for a settled civilization to flourish on that age in India.


I am no expert on this and though I do have Nilesh Ji's books, they are still on my 'to be read' list :(

If the Gobekli Tepe story tells us anything, it is that ancient humans were far more capable than we give them credit for. If they could erect such massive monuments without any evidence (so far) of there being a farm on the premises, then anything is possible. If you then consider the fact that less than 5% of the place has been excavated, who knows what else we may find. Finally if you factor in the relatively recent discovery (or at least the start of the excavations) of the place you begin to wonder what else lies buried in the sands of time in an already ancient civilization that is India.

As far as 'scientific proof' and the belief that everything is false until proven true is concerned there are many things that we have known about and accepted the existence of without palpable evidence until a sophisticated enough methodology came along to confirm it. Gravitational waves are a prime example.

As my old Professor used to say, 'if you go about looking for sub-atomic particles with a light microscope you are never going to find them - but it does not mean they do not exist'.

There was a time in my younger days that I used to view everything through the lens of Western logic and accepted 'facts' only when they passed the litmus test of Western arrogance and science. Most Indian epics and history were put on the same shelf as the works of von Daniken - classified as SF&F.

As I grow older I realize I know far less than I thought I did and the hubris is slowly fading. :oops:
Last edited by Primus on 04 Jul 2017 23:21, edited 1 time in total.

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

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

Postby Primus » 04 Jul 2017 22:48

shiv wrote:
Primus wrote:
I came back to this thread because a classmate of mine of the same ilk as the author of this farticle posted it on the FB page of our class as further 'proof' that he is indeed from the long-disadvantaged 'Dravidian' race, thus justifying his current 'privileged' status. For complex reasons, I am told, many EJ types particularly in the South are fervent believers in and promoters of the AIT.


Primus could you please give him a link to my article on Swarajya. Tell him its me
https://swarajyamag.com/culture/aryans- ... y-scholars

I also have a follow up to that one which I will link after it goes online somewhere


Thanks Shiv, will do. He is a bit annoying with his constant baiting but this will serve well for the time being.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 05 Jul 2017 00:08

Shiv,

I am very glad to see your article series taking shape. They are excellent.

I am going to have an interview via FB live or skype and I am going to use your material (with due credit of course). This interview is related to AIT.

I also wonder if you are open to such interview. The one interviewing me is in New Delhi (am in USA). so within India would be equally easy. Let me know.

BTW, if Swarajya ever runs out of their interest to publish your series, I have a standby source eager to publish whatever you want to publish.
--
In other news....

I have another interview coming up at the end of the month about my book - Mahabharata.

I am also presenting (my colleague would present on my behalf) this month at a conference in New Delhi. I am using this opportunity to demonstrate how widespread ignorance of scientific methodology is among Indic circles and indic researchers and to what extent this reality has done disservice to indic research.
--
Back in 2011...

I made a point to not write in peer reviewed journals, not ask for forward to my books (I could not think of anyone who is/was capable of writing one) and made a point not to submit anything to any conference. After all it was a good decision. Now I have invitations to more conferences than I can attend and more requests to write in peer reviewed journals (this I am avoiding so far due to immense efforts/time involved and poor ROI) and I have more requests than I can handle for interviews and to write short articles.

Frankly, these are serving as distractions that keep me away from finishing my next 4 books. However, I do see the value of 'distribution of knowledge' as much as 'production of new knowledge' and thus welcome these distractions.

All good stuff. Cheers!

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 05 Jul 2017 01:24

Sudarshan wrote..

Which brings me to a point which has been puzzling me for years, but to which I never got a satisfactory answer. Nilesh ji used the Voyager software to do his dating of the MB and Ramayana. Vartak, supposedly, used traditional panchang data to date the MB, and *his date agrees with Nilesh Oak's date*. Does this mean that the panchang system rivals the NASA JPL database in accuracy, and is based on a sound knowledge of the governing equations as well? The implications of that would be tremendous indeed.


It is not easy to narrate it accurately, but I will try.

(1) Vartak had crudely defined 5480 BCE as the time interval for the Mahabharata war (based on interpretation of numerous evidence..genealogical, past researchers and such. There was lot of gut feel involved in this).

(2) Then, Vartak tried to fine tune in this area (around 5480 BCE) with the help of positions of Saturn and Jupiter and Rahu (node) and reached 5561 BCE.

(3) I had begun with single description of AV observation. That led me to 11091 BCE - 4508 BCE as the interval for the year of Mahabharata war (mathematical certainty...i.e. if one does not buy inference of this, rest of 215+ astronomy observations can not be trusted either).

(4) Once in this interval, I began looking at existing proposals that fell within this 'Epoch of Arundhati", There were 4-5. While all of them could be easily falsified, 5561 BCE withstood the tests.. and here is the important point....

They withstood tests per my theory of 'all observations are factual/actual observations of the sky' and not per Sayana-Nirayana theory of Vartak. Thus while Vartak did reach 5561 BCE based on Saturn/Jupiter/Rahu, he was forced to justify other observations....because he was assuming their positions to be in wrong place (I know this is confusing...but that is where manual crude calculations (Vartak) vs. Voyager derived positions of planets (Oak) come in picture). This has nothing to do with 'Panchang'

[BTW, those who talk of back calculations based on knowledge of astronomy don't know either the actual observations and/or what is involved in back calculations']

(5) I could explain practically 210 out of 215 observations (astronomy) from MBH text

(6) Remaining observations can not be explained by me ..but very important.. they can not be explained by anyone else either. There is more. These remaining few observations (~5) also conflict with rest of the astronomy/chronology/seasonal observations of Mahabharata text.

Hope this helps...

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2029
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 05 Jul 2017 01:53

Thanks for the explanation. At the time when I read Vartak's proposal, I wasn't that familiar with astronomy, so I couldn't fully parse what his method was. I do remember that he pointed out that the dates claimed by others could not be correct, because some of the planetary positions which they had not addressed, simply could not be as they were stated in the MB.

I agree with your observation about "those who talk of back calculations don't know what is involved." That is what I was trying to explain - first you need the knowledge of the governing equations (calculus), and then you need the data to feed into the governing equations. Without the data, the governing equations by themselves are useless for back-calculation. Over so many thousands of years, even smaller bodies such as asteroids, comets, or moons of planets will produce enough gravitational perturbations to throw off calculations based on periodicity. For the purposes of planetary position specifications based on nakshatras, all it will take is a difference from the "periodicity-calculated" position of 1/27th (<4%) of a full revolution, to put the planet in the "next or previous" nakshatra. So back-calculations will only work when you have a sufficiently detailed database of all the gravitationally significant objects within the solar system, and the number of gravitationally significant objects will increase as you try to push your back calculations further into antiquity (say over 7500 or 14000 years). Of course, dating attempts are also "back-calculation," it's just that somebody back in say 0 AD would not be expected to have the extensive database required to back-calculate and insert planetary observations into the MB. If the claim is that they did have such a comprehensive database back then, then that's a pretty revolutionary theory by itself (as you pointed out in your book).

Now about what you said about Vartak's dating. Very interesting indeed, if he used Saturn/ Jupiter/ Rahu for his dating. This is because Saturn and Jupiter are (after the sun of course) the two most massive objects in the solar system, and thus the two objects which will be least affected by gravitational perturbations from smaller objects. So manual calculations are more likely to work with these two objects, over a longer time period. As for Rahu, I'm not sure how much effect gravitational perturbations will have on its "orbit." On the one hand, it is a fictitious planet, created simply for convenience in eclipse predictions (hence, not affected by gravity at all). On the other hand, the earth and the moon are both not that massive (especially the moon), so they will be affected by perturbations. So Rahu, the eclipse node, should also wobble based on the perturbations acting on the earth or the moon (since it is the relative positions of the sun, earth, and moon which determine eclipses).

In any case, Vartak's feat is impressive, if he used manual calculations and arrived at a date for the MB, with this date being in such good agreement with a date derived from calculations based on the NASA JPL database. This date may or may not be THE date for the MB, but the fact that he could compete with Voyager with just manual calculations is amazing indeed.

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

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

Postby Primus » 05 Jul 2017 02:45

SriJoy wrote:
But point is, scientifically speaking, when one is speculating, it must be theoretically possible and have no contradictory evidence towards it.
So when we start to see, genetically speaking, all farming investigated so far is post ice-age, the body of evidence against an advanced/semi-advanced city/civilization is starting to mount.As i said, its not exhaustive- we haven't yet put each and every food crop under the microscope and gone hunting in nature to find its 'original biome', but most grains are out of the picture.

Even Goebliki tepe is post ice age'. Its extremely impressive and most likely a product of settled people, within genetic agreement of early farming days.

let us find something, that is clearly a product of settled people in Ice age world or atleast have exhaustive biological studies done to confirm/deny, before positing a position that hinges on it.


The Gobekli site is less than 5% excavated so far, Schmidt is said to have 'left it to future generations' to do more.

Quoting Wiki, "Göbekli Tepe is regarded by some as an archaeological discovery of the greatest importance since it could profoundly change the understanding of a crucial stage in the development of human society. Ian Hodder of Stanford University said, "Göbekli Tepe changes everything".[3][41] If indeed the site was built by hunter-gatherers as some researchers believe then it would mean that the ability to erect monumental complexes was within the capacities of these sorts of groups which would overturn previous assumptions. Some researchers believe that the construction of Göbekli Tepe may have contributed to the later development of urban civilization, as excavator Klaus Schmidt put it, "First came the temple, then the city.""

There are some that believe it is an 'Epipaleolithic' site, meaning anything from 20,000 to 10,500 BP. The Aswadian culture too had to be re-dated after an initial estimate.

My point remains thus: So far we know very little and it is dangerous to assume that the people of that era were not capable of anything 'advanced'. It is not speculation, just a cautious approach to the history of an era for which there is not much material evidence unearthed yet (pun intended).

Would you have believed 50 yrs ago that the river Saraswati really existed, or that its ancient channel would be found with flowing water in the present day? Or that the ancient city of Dwaraka may indeed be lying submerged off the coast of Gujarat - there is so much to be discovered yet.

Your arguments against an advanced civilization (not talking about space-faring here, but for its age) ever existing in the context of ancient India is based on the sole assumption that there was no agricultural farming on a mass scale during that period. My contention is that we do not know as yet and so to pass judgement would be premature. If one accepts the current origin of the Universe from the Big Bang, what existed before, and how did the Big Bang come about? If nothing can travel faster than light (as per Einstein), how do you explain the Quantum Theory?

There is so much in science that is accepted as gospel one day and refuted a few years later. It would be prudent to have an open mind, is all I am saying.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vidur and 68 guests