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.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 05 Jul 2017 22:17

sudarshan wrote:
Rudradev ji, your example about Tavleen Singh's roses is exactly what I myself said a little before your post. The response I got was - it is extremely unlikely that any species of wheat went extinct without leaving any trace in the 20,000 odd species which exist today. Just out of curiosity, would you agree with that (about the "extremely unlikely" part, I mean)?


Anyone who knew the first thing about how selection pressure operates would not make such a claim. When you select FOR one species of wheat or rice (which, prior to domestication, were nothing but wild grasses) you select AGAINST the other types. Which means that in extremely lopsided competition for habitat and resources against the domesticated type, the "extreme likelihood" is that they WILL go extinct.

Hariri recounts how, out of 600 species of large mammals in South America, 400 went extinct within a few centuries of the first human arrival there. The same occurred with nearly ALL the large marsupials of Australia within a few hundred years of the time Homo sapiens colonized that continent about 45000 ybp. And note, this is under the selection pressure imposed by relatively small numbers of hunter-gatherer humans. The selection pressures imposed by much larger Homo sapiens populations in transition to agricultural settlements would have been orders of magnitude greater.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 05 Jul 2017 22:22

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote:
Nonsensical inferiority complex at display here.

Welcome to the club Rudradev. I was also psycho-anal-ised and declared to have an inferiority complex because white men have studied Sanskrit texts and not Indians. The scientist par excellence who can parse all papers says so.

Like I said - the man gets angry when you point out his errors of talk about him. He is allowed to stonewall, bait and switch, analyze, boast , misquote, fudge and deny.


Shiv,

The man cannot tell the difference between "genetic analysis is consistent with scenario XYZ" and "genetic analysis provides evidence for scenario XYZ to the exclusion of all others".

What he is parsing is wind onlee.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 05 Jul 2017 22:28

sudarshan wrote:This only talks of planets. Back-calculation over such a time scale will also involve lesser bodies like planetary moons, asteroids (millions of them within the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter), maybe even comets, etc. And then there are large planets like Uranus and Neptune, which usually do not figure in the visible sky.


Actually, no. The lesser bodies - planetary moon, asteroids, etc. - are actually quite irrelevant.

PS: remember the precision of the observations in the Mbh or Ramayana - typically some planet was in some constellation or nakshatra. This is not a high-precision statement.

PPS: Something high precession that could be recorded without any sophisticated measuring instruments is if a planet occults a star. Occultation of major stars is rare though.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 05 Jul 2017 22:43

Of course. No species of organism once domesticated could ever have grown wild again. That never happens. :roll:

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 05 Jul 2017 22:50

Because of course there is only one genetically identifiable "unselected state" to which they would revert to. And the "reversion" would have been instantaneous, as soon as they start growing outside the farmer's plot.

But I suppose anything is possible. Apparently 10,000 plus years of civilization haven't completely outbred the gene that produces immunity to embarrassment.

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 05 Jul 2017 22:55

So where exactly is the problem with the following premise and conclusion:

Premise:
Rice farming started in the year X.
Rice was part of the diet of a person A born in the year Y.

Conclusion:
Therefore: Y <= X

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 05 Jul 2017 23:35

Couldn't help commenting on this neat magic trick:
there can be no human history prior to humans. So if a narrative claims 'XYZ happened 5 million years ago', then its wrong narrative.


Huh? The "Hindu" narrative has Avataras 1-3 being all non-human, and the 4th half-human. It's the ****KNOWLEDGE** and ***MEMORY** that are passed down through the ages. That doesn't have a firm starting point at Human #1 Ms. Lucy Tanzaniawali. Ms. L.T. must have learned SOMETHING from her parents, hain? Unless she sort-of parachuted into Africa as a full-grown independent human? And if she learned something from her parents, chances are she also learned from grandparents and their great-great-grandparents who might have been world champs at swinging from trees using their tails. So why does the narrative have any Upper Bound other than the (supposed) origin of Creation?

Again, we see the Singe Point Origin superstition completely erasing ability to think.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

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

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 05 Jul 2017 23:43

Thanks Shiv. I have read your articles. Interesting.
JE Menon thanks also for some excellent posts.

A couple of questions. First for JE. You said that the edifice of the wrong narrative is crumbling. What is your sense on how far this crumbling has gone and when a tipping point will come and it will really collapse.

For Shiv and JE .. so what is your best estimate on the dates of Ramayana and Mahabharata. And Puranas.

Lastly another point against aryan invasion. The Cholas took Ramayana to present day Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia. There is literally not evidence in texts or in popular culture of a fight between aryans and so called Dravidian. We still remember Alexander and Porus, Ghori, Ghazni but absolutely nothing in consciousness of a people who carry culture for thousands of years in an oral tradition. So makes no sense that Vedic culture external.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5372
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 05 Jul 2017 23:59



Places exist with the same names!

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7044
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 06 Jul 2017 00:46

>>First for JE. You said that the edifice of the wrong narrative is crumbling. What is your sense on how far this crumbling has gone and when a tipping point will come and it will really collapse.

It is just a general sense I have of this happening Akshay. Of course there are datapoints, as more and more people just start articulating our own narrative. Consider, for instance, the Tony Joseph AIT regurgitation. There were something like 6 counter articles to that within days, all basically tearing it apart from different angles. 10 years ago, that would have been impossible, there may have been one or two at best. Even more interesting, no one is really entering the debate on Tony Joseph's side - at least I haven't seen it so far. This is of course just one reference point of course. But just look at this thread itself: it's a wholesale multi-pronged full on offensive. All sorts of networks and tactical alliances are forming, and meanwhile more and more money is coming into it from the Indian side. Rajiv Malhotra's Infinity Foundation is doing sterling work, but it's not the only one I'm sure. And I am certain that as more and more manuscripts are translated and academically examined within the country, this whole "Aryan" invasion or migration narrative will crumble. Having said that, I don't think it's gone far yet. We are still hacking away at the foundations in my view. It will take at least another 50 years of sustained multi-disciplinary academic attack to actually render this thing to the crapheap - unless of course there is some groundbreaking new archaeological or other discovery which speeds up the process, a black swan of sorts. Considering how long these European appropriators have been at it, another 50 years is reasonable.

For Shiv and JE .. so what is your best estimate on the dates of Ramayana and Mahabharata. And Puranas.

On this, I defer entirely to the expertise of the people more knowledgeable: namely Shiv on the AIT argumentation, and Nilesh in terms of dating. What I have read of his work has convinced me that he has the approach right, and therefore i'll stick to his dates. I'm no expert on the subject and would be embarrassed to even speculate. One thing I am convinced of: the Vedic civilisation is the oldest on the planet, and everything of the culture and language that exists of this civilisational infrastructure outside India, went out from India.

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 06 Jul 2017 01:13

This is all getting confusing!
Vedic civilization (VC) older than IVC? Or IVC and VC are same civilization ? Or does IVC predate VC?

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

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

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 06 Jul 2017 01:20

Thank you JE.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 06 Jul 2017 01:24

Dipanker wrote:This is all getting confusing!
Vedic civilization (VC) older than IVC? Or IVC and VC are same civilization ? Or does IVC predate VC?

Vedic civilisation is completely village style civilisation where as IVC has modern cities with urban infrastructure.

So VC predates IVC by default. :)

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 06 Jul 2017 04:44

The whole confusion is because some "seals" etc have been dug up in a desert where tectonics have caused broad rivers to change course. The "seals" are mostly marks of trade. It appears quite certain that the places dug up were not centers of empires, but trading posts at the edge of a vast civilization with an immense hinterland and well-developed logistics. Thus it must have been many centuries before the trading posts even were set up
hain, nice spot near this river, you get on a couple of logs and float down to the vast ocean, and you can then meet these savages who come along the coast from some distant place, and they gave me this neat piece of yellow metal in exchange for my iron axe! See, I was able to beat it into a nice round bowl that I can wear on my head, or to dip into a river and drink water, or use as a "Pith helmet" (if you pith into it u cyain't mith)


Then another century before people decided to stay there on a permanent basis. So the IVC must be at least 1000 years younger than the hinterland civilization. 1,732,587 years and 263 days to be precise.

People are so fixated on "IVC" that they can't see the logically obvious. There are no "ruined cities" to be dug up in say, Malloostan, the True BirthPlace of Humanity, because everything down to the last brick, forget Seals and Jewelry and Pottery, would have been carted away and re-used next day after its owners departed.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 06 Jul 2017 05:03

OT, but watch what happens at the VERY END of this video.
I was just moving away from the web-page after the "Because as a Muxxxx" stuff when I saw that. Real civilization comes from India, Q.E.D.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 06 Jul 2017 05:15, edited 1 time 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 » 06 Jul 2017 05:14

UlanBatori wrote:OT, but watch what happens at the VERY END of this video.
I was just moving away from the web-page after the "Because as a Muxxxx" stuff when I saw that.

Anirut..

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 06 Jul 2017 05:54

SriJoy wrote:
Dipanker wrote:This is all getting confusing!
Vedic civilization (VC) older than IVC? Or IVC and VC are same civilization ? Or does IVC predate VC?


Most likely, Vedic stage preceded IVC, because of Saraswati river's situation. Less likely that Vedic stage is post IVC (this is the position of AMT peoples). A third, even less likely possibility is that IVC and Vedic civilization were concurrent, with Vedics being the 'rural hillbillies' of IVC, explaining why Vedic texts themselves record very little of urbanism.


If Vedic stage preceded IVC that would mean Vedic stage is older than 7500 BC. Do we have proof of this?
This makes vedic sanskrit over 4000+ years older than PIE! Doesn't this settle the OIT vs. AIT/AMT debate for good?

BTW here is an interesting gif animation of chronological spread of Indo-European from Wiki page:
Image

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 06 Jul 2017 06:09

But we have seals not just from extremities of IVC like Dholavira or Mohenjo Daro, we have them practically everywhere. If the seals are for marking trade goods, then it'd be used for all steps of the process, including its production in the 'hinterland'.

No argument there. With deepest respect, let me direct you to the Sarasvati Research Institute, Chennai, and their prolific publications in recent years, esp. this past year on related topics. Very interesting.

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 » 06 Jul 2017 06:09

Akshay Kapoor wrote:For Shiv and JE .. so what is your best estimate on the dates of Ramayana and Mahabharata. And Puranas.

Akshay I have two answers for that. Two answers, a short answer and a long answer
1. Short answer:
I would go by Nilesh Oak's dates.

2. Long answer:
What is history? Why are some things called pre-historic?

This question is significant because it creates a dichotomy between "history" and "not history". History (as you and I are taught) is a written record of people and events with dates. Anything before this is pre-history.

If an event is handed down as civilizational memory or family memory - it is not history, My great grandfather composed a song that is still sung in Kannada schools in Karnataka. But no one remembers his date or place of birth. Therefore my great grandfather is not history. His existence could have been cooked up. There are few records that he actually lived - so this could well be a fake story.

The point I am trying to make is that it was in the Christian era, after the story that a man called Christ had lived, died and had risen from his grave and simply disappeared leaving an empty grave (where there was no proof that anyone had been buried). The followers of this legend decided that they would record events henceforth. So the deliberate recording of history pretty much started after the legend of Jesus Christ. Everything after that era (which was recorded) was declared true history. Everything before was pre-history.

Until about the 19th century or so "history" and "truth" meant Christian history. This is where my second article in Swarajya becomes relevant. A rising Europe in the 19th Century had people who believed in their own superiority but when archaeologists found recorded history in the Levant that was older the Christian history it shook them up. The Jews were already a despised "race" in Europe and finding proof of an older Jewish civilization was intolerable.

The "discovery" of Sanskrit was a source of joy. Sanskrit was declared older than Jewish history, It was also declared as originating in the west, among white men in Europe and simply stated to have travelled from Europe to India where it happened to be preserved in pristine form. These stories as we have seen on this thread were simply cooked up. But they are now "recorded as history". White supremacists Europeans who said "Aryans existed and they were white Europeans" have permanently recorded "Aryans" as a race.

How can anyone prove that Aryans did not exist. Are there any records that they did not exist? No. Are there any records that Medusa the Gorgon - a monster with snakes instead of hair did not exist. None whatsoever. But Medusa is rejected as fake, Aryans did exist because Europeans have created records of the existence of Aryans, and have even created dates for them. the fact that Aryans find no mention in Indian narratives does not matter because the Mahabharata, Ramayana and puranas are not histories. They are simply fables told by an imprecise people who like to tell fantastic and unbelievable stories of non existent people - like my song composer great grandfather and Medusa the Gorgon.

The point is that when you stop believing the narrative of your people and start accepting what someone wrote alone as the truth - you are rejecting a huge part of your past. And since exact dates became a big deal just 2000 years ago - we are taught to reject any dates earlier than that. Our colonized minds now think like the Christians wanted post-Christ people to think - that is to reject the past and accept written history

A final note. The Catholics first created a record of Christ's life along with miracles. Catholics still believe in miracles. the Protestants, who were against Catholics drew a line and said that they accept "miracles" only with regard to Christ's life but all stories of any miracles after that are fake. So Protestants brought in the argument of credibility and rationality (actually Plato had started that but that is OT) In doing this they were effectively killing parts of Catholic narrative. But they were also killing the past narratives of all civilizations around the world by this type of censorship. In fact a Greek man called Ctesias wrote about India in a book called "Indica" and his worked have been given the dates of about 500 BC. But much of his work was simply smashed and destroyed (they were clay tablets) because they were considered too fantastic and unbelievable.

It is ironic that we sit here today and claim that we will believe only what we see written today. In my view that is stupidity.
Last edited by shiv on 06 Jul 2017 06:31, edited 1 time 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 » 06 Jul 2017 06:34

SriJoy wrote: He wasn't very accurate and makes no mention of primary or secondary evidences (i.e., what he saw/read vs what was told to him).

Rubbish. That is not history. No dates? No evidences? If you can accept that crap as history I accept the puranas as history

In fact there is no evidence that Christ existed. So please don't give me this tripe about someone who existed before Christ. It's all cooked up. If you believe that - it is your call. I know what I choose to believe

chandrasekaran
BRFite
Posts: 443
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 15:07

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

Postby chandrasekaran » 06 Jul 2017 06:48

Suggest one reads the following in order....

#1. Discovery of a fresh water channel under the current Bay of Bengal that runs all the way till Rama Sethu and
Reeferences from Valmiki Ramayana of this being man made - Ocean dug by Sagara
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2 ... engal.html

#2. References from the oldest available poems of Tamil referring to the same incident
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2 ... vious.html

#3. References from the old available tamil poetry (Sangam) corroborating whats said in Valmiki Ramayana
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2 ... -setu.html

The above are just samples on a particular topic. The blog, in general, is a treasure trove of comparative literature studies between ancient tamil works and samskrit that pretty much throws out the racial Aryan/Dravidian myth!

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 » 06 Jul 2017 06:55

The idea that a man called Christ existed is Christian dogma. There is no proof other than tradition and the alleged writings of people who are said to have lived over 1500 years ago. No date-able text or archaeological remains exist of Christ from the time he is alleged to have lived. But we are taught to take the story his life as the truth and use the dates attributed to his life as a touchstone for arriving at dates of other people and events.

If anyone gets irritated or angry with this it can only be cognitive dissonance at being told to reject what you have hitherto believed as a fundamental truth.

But if one wants to describe oneself as having some kind of detached scientific mind that is able to accept anything on the basis of the amount and type of evidence available - I say that Christ's life and the puranas are equally credible or incredible.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 06 Jul 2017 07:32

SriJoy wrote:
shiv wrote:Rubbish. That is not history. No dates? No evidences? If you can accept that crap as history I accept the puranas as history

In fact there is no evidence that Christ existed. So please don't give me this tripe about someone who existed before Christ. It's all cooked up. If you believe that - it is your call. I know what I choose to believe


Herodotus does give dates. He simply fails to record what is hearsay (to him) and what he knows as facts or what he's seen and what he's heard.
that still history, just poor scholarship.

Your position that Christians invented history 2000 years ago, after Christ, is flat out wrong.

I say that Christ's life and the puranas are equally credible or incredible.


they are both incredible but Puranas are relatively more credible than life of Christ.


They did invent history. Joseph Atwill provides a lot of evidence for this in his book Caesar's Messiah. Puranas are credible in the sense that the intent was to spread the science of the Upanishads in story form. Therefore, it's a unit of learning and not a myth like the Semitic stories.

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 » 06 Jul 2017 07:39

SriJoy wrote:
Your position that Christians invented history 2000 years ago, after Christ, is flat out wrong.

You are using 20/20 hindsight. Herodotus was criticized by fellow Greeks and accused of bluffing. He did tell a lot of incredible tales. But it was the Byzantines and later Christians who gradually accepted Herodotus as a historian as his writings were in consonance with what they thought was their theology and past. Herodotus is an accepted historian only because the Christians accepted him. Unlike Ctesias who also recorded a past probably earlier than Herodotus but his works were destroyed

History as we know it has been directed and shaped by Christians and the arguments of who is a historian and what is history have been sourced from what is acceptable to Christian history. Much of the other stuff was simply destroyed or at any rate rejected

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Jul 2017 08:45

Some info about Ctesias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesias
Ctesias (/ˈtiːʒəs/; Ancient Greek: Κτησίας, Ktēsíās), also known as Ctesias the Cnidian or Ctesias of Cnidus, was a Greek physician and historian from the town of Cnidus in Caria. Ctesias, who lived in the 5th century BC, was physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon, whom he accompanied in 401 BC on his expedition against his brother Cyrus the Younger.

Ctesias was the author of treatises on rivers, and on the Persian revenues, of an account of India entitled Indica (Ἰνδικά), and of a history of Assyria and Persia in 23 books, called Persica (Περσικά), written in opposition to Herodotus in the Ionic dialect, and professedly founded on the Persian Royal Archives.


Persica:
Of the two histories, we possess abridgments by Photius, and fragments are preserved in Athenaeus, Plutarch, Nicolaus of Damascus and especially Diodorus Siculus, whose second book is mainly from Ctesias.


Indica:
The book only remains in fragments and in reports made about the book by later authors.


As to the worth of the Persica there has been much controversy, both in ancient and modern times. Although many ancient authorities valued it highly, and used it to discredit Herodotus, a modern author writes that "(Ctesias's) unreliability makes Herodotus seem a model of accuracy.


Ctesias's account of the Assyrian kings does not reconcile with the cuneiform evidence.

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 » 06 Jul 2017 08:54

SriJoy wrote:
History as we know WAS shaped by Christians. Now, it is no longer and hasn't been for quite some time now. this is because of growing readership and acceptance of Greco-Roman records which prove superior to Christian records keeping.

Greco Roman records are accepted only because the modern west, the inheritors and keepers of Christian history have accepted them. But that apart - Aryans are also western history, created by the same deeply Christian European culture that has "admitted" Greek history.

Did Aryans exist?

Did they exist before Christ?

Did they exist before Herodotus?

If there is no proof of existence of Aryans should we reject that or should we make the same excuses and rationalizations you made about Herodotus
SriJoy wrote:(Herodotus) wasn't very accurate and makes no mention of primary or secondary evidences (i.e., what he saw/read vs what was told to him).
+
Herodotus does give dates. He simply fails to record what is hearsay (to him) and what he knows as facts or what he's seen and what he's heard


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 » 06 Jul 2017 09:04

SriJoy wrote:I didn't make any excuses for herodotus, i explained in a nutshell, his credibility.
Modern west has accepted Greco-Roman history, simply because a) it exists in voluminous amounts and b) it is of much higher pedigree than Christian history-writing.
Either way, you are obfuscating from the error i pointed out earlier : 'history' as we know it, is not a Christian invention. Its been heavily doctored by Christians, but existed prior to them and continue to do so even as Christians are being relegated to the backbench in historical discourse, as we speak.

Herodotus the historian's credibility needs to be seen pari passu with the credibility of historians who told us about Aryans. Both Herodotus and the historians who discovered Aryans sit comfortably with European Christian history and are accepted as credible. You certainly accept Herodotus as credible. Do you accept the word of historians who discovered Aryans to be credible?

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 » 06 Jul 2017 09:23

A_Gupta wrote:Some info about Ctesias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesias

Here is better info a 252 page pdf
http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/0 ... hols_a.pdf

His work has
largely been neglected or scorned by modern scholars because of the romantic and fantastic
nature of his writings. However, a close examination of his work shows that, while not always a
credible source, Ctesias often reflects the oral traditions circulating in Persia in the fifth century.
As such, he proves to be an invaluable source for Persian social history giving glimpses into how
the Persians viewed their own history and the world in which they lived. Unfortunately, these
works have not survived in their original form but have only been preserved in citations and
epitomes by later authors which, until now have never been fully and collectively translated into
English.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 06 Jul 2017 09:23

SriJoy wrote:
RoyG wrote:
They did invent history. Joseph Atwill provides a lot of evidence for this in his book Caesar's Messiah. Puranas are credible in the sense that the intent was to spread the science of the Upanishads in story form. Therefore, it's a unit of learning and not a myth like the Semitic stories.


Intent is unknown really- we are not the authors, the authors don't leave a huge amount of details about themselves to convey/extrapolate intent. But i feel like we are going around in circles. We are not in disagreement that Christians have invented a lot of nonsense- a lof of which (not all) has been destroyed by western academia itself. And yes, their nonsense is less credible than the Puranas. But the Puranas too, have their errors, flaws and religious make-believe etc. in them. Not all the Puranas are about science either.


First you make the claim that we don't know what the authors intended. Then you make the claim that there is "religious make-believe". Well which is it? Despite your attempt to universalize Semitic anthropology and see our own traditions through that lens, you should ponder on this: Two of our acharyas worked backwards and used the Puranas to interpret the Upanishads and left detailed notes of how they did it. It makes more sense that the Puranas which came after the Upanishads would carry the same meanings within the text and make it accessible to the masses.

It's very easy to see this - Take for example the iconic image of the chariot being steered by Krishna and with Arjuna being the passenger on the Kurukshetra battlefield. Krishna (Buddhi) holds the reins (Manas) over the 5 horses (senses) with Arjun playing the role of Atman (emergent property).

The Ramayan is also really the story of Sita. Without her playing the role of Buddhi/Chitta the story can never progress to the end. She makes all the critical decisions and is pitted between Rama (Moksha/Atman) and Ravarana (Ahamkara).

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 » 06 Jul 2017 09:35

Ctesias's name comes up along with the Behistun inscription which we have discussed scores of times in the past. A brief recap of some stuff
https://www.usna.edu/Users/history/abel ... histun.htm
The Behistun inscription is a long text on Persian history, engraved on a cliff about 100 meters off the ground along the road between modern Hamadan (Iran) and Baghdad (Iraq), near the town of Bisotun. In antiquity, the name of the village was Bagastâna, which means "place where the gods dwell".


Interestingly "Bagastana" is Baga or Bhaga + stan (place)

Bhaga is part of the word "bhagwan" and "bhagya" . Russian words "Bielobog" and "Charobog" also have "bog" or bhag/God

what has always puzzled me is that Bielobog (white God) and charobog (black god) is that bielo and charo for black and white sound like Kannada bili (white) and kari (black) Char/kari etc seem connected to charring and charcoal

But I digress: Quoting again from the above link
Several persons have described the monument. The first to do so was the Greek doctor Ctesias of Cnidus (plm. 400 BCE). He tells us that there are a well and a garden beneath a monument dedicated by the Assyrian queen Semiramis to the supreme god, which Ctesias calls by his Greek name Zeus

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Jul 2017 09:39

shiv wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:Some info about Ctesias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesias

Here is better info a 252 page pdf
http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/0 ... hols_a.pdf


The attempted invasion of India by Semiramis is worth reading.

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 » 06 Jul 2017 09:49

A_Gupta wrote:
shiv wrote:Here is better info a 252 page pdf
http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/0 ... hols_a.pdf


The attempted invasion of India by Semiramis is worth reading.

Arun I have included this in my unpublished book. The dates appear to be around 1000 BC. I will have to look at my notes. I will post passages if they are relevant. This is a western source that leads up to the dating of the Vedas

Meanwhile:

This is funny. I am reaching no conclusions - but simply pointing out the contradictions in what is taught as history
Achaemenid invasion of the Indus valley (including Gandhara)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemeni ... dus_Valley
Gandhara/Taxila in Punjab was conquered by the Achaemenid empire in 518 BC.[


Panini biography
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/hist ... anini.html
Born: about 520 BC in Shalatula (near Attock), now Pakistan
Died: about 460 BC in India


That means Panini lived under Darius' rule.

SriJoy dated Panini to around 300 BC IIRC - and that is even more interesting

Like I said I am making no judgements.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Jul 2017 10:00

^^^
Many historians up until the 18th century followed Ctesias for Assyrian history as he was thought to be the best source available. Then in the 18th century the discovery of the Assyrian kinglist tablets showed that the royal lineage given by Ctesias was clearly fable.


So, Semiramis is considered to be mythical. Semiramis is said to have founded Babylon. Historians give that date as around 2300 BC.

[Ensconced in Bactria, Semiramis ]

(2) When she heard that the nation of the Indians was the greatest in the world and that they possessed the largest and most beautiful land, she resolved to launch a campaign into India where in those days Stabrobates reigned with countless soldiers and an incredible number of elephants, brilliantly adorned with terrifying instruments of war.

(3) India is a land of exceeding beauty divided by many rivers; there is water everywhere and it produces harvest twice each year. There is such an abundance of life’s necessities that the natives are always provided with plentiful enjoyment. It is said that there has never been a famine or loss of crops in this country because of the good climate.

(4) It has an incredible number of elephants far surpassing those in Libya both in forcefulness and bodily strength. There is also an incredible supply of gold, silver, iron and bronze, and in addition to these, there is a large quantity of precious stones of all types as well as nearly everything pertinent to luxury and wealth. A fter Semiramis heard about all this in detail, she was persuaded to declare war on the Indians, although she had not been provoked in any way.

(5) Seeing that she still needed an exceedingly large force, she sent out envoys to all of her satrapies ordering the governors to enlist the best of their youth and gave them a quota based on the size of their nations. She ordered all of them to construct new armor and the others to be present prepared after a third year in Bactria.

(6) She sent for shipbuilders from Phoenicia, Syria, Cyprus and the other coastal lands where she supplied them with an abundance of wood and ordered them to construct collapsible river boats.

(7) The Indus River, the largest river in this region which defines the borders of her kingdom, required many skiffs to cross it and to guard against the Indians; since there is no forest around the river the skiffs had to be carried on foot from Bactriana.

(8) Semiramis observed that she was badly in need of elephants so she contrived a plan to construct a likeness of these animals hoping to astound the Indians because they believed that there were no elephants at all outside of India.

(9) She selected 300,000 black oxen and distributed their meat to the craftsmen and those appointed to build the contraptions, and then she sewed the skins together and filled them with hay to make the image completely imitate the form of these creatures. Each of these contraptions had a man inside in order to manage them and a camel to carry it and thus give it the appearance of a real beast to those watching from a distance.

(10) The craftsmen building these for her conducted their work in an enclosure with a wall and a diligently watched gate, so that none of the craftsmen inside could leave nor could anyone reach them from outside. She did this so that no one outside would know what was going on and no rumor of these operations would reach the Indians.

(17) Since the boats and the beast contraptions were built in the first two years, in the 3rd year Semiramis asked for the forces from all over her empire to gather in Bactriana. The numbers of the assembled army as provided by Ctesias of Cnidos were 3 million infantry, 200,000 cavalry and 100,000 chariots.

(2) There were also 100,000 men riding camels equipped with sabers which were four cubits long. Semiramis constructed 2000 collapsible riverboats and she arranged for them to be carried over land by the camels along with the elephant contraptions, as I have already said. The soldiers gathered the horses around them and taught them not to fear the strangeness of these beasts.

(3) Many years later Perseus, the king of the Macedonians, did something similar...

(4) Stabrobates, the king of the Indians, when he learned of the size of the aforementioned forces and the lengthy preparations for war, set out to outdo Semiramis in every way.

(5) First, he built 4,000 riverboats out of reeds (for India produces along the rivers and marshy areas an abundance of reeds which are so wide that a man can hardly embrace one); moreover, it is said that boats made from these reeds are superior since this material does not decay.

(6) After taking great care for the construction of armor and going around all of India, Stabrobates gathered a force far greater in size than the one assembled by Semiramis.

(7) After making a search for wild elephants and multiplying his preexisting numbers, he brilliantly equipped all of them with terrible instruments of war.

(8) Then, because of their size and the construction of the towers on their backs they gave the appearance in attack formation of something humanely impossible to withstand.

(18) When he had made all his preparations for war, Stabrobates sent envoys to Semiramis while she was on the road and accused her of starting war without provocation. In his letter he seriously cursed at her like a harlot calling upon the gods as witnesses and threatened that after her defeat he would have her nailed to a cross.

(2) Semiramis, however, read the letter, laughed, and remarked that through her actions the Indian would experience her true virtue. She then advanced with her force and came to the Indus River where she found the boats of the enemy ready for battle.

(3) Consequently, Semiramis quickly prepared her boats, filled them with her best marines and engaged in a naval battle on the river while her infantry drawn up along the stream eagerly joined in.

(4) While the engagement continued for a long time and both sides were fighting fiercely, finally Semiramis was victorious destroying nearly 1,000 boats and taking many prisoners.

(5) Ecstatic over her victory, she enslaved the islands in the river and the cities while collecting more than 100,000 captives. After this, the king of the Indians led his force away from the river pretending to be withdrawing in fear but in truth he was coaxing the enemy to cross the river.

(6) Semiramis, meanwhile, as matters were proceeding according to plan, crossed the river by constructing a lavish bridge over which she transported her entire force. She left behind 60,000 men to guard it while she advanced with the rest of her army in pursuit of the Indians with the elephant imitations leading the way so that the enemy's scout s would inform the king of the numbers of elephants she had.

(7) Her hopes were not dashed; when those sent out on reconnaissance informed the Indians of the multitude of elephants which the enemy had, they were all at a loss as to from where such a large number of elephants could have come.

(8) The lie did not remain a secret for very long; some of Semiramis' soldiers were caught during the night neglecting their guard duties in the camp and for fear of the impending punishment they deserted to the enemy and informed them of the deception of the elephants. The king of the Indians gained confidence upon hearing the news and informed his army about the fake elephants; he then marshaled his army and turned back to face the A ssyrians.

(19) When Semiramis did the same, as the armies drew closer to each other, Stabrobates the king of the Indians sent his cavalry with his chariots well in advance of the battle -line.

(2) Since the queen faced the attack of the cavalry courageously and the constructed elephants were marshaled in front of the line of battle in equal distances from each other, it happened that the Indian horses became terrified.

(3) The elephant contraptions from a distance had the same appearance as the real beasts and the Indian horses, being accustomed to them, boldly charged; however, when they drew near, the smell that hit them was unfamiliar and this, along with everything else being substantially different, threw the horses into utter disorder. Consequently, some of the Indians fell to the ground while others, when their animals disobeyed the bit, as it happened, were carried into the enemy lines with their horses.

(4) Semiramis, fighting with select soldiers and skillfully taking advantage of the situation, routed the Indians; although thes e men fled toward the line of battle, King Stabrobates remained calm and advanced the ranks of his infantry with the elephants leading the way while he personally took up position on the right flank and, fighting on the strongest elephant, boldly advanced against the queen who just happened to be positioned opposite him.

(5) When the rest of the elephants did likewise, the army of Semiramis was able to withstand the attack of the beasts for only a short period of time as the animals had superior strength and trusting in their own power easily destroyed all resistance.

(6) As a result, there was widespread slaughter: some men were trampled under foot while others were ripped apart by their tusks and some were flung in the air by their trunks. When there was a heap of bodies piled up and the impending danger aroused great terror and panic in those watching, no one still had the courage to remain at his post.

(7) And so when the entire army was put to flight, the king of the Indians pressed hard against Semiramis herself. At first, he fired arrows at her and wounded her in the arm and then he hurled a javelin at her which ran through the queen's back hitting her sideways; for that reason, Semiramis did not suffer serious injury and quickly rode off while the pursuing beast fell behind because it lacked speed.

(8) Every one had fled towards the pontoon bridge and, because such a large crowd ended up confined in one narrow place, some of the queen's men were killed by their own people as horses and foot soldiers ran headlong together in mass confusion. When the Indians were at hand there was a violent thrust for the bridge out of fear so that many were forced over both sides of the bridge and fell into the river.

(9) Then, when most of the survivors had reached safety across the river, Semiramis cut off the bonds holding the bridge together. With the bonds broken, the pontoon bridge fell to pieces and as many of the pursuing Indians were on it when it was brought down by the force of the current, many of them perished while Semiramis found safety because she prevented the enemy from crossing to her side.

(10) After this the king of the Indians, since he had perceived omens in the sky and seers were prophesizing that the river was not to be crossed, halted his pursuit. Semiramis, meanwhile, made an exchange of prisoners and returned to Bactria having lost two-thirds of her force.

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 » 06 Jul 2017 10:11

Arun: From my notes
The Greek historian Ctesias (400 BC), wrote a history of what was known of Persia and India in his
time. Some of what he wrote was declared unbelievable, and much of his writing was lost, but it is
clear that he had some of his facts correct. What survives of Ctesias’ writing is from others who
included what he wrote in their own work. Ctesias mysteriously noted, for example, that it does not
rain in India, but people live by a perennial river. This statement is uncannily close to a description
of the geography and climate around the Oxus river. The land is arid, with little rainfall while the
river itself is fed from snow melt from the Pamirs. Ctesias speaks of how the Assyrians conquered
“India”. But when he speaks of the geographic features that the Assyrians had to face in a war, the
description is eerily similar to the difficulties faced by Soviet and NATO troops in fighting the
Taliban in Afghanistan, with many narrow passes while the local Bactrians held the high ground. It
seems that the “India” that Ctesias talks about was the Gandhara area to the west of the Indus
river. This was earlier considered a part of India. This fact is corroborated from Vedic texts
considering Bactria/Balkh as lands with Vedic people. So Gandhara/Bactria/eastern Media used to
constitute the western extent of ancient India and it started coming under the influence of powers
from the west after about 1000 BC.

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 » 06 Jul 2017 10:12

SriJoy wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:The attempted invasion of India by Semiramis is worth reading.


Indeed. It gives us a good window into Assyrian's world. However, be cautious treating it as history- Semiramis is also a mythic figure- sort of similar to Romulus/Remus of Rome and various other mythical characters in various religions.

But there is no need for such caution when it comes to treating the existence of Aryans as history

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 » 06 Jul 2017 10:16

SriJoy wrote:Sir, i do not appreciate putting words in my mouth.


Fair enough but the rest of the post has been left unaddressed by you.
Do you accept the word of historians who discovered Aryans to be credible?


No need to answer. Whether you answer or not it indicates something to people who read this exchange

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 » 06 Jul 2017 10:17

SriJoy wrote:
shiv wrote:But there is no need for such caution when it comes to treating the existence of Aryans as history


Depends on what you mean by Aryans. aryans as a race didn't exist- or atleast, there is no evidence of it. Aryans as a term, of culture, did. Our history uses the term 'Aryadesha/Aryavarta' commonly to refer to ourselves in 1st millennium AD.

I would be happy for you to fine one single reference to Aryan in any Sanskrit text.

Arya exists. Aryan is a concoction

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 » 06 Jul 2017 10:21

SriJoy wrote: However, we've found no Assyrian records of invading India from archaeology.

We have no archaeological records of Aryans invading either or of Aryans as a people.

But the Behistun inscription records that Darius occupied India (at least Bactria) so "no archaeological records" is an error

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 » 06 Jul 2017 10:29

SriJoy wrote:Our history uses the term 'Aryadesha/Aryavarta' commonly to refer to ourselves in 1st millennium AD.

Complete rubbish. A bluff if I ever saw one.

Our narrative gives no such dates.

That said McDonnell and Keith wrote in their book in 1912

The Baudhayana Dharma Sutra defines Aryavarta as the land east of Vinasana ; west of the
Kalaka-vana, ‘ Black Forest,' or rather Kanakhala, near Hardvar; south of the Himalaya; and north
of the Pariyatra or the Paripatra Mountains.


Vinasana was an area where a river (Saraswati) vanished into the desert. The river itself had not disappeared. The river had gone by 1800 BC. So references to Aryavarta where Vinasana is mentioned pre-date 1800 BC

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Jul 2017 10:45

Deleted - embarrassing error
Last edited by A_Gupta on 06 Jul 2017 11:01, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rajesh_MR, Sagrawal, suryag and 47 guests