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: 3383
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 07 Jul 2017 09:43

SriJoy wrote:

Semantics. Even Indologists who don't think Aryans were a race ( BB Lal, Parpola, Kazanas, etc) use it to denote people, just as Arya is used to denote people.

Interesting to hear Parpola described thus.

From Nilesh Oak's article refuting Tony Joseph

https://www.myind.net/Home/viewArticle/ ... n-of-india

Thankfully, the authors of the paper (but not Mr. Tony Joseph) are aware of the conjectural nature of their claim and immediately add:

“although dated aDNA evidence will be needed for a precise estimate of its arrival in various parts of the Subcontinent. aDNA will also be needed to test the hypothesis that there were several streams of Indo-Aryan immigration (each with a different pantheon), for example with the earliest arriving ~3.4 ka and those following the Rigveda several centuries later [12].”

The reference [12] is the inspiration for their conjecture and when one digs deeper, one realizes that the reference [12] in their paper is to a book by A Parpola, a linguist and known supporter of the Aryan-Dravidian divide. And with this we are back to the familiar mythical Aryans streaming into India, this time around 1400 BCE (~3.4 ka) and then writing Rigveda!



So Parpola is in fact the very source cited by Martin Richards (and thence Tony Joseph) to justify the racist "Aryan Invasion" conclusions of their Y chromosome paper.

Which leads us to two possible conclusions when SriJoy refers to Parpola as "not thinking Aryans were a race":

1) SriJoy has not actually read any Parpola but is dropping names like a pigeon drops turds (unfair comparison because pigeon turds might actually have some value as fertilizer)

2) SriJoy is lying to cover up his own misrepresentations of Arya/Aryan, which he has concocted specifically to whitewash the underlying racism thereof.

Take your pick.
Last edited by Rudradev on 07 Jul 2017 09:44, edited 1 time in total.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3383
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 07 Jul 2017 09:54

The flailing, grasping claims of the racist-whitewasher grow ever more pathetic. Is Parpola also a "believer" in the blueness of the sky? A linguistic divide is pretty obvious between two language families.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Jul 2017 09:55

SriJoy wrote:A person who considers themselves followers of Dharma are Aryans and who do not, are not Aryans. Pretty straightforward.
Pretty straightforward until the non Aryan thinks he is Dravidian and says that Aryans subjugated his ancestors. All those non racist scholars are not rushing to say that the story is fake. So there are serious political complications to using racist terminology foisted on Indians by our colonial masters

SriJoy wrote:
The term Aryan needs to be discarded and recognized as racist like "c-h!nk" and nigger

they stick to it, because scholars realize that Aryan is an English appeleation of the word Arya,

You are making excuses for others. Those people need to understand that they are doing damage from their ignorance and exalted scholarly positions they hold. And those who have open minds will change and say that Ayra is the word in Sanskrit., Aryan is a racist term used for white men on horses who are claimed to have brought language to India, pushing Dravidians south
Last edited by shiv on 07 Jul 2017 10:00, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Jul 2017 09:58

SriJoy wrote:Good. You are learning.

Read my whole post to reveal the width and depth of my understanding. I repeat for the benefit of others

shiv wrote:Aryan may not have been racist to begin with but it was already wrong because it referred to a group of language speakers and not to dharma where the origin of "Arya" lies. That error was compounded by racists. Now the word "Aryan" means white man who came to India with language. There is no going back on that.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3383
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 07 Jul 2017 10:06

Yes. Parpola is a "linguist" whose brilliant insight is that "there is a divide" between two groups of languages that linguistics classifies into separate families in the first place. Never mind that the terms used by him (and others in the Western discipline of linguistics) to describe those two families, "aryan" and "dravidian", are phony racial categories superimposed by White Europeans through motivated mistranslation of Sanskrit words. Never mind that the continued usage of these terms (as demonstrated by the Richards paper citing Parpola) clearly illustrates how their persistence in "scholarly" bullshit is the very substrate for furtherance of the Aryan/Dravidian race theoretical construct..Talk about making excuses.
Last edited by Rudradev on 07 Jul 2017 10:08, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Jul 2017 10:07

SriJoy wrote:Only a chip-on-your-shoulder irridentist will turn himself blue in the face decrying racism for anyone not holding unsubstantiated notions favourable to Hindu mythologies and keep repeating vapid assertion of racism in a term that has been subverted. Only such a dhoti-shivering irridentist will surrender the term to racists who came to dominate Indology, AFTER the initial batch of Indologists who saw 'India as mother India'. Might as well surrender Swastika too, a term identical in its appealation in English and also subverted.

Emotional appeals about surrender ignore the fact that the racist connotation of Aryan is (mis)used politically in India because people think that the racist story is true and that Sanskrit or Indo-European speaking people are subjugators of Dravidian South Indians, or alternatively that Indo European speakers created a caste system to shield themselves from the corruptions of non Indo European speakers.

Doggedly sticking to racist terminology adopted from people who did not understand the word and allowed it unopposed to be used by racists is in my view a political error and needs to be opposed and changed for that reason. If there were no political and social repercussions in India I too would be wiping tears from my eyes with all this emotional stuff about "reclaiming" Arya renamed as Aryan

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7021
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 07 Jul 2017 10:15

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

NS Rajaram at an India Inspires presentation... In case it has not been posted here before

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5225
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Jul 2017 10:22

SriJoy wrote:they stick to it, because scholars realize that Aryan is an English appeleation of the word Arya, which has been subverted by racists, just like Swastika. Unlike you, they are not prepared to surrender it to the racists permanently but reclaim it.
the term Aryan needs to be redeemed, along with Swastika.
Srijoy: You are simply wrong here. The word Aryan has NEVER been used except to demarcate race by Europeans. The word Arya has NEVER been used by Indians to denote race in any form.

Europeans were consumed with race theory to explain everything, literally everything in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Papers such as these abound the literary discourse.
http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ ... xt=faculty

nhabitants of India display a kaleidoscopic diversity of physical
attributes, combined with an almost endless variety of languages, reli-
gious beliefs, cultural practices, historical memories, and social orders
spread over a continental geographical expanse. For the double binary of
fair/dark and civilized/savage, India presented an enigma because of its
intermediate location, both in the scale of civilization as defined, for
example, by Hegel and Mill,4 ° and for the variety of complexions lying
between the extremes of the scale of physical types defined by race sci-
ence. This heterogeneity precluded normalization of the colonized
through any single analytical model, or any simple binary application of
the grammar of racial difference. The master discourse of racial differ-
ence, then, could be maintained only by introducing other analytical cat-
egories and classification schemes, while reading race into these. The
colonial response was to construct categories of caste, tribe, nation and
communal/religious groups, to read race into them, and to locate them
within the hierarchical order of History. Often categories of race, caste,
tribe, nation, language, and religion were conflated and even used inter-
changeably. The result was a contextual construction of race, remarkable
for its contingency, plasticity, and malleability. The structure of this
construction involved: (i) slippage of classificatory categories, whereby "race," "caste," "tribe,". "stock," and "nation," were used interchangea-
bly; (ii) racialization of the constructs, whereby all these categories were posited as being essentially biological and hereditary, questions of blood and descent; (iii) a two-tier scheme of racial hierarchy, under which while all natives were deemed racially inferior to the colonizers' race, racialized hierarchies were posited among the colonized; and (iv) legi- timization of colonialism, whereby colonial rule was seen as diffusing progressive attributes of the colonizers' race in order to save the native from the degradation induced by his own race.
The contingent and malleable nature of colonial construction of race was betrayed by the theoretical knots the colonizers tied themselves into, in the face of suggestions of racial affinity with the colonized. In the late eighteenth century, anxieties and desires of modem Europe's incessant search for national origins led to the discovery of an ancestral
"Indo-European" language. This led to theses about common ancestry of tribes of the "Aryan race," which supposedly had conquered and colo- nized India, Persia and Europe around 2000 B.C. Estimates of the con- tinuity of Indo-European languages implied that modem speakers of these languages, which included inhabitants of northern India, were descendants of the ancient ones, hence members of the common Aryan race.4" Soon a derivative Aryan invasion theory of Indian civilization held the field that India's civilization was produced by the clash and subsequent mixture of light-skinned civilizing Aryan invaders and dark- skinned barbarian aborigines. The "chameleon-like character of... this European theory [which] was 'retrofitted' to the Indian landscape,"42 was apparent in the shifts of its purported evidentiary support from lin- guistic criteria to anatomical measurements to civilizational logic. While archeological research, particularly the discovery of the Indus Civiliza- tion "should have put paid to the racial theory of Indian civilization," 4 3 it proved remarkably durable and resistant to new information.


Apologies for the formatting.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3383
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 07 Jul 2017 10:30

Actually "Aryan" has been reclaimed plentifully. Amongst affluent parents of a certain generation in metropolitan India it is quite a common name to give male children. That has not changed the fact that racists and Breaking-India Forces in the West, and their opportunistic sepoys in India, continue to use this distorted term to indicate a nonexistent white-skinned race who brought the Sanskrit language to India from elsewhere.

The idea that "reclamation" of the term Aryan (never an Indian term in the first place) would solve the problem of its racist appropriation and misrepresentation is thus clearly untrue.

Agasthi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 18 Jan 2017 08:29

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

Postby Agasthi » 07 Jul 2017 10:34

Srijoy Wrote: Arya is in Sanskrit and Aryan is in English.


Srijoy Wrote: Semantics. Even Indologists who don't think Aryans were a race ( BB Lal, Parpola, Kazanas, etc) use it to denote people, just as Arya is used to denote people.


Are you saying there existed a race called "Aryans". Claiming to be no expert, but from my basic knowledge how does an adjective which is what 'Arya' is in Sanskrit translate to a noun 'Aryan' in English. That's like saying there existed a race called 'Nobles'. Nobles invaded India in 2000 BCE?

'Aryavarta/Aryadesha' is an appellation just like 'Valliya Nadu' or 'Marma Desam'.

Srijoy Wrote: Swastika is aslo an English word, FYI. Not Sanskrit. Just like 'Aryan'. Just as the word is not 'Aryan but Arya' in Sanskrit, 'Swastika' is an English word.


Srijoy Wrote: Swastika is also an english word, bearing close resemblence to the original, just like Aryan is an English word, bearing close resemblance to Arya.


How is Swastika an English word? Hooked Cross is what it is in English and Hakenkreuz in German. In fact, the Nazi Anthem mentions no Swastika only Hakenkreuz. The Anglos associated that symbol to our word for it to remove links to the cross and to extremist christianity which in turn covered the christian roots to the Holocaust. Hence all translations of English contains Swastika instead of Hooked Cross whereas the German original retain Hakenkreuz. Goras can't even pronounce Swastika properly and you are saying it is an english word!

Rudradev wrote:The notion that Arya/Aryan is equivalent to English/Angrez is daft.

The latter is a straightforward mispronounciation of a foreign word in a language with different articulatory phonetic features.

The former is a motivated mistranslation that changes the entire sense of the word, its specific meaning, its contextual implications, even the level of abstraction it brings as a qualifier to the subject of its application. It distorts a term of universal applicability (anyone can follow dharma) to one that defines a specific identity (to wit, a racial identity, very much what can be expected given the racist obsessions of White Europeans).


Srijoy Wrote: False for the bolded part, as the term Aryan has been used through entire history of English scholarship on the topic, before the radicalized connotations arose in the first place.


So repeating a lie a hundred thousand times until it becomes the truth is propaganda and worse bad scholarship and bad translation. If the term has been used in the entire history of english scholarship, it behooves descendants of this ancient culture to correct them and guide them onto the right path.

Agree with Rudradev, Angrez is a mispronunciation just like Thiruchirapalli became Trichnopoly. Noun is still a Noun. But equating that with Aryan which is not right. An adjective became a noun and further more led some nutcases to believe they are special and ended up killing 50+ million people in a war.
Last edited by Agasthi on 07 Jul 2017 10:52, edited 1 time in total.

Misra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 100
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 09:03

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

Postby Misra » 07 Jul 2017 10:36

"ganges" is another term that is begging to go the "aryan" way--there is no reason for any indian to not refer to "ganga" as "ganga"

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 07 Jul 2017 18:22

A_Gupta wrote:Most astronomical phenomena of the type in the MBh and Ramayana is recurrent.

This is true and corroborates the statement of my theory - "All astronomy observations of MBH and Ramayana are visual/facual/actual observations of the sky"

It is very critical though to remember that there are few observations which are, although, recurring, can only be explained for a certain time interval during the long cycle of 'precession of Equinoxes' of ~26000 years.

And it is even more critical to recognize that, by luck, some of these observations, are so unique that they happened only once (say in last 20 million years) (e.g. AV observation) in the past.
Now, had unique events like novae or supernovae been recorded, that would be a different matter.

It is amazing how much one misses even after multiple readings of Mahabharata or Ramayana. So, there is always a possibility of finding recorded events of Novae and supernovae. I have not found them. Of course, it does not mean that they are not there. This is a team sport and all are welcome to investigate.

As to a unique event, AV observation beats and would beat any 'perceived' unique events due to Novae or supernovae.
AV observation is an unique event par excellence!

So, as a first approximation, one obtains the LCM (least common multiple) of all the recurrence times as the estimate of how long ago all the observations coincided.

If this is a layman question, then layman answer is 'More or less.. yes". The reality is far more complicated.
That is a long time ago.

These observations lead to 5561 BCE in case of Mahabharata and to 12209 BCE in case of Ramayana.

"Long time ago" is a relative word.

Many with dogmatic 'views' are upset that this did not lead to millions of years in antiquity, as desired by them.

Many pseudo-Indic researchers are upset that it did not fit the new perceived reality (perceived and imagined by them) of ~3000 BCE (for Mahabharata) and ~5000 BCE (for Ramayana) they were hoping so as to convince all and sundry.. by appearing reasonable and keeping up with other pseudo-models for civilization, domestication, agriculture, archaeology, languages etc. worldwide.
The more observations one fits, the further in the past the date goes.

How naive!

I hope this naivety was not driven by two sets of data.. 215+ observations of Mahabharata leading to 5561 BCE and 575+ observations of Ramayana leading to 12209 BCE! (More observations leads to further in the past!!)

The reality is far from such naivety. When one sits on these data sets and aspires to fit them as jigsaw puzzle, not only the initial reaction, but a recurrent reaction, as one goes on solving it, is predominantly ....Whaat the XXXX?
Anyway for innovation to occur, the spirit is supposed to be "yes, and also" and not "no, but".

Wrong.

"Yes and also" refers to preserving the successes of the exiting successful theory. If there are any successes, they must be preserved. So far so good.

On the other hand...

Any revolutionary theory and thus innovation is always accompanied by conflicting outcome, and for that very reason leading to 'growth' of our knowledge.

Ptolemy- Copernicus-Tycho Brahe-Kepler-Galileo-Newton-Lagrange-Faraday/Mawell-Plank-Poincare-Einstein are good illustrations of the 'innovations' and 'revolutions'

In the words of Karl Popper:

In order that a new theory should constitute a discovery or a step forward it should conflict with its predecessor – that is to say, it should lead to at least some conflicting results. This means, from a logical point of view, that it should contradict its predecessor: it should overthrow it. In this sense, progress in science – or at least striking progress – is always revolutionary.



So may the research continue.


This is a trivially true statement (albeit important one) of a scientific and rational quest.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5084
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 07 Jul 2017 19:09

Religion cannot be translated to Dharma! Translation of religion comes closest to Sampardaya (set of rules) but never Dharma.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 07 Jul 2017 19:19

^^
I am presenting a paper at a conference in New Delhi 'Mahabharata Manthan - Tangible and Intangible heritage" on 20 July 2017, on this very subject of proper usage of (1) unique (2) recurring but long cycle (precession of equinoxes) and (3) recurring and short cycle (near earth phenomena) evidence of Mahabharata in arriving at the year of Mahabharata war.

One of my colleagues would be presenting the paper on my behalf, and I will post the 'Youtube' video I created for my colleague, here, after 20 July 2017.

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

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

Postby Primus » 07 Jul 2017 19:25

SriJoy wrote:
RoyG wrote:
Wow that's rich considering we didn't actually colonize them. Angrez isn't a symbol of oppression. Aryan and n*gger are.


Its called subverting the original meaning. Just like how Swastika has been subverted. And as i pointed out, Swastika is also an english word, bearing close resemblence to the original, just like Aryan is an English word, bearing close resemblance to Arya.


Srijoy Ji, that is simply a bogus argument. We all agree Rama is the same as Ram, Krishna is just as acceptable as Krishn or Krishan. Swastika and Swastik are equally similar in meaning for us. BUT, Arya and Aryan are absolutely NOT the same thing and it is disingenuous (at best) on your part to conflate the two.

While the Nazis may have misused our Swastik for their own nefarious purposes it does not diminish its importance or value for Hindus. OTOH, 'Aryan' and its numerous implications for the Indic people are an absolute anathema to us. I am surprised that you persist with your line of reasoning.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Jul 2017 19:30

Just browsed Rajeev Srinivasan's surprisingly mild and as-always thorough "de-briefing" of Tony Joseph(is Tony any relative of the noted einstein Josy Joseph who used to display his 'expertise' on REDIFF regarding Defence matters I wonder).

So all of you have been wasting time and energy on THIS? :rotfl:

"BMC Evolutionary Biology". NOT to be confused (although they clearly want us to do so) with the Journal of Evolutional Biology. A BRITISTH journal (By Appointment To Her Equine Majesty, What-What I Say?) publishes the conclusion that all civilization came from... The House of Windsor!!!!

Why is this different from what the East India Company, authors of the original AIT, was doing way back I wonder.

The top journal I can find in Evolutionary Biology (also from England, Oxford Press) has an H-index of 183. Josy's journal has 96. Not that this means anything except that this journal is waaaaay down the ranks of the journals in this field. Also, this is an Open Access Journal, same as those put out by Al Hindawi Press.

IOW, "Pay 2 Publish". Between 1370 and 2145 British Pounds, to be precise.
Why would anyone publish in such a journal when they could go to a peer-reviewed conference and publish in those Proceedings for much less? Hmmmm! Because the paper is garbage?

Or post a whole book on Amazon for nothing at all?

IOW, what the Pakistanis call "Lifafa Journal-ism".

n

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Jul 2017 19:41

Nileshji: What is "AV" please?
Also, aren't there plenty of comet observations in both Ramayana and MB? Those are fairly predictable but at intervals of less than 100 years, mostly (but not all). A comet observation is impossible to ignore.

Orbital period at the edge of Pluto is around 250+ years, so Kuiper Belt objects could be 500 years?

OTOH, every time a comet becomes really visible, it is on its way to doom in the next few cycles.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 07 Jul 2017 19:54

UlanBatori wrote:Nileshji: What is "AV" please?

UlanBatori ji

Have a bowl of popcorn and suitable drink (and/or Grilled food from Mangolian Grill) and be ready to entertain, enlighten and educate yourself.. :rotfl:

(1) Purv Paksha - AV observation (Superficial and manipulative research of Mahabharata chronology)

https://youtu.be/Y-MwkYUTz5Y

(2) Uttara paksha - AV observation (Superficial and manipulative research of Mahabharata chronology)

https://youtu.be/kOeMqhJG5rI

(3) Decisive implications of AV observation - part 1 (From Swadeshi Indology conference -2)

https://youtu.be/BlNY-1vmqvA?list=PLYOS ... ds34G_jQap

(4) Decisive implications of AV observation - Part 2 (Press club of India, New Delhi)

https://youtu.be/RedV48OCEFg?list=PLYOS ... ds34G_jQap

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Jul 2017 21:23

Nileshji: Thx. I watched 1-2, maybe 3 as well. It is against Mongolian policy to study anything in depth, this is part of the rich tradition of nomadic tribes. Not for us this bijnej of sitting down on riverbanks engraving 100,000 Rks in stone, one dot at a time.

So here is my gentle pooch.
a) Why did they name those two stars A and V?
My acute observation was that this is because when they were named, they were moving side-by-side, close, and the ONE ON THE LEFT WAS A BIT BEHIND the one on the right. Otherwise (if left was ahead of right) they would have named them something else, not bibi-hubbi. I tried to explain this to Supreme HQ. This is called Heroism Going Far Beyond The Call of Duty. She asked:
WHY? Are you a (chauvinistic idiot like) Manu?

OK, but u c my point, I hope. :((

b) Had this not been the case, the fact that A was walking AHEAD of V would have occasioned no comment. So the fact that "A walking ahead of V" was remarkable, shows that the opposite was the case when the two were named. Q.E.D.

Not sure what significance this has, but it appears that the naming of the stars after Rishis occurred many thousands of years before. As it should have, of course. You probably discussed this in videos 3 and 4, watching which might have saved me the above horror.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2191
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 07 Jul 2017 21:58

Excellent quote from the paper, ShauryaT

I think we should continue to do what Shiv started - repeatedly hammer down the message into Indian brain about the racist origins of AIT. One snippet at a time. We should also point out that these blatantly unscientific & racist views were published in "papers" & books in mainstream Western journals and media. That the people espousing these views were considered "reputable scholars" in the Western world.

Its important to remove the maya of the "superiority of Western science" that seems to blind many educated Indians. These otherwise rational Indians can see neither Western Science's unscrupulous/non-scientific side nor how "social science" pretends to be science.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Jul 2017 22:42

Hmm! I am considering introducing the OAT (Out of Australia Theory). All these stellar observations may be completely misnamed: the stars seen by the Vedic composers may have been in the southern sky, not northern. Wonder if the stars turn anticlockwise or clockwise there, though.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 08 Jul 2017 00:25

UlanBatori wrote:Hmm! I am considering introducing the OAT (Out of Australia Theory). All these stellar observations may be completely misnamed: the stars seen by the Vedic composers may have been in the southern sky, not northern. Wonder if the stars turn anticlockwise or clockwise there, though.

They turn clockwise in southern hemisphere.. so wandering nomads would require some adjustment. :)

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 08 Jul 2017 00:28

UlanBatori wrote:Not sure what significance this has, but it appears that the naming of the stars after Rishis occurred many thousands of years before. As it should have, of course. You probably discussed this in videos 3 and 4, watching which might have saved me the above horror.

That conclusion is correct.

Not in the videos, but it is covered in my books. In my book and in other presentations (check out Nilesh Oak on Youtube) I do discuss other specific observations, not directly related to timing of Mahabharata or Ramayana (but part of Mahabharata or Ramayana text) that leads to specific events of 15th millennium BCE (fall of Abhijit), 14th millennium BCE (Trishanku) and plausible event (Agastya moving to the south) that occurred sometime during 25000 BCE through 16000 BCE.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2191
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 08 Jul 2017 00:52

Nilesh Ji: just watched one of your videos that you linked above. Very interesting. Had some basic questions on AV observation:

1) Is AV the only observation that gives a 4000 BCE or earlier date range for MB? You'd mentioned that some other observations in Bhishma Nirvana also independently push MB date to "no later than 4000 BCE"

2) This is a question of semantics rather than astronomy. If MB date was 5561 BCE, then A was walking ahead of V continuously for 5000+ years prior to that. So, why would this be called an "anomaly" or a "bad omen"?

3) As far as "later interpolations" are concerned, is it possible that the "A walking before B" observation was passed on as "tribal knowledge" from say 4500 BCE till say 3000 BCE. Say MB happened in 3500 BCE. And MB story was composed around 3000 BCE (I am just making dates up). Is it possible that Vyas (or someone later), introduced this "A walking before B" as a bad omen warning to Dhritharasthra because they remember the "tribal knowledge" and inserted it into the story?

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1490
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 08 Jul 2017 01:16

SriJoy wrote:Arya in Sanskrit. Aryan in English.
Just like "English" in English and 'Angrez' in Hindi.


Knowledge is useful, half-knowledge is dangerous!
Arya and Anarya were used by the Hindus to primarily evaluate behavior (not race, not belief, definitely not anything base!)
This term Arya has other version as well - Alan, Iron, Irum, Airya, Arianon, etc.

The Iranians similarly used airya that is arya and anairya that is anarya - predominantly to identify themselves as a people..
The Iranians have migration stories and needed to establish identity, the Indians did not as the bulk of the population stayed put in the subcontinent... The Iranian usage has middle-Persian, Greek and Parthian centrality with the inscription of Sharpur - The Greek term Arianon is used... The English (perhaps William Jones) used this term originally to mean not just linguistic speakers but also an ethnic people... this is incorrect... as the term Arya in Sanskrit is an evaluation of behavior and therefore an adjective or a honorific... Race is not a word or have meaning in Sanskrit.

Today, the term Aryan is used by conniving Indologists and Linguists in what they consider to be an academic term, but no one is fooled. When their brethren use this term it is used to denote a race and divide people based on skin color... The European mind made science of this prejudice and hate.

Angrez is perhaps a corruption of Inglés (Portuguese) or Anglia - from the Angeln region of Germany where the Anglos came from... One theory is that this word may have originated in Angling as in fishing... kind of gives new meaning to fish & chips - wot, wot? :P
It is clearly used to denote a certain ethic stock of the Anglo-Saxon variety... See if someone said Gora or Firang - these are racist terms, just as Aryan is to denote white-skin color and Dravidian to denote dark-skin color.

The British did not mispronounce Arya to Aryan - it was a misunderstanding at first, but it soon became prejudice and eventual hate and murder... Now it has evolved into soft-power dividing India into North and South. Notice use of Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian - We do not see esteemed researchers pick Ancestral East Indian and Ancestral West Indian. Whereas each is as absurd or brilliant as the other pair.

That Ganga should be mispronounced to Ganges (since it is the holiest of the holy rivers for the Hindus) and not say the Narmada is not an accident. To not see the divisiveness and prejudice as mere social justice is foolish - this is a Geo-political and economic hegemony on the minds of the natives. The first step is to educate the sepoys and the otherwise silent majority of India, the next step is to take the battle to where it originated, the final step is to prove the title of this thread.

SriJoy wrote:Your view that it is a racist word, concocted by racists and only used by racists and their modern day bhakts is nothing more than an ignorant, laughable claim, given as i 've already said, EVERYBODY uses that term in English, from Indians, to non-Indians, to AMT proponents to OOI proponents. You vs the entire length and breadth of academia. So you lose. You can keep your opinion, it won't change mine because of the aforementioned reasons.

You can do your dhoti-shiver and surrender Aryan to the racists, I won't.


A lot of well meaning folks used the Negro word quite liberally in reality and in literature - there was nothing bad about it till recently.
Uncle Tom exists in every age.

One could create an absurdity that East-Indians are different from West-Indians - the term Endian for the former and Wendian for latter
will be used henceforth to denote the Eastern from the Western people and their language. Clearly the Eastern Indians have slant eyes...
Such idiocy cannot be laughed away... when the other idiocy of tolerating Aryan and Dravidian exists in the face of overwhelming evidence.

In the age to come, with India's rise, I predict the A- word that is Aryan and D- word that is Dravidian will be looked at the same way -
Only an ignoramus racist would use these word!
Last edited by Pulikeshi on 08 Jul 2017 01:26, edited 1 time in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Jul 2017 01:26

then A was walking ahead of V continuously for 5000+ years prior to that. So, why would this be called an "anomaly" or a "bad omen"?

Hadn't thought of that.
a) Was it considered a bad omen?
b) Might the answer be that the 5K years prior was considered a small time interval? i.e., the MB dragged out like "DALLAS" for many many TV mega-seasons? (still a small part of a Yuga, mind u..)

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Jul 2017 01:37

Star Data:

Mizar (Vasishta): fourth brightest star in the constellation. It is a multiple star system and the first binary star ever discovered. Mizar (Magnitude 2.27) has a faint visual companion, [8334] Alcor (Arundhati) (80 Ursae Majoris, Magnitude 4). Both stars are in fact binary systems and all the four stars involved are main sequence white dwarfs.
Mizar is 86 (actually 82 to 90) Light years from Earth. Alcor is 82 Light years. So actually as close to each other as the Sun is to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star.

90 Light Years is still pretty close in the Milky Way, I suppose. And their motion with respect to the Solar System must be fairly well established, so that Nileshji's celestial navigation system presumably takes these into account.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 08 Jul 2017 02:47

Prem Kumar wrote:1) Is AV the only observation that gives a 4000 BCE or earlier date range for MB? You'd mentioned that some other observations in Bhishma Nirvana also independently push MB date to "no later than 4000 BCE"


No, AV is not the only observation that puts lower limit of 4508 BCE on the timing of Mahabharata War.

Set of observations (23+) related to Bhishma Nirvana also puts a lower limit of 4700 BCE on the timing of Mahabharata war.

i.e No Mahabharata war anytime after 4508 BCE!

2) This is a question of semantics rather than astronomy. If MB date was 5561 BCE, then A was walking ahead of V continuously for 5000+ years prior to that. So, why would this be called an "anomaly" or a "bad omen"?


People calling AV observation 'anomaly' or 'bad omen' is due to one of the following reasons...

A: Sheer idiocy, careless and casual statement without bothering to do their homework, blind repetition of what some other researchers have said, which in turn (by other researchers) for the following reasons

B. To hide their inability to explain AV observation

C. To push their own claim for the year of MBH war, in spite of their failure to explain not only AV but numerous other astronomy observations.

D. Envious that someone else figured it out, while they were busy pushing their false dates on gullible indic crowd for years..

E. Many more along these lines. I can go all the way to Z, based on direct personal experience.

On the other hand, MBH text is not saying anything of the effect that "Suddenly A has started walking ahead of V" at the time of MBH war.

All it is doing is listing numerous astronomy observations (very ordinary - phases and positions of the moon, eclipses - positions of planets -Saturn (3 descriptions), Jupiter (3 descriptions), Mars (6 descriptions), Venus (3 descriptions), Mercury (3 descriptions), descriptions of seasons and what not.

The word employed is 'Nimitta" means signals, signs, omens etc.

What you asked above is FAQ and I have addressed it numerous times in multiple places....

Only as an illustration....

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/02 ... habharata/

You will find many more articles at my blog site (the link above)

3) As far as "later interpolations" are concerned, is it possible that the "A walking before B" observation was passed on as "tribal knowledge" from say 4500 BCE till say 3000 BCE. Say MB happened in 3500 BCE. And MB story was composed around 3000 BCE (I am just making dates up). Is it possible that Vyas (or someone later), introduced this "A walking before B" as a bad omen warning to Dhritharasthra because they remember the "tribal knowledge" and inserted it into the story?


Of course, anything is possible. But then, someone has to make it possible. There is so much that will (and does) go against such a possibility, that if someone is willing to build such a hypothetical case and a theory and a proposal, I would be happy to shred it into pieces in no time. I hope someone takes this seriously and does it.

BTW, many have asked me this question before and I have encouraged them to build their theory/proposal along these lines. So far, no takers.
--
You may want to read (you may have already read it) my response to Shri A Gupta ji few pages where I mention that I have entertained 'back calculations' possibility (What you are suggesting is carrying old memories and using them in the future.. memories of 5561 BCE in 3000 BCE).

Either of such possibilities have so many problems associated with it (based on evidence from ....you name the field....archaeology, astronomy, anthropology, geology, hydrology, oceanography, climatology......etc.) that it would be real fun, if truly someone takes on such a challenge.

BTW, these challenges are in addition to numerous other challenges that would come from textual evidence of additional ancient narratives (Harivamsha, other Puranas, numerous references of Mahabharata text, beyond 215+ astronomy references not taken into account until now...because there was no need for it).

Hope this helps...

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5084
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 08 Jul 2017 02:52

This is a very good Video! Must watch!


SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5084
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 08 Jul 2017 02:53

Gauda is for North India
Dravida is for South India

so Gauda-Brahmins (Panch Gauda) are north indian brahmins
Panch Dravida are South Indian Brahmins!

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 08 Jul 2017 02:56

UlanBatori wrote:Star Data:

Mizar (Vasishta): fourth brightest star in the constellation. It is a multiple star system and the first binary star ever discovered. Mizar (Magnitude 2.27) has a faint visual companion, [8334] Alcor (Arundhati) (80 Ursae Majoris, Magnitude 4). Both stars are in fact binary systems and all the four stars involved are main sequence white dwarfs.
Mizar is 86 (actually 82 to 90) Light years from Earth. Alcor is 82 Light years. So actually as close to each other as the Sun is to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star.

90 Light Years is still pretty close in the Milky Way, I suppose. And their motion with respect to the Solar System must be fairly well established, so that Nileshji's celestial navigation system presumably takes these into account.

UB ji,

You may start reading from page 77 of old thread with the same name... i.e. OUT OF INDIA - From Theory to Truth - Part 1

Another thread on BRF worth visiting for the same (and more) is 'Archaeo-astronomy and Dating of the epics'

All of these are taken into account and are also discussed including 'beaten to death' aspect of so called 'bad omen' aspect of AV observation.

And here is an example of how researchers will go at any length to avoid glaring implication of objective testing (have your coffee or tea.. It is ~60 min long debate, conducted respectfully between two individuals). You can listen to 'bad omen' nonsense argued for the nth time (where n tends to infinity) :)

https://vimeo.com/200132339

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Jul 2017 02:58

I guess the Ancients realized early on that these stars were circling the North Star (Dhruva) which BTW is 323 LY above the Sun per latest (down from 434 per earlier Oiropean Space Telescope measurement). This is a significant portion of the 1100 LY thickness of the Milky Way - in fact if the Sun is the middle of the disk, this is 2/3 of the way to the northern edge. I don't know why that should be important, just saying that there must be some reason why the disc is "only" 1100 LY thick. Tangential speed there COULD be significantly different from that at the Sun's orbit, but no one seems to be complaining that the North Star has come down to Northwest Star yet. Don't know what back-calculation for 25000 years would show.....

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Jul 2017 03:03

start reading from page 77 of old thread

Have a heart, Nileshji. This thread Epic is to the MB what the MB is to say, the story of Durvasa visiting the Pandavas. :mrgreen: Just the SJji- SSji War has exceeded the Kurukshetra description.. :shock:

But seriously... what I see as top class in your methodology, is that it is based on very simple observations in the Epics, and yet grounded in the best of astronomical/ Space dynamics. As I mentioned, my main concern was about unique solutions to integral equations, but of course the way to solve that is by having multiple observations, so that the solution becomes robust to small errors in any of the observations.

My interest in this line is that it is absolutely quantitative, and one can always blame NASA etc because they use the same things to calculate when a given spacecraft, given an initial impulse, will reach, say, an orbit around Saturn that is close enough to reduce to a capture orbit but not to get sucked into the planet. 25 years after launch! With maybe a few small orbit corrections. If the model is good enough to allow that, I am willing to trust it to do back-calculations for 25000 years, to within the accuracy needed to match human observations. So it is good to track down answers to each peer-review objection, then publish papers/ books.

Why not a book? Completely avoids the obstructionism and length constraints of Journals, and you can get it up on Amazon (digital) and CreateSpace (hardcopy paperback) at essentially the expense of getting the Copyright plus maybe an ISBN to maintain independence. The YouTube approach is fine, and you may be able to link those from the e-Book version too. You can include whole tables taking up 30 pages, listing any calculation details, code input/output/sample problems, and FAQs. This may be the best way to end-run this otherwise endless ISIS-attacks. Let me know off line.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Jul 2017 03:40

Continuing on that... Note that the latest (Tony Ouseph) ISIS attack is based on an article in an OPEN-ACCESS JOURNAL That has some interesting implications that I noted above. Snooty profs/researchers don't like to publish in these, because they are essentially pay-2-publish. To quote the old story:
Man to woman:
Will u sleep with me?
Woman: WHAT KIND OF GIRL DID U THINK I WAS?
"For Rs. 1000?" "WHAT!!" "For Rs. 10,000?" "WHAT!!!" ....
.."For Rs. 10,00,000?" "U mean, in Cash?"
"Now that v have decided ur profession, let's talk about ur price.."


Sorry! :oops: But u get the point. YOU may be a high-faluting 400% pure researcher, but basically any Tony/Joseph can pay the 1500 Pounds and get trash published in the same journal. Deans etc argue (besides the fact that they don't want to fund this very expensive habit) that publications like these should not count towards promotion/tenure etc. Look at the numbers: An assistant prof, to not get fired, must show, say, 20+ Peer-Reviewed Publications inside about 4 years. That's 20x 1500 = 30,000 British Pounds donated to Abdul Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Why would any university want to do that? They could do a heck of lot of other things using that money.

So the fact that these noveau-AIT articles appear in Open Access Journals means that they are too suspect to make it into the "free" but more ancient, purist journals where peer review is much more brutal and it takes 2 years for the article to appear if u r lucky.

My Evil 6th Coujin E6C gets an average of 10 Invitations every day to "contribute" to Open Access Journals, with the promise of "Get Published in the June 2017 Issue) that's right, I know it's July already. So much for their peer review process! Most of these are from China, an increasing number from India, and some from Oirope and USA. Absolutely no difference! The ones in the US are mostly Chinese-owned, and I guess vice versa.

FYI, E6C refuses flat-out to review for Pay-2-Publish journals. Or serve on Editorial Committees. Or contribute the Free Article meant to catch other idiots with "so-n-so from The Presteejeyus Chenghis Khan University has published there"

Right now, what happens is that some jackass publishes in Abdul's Open Access Journal of Arianian Islamic Theory, some jerk at The Hundi publishes an even more garbage article, and then they sit back and watch The Engergizer Bunnies (i.e., we) go round and round beating on drums and yelling and screaming, mostly at each other. Does this sound like good strategy, hain?

Look back at these threads. If you try to condense these into a 300-page book you will have a very tough time.

So why not retaliate by publishing BOOKS instead? You get much more leisurely space, you spend your time well, and it shows up in both Google Scholar, ***AND*** counts towards tenure/promotion for those interested in that. Who knows? You may even break even on the $50 you spend. :mrgreen: Put in a Special Offer: "Check this Box agreeing that AIT is garbage and get 50% off".

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 08 Jul 2017 04:08

UlanBatori wrote:Why not a book? Completely avoids the obstructionism and length constraints of Journals, and you can get it up on Amazon (digital) and CreateSpace (hardcopy paperback) at essentially the expense of getting the Copyright plus maybe an ISBN to maintain independence. The YouTube approach is fine, and you may be able to link those from the e-Book version too. You can include whole tables taking up 30 pages, listing any calculation details, code input/output/sample problems, and FAQs. This may be the best way to end-run this otherwise endless ISIS-attacks. Let me know off line.

UB ji

Here ya ga...

Both of them are in both - paperback and kindle

Mahabharata - 2011 CE

https://www.amazon.com/When-Did-Mahabha ... Nilesh+Oak

Ramayana - 2014 CE

https://www.amazon.com/Historic-Rama-In ... Z07DD56SFR

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11156
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 08 Jul 2017 05:44

14000 years before present, the sea level was some 80 meters or more lower than modern day levels.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

If the traditional geography of the Ramayana is accepted, nothing would need to be constructed to get to Lanka.

PS: The depth of the sea around Ram Sethu/Adam's Bridge is 10-12 meters for a wide area. 14,000 years ago this would have all been high above sea level.

PPS: After the last ice age, sea levels reached roughly modern levels around 6000 years ago.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Jul 2017 06:04

We need to propagate these. Any suggestions O Warriors of e-Dharma? Wielders of Mice?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 08 Jul 2017 06:10

A_Gupta wrote:14000 years before present, the sea level was some 80 meters or more lower than modern day levels.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

If the traditional geography of the Ramayana is accepted, nothing would need to be constructed to get to Lanka.

PS: The depth of the sea around Ram Sethu/Adam's Bridge is 10-12 meters for a wide area. 14,000 years ago this would have all been high above sea level.

PPS: After the last ice age, sea levels reached roughly modern levels around 6000 years ago.

That apart the entire coastal belt from Gujarat to Iran and further is barely 10 meters deep and well in the tropics, never iced up. This would have served as a huge strip of land for migrations and trade. I recall reading that an ancient city was found just off the coast (or at the coast?) in Iran.

And Dwaraka if course..

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 08 Jul 2017 06:13

A_Gupta wrote:14000 years before present, the sea level was some 80 meters or more lower than modern day levels.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

If the traditional geography of the Ramayana is accepted, nothing would need to be constructed to get to Lanka.

PS: The depth of the sea around Ram Sethu/Adam's Bridge is 10-12 meters for a wide area. 14,000 years ago this would have all been high above sea level.

PPS: After the last ice age, sea levels reached roughly modern levels around 6000 years ago.


Don't let facts get in the way of a good story!

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11407
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Jul 2017 06:25

I don't believe the sea level between Talai Mannar and Dhanushkodi would have been so low as to eliminate need for some minor bridging. That strip has several ups and downs, so there would have been strips of land with small water breaks in between. Area also subject to annual changes due to cyclones. Explains the story of what Hanuman encountered on the way, hopping islet-hopping. Rakshasis, houris, rock-throwers, etc etc. Fair description of what one would encounter in those parts todin as well.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MeshaVishwas, VikramA and 51 guests