RajeshA wrote:SriJoy ji,
Vedveer Arya is saying there is a 662 year hole in the history of several cultures. So basically the relative history more or less remains the same. Some things in Indian history are however a lot more ancient, e.g. Buddha Nirvana is 1864 BCE. So relative history arguments which you are using are more or less moot.
Saying and proving are two different things. He has not proven it at all and as i said, its very easy to prove this chap wrong, because this chap has no idea on what are the actual sources of history in these cases.
As i said, each and every Chinese dynasty, from Han Dynasty onwards, has released their king lists. that includes Han, Jin, Sui, tang, Song, Ming and Manchu. Its their own writing. they ALL align with each other, plus or minus a couple of years here and there.
So explain to us, where this 'hole' in Chinese history is. Or why chinese themselves are unaware of said hole.
Actually you may have inadvertently answered your own question, and if I may say so, you perhaps have given an explanation which neither Vedveer Arya nor I had hit upon!
Vedveer Arya says that the history of 47 kings of Yuan dynasty of 700 years has been compressed to mere 90 years.
SriJoy wrote:As for Yuan dynasty, Yuan dynasty is Genghis Khan's dynasty ( officially recorded as Yuan from Kublai Khan onwards).
SriJoy wrote:the Chinese have always been racist, evil b@stards who've singularly pushed all things Han as the best. they invented bureaucracy and rotating governors every 5-10 years,
You provide a possible reason why! Would the Han Chinese want to be ruled by Mongols for 700 years or would they rather want the occupation of Han China by Mongols to have been more of a historical blip of 90 years which could be ignored?
After all it is a matter of being TFTA, right? This is possibly the reason why the Chinese do not look too hard at this anomaly of Mongol Yuan rule over China. Yuan is not really a Chinese dynasty, is it?
The only thing that really matters are the dates given with respect to calendars and astronomical phenomenon. That is how various cultures date their events, even now. So historians today are welcome to call stuff spurious they can't explain, but then they are really no better than the uneducated and all they are expressing are their opinions.
No. the dates given with respect to calendars and astronomical phenomena are FAR below in order of priority to first hand recordings. Because as i said many times, there is no way to prove that these astronomical phenomena are original to the story, for a story that admits itself that it is modified through the ages.
I'd much easier trust the writing of a dude who says 'i was there, this is what happened', when his dating lines up perfectly with his own culture's sources, over a spurious reading of astronomic phenomenon, in a story that can be added at any point into the story, for a story that is self-admitting in its editions. the fact that Mahabharata grew from 20,000-odd verses to 100,000+, is not an 'evil western conspiracy', its self-admitted in the mahabharata itself.
What has dating got to do with 'i was there, this is what happened'! Dates, Calendars, Astronomical phenomenon - that is what chronology is!!!! How about you taking away all the dates recorded in world history, say in the 18 - 21 century, since as per your view, dates are something evil and cannot be believed?! Then you can write down world history based on subjective interpretations and eminent historian theories! Would you consider that qualitatively better way of writing history?
You say, you know precisely when Xuanzang died! The issue is how do you express that Chinese "WHEN" in today's BCE/CE or BP? Who thought up the sheet anchors of history of various cultures?
We know 'when' in relation to Chinese history, from Han Dynasty (200s BC), through to modern times, because each and every Chinese dynasty released their king list and it reconciles almost perfectly, with each and every dynasty's. So its a simple matter of calculating the dates based on how many emperor before the guy who signed the Opium wars document we are talking of. Its all right there.
Yes in this wonderful world of Western and Chinese precision, for some reason 47 kings of Yuan dynasty ruled just 90 years, pregnancies lasted a couple of months, sons grew up in 6 months, and procreated and ruled for another year and then died because of indigestion!
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of inconsistencies in Western historiography that Vedveer Arya has pointed out and shown! You are welcome to go through his writings and try to resolve those inconsistencies.
I've already showed how Vedveer Arya is wrong in three instances. Xuangzong is dated in 600s AD by the Chinese themselves. there is no 'missing 600 years' in Chinese history of the last 2000 years- that is a BS invention of Vedveer Arya, with zero substantiation. Only reason he makes such a claim, is because he is invested in the spurious and inconsistent nakshatra analysis, because he can use it, like all fringe-theorist nationalists, to backdate Indian history further and further back in time.
Yes, only Vedveer Arya has a naughty agenda, whereas the Western and Chinese cultural elite are wedded to the Truth like chocolate and milk in milk-chocolate!
SriJoy wrote:I've also shown how Ashokan pillars Cannot be from more than 500 BC years old. Again, petina analysis. It doesn't matter how many Nakshatras in an altered book says what, if the residue on Ashokan pillar markings say it happened no earlier than 500 BC, that evidence wins. Period.
So if your skin cells are 3 days old, then you must be a baby, right?
So called inconsistencies being pointed out by you are either of the type of intellectual inertia which comes with the inability of a complete shift of history 662 years to the past, or these are inconsistencies arising out of shoddy assumptions made by Western "historians", e.g. when Hunas are supposed to have come into Indian reckoning!
We have an inability to magically add 662 years or such to world history, because in the timeframe specified (500 BC onwards), we have plenty of first hand evidence from various cultures that is used to tie in history. this is why Vedveer Arya ignores the basis of historical dating for various Chinese, Arab or Greco-Roman history, which has a tie-in factor for our history.
Anyone who says the Chinese are missing 600 years of their own history in the last 2200 years will get laughed at by anyone who's read Chinese history. because Chinese history is precisely dated by themselves, due to their 2000 year old beurocratic system.
Vedveer Arya has no idea on this topic, that is self-evident. Chinese, like the Romans, left detailed accounts- not just of history, but of mundane, common administrative stuff.
For eg, can you tell me, how many axes, spears, swords and maces were in Harshavardhana's inventory in Kannauj ? Or how many stables existed around the Gupta empire ? no. because we have zero recording of those stuff. Except for Chola copper-plate inscriptions, we have little or no record of such logistical trivialities.
Yet, in Chinese history, we can say how many weapons were kept in the commandery of Dunhuang versus how many were kept in Suzhou circa 700 AD. Because they left said records. Chinese record keeping is extremely meticulous and copious. this is expected from a totalitarian culture/empire that has always valued conformity and uniformity of information as #1 priority. Can Chinese writings be self-aggrandized propaganda ? Ofcourse. But they have no reason to chop off 600 years of their own history and pretend it doesn't exist or have no motive in fabricating sending envoys to a distant land on a precise date.
So yes, Vedveer Arya can make whatever claim he likes- there are no shortage of crackpots who do so. But as i said, if a weekend warrior with a minor degree in history can expose him so easily, can you imagine what professionals will do to his ridiculous assessment, that borders on absurd nonsense, as back-dating Rashtrakutas by 500 years, yet having first hand Arab records of meeting Rashtrakuta monarch, sent as envoy from Abbasid Khilafat, which cannot have existed in the timeframe Vedveer Arya suggests ?
Why ? all because of some stupid nakshatra reading that one has no way of proving are original to a tale, that admits itself that it is modified through the ages ?!?
that sounds like agenda-driven nonsense, not research, sorry.
Well some taunt with cow-piss drinkers, others more sophisticated ones like to use "nakshatra-reading"!
The calendrical and astronomical data used by Vedveer Arya is Chinese data, JFYI Not the usual "Hindoo nakshatra" stuff!
Now Vedveer Arya too may have certainly made wrong assumptions, but I'm afraid the inconsistencies being pointed by you are simply run-of-the-mill arguments. In order to criticize the person, you need to know the theory of the scholar in full and then start criticizing his logic and assumptions. The way you are going about it is more like one would argue with some devout Muslim who can argue only within the confines of what the Qu'ran says and can never leave that framework! Leave your framework, read up his theories and then look for weaknesses in his logic and data!
I'll be the first to acknowledge your intellect if you can find inconsistencies in his theories from within his framework!
Run-of-the-mill arguments are sufficient to pointing out that this chap is a hack.
Because, as i said, Vedveer Arya ignores the multiple sources of information we have in world history, that ties in with each other. A guy who can gibly state Xuangzong is not 600s AD but 100s BC is easily defeated by such run-of-mill argument, because we have Chinese records that say so precisely. End of story.
As for leaving my framework- explain to me, why should i leave a framework that relies on multiple points of data from first hand sources spanning several cultures/civilizations, for a framework that uses astronomical dating from a modified book, which admits itself is modified and thus, we have no basis on concluding those astronomical references are original in the first place.
As soon as you can explain why Vedveer's framework is anything more than a con-job, i will throw away history constructed by cross-referencing multiple independent sources and jump ship.
But till then, his framework is just pseudo-historical trash.
I am not asking you to convert, or change your steadfast belief in Western historiography and framework! I am all for "freedom of belief" here!
What I am saying is that given the same primary source data, it is stupid to criticize Vedveer Arya's framework and logic using the conclusions arrived at in the Western framework, and that is what you are doing! You are not using primary source data, you are using West-provided conclusions as arguments! For some reason, you are not being able to understand this very important difference!
Yes, what matters is who provides better fit, better explanations using the same primary source data, without discarding that data as spurious. Yes what matters is who has fewer or least or no inconsistencies in their framework!
If you want to call Vedveer Arya names, you are free to do so, but valid criticism is only if you can show that he is illogical or inconsistent or not thorough, only from WITHIN
his framework given the available primary source data!