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.
sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 04:49

To anybody who might have been following the above archaeo-astronomy debate:

    * The assumption made beforehand is that the astronomical references in the text are in the original text. If you do not buy this assumption, that is fine, it is okay to reject the method on that basis. I buy the assumption, and I was curious to see where one could go from there. If there is evidence (not idle speculation) that this assumption is invalid, please present it, and I will revise my stance.
    * It is OKAY for any scientific theory to not explain all observations. You would be hard-pressed to find any theory which does this.
    * Researchers such as Nilesh Oak made an honest attempt to fit all the astronomical references in the MB or Ramayana text. Nilesh Oak himself admits that he could not do this, and also presents a list (in his book) of astronomical references which DO NOT VALIDATE HIS TIMELINE.
    * Other researchers simply swept inconvenient references under the rug. Their truth score is also lower than that of Nilesh Oak. Your choice on which of these researchers you find most credible - i.e., somebody who honestly admits that his theory is not perfect, or somebody who tries to hide the fact and ignore inconveniences like this.
    * If you do not but the original assumption that the astronomical references in the MB or Ramayana are native to the text, then your disagreement is not with the theory or with the number of references which are covered by the theory, but with the fundamental axiom itself. In that case, it is pointless for you to debate the theory - you reject the very basis on which it stands. Which is a perfectly valid stance for you to take, just as it is perfectly valid for anybody to take a different stance from you.
    * The part of the MB which says - "only 20000 verses were original the rest were added" could itself be a later edit, and maybe only 2000 verses were actually added!!!

Hope that clarifies the situation somewhat.

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 » 28 Aug 2017 06:25

All people who record history have recorded a load of bullshit. Herodotus said there were gold digging ants in India. If you search for dates you read that Hiuen Tsang visited India and the place of Buddha's death even before the Buddha was born. But Herodotus and Hiuen Tsang recorded some dates. The dates were most likely all wrong but because there were dates people think these guys were accurate chroniclers. Nothing can be further from the truth. Anyone can write a story and add dates. Even Tom Clancy does that. In fact the ability to produce and swallow bullshit far outstrips human ability to try and remain truthful. For example Hiuen Tsang was a Buddhist priest who later refused all civil service posts. Yet we read on this thread that he :rotfl: wrote a civil services exam.

There are two moral lessons here:
1. Recording of dates gives the impression of truthfulness
2. The texts that one accepts as "truthful and accurate" are a function of "belief". Even those who claim to reject "belief" and "only go by facts" are only saying "I don't believe this. I believe that". This is the same as saying "I don't believe in Krishna. I believe in Allah". Same difference.

..just sayin

\

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 06:35

SriJoy wrote:^^
I mean, the fact that original version, called Bharata/Jaya, being 20,000-odd lines long and current version, being 100,000+ verse long, is not some 'evil western conspiracy', it says so in the book.


The part of the book which says this could be a later edit by a mischievous revisionist. Can you prove that it isn't?

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 » 28 Aug 2017 06:39

SriJoy wrote:
When the book itself says 'this is not original edition, original edition was less than 1/5th the size', of course i will throw out the unreasonable 'no falsification happened' assumption of Nilesh. .

Without reading Nilesh's book your rejection is trolling. Your reputation is one of a person who trolls - but this is a consistent example.

Claiming that you know what is in a book without reading it is, in a word, a lie. Not the first one from you.

Claiming that it is possible to know the contents and value of a book without reading it is rhetoric and a bluff.

I know that you will not be able to take down Nilesh Oak's logic because you have not bothered to open the book. How do I know that you have not opened the book? My "credibility" in this instance is exactly the same as yours.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 06:57

There are logic games and puzzles which take the following form:

* You have to find the murderer
* You can question witnesses
* Some witnesses tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
* Some witnesses tell partial truths (at least one lie is mixed in)
* Some witnesses tell lies
* You don't know which witness does what, so you have to figure that out as you go along, trying to find the murderer
* If you make a wrong judgment on even one witness, the game is set up in such a way that the murderer will escape

So, you can only rely on your own logic of elimination, corroboration, falsification, etc., when interpreting the statements of these witnesses.

Now coming to the MB. This book self-confesses that it has been revised. It also tells you (supposedly) the original number of verses, and the number of revised verses. Now - is this witness telling the whole truth? Partial truth? Full lie? Can't be full lie, because if it is, that means the book has not been revised, so the statement has to be true and original!!! So we can use logic to deduce that the book has definitely been revised. Now the rest of the statement - how far can you trust it? Maybe the statement is inverted - only 20% of the book was revised. Or maybe it is wholly true. Or maybe only that one statement has been revised. Hmm.

So making blind judgment calls on which part of the book to trust, is itself an act of faith. You, SriJoy, are guilty of blindly trusting this statement in the book in its entirety, and using that one statement to judge the rest of the book. Faulty logic at best.

The better way is to test statements from the book in conjunction with each other, and make logical judgments on that basis. Which is exactly what Nilesh Oak has done. He took an initial guess on the time of writing of the MB from an initial sample of astronomical observations, and then proceeded to validate them with the rest of the astronomical observations. I like that approach.

I don't like your approach of blindly trusting that one statement which says "only 20% of this book is original, the rest is edited." You have no proof that this statement is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

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 » 28 Aug 2017 06:58

SriJoy wrote:
2. Ofcourse everything stated in history is a function of belief. I find it far more logical to believe a Chinese emperor recording date of embassy/return by Xuangzong than a guy who wants to trust dates of a book that is self admittedly 80% cooked up and added later on.
Lesser of two assumptions, you see.

This is exactly the point I want to make. Belief is not just about religion. You are only disputing what you believe versus what someone else believes, and making comparisons like "lesser and greater". I squeeze the butt of a girl on a bus and then I squeeze another girls boob. "Greater and lesser" here are semantics as is your rhetoric.

Please quote the passages that prove that the book is "self admittedly 80% cooked up ". I will be testing your reply for scientific accuracy and absence of rhetoric, semantics and wriggling

vnms
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:56

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

Postby vnms » 28 Aug 2017 07:17

SriJoy wrote:1.Record of dates is from Chinese sources. Because Emperor taizong celebrated Xuanzong's return. Explain to us, why a Chinese emperor would fabricate said date.

Because he can.

Let me give you a scenario. When I was taking an exam during college days, I needed to copy some stuff from another student. He showed me his answer. But I noticed that half way down his derivation, he had made a mistake. I knew what needed to be corrected. So, I made the change in my answer. So, there is an inconsistency with our answers. Would the answers have been right if both our answers were identical? But on the other hand, would both our answers be incorrect because they are inconsistent?

You are also make make making some fundamental assumptions when you claim 'cut and paste'. Do you have proof? Unless you have proof, your claim is also an assumption. Why is your assumption more correct than someone else's assumption?

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 10:02

sudarshan wrote:To anybody who might have been following the above archaeo-astronomy debate:

    * The assumption made beforehand is that the astronomical references in the text are in the original text. If you do not buy this assumption, that is fine, it is okay to reject the method on that basis. I buy the assumption, and I was curious to see where one could go from there. If there is evidence (not idle speculation) that this assumption is invalid, please present it, and I will revise my stance.
    * It is OKAY for any scientific theory to not explain all observations. You would be hard-pressed to find any theory which does this.
    * Researchers such as Nilesh Oak made an honest attempt to fit all the astronomical references in the MB or Ramayana text. Nilesh Oak himself admits that he could not do this, and also presents a list (in his book) of astronomical references which DO NOT VALIDATE HIS TIMELINE.
    * Other researchers simply swept inconvenient references under the rug. Their truth score is also lower than that of Nilesh Oak. Your choice on which of these researchers you find most credible - i.e., somebody who honestly admits that his theory is not perfect, or somebody who tries to hide the fact and ignore inconveniences like this.
    * If you do not but the original assumption that the astronomical references in the MB or Ramayana are native to the text, then your disagreement is not with the theory or with the number of references which are covered by the theory, but with the fundamental axiom itself. In that case, it is pointless for you to debate the theory - you reject the very basis on which it stands. Which is a perfectly valid stance for you to take, just as it is perfectly valid for anybody to take a different stance from you.
    * The part of the MB which says - "only 20000 verses were original the rest were added" could itself be a later edit, and maybe only 2000 verses were actually added!!!

Hope that clarifies the situation somewhat.


To add to what I said above, for any inquiring minds.

* It is okay to analyze a work which you know was edited. It is okay to assume that there is research-worthy material in that work, and to analyze it, on the basis that even a heavily edited work can stay consistent. After all, edits need not necessarily be malevolent. The Vyasa Bharata was retold by Vaishampayana, and that would be one layer of edit/enhancement. Likewise with each retelling by each disciple. Each edit can still stay faithful to the original, with a dedicated team of educated editors.

* If your analysis of this edited/retold work shows that the material is inconsistent, self-contradictory, or otherwise presents hazards or hindrance to analysis, then your assumption that there is consistent material in that work, is wrong. The edits may have been malevolent after all.

* If your analysis shows that this material which you know was heavily edited, is still internally consistent, that does not mean your assumption is right. But it corroborates your assumption. So you then start looking for evidence from other fields to either further corroborate, or to falsify. This is where geology, hydrology, archaeology, etc. come in. This is the stance adopted by Nilesh Oak.

* This is simply the way of deductive logic. This is described in Nilesh's work(s) as well.

* Pre-judging that the material is unworthy of analysis, because it is known to have been edited, is silly.

* Just because the astronomical observations are internally consistent, doesn't mean the dating is correct (that is a fair and valid point). It is simply *corroboration* and *lack of disproof,* not *proof.* Unfortunately, that is the best we can do with science.

Hope inquiring minds on this forum take a fair shot at pondering all this. If you still feel like rejecting the archaeo-astronomical dating, that's fine, just don't pre-judge the dating just because "the text is known to have been edited." Like I said - the judgment on research-worthiness comes instead from analysis of internal consistency and such.

As for me, I'm through playing tennis with the wall.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 28 Aug 2017 13:16

SriJoy wrote:
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?

SriJoy wrote:
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.


:shock: :eek:

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?

SriJoy wrote:
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! :lol:

SriJoy wrote:
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?

SriJoy wrote:
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"! :lol:

The calendrical and astronomical data used by Vedveer Arya is Chinese data, JFYI Not the usual "Hindoo nakshatra" stuff!

SriJoy wrote:
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!

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 » 28 Aug 2017 17:05

SriJoy wrote:I will ask say these facts, which i can easily prove by official citation (some, i can present the actual texts itself):

Balls you will never ever do that. :D

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 » 28 Aug 2017 19:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QSUsKZfoQA

Rajiv Malhotra interviews Professor Kameshwari, head KSRI (Kupuswami Shastri Research Institute) in Chennai, probably the leading Sanskritist in India. Excellent interview, worth watching because of the things they are doing. Some of the books mentioned will impact on the discussions here. Watch it all.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 28 Aug 2017 22:57

Sudarshan ji,

That troll is bringing so much good out of you, it is aammmazzzing! I will be using 'passages' from your writings, to use them elsewhere, of course with your permission.

Keep up your good work. I did not have a chance to check the thread for a while. Working against few deadline. Exciting thing to mention is that I am bringing out a course on (100% online + blended learning) on 'Arachaeoastronomy'.

Too many exciting things! Not enough hours in the day!

Warm regards,

Nilesh Oak

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 29 Aug 2017 07:21

Nilesh Oak wrote:Sudarshan ji,

That troll is bringing so much good out of you, it is aammmazzzing! I will be using 'passages' from your writings, to use them elsewhere, of course with your permission.

Keep up your good work. I did not have a chance to check the thread for a while. Working against few deadline. Exciting thing to mention is that I am bringing out a course on (100% online + blended learning) on 'Arachaeoastronomy'.

Too many exciting things! Not enough hours in the day!

Warm regards,

Nilesh Oak


Thank you saar, and feel free to use whatever takes your fancy. My fear is that I might be misrepresenting your stance, your assumptions, or techniques. Please correct whatever I got wrong.

I also visit the forum whenever I get time from my other projects (which are currently a little stalled, hence I'm spending more time here than usual). I don't like debating trolls, I just do it so that other browsers or members (who don't already know the field) might get some idea of why the troll's arguments aren't right. People do have this misconception of "scientific exactitude," the limitations of any scientific analysis (which fundamentally lie in the assumptions or axioms) escape them.

Good to hear about developments from your side. What kind of course is it? You aren't offering credits or anything, right?

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 29 Aug 2017 08:09

^ In the long run, the goal is to have it accredited so that young generation of dharmic minds (not a racial classification) will able to take it while accruing credits towards whatever degree they are working on.

For now, this will be offered to train a commando squad of dharmic archaeoastronomers!

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 29 Aug 2017 08:12

sudarshan wrote:Thank you saar, and feel free to use whatever takes your fancy. My fear is that I might be misrepresenting your stance, your assumptions, or techniques. Please correct whatever I got wrong.?


No worries.

Archaeoastronomy poison pills are so potent that in fact it attract trolls, not unlike ants to the candy, and then neutralizes them without they realizing it. :lol:

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 29 Aug 2017 14:14

SriJoy wrote:
RajeshA wrote: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.


Again, false random misdirections. Yuan dynasty did not have 47 kings who ruled China. Yuan Dynasty got defeated and beat out of China, by the Ming dynasty, less than 75 years after Kublai Khan. Khanbaliq was captured & destroyed. the remnants fled to Karakoram, i.e., modern day Mongolia.
there, they kept ruling IN MONGOLIA. Chinese call them 'northern yuan'. its in their records.
the Northern Yuan have further 300 years of existence- most as Ming vassal.
there you shall find the rest 40-odd Yuan kings.


FYI, "Yuan Shi" talks about 47 Imperial biographies of Emperors of Yuan Dynasty. These are not vassals of Ming dynasty. Vassals are not called "Imperial"! And yes, Yuan would be termed as "Northern", because that is what they were, Mongols from the North.

SriJoy wrote:Kindly tell him to piss off with such banal ignorance of world history.

SriJoy wrote:So this ignorant back-pedalling is getting rather laughable. Vedveer Arya knows far less than he thinks he knows about world history if he can cook up such nonsense.


Obviously such foul-mouthed talk is something one learns in Macaulayite-Marxist factories of India. Man, just learn to debate in a civilized manner. You may even earn some respect, regardless of how little you know.

SriJoy wrote:
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?


Again, your 'reason' is garbage. they didn't erase the 2nd Jin empire from their historic records and Jin, too were one of the 'barbarian tent dwelling savage' to the Chinese, just as much as Mongols are.
We have venetian sources from this period (1368, when Yuan were driven away to 1490s, when route was closed by fall of Constantinople) that confirm the defeat of Mongols in China.
We also have timur of India's brutal fame, leaving record of wanting to invade Ming China, for having the temerity to displace the Yuan and bring back the Khan's title to China. that was his last campaign, he died somewhere around Syr Darya in winter, preparing to invade the Ming.


The issue is not when the Yuan dynasty ended, but when it started. Vedveer Arya gives the dates from 619 CE - 1368 CE.


SriJoy wrote:
:shock: :eek:

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?


because the guy who wrote 'i was there,it happened', dated himself in his own writing, that survives.

Astronomical phenomenon is not chronology, because it can be inserted/deleted any point in re-telling of a story.
And what you wrote in the end is rubbish,because conventional 15th century history is conducted by plethora of 1st hand sources, who have different but convergent dating. Astronomical phenomenon already come with the baggage of 'subjective interpretation of holyness/auspiciousness' so have an inherent bias of being in the tale, which cannot be reconciled and has in some cases, multiple interpretations.

it is a BS way of recording date, which is why even in ancient India, ALL the monarchs recorded their dates by saying stuff like 'Shalivahan era/Saka era/Vikram Samvat' and not leave 3 lines of 'sun was here, moon was there, planet was spinning like a lattu when i went for a walk' type of flowery nonsense.


Astronomical events are not for recording history. I never said that. They are however astronomical observations which are associated either with epochs of Calendars, e.g. the Kali Era, or these observations are dated w.r.t. to the calendars in use. Since Western historians have taken liberty to shift these calendars around like furniture at their whim, for lack of better insight, it has become all the more important to anchor these calendars again using the astronomical phenomena which are dated in these calendars.

There may be a plethora of 1st hand sources with dated narratives however if the calendars in which the dates are expressed have themselves been shifted around, those dates would not map correctly into the modern Calendar. I hope this much logic you should be possessing.

SriJoy wrote:
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! :lol:


Ok , so when white people write history, its wrong. Ancient chinese are also wrong, they don't know how to write history. Your list of 'everyone is wrong but me' is growing pretty heavily here. So then you are going back to 'global conspiracy amongst Chinese, White people, arabs, africans, all of them, for hundreds of years, to subvert Indian history' type of shrill conclusion.


Sure ancient Chinese knew how to write history until Ke Shaomin, a Chinese historian under the influence of western historians, rewrrote the history of Yuan in 1921 considering the chronology of only 90 years.

SriJoy wrote:
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!


In question of Xuanzong, you have simply failed to present a case on Why the Chinese will forge history from 300 years ago.
In question of Rashtrakutas, you have simply failed to show why the Arabs will not backdate their prophet by 500 years, if it was true, since for Abbasid Caliphate to've sent envoy to Rashtrakuta court, it must line up within 200 years of Prophet mohammed.

Verveer arya's agenda is getting exposed. the 'naughty western/chinese agenda' regarding these explicit questions, are yet to be answered.


Have you even read the pages of inconsistencies that Vedveer Arya has pointed out in the Western historiography? You would be amazed!

As far as Xuanzang is concerned, everything is in alignment with what Vedveer Arya claims and neither he nor I have claimed that anything concerning Xuanzang or his description of events in India are "forged". It is just that it did not happen in 600s but just prior to turn of millennium between 30-15 BCE.

SriJoy wrote:
So if your skin cells are 3 days old, then you must be a baby, right?


Now you are exposing ignorance about a scientific process regarding petina analysis. As i said, your shrill list is growing, because Archaeologists will easily affirm the process of Petina analysis in determing how old an etching on stone exposed to the elements are.
Ashokan pillars are obviously going to be done by the date they were scratched upon, i.e., written upon'.


This is something I would have to look up, but considering how archaeology has simply become a pet of eminent historians, I have my doubts on the veracity of any of findings of Western and Western-supported archaeologists.


SriJoy wrote:

Well some taunt with cow-piss drinkers, others more sophisticated ones like to use "nakshatra-reading"! :lol:

The calendrical and astronomical data used by Vedveer Arya is Chinese data, JFYI Not the usual "Hindoo nakshatra" stuff!


there is no 'Chinese data' on dating Chinese history, except the apperance of the crab nebula. He presents no such idea in his book either.


Are you now promoting the notion that the Chinese had no astronomy or that they did not know how to observe and record solar eclipses, alignment of planets, etc.?


SriJoy wrote:


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!



No, you want freedom from facts. You clearly try to hide behind 'western histography', when its not 'western sources' who make up the sources on Xuanzong or Rashtrakuta-Abbasid relations or Ashokan pillars all the same.
We know of Rashtrakuta dating from the arab caliphate records. We know Xuanzong from Chinese records. We know of Ashokan pillars from correlating with Greek sources, the names on the pillars, etc.
It is not 'western histography' when Chinese sources tell us about a Chinese man or Arab sources tell us about an arab man, from 1500 years ago.

What you want, is freedom from these inconvinient facts.


Again what you are telling are conclusions of Western historiography and not "FACTS". I will just point you to the paper of Vedveer Arya on Ashokan references to Yavana kings and you can read on your own.

The Yona or Yavana Kings of the time of the Legendary King Ashoka

On Abbasids

The Dates of Akbarnama

SriJoy wrote:
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!


Not western framework. that seems like a buzz-word for you. this is the 'rest of the world, from Vedveer Arya framework'. that Xuanzong lived in the 600 is not just agreed by some evil western folks. its agreed by everyone. including chinese, arabs, etc etc. So pointing at 'western framework' while ignoring the fact that Vedveer Arya is fake and can be shown as fake in multiple cases from multiple sources, is 'Vedveer Arya vs rest of the world's evidence' argument.


SriJoy ji,

you're doing nothing spectacular. You're simply repeating the established perceptions of world history, information which has had lots of time to spread around and which is available at the click of a mouse. Absolutely nothing spectacular. Just another coolie or sepoy of the Western narrative of which there are millions around.

With your ideological blinkers on, instead of appreciating the boldness of an Indian man to rethink the whole framework and from ground up to formulate a different framework all with the purpose of doing justice to the available primary source data and getting rid of the humongous number of inconsistencies in the present framework, instead you are raining down upon him with all the fury you can muster. It sounds like you're angry with him and accusing him of apostasy, of believing something other than what the West provides for us to swallow without protest.

SriJoy wrote:
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!

Vedveer Arya then discards far more data as spurious than me. I am discarding nakshatra analysis as spurious. All data pertaining to it. that is far less data on dating and chronology than the sum total data on people leaving first and second hand recording of chronology.


By discarding archaeoastronomical data, you would rather like to work with unhinged calendars whose epochs you are free to set as per your whims and subjectivity, and thus shift history back and forth until it suits you!

How would you know what Vedveer Arya discarded or not? Tell me exactly where in his papers, he is willfully ignoring any primary source data!

SriJoy wrote:
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!


Um, i showed how he is wrong about Ashoka by citing science and corresponding first hand Greek sources, wrong on Rashtrakuta because of Arab sources, wrong on Harsha because of Chinese sources.
these make him illogical and ignorant on primary data on various aspects of history.


You have shown me nothing of the above.

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 » 29 Aug 2017 16:03

SriJoy wrote: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,


Proof sir proof. Provide credible proof or retract your bluff. It's not coming - I say with confidence. Not from you.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11154
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Aug 2017 02:36

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/vedi ... 12041.html
July 27, 2017.
Even now, researchers are trying to get genetic results from samples at Rakhigarhi in Haryana dating to the Harappan period. Supposition can quickly be replaced with certitude when we sample these individuals. India Today learns that results of the Rakhigarhi samples will be announced in early September this year. Dr Vasant Shinde, an archaeologist at Deccan College, Pune, which conducted this project in collaboration with geneticists from Seoul National University, is understandably reluctant to offer any pointers as to what the Rakhigarhi samples suggest. "It's very politically sensitive," he says.


The speculation on the Web is that the results are against OIT, and point to a "Dravidian" origin of the Indus Valley Civilization, and that is why they are "politically sensitive".

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 30 Aug 2017 04:17

Possible spins on Rakhigarhi DNA outcome:

I. Rakhigarhi DNA turns out to be none R1a1: How do we know the rest of the people were also none R1a ? It likely that R1a1 population was also present.

II. Rakhigarhi DNA turns out to be R1a1: How do we know the rest of the people were also R1a ? It likely that the non R1a1 population was also present.

We are going to hear either of the spin depending on what the outcome is. In other words the claim will that this evidence by itself is not sufficient to challenge the statuesque.

Obviously more evidence will be required.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 30 Aug 2017 05:57

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote: I am afraid you are misrepreseting Oak. You need to provide dates for and I quote you here:

"Adi parva nakshatras or the nakshatras of Janamejaya's recordings of these events".

If you can't provide dates for the above then your assertion "we get an entirely different set of dates" is meaningless.


.......How do you tell the difference between original writing and later cut-paste job for a tale that is self-admittedly revised repeatedly. that is a more immeidate issue than verification of these nakshatras.


Assume there were 50 authors who revised Mahabharata repeatedly in various centuries or millenniums. They wrote N observations of stellar phenomenon.

What date distribution do you expect for these N observations?

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 » 30 Aug 2017 07:46

Regarding Rakhigarhi I suspect the results must be inconclusive. When you take DNA of just a few individuals (or maybe one) and it happens to be 5000 years old - the chances of getting a full genome from that are low. And if there are no markers to pinpoint them in any particular place - they can be from any place. This is, after all the logic of the original AIT. We don't know the dates or the place of origin of language, therefore we say the date is XYZ and the place of origin is ABC. We have a person pushing this level of "science" right here on this thread.

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 » 30 Aug 2017 08:51

http://wavesinternational.net/pdf/WAVES ... Papers.pdf
FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT
CALL FOR PAPERS AND PARTICIPATION
WAVES 2018
13th International Conference of
The World Association for Vedic Studies
“Vedic Traditions for Education & Learning”
at Dallas*, Texas, USA (*Venue TBD by 2nd Announcement)
August 3 to 6, 2018

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 » 30 Aug 2017 17:07

RajeshA wrote: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!


And that about sums it up.

I've said this before, our friend is a very clever parser of Wikipedia. You say X did not do Y, he immediately looks it up and regurgitates it with absolute authority as if he himself was there and witnessed the truth. You say A cannot happen unless condition B is met, he will reproduce reams of data from the same sources on the net and claim the opposite, all done with the hubris of a know-it-all Professor in that same discipline. He does this for everything under discussion, whether it is molecular biology, theoretical physics, ancient Indian/Chinese/Greek history, philosophy - or now, astronomy. He will never read primary sources because that takes time and patience and possibly years of close study - and of course the need of the hour is to refute somebody on a forum, the internet does not wait for

No human being is capable of possessing such deep knowledge of everything under the sun, that much should be obvious to anybody. He does not read the book being discussed, but considers himself an authority on all the facts therein and has the gall to argue that he does not need to read it because he has already passed judgement on it based upon his own impeccable credentials!

He has plenty of time to indulge in this intellectual masturbation when he is in-between job assignments for there is nothing else to do and he is admittedly very clever at rhetoric. If you look at the pattern of his posts, his position is almost always contrary to the consensus, it seems to me that he delights in needling everyone here with his 'arguments' against the mainstream opinion.

I honestly believe there is a streak of obsessive behavior I am seeing here and this beautiful thread is completely derailed. Anybody looking for useful information now has to wade through page after page of rhetoric, bombast and circular arguments, the narrative being lost somewhere.

Please folks, let us not feed somebody's compulsion. Sorry if this rubs people the wrong way, but it is worth revisiting:

Image

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 30 Aug 2017 21:02

Cambodia

Cross-posting from "India and ASEAN / East Asia" Thread

By Vedveer Arya

Image


Kambār or Kamban was the celebrated author of Ramavataram also known as Kamba Ramayanam. He wrote his treatise in Viruttam meter which was popular in the Sangam era. Historians have concocted that Kamban lived around 1180 CE. Simon Casie Chitty has noted in 1859 that one of the prefixed stanzas on a manuscript refers to the year 807 of the Saka era as the date of publication. Undoubtedly, this manuscript was copied in Saka 807 (224 CE). Historians have fraudulently distorted the year as 1107 and claimed that Kamba Ramayanam was written in 1180 CE.

A Tamil legend tells us that Kambar was the son of King Veera Varman of Kambanadu. (near Thiruvasundoor of Tanjavur). King Veera Varman lost his kingdom and died before the birth of prince Kambar. Ambika was his mother. Kambar became a court poet of his patron Sadayappa Vallal who was a Velir king. Chola King Karikala II (1295-1200 BCE) annexed the Velir kingdom. There is no record of the Velir kings after the 13th century BCE. Therefore, Kambar must be dated before the 13th century BCE. The Velir Kings were the rivals of the Cholas. According to Tamil legends, Kambar’s son Ambikapathy was in love with Amaravati, a Chola princess. Ottakuttar, a contemporary and the rival poet of Kambar, complains about this love affair to the Velir king. The king sentences Ambikapathy to death. Kambar had no other option to flee from Tamilnadu.

Seemingly, Kambār reached to Yavadvipa (Java) in Indonesia after the death of his son. Manimekhalai refers to the city of Nagapuram of Java. At that time today's Cambodia was part of the kingdom of Nagas of Java. According to the legend of Cambodia, Kambu, a learned prince of India, came to the Naga kingdom of Cambodia and married a Naga princess named Mera. Thus, Kambu was the founder of the first dynasty of Cambodia. Most probably, Kambu has popularised Ramayana in Cambodia and Indonesia. Undoubtedly, Kambār was the Kambu of Cambodia. The descendents of Kambu came to be known as Kambujas. Therefore, the dynastic history of Cambodia begins with the arrival of Kambar.

The word Campuchia or Cambodia is derived from Kambuja and the word “Khmer” is derived from Kambu and Mera (his Naga wife). It may be noted that the Kambujas of Cambodia had no links with the Kambojas of Gandhara and Bactria. Most probably, the Nagas migrated from Tamilnadu to Indonesia during the first Sangam era. A Sanskrit text “Agastya Parva” is still popular in Indonesia and Cambodia.

****

There is quite solid evidence at least for Tibet and Cambodia that they were established by scions of Indian kingdoms!

There is a very good reason, the region is called Indo-China!

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 » 30 Aug 2017 21:49

Primus wrote:I honestly believe there is a streak of obsessive behavior I am seeing here and this beautiful thread is completely derailed. Anybody looking for useful information now has to wade through page after page of rhetoric, bombast and circular arguments, the narrative being lost somewhere.

Primus this is not the first guy to poop on this thread series. There was a guy who did it in the first iteration of this thread as well. There is something about the topic that makes some people want to fight desperately against the weight of opinion being expressed here. There is a common factor between the earlier troll and this guy - and that is a modicum of awareness of issues, ready made answers, excellent ability at pointless rhetoric and generally good angrezi. I notice that pure rhetoric to push bullshit is a hallmark of stalwarts like Witzel, David Antony, Wendy Doniger etc. I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories but I think these trolls are not individuals acting alone - there is some background sponsorship or motivating factor. Just my thoughts. Both trolls spent way too much effort is trying to take down arguments - but Srijoy is louder and cruder, and overall less capable and depends more on Wiki type sources.

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 » 30 Aug 2017 22:40

shiv wrote:
Primus wrote:I honestly believe there is a streak of obsessive behavior I am seeing here and this beautiful thread is completely derailed. Anybody looking for useful information now has to wade through page after page of rhetoric, bombast and circular arguments, the narrative being lost somewhere.

............. I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories but I think these trolls are not individuals acting alone - there is some background sponsorship or motivating factor. Just my thoughts. Both trolls spent way too much effort is trying to take down arguments - but Srijoy is louder and cruder, and overall less capable and depends more on Wiki type sources.



Hmm...... food for thought!

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 30 Aug 2017 22:47

If you want to see a classic case of distortion of history by EJ/BIF types, you need look no further than what they are doing with Thiruvalluvar today. Even according to "accepted" history or dating today, Thiruvalluvar lived before the era of Jesus Christ. But that doesn't stop these people from claiming that the Thirukkural is really the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that Thiruvalluvar was a sincere (but misguided) Xtian, who simply did not fully understand the message of Christ, and that this is the reason why the Thirukkural rambles on instead of directly presenting Jesus and his teachings.

Hillary Clinton was one of the architects of this rewriting of Tamil history.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 31 Aug 2017 00:15

sudarshan wrote:If you want to see a classic case of distortion of history by EJ/BIF types, you need look no further than what they are doing with Thiruvalluvar today. Even according to "accepted" history or dating today, Thiruvalluvar lived before the era of Jesus Christ. But that doesn't stop these people from claiming that the Thirukkural is really the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that Thiruvalluvar was a sincere (but misguided) Xtian, who simply did not fully understand the message of Christ, and that this is the reason why the Thirukkural rambles on instead of directly presenting Jesus and his teachings.

Hillary Clinton was one of the architects of this rewriting of Tamil history.


As per Vedveer Arya,

The Date of Thiruvalluvar (1700-1620 BCE)

The famous Tamil Sant Thiruvalluvar was the author of Thirukkural. The Sangam era poet Mamulanar (11th century BCE) indicates that Thiruvalluvar was the contemporary of the Nanda dynasty of Magadha empire (1715-1610 BCE). The song titled “Thiruvalluva Malai” written in praise of poet Thiruvalluvar contains 53 quatrains. The following poets are credited with the authorship of these quatrains: Ashariri, Nāmakkal, Iraiyanār, Ukkiraperu Valudi, Kapilar, Paranar, Nakkirar, Mamulanar, Kallatar, Sitalai Sattanar, Maruttvan Tamotaran etc. Undoubtedly, Ashariri and Namakkal lived after Thiruvalluvar. Therefore, Thiruvalluvar lived much before the reign of Ukkiraperu Valudi (1330-1250 BCE), the last Pāndya king of the 3rd Sangam period. Thus, we can roughly fix the date of Thiruvalluvar in the 17th century BCE (1700-1620 BCE).

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Aug 2017 07:03

Sorry if this rubs people the wrong way, but it is worth revisiting:

THANK U!!! I deleted a post after reading and remembering this on the Pompous Chest-Thumping Little Cheney Forum .

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

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 31 Aug 2017 07:08

A_Gupta wrote:The speculation on the Web is that the results are against OIT, and point to a "Dravidian" origin of the Indus Valley Civilization, and that is why they are "politically sensitive".


Set of simble questions:

1. What is "Dravidian?"
2. Even if it were "Dravidian" why does it hurt OIT? (Could be "Dravidians" went out or helped them non-"Dravidians" go out - is that not possible?)
3. OIT or AIT or NoIT - everything is politically sensitive as it has to do with Identity - so why bother?
4. I just don't got it! Has anyone dug up ancient humans and calibrated current techniques in India?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Aug 2017 07:20

I recently got a decent definition of "Dravida" from Prof. Girinath Jha, Prof. of Sanskrit, JNU: They who live near water. Absolutely nothing about north or south or black or white.
Maybe ppl chewing the cud here should put in papers to that conference advertised above. Also, the word Dravida does not occur in the RV. Confirmed by several ppl.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 31 Aug 2017 16:14

UlanBatori wrote:I recently got a decent definition of "Dravida" from Prof. Girinath Jha, Prof. of Sanskrit, JNU: They who live near water. Absolutely nothing about north or south or black or white.
Maybe ppl chewing the cud here should put in papers to that conference advertised above. Also, the word Dravida does not occur in the RV. Confirmed by several ppl.


"Kuvid" means "where" in Sanskrit. Drava means liquid, fluid. "Dravid" could either refer to "towards where water flows" keeping the Himalayas in mind, thus meaning southwards, or it could refer to "towards the waters" having Indian Ocean in mind.

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 » 31 Aug 2017 16:20

RajeshA wrote:Drava means liquid, fluid.

Oh flippin heck. I didn't know this. One of the synonyms for "wet" in Kannada is "tyava"


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Aug 2017 17:37

Maybe the origin of the American term :"He's All Wet". Or "Wetback"? JUST KIDDING! :eek:

The Ulan Bator School of non-thought holds that the Indus Valley civilization and the Sarasvati Valley Civilization were both (Indus much more than Sarasvati) trading outposts at the edge of the MUCH larger and MUCH OLDER civilization that spanned East Asia and Bharatavarsha already. People who lived along the river bank, with all its annual hazards, because they were traders who depended on the river for transport. This is why I believe that there was no mass famine when the rivers dried, up, ppl just picked up their sticks and moved elsewhere. The boats with bigger draught could not come up the rivers to their settlements any more, so they had to move far south as well, closer to the ocean.

So they may very well have been "Dravidas" simply because they lived near the water and HAD to live near water. Maybe be close to "sailors" except I don't know if they had sails (v know they had nuclear propulsion but.. :mrgreen: )

When one big river dried up and ppl had to move to Pakistan to be near the other river, and found that those cousins were not keen to receive competition, many just said, "to heck with this!" and moved to the coast and built bigger ships that put the Indus ppl out of bijnej. Direct access to the hinterland of Maharashtra etc., and then people rapidly went all round the coastline and did braver island-hopping with bigger and bigger ships.

Question about how Shiva/Parvati tradition came to be so strong in the south (but not Indonesia/East Asia, hain?) is a different one. That clearly seems to be a Himalayan origin, and how did that become so strong so far south?

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4766
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 31 Aug 2017 22:01

RajeshA wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:I recently got a decent definition of "Dravida" from Prof. Girinath Jha, Prof. of Sanskrit, JNU: They who live near water. Absolutely nothing about north or south or black or white.
Maybe ppl chewing the cud here should put in papers to that conference advertised above. Also, the word Dravida does not occur in the RV. Confirmed by several ppl.


"Kuvid" means "where" in Sanskrit. Drava means liquid, fluid. "Dravid" could either refer to "towards where water flows" keeping the Himalayas in mind, thus meaning southwards, or it could refer to "towards the waters" having Indian Ocean in mind.


Didn't SuSwamy in a recent video uploaded in political drama thread say Dravida was first used by Shankracharya to mean where the waters meet? The three seas - Indian ocean, Arabian sea, and bay of bengal or in his telling the peninsula of India. Dra is sea in this telling and vid is meeting.

Based on Batori's comment - it gels with my (little) malayalam knowledge - Dravya - liquid , and Vit (house) -- house near water. J

In any case it is a geographic or location term and not related to people themselves.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 01 Sep 2017 04:37

Politically sensitive? First of all, don't trust the media on anything related to something like this. Secondly, we already know that there was a recent inflow with the recent paper. That doesn't change anything at all related to whether ANI was oppressive and whether our culture flowed westward after its subcontinental birth which all the evidence seems to indicate. I look forward to the results.

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

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

Postby Misra » 01 Sep 2017 05:42

UlanBatori wrote:...
Question about how Shiva/Parvati tradition came to be so strong in the south (but not Indonesia/East Asia, hain?) is a different one. That clearly seems to be a Himalayan origin, and how did that become so strong so far south?


agastya probably had a large hand in that--said to have carried yoga from (shiva's) himalayas down past the vindhyas. seems to have done some truly phenomenal work enmeshing yoga with coeval culture, visible till today much more in the south than in the north.

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

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 01 Sep 2017 11:39

UlanBatori wrote:Question about how Shiva/Parvati tradition came to be so strong in the south (but not Indonesia/East Asia, hain?) is a different one. That clearly seems to be a Himalayan origin, and how did that become so strong so far south?


There is nothing to indicate Shiva/Parvati tradition as either North or South - in fact it is all over greater India... Kathasraj in Paki land... Mata temples all the way in Afghan/Baluchistan regions, etc. Kashmir of course a virtual center for Shiva matha... As Kala in Tibet... and all over SE Asia... Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. This predates the Tamils and Oriya folks... so needs a lot more research...
SEast Asia (even Indonesia - Bali has well preserved...) has plenty of Linga and Ganesha found all over... even South China. :shock: :P

One small example in Cambodia: The River of a Thousand Lingas in Siem Reap, Cambodia

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11154
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Sep 2017 16:41

Not directly related to out-of-India, but relevant to ancient Asia:
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/02/06 ... tudy-says/

Between 5,500 and 5,000 years ago, the monsoon weakened and rainfall over northern China decreased by 50 percent, the researchers found. They speculate that this drying triggered a major cultural transition in the region. As they describe it, two early Neolithic societies, the Hongshan culture in North China and the Yangshao culture in central China, collapsed around 5,000 years ago. In central China, the following period saw the rise of more stratified and socially and politically complex societies, including the Longshan culture. Previously unoccupied areas on the eastern margin of the Tibetan plateau were populated. Meanwhile, northeast China experienced a sharp population decline, represented by the Xiaoheyan culture.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kvraghav, RAMESHJ and 46 guests