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

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

Postby Dipanker » 11 Dec 2017 00:01

shiv wrote:Saras means water.


This is a new one for me. My exposure to Sanskrit is up to 10+2 level, and I have read tons and tons (hyperbolically speaking) Sanskritized Hindi literature both prose and poetry.

I have never come across this meaning of Saras!

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1426
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 11 Dec 2017 00:03

peter wrote:Come on. This is not even a trick question. Aryans had a break up in India and some of them left and settled in Iran. They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.


Peter - If i ask what does your name mean - it could be "decrease or fade gradually before coming to an end" per the dictionary!
Your arguments are heading in the same way....

Let's say we agree that people calling the river Haraxavati did indeed move eastward (from Iran to India) and then chance upon a great river and called it Saraswathi. Then the question I think you will need to answer before gradually fading away is thusly:
1. What is the meaning of the word Haraxavati? In whatever language you want to pick... since Haraxavati is the original its meaning should stand on its own merits in language as well in contextual usage. We can ignore how it got changed from Haraxavati to Saraswathi for this discussion.
2. Saraswathi - any naive student of Sanskrit will tell you is 'Saras' (reflective body of water - pond, river, lake, etc.) and 'wathi' - a female possessive. That is lady of the lakes or rivers, etc.
3. The Iranians have a migration myth, the Indians do not. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1426
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 11 Dec 2017 00:14

Dipanker wrote:
shiv wrote:Saras means water.


This is a new one for me. My exposure to Sanskrit is up to 10+2 level, and I have read tons and tons (hyperbolically speaking) Sanskritized Hindi literature both prose and poetry.

I have never come across this meaning of Saras!


You are welcome to pick up a Sanskrit dictionary - it is a basin/pond/river - body of water usually reflecting pool, etc.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Dec 2017 00:17

PS: off-topic in a way, but the first example about the tongue and taste receptors in this The Atlantic video about myths about the human body taught in American schools shows how not-so-true-things become received wisdom.
https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index ... uman-body/

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 11 Dec 2017 00:30

Pulikeshi wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
This is a new one for me. My exposure to Sanskrit is up to 10+2 level, and I have read tons and tons (hyperbolically speaking) Sanskritized Hindi literature both prose and poetry.

I have never come across this meaning of Saras!


You are welcome to pick up a Sanskrit dictionary - it is a basin/pond/river - body of water usually reflecting pool, etc.



Bodies of water, specifically lake, pond, pool etc. yes (in addition to whole lot of other meanings), Saras as synonym for water, no, never came across that! Don't even recall Saras used as synonym for river.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 Dec 2017 01:16

Sarasija = of water = Lotus
Sarasa = moist, wet , sweaty, succulent
Sarasi = crane ( water bird not machine)

There is a difference between " pertaining to water" and water

Moisture, sweat, wetness pertain to water. One of the dictionary meanings of saras is sheet of water.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Dec 2017 01:45

My Vaman Shivram Apte "The Student's Sanskrit English Dictionary" gives the meaning of Saras (सरस्) as
1. a lake, pond, pool, a large sheet of water
2. water

सरस has a different dictionary entry
1. Juicy, succulent
2. Tasty, sapid
3. Wet
4. Wet with perspiration etc.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 Dec 2017 01:57

Pond is the school 10+2 pass level definition of saras

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 11 Dec 2017 03:34

A_Gupta wrote:My Vaman Shivram Apte "The Student's Sanskrit English Dictionary" gives the meaning of Saras (सरस्) as
1. a lake, pond, pool, a large sheet of water
2. water



Thanks for posting that. Two other online sources give same meanings with RV as source for first set of meanings and Naigh (?!) as source for the second meaning (water). The second meaning to me looks somewhat obscure as I have never seen it used and the connection here perhaps is that सरस् is "water related". I need to figure out what this Naigh source is all about and the context.

Also unless and until we are to equate a River == "large sheet of water", सरस् can not mean a river. If it did I don't see why the dictionaries would not include it.

http://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/285.html#saras
सरस् [ saras ] [ sáras ] n. " anything flowing or fluid " , a lake , large sheet of water , pond , pool , tank Lit. RV. a trough , pail Lit. RV.

water Lit. Naigh. i , 2


http://sanskritdictionary.com/?iencodin ... ion=Search (click on page-image to get to the following jpeg)
Image
Last edited by Dipanker on 11 Dec 2017 04:16, edited 1 time in total.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1426
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 11 Dec 2017 04:15

Dipanker wrote:The second meaning to me looks somewhat obscure as I have never seen it used and the connection here perhaps, is thar सरस् is "water related". I need to figure out what this Naigh source is all about and the context.

Also unless and until we are to equate a River == "large sheet of water", सरस् does not mean a river. If it did I don't see why the dictionaries would not include it.


Kind of ridiculous that Samudra is not ocean and Saras is not river!
All because someone foo who does not understand or ever spoke Sanskrit said so!
I am sure at this rate Saraswathi is from Sarah (half-sister and wife of Abhraham!) Must be as its only true story in history!

So why is कासार -> a pond? सरा -> Creek? Soup? Meaning? (Remember the Hindi Saramsh summary?)
Why is सरित् -> river, lord of rivers, etc.? What is समुद्रयोषित् - so SamudrayoShith is a river? समुद्रपत्नी -> is this an ocean or a river?
Why are Sarayu and Saranyu rivers as well... they should be names of lakes in Iran <sarc never off/>

What is स्रोतस्वती? River, lady or something else?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 Dec 2017 05:19

Oh come on. This is getting ludicrous. You are such a sore loser :rotfl:

First you say:
Dipanker wrote:
shiv wrote:Saras means water.

I have never come across this meaning of Saras!

And when you find that saras DOES mean water, you thrash about and struggle and move the goalpost YET again with:
Dipanker wrote: Also unless and until we are to equate a River == "large sheet of water", सरस् can not mean a river. If it did I don't see why the dictionaries would not include it.


I put it to you that you have never seen a mighty river that is several kilometers across that looks like a sheet of water. Now you can move the goalpost yet again and come up with a stupid rationalization. Move on buddy . You were wrong first time and are wrong again. Suck it up and swallow it down.Embarrassment ain't gonna kill you. Lurk some more and find another gap at silly point to score a single

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 Dec 2017 06:10

Here is a photo and description of the Saraswati pond in West Bengal with the photographer adding a cock and bull story calling it "river" while no dictionary accepts that saras can have anything to do with river
Photographer's Note

A dead river, the Saraswati used to be a major trade route into central Bengal until approximately 300 years ago.

The Portugese sailors were using it as their means to avoid confronting English and French and Dutch ships along the Hooghly river, until silt made the river un-navigable. Since then the old river bed has become swamps, farmlands, or in places just pools of brakish water that swells in monsoon.

Around traces of the old river there are jungles of tropical vegetation, in places the remains of lofty towers and ruins of palacial gates made with stacks of thin red bricks--the specialty of Bengal--now overgrown with strands of twisted roots of banyan tree sucking the last of the salts. At night one hears the chorus of foxes, wild cats often roam the area, even 30 years ago leopards were sighted, and elephant herds came to visit the area even ten years ago. The local people talk of the Borgis--Maratha marauders who used to terrorize Bengal 500 years ago--some eventually settling down in the area to become landlords.

While digging the silt on its ancient flood basins, one often finds prehistoric artifacts, stone or terracotta figurines, stone tools, speaking of settlement in pre-vedic times.

The region was first developed by the Maurya dynasty (325 BC), which made a trade road between what is now Sonarganj in Bangladesh and 'Taxilla', the original Maurya capital, near Peshawar in current Pakistan, a distance of over 2,500 km, going through Calcutta, Patna, Varanasi (Benaras), Allahabad, Agra, Delhi, through Punjab into current Pakistan through Lahore.

Following the decay of the Maurya and then the Sunga empires the trade road became less utilized, which was then rebuilt by Sher Shah in ~1,500 AD, which still exists today as the Grand Trunk Road (NH-1/2). The Mughals had extended the road to Kabul in Afghanistan.

The importance of this area to ancient trade is appreciated by the fact that often one finds coins dating to early Islamic period (I have a few in my collection) if one digs even a shallow trench in the silt bed.

In a few years the dead river's legacy will live only as the area that floods often in monsoon rains, revealing from its bosom as water recedes a few glittering coins and ancient playthings.


Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 Dec 2017 06:17

The people of my state, Karnataka, must be fundamentally stupid - because they speak Dravidian languages. They end up calling a lake caused by a dam as an ocean. How dumb is that?

Krishnarajasagar
Image

Their stupidity knows no bounds and cannot be described in any dictionary. Here is a waterfall called "samudra"
Shivanasamudra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivanasamudra_Falls

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20873
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 11 Dec 2017 06:21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kush
This Kush is turned into Semite Cush but he looks like typical Desi Chap and this empire existed along side Hittities , Akkadian,Mittani. Kush rulers were trading with both Rome and India. The names like Tantamani ( Our own Dr Mani) and Ashurbanipal ( Banipal is stil used as last name in PB, Haryana .region),

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 Dec 2017 06:28

Quote from my unpublished work

"To try and locate “vinasana” where the Saraswati dried up we look first at another quote from
Macdonell and Keith: "

From Macdonell and Keith "Index of Vedic Texts" -
“In the enumeration of rivers (evidently from east to west) in Rv. x. 75, 5, Ganga, Yamuna,
Sarasvati, Sutudri, the Sarasvati comes between the Jumna and the Sutlej, the position of
the modern Sarsuti (SaraswatI). which, flowing to the west of Thanesar, is joined in Patiala
territory by a more westerly stream, the Ghaggar, and, passing Sirsa, is lost in the desert at
Bhatnair ; but a dry river bed (Hakra or Ghaggar) can be traced from that point to the Indus”

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 Dec 2017 06:37

Griffiths translation of Rig Veda X.75
HYMN LXXV. The Rivers.


Note: The title is "The Rivers" Not "The Ponds" And the geographic location of Saraswati is between rivers in India. Not Iran

Rig Veda X.75:5
5 Favour ye this my laud, O Gan!gā, Yamunā, O Sutudri, Paruṣṇī and Sarasvatī:
With Asikni, Vitasta, O Marudvrdha, O Ārjīkīya with Susoma hear my call.


It's another matter that the meaning is misinterpreted. But those are river names They are not "River, river, river, river, pond, river, river etc..."

I think this stupidity of Saraswati=pond/situated in Iran need to be dismissed from this thread forever.

Amazing how far people will go to keep twisting facts. Can't understand why. Are these serial trolls employed by AITians? if they are they are certainly unable to come up with anything new other than the old tired concoctions. "Saraswati is in Iran. Saraswati is a pond. Saras is not water. wtf?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Dec 2017 09:43

Sorry I can't reproduce the right accent marks, hope plain ASCII does not mislead.

Per Lakshman Swarup's "The Nighantu and The Nirukta of Sri Yashkacharya, the Nirukta 9.26 starts with this from the Nadistuti of the RV

Hear this my hymn of praise, O Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati, Sutudri, Purusni, Marudvrdha with Asikni, and Arjikiya with Vitasta and Susoma.

Attend to this my hymn of praise, O Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati, Sutudri, Purusni, Marudvrdha with Asikni; hear, O Arjikiya with Vitasta and Susoma. This is the general sense. Now (follows) the etymological explanation of every word.

Ganga is (so called) from going (root: gam). Yamuna, she flows, joining herself (with other rivers) or she flows gently.

Sarasvati - the word saras is a synonym of water, it is derived from (the root) sr (to flow) - rich in water.

Sutudri, quick runner, rapid runner, or it runs swiftly like one who is goaded.

Iravati is called Parusni, i.e, having joints, [shining,], winding.

Asikni, non-bright, non-white. The word sitam is a synonym of white colour, its antithesis is (denoted by) a-sitam.

Marudvrdha, i.e., swollen by all other rivers and winds.

Vitasta, not burnt, mighty, having high banks.

Arjikiya is called Vipas, (so called because)it rises in rjuku, or it flows in a straight line. The Vipas is (so called) from bursting forth, or from loosening fetters, or from being extended. It is called fetterless because the fetters of the moribund Vasishtha were loosened on it. Formerly it was called Urunjira.

Susoma is the Sindhu (so called because) rivers flow towards it. Sindhu is (so called) from flowing.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 Dec 2017 09:52

^^Interesting that you should post this,

RL Kashyap says almost exactly the same thing. He does not mention the Saraswati because he has an entire book devoted to that and refers people to that book

Click link below for image.

Sorry I can't post inline
https://drive.google.com/open?id=10s3Q5 ... 3gNZtoTgMp

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Dec 2017 10:04

Yaska, Nirukta, 2.23, says "The following fifty-seven (words) are synonyms of speech. From what (root) is vac (speech) derived? It is derived from (the root) vac (to speak). With reference to these, the word Sarasvati is used both in the sense of "a river" and of "a deity" in Vedic passages; we shall explain (the Vedic passages) where it is used in the sense of a deity later, and just now those where it is used in the sense of a river.

2.23 ends, and 2.24 begins with Rg Veda VI.61.2 ( http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv06061.htm ) (i.e., there Sarasvati is used in the sense of a river). There follows an explanation of the words in VI.61.2.

What is the date for Yaska? We don't know, but he preceded Panini, we are told. The understanding in his time was Sarasvati in the Nadistuti and e.g., in RV VI.61.2 referred to a river.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Dec 2017 10:12

shiv wrote:^^Interesting that you should post this,

RL Kashyap says almost exactly the same thing. He does not mention the Saraswati because he has an entire book devoted to that and refers people to that book

Click link below for image.

Sorry I can't post inline
https://drive.google.com/open?id=10s3Q5 ... 3gNZtoTgMp


RL Kashyap is paraphrasing Yaska. Lakshman Sarup's book is

"The Nighantu and The Nirukta of Sri Yaskacarya
The Oldest Indian Treatise on Etymology, Philology and Semantics
The First Critical Edition, Translation, showing relation of
the Nirukta to Samhita, Brahmana, Pratisakhya, Astadhayi, Mahabhasya, etc.
Exegetical and Critical Notes, Indexes and Appendices"

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Dec 2017 10:47

Is there an identification of all the rivers in the Nadistuti (RV X.75.5-6)?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9534
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 11 Dec 2017 17:26

OT, apologies to ramana. Liu's Waldorf still very much present. Wow! Must be 50 years old.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 11 Dec 2017 18:21

shiv wrote:Quote from my unpublished work

"To try and locate “vinasana” where the Saraswati dried up we look first at another quote from
Macdonell and Keith: "

From Macdonell and Keith "Index of Vedic Texts" -
“In the enumeration of rivers (evidently from east to west) in Rv. x. 75, 5, Ganga, Yamuna,
Sarasvati, Sutudri, the Sarasvati comes between the Jumna and the Sutlej, the position of
the modern Sarsuti (SaraswatI). which, flowing to the west of Thanesar, is joined in Patiala
territory by a more westerly stream, the Ghaggar, and, passing Sirsa, is lost in the desert at
Bhatnair ; but a dry river bed (Hakra or Ghaggar) can be traced from that point to the Indus”

Shiv,

Sending you (via email) a wonderful paper I came across yesterday. Trying to have these folks invited to another conference in mid Jan.

Subject - Locations of Vinashan and Plaksha-Prasrvavan. This author couple is doing Padayatra from Vinashan to Plaksha-Prasravan.

KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

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

Postby KL Dubey » 11 Dec 2017 22:02

A_Gupta wrote:Is there an identification of all the rivers in the Nadistuti (RV X.75.5-6)?


No. There is no word called "nadistuti" in the Veda, this is just a title given to the sukta. The words in the sukta have been used as river names in N/NW India, although they do not have any such meaning in the Veda. One can only say that "there is a collection of words in this sukta which have been used to name a number of rivers in India". The fact that such usage is found extensively in India and only lightly in some surrounding areas such as Iran, shows the origin of "Vedic culture" in India.

KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

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

Postby KL Dubey » 11 Dec 2017 22:18

Regarding the "meanings" of words such as sarasvati, sindhu etc. There seems a lot of confusion.

1) The Indians found that the words in the Veda could be derived using a system of roots, stems, and modifications that employ a set of rules ("grammar"). Using these, the Indians had developed a collection of word roots from which they proceeded to derive meaning assignments. This collection of roots, their derivatives, and grammatical rules is called the "Sanskrit language" which was used for daily parlance (i.e. to describe ordinary/earthly objects and phenomena). The catalog of Yaska is the earliest existing collection of these assignments.

2) However, the Veda is not "in Sanskrit". It is a collection of "raw data" from which discoveries and applications are possible (such as those mentioned above). Sanskrit is the language whose rules are invented by observing certain patterns in the Vedic "words". However, the meanings used in Sanskrit are to be taken primarily as the imagination of various people involved in inventing the language.

3) The simple fact is that only the Indians are known to have made detailed name assignments of real historical/geographical rivers using words in the Veda. There are a few corrupted assignments also to found in Iran. Until any evidence of such assignments arises in other parts of the world, it must be assumed that the Indians received the Veda, invented Sanskrit, and diffused it to other parts of the world. Any other assumptions are just fantasies with no substance. Insistence of such fantasies as facts would indicate an urgent need for mental examination and detailed evaluation in asylums.

KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

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

Postby KL Dubey » 11 Dec 2017 22:39

Pulikeshi wrote:
peter wrote:1. What is the meaning of the word Haraxavati? In whatever language you want to pick... since Haraxavati is the original its meaning should stand on its own merits in language as well in contextual usage. We can ignore how it got changed from Haraxavati to Saraswathi for this discussion.


I would also ask about the "source of the meaning" (a source other than Ahura-wazoo).

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Dec 2017 23:02

KL Dubey wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:Is there an identification of all the rivers in the Nadistuti (RV X.75.5-6)?


No. There is no word called "nadistuti" in the Veda, this is just a title given to the sukta. The words in the sukta have been used as river names in N/NW India, although they do not have any such meaning in the Veda. One can only say that "there is a collection of words in this sukta which have been used to name a number of rivers in India". The fact that such usage is found extensively in India and only lightly in some surrounding areas such as Iran, shows the origin of "Vedic culture" in India.


Yaska has arguments against this point of view that the words in the Veda have no meaning. Now maybe he was totally wrong; but for the purposes of the OIT thread, I'm going to assume he is right. To Yaska, the words in the Nadistuti (and no, I didn't say that the word "Nadistuti' is in the Veda, by the way is the construction "Rig Veda" in the Rig Veda?) signify rivers, and that is what I'm going with. You may please go argue with him if you disagree :D

KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

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

Postby KL Dubey » 11 Dec 2017 23:08

A_Gupta wrote:Yaska has arguments against this point of view that the words in the Veda have no meaning.


I never knew there was a point of view in India that claimed "the words in the Veda have no meaning". I said, the "meanings" of the words in the Veda are yet unknown and are not the same as the meanings derived in the Sanskrit language. Yaska discusses Sanskrit, but the Veda is not in Sanskrit.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Dec 2017 23:17

The river names in RV X.75.5

Ganga - modern Ganga
Yamuna - modern Yamuna
Sarasvati - theorized to be the vanished river that has some remnant in Ghaghar-Hakra
Sutudri - modern Sutlej
Parusni - also ancient Iravati - modern Ravi
Asikni - also ancient Iskamati, Greek Acesine - modern Chenab
Marudvrdha - ???
Vitasta - also Greek Hydaspes, Kashmiri Vyeth, modern Jhelum.
Arjikiya - ???
Susoma - modern Indus?

Western/northern tributaries of the Indus??? (named in RV X.75.6)
Trstama
Susartu
Rasā
Shvetya
Sindhu - modern Indus
Kubha - modern Kabul
Gomati - modern Gomal
Krumu
Mehatnu

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Dec 2017 23:18

KL Dubey wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:Yaska has arguments against this point of view that the words in the Veda have no meaning.


I never knew there was a point of view in India that claimed "the words in the Veda have no meaning". I said, the "meanings" of the words in the Veda are yet unknown and are not the same as the meanings derived in the Sanskrit language. Yaska discusses Sanskrit, but the Veda is not in Sanskrit.


As I get a chance, I'll try to here reproduce or paraphrase what Yaska wrote. I think he says the Vedic language corresponds to the spoken language.

KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

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

Postby KL Dubey » 11 Dec 2017 23:29

^^How do you know the above words are proper nouns? My assertion is that they are not. As an example, it is already seen in the Veda that "sindhu" is not a proper noun. Please tell me why you think the other words found in association with "sindhu" are proper nouns.

I am not arguing with you. I only would like to know if you are just using the Sanskrit "name assignments" of these words as rivers in pursuit of whatever argument you are engaged in (that is totally fine with me), or whether you think these words actually mean the specific Indian rivers in the Veda.

My request is that instead of saying "so-and-so rivers are enumerated in the Veda" (totally absurd), one should say "the following words in the Veda have been used/assigned as names of rivers found either previously or currently in India".

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 12 Dec 2017 00:13

KL Dubey wrote:^^How do you know the above words are proper nouns? My assertion is that they are not. As an example, it is already seen in the Veda that "sindhu" is not a proper noun. Please tell me why you think the other words found in association with "sindhu" are proper nouns.

I am not arguing with you. I only would like to know if you are just using the Sanskrit "name assignments" of these words as rivers in pursuit of whatever argument you are engaged in (that is totally fine with me), or whether you think these words actually mean the specific Indian rivers in the Veda.

My request is that instead of saying "so-and-so rivers are enumerated in the Veda" (totally absurd), one should say "the following words in the Veda have been used/assigned as names of rivers found either previously or currently in India".


To repeat a piece of an earlier post (I can't reproduce the accents, and hope the plain ASCII doesn't confuse).

(translation of Yaska, Nirukta):
Yaska, Nirukta, 2.23, says "The following fifty-seven (words) are synonyms of speech. From what (root) is vac (speech) derived? It is derived from (the root) vac (to speak). With reference to these, the word Sarasvati is used both in the sense of "a river" and of "a deity" in Vedic passages; we shall explain (the Vedic passages) where it is used in the sense of a deity later, and just now those where it is used in the sense of a river.

Just following the above sense of Yaska, for the purposes of the OIT thread.

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

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

Postby peter » 12 Dec 2017 02:03

periaswamy wrote:
peter: which would point to a common Indo-Iranian myth of a cosmic or mystical Sáras-vat-ī river.


The river does not become "cosmic or mystical" just because linguists pretend it was -- all we have for "proof" is this claim based on some random theory cooked up regarding word origins, and claims that studiously ignores ALL other corroborating evidence to the contrary, as you have proven by repeating the same BS about word origins of sarawati, when the original question considered other references that do not make geographical sense. -- if there is proof of corroborating geographical references that indicate that this river is in a different place than what you linguists are claiming, then the river was not all that "cosmis and mystical" but just ran dry over time as "climate change" happened back then, as it is happening today.

Research in actual fields of hard science that corroborate references to Saraswati and the adjoining geographical features are a better proof than the lurid fantasies of linguists who apparently get to pretend something is "cosmic and mystical" just because they make that claim without proof, and worse, refuse to look at other corroborating evidence as it rubbish all their stupid and fanstastic theories and prove all these academics as bare faced liars, like you have repeatedly proving yourself to be. You answer questions that were not put to you and refuse to answer the questions put to you -- sheer intellectual and literal dishonesty.

I am actually not sure what the source of your confusion is. If you can spell it out clearly it will help.
Here is what I know:
1) In Avesta Harahvaiti (some write it is haraxvaiti, haraxavati) is mentioned. There is no dispute on this. It is supposed to have descended from their mythical Hara mountain.
2) We know Sarasvati existed in India and is mentioned right from Rig Veda onwards.
3) Aryan Invasion theorists postulate that Iranians migrating into India (as part of their invasion) named the Indian Sarasvati based on their Iranian Harahvaiti.
To support this they claim that an S->H transformation took place somewhere around 1500 BC. And hence Iranians would have come to India slightly before that say around 1900 BC.

The fundamental problem with this is there was no sarasvati in 1900 BC which was mighty or broke its banks. It had dried up. This was pointed out by BB Lal the ASI chief.

4) Since Iranians could not have given the name to the Indian river how/why they used Harahvaiti as a name for their mythical river and land/region?
To me this is only possible if the Iranians migrated out of India and remembered the mighty sarasvati and named the river that they settled on Harahvaiti.

Continuing on: In modern times the linguists comparing the two names : Harahvaiti and Sarasvati tried to find out why are the identically named. And they said since Harahvaiti breaks up into ponds and as Sarasvati also broke up into ponds before it dried up and hence the two names are from the same root: "Sar" which means lakes.

I do not understand what is the confusion here?

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

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

Postby peter » 12 Dec 2017 02:10

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:Please mind your language. Circa 3000 BC is a dating of Mahabharata that is in tune with sanskrit inscriptions of kings of India, the tradition of Kaliyuga starting with the demise of Krishna, and astronomical observations mentioned in the Mahabharata.

I have not mentioned anything about the dating of the Mahabharata other than agreeing with Nilesh Oak and agreeing this dates are credible and in conformity with the papers I have been reading. I am only talking of Vedas, Manusmriti and Harappa. Nothing that you say goes against the dating of the Vedas back to 10,000 years ago. Or dating of Manusmriti between 9000 to 5000 years ago.

What you believe about Mahabharata is what you believe. I happen to agree with Nilesh Oak. If you don't like that it's not my problem.

Here is a list of astronomical references from Mahabharata which occur just before and during the Mahabharata war. Think of these as a list of references which should all match for a date to be accepted.

0 Departure of Krishna to Hastinapur on peace mission on Revathi.
1 Purnima in a few days on the following Kartika nakshatra (three days from 0).
2 Lunar eclipse on Kartika Purnima.
3 Amawasya on Jyestha which is also the solar eclipse.
4 A lunar eclipse 13 days later following the Jyestha amawas.
5 Departure of Balram on Pushya after Jyestha Amawas.
6 Start of the war on Shukla Ekadasi of Mrigasira
7 On the 14 th day of the war late moon rise.
8 On the 14th day of the war moon rose in the east.
9 Last day of the war on Shravan nakshatra and Balram returns.
10 Balram is gone for 42 days.
11 Bhishma Asthami in Magha Shukplapaksh.
12 Thirty six years later Krishna sees a similar sequence
of eclipses as given in 2,3 and 4, above. These are three separate
observations at the time of Vrishni destruction viz a lunar
eclipse followed by a solar eclipse followed by a 13 day apravani
lunar eclipse!

None of these match for Nilesh's date.
Shiv wrote:
Peter wrote:This can't be believed. Haryana area had massive forests even till the medieval times.


That is quite OK. There is no need for you to believe it. It is your right to believe whatever you wish. Rajasthan where most of the Early Harappan sites are did not have forest.

I need to see proof about Haryana forests in medieval times. What the hell is "medieval" anyway? What you say is not believable. If you cannot provide proof - it is OK - I will continue to dismiss your statements as cooked up on the spur of the moment.

Search for Dhak jungles.

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

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

Postby peter » 12 Dec 2017 02:19

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:Sanskrit sáras means ‘pool, pond or lake’; the feminine sarasī́ means ‘stagnant pool, swamp’. Like its cognates Welsh hêl, heledd ‘river meadow’ and Greek ἕλος (hélos) ‘swamp’, the Rigvedic term refers mostly to stagnant waters.

Sarasvatī is an exact cognate with Avestan Haraxvatī, perhaps originally referring to Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā (modern Ardwisur Anahid), the Zoroastrian mythological world river, which would point to a common Indo-Iranian myth of a cosmic or mystical Sáras-vat-ī river.

Nonsense.

Saras means water. Could be a large sheet of water like a huge river. It can mean pond also. Saraswat means having water. Saraswati is a name

Haraxwati is in the wrong place. You need to actually read the references to coordinates of Saraswati river before bluffing.

Iranians may have had cosmic mystical river. Naturally. Not Hindus. Can't blame the Iranians - the river was in India.


I am not denying Sarasvati existed in India. Infact I am saying Iranians migrated *OUT* of india and gave this name to one of their rivers and it became a region also in their area of Iran.

Indian Saraswati is in the aryavrat. Their Harahvaiti is in their region. In any case seem my reply to periaswamy.

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

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

Postby peter » 12 Dec 2017 02:21

Pulikeshi wrote:
peter wrote:Come on. This is not even a trick question. Aryans had a break up in India and some of them left and settled in Iran. They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.


Peter - If i ask what does your name mean - it could be "decrease or fade gradually before coming to an end" per the dictionary!
Your arguments are heading in the same way....

Let's say we agree that people calling the river Haraxavati did indeed move eastward (from Iran to India) and then chance upon a great river and called it Saraswathi. Then the question I think you will need to answer before gradually fading away is thusly:
1. What is the meaning of the word Haraxavati? In whatever language you want to pick... since Haraxavati is the original its meaning should stand on its own merits in language as well in contextual usage. We can ignore how it got changed from Haraxavati to Saraswathi for this discussion.
2. Saraswathi - any naive student of Sanskrit will tell you is 'Saras' (reflective body of water - pond, river, lake, etc.) and 'wathi' - a female possessive. That is lady of the lakes or rivers, etc.
3. The Iranians have a migration myth, the Indians do not. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

You are probably not following what I am saying. Please see my reply to periaswamy.

Also peter is from the same root as hindi "pita" father in english.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Dec 2017 02:25

peter: Here is what I know:
crap related to linguistics deleted
peter: The fundamental problem with this is there was no sarasvati in 1900 BC which was mighty or broke its banks. It had dried up. This was pointed out by BB Lal the ASI chief.


Saraswati was dead long before 1900 BC but this is not the "fundamental problem" -- the folks who are stating saraswathi existed say the river existed and died long before 1900 BC. The fundamental problem is that your dishonesty stops you from answering the pointed questions that have asked you to corrorate your claims with non-linguistic geographical facts, which you have not done yet, including the post I am responding to.

<more linguistic crap deleted>

I do not understand what is the confusion here?


If there was any truth to your linguistically-based horsedung, you would have no problem backing up your "linguistic facts" with geographical facts by answering the questions put to you. But you would rather continue to be a dishonest troll who pretends to not hear the question, and pretend that the "confusion" is in the heads of people who are looking at you to provide responses that demonstrate that the geographical names mentioned alongside sarasvati also exist in the geographical region (Iran) where your "linguistic facts" place the saraswathi river.

Still too dense/dishonest to comprehend the questions put to you by Shiv in the previous page, which are in plain and simple language? Selective reading is an attribute of the intellectually dishonest -- your answers do not answer any of the questions put to you. Here is a hint -- you have move out of linguistics to answer the questions, just circular references to bogus linguistics nonsense is not going to cut it.

Anyway, you are just being a bore repeating your stupid and dishonest nonsense that is not relevant to the question put to you. Don't address me again.
Last edited by nachiket on 12 Dec 2017 02:46, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: User warned for personal attack.

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

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

Postby peter » 12 Dec 2017 02:26

KL Dubey wrote:
I never knew there was a point of view in India that claimed "the words in the Veda have no meaning". I said, the "meanings" of the words in the Veda are yet unknown and are not the same as the meanings derived in the Sanskrit language. Yaska discusses Sanskrit, but the Veda is not in Sanskrit.

There is a Rk in the rigveda which mentions rivers from east to west exactly in the same order as they exist today. How could this coincidence happen if the sanskrit words of Rg Veda were not reflecting the reality on the ground?

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Dec 2017 03:00

peter: Here is a list of astronomical references from Mahabharata which occur just before and during the Mahabharata war. Think of these as a list of references which should all match for a date to be accepted.

1 Purnima in a few days on the following Kartika nakshatra (three days from 0).
2 Lunar eclipse on Kartika Purnima.
3 Amawasya on Jyestha which is also the solar eclipse.
4 A lunar eclipse 13 days later following the Jyestha amawas.
5 Departure of Balram on Pushya after Jyestha Amawas.


No, that is incorrect and a silly counterpoint. They do not have to match a specific day, as long as there is an interval of time where not only these observations but ALL other observations outside of these dates also match. In fact, the set of observations like lunar eclipses are just noise because they will match pretty much any interval of time you pull up from the past. 100-200AD will contain a match for those, as will 5000BCE-6000BCE, so in essence these observations are completely useless w.r.t. dating the text.

What is needed to get a better estimate is a set of rare astronomical phenomena that does not recur so often as to render it useless. If I was some person who existed 10000 years ago, and I write "and then the sun rose in the morning", the best estimate for dating this observation is every single day from the dawn of time until today. That kind of estimate is pretty much useless, which is a good reason to avoid such observations in the text, if we are trying to date the time period associated with the text.

Ditto for "no moon days" and "full moon days" that occur many times every single year, making them useles for the purposes of dating ancient texts. Unless the phenomena you list are relatively rare astronomical phenomena, they have to be ignored. Nilesh Oak's observations pertain to rare phenomena unlike those in your list -- that is why his dating of the text is more credible than your objections to it.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10590
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 12 Dec 2017 03:44

periaswamy wrote:
4 A lunar eclipse 13 days later following the Jyestha amawas.


No, that is incorrect and a silly counterpoint. They do not have to match a specific day, as long as there is an interval of time where not only these observations but ALL other observations outside of these dates also match. In fact, the set of observations like lunar eclipses are just noise because they will match pretty much any interval of time you pull up from the past. 100-200AD will contain a match for those, as will 5000BCE-6000BCE, so in essence these observations are completely useless w.r.t. dating the text.


This particular one - a lunar eclipse 13 days following the Jyestha amawas is rare.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chinmay, g.sarkar, rahulm, sgrover, TKiran and 44 guests