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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Dec 2017 20:57

Good to see AITwallas taking note of this forum and sending their proxies.

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 » 12 Dec 2017 22:47

ricky_v wrote:Why, sir, cant the bhrigus be both, iranic priests and Vedic rishis

Sir. There was no Iran. Iranian Priest. Iranian religion. Persian Priest. Persian religion are all western Orientalist constructs. They were Vedic scholars who went wast from India. The evidence is obvious except for people who need to construct a fake history of language moving in the opposite direction

I don't know what books you are talking about but here is one more quote from a relevant scholar:
In her book, “A History of Zoroastrianism (Volume 1)”, Mary Boyce includes a chapter on the “pagan gods” that existed before Zoroaster. Boyce describes in great detail how every one of these gods is also mentioned in in the Vedas. In other words, all pre-Zoroastrian gods that are mentioned in Zoroastrian texts and absorbed into the Zoroastrian tradition are also mentioned in the Vedas. There can be no better evidence of the origin of the Zoroastrian pantheon from an earlier Vedic one. Boyce and other scholars choose to term the earlier common pantheon as “Indo-Iranian” gods that were known before Zoroastrian and Vedic gods. There is no factual basis for this terminology, although it is semantically accurate. The same gods find earlier mention in the Indian vedas and later mention in the supposedly Iranian Zoroastrianism. These so-called Indo-Iranian gods are unknown outside Zoroastrianism and the Vedas. The evidence that Boyce presents points to the Vedic gods having existed earlier. Zoroastrian gods were selected as a later development from the Vedic pantheon. The name “Indo-Iranian gods” might as well be replaced by the perfectly accurate name “Vedic deities”.

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 » 12 Dec 2017 22:50

ricky_v wrote:Also all the arpi suktas mention three rivers/goddesses in a particular order related to period-Ila, Bharati,Sarasvati.
The vedas are about the bharatas/purus and thus only they are termed aryan, noble. even, trasdasyu the ikshwaku scion when saves them from some defeat is referred to as as "ardhadeva"and not aryan.


Sir what "Vedas say" as a story is a load of crock no matter which expert claims that the Vedas are a history narrative. They are not.

ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 252
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby ricky_v » 12 Dec 2017 23:10

shiv wrote:
ricky_v wrote:Why, sir, cant the bhrigus be both, iranic priests and Vedic rishis

Sir. There was no Iran. Iranian Priest. Iranian religion. Persian Priest. Persian religion are all western Orientalist constructs. They were Vedic scholars who went wast from India. The evidence is obvious except for people who need to construct a fake history of language moving in the opposite direction

I don't know what books you are talking about but here is one more quote from a relevant scholar:
In her book, “A History of Zoroastrianism (Volume 1)”, Mary Boyce includes a chapter on the “pagan gods” that existed before Zoroaster. Boyce describes in great detail how every one of these gods is also mentioned in in the Vedas. In other words, all pre-Zoroastrian gods that are mentioned in Zoroastrian texts and absorbed into the Zoroastrian tradition are also mentioned in the Vedas. There can be no better evidence of the origin of the Zoroastrian pantheon from an earlier Vedic one. Boyce and other scholars choose to term the earlier common pantheon as “Indo-Iranian” gods that were known before Zoroastrian and Vedic gods. There is no factual basis for this terminology, although it is semantically accurate. The same gods find earlier mention in the Indian vedas and later mention in the supposedly Iranian Zoroastrianism. These so-called Indo-Iranian gods are unknown outside Zoroastrianism and the Vedas. The evidence that Boyce presents points to the Vedic gods having existed earlier. Zoroastrian gods were selected as a later development from the Vedic pantheon. The name “Indo-Iranian gods” might as well be replaced by the perfectly accurate name “Vedic deities”.

my mistake, should have mentioned that the bhrgus were the priests of the tribe anu's (the chief antagonist along with parsus, parths)who were defeated and went west from india after the defeat and founded the Persian state, hence the mention of persian priest.I did mention that the corpus would have been the same (priest==rishi) should have mentioned that iranic and indic divisions were just alignment of particular tribes who were predecessors to the newer states.
With regards to gods, they are of the same bunch but there are obvious differences with the whole daeva, asura split. Even varuna, of water and law is said to be an asura and the term was used for older gods as opposed to indra and the daevas. Earlier on asura was not a maligned term it came to represent in the later times. The logical conclusion would be that the war was about ideological differences and the attitude hardened, but then there was maya,an asura who designed the pandavas palace.
Last edited by ricky_v on 12 Dec 2017 23:22, edited 1 time in total.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6058
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 12 Dec 2017 23:10

shiv wrote:
Amber G. wrote:Red gandola can be "above" green at one point and "below" green after pi radian rotation.

At any given point in time red gondola is situated at a different point on the circle than the blue. By looking at a still image or glancing at stars once - only the relative points will be seen. But when movement is observed serially - the red gondola will always reach a point on the circle before the blue. That would make "moving ahead" a vector and not a description of a static point in space. No?

Precisely! - But not to beat a dead horse - "up" and "down" position can change as gondola's normally rotates..But if axle's position and/or direction changes even "ahead" and "behind" may change...Anyway only commonsense and math is needed for clarity.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 12 Dec 2017 23:45

I am still not recovered from earlier mental gymnastics. So any lies and fake references propagated by our PIDI historians.

Now I wonder how reliable are earlier Greek works. They didn't even know how to record history. Horrible pronunciation of words. Can't say a single word without messing it up. It's like they were some primitive tribes who didn't know how to speak words in proper way.

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

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Dec 2017 00:10

Syam: Now I wonder how reliable are earlier Greek works. They didn't even know how to record history. Horrible pronunciation of words. Can't say a single word without messing it up. It's like they were some primitive tribes who didn't know how to speak words in proper way.



I think that is sort of the norm for non-native pronunciations of a foreign language -- Indians should know given the number of languages we get to butcher as we travel around the country. Besides, aren't Greek translations a little later in the day than the time periods we are discussing here, in the order of a 1000 years give or take?

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6058
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 13 Dec 2017 00:14

Dipanker wrote:I would tend to think that if a constellation of stars appear more or less in same relative position with respect to each other during the course of 1 year ( period of earth's revolution around sun), then precession of equinoxes should not have any effect on appearance of such constellations, for e.g. Big Dipper, since the radius of wobble of celestial north pole around the precession circle is much - much -much smaller than the radius of earth orbit around sun.
OSU astronomy dept. has a 8 sec animation of changing Big Dipper appearance due to proper motion of stars for period from 50,000 BC to 50,000 AD, and the shape changes quite a bit, unfortunetly there are only very few frames for period of 8000BC to 2000AD, not much change in the shape either.

No, it will NOT have effect on appearance of constellations.. but (the following may require some thinking to make things clear)
- Daily (spin of earth) motion, makes the stars rise in the east and set in the west. Of course pole star remains fixed and other stars seem to circle this star.
-Yearly (rotation of earth around sun) motion makes changes on which stars will be high in the sky at night. IOW there are summer stars and winter stars. Again this motion does not effect the position of pole star (polaris). The cycle repeats in a year. IOW, if Orion rises at some particular time today, 6 months from now it will set at that time and the cycle will repeat in 1 year.
- But relationship between seasons and position of stars changes... this cycle is about 26000 years. IOW if the sun is in one particular rashi this spring equinox .. 13000 years from now it will be fall equinox when the sun is in the same rashi.

At present polaris does not seem to move at all... 130000 years from now polaris will rise and set. At present Vega is *always* "south" of polaris, in 13000 years Vega will *always* be north of polaris.

Again the relative position of polaris and Vega does not change with respect to each other or other stars. If one took photographs of night sky - the sky will look the same, but it will be very noticeable as polaris will be moving (rising/setting in the sky etc) while Vega will more or less remain fixed.
(This is not just theory all astronomers (Hindu, Chinese, Greek) have known this for thousands of years)

Math is same for the A & V star -- of course the "difference" is MUCH MUCH smaller as these stars are far from north (Arundhati --(longitude is 165.88 degrees and latitude is 56.6 degrees (N) Vasistha ( its Long = 165.70 and lat = 56.4 degrees) changes in the east-west direction would be VERY small. (at present the difference is less than 0.2 degrees at present)

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20851
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 13 Dec 2017 01:53

Nilesh Oak wrote:Good to see AITwallas taking note of this forum and sending their proxies.

There is old proverb, Waris Shah Naa Aadta Jandiya Ney, Chahe Kattiye Poriirya Porriiya Ni i.e Slave mentality persists even if body parts are slixed one by one. No redemption possible for such Black Knight Blights.

( This Desi word Katt/Kuttiye/ Kaatna became cut in Angrezi)

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6058
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 13 Dec 2017 02:01

periaswamy wrote:
AmberG. mportant things I would think are:
1 - A eclipse (lunar or solar) is precise time (may be measured in time of day within minutes accuracy even in old days).
2 - This is true also for true "purnima" or "Amawas" for astronomers. For (It is not a tithi or day but exact time in hours/minutes etc)
3- For ordinary people a tithi (or purnima/Amawas) is a whole day affair. To complicate the matter, in Hindu calendar the whole day takes the "tithi" at the sunrise. (Sunrise at say Ujjain or Kashi or some standard place according to standard panchang used)

The time of sunrise, at least to measure, is very irregular --earlier in summer, later in winter and highly dependent even on temperature of the atmosphere (refraction).... this is why some times you have two tithis on the same day or some times one skips a tithi.. so number of calendar tithis need not correspond to number of elapse days between two events.


Thanks, ji. I was trying to estimate a bound on the periodicity of an event (13 days X hours between an eclipse and a new moon day), using individual periodicities of each of these relatively common events, but I think it is not all that straightforward (like multiplying the periods) especially given that the shape of the ellipse itself changes over time, because of a constant decrease in eccentricity. Trying to get my windows machine back from the dead so I can load that software and try it out. Anyway, looks like the observation itself is incorrect/wrongly interpreted going by later post by Nilesh Oakji.


Just to put the things in perspective, changes due to shape of ellipse (eccentricity) over time is quite small, VERY small compared to other factors .. over time (say past 10,000 years) on 'e' on average may have changed about .01.. It's effect, though makes good scientific study but changes things on order of seconds..

Much more effect is due to elliptical orbit (both moon and sun), the difference in inclination of orbits (around 6 degree) so position of new/full moon changes wrt to nodes (and BTW position of nodes it self cycles in about 18.6 years). In fact perturbation due to Jupiter and Venus is much higher than any longterm changes in "e" of the moon.

To put the things in perspective -
-- Average time between a full and a new moon is about 14 days 18 hours 22 minutes (Not 13 day and X hours). All eclipses happens on full or a new moon.
-- This may vary by *many hours* because the orbits are not exactly circular and angular motion is not uniform.

-- Main contributing factor between mean and actual time is eccentricity or orbits and the fact that moon's orbit is inclined to the ecliptic. If you take that into account, simple math can give you values accurate, perhaps, up to a few minutes - valid now or 10,000 years ago. (No need of sophisticated computer program - just a scientific calculator). You need to lookup (or calculate from ephemeris the coordinates of lunar node, position of perigee , position of sun and things like that.

- For more accuracy you may have to take into account the position of Jupiter and Venus. Of course much simpler is to use a computer software.

So if one just wants to get an upper and lower bound for time period between new/full moon, just assume an elliptical orbit (e=.05)
and do standard elliptical orbit calculation - integrate time while angle goes from 0 to 180 degree.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6446
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 13 Dec 2017 02:22

vinod wrote:
periaswamy wrote: Wonder what the estimation error is in such geological estimates of rocks that have been under water for 1000s of years.

On the palk strait and Rama's bridge


Theory: The floating rocks settled on the sandbar formed below after 2000 years!


Rocks still float. Pumice rock float on water and are found near areas of volcanic activity. India has known volcanic activity and has tons of pumice rocks around S. TN and all the way to Dhanushkodi and S. Lanka.

All one has to do to identify the pumice rock from other rock for the laymen is to write the word "Rama" on it and it will float on water. With vines and large pumice rock, one can construct a land bridge to S. Lanka from India. All you need is energetic little monkeys to do the job. Those monkeys need not have tails., but they need to be energetic and enthusiastic.

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

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Dec 2017 02:26

Amber G. :-- Average time between a full and a new moon is about 14 days 18 hours 22 minutes (Not 13 day and X hours). All eclipses happens on full or a new moon.

So if one just wants to get an upper and lower bound for time period between new/full moon, just assume an elliptical orbit (e=.05)


Thanks, but I think I mentioned "lunar eclipse to new moon" not "full moon to new moon" which is common enough to not be interesting in this thread context. "interval between lunar eclipse and new moon day being 13+ days" which is supposedly a rare event (going by what A_Gupta mentioned earlier)". Is the calculation of this bound also easy to do? I assumed it would complicated enough to warrant the help of some software.

There was a link posted earlier which stated that the change in eccentricity of Earth over the course of a century was noticable, which seemed to imply that change over the course of a few 1000 years would be substantial, up to the send significant digit every 1000 years according to the numbers on that web site.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6058
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 13 Dec 2017 02:33

I once had a book which listed every full and new moon timing from about 5000 BC to a few centuries in future. I gave that as a gift to my father. This was about 50 years ago and calculations for the book was done on computers of those days. My father liked the book very much and used it to look up/verify ancient events. (He was very knowledgeable about Indian astronomy and interested in astronomical calculations) I don't know where that book is now.

In 1971 I got him a TI calculator - First scientific and truly a good calculator for mass market. I simplified and worked on a simple method to do calculations using most accurate values then available (Newcomb's table).

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

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Dec 2017 02:34

disha:Rocks still float. Pumice rock float on water and are found near areas of volcanic activity. India has known volcanic activity and has tons of pumice rocks around S. TN and all the way to Dhanushkodi and S. Lanka.


dishaji, That video does not state what type of rocks they are. Is there some reference that gives more detail of the composition of these rocks?
Pumice erodes easily, so wondering how these rocks managed to stick around for a few 1000 years...maybe that is not long enough in geological terms.

Added later: those are actual boulders on the seabed in the palk strait, not pumice. I suppose you were being facetious or sarcastic.
Last edited by periaswamy on 13 Dec 2017 06:04, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Dec 2017 02:36

Amber G.I once had a book which listed every full and new moon timing from about 5000 BC to a few centuries in future.


Amber G.ji, maybe I am missing something here. is there some relationship between full moon and lunar eclipses that makes the interval between full moon and new moon related to the interval between a lunar eclipse and a new moon? My intuition says they shouldn't be related, but it has been wrong before. Or perhaps you did not read what I wrote right.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10536
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 13 Dec 2017 03:19

periaswamy wrote: is there some relationship between full moon and lunar eclipses that makes the interval between full moon and new moon related to the interval between a lunar eclipse and a new moon? My intuition says they shouldn't be related, but it has been wrong before. Or perhaps you did not read what I wrote right.


Lunar eclipses occur at full moon.
Not every full moon results in a lunar eclipse, because the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun is not the same as the plane of the moon's orbit around the earth.
Therefore during some period, say 8000 BC to present, the intervals from new moon to an eclipse is a subset of the intervals from new moon to full moon.

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

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Dec 2017 03:46

thanks, AmberG and A_Gupta. Given the above, the shortest interval for "lunar eclipse->new moon" can be different from shortest interval between "full moon->new moon" in a given interval, which is probably not good enough to deduce about textual observations in this context. Since these shortest intervals in these two categories maybe different events.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6446
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 13 Dec 2017 07:09

periaswamy wrote:dishaji, That video does not state what type of rocks they are. Is there some reference that gives more detail of the composition of these rocks? Pumice erodes easily, so wondering how these rocks managed to stick around for a few 1000 years...maybe that is not long enough in geological terms.

Added later: those are actual boulders on the seabed in the palk strait, not pumice. I suppose you were being facetious or sarcastic.


I am neither being facetious or sarcastic! I was just being truthful. If I have an army of 1000s of "monkeys", I will not run a school to teach them various rocks and identify ones which float or ones which do not float. I will just mark those that float and ask them to go and dump them onto a bed of rock.

If I have to build a bridge on a sand bar., first I will put in rocks that sink (my bed of rock which is just below the water surface) and on top of it I will coral rocks that float and in between I will pound in a gravel mixture. Over 5000-7000 years., this will weather and leave only the heavy rocks behind.

Also pumice stone sinks into water if it is saturated by sea water., and even if it does not sink, you will not be finding the bridge with pumice now over there. It would have drifted like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice_raft.

My point is simple here, Ramayana tells the truth. It is the dating of the land bridge which I am curious about. I do think the land bridge is at very least dating back to 5000 BCE if not earlier.

It must have been a super-human engineering feat to bridge two large land mass.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6058
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 13 Dec 2017 07:23

periaswamy wrote:
Amber G. :-- Average time between a full and a new moon is about 14 days 18 hours 22 minutes (Not 13 day and X hours). All eclipses happens on full or a new moon.

So if one just wants to get an upper and lower bound for time period between new/full moon, just assume an elliptical orbit (e=.05)


Thanks, but I think I mentioned "lunar eclipse to new moon" not "full moon to new moon" which is common enough to not be interesting in this thread context. "interval between lunar eclipse and new moon day being 13+ days" which is supposedly a rare event (going by what A_Gupta mentioned earlier)". Is the calculation of this bound also easy to do? I assumed it would complicated enough to warrant the help of some software.

There was a link posted earlier which stated that the change in eccentricity of Earth over the course of a century was noticable, which seemed to imply that change over the course of a few 1000 years would be substantial, up to the send significant digit every 1000 years according to the numbers on that web site.


LUNAR eclipse ALWAYS falls on a full moon! !!!
(Actually most accurate timing, even in ancient days without telescopes to see exact phase of the moon, for the full/new moon is done if eclipse happens to take place)..

As I said before, changes in 'average' " eccentricity of Earth" even for last 10 thousand years is *very very* small.. in fact periodic changes due to Jupiter etc are *many* times larger...
For moon, just check up any standard good book, The "e" varies with cycle of about 32 days and 206 days , and this variation is *MUCH* (almost negligible) compared to longterm variation. (For example see http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5525..

Anyway this may be too much details which may not be needed here, as it not that hard (with simple math and/ or computer programs) to check.

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 » 13 Dec 2017 07:27

syam wrote:I am still not recovered from earlier mental gymnastics. So any lies and fake references propagated by our PIDI historians.

Now I wonder how reliable are earlier Greek works. They didn't even know how to record history. Horrible pronunciation of words. Can't say a single word without messing it up. It's like they were some primitive tribes who didn't know how to speak words in proper way.

Remember that what you read about Greeks today is not necessarily what Greeks said or wrote but what Western "historians" claim they wrote. And a lot of Greek stuff that was inconvenient for early Christians was simply discarded. So it is best to do an independent analysis of Greeks. You will find that many Greeks show uncanny Vedanta type influence.

If you look at the facts carefully - Indian history becomes a little hazy between 2000 BC and 1000 BC. I won't go into what came before 2000 BC in this post. But after 1000 BC you find historic references in Greek texts. But it appears that Greeks had an early contact with India which was cut off by the Zoroastrian kings of Persia for 1000 years until that empire fell. But still you will find remarkable references if you filter out western bias.

Please excuse me for stating something here. Please dismiss my words as rubbish if you like, but I believe that our education brainwashes us with information sourced from Europe along with the indoctrination that what comes from Europe (and now USA) is always 100% correct. This is the "standard attitude" of most educated Indians, including media and academia. If you become sceptical about this and say "OK let me, just for fun stop trusting "western sources" - you suddenly find a whole new world and in that world you will find western sources and authors who have told the truth but their words have been ignored or suppressed in order push a particular story about western history and identity starting from the Christian eraa

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

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Dec 2017 07:34

disha:I am neither being facetious or sarcastic! I was just being truthful. If I have an army of 1000s of "monkeys", I will not run a school to teach them various rocks and identify ones which float or ones which do not float. I will just mark those that float and ask them to go and dump them onto a bed of rock.


I am not particularly interested in tying the rocks to the story. These rocks are not floating right now, so it is pretty safe to assume that they did not "float" in the past -- in order to float, these rocks would have to be less dense than water, in which case they should not have stayed in place with rising and falling sea levels over 1000s of years. If these are not light rocks, then it stands to reason that it must have taken a lot of effort to move these heavy rocks across a 30 miles stretch from some point on land.

What can be validated is that these rocks exist right now, and are around 7000 years old. So one question I has was if it was pumice, which is of low density, how it managed to stay in the same place without sort of drifting along with some currents over time. I am able to see some screen shots of a book by a scientist from the Indian Geological Society who had studied these rocks and came up with the same age of 7000 years (well before this popular science report). There must be some explanation for why rocks that are not too heavy manage to stay in the same place over a bed of sand. A bed of sand has peculiar properties like the one in this link.
Last edited by periaswamy on 13 Dec 2017 08:10, edited 4 times in total.


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

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Dec 2017 07:41

AmberG.:Please excuse me for stating something here. Please dismiss my words as rubbish if you like, but I believe that our education brainwashes us with information sourced from Europe along with the indoctrination that what comes from Europe


I am not dismissing your information at all. I believe I mostly understand what you have explained. However, what I was trying to point out is this. Let us say that A is the set of all events represented by a pair (X,Y), where X is a full moon event and Y is a new moon event. Let Z be the set of eclipses, so Z is a proper subset of X. so if we consider every pair in (X,Y), call it (x,y), and take the minimum temporal distance between x and y, call it M1 and every pair in (Z,Y), say (z,y) and take the minimum distance between z and y, call it M2, the it does not strike me that M1 and M2 need to be the same, or that knowing M1 gives us information about M2. Because (following the thread of conversation based on A_Gupta's statement about jyeshta amavasya a few posts ago) the texts specify that M2 was 13 days H hours, which was allegedly a rare event. So M2 is the interesting event in the context of dating the text.

My only observation was knowing M1 does not give us any information about M2, and so is not useful from the standpoint of dating a text that specifiies M2. Which is why I was asking if there was some way to compute the values of M2 in some way.

In fact, I was not trying to draw in historical information regarding greeks or other cultures -- just viewing this from the standpoint of modern astronomical methods to arrive at planetary configurations 1000s of years in the past based on current information.

Misra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 95
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 09:03

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

Postby Misra » 13 Dec 2017 08:55

KL Dubey wrote: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.


"sound is existential whereas, in all the universe, meaning exists only in the human mind." extinction of humans will lead to extinction of meaning but will have no bearing on sound. veda seems to be a collection of pure sounds which incredibly were then systematically associated, via sanskrit, with natural phenomena/objects--perhaps by paying (a lot of) attention to the inherent/natural reverberations of such phenomena/objects. as such, veda cannot be used to infer history.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 13 Dec 2017 11:09

periaswamy wrote:I think that is sort of the norm for non-native pronunciations of a foreign language -- Indians should know given the number of languages we get to butcher as we travel around the country. Besides, aren't Greek translations a little later in the day than the time periods we are discussing here, in the order of a 1000 years give or take?

Common people pronouncing it wrong is one thing. But scholars too. That puts serious effect on their ability to say things. I bet if I live in those times, they will say my name like, xhium or something more complex.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6058
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 13 Dec 2017 11:17

periaswamy wrote:...... I believe I mostly understand what you have explained. However, what I was trying to point out is this. Let us say that A is the set of all events represented by a pair (X,Y), where X is a full moon event and Y is a new moon event. Let Z be the set of eclipses, so Z is a proper subset of X. so if we consider every pair in (X,Y), call it (x,y), and take the minimum temporal distance between x and y, call it M1 and every pair in (Z,Y), say (z,y) and take the minimum distance between z and y, call it M2, the it does not strike me that M1 and M2 need to be the same, or that knowing M1 gives us information about M2. Because (following the thread of conversation based on A_Gupta's statement about jyeshta amavasya a few posts ago) the texts specify that M2 was 13 days H hours, which was allegedly a rare event. So M2 is the interesting event in the context of dating the text....

My only observation was knowing M1 does not give us any information about M2, and so is not useful from the standpoint of dating a text that specifiies M2. Which is why I was asking if there was some way to compute the values of M2 in some way. ...

To be honest, the calculation which you are seeking is not that easy if one is looking for needed accuracy without a computer/calculator. Newton famously said about this particular lunar calculation that "it gave him a headache" (To be fair he did not have a calculator..and Moon's mass is not negligible with respect to earth so perturbations are hard to calculate by hand). Now of course, this is easier.

Coming back, few more points may be helpful as they perhaps may seem not to be appreciated fully...

- As A Gupta said, this is a rare event and thus can validate/invalidate particular year (among perhaps 100's of years). Average time for M1 (or M2) is about 14 days 18 hours. It can fall below 14 days but that event may take place only, say once in 100, or even 500 years.. years. (It is NOT cyclic).

- Another fact people seem to be missing that not only a solar eclipse falls on new moon, the previous (and next) full moon, most of the time will be a lunar eclipse. Even if it not, it will almost be -- that is the moon will be pretty close to node. In some sense thus your M1 and M2 are same here... next new moon, if not a partial/full solar eclipse, it will still have position close to node, so same math applies.

If we further know that it was "jyeshta" (knowing Sun's longitude in ecliptic) can further restrict the event.. and knowing that eclipse was visible in India, as A Gupta said, makes it even rarer event... all in all, if one can *definitely* believe that all those observations were accurate and credible, astronomical calculation can, perhaps pin-point that event's year.

Hope this helps.

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

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

Postby peter » 13 Dec 2017 14:11

syam wrote:.....

Harahvaiti is not river. But land. Avesta name is Harahvaiti. ,....

You have to do more research but I had mentioned that the name is used for land also.

Though if you study Indian communities they have names such as Saraswat Brahmin, or Goud Saraswat Brahmin.

The word Saraswat in these names stands for a memory that they migrated from a region where saraswati flowed.

So a river can give name to a region.

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

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

Postby peter » 13 Dec 2017 14:12

Amber G. wrote:
periaswamy wrote:...... I believe I mostly understand what you have explained. However, what I was trying to point out is this. Let us say that A is the set of all events represented by a pair (X,Y), where X is a full moon event and Y is a new moon event. Let Z be the set of eclipses, so Z is a proper subset of X. so if we consider every pair in (X,Y), call it (x,y), and take the minimum temporal distance between x and y, call it M1 and every pair in (Z,Y), say (z,y) and take the minimum distance between z and y, call it M2, the it does not strike me that M1 and M2 need to be the same, or that knowing M1 gives us information about M2. Because (following the thread of conversation based on A_Gupta's statement about jyeshta amavasya a few posts ago) the texts specify that M2 was 13 days H hours, which was allegedly a rare event. So M2 is the interesting event in the context of dating the text....

My only observation was knowing M1 does not give us any information about M2, and so is not useful from the standpoint of dating a text that specifiies M2. Which is why I was asking if there was some way to compute the values of M2 in some way. ...

To be honest, the calculation which you are seeking is not that easy if one is looking for needed accuracy without a computer/calculator. Newton famously said about this particular lunar calculation that "it gave him a headache" (To be fair he did not have a calculator..and Moon's mass is not negligible with respect to earth so perturbations are hard to calculate by hand). Now of course, this is easier.

Coming back, few more points may be helpful as they perhaps may seem not to be appreciated fully...

- As A Gupta said, this is a rare event and thus can validate/invalidate particular year (among perhaps 100's of years). Average time for M1 (or M2) is about 14 days 18 hours. It can fall below 14 days but that event may take place only, say once in 100, or even 500 years.. years. (It is NOT cyclic).

- Another fact people seem to be missing that not only a solar eclipse falls on new moon, the previous (and next) full moon, most of the time will be a lunar eclipse. Even if it not, it will almost be -- that is the moon will be pretty close to node. In some sense thus your M1 and M2 are same here... next new moon, if not a partial/full solar eclipse, it will still have position close to node, so same math applies.

If we further know that it was "jyeshta" (knowing Sun's longitude in ecliptic) can further restrict the event.. and knowing that eclipse was visible in India, as A Gupta said, makes it even rarer event... all in all, if one can *definitely* believe that all those observations were accurate and credible, astronomical calculation can, perhaps pin-point that event's year.

Hope this helps.


Indeed it should help especially those who like to label others trolls.

It is fascinating that the Arundhati Vashisht based year proposal does not match the sequence I had posted.

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

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

Postby peter » 13 Dec 2017 14:15

ricky_v wrote:
shiv wrote:Here is a quote from my unpublished work
l
Which family was involved in writing the vendidad is an interseting question as well.As per books, the division of priests politicaly was as follows:
1)bharatas royal class victor in the dasarajanya yuddha.
2)angiras-priestly class of bharatas
3)vashishta-later addition to the bharatas priestly class
4)vishvamitras-originally affiliated to bharatas, but replaced by sudas in favour of vashishta
5)bhrgus-priestly class of the opponents.
6)agastyas-no role/impartial
7)kashyapa-no role, mandalas related to religious subjects(not political)
8 -grtsamada(kevala-bhrigu)-no role, mandalas related to religious subjects(not political)
9)atris-called panchajanya-belonging to all 5 tribes
10)kanvas-(kevala-angiras)-associated with yadus,trvasus.
Also all the arpi suktas mention three rivers/goddesses in a particular order related to period-Ila, Bharati,Sarasvati.
The vedas are about the bharatas/purus and thus only they are termed aryan, noble. even, trasdasyu the ikshwaku scion when saves them from some defeat is referred to as as "ardhadeva"and not aryan.


Is it possible to give some more details on how you arrived at this 10 point list?

ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 252
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby ricky_v » 13 Dec 2017 15:24

peter wrote:
ricky_v wrote:l
Which family was involved in writing the vendidad is an interseting question as well.As per books, the division of priests politicaly was as follows:
1)bharatas royal class victor in the dasarajanya yuddha.
2)angiras-priestly class of bharatas
3)vashishta-later addition to the bharatas priestly class
4)vishvamitras-originally affiliated to bharatas, but replaced by sudas in favour of vashishta
5)bhrgus-priestly class of the opponents.
6)agastyas-no role/impartial
7)kashyapa-no role, mandalas related to religious subjects(not political)
8 -grtsamada(kevala-bhrigu)-no role, mandalas related to religious subjects(not political)
9)atris-called panchajanya-belonging to all 5 tribes
10)kanvas-(kevala-angiras)-associated with yadus,trvasus.
Also all the arpi suktas mention three rivers/goddesses in a particular order related to period-Ila, Bharati,Sarasvati.
The
vedas are about the bharatas/purus and thus only they are termed aryan, noble. even, trasdasyu the ikshwaku scion when saves them from some defeat is referred to as as "ardhadeva"and not aryan.


Is it possible to give some more details on how you arrived at this 10 point list?

Srikant Talageri's Rigveda-A historical analysis

syam
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 13 Dec 2017 15:26

shiv wrote:Please excuse me for stating something here. Please dismiss my words as rubbish if you like, but I believe that our education brainwashes us with information sourced from Europe along with the indoctrination that what comes from Europe (and now USA) is always 100% correct. This is the "standard attitude" of most educated Indians, including media and academia. If you become sceptical about this and say "OK let me, just for fun stop trusting "western sources" - you suddenly find a whole new world and in that world you will find western sources and authors who have told the truth but their words have been ignored or suppressed in order push a particular story about western history and identity starting from the Christian eraa

So far I have seen three threads of history in western front.
1. Egypt-Indian
2. Assyria-Indian
3. Mongolian-Indian
Greece exists outside this matrix. To connect with India, they have to pass through Assyria or Egypt-Yemen-Omen route. And to establish rule, they have to conquer Assyria. The second one didn't happen until the collapse of Persia Empire. Seems like many holes there in the story.

I won't dismiss your words here. I think geography and culture in Avesta can help us identify some of them. Used to believe there is no bias and lies in academic works. No scholarly pride among folks.
Last edited by syam on 13 Dec 2017 15:51, edited 1 time in total.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 13 Dec 2017 15:29

peter wrote:
syam wrote:.....

Harahvaiti is not river. But land. Avesta name is Harahvaiti. ,....

You have to do more research but I had mentioned that the name is used for land also.

Though if you study Indian communities they have names such as Saraswat Brahmin, or Goud Saraswat Brahmin.

The word Saraswat in these names stands for a memory that they migrated from a region where saraswati flowed.

So a river can give name to a region.

You are wrong. There is no mention of any river with a name like Harahvaiti. Please show me where it is mentioned as river. Harah is actually mountain.

ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 252
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby ricky_v » 13 Dec 2017 15:32

Speaking of vendidad, the only mention useful here is about the 16 lands created by ahura mazda (mostly in present day iran, Afghanistan, central Asia), the hatred of daevas and angra mainyu, and some sporadic mention of individual daevas like indra.There is some mention of how winter is a creation of the daevas and that they are not comfortable with winter. Their land has 10 cold months, 2warm months in a year.Thematically, it deals with illness, death rites etc. similar to atharaveda.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6970
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 13 Dec 2017 16:31

>>"sound is existential whereas, in all the universe, meaning exists only in the human mind." extinction of humans will lead to extinction of meaning but will have no bearing on sound. veda seems to be a collection of pure sounds which incredibly were then systematically associated, via sanskrit, with natural phenomena/objects--perhaps by paying (a lot of) attention to the inherent/natural reverberations of such phenomena/objects. as such, veda cannot be used to infer history.
______________________________________________________

I'm only a very interested layman in all this, but let's assume the above bolded part is accurate - to me it sounds perfectly feasible - and hypothesize as follows: The ancestor of the human species that has come to dominate the planet, after eventually wiping out or integrating other species, first walked out of the East African space along the coastline and ended up in India and started settling in little groups along the coast lines. The oldest DNA evidence of that migration was located in a village in Tamil Nadu, in one Virumandi Andithevar (https://www.biotechniques.com/news/Out- ... 63571.html) ...

Now, assuming this is incontrovertible evidence that groups of these humans settled in the area roughly 60,000 years ago, is it so far-fetched to suggest that one member of these settled groups had a brainwave and decided to catalogue their own vocalisations and other sounds of the world into an oral tradition of collected sounds (an oral encyclopaedia of sound, as it were). Gradually, over a couple of millennia the sounds in this oral encyclopaedia grew, and were recorded and recalled from memory and given sacred character as well as, most importantly, meaning - drawing upon their initial vocalisations as well as animal sounds. Perhaps that is what we see here:

https://vimeo.com/61984108
from 03:00 to 07:15

Meanwhile, someone else, perhaps along the coast-lines of northern India (with all the settled communities along the sub-continental coastline by now having access to the sound encyclopaedia through localised migrations), had another brainwave and decided to record each basic sound as a symbol. She recognised that it would be impossible to catalogue each and every tiny sonic variation as an symbol, and so chose to bundle them in a finite group of symbols which became a percursor the first alphabet... and these were used more or less arbitrarily until, perhaps millennia later, someone decided to set out the initial grammatical structure, which was eventually finalised and authenticated (for us) by Panini.

In the meantime, many of these speakers had already migrated out of India, using those words based on that first sound encyclopaedia and perhaps even the initial symbol groups and gone as far as Ireland to the West... and there the words were added to, codified and enhanced. But not forgotten all along the migration paths. They developed into "classical languages" all on their own, retaining the original meanings in some form as well as the sounds. This exchange continued and was gradually consolidated and enhanced at the level of practice, but not in terms of anything else. Eventually, major migrations (in the form of trade and invasion) began in the reverse direction and the people coming in discovered remarkable similarities to their own essentials, speech, meaning, languague, practice even...

Just a thought...

I am skeptical about the solidity of the unbolded part in the quoted post above the line. Extinction of human species, will not necessarily lead to extinction of meaning - only of meaning in a human sense; and to suggest Vedas cannot be used to infer history may be premature - i.e., while the collection of sounds themselves may be "out of history" as it were in the sense of their existence from the beginning of time, and perhaps before it, the actual physical collection of these sounds, their collation and their naming - i.e. what we know as the four (or five) Vedas are certainly located in history, and therefore inferences can be drawn. Or am I misunderstanding something here?

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 » 13 Dec 2017 17:51

JEM - that is a beautifully explained version of something that is plausible and I believe did happen

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

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Dec 2017 20:01

peter:ndeed it should help especially those who like to label others trolls.

It is fascinating that the Arundhati Vashisht based year proposal does not match the sequence I had posted.


You have refuted nothing about Arundhati and Vashishta, and neither does Amber G.'s post, which is about an entirely different astronomical event that was in your list.

Only a ignoramus with no clue about astronomy would try to link the apparent motion of stars to intervals between lunar eclipse and new moon. At the very worst, any pinpointing of the time of the "lunar eclipse to new moon to lunar eclipse" can just move the upper bound or the lower bound of the interval in which the texts could have been written. They do not have any effect on Nilesh Oak's work re: arundhati and vasishta -- seriously, you should stop and think a bit before you write stupid stuff that is easily refuted.

So unless you have already calculated the value of M2 in that post, and can specify an exact time and date in the past and post proof of the same in a post, you should remain silent unless you like making a fool of yourself, like you just did.
Last edited by nachiket on 15 Dec 2017 00:26, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: User warned for personal attack

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6970
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 13 Dec 2017 21:06

Thanks doc, was beginning to feel a bit foolish at the end of para 4 there! The Macaulay spirit is still strong in me ...

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

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

Postby pralay » 13 Dec 2017 21:34

disha wrote:It must have been a super-human engineering feat to bridge two large land mass.

Disha ji,
If you take into account the sea-level of those times, it clearly was not a super-human thing.
The sea-level has been rising continuously since past glacial maximum, and most probably the setu back then was not too long,
Most of the submerged part would be above water in those times, as its just few feet shallow in most of the places along the setu-path in sea.
The actual bridge would be few hundred meters or even less at max.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 13 Dec 2017 22:58

For antiquity sake,

"Kenotkel" burial ground - monument of Andronovo culture

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 14 Dec 2017 01:07

Nilesh Oak wrote:
sudarshan wrote:
Not exactly, Periavare. The A/V observation, as described by Nilesh Oak, is a *one time* phenomenon till the present date, because the phenomenon would not have been observed even in 5565 BC (as Nilesh Oak explained in his book) if not for the concept of "proper motion of stars." As Nilesh explained, he did not observe the phenomenon at all in the Voyager software (which he was using to simulate the night sky), and was about to give up, when he thought of turning on the "proper motion of stars" setting - and then he saw Arundhati begin to walk ahead of Vashistha, as described in the MB.

ad of V in about 11- to 13,000 years from now (depending on how accurately you think you know the phenomenon of "precession of the earth's axis").


Sudarshan ji

Need to correct you here....
The phonomenon can INDEED be observed during epoch of Arundhati, without bringing in 'Proper motion' business

In the absence of 'proper motion' corrections, the phenomenon would appear as cycle phenomenon (even in the past) that occurs for about ~7000 years in each cycle of 26K years.

What 'proper motions' correction did is that it established as unique phenomeon (as far as past is concerned) that occurred 11091 BCE through 4508 BCE.

Hope this helps.


So I guess it's the opposite of what I said? The proper motion was what was keeping the phenomenon from being observed until 11091 BCE? But in effect, that's the same thing - whether you look at the proper motion as "hindering the A/V effect before 11000 BCE" or as "enabling the A/V effect after 11000 BCE."


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests