Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 00:37

syam wrote:
SriJoy wrote:Sure. I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Euros jump on the horse theory because of a simple fact : vast regions of India has been KO-ed for a significant portion of the last 2000+ years, where we had a significant disadvantage in horses. the reasons for this are in a series of geo-strategic and technological barriers relating to horses,warfare tech,etc., but not well understood. Primarily to do with medieval importation of horses from CA. If India had good quality horses in large numbers, the turks and mughals would not have bothered to import horses from CA that they've left historical evidence of.

First of all, we have no evidence that tells about lack of horse culture in India. Most of the arguments intentionally ignore many evidences. Lets not go into same discussion again and again.
As long as people ignore spiritual aspects of it, they will never learn what Indian history is.

Idiot studies veda for years, but no use. Where is the spiritual enlightenment of British? It's like Monkey gets smart phone and chews on it and throws it away. Complete moronic behaviour.

------
Thanks shiv ji. I was browsing internet and found it accidentally. Surprisingly google indexed old thread and it is there in search results.



As long as we have above-bolded line in OOI or any such proposal, it will be laughed out of campuses worldwide and will always lose to Amt. Because the entire basis of a theory-even if partial/incomplete- is to present evidence. Not go by highly unscientific, 'no difference between faith/evidence' line of thinking that uses 'we don't have any evidence not to believe XYZ'. Amt proponents slant evidence their way, overlook contradictory evidence, etc but they still base their theory on evidence- just 'what evidence to choose and not choose' is where it becomes personal opinion- which is why History does not have the same credibility or rigour of Physics or Chemistry.
So the key to beating Amt, is to show light to contraditory evidence, creating a narrative that 'best fits evidence' etc. Not use semi-religious ' no counter evidence has been provided, so we will assume this book is true until counter evidence is provided' type of thinking. this has been the biggest roadblock to having academic and serious footprint for the OOI- because it is predominantly argued by religious folks who take a religious 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' stance and lose perspective that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' can be used to leave open logically consistent scenarios, but can never be in and of itself be used as reason to claim something is true.

One simply cannot ignore the fact that medieval India was extremely poor in horses. We have Portuguese monks travelling in India during Vijayanagara empire that gives count of 5x the manpower of Vijayanagara compared to say the Afghans or Uzbeks of that period, but 5-10x less horses too.
We also have written accounts of Khiljis, Lodhis and Mughals importing horses from Afghanistan. they even whine in their writings that India is a wretched land because 3 out of 5 horses imported don't live more than 2 years in the heat and humidity of India. A big part of Babur's hatred for Indian lands ( he didn't consider India to be jannat on earth, he thought Fergana was Jannat on earth and India was a resource-rich cess-pit of mosquitos, swamps and evil hindus) is due to this fact.
Euros simply project the strong evidence of India's poor horse resources in medieval age as 'always been the case and therefore, any reference for horses must come from a culture that was ground zero of horse culture'. they simply do not accommodate the possibility that if Indians were familiar with horses but had them in way too few numbers/found horses in periphery of Indosphere, it'd make sense to revere the horse in such a scenario too for a terrain (Indo-Gangetic plains) where having horses would prove a decisive mobility & tactical advantage.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 00:40

Nilesh Oak wrote:
Agasthi wrote:OT alert - All this obsession with single point of origin, it must extend to other spheres as well, right? Like the Big Bang theory, which was proposed by a German Catholic priest and the astronomers looking for evidence to justify this theory. Even supposedly scientific theories rooted in an abrahamic thought process! There must be lot of pseudo-science out there in a scientific garb with western credentials which the rest of the world takes seriously.

Yes, Big Bang, but also many other -- human origins (single point out of Africa), mathematics,


Again, Big Bang is empirically emphatic. So is human origination from Africa. to challenge these, is to challenge empirical evidence on the basis of faith alone, with zero evidence to support a counter-argument. Which gets laughed at outside of religious congregations. Btw, mainstream academia does not claim mathematics to have a single point of origination. No scientist in the world will take you seriously if you claim Big Bang is wrong or Out of Africa is wrong. Because we have overwhelming evidence of both, with practically zero evidence of another scenario.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2696
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 18 Jul 2017 01:22

Dr Bibek Debroy dates Mahabharata war to 1200 BC.

Understanding Mahabharat with Dr Bibek Debroy

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 01:47

^^

1200 BC is roughly when we see the second wave of urbanization in Indian subcontinent, namely, the Ganges valley. Which makes sense, since IVC collapsed around 1900 BC and the next 500-700 years would be an expected timeline for mass-scale farming presence in Gangetic plains by IVC settlers and then eventually densifying into urban culture.

However, i still don't see what conditions would be prevalent pan-India (or atleast, across entire North India) to forment such a war with multiple players involved. the prima-facie reason for war in Mahabharata is highly unlikely in reality. We see Indians such as Kakatiyas, Chalukyas, Cholas, etc. not giving a damn about brutal genocide in NW India under Ghorids and Ghaznavids. Or even the Palas or Gujjars of Kannauj caring much for these kinds of brutal genocide of their own western kin. So it is a bit much to expect that rulers from Bengal or tamil Nadu or even Bihar showed up to fight & get their own men killed for 'who is the more righteous candidate for throne of Hastinapura'. So for Mahabharata to be true, we need a socio-economic condition for it to affect everyone in the north and have rammifications for the south.
Hundreds of thousands or even millions of Indians from Indus valley migrating eastwards due to ecological disaster, creating strong expansion pressure throughout gangetic plains and into central India, does sound like a major cause involving all players to fight an epic war. We also see this kind of massive alliances & alliance wars during the Germanic great migrations period too.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 18 Jul 2017 03:28

>>1200 BC is roughly when we see the second wave of urbanization in Indian subcontinent, namely, the Ganges valley. Which makes sense, since IVC collapsed around 1900 BC and the next 500-700 years would be an expected timeline for mass-scale farming presence in Gangetic plains by IVC settlers and then eventually densifying into urban culture.

IVC "collapsed" - what does collapsed mean? Sindhu was always there, wasn't it? The civilization around it was always there? It collapsed around 1900 BC points to a disruption? What was this disruption? What is the evidence of this disruption? It was IVC settlers who setup mass scale farming presence in the Ganga valley - around 1200 BC. Again, how does one come to these definitive conclusions?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 18 Jul 2017 03:46

SriJoy wrote:However, i still don't see what conditions would be prevalent pan-India (or atleast, across entire North India) to forment such a war with multiple players involved. the prima-facie reason for war in Mahabharata is highly unlikely in reality. We see Indians such as Kakatiyas, Chalukyas, Cholas, etc. not giving a damn about brutal genocide in NW India under Ghorids and Ghaznavids. Or even the Palas or Gujjars of Kannauj caring much for these kinds of brutal genocide of their own western kin. So it is a bit much to expect that rulers from Bengal or tamil Nadu or even Bihar showed up to fight & get their own men killed for 'who is the more righteous candidate for throne of Hastinapura'. So for Mahabharata to be true, we need a socio-economic condition for it to affect everyone in the north and have rammifications for the south.
Hundreds of thousands or even millions of Indians from Indus valley migrating eastwards due to ecological disaster, creating strong expansion pressure throughout gangetic plains and into central India, does sound like a major cause involving all players to fight an epic war. We also see this kind of massive alliances & alliance wars during the Germanic great migrations period too.
Spoken with a leftist lens to look for socio-economic conditions as the driver for all events - just because that is how European history evolved. When was the last Rajasuya yagnya said to be performed - a real one with tribute from the entire sub-continent? The attempt to falsify ALL of our heritage needs to be resisted. This is exactly the kind of reasoning leading to erroneous conclusions that is the bane of our view of ourselves. Just because Ghori was not resisted, how can Vanga and Anga and Dravid and Magadha participating in a great battle be true? This is nothing but an attempt by a colonized mind to take away the few sources of pride in our past. If you are an Indian you need to see the game for what it is. To keep our minds colonized. The main topic of MBH was Dharma. The battle was to preserve Dharma. By binging in a socio-economic dimension without reference to the main issue is playing into this game setup by the west.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 18 Jul 2017 03:48

Srijoy: Itihaas is not history but it is not entirely mythical too. To practitioners like myself how much of MBH was myth and how much was real and its dates are slightly irrelevant to the design intent of this beautiful magnus opus. Its works are there to impart Dharma and is a treatise on the four objectives of human life as SD sees it. Questions like was the war real, were the numbers real, were they less or were they more are actually not the topical questions relevant to the text. The debate on the text should rightly be the questions that are asked in the text on what the text is about. Questions that Draupadi asked. Questions that Narada asked of Yudhishitara. The exposition of Bhishma in the Shanti Parvah and of course of Vasudev in BG. To a lesser degree, it is somewhat like the Vedas, where historical dating et al and validity of events is not the main point.

A revered teacher said, look at these works akin to Shakespeare writing about Henry V. Cannot use that as work of history but it is not entirely mythical either. We quickly go to some pieces of exotic or unprovable pieces of the text and say gotcha and many intellectuals decry the entire text (nearly 100,000 pages) as a worthless piece of junk. Our civilization loses with such an approach. Best to use the text and debate it in context of what MBH was designed for and leave the incidental pieces as just that incidents and not use it to date history.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 05:01

ShauryaT wrote:Spoken with a leftist lens to look for socio-economic conditions as the driver for all events - just because that is how European history evolved. When was the last Rajasuya yagnya said to be performed - a real one with tribute from the entire sub-continent? The attempt to falsify ALL of our heritage needs to be resisted. This is exactly the kind of reasoning leading to erroneous conclusions that is the bane of our view of ourselves. Just because Ghori was not resisted, how can Vanga and Anga and Dravid and Magadha participating in a great battle be true? This is nothing but an attempt by a colonized mind to take away the few sources of pride in our past. If you are an Indian you need to see the game for what it is. To keep our minds colonized. The main topic of MBH was Dharma. The battle was to preserve Dharma. By binging in a socio-economic dimension without reference to the main issue is playing into this game setup by the west.


1. Nonsense. thats not how 'European history' has evolved, thats how pretty much all of history has evolved. Because whether you are dharmic or adharmic, indian or new guinean, killing people for either loot or control has always been the top two motivators of warfare in society. its called being human.

2. Issue isn't that Vanga, Kalinga, tamils fought in Kurukshetra war, its why. there is not a single war in Indian history that i can think of,where something like Mahabharata (basically a glorified civil war) has happened with that many players. Look no further than civil war torn Delhi Sultans or Mughals: they never had all provincial/vassal armies arrayed against each other. If you want to say 'oh they are evil muslims, not dharmics', then look at wars between Cholas and Chalukyas. When Someshwara (i forget which one) caused a civil war in his kingdom, where were his Marwar vassals ?!

If you wish to believe a religious book, altered several times, at face value, go ahead but that won't convince people who are not religiously inclined in the first place. But if you really wish to think that Mahabharata war was about dharma and not a single far-flung vassal chose the 'wait and see' approach and every single one of them showed up- which has never happened in recorded history from what i can tell - Indian or non-Indian- sure.
I simply see the fact that whether its European, Chinese, Arab or Indian, massive wars of mega-alliances are almost always caused by greed- either of power (ruling and tellign people what to do) or money (win battle->loot the country).

On the corollary, let me ask you this: Why do you think fall of IVC cannot be the nexus of a pan-India war ? if you wish to see the context, bear in mind, archaeologically speaking, IVC declined relatively suddenly. It didnt' slowly decline like Old Egypt, it attained its height around 2500 BC, stopped growing around 1900 BC, shows signs of serious decline by 1800 BC and gone except a handful of scattered sites (like Pirak) limping on, by 1700 BC. Finito.

By the OOI theory (which btw, i support but i guess my 'mechanics' is different from some here), it'd mean the flood of settlements in Ganges valley as well as pulses of Mitanni, Hittite etc. immigration were caused by the fall of IVC. So all this, happened without a peep ?! Nobody fought, nobody tried to form grand coalitions, try land-grab, genocide, etc. during a cataclysmic event where Saraswati's failure becomes permanent and hundreds of thousands or even millions are forced to move and survive 4000 years ago ?!
Yet, every single time we see mass migrations of humanity, whether its the turko-Mongols of Central Asia or Germanic tribes 7,000 kms away, we see precisely this kind of warfare : grand coalitions, everybody getting involved, etc.

Have grand coalitions happened outside of these mass-migration events ? Sure. Look no further than Napoleonic wars. Or the period of Chinese-Korean warfare immediately before Mongol conquests, where Chinese, several Korean kingdoms, the Khitan, Liao, etc, formed grand coalitions. But those were all wars driven by greed and conquest.

I simply cannot see a 'dharmic war involving everyone and their kids' for a family feud cum civil war scenario, simply because i've never read of a civil war between two claimaints of the same family where it gets everyone involved.

I rank a pan-civilizational war involving multiple actors on the probability scale as socio-economic/ecological catastrophe > coalition war of conquest/containment of conquest >>>>>>>>>>>> civil war.

there is nothing 'anti-Indian/pro-western' about this, since this is consistent with not just western history, but also non-western history, for e.g., Chinese history or ME history.

Ofcourse, these are probabilities, not facts, because we simply do not have any facts or corroboration about these epics. We are not discussing Chola-Chalukya wars for e.g., which we can cross-reference literature with inscriptions & coins, etc to have a complete picture. We are discussing epic literature with multiple renditions over the ages, which the literature itself admits.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 05:12

ShauryaT wrote:Srijoy: Itihaas is not history but it is not entirely mythical too. To practitioners like myself how much of MBH was myth and how much was real and its dates are slightly irrelevant to the design intent of this beautiful magnus opus. Its works are there to impart Dharma and is a treatise on the four objectives of human life as SD sees it. Questions like was the war real, were the numbers real, were they less or were they more are actually not the topical questions relevant to the text. The debate on the text should rightly be the questions that are asked in the text on what the text is about. Questions that Draupadi asked. Questions that Narada asked of Yudhishitara. The exposition of Bhishma in the Shanti Parvah and of course of Vasudev in BG. To a lesser degree, it is somewhat like the Vedas, where historical dating et al and validity of events is not the main point.

A revered teacher said, look at these works akin to Shakespeare writing about Henry V. Cannot use that as work of history but it is not entirely mythical either. We quickly go to some pieces of exotic or unprovable pieces of the text and say gotcha and many intellectuals decry the entire text (nearly 100,000 pages) as a worthless piece of junk. Our civilization loses with such an approach. Best to use the text and debate it in context of what MBH was designed for and leave the incidental pieces as just that incidents and not use it to date history.


i completely agree. You will find it is not I who is hell-bent in finding history in those re-written and re-rendered epics, but the likes of Shiv, Oak, etc. who claim a 'precise date' for these alleged events.

However, i am talking from the POV of history, as this thread is about history. So i am picking the parts of Mahabharata that have some historical insights to it. its morality, its storytelling and its layers make for a very beautiful book, i agree 100%. I completely agree that Mahabharata is not historical, neither is Ramayana. It is nowhere close to being a worthless piece of junk, it infact shows the mindset and sophistication of Indian thought, far ahead of the west for its time.

to me, neither Mahabharata or Ramayana are that important to Indian history,because it has little or nothing to do with or influence any of the actual Indian history we know of. And frankly, i find 'trying to find historical empiricism in Mahabharata/Ramayana' like Shiv, Oak, etc are doing, to be counter-productive, because it steals the narrative of Indian history from the actual history we've so painstakingly re-discovered and are in the process of doing.

Perfect example is this thread itself - i've asked repeatedly for info on how to publish an article on the Magadh Empires. You know, the Haranyakas, the Shishunagas, Nandas, Mauryas, Sungas and Kanvas. But zero takers. Because you will find, 99% of Indians don't care much about Indian history outside of trying to 'find history' in moral, religious literature re-written countless times (Ramayana + Mahabharata) and establishing that we are not immigrants but sons and daughters of the soil. thats it.Meanwhile, atleast 2500 years of history that sits right in front of us, painstakingly reconstructed via archaeology, texts, foreign cross-references, etc. are ignored. Unless they can stroke our national ego, such as people know about Iron pillar of Mehrauli but jack $hit about Kanishka or Amoghavarsha. So while i agree with your sentiments, you are preaching to the choir here.

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

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

Postby Agasthi » 18 Jul 2017 07:35

SriJoy wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote:Yes, Big Bang, but also many other -- human origins (single point out of Africa), mathematics,


Again, Big Bang is empirically emphatic. So is human origination from Africa. to challenge these, is to challenge empirical evidence on the basis of faith alone, with zero evidence to support a counter-argument. Which gets laughed at outside of religious congregations. Btw, mainstream academia does not claim mathematics to have a single point of origination. No scientist in the world will take you seriously if you claim Big Bang is wrong or Out of Africa is wrong. Because we have overwhelming evidence of both, with practically zero evidence of another scenario.


As per Wikipedia, Georges Lemaitre:

Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".


How is that different from 'Hiranyagarbha'? or Lord Shiva being called "Primary Matter"?

If Swami Nityananda had proposed this, what would have been the outcome?

How do these theories with empirically evidence suffer constant challenges from other scientists if they are so factual. Are these scientist not to be taken seriously? Quite a few it appears.


Apologies to the moderator, please delete if this inappropriate for this thread.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 08:03

Agasthi wrote:How is that different from 'Hiranyagarbha'? or Lord Shiva being called "Primary Matter"?

If Swami Nityananda had proposed this, what would have been the outcome?


Georges lemaitre is a professor of physics. Swami Nityananda is not. So why would i listen to Nityananda over Lemaitre ? since when does being the right or wrong religion override professional qualifications ?!

How do these theories with empirically evidence suffer constant challenges from other scientists if they are so factual. Are these scientist not to be taken seriously? Quite a few it appears.


Apologies to the moderator, please delete if this inappropriate for this thread.


Do you know how science works ? You have empirical evidence, you come up with a theory that fits evidence. New evidence found leads to new theory, if incompatible with old theory. that is how its supposed to work- its called figuring things out. Far better methodology than trying to come up with 'pronounciations that cannot be challenged ever' as the main goal, from nothing. And how is that even relevant to Big Bang ? Yes, it has been modified/calibrated due to new evidence, but thats true for practically any theory out there.

What you term 'western science' is evidence based methodology. Something our ancestors were experts at. Which is why we were one of the most advanced ancient civilizations. the same thing westerners adopted in the last 500-600 years and have similarly, become the most advanced society ever.
Why are you trying to politicize science ?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 18 Jul 2017 08:38

SriJoy wrote:
1. Nonsense. thats not how 'European history' has evolved, thats how pretty much all of history has evolved. Because whether you are dharmic or adharmic, indian or new guinean, killing people for either loot or control has always been the top two motivators of warfare in society. its called being human.

2. Issue isn't that Vanga, Kalinga, tamils fought in Kurukshetra war, its why. there is not a single war in Indian history that i can think of,where something like Mahabharata (basically a glorified civil war) has happened with that many players. Look no further than civil war torn Delhi Sultans or Mughals: they never had all provincial/vassal armies arrayed against each other. If you want to say 'oh they are evil muslims, not dharmics', then look at wars between Cholas and Chalukyas. When Someshwara (i forget which one) caused a civil war in his kingdom, where were his Marwar vassals ?!


Some claim religion has been the reason for major wars? Wars can be fought in the name of Freedom, Jihad, Crusades but not in the name of Dharma! Our memory of a somewhat dominant Hindu monarch is well into the past and many doubted our ability to be a single state, a democratic republic! Yet, here we are. If India has had no possibility of uniting under the aegis of Dharma, how did we unite for Freedom or does that not qualify? Many doubted our ability to unite with similar arguments from our “history” to be cited as proof, but they were proven wrong.

I see no reason to dismiss the events of MBH as a mere civil war. If Marathas can die in Kashmir today and Punjabis could fight for Bengalis then I see no valid reasons for your suppositions. Europe can unite and stop Islamic hordes at the gates of Vienna under the Pope’s banner but India cannot under the banner of the Vasudev?

Also, I think the events you are probably referring to is the drying up of the Sarasvati in that time period. The Sindhu has always been a flowing river and presumably a continued civilization has existed around it for many millennia into the past. Even the digs at Mehrgarh are arguably parts of the Sindhu civilization continuum although western historians have tried their best to link it with Mesopotamia.

Instead of all these Indus Valley, Sarasvati, Gangetic and its time periods etc and follow the western narrative of selective readings, it will be apt to rename our entire sub-continental ancient history as the Vedic civilization. My read is it is a single continuum within its natural borders, from its ancient roots, say from 8000 BCE to current.

There is a certain truth in the claim that the rise of prakrits and loss of Sanskrit, probably resulted in the loss of a sense of political unity in the land but to say that such a war under the aegis of Dharma, when its language divisions were less pronounced, would not have been possible, is stretching it too far.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2696
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 18 Jul 2017 08:51

A Turkmenistan archeological site ( BMAC ??) dating > 2000 BC, this is from the 10 part BBC documentary on India iirc from 2007 (?). Overall this was a good series sans the controversial AIT/AMT part.

This site is supposed to be a Indo-European site on the way to their southward migration.


Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1944
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 18 Jul 2017 09:09

SriJoy: a request. Can you plz keep down your volume of posts? I see entire pages with either your posts or responses to it & miss out on other informative posts. There are no rules on this forum on the # of posts you can make. Its just etiquette (like not talking too much in a conversation and letting others have a say).

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35251
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 18 Jul 2017 09:22


SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 09:34

ShauryaT wrote:Some claim religion has been the reason for major wars? Wars can be fought in the name of Freedom, Jihad, Crusades but not in the name of Dharma! Our memory of a somewhat dominant Hindu monarch is well into the past and many doubted our ability to be a single state, a democratic republic! Yet, here we are. If India has had no possibility of uniting under the aegis of Dharma, how did we unite for Freedom or does that not qualify? Many doubted our ability to unite with similar arguments from our “history” to be cited as proof, but they were proven wrong.


thats not what i said. i said, find me an instance of a war in the name of Dharma- involving a family feud (civil war) that involves dozen vassals on both sides, from thousands of kms away. I am yet to find a historic example- in India or otherwise. Most Jihads were committed by one party at a time. When timur showed up in India to do Jihad, he didn't bring a dozen allies from far and wide in middle east. He came with his own army. true, crusades have happened involving multiple parties but thats only for Catholics, who have a pope. But crusades happened for control of holy land. Ie, pilgrim revenue. Boils down again to money and power. When did multiple christian or muslim nations band together to settle a succession dispute ?!

Last i checked, Hinduism never has had a pope. We didn't unite for Freedom, we were united by the British conquests. Otherwise, when India had multiple kings and emperors, we'd have seen a trans-national movement for independence from the Mughals or turks. Instead, we have Marathas doing their own thing, Misls doing their own thing, etc.
So where is the instance of

I see no reason to dismiss the events of MBH as a mere civil war. If Marathas can die in Kashmir today and Punjabis could fight for Bengalis then I see no valid reasons for your suppositions. Europe can unite and stop Islamic hordes at the gates of Vienna under the Pope’s banner but India cannot under the banner of the Vasudev?


the entire war in Mahabharata is described as a civil war. Because its the definition of civil war when the ruling family fractures and one claimant fights another from the same family. thats exactly what the Pandava-Kaurava war was- two sides of family fighting over who's claim to the throne is better.
Banner of Vasudev wasn't fighting mlechcha foreigners or evil religion infesting us. its a bloody civil war, with two scions of the same royal family fighting. Except apparently Mahabharata is the only time when each and every vassal and foreign lords like Sudakshin Kamboj cross mighty mountains to fight this civil war, in entire history of humanity. Sounds like a 'too good to be true' angle, which is pretty much a given in religious moralistic stories. Its called building archetypes. Indians are no strangers to doing it either.

Also, I think the events you are probably referring to is the drying up of the Sarasvati in that time period. The Sindhu has always been a flowing river and presumably a continued civilization has existed around it for many millennia into the past. Even the digs at Mehrgarh are arguably parts of the Sindhu civilization continuum although western historians have tried their best to link it with Mesopotamia.


No. Western scholars have not challenged the integrity of IVC as indigenous. they've noted the immense trade between IVC, Bahrain (Dilmun) and Mesopotamia. Which is archaeologically attested and valid. the only link Western academia has made, is that of farming arriving from ME to India in pre-IVC phase, more than 10,000 years ago. Which also is attested archeologically as well as by genetic analysis of food grains : wheat and barley show domestication event in the fertile crescant and arrival in India and Aegean sea region later. this does not mean people arrived from Mesopotamia to a deserted India and spread agriculture there, but a small trickle of farmers originating west of India brought farming in India. Facts that point to this conclusion are far more substantial than facts supporting independent and indigenous discovery of agriculture in India.

Also, no, since the collapse of the Saraswati system, till the arrival of Greeks in India, the Indus basin was sparsely populated and not very urbanized. this is evidenced by the significantly smaller and rarer city mounds from Indus river basin from 1st millennium BC, through till essentially development of Punjab region in 2nd millennium AD. Sites such as Pushkalavati, Sagala (Sialkot), Gandhara, etc. are much, much smaller than their counterparts like Vaishali, Koshambi, etc. this is also silently reflected in Indian history, where no empire or significantly large kingdom has been based in Punjab area till the rise of Sikh Empire in 1700s, for all of recorded Indian history.

Instead of all these Indus Valley, Sarasvati, Gangetic and its time periods etc and follow the western narrative of selective readings, it will be apt to rename our entire sub-continental ancient history as the Vedic civilization. My read is it is a single continuum within its natural borders, from its ancient roots, say from 8000 BCE to current.


I don't follow what you are saying.

There is a certain truth in the claim that the rise of prakrits and loss of Sanskrit, probably resulted in the loss of a sense of political unity in the land but to say that such a war under the aegis of Dharma, when its language divisions were less pronounced, would not have been possible, is stretching it too far.


there is never any evidence of political unity in India in the first place, at any instance in Indian history, save for the brief period under the Mauryas (130 odd years). Rest all the time, its a patchwork of lords, kings, vassals backstabbing each other, fighting each other as well as foreigners. Just like everywhere else in the world.

Such a war would be possible- which is specifically what i said- possible but highly unlikely. Why unlikely ? Because we have no instance whatsoever from anywhere else in the world of a mega-war involving multiple parties and every vassal you can think of, over a succession dispute civil war. Atleast, not that i know of.
And as i said, in the absence of evidence, its wise to go with the likelier option than the unlikely one.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 09:34

Prem Kumar wrote:SriJoy: a request. Can you plz keep down your volume of posts? I see entire pages with either your posts or responses to it & miss out on other informative posts. There are no rules on this forum on the # of posts you can make. Its just etiquette (like not talking too much in a conversation and letting others have a say).


Noted. i will try to multi-quote future posts.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32525
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2017 09:44

ShauryaT wrote:Shiv ji: Another person who has some inspiring interpretations of the vedas is David Frwaley - aka Vamdev Shastri. There are others too, but many are in Indian languages and being a colonized Hindu cannot read most of them. Another one that i would be reading down the road is the take of Bibek Debroy's translations. Hopefully it wall allow me to form my own interpretations from a fairly straight forward translation of the verses.

Aurobindo is good if voluminous. I have Frawley's book "Gods Sages and Kings". I actually met him once with NS Rajaram when the latter use to live near my house. I asked Frawley if we should replace the word Hindu with "Sanatana Dharma". He disagreed. His Tweets are precious, in general.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32525
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2017 09:55

If you look at it from the Sanatana Dharma viewpoint, the Big Bang may not have been "Big Bang" at all but simply a manifestation of matter from a state of nothingness. Yeah I guess that is a bang of sorts.

If one does not get one's chaddis in a big twist about what they laugh at and and what they don't laugh at in western universities the opening of Shiva's 3rd eye simply collapses the whole universe into nothingness. - that is to say that if the conscious sensing of matter and time as truly existing is removed then the universe simply collapses into nothingness. Symbolically Shiva's 3rd eye senses that the universe is simply a mass of nothing (or everything) and manifests as it is sensed by the being that senses the universe and describes it. From a Sci Fi viewpoint you could have sentient stars that think and communicate and I have read scifi books to that effect. Very prescient IMO

Is the Universe expanding? Well that is what our sensors tell us.

Will the Universe stop expanding and collapse into nothingness? That is two questions in one. The universe - as per ancient Hindu wisdom can certainly be collapsed into nothingness by awareness of what senses do to us. Will the universe stop expanding? No one knows for sure

But continuous expansion into infinity and collapse into nothingness both currently pose dilemmas to science that people are trying to answer using reductionist science. Reductionist science is not the only way. The method adopted by Hindu seers was also a form of neurophysiology. Rejecting one for the other is a form of dogma.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 10:06

shiv wrote:If you look at it from the Sanatana Dharma viewpoint, the Big Bang may not have been "Big Bang" at all but simply a manifestation of matter from a state of nothingness. Yeah I guess that is a bang of sorts.


the rapid expansion of space-time and matter in the immediate timeframe (in millionths of a second) is a fairly well evidenced fact. Only question remains is, if its true for all of universe and not just observable universe.

If one does not get one's chaddis in a big twist about what they laugh at and and what they don't laugh at in western universities the opening of Shiva's 3rd eye simply collapses the whole universe into nothingness. - that is to say that if the conscious sensing of matter and time as truly existing is removed then the universe simply collapses into nothingness. Symbolically Shiva's 3rd eye senses that the universe is simply a mass of nothing (or everything) and manifests as it is sensed by the being that senses the universe and describes it. From a Sci Fi viewpoint you could have sentient stars that think and communicate and I have read scifi books to that effect. Very prescient IMO


this is identical to what every muslim, christian, jew etc does - try and 'fit their mythologies under the banner of science'. if religions were really such enlightened, they'd leave empiric, scientific facts that are clear and precise in them, not nebulous 'neither here, nor there, open to interpretation' type of comments that con-artists and palmists or fortunetellers rely on. I find it strange that our ancestors figured out big bang but leave no evidence of theory of special relativity or E=MC^2 or any such scientific factoid explicitly spelt out.

Is the Universe expanding? Well that is what our sensors tell us.

Will the Universe stop expanding and collapse into nothingness? That is two questions in one. The universe - as per ancient Hindu wisdom can certainly be collapsed into nothingness by awareness of what senses do to us. Will the universe stop expanding? No one knows for sure

But continuous expansion into infinity and collapse into nothingness both currently pose dilemmas to science that people are trying to answer using reductionist science. Reductionist science is not the only way. The method adopted by Hindu seers was also a form of neurophysiology. Rejecting one for the other is a form of dogma.


except there is no evidence of this above mentioned way and it relies on wishful thinking on the part of religious minds to fit mythologies under the banner of science. Reductionist science is the dominant way and only way it works for now. So-called other ways are nothing more than wishful thinking and manifestation of basic ancestor worship syndrome. Not just amongst Indians, but everyone else. While we have people here trying to find 'meaning' in nebulous words of half-literate ancients writing the hindu epics, the exact same is being done by millions of muslims for their illiterate prophet and their nebulous Godly book.

Sticking to a process of 'no valid claim without evidence and theoretical framework' helps weed out facts from wishful thinking fiction of those who want their religions to be true. So far, Big Bang has evidence, Big bang has physics framework. It still has questions unanswered, but its winning by a country mile in terms of evidence of consistent theory over dodgy religious dogma- hindu or otherwise.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2708
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 18 Jul 2017 10:22

All this squawking about "evidence" reminds me of:

SriJoy wrote:
shiv wrote:Sure call me names and take comfort from your predictions and cook up statistics.

Aryan is a racist term and needs to be eliminated from general use, like Gollywog and Ch!nk


Keep running away from the fact- i will post evidence of this after coming weekend to completely blow apart your nonsensical view that 'Aryan has always been a racist term like Chink/Gook' .


The weekend came and went, and still we await this earth-shattering evidence with bated breath. If it weren't for the rock-solid integrity and impeccable credibility of the claimant, I might actually have begun to wonder if we'll ever see it.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5625
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

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

Postby krisna » 18 Jul 2017 10:29

SriJoy wrote:
Georges lemaitre is a professor of physics. Swami Nityananda is not. So why would i listen to Nityananda over Lemaitre ? since when does being the right or wrong religion override professional qualifications ?!



Jesus probably fiction but allegedly Christianity founder. He was not even a christian.
Prophet was illiterate but Islam founder
But 100000s followers of the above.

Even today church says another Jesus cannot come. He has to come thru their stable. IOW vetted by church aka professor ship in certain other quarters.

Many scientists mathematicians poets etc etc were not necessarily given those titles. But after their works captured some serious interests etc.

----------
I am a lowly hakim in my workshop. Many a time I question and override specialists like cardiology pulmonology ICU Infectious diseases folks and many others. I do it with clear facts and logical reasoning. I have taken on professors in their chosen fields. They have complained about me. But facts and logical reasoning have done me well. :|

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 10:33

krisna wrote:
SriJoy wrote:
Georges lemaitre is a professor of physics. Swami Nityananda is not. So why would i listen to Nityananda over Lemaitre ? since when does being the right or wrong religion override professional qualifications ?!



Jesus probably fiction but allegedly Christianity founder. He was not even a christian.
Prophet was illiterate but Islam founder
But 100000s followers of the above.

Even today church says another Jesus cannot come. He has to come thru their stable. IOW vetted by church aka professor ship in certain other quarters.

Many scientists mathematicians poets etc etc were not necessarily given those titles. But after their works captured some serious interests etc.

----------
I am a lowly hakim in my workshop. Many a time I question and override specialists like cardiology pulmonology ICU Infectious diseases folks and many others. I do it with clear facts and logical reasoning. I have taken on professors in their chosen fields. They have complained about me. But facts and logical reasoning have done me well. :|


Err, you seriously think PhD in Physics comes from 'church vetting' and a guy with PhD in physics is on the same level as an esoterical guru with no physics education, when it comes to physics ?!

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5625
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

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

Postby krisna » 18 Jul 2017 10:43

SriJoy wrote:
Do you know how science works ? You have empirical evidence, you come up with a theory that fits evidence. New evidence found leads to new theory, if incompatible with old theory. that is how its supposed to work- its called figuring things out. Far better methodology than trying to come up with 'pronounciations that cannot be challenged ever' as the main goal, from nothing. And how is that even relevant to Big Bang ? Yes, it has been modified/calibrated due to new evidence, but thats true for practically any theory out there.

What you term 'western science' is evidence based methodology. Something our ancestors were experts at. Which is why we were one of the most advanced ancient civilizations. the same thing westerners adopted in the last 500-600 years and have similarly, become the most advanced society ever.
Why are you trying to politicize science ?


Little too preachy. That's ok otherwise.

What science we know is like iceberg. Visible 10% rest unknown.
Empirical evidence and methodology is important but not complete science.
Reason why neuroscience psychiatry astrophysics yoga etc and many other fields took off late is due to lack of methodology empirical evidence to produce consistent results. Of course the pioneers in these fields had not inconsiderable help from Hindu philosophies .

Now who were the pioneers of Hindu philosophies--none of them were professors as coined by westerners.

Same with economics social sciences. Not necessarily exact sciences.

Heck even in mathematics higher forms not exactly straight forward.


Only Hinduism I repeat again only Hinduism with no malice against other religions has no problems with science since immemorial times.
Many ancient rishis were keen Observants of nature . Probably scientists of old.

Even today many seers swamijis etc of Hinduism are probably of social sciences variety or something similar types.


It is our ego of stupidity and sickular western education which makes not see these stuff wrt Hinduism.


Usually I don't comment here but here I am :((

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32525
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2017 10:45

krisna wrote: I do it with clear facts and logical reasoning.|

If a person does not want to leave space for your viewpoint no matter how reasonable or logical, and is dogmatic about one set of views - you will get a monologue. But that said - it is important to post your viewpoint so other readers know that a monologue is not the only viewpoint that exists

Just sayin..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32525
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2017 10:48

SriJoy wrote: but its winning by a country mile in terms of evidence of consistent theory over dodgy religious dogma- hindu or otherwise.

This reminds me of
Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth


Great as rhetoric - but blinkered.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 10:49

krisna wrote:Little too preachy. That's ok otherwise.

What science we know is like iceberg. Visible 10% rest unknown.
Empirical evidence and methodology is important but not complete science.


It is through that method and that method alone, do we get a 'complete theory' in a particular topic.

Only Hinduism I repeat again only Hinduism with no malice against other religions has no problems with science since immemorial times.
Many ancient rishis were keen Observants of nature . Probably scientists of old.


yep. But that hinduism is dead/dying. What we have today, is copy-cat of Abrahamics, where its all about absolute belief in holy books and trying to make nebulous 'fortune-teller language' fit into science.

Even today many seers swamijis etc of Hinduism are probably of social sciences variety or something similar types.


Maybe 1 in a thousand. Rest are all con-artists, promising things or claiming things they cannot prove or deliver on. Same with every religion, because whether you are a Christian minister faith-healing or hindu swami, there is a vested interest in peddling BS, conning people and making money off of them.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 10:51

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote: but its winning by a country mile in terms of evidence of consistent theory over dodgy religious dogma- hindu or otherwise.

This reminds me of
Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth


Great as rhetoric - but blinkered.


You may think going by evidence is blinkered. I think knee-jerk proclamations of greatness for one's own ancestor and native culture, when the said 'scholars' are barely literate by modern standards, is blinkered and wishful thinking, a trait shared by religious people of every religion, be it hindu or muslim or sikh or christian. What you are doing- proclaiming 'equal status to hindu sages of the past with modern science' is no different than what legions of muslims or christians do, trying to find 'science' in their own books written by semi-literate ancients.

I find it laughable that people who considered finding the value of Pi as automatic great mathematician status or knowing other stars are just like our sun as 'amazingly wise' are batting at the same level of crediblity as me or you, never mind exponents in the field today. Make no mistake- if you have children (and i certainly do), your grade 10 kid knows more about phenomenal existence and the universe than your Valmiki or Matthew or Mohammed could dream of. So forgive me for not exalting those ancients as my peers.
Last edited by SriJoy on 18 Jul 2017 10:54, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32525
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2017 10:53

Agasthi wrote:If Swami Nityananda had proposed this, what would have been the outcome?

How do these theories with empirically evidence suffer constant challenges from other scientists if they are so factual. Are these scientist not to be taken seriously? Quite a few it appears.


Apologies to the moderator, please delete if this inappropriate for this thread.



Have you read "The Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint Exupery?

There is a semi serious part where the Little Prince - the hero of the story says that the star that he lives on was discovered by a Turkish astronomer who presented his findings at a European astronomy conference wearing traditional Turkish clothes. He was laughed at and booed out. The next year he presented the same thing wearing a suit and tie and everyone accepted his findings and the star was "discovered"

But when the mind is colonized - it is like the converted who are more zealous than the padre.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32525
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2017 10:54

SriJoy wrote:What you are doing- proclaiming 'equal status to hindu sages of the past with modern science' is no different than what legions of muslims or christians do, trying to find 'science' in their own books written by semi-literate ancients.

Why should that bother you? You are confident of your science and people such as myself should not even come to your exalted attention.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5625
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

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

Postby krisna » 18 Jul 2017 10:58

shiv wrote:
krisna wrote: I do it with clear facts and logical reasoning.|

If a person does not want to leave space for your viewpoint no matter how reasonable or logical, and is dogmatic about one set of views - you will get a monologue. But that said - it is important to post your viewpoint so other readers know that a monologue is not the only viewpoint that exists

Just sayin..


Thank you.

I prefer agree to disagree. If I have the power to do something I do it -As I am the person in charge I do override profs and other specialists as and when it helps patients. Many profs specialists see only their way not of patients. I don't want to go into that as it will be OT here.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 11:37

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote:What you are doing- proclaiming 'equal status to hindu sages of the past with modern science' is no different than what legions of muslims or christians do, trying to find 'science' in their own books written by semi-literate ancients.

Why should that bother you? You are confident of your science and people such as myself should not even come to your exalted attention.


Because it is still spreading misinformation and pandering to sentimentalism over empiricism.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1237
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 18 Jul 2017 11:50

SriJoy wrote:So i see it as 'we need conditions ripe for a pan-India war involving many actors' to give some historical credibility to Mahabharata. One such condition that immediately jumps out, is the collapse of Indus Valley civilization and its ramifications. Nothing of that sort jumps out about 5000 BC.


So Witzel dates the Dasa Rajah Yuddha (Battle of Ten Kings) at 1450 and 1300 BCE - so you are suggesting that Mahabharata occurred before this?
What is this Pan-India war business? The key question is when was the Ganga/Yamuna/Narmada valley settled by civilized folks? If the answer is 5000BCE then the conditions are sufficient for the war to have occurred then.

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

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

Postby Agasthi » 18 Jul 2017 12:06

SriJoy wrote:
Agasthi wrote:Georges lemaitre is a professor of physics. Swami Nityananda is not. So why would i listen to Nityananda over Lemaitre ? since when does being the right or wrong religion override professional qualifications ?!

Do you know how science works ? You have empirical evidence, you come up with a theory that fits evidence. New evidence found leads to new theory, if incompatible with old theory. that is how its supposed to work- its called figuring things out. Far better methodology than trying to come up with 'pronounciations that cannot be challenged ever' as the main goal, from nothing. And how is that even relevant to Big Bang ? Yes, it has been modified/calibrated due to new evidence, but thats true for practically any theory out there.

What you term 'western science' is evidence based methodology. Something our ancestors were experts at. Which is why we were one of the most advanced ancient civilizations. the same thing westerners adopted in the last 500-600 years and have similarly, become the most advanced society ever.
Why are you trying to politicize science ?


I never said right or wrong religion nor did I say 'western science'. You did!

My point remains, the physics professor cum priest whom you rather listen to, a guy who is schooled in a creation myth for years comes up with this so called path breaking idea that universe big banged from a "cosmic egg". How different is that from "Hiranyagarbha" of Swami Nityananda? What kind of physics is that?

You said there is evidence and then you come up with theory. Well in this case, theory came first and then the evidence to fit the theory.

And found this on google: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

A few years ago, scientists said cholesterol is bad for health. Now they say there is good and bad cholesterol. They said coconut oil was bad for health now they say it is super duper good. I do not claim to know how science works but looks like a lot a scientists don't know either.

Science has been politicized for a long time. If you are claiming you are unaware, that is surprising given your voluminous posts about science and evidence. The Lancet hit job on the indian medical industry with all cooked up evidences is one that comes to memory. There are many more.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 12:19

Pulikeshi wrote:So Witzel dates the Dasa Rajah Yuddha (Battle of Ten Kings) at 1450 and 1300 BCE - so you are suggesting that Mahabharata occurred before this?


Couldn't care less what that agenda-driven, racist hack thinks. But yes, i think Mahabharata war is around the time of IVC collapse.
What is this Pan-India war business? The key question is when was the Ganga/Yamuna/Narmada valley settled by civilized folks? If the answer is 5000BCE then the conditions are sufficient for the war to have occurred then.


Pan-India business as in practically every kingdom in India was involved in the war. I don't get your supposition. I don't think simple & gradual settlement of these regions is cause for such a big war, but a huge migration pulse leading from IVC collapse is definitely a cause for India-wide strife.

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

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

Postby Agasthi » 18 Jul 2017 12:28

shiv wrote:
Agasthi wrote:If Swami Nityananda had proposed this, what would have been the outcome?

How do these theories with empirically evidence suffer constant challenges from other scientists if they are so factual. Are these scientist not to be taken seriously? Quite a few it appears.


Apologies to the moderator, please delete if this inappropriate for this thread.



Have you read "The Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint Exupery?

There is a semi serious part where the Little Prince - the hero of the story says that the star that he lives on was discovered by a Turkish astronomer who presented his findings at a European astronomy conference wearing traditional Turkish clothes. He was laughed at and booed out. The next year he presented the same thing wearing a suit and tie and everyone accepted his findings and the star was "discovered"

But when the mind is colonized - it is like the converted who are more zealous than the padre.


:-) Interesting isn't it, to see old prejudices work in full flow right before your eyes. Abject fealty to a word in English, utter contempt to the same thing in Indian. Its like those indians who think it is cool to say cuss words in english but would be horrified to utter the same in indian languages.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 12:30

Agasthi wrote:
I never said right or wrong religion nor did I say 'western science'. You did!

My point remains, the physics professor cum priest whom you rather listen to, a guy who is schooled in a creation myth for years comes up with this so called path breaking idea that universe big banged from a "cosmic egg". How different is that from "Hiranyagarbha" of Swami Nityananda? What kind of physics is that?


Couldn't care less if he is a juggler or a priest. He is a PhD in Physics, talking about physics. Automatically out-ranks a guy with zero physics education talking about physics. Would i prefer an atheist physicist ?ofcourse i would. but a christian priest who is a phD in Physics decisively outranks and out-qualifies a hindu mystic with zero physics background, when it comes to Big Bang or any physics related phenomena. And that should be pretty straightforward too.

As for Hiranyagarbha- last i checked, i didn't find any evidence presented for it, no cosmic ray analysis. None, nada, zip. So at best, lucky guess. At worst, typical 'fortune-telling' type language con-job, where series of open-ended statements can be made to fit vast number of scenarios.

You said there is evidence and then you come up with theory. Well in this case, theory came first and then the evidence to fit the theory.


thats not science. thats data-mining and pseudo-science. theory before evidence is at best, a lucky guess, at worse, psuedo-science con-job.

A few years ago, scientists said cholesterol is bad for health. Now they say there is good and bad cholesterol. They said coconut oil was bad for health now they say it is super duper good. I do not claim to know how science works but looks like a lot a scientists don't know either.


you seem to equate revision on the basis of new evidence as 'don't know what they are talking about'. Which i find ironic, because the very notion of objective integrity is about following the evidence and changing your view in light of new evidence. Ironic that the greatest strength of science over innane & unsubstantiated religious nonsense is somehow a mark of failure in your eyes.

I have no problem if tomorrow we find more evidence of Cholesterol being bad and therefore its bad, then more evidence 20 years from now that its good and it becomes good and the cycle repeats itself 100 times. thats how its supposed to work.

Science has been politicized for a long time. If you are claiming you are unaware, that is surprising given your voluminous posts about science and evidence. The Lancet hit job on the indian medical industry with all cooked up evidences is one that comes to memory. There are many more.


Incorrect. Only soft sciences have a political element to it, especially social sciences. What is 'political' in physics, chemistry or biology ?!
We are talking about physics here. Which is not political, nor is it subject to be party to politics.
Last edited by SriJoy on 18 Jul 2017 12:50, edited 2 times in total.

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

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

Postby Agasthi » 18 Jul 2017 12:45

Maybe 1 in a thousand. Rest are all con-artists, promising things or claiming things they cannot prove or deliver on. Same with every religion, because whether you are a Christian minister faith-healing or hindu swami, there is a vested interest in peddling BS, conning people and making money off of them.


And George isn't one? Aren't there n number of scientists who have a vested interest in peddling BS, conning governments and people?

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 Jul 2017 12:53

Agasthi wrote:
Maybe 1 in a thousand. Rest are all con-artists, promising things or claiming things they cannot prove or deliver on. Same with every religion, because whether you are a Christian minister faith-healing or hindu swami, there is a vested interest in peddling BS, conning people and making money off of them.


And George isn't one? Aren't there n number of scientists who have a vested interest in peddling BS, conning governments and people?



You realize, if you could prove the data for Big Bang is wrong, you'd automatically collect a nobel prize ?! We are talking about Physics here. Big Bang. Not some nebulous wishy-washy opinion driven field. Anyone can verify/investigate a physics theory if they follow empiric procedure.

Maybe he is racist, maybe he isn't. I don't have time for racism- whether it is coming from the likes of Witzel or whether its coming from members here who auto-default to suspicion based on who the messenger is/what their skin color is.

So yes, if you can find reason/evidence to suggest he is racist, i will not put stock in his ideas. But as of now, he is far, far more credible about origin of universe, than some hindu mystic with big fat zero in terms of physics education. Because the man you are questioning, is a physics professor.
And that should not even be in question. I find it ironic that those who are decrying racism from Euros here are engaging in racism themselves, where a physics professor is overridden by a hindu mystic with jack $hit education, simply because that man is a white christian priest.

And now the same racist posters will hurl 'white worshipper/colonized mind' slurs my way, for pointing out the foolishness of putting greater stock in an uneducated guy than a physics professor in a topic about physics.

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

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

Postby Agasthi » 18 Jul 2017 13:08

Couldn't care less if he is a juggler or a priest. He is a PhD in Physics, talking about physics. Automatically out-ranks a guy with zero physics education talking about physics. Would i prefer an atheist physicist ?ofcourse i would. but a christian priest who is a phD in Physics decisively outranks and out-qualifies a hindu mystic with zero physics background. And that should be pretty straightforward too.

As for Hiranyagarbha- last i checked, i didn't find any evidence presented for it, no cosmic ray analysis. None, nada, zip. So at best, lucky guess. At worst, typical 'fortune-telling' type language con-job, where series of open-ended statements can be made to fit vast number of scenarios.


You are contradicting yourself. Hiranyagarbha is same as the cosmic egg in two different languages, thats all. So if I say 'Hiranyagarbha' it is fortune telling type language con job and if I say 'cosmic egg', Ph.D in physics with cosmic ray analysis evidence :rotfl: :rotfl:

Let me repeat, What I'm saying this - 'Cosmic Egg' and 'Hiranyagarbha' are both theories. However, what you are saying is this - 'Cosmic Egg' is emperical science, "hiranyagarbha' is the ranting of semi literate bums who did guesswork. How different are you from say a certain Witzel?

Seriously, cosmic egg is Physics??

thats not science. thats data-mining and pseudo-science. theory before evidence is at best, a lucky guess, at worse, psuedo-science con-job.


Again you are contradicting yourself. Are you saying the 'Big bang' theory was a psuedo-science con-job?

Incorrect. Only soft sciences have a political element to it, especially social sciences. What is 'political' in physics, chemistry or biology ?!
We are talking about physics here. Which is not political, nor is it subject to be party to politics.


Really what is this then?

One for biology: http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/h ... tycpw.html

One for Chemistry: http://theconversation.com/fraud-and-tr ... -too-13814

One for Physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal

A nobel prize winner is under investigation for fraud: http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/scie ... searchers/

One more thing and a request, can you see how annoying it is to see reply to quote by quote? We are all here to learn and succinct replies would suffice to get the point across. Just voluminous quoting and reply to each and every sentence is just arguing for argument sake.
Last edited by Agasthi on 18 Jul 2017 13:48, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lekhraj, TKiran, vijayk, Vineetmehta_del and 54 guests