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

[RajeshA]

So, really, he has only the info that eclipse happened in a particular month. I think he is wrongly assuming that its a total eclipse. If the inscriptions say that its a total solar eclipse then his case is strong.

JohneeG garu,

I think it works on the best fit basis. If someone finds a better fit to explain the two inscriptions, as well as can show that all the other inscriptions with astronomical information and others which use the Śaka Era conform to known historical information, and can explain all other eras and associated history, which are known to be given years apart from Śaka Era, then of course one would embrace the other chronology.

Until that time, Vedveer Arya has managed to put together a chronology which is conformant with all inscriptions and much of Puranic historical data, and as such his chronology has the most credibility and the rest are nonsense.

Actually Vedveer Arya explains 227 inscriptions of Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Gangas, Yadavas which have been dated alone in Śaka Era (583 BCE).

[member_29218]

Primus saar,
creationism is not same as christianity. Even Vedhas and Puraanas preach creationism.

Ah, but the Vedas and Puraanas are thousands of years old and the Vedic concept of the universe is much more aligned with the view expounded by science in modern times.

OTOH, the creationists would have you believe, in 2016, that there is no such thing as evolution. In Oklahoma, they deliberately edited Neil deGrasse Tyson's superb show 'Cosmos' to delete the portion about what happens when Man appears on the scene. If you watch the movie in the link above, high schools in the US are demanding as much 'time' to Creationism as natural selection. Heck, some US Congressmen are into it as well.

The ONE factor that ties all of them together is their Christian faith.

[johneeG]

RajeshA saar,
do the inscriptions mention eclipse or total eclipse? ...particularly kurtaketi and hyd inscriptions?

Primus saar,
all religions preach some form of creationism. Many people regardless of religion believe in creationism. And finally, evolution and creationism are not mutually contradictory.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA saar,
do the inscriptions mention eclipse or total eclipse? ...particularly kurtaketi and hyd inscriptions?

Sorry, I am unable to clarify that.

[johneeG]

Ok. I just thought you might know, so asked. I am assuming that Vedveer is making an assumption of 'total eclipse' whenever eclipse is mentioned in inscriptions.

[Prem]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhirrana
This location is not far from Chandigarh area where oldest human bones/ setelement was just recently discovered.

[RajeshA]

Ok. I just thought you might know, so asked. I am assuming that Vedveer is making an assumption of 'total eclipse' whenever eclipse is mentioned in inscriptions.

In Kurtaketi inscription of Vikramāditya, the solar eclipse mentioned is claimed by Vedveer Arya to have been total based on NASA data

Kurtaketi copper plates provide enough details for verification as "530 years of Śaka era elapsed, in the 16th regnal year of Vikramāditya I, on the occasion of total solar eclipse around noon time, on the occasion of the new moon day (amāvāsyā) between Vaiśakha and Jyeṣṭha months, moon in Rohiṇī nakśatra, sun and moon both in Taurus sign (Vṛṣabha Rāśi), the total solar eclipse occured in Taurus and the day was Bhāskara dina i.e. Sunday."

For the Hyderabad inscription, I think only "eclipse" is mentioned.

[johneeG]

RajeshA saar,
if possible, please post the actual text of those 2 inscriptions...maybe in Towards a new history thread. I am unable to find the text of those inscriptions.

[johneeG]

Also, vedveer is searching for a narrow location of northern karnataka. Chalukyas(particularly Pulikeshin 2 & vikramidtya) ruled a vast territory including karnataka, maha, Telangana and parts of AP.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA saar,
if possible, please post the actual text of those 2 inscriptions...maybe in Towards a new history thread. I am unable to find the text of those inscriptions.

"Viditamastu sosmābhiḥ ba[va] triṁśottara-pañca-śateṣu Śakavarṣeṣu atīteṣu, vijayarājya-saṁvatsare ṣoḍaśavarṣe pravartamāne, Kiśuvojala-mahānagara-vikhyāta- sthitasya Vaiśakha-Jyeṣṭha-māsa-madhyamāvāsyāyām bhāskaradine Rohiṇyarkśe madhyāhnakāle Vikramādityasya......... mahādevatayorubhayoḥ Vṛṣabharāśau tasmin Vṛṣabharāśau Sūryagrahaṇa sarvamāsī (Sarvagrāsī) bhūte ....."

"Ātmanaḥ pravardhamāna-rājyabhiṣeka-saṁvatsare tritīye Śakanṛpati-saṁvatsara-śateṣu catustriṁśatyadhikeṣu pañcasvatīteṣu Bhādrapadāmāvāsyāyām Sūrya-grahaṇa-nimittam"

[shiv]

all religions preach some form of creationism. Many people regardless of religion believe in creationism. And finally, evolution and creationism are not mutually contradictory.

Could you please tell me that the Christian story of creation, and the creation story that you say is there in the Vedas are the same. I believe the Veda story but maybe I have been told the wrong Christian story and I don't believe it. If you tell me the right one may I will believe the Christian story as well.

[Pulikeshi]

all religions preach some form of creationism. Many people regardless of religion believe in creationism. And finally, evolution and creationism are not mutually contradictory.

seriously - what you have is a misunderstanding of multiple frameworks of knowledge - religion, creationism, evolution. You seemed to have picked the lowest common denominator among all three frameworks and established that they (many people) are talking the lowest common denominator. It is also another matter that many people talk about many things - should you generalize that onlee?

If you eject Veda/Upanishad/Hinduism from the Religious framework, then assume that creationism as a supplant of Religious frameworks and that Evolution - Darwinian variety - as another supplant, then you see that your least common denominator has nothing to do with Veda/Hindu thought...

what you describe is just your own comfort level of these three frameworks - that is, the lowest common denominator that you concluded upon in haste.

[JE Menon]

I have a suspicion that what johneeg meant was "mutually exclusive" not "mutually contradictory" ...

In any case I'm not sure how it is germane to the thread.

That is the problem where you have all encompassing posts with a lot of "seems" in them. A perfect case study is the "towards a new history" thread....Which is why I advised johneeg long ago to start his own blog. He has many interesting ideas but also a lot of wildish speculation that cannot be validated here. When that gets mixed in what you get is "ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com" lite... But on BRF.

[johneeG]

JEM saar,
Why pick on me, saar. I didnt bring creationism into the thread. Atmost, I may have written 4-5 lines on it on this thread. Other posters have contributed more lines on the topic. I was just reacting to some other posts.

I thought mutually exclusive and mutually contradictory are synonyms. I meant to say evolution theory doesnt exclude or contradict creationism theory. By definition creationism is the idea of a creator God/Goddess creating universe. Evolution is a theory about life on Earth after the Earth already there. Maybe Big Bang theory goes against Creationism.Actually even Big Bang was accepted by pope recently as part of creationism. He also thought evolution could be part of creationism.

Is evolution theory germane to this thread?
This thread focuses a lot on genetics. It seems that genetics uses many assumptions based on evolution theory. A term called selective advantage is critical in genetic time calculations. This value of this critical term is based on evolution theory... not just evolution but slow evolution. In short, genetics is completely dependent on evolution theory being right. The assumptions that genetics makes about the speed of evolution also have to be right for genetic timelines to be right. Mutation rates are simply based on evolution theory.

Shiv saar,
refer Purusha Sooktham. Christian creationism is closer to Puranas and Ithihaasa.

RajeshA saar,
thanks saar.
Lets take this to towards a new history.

[RajeshA]

Vedic and Indo European Studies (2015th Edition)
By Nicholas Kazanas
Published in Apr 20, 2015



Abstract: Almost all the studies in this volume deal with subjects of Vedic and I(ndo-)E(uropean) provenance, i.e. relations of Vedic with Greek, Latin etc. and the fabricated Proto-Indo-European itself. Moreover, all the essays kick off from the RV (Rgveda). They move centripetally from the RV to the diverse areas of Anthropology, History, Linguistics, Philosophy, Poetry and Religion, examining one or other aspect from a new perspective and leading to new unexpected conclusions. When the evidences from Sanskrit and the RV are cosidered, the current theories about, for instance, the origin and development of language and religion are seen to be faulty and in need of thorough revision.;In addition, the cumulative evidences from all these different areas (and others) show that the Indoaryans are indigenous to India from at least the 7th millennium BCE, that Vedic is much older than any other IE language and closest to the Proto-Indo-European mother tongue and that all past and current IE studies should be scratched and a fresh start be made, if it is still thought to be necessary.


Interview of Dr. N. Kazanas by Nithin Sridhar
Published on Jan 06, 2016
Vedic Sanskrit older than Avesta, Baudhayana mentions westward migrations from India: Dr N Kazanas

Baudhāyana’s Śrautasūtra 18.4 mentions two migrations of the Vedic people. One was eastward, the Āyava. The other was westward, the Āmāvasa, and this produced the Gāndāris (Gandhāra and Bactria), the Parśus Persians and the Arattas (of Urartu and/or Ararat on the Caucasus?).

[shiv]

refer Purusha Sooktham. Christian creationism is closer to Puranas and Ithihaasa.

You have evaded my question. It is possible that you are a follower of Madhvacharya's philosophy of dualism judging from other things you have said about Vedanta and Sayana. That is no crime. But that view does not encompass all of Hindu beliefs. Non dualism is as Hindu as dualism. Disagreement is allowed because the identity of "God" (or Brahman, or Vishnu as Madhvacharya called it is the same.

Any description of creation in Hindu dualist tradition always describes creation as a part of God. Creation is part of God, separated from God but can become part of God. It is the shape and identity of that God in which there is a difference between Dvaita and Christian God. God in Christianity remains whole and intact even after creation. Creation is not a part of God, separated by God by our life and consciousness. Man can go near God, but is not part of God in Christian narrative. It is in Hindu tradition, whether dvaita or advaita

Madhwas have been known to be rigidly militant dualist and anti Advaita, but they still identify with the Vedic vision of God. They also do not kill or force their view on advaita followers. But there is something in Madhwa dualist theory of creation that can be used to copy paste Christianity. If the concept of Vishnu (according the Madhva) or "Brahman" in other words is mapped on to God/Jehovah then one can talk about creationism being the same in all religions, and evade the subject of evolution as unnecessary/off topic. In fact it is perfectly possible for a well read Indian evangelist to subtly claim Madhwa duality and Christian theology as the same and move from one to the other. Are you doing that? I have suspected that from time to time to be frank. Might as well ask.

[peter]

refer Purusha Sooktham. Christian creationism is closer to Puranas and Ithihaasa.

You have evaded my question. ...

Christianity that we know today is not what it started as. Some hold rather strongly and with reasonable evidence that early christians believed in transmigration of soul. Later pope etc got rid of all this. I will post a link to a book by an english author on this.

[A_Gupta]

e.g., Geographical Names in Ancient Indian Inscriptions, By Parmanand Gupta, 1977, terms the Kurtakoti copper plate inscription to be spurious.

https://books.google.com/books?id=PPlNx ... ti&f=false

PS: A British discussion of why he thinks the Kurtakoti copper plate is spurious:
(see page 217 here):
https://books.google.com/books?id=yR3mA ... ti&f=false

PPS: See here:
http://answer2pakteahouse.blogspot.com/ ... ditya.html

I hope Vedveer Arya has an answer to these objections.

[member_29218]

JEM saar,
Why pick on me, saar. I didnt bring creationism into the thread. Atmost, I may have written 4-5 lines on it on this thread. Other posters have contributed more lines on the topic. I was just reacting to some other posts.

JohneeG Ji, it was precisely your knee-jerk reaction that prompted the rest.

I thought mutually exclusive and mutually contradictory are synonyms. I meant to say evolution theory doesnt exclude or contradict creationism theory. By definition creationism is the idea of a creator God/Goddess creating universe. Evolution is a theory about life on Earth after the Earth already there. Maybe Big Bang theory goes against Creationism.Actually even Big Bang was accepted by pope recently as part of creationism. He also thought evolution could be part of creationism.

Christian leaders are well known to 'adapt' their language and actions in the larger pursuit of converts and to deflect criticism against obviously incorrect beliefs regarding well established scientific facts.

As far at the American Christians are concerned, those who believe in Creationism negate evolution, hence the two ARE quite exclusive of each other. Which is why, Oklahoma television deleted the portion of Tyson's narrative where he talks about the evolution of man after his appearance on the planet.

Is evolution theory germane to this thread?
This thread focuses a lot on genetics. It seems that genetics uses many assumptions based on evolution theory. A term called selective advantage is critical in genetic time calculations. This value of this critical term is based on evolution theory... not just evolution but slow evolution. In short, genetics is completely dependent on evolution theory being right. The assumptions that genetics makes about the speed of evolution also have to be right for genetic timelines to be right. Mutation rates are simply based on evolution theory.

Evolution is absolutely relevant to this thread. Without evolution we would not be talking about human migration because humans have selected and adapted themselves out of the conditions that made all other species remain pretty much where they are. This is because the changes brought about in the human body led to their superiority over other species and this happened only because of natural selection.

There are three factors that affect 'natural selection' in terms of evolution. (Daniel Lieberman, professor of Evolutionary Biology at Harvard).

1. Intra-species variability: My nose is longer than my brother's, my cousin is wider and stockier than his brother etc.
2. Genetic heritability:Some have hemophilia, some don't etc.
3. Reproductive differential: My brother has three kids, I have only one etc. While insignificant in small groups, over larger populations this has tremendous impact.

Natural selection is absent in the Christian view of human development where 'God', in one stroke, made man in the shape we find ourselves in today. This 'God' is exclusive to the Christian faith, in fact emphatically so, which is quite a divergent view from the concept of (or lack thereof) the 'creator' in the Dharmic narrative.

[JE Menon]

>>Why pick on me, saar. I didnt bring creationism into the thread. Atmost, I may have written 4-5 lines on it on this thread. Other posters have contributed more lines on the topic. I was just reacting to some other posts.

I've just pointed out what I thought, in one post. Not picking on you. But the below just emphasises my point.

>>I thought mutually exclusive and mutually contradictory are synonyms. I meant to say evolution theory doesnt exclude or contradict creationism theory. By definition creationism is the idea of a creator God/Goddess creating universe. Evolution is a theory about life on Earth after the Earth already there. Maybe Big Bang theory goes against Creationism.Actually even Big Bang was accepted by pope recently as part of creationism. He also thought evolution could be part of creationism.

Creationism has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Who gives a crap what the Pope thinks about the Big Bang? He has nothing to contribute to the subject. Whereas evolution and genetics (below) has everything to do with this thread as it shows the spread and pattern of both human evolution and migration. Why are you, who is clearly well versed on the topic of the thread, unable to see this simple thing? Hence my suggestion of your own blog. And hence my concern that this thread will face the same fate as the Towards a New History thread. Anyone who wishes to, can visit that now languishing thread and draw their own conclusions.

>>Is evolution theory germane to this thread? This thread focuses a lot on genetics. It seems that genetics uses many assumptions based on evolution theory. A term called selective advantage is critical in genetic time calculations. This value of this critical term is based on evolution theory... not just evolution but slow evolution. In short, genetics is completely dependent on evolution theory being right. The assumptions that genetics makes about the speed of evolution also have to be right for genetic timelines to be right. Mutation rates are simply based on evolution theory.

[RajeshA]

e.g., Geographical Names in Ancient Indian Inscriptions, By Parmanand Gupta, 1977, terms the Kurtakoti copper plate inscription to be spurious.

https://books.google.com/books?id=PPlNx ... ti&f=false

PS: A British discussion of why he thinks the Kurtakoti copper plate is spurious:
(see page 217 here):
https://books.google.com/books?id=yR3mA ... ti&f=false

LoL, what does spurious even mean w.r.t. inscriptions?

The only case which comes to my mind is that the astronomers, time-keepers, jyotishis, would be dumbasses, and would not know what time or date it is or what moon phase it is.... and a king would have such people on his payroll when he orders an inscription! How likely is that?

Any historian using the word "spurious" should be asked to go and brush his teeth after spouting such garbage. The principle is, "there are no spurious inscriptions, there are only spurious historians".

[A_Gupta]

^^^ You may read it here:
http://answer2pakteahouse.blogspot.com/ ... ditya.html

One of the objections is that the stated date (Saka 532 was the 16th year of Vikramaditya's rule) overlaps with the rule of the Pulikesi II, as established by other inscriptions.

[RajeshA]

^^^ You may read it here:
http://answer2pakteahouse.blogspot.com/ ... ditya.html

One of the objections is that the stated date (Saka 532 was the 16th year of Vikramaditya's rule) overlaps with the rule of the Pulikesi II, as established by other inscriptions.

Pulakeśin II had several sons - Kukkola Vikramāditya, Chandrāditya and Vikramāditya I.

Pulakeśin II placed his elder son, Kukkola Vikramāditya (Śaka 515-531), on the throne and went out to conquer the world. Then he returned and became king and sent his elder son to be the governor of Gujarat. Then Pulakeśin II ruled (Śaka 531-561). Then Pulakeśin II died, and it was decided that Vijayabhaṭṭārikā (Śaka 562-576), the wife of next son Chandrāditya would rule, whereas Vikramāditya I would go around bringing order to the country. Afterwards Vikramāditya I ascends the throne (Śaka 577-601).

It seems either the throne was to be used for keeping it warm for others or in ripe old age when one couldn't stand and fight in the battlefield. It seems, basically it was deemed wrong that the king should himself be entering the battlefield, and it was also deemed best that the mightiest in the family should be directing the wars on the front-lines.

There are other inscriptions that bear out this story.

But yes, there is room for confusion here.

Still, the intent of spurious 'eminent historians' has been to muddle and confound India's chronology! It is the historians who are themselves forgeries and not the inscriptions.

[RajeshA]

I would like to repeat it again.

Indian history has a high level of clarity, depth and data.

Colonial historians have introduced wrong interpretations, noisy debates, rejection of data as spurious and forgeries, etc. and muddled everything. All that is what we get when we are trying to make some headway in understanding archaeological findings and it is perfectly understandable that there would be thousand opinions on everything.

Much of Indian history however is based primarily on texts and inscriptions, which more or less, have a great alignment.

But funnily, Western historians have created a good robust narrative of their own history, based on very little info and much speculation, but have totally muddled up our history even though it has the most data, and qualitative data at that.

[peter]

refer Purusha Sooktham. Christian creationism is closer to Puranas and Ithihaasa.

You have evaded my question. ...

Christianity that we know today is not what it started as. Some hold rather strongly and with reasonable evidence that early christians believed in transmigration of soul. Later pope etc got rid of all this. I will post a link to a book by an english author on this.

Transmigration of Christ
Please see the last para.

[RajeshA]

Published on Jan 04, 2001
Inscription throws light on Afghan Hindu ruler: PTI

PRESS TRUST OF INDIA
Kolkata, Jan 4: A stone inscription in Sanskrit, recovered from the city of Mazar-i-Sharif of northern Afghanistan a few years ago, has thrown new light on the reign of the Hindu Shahi ruler `Veka' in that country.

The recovery and significance of the inscription, telling a story of the Hindu ruler Veka and his devotion to lord `Siva', was told by leading epigraphist and archaeologist Prof Ahmad Hasan Dani of the Quaid-E-Azam University of Islamabad at the ongoing Indian History Congress here.

If historians, preferred to revise the date of the first Hindu Shahi ruler Kallar from 843-850 AD to 821-828 AD, the date of 138 of present inscription, if it refers to the same era, should be equal to 959 AD which falls during the reign of Bhimapala'', Dani said in a paper `Mazar-i Sharif inscription of the time of the Shahi ruler Veka, dated the year 138'', submitted to the Congress.

The inscription, with eleven lines written in `western Sarada' style of Sanskrit of 10th century AD, had several spelling mistakes. ``As the stone is slightly broken at the top left corner, the first letter `OM' is missing'', he said.

According to the inscription, ``the ruler Veka occupied by eight-fold forces, the earth, the markets and the forts. It is during his reign that a temple of Siva in the embrace with Uma was built at Maityasya by Parimaha (great) Maitya for the benefit of himself and his son''.

The inscription was brought from Mazar-i-Sharif, where the tomb of Hazrat Ali, son-in-law of Prophet Mohammed is located, to Pakistan and is currently housed at the Islamabad Museum, Dani said.

Dani said ``the inscription gives the name of the king as Shahi Veka Raja and bestows on him the qualification of `Iryatumatu Ksanginanka'.... and (he) appears to be the same king who bears the name of Khingila or Khinkhila who should be accepted as a Shahi ruler''.

Dani further said ``he may be an ancestor of Veka deva. As his coins are found in Afghanistan and he is mentioned by the Arab ruler Yaqubi, he may be an immediate predecessor of Veka deva...... Both the evidences of inscription and coins suggest that Veka or Vaka should be accepted as an independent ruler of northern Afghanistan.

``Thus we find another branch of the Shahi ruler in northern part of Afghanistan beyond the Hindukush. Veka is said to have conquered the earth, the markets and the forts by his eight-fold forces, suggesting that he must have himself gained success against the Arab rulers of southern Afghanistan''.

Dani observed that going by the findings it seemed that during the rule of the Hindu Shahi ruler Bhimapala there was a break in the dynasty -- one branch, headed by Jayapala, ruled in Lamaghan and Punjab, and another branch, headed by Veka, ruled in northern part of Afghanistan.

``The northern branch must have come to an end by the conquest of Alptigin in the second half of tenth century AD'', he said.

Is anybody aware of what Maitya, Maityasya mean? Also of what era the year 138 could be?

[A_Gupta]

^^^ You may read it here:
http://answer2pakteahouse.blogspot.com/ ... ditya.html

One of the objections is that the stated date (Saka 532 was the 16th year of Vikramaditya's rule) overlaps with the rule of the Pulikesi II, as established by other inscriptions.

Pulakeśin II had several sons - Kukkola Vikramāditya, Chandrāditya and Vikramāditya I.

Pulakeśin II placed his elder son, Kukkola Vikramāditya (Śaka 515-531), on the throne and went out to conquer the world. Then he returned and became king and sent his elder son to be the governor of Gujarat.

How is this established?

E.g., "Political History of the Chalukays of Badami", by Durga Prasad Dikshit, 1980, says that "It seems natural to presume on the basis of the Kaira Plates that Pulakesin II probably appointed this Chalukyan prince (Vijayvarman, son of Buddhavarman) to administer the Gujarat (Lata) territories of the Chalukyan empire."

Dikshit further writes that "it is evident from the Pallava records that Pulakesin II was probably killed in action resulting in the capture of Badami by the Pallava general Siruttondar Parranjoti."

"Pulakesin II was succeeded by his 'dear son' Adityavarman and not by Vikramditya I, as has been generally supposed. The existence of this succssor is proved by the Karnul Grant of Adityavarman and the Nelakunda Grant of this son Abhinavaditya". etc.

Take a look here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=lEB11 ... on&f=false

[member_29218]

Christianity that we know today is not what it started as. Some hold rather strongly and with reasonable evidence that early christians believed in transmigration of soul. Later pope etc got rid of all this. I will post a link to a book by an english author on this.

Transmigration of Christ
Please see the last para.

Christianity and its theology is of no relevance to this thread directly. However, it is my belief that the Western view of India is heavily influenced by a notion of superiority inherent in its faith structure which dictates that anything outside of the Judeo-Christian sphere of influence and thus by implication anything that predates it has to be inferior fundamentally, and if not, then it must have been the admixture of the superior genes at some point in history that explains the situation.

Very much like the fable of the lamb and the wolf in the Panchatantra. If it is not the lamb that dirtied the water, it must have been its father or grandfather.

[shiv]

Christianity that we know today is not what it started as. Some hold rather strongly and with reasonable evidence that early christians believed in transmigration of soul. Later pope etc got rid of all this. I will post a link to a book by an english author on this.
Transmigration of Christ
Please see the last para.

This is not surprising. Soul migration, or metempsychosis occurs in Greek philosophy as well and was not an unknown idea. It is possible that the concept may have come down from India from an even earlier era

Until Alexander the Greeks were "blocked" from access to India by the Zoroastrian empire. The Greeks had knowledge of Zoroaster and that religion, but Greek philosophers sometimes said things that were eerily like Vedantic concepts.

I recall reading (from multiple sources) that the Atharva Veda was like a book of spells with incantations to achieve certain goals. The Parsi holy book was supposed to be the Bhargava Atharva Veda and it also featured incantations and spells. That apart Zoroastrians too were apparently up to date with the type of Astrology used in India and the "Magi" of early Persia were known and sometimes feared for their predictions and magic. The word magic is derived from Magi as you probably know, and the story of the the 3 Magi who follow a star as an indicator of the birth of Yesu (Jesus) stinks of Astrologers and magic men from the East.

So these ideas of soul transmigration could well have been generally known in the middle east where the myth of Christ comes from.

However the point I am making is that dvaita or advaita the concept of the supreme being is one and the same in Hindu thought. It is not a God who made man in his own image who sits in an anthropomorphic fashion separate from and above his creation. Concatenating those two concepts is ignorance at best. Or snake oil of the type I would expect from a closet evangelist

[johneeG]

Peter saar,
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/reincar/re-imo.htm

RajeshA saar & A Gupta saar,
Fascinating discussion. Also, since Shakha era is at the center of it all, why not also focus its origins. It seems that some inscriptions claim that Shakha era started by Rudrsdaman around the time of Satakarni of Shathavahaana. Now, Shatakarni must be around the time of 900 BCE according to my understanding of Puranic Chronology. So, Shakha 500 would come to around 400 BCE! So, I am confused.

This Rudradaman inscription seems suspicious to me.

[RajeshA]

^^^ You may read it here:
http://answer2pakteahouse.blogspot.com/ ... ditya.html

One of the objections is that the stated date (Saka 532 was the 16th year of Vikramaditya's rule) overlaps with the rule of the Pulikesi II, as established by other inscriptions.

Pulakeśin II had several sons - Kukkola Vikramāditya, Chandrāditya and Vikramāditya I.

Pulakeśin II placed his elder son, Kukkola Vikramāditya (Śaka 515-531), on the throne and went out to conquer the world. Then he returned and became king and sent his elder son to be the governor of Gujarat.

How is this established?

E.g., "Political History of the Chalukays of Badami", by Durga Prasad Dikshit, 1980, says that "It seems natural to presume on the basis of the Kaira Plates that Pulakesin II probably appointed this Chalukyan prince (Vijayvarman, son of Buddhavarman) to administer the Gujarat (Lata) territories of the Chalukyan empire."

Dikshit further writes that "it is evident from the Pallava records that Pulakesin II was probably killed in action resulting in the capture of Badami by the Pallava general Siruttondar Parranjoti."

"Pulakesin II was succeeded by his 'dear son' Adityavarman and not by Vikramditya I, as has been generally supposed. The existence of this succssor is proved by the Karnul Grant of Adityavarman and the Nelakunda Grant of this son Abhinavaditya". etc.

Take a look here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=lEB11 ... on&f=false

A_Gupta ji,

you may well have found a point of contention. I missed including Adityavarman in the above list of sons of Pulakeśin II. As of now, I can't offer you a satisfactory answer about how Adityavarman ended up. I'll keep it in mind and get back to you when I have some more info. One possibility could be that there was a fight over the throne. If somebody is adding "dear son" in the inscription, then possibly it is to justify one's claims to the throne, which seem to be contested.

_______

Added Later:

By Rickmers, Christian Mabel Duff
Published in 1899
The chronology of India, from the earliest times to the beginning os the sixteenth century

Ādityavarman, son of Pulakeśin, is known, from an undated grant issued in the first year of his reign, to have ruled the district near the confluence of Kṛṣṇa and Tuṅgabhadrā. Chandrāditya, another son, whose wife Vijayabhaṭṭārikā or Vijayamahādevī issued the undated Nerūr and Kochre grants ruled the Sāvantvaḍī district while Jayasiṁha, a younger brother of Pulakeśin, and known from the undated Nirpaṇ grant of his son, Nāgavardhana, governed the Nāsik district.

It is possible that after Pulakeśin II, the Chalukya empire was divided into three or more parts, Kṛṣṇa-Tuṅgabhadrā region being under Ādityavarman and his son Abhinavāditya, and Vikramāditya I then brought all those parts again under his control. This process of consolidation may have taken place between Śaka 562-576, i.e. after the demise of Pulakeśin II and before the coronation of Vikramāditya I.

[RajeshA]

Peter saar,
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/reincar/re-imo.htm

RajeshA saar & A Gupta saar,
Fascinating discussion. Also, since Shakha era is at the center of it all, why not also focus its origins. It seems that some inscriptions claim that Shakha era started by Rudrsdaman around the time of Satakarni of Shathavahaana. Now, Shatakarni must be around the time of 900 BCE according to my understanding of Puranic Chronology. So, Shakha 500 would come to around 400 BCE! So, I am confused.

This Rudradaman inscription seems suspicious to me.

There were many Satakarnis, in fact almost all of the Andhras/Satavahanas were called Satakarnis. Rudradaman I would also have been around 583 BCE.

[RoyG]

Shiv and Co.,

What can we do about this? We are heading for a huge battle.

http://www.nagpurtoday.in/baahubali-wri ... s/04051727

Shiv if you haven't already seen this:

http://archhades.blogspot.in/

[johneeG]

Peter saar,
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/reincar/re-imo.htm

RajeshA saar & A Gupta saar,
Fascinating discussion. Also, since Shakha era is at the center of it all, why not also focus its origins. It seems that some inscriptions claim that Shakha era started by Rudrsdaman around the time of Satakarni of Shathavahaana. Now, Shatakarni must be around the time of 900 BCE according to my understanding of Puranic Chronology. So, Shakha 500 would come to around 400 BCE! So, I am confused.

This Rudradaman inscription seems suspicious to me.

There were many Satakarnis, in fact almost all of the Andhras/Satavahanas were called Satakarnis. Rudradaman I would also have been around 583 BCE.

Shaathavaahana dynasty ended in 750 BCE according to my understanding Puranic chronology. Wiki says that Rudradaman had matrimonial connections with Vashithiputhra Shaathakarni. I dont see any such name in Puranic chronology. Shaathavaahana Shaathakarni is Gautamiputhra and not Vashishtiputhra. But, there is one Andhra king (not Shaathavaahana)from Sri Parvathiya dynasty or Andhra Ikshvaku dynasty named Vashishthiputra Saanthamula. Ptolemy mentions Siriptolemias (perhaps a corruption of Sri Parvathiyas). Maybe Rudradaman is referring to this King. He is from around 200 -300 CE. Then, start of shakha era would be in 200 CE and Pulikeshin 2 comes in Shakha 515 I.e around 700 CE.

[RajeshA]

Peter saar,
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/reincar/re-imo.htm

RajeshA saar & A Gupta saar,
Fascinating discussion. Also, since Shakha era is at the center of it all, why not also focus its origins. It seems that some inscriptions claim that Shakha era started by Rudrsdaman around the time of Satakarni of Shathavahaana. Now, Shatakarni must be around the time of 900 BCE according to my understanding of Puranic Chronology. So, Shakha 500 would come to around 400 BCE! So, I am confused.

This Rudradaman inscription seems suspicious to me.

There were many Satakarnis, in fact almost all of the Andhras/Satavahanas were called Satakarnis. Rudradaman I would also have been around 583 BCE.

Shaathavaahana dynasty ended in 750 BCE according to my understanding Puranic chronology. Wiki says that Rudradaman had matrimonial connections with Vashithiputhra Shaathakarni. I dont see any such name in Puranic chronology. Shaathavaahana Shaathakarni is Gautamiputhra and not Vashishtiputhra. But, there is one Andhra king (not Shaathavaahana)from Sri Parvathiya dynasty or Andhra Ikshvaku dynasty named Vashishthiputra Saanthamula. Ptolemy mentions Siriptolemias (perhaps a corruption of Sri Parvathiyas). Maybe Rudradaman is referring to this King. He is from around 200 -300 CE. Then, start of shakha era would be in 200 CE and Pulikeshin 2 comes in Shakha 515 I.e around 700 CE.

As per Vedveer Arya, Śātavāhana dynasty had 32 kings and ruled from 830 BCE -338 BCE, a total of 493 years.

As per Kota Venkatachalam, Śātavāhana dynasty had 32 kings and ruled from 833 BCE -327 BCE, a total of 506 years.

Even if we say, Śātavāhanas started ruling around 915 BCE, after the Śuṅgas and not after the Kaṇvas as is often claimed. 493 years after that, and one would have their rule till 422 BCE. Rudradaman I could have been the ruler soon after his grandfather, Chastana who established the Śaka Era in 583 BCE, say around 560 BCE and he may have given his daughter in marriage to some Śātakarṇi, I can't be sure which one, but yes it could be Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi, and also have fought him hard, who may have kicked some Śaka backside towards the end of his 21 year rule.

Anyway, the point is that Śaka Era of 583 BCE is quite well in agreement with Śātavāhana rule.

[johneeG]

As per Vedveer Arya, Śātavāhana dynasty had 32 kings and ruled from 830 BCE -338 BCE, a total of 493 years.

As per Kota Venkatachalam, Śātavāhana dynasty had 32 kings and ruled from 833 BCE -327 BCE, a total of 506 years.

Even if we say, Śātavāhanas started ruling around 915 BCE, after the Śuṅgas and not after the Kaṇvas as is often claimed. 493 years after that, and one would have their rule till 422 BCE. Rudradaman I could have been the ruler soon after his grandfather, Chastana who established the Śaka Era in 583 BCE, say around 560 BCE and he may have given his daughter in marriage to some Śātakarṇi, I can't be sure which one, but yes it could be Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi, and also have fought him hard, who may have kicked some Śaka backside towards the end of his 21 year rule.

Anyway, the point is that Śaka Era of 583 BCE is quite well in agreement with Śātavāhana rule.

RajeshA saar,
I think that Shaathavaahana ruled from 1250 BCE to 750 BCE based on Puranaas with some corrections. Castana is mentioned by Ptolemy in 150 CE as contemporary. Castana is mentioned by Rudradaman as his ancestor. So, Rudradaman must be around 200 CE. So, Shakha era started around that period. So, Pulikeshin would be around the time of 700-750 CE.
It seems Nashik inscription is the main source of info about Shaathavaahanas. I cant get hold of the text, if you can get hold of it, then please post it.

[RajeshA]

As per Vedveer Arya, Śātavāhana dynasty had 32 kings and ruled from 830 BCE -338 BCE, a total of 493 years.

As per Kota Venkatachalam, Śātavāhana dynasty had 32 kings and ruled from 833 BCE -327 BCE, a total of 506 years.

RajeshA saar,
I think that Shaathavaahana ruled from 1250 BCE to 750 BCE based on Puranaas with some corrections. Castana is mentioned by Ptolemy in 150 CE as contemporary. Castana is mentioned by Rudradaman as his ancestor. So, Rudradaman must be around 200 CE. So, Shakha era started around that period. So, Pulikeshin would be around the time of 700-750 CE.
It seems Nashik inscription is the main source of info about Shaathavaahanas. I cant get hold of the text, if you can get hold of it, then please post it.

A slightly different question: What does Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) say about Alexander, the Great?

If this Ptolemy comes after Alexander, the Great, I assume, he would have mentioned him, right?

[shiv]

Shiv and Co.,

What can we do about this? We are heading for a huge battle.

http://www.nagpurtoday.in/baahubali-wri ... s/04051727

Shiv if you haven't already seen this:

http://archhades.blogspot.in/

Aryans vs Dravidians: need to see what the show is about. The article seems to be a paid one. Apart from being total fiction I suspect it will only have a storyline that pleases most people and will not show one winning over the other. If "Indus valley" civilization is included in an Aryan story then the AIT timeline is already fcued. The producer is an Andhra guy who knows which side of his bread is buttered

The second link has too many sublinks - but those mummies with alleged light eye genes were long ago shown to have SDRE Y chromosomes.

[RajeshA]

As per Vedveer Arya, Śātavāhana dynasty had 32 kings and ruled from 830 BCE -338 BCE, a total of 493 years.

As per Kota Venkatachalam, Śātavāhana dynasty had 32 kings and ruled from 833 BCE -327 BCE, a total of 506 years.

RajeshA saar,
I think that Shaathavaahana ruled from 1250 BCE to 750 BCE based on Puranaas with some corrections. Castana is mentioned by Ptolemy in 150 CE as contemporary. Castana is mentioned by Rudradaman as his ancestor. So, Rudradaman must be around 200 CE. So, Shakha era started around that period. So, Pulikeshin would be around the time of 700-750 CE.
It seems Nashik inscription is the main source of info about Shaathavaahanas. I cant get hold of the text, if you can get hold of it, then please post it.

A slightly different question: What does Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) say about Alexander, the Great?

If this Ptolemy comes after Alexander, the Great, I assume, he would have mentioned him, right?

What little is known about Ptolemy is that he based his Geographia on the works of many others, among them Marinos of Tyre. He was himself never in India, so he himself could not have known who his contemporary Indo-Scythian king in Ozene (Ujjain) is, and the one he names Tiastani, who could be Chastana, may in fact be something he picked up from the records of previous travelers, many of them could have been in India, long before Ptolemy put it all down in writing in Geographia.

The dating of Ptolemy is based on his use of the name Claudius, or some such name similar to Claudius, which was interpreted to be Roman, and thus he must have come after Emperor Claudius, who gave this name to Ptolemy's ancestor! But he still used to write in Greek. Cummawn, gimme a break!

Should Indian history be based on such nonsense?

[johneeG]

True. I agree. ...particularly Tiastani bit. I noticed it just after posting that earlier post. Tiastani does not sound like Castana from any angle.