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.
periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 07:41

Dipanker:The 1+ million year is age of Ramayana, the period of Rama not the book, the context should have made it clear.


The only material available for evaluation is the text and what is mentioned in it, to map it to specific times and dates. Randomly making the indefensible claim that "Ramayana is 15 million years old and that is good enough for me", is just a rhetorical device for you to avoid actually backing up your moronic horsesh1t with a reasonable argument. But if you are content being another noisome troll wasting space and time, that is your call.

People who pretend to value science should at least understand the founding principles of evidence-based claims, and that means trying to come up with new and innovative ways to take another look at the data that is before us, and start from first principles. Anything less is a recipe for cretinous claims along the lines of "we already know ramayana is 1 million years old and that is all there is to it"...how these figures are arrived at better be backed by some semblance of reason.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 07:56

periaswamy wrote:
Dipanker:The 1+ million year is age of Ramayana, the period of Rama not the book, the context should have made it clear.


The only material available for evaluation is the text and what is mentioned in it, to map it to specific times and dates. Randomly making the indefensible claim that "Ramayana is 15 million years old" and that is good enough for me, is just a rhetorical device for you to avoid actually backing up your moronic horsesh1t with a reasonable argument. But if you are content being another noisome troll wasting space and time, that is your call.


Seriously, It is you who is being moronic. How is the claim of 1+ million year indefensible when the Yugas are of specific time length? If Rama existed in Treta, we live in Kaliyuga, in between there was Dwapar roughly a million year long, ergo Rama lived at least 1+ million year ago. How is this a random claim?

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 08:04

"Seriously, It is you who is being moronic. How is the claim of 1+ million year indefensible when the Yugas are of specific time length? If Rama existed in Treta, we live in Kaliyuga, in between there was Dwapar roughly a million year long, ergo Rama lived at least 1+ million year ago. How is this a random claim?"


The "year" is a contruct of the Roman calendar, which came after these yugas and other measurements of time -- so what is this fountain of knowledge you quaffed from that makes you so cocksure that the translations of 1 yuga is X million years are correct? Did that come from someone from Columbia and Harvard, in which case it must be true...otherwise, if you are a skeptic and not a dogmatic dimwit, you will demand to validate and verify these things in more ways than one, to be certain that your understanding of the past is as close to the truth as is realistically possible.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 08:23

periaswamy wrote:
"Seriously, It is you who is being moronic. How is the claim of 1+ million year indefensible when the Yugas are of specific time length? If Rama existed in Treta, we live in Kaliyuga, in between there was Dwapar roughly a million year long, ergo Rama lived at least 1+ million year ago. How is this a random claim?"


The "year" is a contruct of the Roman calendar, which came after these yugas and other measurements of time -- so what is this fountain of knowledge you quaffed from that makes you so cocksure that the translations of 1 yuga is X million years are correct? Did that come from someone from Columbia and Harvard, in which case it must be true...otherwise, if you are a skeptic and not a dogmatic dimwit, you will demand to validate and verify these things in more ways than one, to be certain that your understanding of the past is as close to the truth as is realistically possible.


Again it is you who is being the dimwit. Rotation of earth on axis equivalent to a day, is a day in any calendar whether in Hindu Calendar or any other. When these calendars were invented is not relevant, a day takes same amount of time.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 08:28

Please stop calling each other morons and dimwits lest others be tempted to decide which is true and which is unfair.. :D

..lead us not into temptation - for Allah is watching.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 08:35

Dipankar: Again it is you who is being the dimwit. Rotation of earth on axis equivalent to a day, is a day in any calendar whether in Hindu Calendar or any other. When these calendars were invented is not relevant, a day takes same amount of time.


That may well be the case, but you are providing a solid answer to the wrong question -- one that was not put to you.

The question you were asked was about the claim that "one yuga equals X million years", which seems to be rock solid according to you, since you are pretending that can be used to date all that you need to know about the dating of Indian texts. What is the basis for this yet unsubstantiated claim on your part? Or did you pull this out of some fancy magic hat of yours?

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 12 Sep 2017 08:36

Dipanker wrote:Seriously, It is you who is being moronic. How is the claim of 1+ million year indefensible when the Yugas are of specific time length? If Rama existed in Treta, we live in Kaliyuga, in between there was Dwapar roughly a million year long, ergo Rama lived at least 1+ million year ago. How is this a random claim?


So are you now officially adopting this stance, which, by the way, is totally contrary to the one adopted by SriJoy, the guy whom, not too long ago, you were +1-ing and cheering along with cries of "satyamev jayate"? As SriJoy has made clear a dozen times, it is 100% certain that there was no such thing as agriculture anywhere in the world before 9500 BC, and there is no chance of revising this dead-certainty with any future research. Wonder if he'll subject you to one of his rants now, with your 1+million year dating of the Ramayana :rotfl:.

periaswamy wrote:That may well be the case, but you are providing a solid answer to the wrong question -- one that was not put to you.


Periaswamy ji, I don't know if you're aware, but the apparent stupidity of some arguments on this thread or forum does not necessarily reflect on the poster. There are some CPI-ML agendas being pushed here, and cretinous as the argument(s) might sound, there might actually be some method behind the apparent madness. Please to note onlee.
Last edited by sudarshan on 12 Sep 2017 08:37, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 08:37

For "science" to work, one needs to get back to the original work that described a yuga as X years. For precision we would also need to work out whether the translation "year" is right and refers to the solar year. If someone has already done that we must look at all possible sources of that information.

So far as I have seen some guy comes along and says "yuga is X thousand or Y million years"

A second guy say "Ramayana was in blah yuga"

A third guy links the two and says Ramayana in blah yuga means X milion years

All this is 100% logical. But whether it is accurate or not is a different issue.

Science means the willingness to go back at what was said and try and see if
1. The translations were right
2. The meanings were interpreted correctly
3. What conclusions can be reached from the above
4. How do those conclusions line up with anything else that may be known

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 08:41

sudarshan wrote:Periaswamy ji, I don't know if you're aware, but the apparent stupidity of some arguments on this thread or forum does not necessarily reflect on the poster. There are some CPI-ML agendas being pushed here, and cretinous as the argument(s) might sound, there might actually be some method behind the apparent madness. Please to note onlee.

It is ironic that the same agenda is now being pushed by bigbig names from bigbig universities like Harvard and Columbia and their students, alumni and bhakts. I take it as an indicator that the structure they depended on is being undermined and taken over by a new set of people who use their logic and their methods to expose the strength, or weakness, of their foundations

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 08:46

Sudarshan: There are some CPI-ML agendas being pushed here, and cretinous as the argument(s) might sound, there might actually be some method behind the apparent madness. Please to note onlee.


Sudharshan saar, Anyone who has had the misfortune of using "the story of civilization" in 10 standard many decades ago -- authored by lowlives like Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib and their ilk, and worse still, anyone who takes all their "research" as the truth, is liable to make such CPI-ML-type arguments. Hanlon's razor probably applies here. Then again, it is absolute disgust with the lies fed by the likes of Romila Thapar in history texts that motivates me want to start from scratch all over again.

Romila Thapar was awarded a fellowship by the US library of congress or some such garbage for her "authority on Indian history", which pretty much forces me to dismiss any and all "scholarship" coming from american sources.
Last edited by periaswamy on 12 Sep 2017 08:56, edited 1 time in total.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4210
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

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

Postby Arjun » 12 Sep 2017 08:52

:rotfl:

So Dipankar, who I thought was my comrade-in-arms for data-driven sociology, cleanly pole-vaults all the way above Shiv, Rajesh, Nilesh et al to a date of Million+ years for the Ramayana !!!

Chuppa Rustom is a mild term for this. :lol:

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 09:18

periaswamy wrote:
That may well be the case, but you are providing a solid answer to the wrong question -- one that was not put to you.

The question you were asked was about the claim that "one yuga equals X million years", which seems to be rock solid according to you, since you are pretending that can be used to date all that you need to know about the dating of Indian texts. What is the basis for this yet unsubstantiated claim on your part? Or did you pull this out of some fancy magic hat of yours?


Wow Mr. Periaswamy, you have managed an entire post without hurling an insult! Congratulations to you, that is a improvement! Maybe we can have a civilized conversation after all?

Anyway converting Yugas into number of years should not be such a big deal given the yugas are measure of time with certain units. You can learn all about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga

Don't we just love wikipedia!

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 09:23

Arjun wrote::rotfl:

So Dipankar, who I thought was my comrade-in-arms for data-driven sociology, cleanly pole-vaults all the way above Shiv, Rajesh, Nilesh et al to a date of Million+ years for the Ramayana !!!

Chuppa Rustom is a mild term for this. :lol:


I think you are misreading it.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 09:29

sudarshan wrote:So are you now officially adopting this stance, which, by the way, is totally contrary to the one adopted by SriJoy, the guy whom, not too long ago, you were +1-ing and cheering along with cries of "satyamev jayate"? As SriJoy has made clear a dozen times, it is 100% certain that there was no such thing as agriculture anywhere in the world before 9500 BC, and there is no chance of revising this dead-certainty with any future research. Wonder if he'll subject you to one of his rants now, with your 1+million year dating of the Ramayana :rotfl:.



1+ million year is time period when Rama actually lived, I am not claiming Valmiki wrote Ramayana a million+ year ago.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 09:43

Dipankar: 1+ million year is time period when Rama actually lived, I am not claiming Valmiki wrote Ramayana a million+ year ago.


And that is so because of the claim you pulled out of some orifice that a yuga is X million years? Sheer brilliance. The kind of quality in thinking that one only comes upon once every 2.5 milli-yugas. There are multiple versions of Ramayanas, and so each version can only shed light on when that version was written, and even these would likely pre-date everything that has been drummed as the truth in the existing narrative, but we will never know unless we look back at the older versions of various texts and date them in a logical and systematic. Sure this is not all that hard to comprehend, or not anything that you will find on wikipedia.
Last edited by periaswamy on 12 Sep 2017 09:52, edited 1 time in total.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 09:51

periaswamy wrote:
Dipankar: 1+ million year is time period when Rama actually lived, I am not claiming Valmiki wrote Ramayana a million+ year ago.


And that is so because of the claim you pulled out of some orifice that a yuga is X million years? Sheer brilliance. The kind of quality in thinking that one only comes upon once every 2.5 milli-yugas.


O.k. that didn't last too long!

Here, from the link:

Satya Yuga equals 1,728,000 years
Treta Yuga equals 1,296,000 years
Dvapara Yuga equals 864,000 years
Kali Yuga equals 432,000 years

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 09:59

Dipanker: O.k. that didn't last too long!


Yes, yes, you quoted wikipedia, just great. Now collect a prize at the door. Which part of "dating the texts" do you find hard to comprehend? "dating the texts" has nothing to do with "Rama's existence", or is this concept overloading both your neurons?

The whole point is to see how far back the different versions of Ramayana were written, based on the observations made by the authors and written in their texts. Indian history was largely spread orally in the past, but if the details were put down faithfully in some version of ramayana or mahabharata, then it provides a better chance of working out a timeframe for when they were written or orated. That is all. All your rhetorical horsesh1t about yugas is irrelevant. Whether Rama lived 1 million years or 5 million years is not something that can be substantiated from the writings of people in the past 10000-20000 years -- it is amusing that such obvious points have to be spelt out.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 10:22

periaswamy wrote:Yes, yes, you quoted wikipedia, just great. Now collect a prize at the door. Which part of "dating the texts" do you find hard to comprehend? "dating the texts" has nothing to do with "Rama's existence", or is this concept overloading both your neurons?

The whole point is to see how far back the different versions of Ramayana were written, based on the observations made by the authors and written in their texts. That is all. All your rhetorical horsesh1t about yugas is irrelevant. Whether Rama lived 1 million years or 5 million years is not something that can be substantiated from the writings of people in the past 10000-20000 years -- it is amusing that such obvious points have to be spelt out.


Here is what Valmiki writes (Hypothetical):

Rama and Sita are sitting in the garden of their cottage at Panchvati sipping their evening tea. Stars are shining bright ( no electricity back then). Rama notices that Alpha Lyra is at certain RA and DEC in certain part of the sky.

Fast forward to 2017, a certain researcher reads Ramayana, plugs in the value of RA and DEC for Alpha Lyra in his/her StarGazer software and comes up with a date of 17th July 13,457 BC.

Does this date Valmiki or Rama/Sita?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15945
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 12 Sep 2017 10:27

Dipanker wrote:
sudarshan wrote:So are you now officially adopting this stance, which, by the way, is totally contrary to the one adopted by SriJoy, the guy whom, not too long ago, you were +1-ing and cheering along with cries of "satyamev jayate"? As SriJoy has made clear a dozen times, it is 100% certain that there was no such thing as agriculture anywhere in the world before 9500 BC, and there is no chance of revising this dead-certainty with any future research. Wonder if he'll subject you to one of his rants now, with your 1+million year dating of the Ramayana :rotfl:.



1+ million year is time period when Rama actually lived, I am not claiming Valmiki wrote Ramayana a million+ year ago.


who told you this?? yechuri or daniel raja??

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 10:32

chetak wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
1+ million year is time period when Rama actually lived, I am not claiming Valmiki wrote Ramayana a million+ year ago.


who told you this?? yechuri or daniel raja??


I learnt that during my school years reading books.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 10:38

Dipankar: Does this date Valmiki or Rama/Sita?


That is not really relevant, because the observation made in the text was made by some human at some point in time, which indirectly points to a point in the past when such tales came into being in India of yore.

The strongest statement that can be made is that the observation was made at a specific date by the author or someone who narrated a tale to the author, and this observation is to be placed in the timeline along with other such observations from the text. Taken together, these dates will place a lower bound (the earliest observation) on when the story came into existence and an upper bound (the latest observation) . This is an improvement over the current state of affairs where these historical texts are being wrongly dated by motivated "researchers" who have no interest in the truth.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15945
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 12 Sep 2017 10:45

Dipanker wrote:
chetak wrote:
who told you this?? yechuri or daniel raja??


I learnt that during my school years reading books.


That's right, books written by unwashed commies :wink:

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 10:57

chetak wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
I learnt that during my school years reading books.


That's right, books written by unwashed commies :wink:


Nope, they were all my grandmother's book, straight from Gita Press, Gorakhpur.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15945
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 12 Sep 2017 11:06

Dipanker wrote:
chetak wrote:
That's right, books written by unwashed commies :wink:


Nope, they were all my grandmother's book, straight from Gita Press, Gorakhpur.


BS

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 11:11

chetak wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
Nope, they were all my grandmother's book, straight from Gita Press, Gorakhpur.


BS


Shame on you for calling it BS, because I told you the truth.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4759
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 12 Sep 2017 11:12

shiv wrote:
Yayavar wrote:
At Haldighati though he had to retreat but without a rout. He had gambled but could not push through the advantage. At most one can quibble on whether that battle was a loss as he retreated to fight another day.
But win he did not in that particular battle.

Dunkirk was a tactical retreat. Or was it defeat? Rhetoric seems to be the hallmark of people who discuss things in the sphere of the humanities.


You tell me if Dunkirk was a win? and if so how?
It was retreat but not a rout like in Haldighati. More casualties than the enemy too in both cases.

Regarding rhetoric - you herr doktor are quite guilty of it many a time :). You are talking of retreat vs loss but the original reference in the article linked is to Rana 'won' at Haldighati.

I had fun writing the quoted passage but rephrasing as a man of science - Haldighati was a retreat with heavy losses but not a rout. Rana was able to regroup and fight against the mughals again even though he did not win that day at Haldighati.(btw, I've driven through that area to Nathdwara).
Last edited by Yayavar on 12 Sep 2017 11:42, edited 1 time in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15945
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 12 Sep 2017 11:21

Dipanker wrote:
chetak wrote:
BS


Shame on you for calling it BS, because I told you the truth.


same here.

are you denying that unwashed commies rigged our history and our textbooks??

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2942
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 11:32

chetak wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
Shame on you for calling it BS, because I told you the truth.


same here.

are you denying that unwashed commies rigged our history and our textbooks??


If you think that is the case, read multiple sources and triangulate. In anycase reading multiple sources is always recommended. Commies may not be the only one involved in rigging.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 11:39

While multiple sources works well for news items and current affairs, it does not work as well in academic settings, especially in the social sciences. Multiple sources may be mirage when it comes to Indian history, which is a point that has been made before. Some guy writes some nonsense in paper X, and X is quoted by 10 other jokers, each of whom writes a book or teaches someone who writes a book, and soon all these "multiple sources" are repeating the same falsehoods. The popularity of the "aryan race" and "dravidian race" is a testament to this kind of tactic by western "indologists" -- everything spread by the tools in the western universities about India smells wrong, not least because these oiseaules do their "research" after visiting India for a couple of months and then pretending to have a "deep knowledge" of India, much like Audrey Truschke and the rest of the Sheldon Pollock crowd. They may have some valid points to make, but they cannot be trusted to be an unbiased source when it comes to India's history...it is up to Indians to create an alternative collection of research and thinking that can challenge these "indologists" in the long run.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15945
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 12 Sep 2017 11:39

Dipanker wrote:
chetak wrote:
same here.

are you denying that unwashed commies rigged our history and our textbooks??


If you think that is the case, read multiple sources and triangulate. In anycase reading multiple sources is always recommended. Commies may not be the only one involved in rigging.


you are absolutely right.

It was the commies and the malsis.

they are both great pals until the malsis turn on them, as they have done in every case around the world, where ever they have collaborated, and exterminated the commies like cockroaches they are, when their purpose has been served.

BTW, read the article in full, it will surely warm the cockles of your commie "heart".


Left's Infiltration Into Education: The Great Betrayal by our Educators


The profound hypocrisy of our contemporary academic community, centred in and around the urban Indian universities, is that it obstinately, even somewhat obsessively, glorifies a set of ideas that were already redundant by the end of the 1950s when the world started to gather itself up from the horrors of the second world war. We are talking about Marxism here, an ideology that fanned the paradigm changes in the social and political arena of several European and American (both of the North and South continents) countries in the early twentieth century. The big battleground was obviously located in Eastern Europe where giants of the medieval, Christian European world like Russia capitulated before socialism.

The socialist political aggression from Soviet Russia asserted itself after tasting victory in the Second World War, following which it had invaded and occupied several other small Eastern European countries while many others like the DDR (also known as East Germany in an erstwhile era) were planted with governments that made sure that these countries functioned as the satellite states of the Soviet Russia. It was the bloodbath taking place in these years between early 1940s to mid-1950s that effectively unmasked the socialist agenda, which had managed to sell itself as the harbinger of an egalitarian world order till that time.

But by the mid-1950s communism and socialism had become equivalent with genocide, totalitarianism and quite ironically, fascism in Europe. No sane person in Europe could possibly identify himself/herself as a communist or socialist without being dubbed an enemy of humanity itself. Intellectuals like Jean Paul Sartre in France, who had championed the cause of the political Left in their respective countries, now had to publicly denounce his association with the socialist movement. It really was a difficult time for French and other European intellectuals (who were looked up to by the rest of the populace as iconoclasts keeping a watchful eye on the functioning of society and providing honest, harsh criticism as and when required a sort of human moral compass) to be true to their political and cultural inclinations and at the same time be regarded seriously by the society at large.

They could not have risked their relevance, because otherwise who would take them seriously? Europe had experienced the war crimes, genocides and all sorts of excesses committed by the Red Army in Poland where six million people were slaughtered when Stalin decided to invade the central European country at the close of the Second World War. By most accounts, communism is held responsible for the genocide of nearly 100 million human beings the world over, (McGrew 2000) leaving no space for its patent excuse of moral equivalence with crimes against humanity perpetrated by other regimes. In order to give an idea of the magnitude of the loss, it will be enough to cite that Nazism had killed 25 million, (McGrew 2000) a quarter of the total death caused by the forceful implementation of Karl Marx's utopian political and economic philosophy.

The Great Betrayal

And yet, most of the educators in the universities and other institutes of higher learning in Urban India are unapologetic about their ideological affiliation, just like their American and French counterparts. Most of these Indian academics and intellectuals unabashedly identify their politics as Left-wing often as that of the Far Left even a trend which is increasingly becoming prominent in premier universities, especially among the disciplines of social science and humanities, because the epidemic is passed from one generation of educators to the next one being trained by them, in an unbroken chain of (and highly loyal network of) guru shishya parampara, or really the perversion of it.

Many consider themselves as subscribing to the ideology of the New Left, a diverse entity which is unified mainly by two principles: its above-board denunciation of the Soviet, and its surreptitious sleight of hand in reshuffling the classical Marxist binary division of the world of humans as bourgeoisie and proletariat into the bipartite oppressor and the oppressed. This new formulation of classical Marxism enables the New Left to bank on any and every fault line that has the potential to divide humans into two mutually and inherently hostile groups fighting each other for capturing power. Thus the New Left’s focus on gender yields male vs. female; its (postmodernist) analysis of sexual orientation begets gay vs. straight; the same treatment when applied on race produces white vs. black; postmodernist cultural criticism fosters a conflict-ridden world of cultural supremacy vs. multiculturalism; neo-leftist scholarship on international relations proffers a narrative of residents vs. immigrants, and a similar take on religions pits Non-Muslim vs. Muslim.

The keyword in each of these cases (and an endless string of possibilities of similar conflictual binaries) cited here is: conflict – that key which Marx had used to understand and explain “the history of all hitherto existing society”. (Marx and Engels 1848) He called it struggle between the two classes.

The Fallout

Professors offering courses that expose young Indian students to the ideological neologisms of the postmodernism-fuelled New Left also often uninhibitedly encourage them to subscribe to the same. In fact, some relatively new disciplines like Women Studies necessarily require the student to subscribe to the postmodern outlook, often so congruous with the ideology of the New Left, to do well in their exams. These disciplines necessitate indoctrination into the leftist ideologies that underlies their existence.

Unquestionable, dogmatic faith in the New Left's ideological position serves as a precondition for mastering these academic disciplines, since the disciplines themselves are little more than courses carefully designed to orient the young and unsuspecting entrants to colleges and universities toward a career as full-fledged social justice warriors. By example of lived lives, these educators, located in India's premier centres of higher learning, inspire their students to take up antinomian attitudes, avant-garde lifestyles and a sceptical mindset. The end result of it all is the perpetuation of colonisation of Indian minds, and the furthering away of ever new cohorts of bright Indians from their roots, heritage and national character.

Sadly in India, the Old/classical Left has managed to coexist side by side with the New Left due to India's relative inexperience of Red terror as a major source of atrocious regime (except in West Bengal, where the repression of the communist CPI(M) regime continued for four decades from the seventies, started off conspicuously by the reign of terror unleashed by a battle for power between Naxalites-Maoists, the Communist party of India and the then ruling Congress government; while the Maoists have not been able to capture administrative power in any level of the Indian administration so far, even though they reportedly run parallel sarkars in their own pockets of influence in the hinterlands of India obscured by dense forests or lack of transport and communication). This has only helped in compounding the problem, for it is a standard practice of mainstream as well as underground political parties in India to use the students’ participation in campus politics as a front cover to propagate their ideological and political agendas among the budding minds.

The political parties in India depend heavily on campus politics for a talent-hunt to regularly select, nurture, induct and refurbish new individuals into their leadership. Even a cursory glance at the backgrounds of several successful Indian politicians would support this information. Without going into the merits/demerits of campus politics, let us suffice in saying that politicisation of the curriculum and a huge imbalance in the ideological representation among the educators are acting as enormous deterrents to establishing an organic connection between the young individuals and potential accountable citizens of India and their cultural heritage. It is an impediment to the process of decolonisation of the Indian mind (to borrow the famous phrase by Ngugi Wa Thiong’o), and is spawning what has been frequently and derisively dubbed as ‘Macaulay’s children’. That is naturally creating a void in their intellectual and cultural tutelage as well as destroying the much sought after open-minded interventions to the discourses around India’s civilizational character, nipping them in the bud. Instead, what we are producing, at public expense, is a pool of trained resource personnel impeccably equipped with ideology, strong international network and all required skills to aggressively take on the idea of India’s cultural integrity, civilizational existence through history and its sole unifying parameter – Hinduism. These specimens are proving to be postmodernist and/or neo-leftist giants or minions, depending on their individual capacities, who are entirely antagonistic and openly hostile to their own roots. This accounts for a great threat to the survival of India’s civilizational character. Policymakers and the concerned ministries responsible for developing India’s pool of human resource should take note of this situation and must intervene, without further delay. Perhaps it is not without substance to feel, with great apprehension, that it is already too late

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 12:50

Yayavar wrote:You tell me if Dunkirk was a win? and if so how?
It was retreat but not a rout like in Haldighati. More casualties than the enemy too in both cases.

Regarding rhetoric - you herr doktor are quite guilty of it many a time :). You are talking of retreat vs loss but the original reference in the article linked is to Rana 'won' at Haldighati.

I had fun writing the quoted passage but rephrasing as a man of science - Haldighati was a retreat with heavy losses but not a rout. Rana was able to regroup and fight against the mughals again even though he did not win that day at Haldighati.(btw, I've driven through that area to Nathdwara).

In fact rhetoric is the only tool that can be used against rhetoricians. You took my (rhetorical) bait. Dunkirk is not the point, but what do you have to say about the points made by the author of the view that it was a victory. Is he lying? He has made some claims to support his view. Are you able to rebut him, or are you stating what you believe to be true from earlier reading?

Here is a quote
Dr Sharma based his findings on land records from the 16th century saying for a year after the June 18, 1576 battle, Maharana Pratap distributed land in villages near Haldighati by handing out land rights inscribed on copper plates that has the signature of the diwan of Eklingnath.

The man argues that the land remained in control of the Maharana and claims to offer contemporary physical documents as proof

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 13:03

Dipanker wrote:
Here is what Valmiki writes (Hypothetical):

Rama and Sita are sitting in the garden of their cottage at Panchvati sipping their evening tea. Stars are shining bright ( no electricity back then). Rama notices that Alpha Lyra is at certain RA and DEC in certain part of the sky.

Fast forward to 2017, a certain researcher reads Ramayana, plugs in the value of RA and DEC for Alpha Lyra in his/her StarGazer software and comes up with a date of 17th July 13,457 BC.

Does this date Valmiki or Rama/Sita?

Would you be able to cite reasons why the date should not be taken as possibly true, pending corroboration from multiple sources including other such references in text and corroboration of the geographic and other information in the text with current paleobotanical and paleoclimate studies?

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4759
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 12 Sep 2017 20:11

SriJoy wrote:
Yayavar wrote:The Maharana won in the end. He beat the Mughals through guerilla warfare and head-on battles at other places and got most of Mewar back (except Chittor).

At Haldighati though he had to retreat but without a rout. He had gambled but could not push through the advantage. At most one can quibble on whether that battle was a loss as he retreated to fight another day.
But win he did not in that particular battle.

Man Singh or Akbar did not win in the larger sense as they could not rout the enemy. They also withdrew fearing ambushes in the hills. Mughals lost many a men later to starvation and poisoned wells - it is interesting reading.

Patel said (I rephrase as I dont remember the exact comment) that if there was one princely state that could legitimately stay independent it was Mewar. No other princely state had that right. That is the greater win of Maharana in the long run.


Maharana Pratap can easily lose the battle of Haldighati and still win the war.
Never head the phrase 'won the battle but lost the war' ?

Look no further than Napoleon's invasion of Russia - he won the battle of Borodino. Lost the war. Same can apply to the Mughals.


Did I say anything different? The comment from me is that he did not win that battle but eventually won.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 20:19

Srijoy,Onus lies on you, if you claim a date is original, to show us why it is original and not inserted later on, in a text we know is modified.


First, I don't feed trolls, so you save your vomit. I had to wade through a proverbial mountain of your worthless vomit to understand what other people are saying, and I have no interest in your so-called "thoughts". There is no onus on anyone here, other than on you to stop being a goddamn troll. No one gives a damn as to how you became such a genius in history or engineering. All you have done so far is fill this thread with your worthless opinions masquerading as historical fact and making tall claims of giving irrefutable evidence for this and that repeatedly, while not following up on any of your claims. Like any true and tested troll. I have skipped most of your twaddle and I have no interest in addressing your concerns or protestations. Bugger off and go annoy someone else. This is not meant for you. Your mind is already closed like the hermetically sealed bag of chips, so save your worthless barf for your evening meal.

he strongest statement that can be made, is a book that serves religious purpose and has been continuously modified through the ages, cannot be assessed for original material, without finding another copy of the said book from said time-frame and making a comparative analysis


There is no comparative analysis here, genius. If the texts were written over a period of time, then mapping each observation to a point in time will place bounds on the interval during which one or more authors of the text exists, which is exactly why the problem is framed as determining the narrowest interval of time that covers the observations made in the text, and not a single point in time. If the observations are taken to be ones made by some human, then the date or dates when the observation will map to points in time, and suggest a narrower timeline covering the period when the book was written (or not). That is the whole point of original research -- to take a fresh look at data and to see if our improved understanding of the universe will steer us in new directions.
Last edited by periaswamy on 12 Sep 2017 22:57, edited 3 times in total.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4759
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 12 Sep 2017 20:27

shiv wrote:
Yayavar wrote:You tell me if Dunkirk was a win? and if so how?
It was retreat but not a rout like in Haldighati. More casualties than the enemy too in both cases.

Regarding rhetoric - you herr doktor are quite guilty of it many a time :). You are talking of retreat vs loss but the original reference in the article linked is to Rana 'won' at Haldighati.

I had fun writing the quoted passage but rephrasing as a man of science - Haldighati was a retreat with heavy losses but not a rout. Rana was able to regroup and fight against the mughals again even though he did not win that day at Haldighati.(btw, I've driven through that area to Nathdwara).

In fact rhetoric is the only tool that can be used against rhetoricians. You took my (rhetorical) bait. Dunkirk is not the point, but what do you have to say about the points made by the author of the view that it was a victory. Is he lying? He has made some claims to support his view. Are you able to rebut him, or are you stating what you believe to be true from earlier reading?

Here is a quote
Dr Sharma based his findings on land records from the 16th century saying for a year after the June 18, 1576 battle, Maharana Pratap distributed land in villages near Haldighati by handing out land rights inscribed on copper plates that has the signature of the diwan of Eklingnath.

The man argues that the land remained in control of the Maharana and claims to offer contemporary physical documents as proof


Rhetoricians see every comment as rhetoric. It is your bias to take everything as either against or for.

The above has nothing to do with the battle itself. That Mughals were not able to enforce their will and control over Mewar is already the view afaik. Even as the Rana was on the run he saw himself as the King and enforced his will. While I was in Chittor I heard many stories of his actions. So just that quote that he distributed land is not enough to say he won. As noted one can say he did not loose as he was able to make an organised retreat, and the Mughals could not rout his army. That he could come back later and control land disbursement does not mean he won the battle. It does indicate that in the long run he came back to win the war- he had to continue fighting for years together and got all of Mewar except Chittor back.

Now it maybe there is more evidence and that might be what made them claim a victory for the Rana at Haldighati, but I've not read anything else yet.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 21:17

As i already pointed out, Mahabharata itself is 80% un-original.


Your pulled that 80% out of your nether orifice, like the rest of your nonsense. You only pretend to have read this and that, because you are just an insufferable tool who has no intention of contributing anything of value to this topic. You are just being a troll, by any definition, and your intent seems to be to muddy the discussion with falsehoods and rhetorical BS, so I will restate what I said to ensure that your nonsense does not confuse the ideas mentioned earlier

I will just reiterate that it does not matter what is "original" or what is "inserted text" -- all the the "inserted text" does is change the upper bound for the interval of time corresponding to the text. This is why the problem statement is about determining the smallest such interval rather than a specific point in time. It is a trivial logical step to understand that this technique will still produce a valid interval overlapping the text independent of the number of authors, as they are not taken into account in determining the interval. When Homer or XYZ makes some observation, it is taken as a honest view, and there no reason to pretend the same does not hold for our ancestors who have contributed to ancient Indian literature.
Last edited by periaswamy on 12 Sep 2017 22:33, edited 1 time in total.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Sep 2017 21:32

Dipanker wrote:Seriously, It is you who is being moronic. How is the claim of 1+ million year indefensible when the Yugas are of specific time length? If Rama existed in Treta, we live in Kaliyuga, in between there was Dwapar roughly a million year long, ergo Rama lived at least 1+ million year ago. How is this a random claim?


This is a random claim, because a specific definition of 'Yuga' is been picked up without much thought, logic or scientific acumen...

What follows are 12 notes stating different definitions of yuga (courtesy: Arun Upadhyaya). There are many additional definitions of yuga, but this will suffice to make the point...

The question 'who is being moronic' need not be answered.
--
(1)

भविष्य पुराण, प्रतिसर्ग पर्व १/४-षोडशाब्दसहस्रे च शेषे तद्द्वापरे युगे॥२६॥
द्विशताष्टसहस्रे द्वे शेषे तु द्वापरे युगे॥२८॥ तस्मादादमनामासौ पत्नी हव्यवतीस्मृता॥२९॥

Bhaviṣya purāṇa, Pratisarga Parva part 1, chapter 4-It is confusing. (26) After 16,000 years, Dvāpara started. (28) Verse 28 also tells similar thing-After Adam (Svāyambhuva Manu) and his wife Havyavatī (Havva or Eve) 2 times 8000 years passed (till when?).

(2)

This is more clear in Matsya Purāṇa, chapter 273- मत्स्य पुराण, अध्याय २७-
अष्टाविंश समाख्याता गता वैवस्वतेऽन्तरे। एते देवगणैः सार्धं शिष्टा ये तान्निबोधत॥७७॥
चत्वारिंशत् त्रयश्चैव भवितास्ते महात्मनः (स्वायम्भुवः)। अवशिष्टा युगाख्यास्ते ततो वैवस्वतो ह्ययम् ॥७८॥
28 Yugas have passed after Vaivasvata (Manu). This was the period of Devas (Deva supremacy)-This is being told by Sūta at epoch of kali beginning (3102 BC). 43 Yugas passed after Mahātmā (Svāyambhuva Manu). Remaining (28 yugas) passed in this Vaivasvata Manu period.


(3)

Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa defines historic Manvantara-
ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण (१/२/९)-स वै स्वायम्भुवः पूर्वम् पुरुषो मनुरुच्यते॥३‌६॥ तस्यैक सप्तति युगं मन्वन्तरमिहोच्यते॥३७॥
That first Man Svāyambhuva is called Manu. His 71 Yugas are called Manvantara.

ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण (१/२/२९)-त्रीणि वर्ष शतान्येव षष्टिवर्षाणि यानि तु। दिव्यः संवत्सरो ह्येष मानुषेण प्रकीर्त्तितः॥१६॥
त्रीणि वर्ष सहस्राणि मानुषाणि प्रमाणतः। त्रिंशदन्यानि वर्षाणि मतः सप्तर्षिवत्सरः॥१७॥
षड्विंशति सहस्राणि वर्षाणि मानुषाणि तु। वर्षाणां युगं ज्ञेयं दिव्यो ह्येष विधिः स्मृतः॥१९॥
360 years is called Divya Samvatsara in human measures (16). 3030 Mānuṣa years are Saptarṣi Vatsara (17). 26000 years is Yuga of Vidhi (Brahmā-Svāyambhuva Manu).
Note-26000 years = Historic Manvantara = 71 Yugas of about 360 years each.


(4) Bhaviṣya Purāṇa (Pratisarga Parva, Chapter 1) tells that it is third day of Brahmā.

भविष्य पुराण, प्रतिसर्ग पर्व, अध्याय १-
भविष्याख्ये महाकल्पे ब्रह्मायुषि परार्द्धके। प्रथमेऽब्देऽह्नि तृतीये प्राप्ते वैवस्वतेऽन्तरे॥१॥
अष्टाविंशे सत्ययुगे राजानोऽभवन् मुने॥२॥
कल्पाख्ये श्वेतवाराहे ब्रह्माब्दस्य दिनत्रये॥ प्राप्ते सप्त मुहूर्ते च मनुर्वैवस्वतोऽभवत्॥३॥
In second half of Brahmā’s life, first year is Mahā-kalpa called Bhaviṣya. In this third day is running. In this Vaivasvata Manu period has 28 Yugas so far (till Sūta told at Kali start). This Kalpa is called Śvetavārāha. In this third day of Brahmābda is running. In its seventh Muhūrtta, Vaivasvata Manu was born.


Third Brahmābda is also indicated in Vedas-
या ओ॑षधीः॒ पूर्वा जा॒ता देवेभ्यस्त्रियुगं पुरा ।
(ऋक् १०/९७/३, वा. यजु १२/७५, तैत्तिरीय संहिता ४/२/६/१, निरुक्त ९/२८)
= These Oṣadhi (medicine, annual herbs) were created by Devas 3 Yugas ago.


(5) Utsarpiṇī (Ascending) and Avasarpiṇī (Descending) parts of Yugas are described in Jain texts only and indicated by Āryabhaṭa also-

आर्यभटीय, कालक्रिया पाद-
उत्सर्पिणी युगार्धं पश्चादपसर्पिणी युगार्धं च। मध्ये युगस्य सुषमाऽऽदावन्ते दुष्षमेन्दूच्चात्॥९॥

= First half of Yuga is Utsarpiṇī, second half is Apasarpiṇī (called Avasarpiṇī by Jains). In middle is Suṣamā. Duṣṣamā is at beginning and at end.

(6) Two measures of Saptarṣi cycle-

(a) ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण मध्य भाग, (३) उपोद्धात पाद, अध्याय ७४-
सप्तविंशति पर्यन्ते कृत्स्ने नक्षत्रमण्डले। सप्तर्षयस्तु तिष्ठन्ते पर्यायेन शतं शतम्।२३१।
सप्तर्षीणां युगं त्वेतद्दिव्यया संख्यया स्मृतम्। मासा दिव्याः स्मृताः षट् च दिव्याब्दाश्चैव सप्त हि॥२३२॥
तेभ्यः प्रवर्तते कालो दिव्यः सप्तर्षिभिस्तु तैः। सप्तर्षीणां तु यौ पूर्वौ दृश्येते उत्तरा दिशि ॥२३३॥
तयोर्मध्ये च नक्षत्रं दृश्यते यत्समं निशि। तेन सप्तर्षयो युक्ता ज्ञेया व्योम्नि शतं समाः॥२३४॥
Brahmāṇḍa purāṇa, middle part, Upoddhāta pāda, chapter 74-

(231) Complete circle has 27 Nakṣatras. Saptarṣis cover that by remaining for 100 years in each. (232) Yugas of Saptarṣis is counted in Divya measure-6 Divya months and 7 Divya years. (Here, Divya year = 360 years. & years 6 months = 7.5 x 360 = 2700 years). (233) Time counted by them (Saptarṣis) is called Divya. Among Saptarṣis in north direction, the 2 stars seen in east (Pulaha and Kratu) indicate the Nakṣatra (the line joining them meets that on zodiac) where they remain for 100 years.


(b) वायु पुराण, अध्याय ५७-त्रीणि वर्ष सहस्राणि मानुषेण प्रमाणतः। त्रिंशद्यानि तु वर्षाणि मतः सप्तर्षिवत्सरः॥१७॥
Vāyu purāṇa, chapter 57-In Mānuṣa measures, Saptarṣi Vatsara is equal to 3030 years (17).
वायुपुराण (अध्याय९८)-सप्तविंशति पर्यन्ते कृत्स्ने नक्षत्र मण्डले।
सप्तर्षयस्तु तिष्ठन्ते पर्यायेण शतं शतम्॥ सप्तर्षीणां युगं ह्येत दिव्यया संख्यया स्मृतम्॥४१९॥
मासा दिव्या स्मृता षट् च दिव्याह्नाश्चैव सप्तभिः। तेभ्यः प्रवर्तते कालो दिव्यः सप्तर्षिभिस्तुतैः॥४२०॥
Vāyu purāṇa, chapter 98-(419) Complete circle has 27 Nakṣatras. Saptarṣis cover that by remaining for 100 years in each. Yugas of Saptarṣis is counted in Divya measure. (420) Divya measure of Saptarṣis is 6 Divya months and 7 Divya years.

त्रीणि वर्ष सहस्राणि मानुषेण प्रमाणतः ।
त्रिंशदधिकानि तु मे मतः सप्तर्षि वत्सरः॥ (ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण, १/२/२९/१६, वायुपुराण, ५७/१७)

= Saptarṣi year is of 3030 Mānuṣa years.
सप्तविंशति पर्यन्ते कृत्स्ने नक्षत्र मण्डले ।
सप्तर्षयस्तु तिष्ठन्ते पर्यायेण शतं शतम्॥ (वायु पुराण, ९९/४१९, ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण २/३/७४/२३१)
= Saptarṣis cover entire zodiac in reverse motion by remaining for 100 years in each Nakṣtra.
Here, Mānuṣa year = 12 rotations of moon = 27.3 x 12 = 327.5364 days.
3030 Mānuṣa years = 2727 Solar years (of 365.25 days each).
Stars are almost fixed (their very slow motion not seen), so they are called Nakṣatra. But the line joining 2 stars (Pulaha, Kratu) in east end of Saptarṣi meets Zodiac at a point whose Nakṣatra is called Nakṣatra of Saptarṣi-
सप्तर्षीणां तु यौ पूर्वो दृश्येते ह्युदितौ दिवि। तयोऽस्तु मध्ये नक्षत्रं दृश्यते यस्तमं निशि॥१०५॥
तेन सप्तर्षयो युक्ता तिष्ठन्त्यब्दशतं नृणाम्॥

(विष्णु पुराण ४/२४/१०५, वायु पुराण ९९/४२१, ४१२, ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण २/३/७३/२३३, २३४)

(7)

ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण (१/२/२९)-चत्वारि भारते वर्षे युगानि कवयोऽब्रुवन्। कृतं त्रेता द्वापरं च कलिश्चेति चतुष्टयम्॥२३॥
चत्वार्याहुः सहस्राणि वर्षाणां च कृत युगम्। तस्य तावच्छती सन्ध्या सन्ध्यांशः सन्ध्यया समः॥२५॥
इतरेषु ससन्ध्येषु ससन्ध्यांशेषु च त्रिषु। एकन्यायेन वर्तन्ते सहस्राणि शतानि च॥२६॥
त्रीणि द्वे च सहस्राणि त्रेता द्वापरयोः क्रमात्। त्रिशती द्विशती सन्ध्ये सन्ध्यांशौ चापि तत् समौ॥२७॥
कलिं वर्ष सहस्रं तु युगमाहुर्द्विजोत्तमाः। तस्यैकशतिका सन्ध्या सन्ध्यांशः सन्ध्यया समः॥२८॥
Brahmāṇḍa purāṇa (1/2/29)-(23) Scholars describe 4 yugas only in Bhārat. Note-Meanings indicate that it is in reverse order of names. That should be in Avasarpiṇī (descending order).
(25) Kṛta has 4000 years. It has Sandhyā and Sandhyāmśa (junction periods at start and end) each of 400 years. (26) Other yugas also have years in thousands and junction periods in hundreds-3 for Tretā, 2 for Dvāpara. (28) Dvijas have stated 1000 years of Kali with 2 junction periods of 100 years each.


(8)

Start of this Kalpa of Brahmā after glacial floods (31000 BC as per geological estimate)-ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण (१/२/६)-अस्मात् कल्पात्ततः पूर्वं कल्पातीतः पुरातनः॥ चतुर्युगसहस्राणि सह मन्वन्तरैः पुरा॥१५॥
= Before our Kalpa, the ancient Kalpa also had 4 yugas and Manvantara.
क्षीणे कल्पे ततस्तस्मिन् दाहकाल उपस्थिते। तस्मिन् काले तदा देवा आसन् वैमानिकस्तु वै॥१६॥
एकैकस्मिंस्तु कल्पे वै देवा वैमानिका स्मृताः॥१९॥आधिपत्यं विमाने वै ऐश्वर्येण तु तत्समाः॥३२॥
ते तुल्य लक्षणाः सिद्धाः शुद्धात्मनो निरञ्जनाः॥३८॥
= Towards end of that Kalpa, burning period (Global warming?) started. In that era, Devas were using planes. In that single Kalpa only, Devas were using planes. They were as prosperous as in use of Aeroplanes. They were Siddhas (Adepts) with pure minds and Niranjana (without attachments).
ततस्तेषु गतेषूर्ध्वं त्रैलोक्येषु महात्मसु। एत्तैः सार्धं महर्लोकस्तदानासादितस्तु वै॥४२॥
तच्छिष्या वै भविष्यन्ति कल्पदाह उपस्थिते। गन्धर्वाद्याः पिशाचाश्च मानुषा ब्राह्मणादयः॥४३॥
= Among them, prominent persons went to Maharloka (China on earth) at time of deluge. At time of burning of Kalpa, Gandharvas, Piśācha, Manuṣyas, Brāhmaṇas accompanied them.
सहस्रं यत्तु रश्मीनां स्वयमेव विभाव्यते। तत् सप्त रश्मयो भूत्वा एकैको जायते रविः॥४५॥
= Sun shines with thousand rays (up to 1000 diameters from it its rays are bright, carry charged particles, called Sahasrākṣa, or solar wind region). Then its rays increased 7 times.
क्रमेणोत्तिष्ठमानास्ते त्रींल्लोकान्प्रदहंत्युत। जंगमाः स्थावराश्चैव नद्यः सर्वे च पर्वताः॥४६॥
= They started burning 3 lokas one by one including moving, static, rivers and mountains.
शुष्काः पूर्वमनावृष्ट्या सूर्य्यैस्ते च प्रधूपिताः। तदा तु विवशाः सर्वे निर्दग्धाः सूर्यरश्मिभिः॥४७॥
= First the regions dried up, then burnt by sun. All were helpless before burning sun.
जंगमाः स्थावराश्चैव धर्माधर्मात्मकास्तु वै। दग्धदेहास्तदा ते तु धूतपापा युगान्तरे॥४८॥
= Living and non living pious or crooked-all burns at end of that era.
उषित्वा रजनीं तत्र ब्रह्मणोऽव्यक्तजन्मनः। पुनः सर्गे भवन्तीह मानसा ब्रह्मणः सुताः॥५०॥
After that night (deluge or dark time) Brahmā of mysterious birth appeared and created mental sons (followers) for sarga (start of civilisation)
ततस्तेषूपपन्नेषु जनैस्त्रैलोक्यवासिषु। निर्दग्धेषु च लोकेषु तदा सूर्य्यैस्तु सप्तभिः॥५१॥
= They guided persons in 3 lokas burnt by 7 suns (7 times normal radiation).
वृष्ट्या क्षितौ प्लावितायां विजनेष्वर्णवेषु च। सामुद्राश्चैव मेघाश्च आपः सर्वाश्च पार्थिवाः॥५२॥
= By profuse rains whole earth was drenched including isolate zones, oceans rose by incessant rains.

(9)

Saptarṣi or Laukika era started when Yudhiṣṭhira died in Kashmir in Kali year 25 (3076 BC)- (राजतरङ्गिणी, तरङ्ग १)-कलैर्गतैः सायकनेत्र (२५) वर्षैः युधिष्ठिराद्याः त्रिदिवं प्रयाताः।
At the time of writing of Rājatarangiṇī, Laukika year was 24 (century years not written) and 1070 years had passed from start of Śālivāhana Śaka (78 AD)-
लौकिकाब्दे चतुर्विंशे शककालस्य साम्प्रतम्। सप्तत्याभ्यधिकं यातं सहस्र परिवत्सराः॥ (राजतरङ्गिणी १/५२)
Śālivāhana Śaka started in 78 AD, 1070 years after that Laukika years were 3076 + 78 + 1070 = 4224. After omitting 4200 (century years), it comes to 24 year in Laukika era.


(10)

Dhruva and Kārtikeya era- Till the time of death of Yudhiṣṭhira, Saptarṣis were in Maghā. 2700 years after that, one cycle was completed (376 BC which has been towards end of Āndhra rule, lasting till 327 BC)
नव यानि सहस्राणि वर्षाणां मानुषाणि तु। अन्यानि नवतिश्चैव क्रौञ्चः संवत्सरः स्मृतः॥१८॥(वायु पुराण, अध्याय ५७)
= Krauñcha Samvatsara is of 9090 Mānuṣa years (3 times Saptarṣi years)
नव यानि सहस्राणि वर्षाणां मानुषाणि तु। अन्यानि नवतिश्चैव ध्रुवः संवत्सरः स्मृतः॥ (ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण, १/२/२९/१८)
= Dhruva Samvatsara is of 9090 Mānuṣa years
सप्तर्षयस्तदा प्राहुः प्रदीप्तेनाग्निना समाः। सप्तविंशति भाव्यानां आन्ध्रान्तेऽन्वगात् पुनः॥ (मत्स्य पुराण, २७३/३९)
सप्तर्षयस्तदा प्राहुः प्रतीपे राज्ञि वै शतम्। सप्तविंशैः शतैर्भाव्या आन्ध्रान्तेऽन्वयाः पुनः॥ (वायु पुराण, ९९/४१८)
सप्तर्षयस्तदा प्राप्ताः पित्र्ये (मघा) पारीक्षिते शात्म्। सप्तविंशैः शतैर्भाव्या आन्ध्राणां तेऽन्वयाः पुनः॥ (ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण, ३/७४/२३०)
सप्तर्षयो मघायुक्ताः काले पारीक्षिते शतम्। आन्ध्रांशे स-चतुर्विंशे (सप्तविंशे?) भविष्यन्ति शतं समाः॥
(मत्स्य पुराण, २७३/४४-४५, वायु पुराण, ९९/४२१, ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण, ३/७४/२३६)
= Saptarṣis were in Maghā when Parīkṣita became king. One cycle of 2700 years was completed towards end of Āndhra rule.
3 Saptarṣi era = 1 Dhruva or Krauñcha era = 8100 solar years.
3 Dhruva cycles before start of Laukika or Saptarṣi era in 3076 was in 27,376 BC. That appears to be death of Dhruva who was descendant of Svāyambhuva Manu and son of Uttānapāda. One cycle after that was complete in 19,276 BC. That could be start of dominance of Krauñcha Dvīpa (north America, east of Meru, both Krauñcha Dvīpa and Krauñcha mountain are in shape of flying bird). Kārttikeya ended that supremacy in about 15,800 BC when north pole shifted from Abhijit (Vega star) and rains were from Dhaniṣṭhā (β Delphini).
महाभारत, वन पर्व (२३०/८-१०)-
अभिजित् स्पर्धमाना तु रोहिण्या अनुजा स्वसा। इच्छन्ती ज्येष्ठतां देवी तपस्तप्तुं वनं गता॥८॥
तत्र मूढोऽस्मि भद्रं ते नक्षत्रं गगनाच्युतम्। कालं त्विमं परं स्कन्द ब्रह्मणा सह चिन्तय॥९॥
धनिष्ठादिस्तदा कालो ब्रह्मणा परिकल्पितः। रोहिणी ह्यभवत् पूर्वमेवं संख्या समाभवत्॥१०॥
= Mahābhārata, Vana Parva (230/8-10)-Abhijit moved towards Rohiṇī, which went to forest with younger sisters ?). (Indra told) I am perplexed that Abhijit has fallen; Skanda! consult Brahmā (7th Brahmā Apāntaratamā, son of Hiraṇyagarbha-Vāṇī on banks of Gautamī = Godāvarī) to decide next time measure. Then Brahmā started year with Dhaniṣṭhā (Māgha month as in Vedānga jyotiṣa). That was Asura supremacy period whose year started withstart of south motion of sun, i.e. from rains (Varṣā). So, year was called Varṣa (or synonym Abda = giver of Ap or water). Natural region of a country is Varṣa which is zone of a single rain system bounded by a major mountain called Varṣa-parvata. Fall of Abhijit started in about 16400 BC. Rains started from Dhaniṣṭhā in 15800 BC-time of Kārttikeya.
Second cycle of Dhruva era ended in 11,176 BC after which glacial floods started. That was period of Vaivasvata Yama in whose period it started and marked end of another era. ब्रह्म पुराण, अध्याय ४३-इन्द्रनीलमयी श्रेष्ठा प्रतिमा सार्वकामिकी॥७१॥
यम तां गोपयिष्यामि सिकताभिः समन्ततः॥७४॥ लुप्तायां प्रतिमायां तु इन्द्रनीलस्य भो द्विजाः॥७७॥
Zend Avesta also tells floods in time of Jamshed (Vaivasvata Yama).

(11)

By taking cycle of 24,000 years instead of 26,000, there has to be correction in cycle of 24,000 years, called Bīja-sanskāra by Brahmagupta in his Brāhma-sphuţa-siddhānta (1902 edition), madhyamadhikāra, 61. Bhāskarāchārya-2 has in his Siddhānta-śiromaņi, bhū-paridhi, 7-8 has stated in his comments that he does not know the logic, it was since āgama (purāņa tradition).
खाभ्रखार्क (१२०००) हृताब्देभ्यो गत-गम्या-ल्पाः ख-शून्य-यमल (२००) हृताः।
लब्धं त्रि(३) सायकं (५) हतं कलाभिरूनौ सदार्केन्दू॥६०॥
शशिवत् जीवे द्विहतं चन्द्रोच्चे तिथि (१५) हतं तु सितशीघ्रे।
द्वीषु (५२) हतं च बुधोच्चे, द्वि (२) कु (१) वेद (४) हतं च पात कुज शनिषु॥६१॥
ब्रह्मगुप्त, ब्राह्म-स्फुट-सिद्धान्त, सुधाकर द्विवेदी संस्करण १९०२, मध्यमाधिकार)
खाभ्रखार्कै (१२०००) हृताः कल्पयाताः समाः शेषकं भागहारात् पृथक् पातयेत्।
यत्तयोरल्पकं तत् द्विशत्या (२००) भजेल्लिप्तिकाद्यं तत् त्रिभिः (३) सायकैः(५) ॥
पञ्च (५) पञ्चभूमिः (१५) करा (२) भ्यां हतं भानु चन्द्रेज्यशुक्रेन्दुतुङ्गेष्वृणम्।
इन्दुना (१) दस्र-बाणैः (५२) करा (२) भ्यां कृतै-र्भौम-सौम्ये-न्दु-पाता-र्किषु स्वं क्रमात्॥
(भास्कराचार्य-२, सिद्धान्त शिरोमणि, भू-परिधि-७-८)
स्वोपज्ञ भाष्य-अत्रोपलब्धिरेव वासना। यद्वर्षं सहस्रषट्कं याव-दुपचय-स्ततो ऽपचय इत्यत्रागम एव प्रमाणं नान्यत् कारणं वक्तुं शक्यत इत्यर्थः।

(12)

There were 28 Vyāsas starting from Brahmā (Svāyambhuva Manu) in 29102 BC till Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa in 3102 BC (26000 years period). The parts are called Yuga, Dvāpara or Tretā. Later yugas are just 1 Divya samvatsara of 360 years. There was large gap from Brahmā till Kaśyapa. In that period, civil year of Devas started with Punarvasu Nakṣtra, so its lord is called Aditi (17500 BC). Ratha-yātrā or return yātrā is done when sun is in Punarvasu.
अदितिर्जातमदितिर्जनित्वम् (ऋग्वेद १/८९/१०, अथर्व ७/६/१, वाजसनेयि सं. २५/२३, मैत्रायणी सं. ४/२४/४).
This Kalpa starting with Brahmā is called Śveta-Vārāha-
यश्चायं वर्तते कल्पो वाराहः साम्प्रतं शुभः। (ब्रह्माण्ड पुराण १/२/६/६-८)
List of Vyāsas is in many purāṇas.
(a) वायु पुराण, अध्याय २३-चतुर्बाहुश्चतुष्पादश्चतुर्नेत्रश्चतुर्मुखः।
तदा सम्वत्सरो भूत्वा यज्ञरूपो भविष्यति। षडङ्गश्च त्रिशीर्षश्च त्रिस्थानस्त्रिशरीरवान्॥१०४॥
कृतं त्रेता द्वापरं च कलिश्चैव चतुर्युगम्। एतस्य पादाश्चत्वारः अङ्गानि क्रतवस्तथा॥१०५॥
भुजाश्च वेदाश्चत्वार ऋतुः सन्धिमुखानि च। द्वे मुखे द्वे च अयने नेत्राश्च चतुरस्तथा॥१०६॥
शिरांसि त्रीणि पर्वाणि फाल्गुन्याषाढकृत्तिकाः। दिव्यान्तराक्षि भौमानि त्रीणि स्थानानि यानि तु॥
सम्भवः प्रलयश्चैव आश्रमौ द्वौ प्रकीर्तितौ॥ १०७॥
=Brahmā appeared with 4 hands, 4 feet, 4 eyes and 4 mouths. He started Yajña in cycle of Samvatsara with 6 limbs (seasons?), 3 heads, 3 places and 3 bodies. Created 4 yugas-Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara, Kali. These are 4 feet with limbs and stages of Kratu. His 4 hands are 4 Vedas, seasons and junction periods. 2 mouths are 2 Ayanas of year, it has 4 eyes (4 main sankranti) and 3 heads. 3 Parva (junctions) are Phālgunī, Āṣāḍha, Kṛttikā. 3 places are space, earth, inner world (within human body) called Ādhidaivika, Ādhibhautika, Āhyātmika.
पुनस्तु मम देवेशो द्वितीय द्वापरे प्रभुः॥११९॥ तृतीये द्वापरे चैव यदा व्यासस्तु भार्गवः॥१२३॥
Again in second Dvāpara (era) lord of Devas (and Asuras) Kaśyapa was Vyāa. In third Dvāpara Bhārgava (Śukrāchārya) was Vyāsa.
चतुर्थे द्वापरे चैव यदा व्यासोऽङ्गिरा स्मृतः॥१२६॥
Angirā has been called Vyāsa of fourth Dvāpara.
परिवर्ते पुनः षष्ठे मृत्युर्व्यासो यदा विभुः॥१३३॥ सप्तमे परिवर्ते तु यदा व्यासः शतक्रतुः॥१३६॥
In sixth Parivarta Mṛtyu (Vaivasvata Yama, Jamshed) was Vyāsa. In seventh Parivarta, Śatakratu (one of 14 main Indras, probably Vaikuṇṭha) was Vyāsa.
यदा व्यासः सुरक्षस्तु पर्यायश्च चतुर्दश॥१६२॥ परिवर्ते चतुर्विंशे ऋक्षो व्यासो भविष्यति॥२०६॥
Surakṣa was Vyāsa in 14th Paryāya (cycle). Ṛkṣa (Vālmīki) was Vyāsa in 24th Parivarta.
अष्टाविंशे पुनः प्राप्ते परिवर्ते क्रमागते। पराशरसुतः श्रीमान् विष्णुर्लोक पितामहः॥२१७॥
यदा भविष्यति व्यासो नाम्ना द्वैपायनः प्रभुः॥२१८॥
At the time of 28 Parivarta in order Viṣṇu appeared as son of Parāśara with name Dvaipāyana and became Vyāsa.
(b) वायु पुराण (अध्याय ९८)-यज्ञं प्रवर्तयामास चैत्ये वैवस्वतेऽन्तरे॥७१॥
प्रादुर्भावे तदाऽन्यस्य ब्रह्मैवासीत् पुरोहितः। चतुर्थ्यां तु युगाख्यायामापन्नेष्वसुरेष्वथ॥७२॥
सम्भूतः स समुद्रान्तर्हिरण्यकशिपोर्वधे द्वितीयो नारसिंहोऽभूद्रुदः सुर पुरःसरः॥७३॥
= Yajña system started after Vaivasvata Manu in which Brahmā himself became Purohita. In fourth yuga (before him) Asuras became dominant, then Viṣṇu appeared in ocean (Varāha killing Hiraṇyākṣa in Puṣkara = south America). Then as Narasimha, killed Hiraṇyakaṣipu at end of ocean (south of Mediterranean)
बलिसंस्थेषु लोकेषु त्रेतायां सप्तमे युगे। दैत्यैस्त्रैलोक्य आक्रान्ते तृतीयो वामनोऽभवत्॥७४॥
Third Vāmana incarnation was in seventh yuga when Lokas were captured by Bali.
एतास्तिस्रः स्मृतास्तस्य दिव्याः सम्भूतयः शुभाः। मानुष्याः सप्त यास्तस्य शापजांस्तान्निबोधत॥८७॥
These 3 incarnations were Divya (before Vaivasvata Manu). Next 7 were in human period.
त्रेतायुगे तु दशमे दत्तात्रेयो बभूव ह। नष्टे धर्मे चतुर्थश्च मार्कण्डेय पुरःसरः॥८८॥
In 10th Tretā Dattātreya appeared who restored Dharma with help of Mārkaṇḍeya etc.
पञ्चमः पञ्चदश्यां तु त्रेतायां सम्बभूव ह। मान्धातुश्चक्रवर्तित्वे तस्थौ तथ्य पुरः सरः॥८९॥
In 15th Tretā Chakravartī Māndhātā appeared.
एकोनविंशे त्रेतायां सर्वक्षत्रान्तकोऽभवत्। जामदग्न्यास्तथा षष्ठो विश्वामित्रपुरः सरः॥९०॥
चतुर्विंशे युगे रामो वसिष्ठेन पुरोधसा। सप्तमो रावणस्यार्थे जज्ञे दशरथात्मजः॥९१॥
In 19th Tretā, son of Jamadagni (Paraśurāa) was 6th incarnation who eliminated Kṣatriyas (their rule, called period of democracy by Greek authors). In 24th Tretā, 7th incarnation as son of Daśaratha (Rāma) appeared who was guided by Viśvāmitra and then by Vasiṣṭha and killed Rāvaṇa.
(c) Brahmāṇḍa purāṇa (1/2/34) also describes. Kūrma purāṇa, part 1, chapter 50 calls period of each Vyāsa as Dvāpara. In chapter 10, it gives list of 28 Vyāsas as incarnation of Śiva. Viṣṇu and other purāṇas also give list.
कूर्म पुराण, पूर्व भाग, अध्याय ५०-द्वापरे प्रथमो व्यासो मनुः स्वायम्भुवो मतः॥१॥
द्वितीये द्वापरे चैव वेदव्यासः प्रजापतिः॥२॥
तृतीये चोशना व्यासश्चतुर्थे स्याद् बृहस्पतिः। सविता पञ्चमे व्यासःषष्ठे मृत्युः प्रकीर्तितः॥३॥
सप्तमे च तथैवेन्द्रो वसिष्ठश्चाष्टमे मतः। सारस्वतश्च नवमे त्रिधामा दशमे स्मृतः॥४॥
एकादशे तु त्रिवृषः (ऋषभ देव) शततेजास्ततः परः। त्रयोदशे तथा धर्मस्तरक्षुस्तु चतुर्दशे॥५॥
त्र्यारुणिर्वै पञ्चदशे षोडशे तु धनञ्जयः। कृतञ्जयः सप्तदशे ह्यष्टादशे ऋतञ्जयः॥६॥
ततो व्यासो भरद्वाजस्तस्मादूर्ध्वं तु गौतमः। राजश्रवाश्चैकविंशसतस्माच्छुष्मायणः परः॥७॥
तृणविन्दुस्त्रयोविंशे वाल्मीकस्तत्परः स्मृतः। पञ्चविंशे तथा शक्तिः षड्विंशे तु पराशरः॥८॥
सप्तविंशे तथा व्यासो जातूकर्णो महामुनिः। अष्टाविंशे पुनः प्राप्ते ह्यस्मिन् वै द्वापरो द्विजाः।
पराशरसुतो व्यासः कृष्णद्वैपायनो हरिः॥१०॥
=Svāyambuva appeared in first, Prajāpati in second, Uśanā (Śukra) in third, Bṛhaspati in fourth, Savitā (Vivasvān, father of Vaivasvata Manu) in fifth, Mṛtyu in sixth, Indra in seventh, Vasiṣṭha in eighth, Sārasvata (Apāntaratamā) in ninth, Tridhāmā in tenth, Trivṛṣa (Ṛṣabha deva) in eleventh, Śatateja in next, Dharma in 13th, Tarakṣu in 14th, Tryāruṇi in 15th, Dhanaňjaya in 16th, Kṛtaňjaya in 17th, Ṛtuňjaya in 18th Dvāpara, then Bharadvāja, Gautama followed. Rājaśravā in 21st, then Śuṣmāyaṇa, Tṛṇaviindu in 23rd, Vālmīki in next, Śakti in 25th, Parāśara in 26th, Jātūkarṇa in 27th, and Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Hari was in 28th Dvāpara.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 21:40

Yayavar wrote: As noted one can say he did not loose..


You stated earlier

Yayavar wrote:But win he did not in that particular battle.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Sep 2017 21:55

It is interesting to note the scare these 'nakshatras' are causing in the AIT and AMT(eh?) camp. I am lovin it.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 22:13

the topic is out of India. A topic predominantly dealt with, via archaeology and genetics.


All of a sudden you are now the guardian of the focus of this thread, eh? That's a goddamn laugh given all your ignorant vomit on this thread, but shifting goalposts is the norm for a joker like you, something you do when you are cornered. shoo, go away and bother someone else.

The general view of authors of ancient texts, is that they are not going to make up astronomical or geological or botanical observations, even if the text itself may deal with a religious topic. This is an inbuilt assumption of all "greek classics" and there is no reason to treat Indian authors of the past to different standard...unless one is a racist with an agenda. Furthermore, not dealing with a religious topic does not make the author more honest or more trustworthy. Eliminating noise about authorship and subject of texts makes the research more focussed and liable to succeed.

The ideas that I find that are new in this thread is a new strategy/technique to arrive at potential timelines for our past. Large parts of Indian history have been destroyed in the recent past, and alien narratives are either bogus or partial, so it is imperative we double check the narrative about us and drop those that do not conform to new evidence and accept new narratives if any. But all of this must be product of a honest look at the past and by viewing existing data with new techniques. The bottomline is that to challenging existing nonsense about Indian history, there must an independent pile of data and conclusions that are based on an independent analysis of existing data. Sounds like a great plan to me.
Last edited by periaswamy on 12 Sep 2017 22:30, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 27 guests