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.
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 22:19

shiv wrote:
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.


Am sure there were a few more words surrounding both statements and some context.

A retreat to fight another day is not a win. It can be argued that it was not a loss which is different than claiming a win. In any case we can go with our own reading of that article. For now am not convinced of a win in that battle. Whether he won battles later or not should be immaterial to this particular outcome.

If future findings or detailed reading shows other evidence will change my mind.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14368
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 12 Sep 2017 22:27

Periaswamy, request you sir, to focus your energies constructively on rebutting SriJoys claims and not overdoing colorful language on BRF. Kindly edit your posts and take out the name calling, and refrain from using terms like imbecile etc. This is your initial start on this thread, so you are getting this chance. Please use it. Otherwise your posts will get reported and the forum moderators will step in.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14368
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 12 Sep 2017 22:30

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


Absolutely. Today you are the trailblazer. At best people can claim these references were auto-inserted back into MB by our ancestors. Well, guess what you just proved how sophisticated they were in terms of star mapping. Tomorrow somebody may take your work and correlate it to archaeological evidence. And your work will be the driving force.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 22:31

Karan saar, ok. cleaned up my posts. My fault for getting the -----'s dishonesty irritate me.

At best people can claim these references were auto-inserted back into MB by our ancestors. Well, guess what you just proved how sophisticated they were in terms of star mapping.


Exactly, which is a good reason for us to let them come up with such objections :)

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14368
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 12 Sep 2017 22:38

^^ Thank you. Please edit the colorful part of the prior post too. I understand you guys are engaging in forcefully making your points but please keep the peace (as far as possible).

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 22:43

I am trying not to engage that <snip, snip>. He has nothing worthwhile to say, as should be obvious by now. Sorry for OT. He's on my ignore list.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 22:50

Nilesh Oak wrote: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...
.
.
.


Thanks for your feedback. So out of all these multiple definition of yugas which is acceptable one?

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Sep 2017 00:38

Dipanker wrote:Thanks for your feedback. So out of all these multiple definition of yugas which is acceptable one?

Now that is indeed a million $$$$$$$ (not years) question!

If you combine the fact that there are multiple definitions of Yuga with what Shiv ji wrote few posts (above), it would prevent individuals from reaching conclusions in haste.

Yuga definitions take the flavor of (1) measuring time (2) measuring distance (not unlike 'light year' )or (3) physical or psychological state of a nation or its folks (e.g one of the 6 definitions of Yuga from the Mahabharata text..."Raja kalasya karanam")

hope this helps..

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Sep 2017 00:51

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?

Here is the response I wrote in 2014, to a future hypothetical query....

Enjoy for what it is worth....

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/02 ... -calendar/

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Sep 2017 01:53

From what I gather from the earlier posts, it looks like these texts make observations about astronomy, geological and geographical entities, and botanical specimen. Can anyone share materials that provide references/guides to what the best understanding to some of these astronomical references mapped to their current nomenclature? Doing a bunch of web searches but there is a lot of garbage to sift through. thanks.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14368
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2017 02:18

Rejecting some text because it contains religion is a very western and dogmatic way to look at things. In India itihaas is mixed with many flavors, reigious, social mores, how to live ones lives, parables etc. To reject it all out of hand is silly. Merely because it states religion. For instance would an account of war precisely gven between two tribes, be suddenly rejected because a flood comes wiping out one tribe, and the second states Zeus sent it? One needs to do a detailed analysis, just like Oak has done and then discover the merits in the story. It will come in bits and pieces. Does it match, astronomically? Ok. Does the depiction of flora and fauna seem fantastical or does it match actual details of the era? Do the skills described seem purely fantastic or were some at least doable? Have remains of war been found in the battlefield? Are the geographic areas mentioned accurate.. the list goes on and on. At the end we may learn a lot more about real India, of the times.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1611
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 13 Sep 2017 02:32

SriJoy wrote:An author who is simply writing stuff as a source, is far more trustworthy than a religious source for obvious reasons: religious people have twisted the truth for religious gain. this is why Kalhana is seen as a historian, Valmiki is not.


Nope, these are simply your assumptions. That "religious people twist truth" (maybe true for Abrahamic religions, but not necessarily). That a religious source cannot be trustworthy, is also your assumption. It can also be that a person who is conscious of God, knows the value of truth, and strives to be more truthful than a person who is not. Again, you need to take an objective look, not reject stuff arbitrarily based on silly assumptions.

A honest look does not begin with assumption of involibility of evidence from a religious source. that is fundamental dogmatism, not 'honest look'.


It is honest, provided one honestly states the assumptions up-front. Fundamental (sic) dogmatism would be when you hide your assumptions - regardless of whether your work is religious or not. So all of these are your own moronic assumptions:

1. Religious works are not trustworthy, or less trustworthy (for one, the work may have started off perfectly "secular" - I'm sure you love that word, and gained religious connotations later).

2. That you cannot assume involibility (??) of evidence from religious sources.

3. That "nakshatras" (your deliberate trivialization again here) cannot be considered as evidence (how about linguistic nonsense then - that's okay as evidence?).

4. That an edited text should not be scientifically studied (this one takes the cake). Based on this assumption of yours, you keep triumphantly parroting that "the MB itself admits that it has been heavily edited!!!" as if this is some reluctant confession of criminality on the MB's part. Yes, the MB has been edited - so frickin' what? The original Vyasa Bharata was supposed to be so dense in meaning and tightly knit, that few could understand it directly. Vyasa taught the meaning to his disciples, and they reinterpreted the MB for ordinary humans. So yes, the original could have been only 20% of what we have now. This is not such a big deal, as you're making it to be.

Since your assumptions are wrong to begin with, I don't have to address the rest of your arguments (according to your own world-view).
Last edited by sudarshan on 13 Sep 2017 02:38, edited 1 time in total.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1611
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 13 Sep 2017 02:45

SriJoy wrote:explain to us...


BTW, who is this mythical "us" and "we" you keep talking about? Can't you speak for yourself? You are not some spokesman for some army of silent spectators. If they have any problems or issues, let them bring them up on their own.

It's bad form to pretend to speak for others, especially in a public forum.

The only people I see having any issues are you and Dipanker. Nothing wrong with having your issues of course. But at some point, some cost-benefit has to kick in, regarding the utility of convincing two lone people who either have no intention of abandoning pre-set assumptions, or who have active agendas.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1611
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 13 Sep 2017 02:50

SriJoy wrote:OK. If the said assumptions are wrong, we should consider what Hadith considers history, on the same playing field as Mahabharata/Ramayana.

Religious books are books to influence masses. a Random guy writing a random collection are not. As i said, this is why Kalhana is a historian. Valmiki is not.
Attempting to change that, is no different than Christians claiming their books should be treated as facts or muslims as well. Why should Hindus get the free pass on their religious books as truth ?


PS: Nobody considers linguistic evidence as 'evidence of dating' either...except of course, linguists.


PPS: Hindus arguing hindu religious literature should be considered, is a fundamentally biassed argument. Amazing how people cannot see this simple fact.


Sure, what's wrong with considering the Hadith as history? I'm all for it. If the history part of it is internally consistent, then it has merit. Same for the Old Testament. If it is not internally consistent, it must be rejected. Please note that once again, you are the one pre-judging the Hadith or Christian works. Just because Hindus reject their dogma, does not mean that Hindus reject everything in the works - they might be historically accurate after all.

Being inconsistent invites rejection. Being consistent does not mean that the material is true or accurate - but it is one point of corroboration. If the Hadith-based history is consistent, then it will be accepted until something comes along to falsify it.

This is the basis for the archaeo-astronomical dating of the Ramayana and MB also.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 13 Sep 2017 04:20

Nilesh Oak wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Thanks for your feedback. So out of all these multiple definition of yugas which is acceptable one?

Now that is indeed a million $$$$$$$ (not years) question!

If you combine the fact that there are multiple definitions of Yuga with what Shiv ji wrote few posts (above), it would prevent individuals from reaching conclusions in haste.

Yuga definitions take the flavor of (1) measuring time (2) measuring distance (not unlike 'light year' )or (3) physical or psychological state of a nation or its folks (e.g one of the 6 definitions of Yuga from the Mahabharata text..."Raja kalasya karanam")

hope this helps..


I am afraid, this does not help. I was looking for a more concrete answers than this! Of the multiple definition of yugas describing length of time I would like to know at least a few which are considered acceptable.

Personally I follow the one given in Wikipedia, and using this gives roughly 1+ million years ago when Rama lived on this planet (Treta Yuga).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_units_of_time

If you call this random then please let me know which definition of yuga as length of time you are following and how long are different yugas as per your definition.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33453
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 05:48

Dipanker wrote:If you call this random then please let me know which definition of yuga as length of time you are following and how long are different yugas as per your definition.

I will use an analogy. Disclaimer. Analogies are often used to divert the subject away from the question asked.But that is not my intention - I will come right back to the question of yuga after the analogies.

In India there is a "home health" belief that spicy foods cause piles and bleeding while shitting. This "gyan" does not exist in the western literature I studied and I dismissed it outright until much later when research showed that the symptoms felt by people who ate extremely spicy meals could be replicated instillation of chilli powder in the rectum (IOW the bum). I will not go into the "pathophysiological" (fuk big word there) explanation but this is validation and rationalization of an old myth by modern science.

There are many other examples - I have written articles on this but one more example. Washing hands before touching food or after cleaning one's bum is "normal" for Indians. The benefits of washing hands were not apparent in the west till an obstetrician called Ignac Filip Semelweiss made the connection in the 19th century of Lodd Lord. In Britain in the 1980s hospital toilets had paper with the words "Now wash your hands please" printed on each leaf. Of course handwashing has now become de rigeur

What has all this got to do with yugas?

I suspect the translation of yuga as calendar years may be wrong. Of course this whole yuga business could be complete rubbish like cowdung on umbilical cord. Or it could be like handwashing. True but not understood or explained.

The only way to know is for some Indian to figure it out in a manner that is acceptable to what are described as modern scientific standards. Of course Nilesh Oak has done just that with his Mahabharata book - but people who hold dogmatic beliefs will not even read the book lest it pollute their minds and divert then from God

I will once again post a quote from something I have written but not published yet simply to illustrate the importance of having an Indian re look at some of the knowledge given back to us secondhand from the west along with emotions like contempt. Calling this revisionism stands neck to neck with Ayatollahs who will not tolerate meddling with the Koran of their Prophet.
In his book, “The Horse, the wheel and Language”, David Anthony quoting Max Muller's translation of The Rig Veda (1.162)writes:

Another verse in the same hymn read: "Those who see that the racehorse is cooked, who say, 'It smells good! Take it away!' and who wait for the doling out of the flesh of the charger-let their approval encourage us." .

Vidyarthi, a Veda scholar explains the same passage in his book. He first quotes Max Muller’s translation and goes on to point out Max Muller’s errors as follows:

The translation of this mantra is especially noteworthy. The word wajinarm from waja, cereals, is here taken as meaning horse, and Professor Max Muller is so anxious to bring forth the sense of the sacrifice of the horse that, not, content with this be interprets mansa bhiksham upaste, which means 'he serves the absence of meat’ into ' he serves the meat.' Can there be anything more questionable?
Last edited by shiv on 13 Sep 2017 07:25, edited 2 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33453
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 05:54

SriJoy wrote:Its neither western, nor dogmatic. Chinese, Japanese, etc. also reject religious literature as history..

Cut the crap and produce proof. I bet my left testimonial that you will not do that - for the fifth time on the thread

SriJoy wrote:How about i reject fantastic claims of books writing about flying to heaven or having whole world in someone's mouth as incredible, spurious nonsense and apply it uniformly ?

Here i agree with you. This is nonsense. I can see the logic behind accepting Allah-ho-historian Herodotus' record of black Indians producing black semen that solidified like wax, and ants that dig up gold. But the world in mouth business is intolerable

Verbose chicanery is the norm for you. But you do care enough to come on here despite protestations that all the stuff on here is worthless and certainly not worth your time. You will keep coming and having your serial bluffs called out. There is something happening here that you do care about a great deal. That that enthuses me a great deal. :D

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33453
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 06:24

SriJoy wrote:
How you can you prove a negative assertion, o good doctor ?
Time will prove that sir as it is doing now. It's like deterrence. Deterrence is working because no one has used a nuke


SriJoy wrote:
Perhaps you can find me an evidence of Chinese/Japanese lifting directly from their religious books as far as history goes.

There you go. Shoving your rubbish on to me to prove. You don't have proof and that is one more bluff called out


SriJoy wrote:
Nobody accepts Herodotus as correct. He is to history what Freud is to psychology : first guy (that we know of), who tried to study history and wrote about various regions of (his) world. As per ants that dig up gold- seems like there is a grain of truth to it, after all :

Cut the crap sir. Not everything that comes down as a record from the past is credible. It is your dogma that makes you accept one and lampoon the other.

SriJoy wrote:What i do care a great deal, obviously- is about Indian history. Should be pretty basic and straightforward.


So your lament that it is not worth your time was just another lie.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Sep 2017 06:56

Dipanker wrote:I am afraid, this does not help. I was looking for a more concrete answers than this! Of the multiple definition of yugas describing length of time I would like to know at least a few which are considered acceptable.

Personally I follow the one given in Wikipedia, and using this gives roughly 1+ million years ago when Rama lived on this planet (Treta Yuga).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_units_of_time

If you call this random then please let me know which definition of yuga as length of time you are following and how long are different yugas as per your definition.

Too bad, it did not help.

Stick to what you personally follow. All the best.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33453
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 09:23

SriJoy wrote:Nobody accepts Herodotus as correct. He is to history what Freud is to psychology : first guy (that we know of), who tried to study history and wrote about various regions of (his) world.

So what this chap wrote was not history. He was a bureaucrat. Not a historian. Unreliable because Herodotus was the "First guy"
SriJoy wrote:Xuanzong was not an ordinary, random Chinese dude, he was a Chinese beurocrat. meaning, he passed civil service test, was appointed governor, etc. He resumed his post when he returned and then eventually passed away. Which is recorded in the Chinese records- as they record the appointment, transfer and death of every official in their beurocratic system.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14368
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2017 09:49

SriJoy wrote:Its neither western, nor dogmatic. Chinese, Japanese, etc. also reject religious literature as history. this is because, as i've already noted- almost all religious literature is modified for religious gain. Only religious texts i know are not modified, are Koran and the Vedas - books mostly on ritual and commandments, not 'this is what happened' recordings.


These are all your assumptions as far as I can tell, and noted by multiple people on this thread, who are similarly very aware of the fact that you are injecting your bias/opinion as fact.

Its laughable to claim only religious literature is modified for some gain. Almost all literature, commissioned by a patron has some element of bias in it. We can even see "secular literature" from the Donigers, the Pollocks and what not of the world, full of hostile stereotypes & peddling specific narratives. Many "secular" "historians" or "linguists" or this or that are activists with an open agenda.

Next, the stuff about religion and history. On the one hand many historians are seeking allegory, parables in purely mythological tales stating they perhaps represent social mores or attitudes of eras in question. OTOH, you are cavalierly dismissing entire reams of historical accounts merely because they may have a religious element to them. Quoting China as some sort of example when they have an anti-religion attitude post Mao & Japan when they came under colonial influence and had to reject their entire "militaristic culture" & we all know what happened to Axis countries and their social system post world war 2.

At this point its clear to me at least, you are wasting this forums time with your allegations & statements that somehow, moreorless:

- just because some text has a religious element to it, its automatically pointless (by which standards most accounts of kings and this and that, quoting some allusion to their cultures deities will automatically be suspect, but are yet taken as useful accounts, but of course, we indians are a special case and need to be treated differently)
-people on this forum have an agenda equal to the conservatives to randomly put large dates into indian events (as versus trying to determine the truth) and you have repeatedly alluded to some sort of supremacy narrative
-dismissed all and every efforts to find a middle path with specious claims and examples as above
- made airy fairy claims about supremacy in multiple areas

This forum does not serve as SriJoy's personal bulletin board to distract, harangue (and get harangued in turn), and then waste reams and reams of forum bandwidth on forum members who are trying to fix your idee fixe.

Multiple contradictions in your own posts:
stating someone like herodotus is ok a few posts back:

a defense of herodotus

... me this tripe about someone who existed before Christ. It's all cooked up. If you believe that - it is your call. I know what I choose to believe Herodotus does give dates. He simply fails to record what is hearsay (to him) and what he knows as facts or what he's seen and what he's heard. that ...


then

All people who record history have recorded a load of bullshit. Herodotus said there were gold digging ants in India. If you search for dates you read that Hiuen Tsang visited India and the place of Buddha's death even before the Buddha was born. Show us ...


after which

... 2000+ years ago say 'don't believe him, he is a hack'. But i just wanted to put it on record, that the reason people like Ctesias, Polybius and Herodotus are not trusted, is not because of some 'random snipping and whim of evil western historians' but because other historians form the same period ...


then claims of automatically secular etc etc

... thread to return to topic. there is no goal-post being shifted, nothing being cornered- except for those who seek to equate secular literature (Herodotus, Diodorus, etc. are not sources of worship material), with non-secular, religious material (Ramayana, Mahabharata). The general view of authors ...

..

Nobody accepts Herodotus as correct. He is to history what Freud is to psychology : first guy (that we know of), who tried to study history and wrote about various regions of (his) world. As per ants that dig up gold- seems like there is a grain of truth to it, after all :


Your arguments are all over the place & come across "as ok, lets win the argument at all costs" and shifting the goalposts to match whatever claims you are making and tailoring them to rebut your opponents points.

This debating "method" as versus actually sharing information has meant you have multiple reports against you, multiple requests that you are a troll, however much leeway has been shown given that you are a new member & passionate discussions can always create such chaos.

You have a chip on your shoulder and an idee fixe about religion & hence everything flows from that. Others here don't share that. If you can't fix that yourself, stop distracting this thread kindly with allegations of what folks here are and then getting heated responses in turn.

At this point, reconsider your participation in this debate and your debating methods. This sort of disruption is wasting everyones time.

Enough please.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33453
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 14:22

SriJoy wrote:How you can you prove a negative assertion, o good doctor ?

This is the second time this pompous ignoramus has asked this question so let me educate him.

There are solid real life examples of finding proof of negative assertions that this boastful motormouth should learn about

1.Is there any proof that I was not at the scene of the crime when Gauri Lankesh was murdered? Yes. I was getting drunk with my pals in Singam wines Pondicherry at the time Gauri Lankesh was shot - 400 km away. It's called an alibi. It is proof that I was not at the scene of the crime

2. A medical example where negative assertions add to clarity, A man has yellow discoloured eyes looking like jaundice. An ultrasound scan shows that the man's jaundice is not caused by something blocking his bile pipes. A set of blood tests relating to the liver prove that the man does not suffer from an inflammation of the liver to cause his jaundice. Yet another test proves that the jaundice is not caused by "hemolytic" breaking down of blood cells
Negative assertions
1. It is NOT obstructive surgical jaundice
2. It is NOT infective or inflammatory liver disease
3. It is NOT hemolysis

So what is it? Like the dog that did not bark in the night the cause of yellowness must be something obscure or uncommon like Gilbert's syndrome or weirdness like carotenemia

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33453
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 14:44

http://www.ozy.com/flashback/the-brilli ... NE.twitter
ozy.com
The Brilliant Mathematician Whom Time Forgot | Flashback
Libby Coleman
5-6 minutes

Long before Sir Isaac Newton, Pierre de Fermat, Gottfried Leibniz or the rest of the crew credited with the development of calculus, an astronomer and mathematician named Jyesthadeva put ink to palm leaves to record the mathematics of his teachers and possibly some of his own.

In a small town in southern India in the 1500s, Jyesthadeva penned concepts important to developing a calculus system, and he did so in complete proofs that demonstrated infinite series expansions of trigonometric functions and gave precise approximations for complex calculations. “Calculus and everything derived from it depends to some extent on these concepts of infinitesimals and infinite series,” says Kim Plofker, author of Mathematics in India. By way of comparison, it wasn’t until the 1660s in Europe that a Westerner named James Gregory was able to independently do the same proof.


The text, called the Yuktibhasa, is broken into 15 chapters and spans hundreds of pages of proofs and commentary. It was a compilation of a century-plus of Indian mathematics developed by the Kerala school, led by mathematician Madhava of Sangamagrama in the 14th century. Most of Madhava’s work would have been lost if not for the writings of pupils like Jyesthadeva, who recorded everything in Dravidian, the hyper-localized dialect of Malayalam. One theory is that Jyesthadeva wasn’t fluent in Sanskrit or he was helping others who weren’t.

By the 16th century, the school was on the wane, which might have been Jyesthadeva’s impetus for writing down the proofs that had been passed from pupil to pupil orally for 200 years — the Yuktibhasa may have been his way of preserving that information.



There are a few theories as to why the school faded. Perhaps a dynasty change led to funding cuts. Or perhaps it was because the practical use of mathematics was primarily for astronomy, and once the tables had been made accurate to the 11th decimal place, there was no more need for mathematicians. But whatever the cause, “by the 1700s, almost no one is reading or copying [the Kerala school] texts anymore,” says Homer White, professor of mathematics at Georgetown College.

While some historians have speculated that Jesuits traveling between India and Europe brought the Yuktibhasa back to Europe and that it served to inspire European calculus, most aren’t convinced. “There is no reason to believe that our use of these ideas was directly descended from or influenced by the Kerala school,” Plofker says. Located between the Western Ghats mountain chain and the Arabian Sea, Kerala was perfectly situated to have its own culture. It wasn’t completely isolated — Kerala was a hub for pepper production and export — but the school was “quite removed from that trading nexus,” Plofker says, which suggests that ideas from the Yuktibhasa were unlikely to have spread across the ocean.

After the school fizzled out, it took more than 100 years before the work was studied by a Western audience. British colonists in India began studying the culture in the 1700s; in the 1830s, Charles M. Whish published a paper about the Yuktibhasa in the journal Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Whish was a busy fellow, serving in the East India Company in South Malabar, and then, after a few years, as a criminal judge. But he found time to study Indian texts on the side, and before he died at the age of 38, Whish shared with a European audience how the Yuktibhasa had complete proofs.

This was an important “discovery.” Prior to Whish’s translation, Europeans commenting on Indian mathematics denied that the subcontinent had invented its own concepts. John Warren, another East India Company employee, wrote that “a Native Astronomer who was a perfect stranger to European Geometry” could demonstrate the infinite series, but the astronomer could not explain how he knew it to be true — the proof, in other words, was missing. “The Hindus never invented the series; it was communicated with many others, by Europeans, to some learned Natives in modern times,” Warren wrote, quoting George Hyne, also of the East India Company. Whish disagreed, but the prevailing notion, as Hyne had written to Warren, was that “the pretensions of the Hindus to such a knowledge of geometry, is too ridiculous to deserve refutation.”

The Yuktibhasa was the key to proving Warren wrong. It revealed that the Kerala mathematicians had not “taken” the logic but had found it themselves and derived their solution, and had done so far earlier than any European. Whish wanted to correct the misconception, noting, “I have ascertained beyond a doubt that the invention of infinite series of these forms has originated in Malabar” — further proof that history did not have to be written in English to be true.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9746
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 13 Sep 2017 17:09

^^^
http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday ... 818063.ece

The initial reaction of the British to Indian science was one of awe. But later, as they tightened their grip over the country, they poured scorn on Indian science. And when Charles Whish presented his paper on Kerala Mathematics in 1832, it was met with indifference. We see the British attitude to Indian science changing in accordance with their imperialist goals. One way to control a colonised population is to give them the idea that nothing worthwhile ever originated in their country. Anything native to the country is discarded, and this is what the British did.


Incidentally, a similar thing happened with the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Greeks. The ancient Greeks were at first in awe of Egyptian knowledge, and then later dismissed them.

Since your quest for transmission through Jesuit missionaries was not fruitful, what alternate routes, if any, are you looking at now?

There are still some more archival materials to be explored which would require research funding and research assistants with the necessary linguistic skills. Some of the Jesuit papers are in private collections; some have been destroyed. Meanwhile, there is need to shore up the circumstantial evidence which has been identified in earlier work.


I think one of the key points is that if something wasn't written down, or if the writing wasn't preserved or a reference to the writing wasn't preserved, history cannot take cognizance of it. That would not render the existence of that false.

Here is another major thing of the past, almost completely destroyed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4456
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 13 Sep 2017 19:10

Question for the Mahabharta Gurus., is this truth?

http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/first-e ... arat-verse

Image
We know how after Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle gave requisite proof that the Earth is actually round, the world believed their claim. But, then who guessed the exact design of this world?

“Who created the first map of Earth?” This question alone has led to numerous arguments till date. While some credit it to the Greeks; a few others argue that only after the first space rendition, the picture became clearer.

Some researchers argue that Anaximander, in 6th century BC drew the first ever world map assuming that the world was spherical, but the real question is- how did he reach this precise conclusion?

You would be surprised to know that even before the world realized that Earth actually had a design, this Sanskrit epic had precisely described how the world actually looks like. Don’t believe us, then go and read Mahabharata and you’ll surely find all the answers.

The first ever world map was sketched thousands of years ago by Indian saint Ramanujacharya, who simply translated the following verse from Mahabharat and gave the world its real face.

In Mahabharat, it is described how Maharishi Ved Vyasa gave away his divine vision to Sanjay, Dhritarashtra's charioteer so that he could describe him the events of the upcoming war.

But, even before questions of war could begin, Dhritarashtra asked him to describe how the world looks like from space.

This is how he described the face of the world:

यथा हि पुरुषः पश्येदादर्- शे मुखमात्मनः- ।

एवं सुदर्शनद्व- ीपो दृश्यते चन्द्रमण्ड- ले॥

द्विरंश- े पिप्पलस्तत- ्र द्विरंशे च शशो महान्।।-

(भी- ्म पर्व, महाभारत)

Meaning:-

अर्थ- जैसे पुरुष दर्पण में अपना मुख देखता है, उसी प्रकार यह द्वीप (पृथ्वी) चन्द्रमण्ड- ल में दिखाई देता है। इसके दो अंशों में पिप्पल (पीपल के पत्ते) और दो अंशों में महान शश (खरगोश) दिखाई देता है।

Just like a man sees his face in the mirror, so does the Earth appears in the Universe. In the first phase, you see Peepal leaves and the next phase you see a rabbit.

Based on this shloka, Saint Ramanujacharya sketched out the map, but the world laughed it off on seeing some leaves and a rabbit. Much later, when the picture was switched upside down, the reality struck in.

Don’t believe us, try turning the above picture upside down and you’ll know what I am talking about.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33453
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 19:43

A_Gupta wrote:
I think one of the key points is that if something wasn't written down, or if the writing wasn't preserved or a reference to the writing wasn't preserved, history cannot take cognizance of it. That would not render the existence of that false.

This is true and is probably the origin of the article of faith "It is written.."

But even stuff that was written has been destroyed depending on the whims and fancies of the later philosophers. In Plato's Republic he envisions a state in which writers should not be allowed to write about "fantastic, incredible" feats and voyages that came down in Greek literature - but should be restricted to what is believed to be humanly possible. This sounds like the sort of logic used in destruction of works like those of Ctesias - who - as I have pointed out in an earlier page - can be seen to be no less credible than Herodotus. The blind love for Herodotus as the "first historian" is as contrived and artificial as claiming that there may have been earlier prophets like Moses and Jesus but Mahomet is the latest and greatest and only his word is true.

Amazing how people can purport to practice unbiased neutrality even while openly embracing dogma. A degree of skill in rhetoric ensures that no one can come in the way of pushing crap as the only truth there is.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33453
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 19:53

SBajwa wrote:Question for the Mahabharta Gurus., is this truth?

http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/first-e ... arat-verse

I am no Mahabharata guru but I have mixed feelings about this

Proving or disproving this would require a lot of research into what Madhavacharya wrote and whether any drawings or renderings of drawings survive.

But on the other hand there is a biased, "evil" side of my mind that says - good. Let this story survive and be spread around. No harm in allowing such stories to float around without swearing that they are 100% true or false. Add noise and decrease the signal noise ratio and then pull out signals that have been discarded by dogma and bias.

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

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

Postby Yayavar » 13 Sep 2017 20:29

I would first question whether Aristotle/others were actually the first to state earth was a sphere? Is there nothing in any pre-existing literature: the vedas and vedic literature, the puranas and Mahabharata (beyond the world being reflected on moon's surface)?

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Sep 2017 21:11

shiv wrote:
In a small town in southern India in the 1500s, Jyesthadeva penned concepts important to developing a calculus system, and he did so in complete proofs that demonstrated infinite series expansions of trigonometric functions and gave precise approximations for complex calculations. “Calculus and everything derived from it depends to some extent on these concepts of infinitesimals and infinite series,” says Kim Plofker, author of Mathematics in India. By way of comparison, it wasn’t until the 1660s in Europe that a Westerner named James Gregory was able to independently do the same proof.
---
While some historians have speculated that Jesuits traveling between India and Europe brought the Yuktibhasa back to Europe and that it served to inspire European calculus, most aren’t convinced. “There is no reason to believe that our use of these ideas was directly descended from or influenced by the Kerala school,” Plofker says. Located between the Western Ghats mountain chain and the Arabian Sea, Kerala was perfectly situated to have its own culture. It wasn’t completely isolated — Kerala was a hub for pepper production and export — but the school was “quite removed from that trading nexus,” Plofker says, which suggests that ideas from the Yuktibhasa were unlikely to have spread across the ocean.




Note the two highlighted passages and the person who is quoted here. She is a student of mischievous but well regarded and decorated late professor of Exact sciences - David Pingree of Brown university (Ivy league and all that).

Notice her first quote.. it may fool ordinary reader in thinking that she is assigning credit to Indian mathematicians. She is not. BTW, I had personal interactions and I told her how mediocre works of late Professor Pingree are anything but exact and how they are full of BS and much more. She ran away..

Here are few blogs I had written in that context,

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/02 ... st-part-1/

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/02 ... st-part-2/

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/02 ... st-part-3/

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/02 ... st-part-4/

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 13 Sep 2017 22:25

Nilesh Oak wrote:
Too bad, it did not help.

Stick to what you personally follow. All the best.


Yeah, all the best to you too with dating Ramayana to 12,000+ BC with your archeoastronomy approach.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Sep 2017 22:29

^^^ You start off with 1 yuga is 1 million years, and when it is pointed out that length of a yuga is a not a fixed one, your response is to pretend Wikipedia is the best because it gives you your favorite answer. Your only reason for insisting on the X million year value, or indeed a single value for a yuga -- a term that seems generic enough as to be rendered mostly meaningless --- is so that you don't have to make a reasonable argument for your point of view, if indeed a yuga was not X million years. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. And there you were a few days ago waxing about "satyameva jayate". :lol: This is like someone asking for the exact temperature of a hot kettle and refusing any answer that is not 100 degress celsius
Last edited by periaswamy on 14 Sep 2017 00:00, edited 2 times in total.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 13 Sep 2017 22:38

shiv wrote:What has all this got to do with yugas?

I suspect the translation of yuga as calendar years may be wrong. Of course this whole yuga business could be complete rubbish like cowdung on umbilical cord. Or it could be like handwashing. True but not understood or explained.



A yuga as a measure of length of time is simply certain number of number of days, with day as an unit. Hard to dismiss it unless the very definition of day itself is wrong.

Hindu Units Of Time

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Sep 2017 22:41

Furthermore, if a yuga is not an exact measure of time, as indicated by the quotes in the texts in Mr. Oak's post, it cannot be used to date any event, as should be clear. So anyone insisting on using a yuga as a measure of time is off in the weeds.
Last edited by periaswamy on 14 Sep 2017 00:00, edited 2 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33453
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 23:09

Dipanker wrote:
shiv wrote:What has all this got to do with yugas?

I suspect the translation of yuga as calendar years may be wrong. Of course this whole yuga business could be complete rubbish like cowdung on umbilical cord. Or it could be like handwashing. True but not understood or explained.



A yuga as a measure of length of time is simply certain number of number of days, with day as an unit. Hard to dismiss it unless the very definition of day itself is wrong.

Hindu Units Of Time

Fair enough. But I am sceptical enough to want to look at it in more detail and I am always wary of people such as yourself who dogmatically and emphatically insist that I must agree and think like you. I am just not built that way. I do not trust any source you quote, and I suspect that all sources may be untrustworthy. But these are the attitudes that make me me and not you

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1295
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 13 Sep 2017 23:59

SriJoy wrote:this thread and my posts in this thread are a direct refutation to your charge of 'blind dogmatic belief in history'. I've already said many times history is like onion shopping- trick is knowing what is reliable and what isn't. Which comes from learning about primary and secondary sources of a given instance in history.
But i don't expect someone, who's self-admitted view of history is for the sole purpose of aggrandizing his ancestors- to understand these concepts.


More like history is "Opinion Shaping" :mrgreen:
Jokes aside... and congrats on a straw man and an ad homenim attack all in one poorly constructed neatly underlined sentence... :P

What according to you is the purpose of History? Just Onion Shopping? :rotfl:

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 14 Sep 2017 00:09

It is weird that those who insist that ancient Indians were barbarians are the same people who insist that the ancient definition of a day is exactly the same as a modern 24 hour day, measured in seconds that are measured by the speed of light travelling a specific distance. So the concept of yuga developed by barbarians somehow uses the ultra-modern definition of a 24-hour day.

It is more likely that the concept of a day or a measure of time was quite a bit different from terms we are familiar with today, and we cannot tell without examining all the evidence available, however little there is.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1295
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 14 Sep 2017 00:20

Dipanker wrote:I am afraid, this does not help. I was looking for a more concrete answers than this! Of the multiple definition of yugas describing length of time I would like to know at least a few which are considered acceptable.

Personally I follow the one given in Wikipedia, and using this gives roughly 1+ million years ago when Rama lived on this planet (Treta Yuga).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_units_of_time

If you call this random then please let me know which definition of yuga as length of time you are following and how long are different yugas as per your definition.


/Sarc ON
Since then Hindus never had one kingdom, god(s), book(s), concrete thought(s), whatever, how come a singular definition is demanded for Yuga?

Andhra, Karnataka, Maharashtra among others celebrate Yugadi (Ugadi, Gudi Padwa, etc) so is Yuga one year then? Or is it multiple variable years?
/Sarc Never OFF

A bit off topic, but it is really relevant...

History of Magic in NA - JK Rawlings Native American Stereotypes
The failure of History is in its lack of understanding of the human mind and especially the misused of it in the collective. When it is Abhrahamic it is considered belief, but when it is Native American it become myth even magic. Hindu, yes it must be MYTHs! This chronological processing of humans who are living cultures will need to be resisted. Indian civilization is no different, it is being put through the same digestion machine that so many sepoys seem eager in their blind ignorance not to understand or recognize.

Their scrappy tools you picked up on barren shores you want to apply to the rich fertile jungles you come from and hope and pray to find what happened in a chronological bludgeoning of anything useful that can ever be learnt, hell bent on removing the last light that still seems to shine through what you have declared essentially as a carcass of history...

There in lies deep disappointment at where we have come!

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1611
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 14 Sep 2017 06:56

SriJoy wrote:
sudarshan wrote:
BTW, who is this mythical "us" and "we" you keep talking about? Can't you speak for yourself? You are not some spokesman for some army of silent spectators. If they have any problems or issues, let them bring them up on their own.

It's bad form to pretend to speak for others, especially in a public forum.

The only people I see having any issues are you and Dipanker. Nothing wrong with having your issues of course. But at some point, some cost-benefit has to kick in, regarding the utility of convincing two lone people who either have no intention of abandoning pre-set assumptions, or who have active agendas.


the active agendas are far easier to prove for the opposition camp- since its easy to prove agendas from a religious group arguing in favour of their religious book. As for one or two, the opposition has 4-5 people in them. I can make the same assessment- since these people are saying crazy nonsense nobody takes seriously, it doesn't matter what they say.


Looks like you left your counting skills in that wilderness (your own word) where you studied history. I can count at least 10 people on this thread, more like 15, who disagree with you. Or actually - everybody who has posted on this thread since you showed up, save you and Dipanker, is in disagreement with you. And now Dipanker has left the rest of us paltry "12000+ BC" losers far behind with his "1+million BC" date for the Ramayana :mrgreen:. So if you know anything about statistical sampling, you'd get the message.

BUT that is not the point, and this forum or thread is admittedly not a popularity contest or political election....

My real point is, that none of the other posters on this thread aggrandize and pluralize themselves as "we" and "us" the way you do. They each speak for themselves, without presuming this "popular support." Like I said, it is bad form on a public forum to talk as if you are some kind of popular spokesman, and reflects either a big ego, or a lack of maturity, or both.

And like you said, "it doesn't matter what they say," only you keep coming back as if it does matter to you - a lot.

Edit: Just saw KaranM's post. My last on this.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33453
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 14 Sep 2017 08:04

shiv wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
A yuga as a measure of length of time is simply certain number of number of days, with day as an unit. Hard to dismiss it unless the very definition of day itself is wrong.

Hindu Units Of Time

Fair enough. But I am sceptical enough to want to look at it in more detail and I am always wary of people such as yourself who dogmatically and emphatically insist that I must agree and think like you. I am just not built that way. I do not trust any source you quote, and I suspect that all sources may be untrustworthy. But these are the attitudes that make me me and not you


I guess it must be equally hard to dismiss this. I am hoping that I hear no more chicanery relating to the following facts
http://baharna.com/karma/yuga.htm

If you (Dipanker) take all this literally I hope that your conservative mind retains enough liberalism to allow others to believe all this too. I will, as I always do, be bringing this up to confront you in due course, now that you have declared what you believe to be true, as part of a healthy discussion I hope to have.

The smallest cycle is called a maha yuga. A maha yuga is 4,320,000 human years. Each maha yuga is subdivided into the following four ages, whose lengths follow a ratio of 4:3:2:1:

Satya Yuga (also called Krita Yuga)
This first age is 1,728,000 human years. Also known as the Golden Age or age of Truth. The qualities of this age are: virtue reigns supreme; human stature is 21 cubits; lifespan is a lakh of years, and death occurs only when willed.

Treta Yuga
This second age is 1,296,000 human years. Also known as the Silver Age. The qualities of this age are: the climate is three quarters virtue and one quarter sin; human stature is 14 cubits; lifespan is 10,000 years.

Dvapara Yuga
This third age is 864,000 human years. Also known as the Bronze Age. The qualities of this age are: the climate is one half virtue and one half sin; lifespan is 1,000 years.

Kali Yuga
The fourth and last age is 432,000 human years. Also known as the Iron Age. This is the age in which we are presently living. The qualities of this age are: the climate is one quarter virtue and three quarters sin; human stature is 3.5 cubits; lifespan is 100 or 120 years.


For people other than Dipanker, who may find it hard to believe the above facts I would like request a degree of critical analysis - in the sense that when a writer refers to say Dvapara yuga - and you accept the date, please also accept literally the human lifespan of 1000 years. If that is hard to accept, there are, IMO two routes available
1. Dismiss and laugh.
2. Try and look for information as to what the people who said these things might have meant, given that humans are not generally accepted to have had a lifespan of over 70-80 years

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1611
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 14 Sep 2017 08:35

shiv wrote:If you (Dipanker) take all this literally I hope that your conservative mind retains enough liberalism to allow others to believe all this too. I will, as I always do, be bringing this up to confront you in due course, now that you have declared what you believe to be true, as part of a healthy discussion I hope to have.
Dvapara Yuga
This third age is 864,000 human years. Also known as the Bronze Age. The qualities of this age are: the climate is one half virtue and one half sin; lifespan is 1,000 years.

Kali Yuga
The fourth and last age is 432,000 human years. Also known as the Iron Age. This is the age in which we are presently living. The qualities of this age are: the climate is one quarter virtue and three quarters sin; human stature is 3.5 cubits; lifespan is 100 or 120 years.




How did you miss the obvious? The people who described the yugas also knew that there was something called a "Bronze Age" and "Iron Age," and they even specify their exact duration!! Do modern scientists know the exact duration of the bronze age, I ask? Do modern scientists know exactly how long the current iron age is going to last, I ask?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinandan, nandakumar, shivatar, sum and 68 guests