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.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 28 Jul 2017 16:13

Misra wrote:true seekers--including true scientists--identify neither with 'knowledge' (which is a limited space) nor with 'information' (which is its poorer cousin) but with 'ignorance' (which is infinite and the real solution space)

information is fluff and its worshippers give themselves away too easily


Agreed.

"It might be well for all of us to remember that, while differing
widely in the various little bits we know, in our infinite ignorance we are all equal."


- Karl Popper

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 28 Jul 2017 19:06

For those who may be on FB and interested...

This provides summary of what points I will summarize, followed by Q&A.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/indic-bo ... 436356681/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 29 Jul 2017 07:09

It is critically important to call out outright bluffing by a pompous liar. And I am called a "master of misdirection and misinformation". Amazing ch**thspah this chap has
SriJoy wrote:You sir, are a master of misdirection and misinformation. You quoted ONE text of mine, which is a clear typo, where i missed the 8 for 1800. Every other post of mine demonstrates that i've said IVC collapses around 1800 BC. and even if not, your faceteous claims are easily repelled by a simple google search which shows IVC to've collapsed by 1800 BC. Except for Pirak, a solitary site in Pakistan, i do not know of any other IVC site surviving into 1st millenium BC. And even if there are a dozen or so of them, it still represents a collapse for a civilization boasting over 1000 sites.



I was aware that the Harappan Civilization did not really collapse but gradually faded, but I was looking for a more scholarly source . The IVC DID_NOT_COLLAPSE suddenly. It faded away over many centuries

This paper from Rafique Mughal - an authority on the subject
http://www.rafiquemughal.com/MUGHAL_199 ... lletin.pdf

Rafique says:
THE DECLINE OF THE INDUS CIVILIZATION AND THE
LATE HARAPPAN PERIOD IN THE INDUS VALLEY
DR. M. RAFIQUE MUGHAL

The terminal date of Harappa is not yet known. Kalibangan II
(Mature Harappan) has provided a series of 24 dates, the minimum range of which
falls between 1540 and 1240 B.C. (Possehl 1989 for dates). The Mature Harappan
occupation of Banawali II (Bisht 1982 and 1987), dates between 2555-2285 and 1700-
1415 B.C. on the basis of a series of four calibrated dates. The Cemetery H occupation
at Bara I has given the longest range of the two C-14 dates which comes to 1585-1330
B.C. and 1980-1690 B.C. Their upper limit falls between 2330-1957 B.C. and 2335-
1885 B.C. From another contemporary site, Sanghol (except for one early date), four
Radiocarbon dates range between 2175-1715 B.C. and 1785-1560 (?) B.C. The
available dates from Cemetery H related Late Harappan sites may vary greatly
especially at the beginning of occupation and so are the dates of the terminal period
of Mature Harappan. On the basis of lowest dates, it is proposed that the Late
Harappan Cemetery H occupation period ended in the Punjab sometime between 1700
and 1500 B.C. The succeeding occupations with fading Harappan tradition
lingered on well into the early first millennium B.C,
overlapping at some sites with
the Painted Grey Wares (PGW


From Page 12
"Around the middle of the second millennium B.C., certain changes in the
Harappan material culture became evident resulting from re-adjustments or
changes in the socio-economic and political organizational structure of the
Harappan society. These changes might have been necessitated by gradual
depletion of economic resources" increased population pressure or perhaps
insecurity created by invading or intruding groups of people, or perhaps, by
combination of various causes. Whatever may be the reasons, it is however
certain that Pan-Indus integration of the Greater Indus Valley which climaxed
during the Mature Harappan Period had weakned but not destroyed. It seems
that the local population re-grouped and readjusted to changed situation in
three principal areas and thus managed to survive for a considerable length of
time.
These changes are reflected in the material culture found in each region
of their concentration.They are known as the 'Cemetery H Culture' in the
Punjab, 'Jhukar Culture' in Sind and 'Late degenerate/Post or Late Harappan
Culture' in Gujarat (Western India).


It is one thing to write under-informed bullshit. It becomes a completely different ball game when bullshit is spiced with attacks on those who disagree by describing them using a litany of derogatory epithets , and using semantic word play to obfuscate and digress, and pulling in some stupid unpronounceable names "Nietzchrs%$5??" as if that makes his fake assertions come true. Reading Nietzsche or Noddy makes no difference to Harappa or the Mahabharata. But actual relevant reading is critical to calling out SriJoy's trolling

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9612
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 29 Jul 2017 09:09

^^^ Just put SriJoy in your ignore list, Shiv. Life is too short to waste time on such as him. He isn't even good practice for the people in the wider world that you are going to try to address with your articles and books.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 29 Jul 2017 12:51

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ Just put SriJoy in your ignore list, Shiv. Life is too short to waste time on such as him. He isn't even good practice for the people in the wider world that you are going to try to address with your articles and books.

Agree in principle.

But people such as Srijoy help me hone my rhetorical argumentative skills which enable me to sort wheat from chaff in what people write, trash the rhetoric separately from the bluff and specious constructs of alleged facts based on a combination of fact and fiction.

It also helps me locate long lost references on which my own views have been built up.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1556
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 29 Jul 2017 18:23

Pulikeshi wrote:
SriJoy wrote:One can treat their senile grandparents with utmost care and duty and still keep in mind they are senile and their ramblings have no contributions towards our awareness of existence.


Lets hope you become a grandparent soon! :P
My last on this topic!


Maybe he already is, figuratively at least, and that's the way we should treat *his* ramblings :). It's actually great advice, you just have to correctly identify whom to apply it to.

Use the ignore button, or failing which, let's just rename the thread to "Extended Discussion on SriJoy and His Ramblings" and be done with it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 29 Jul 2017 18:35

In fact this may be a good time to archive this thread and start thread 3...

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4954
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 29 Jul 2017 20:51

The problem I see in SriJoy's argument is this:

He ignores the fact that Itihasa came AFTER the technical treaties of the Upanishads. Contrast this to the development of Christianity in Europe where a purely assumptive anthropology was cast into myth whose influence waned against technical texts discovered/developed in periods like the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Romance, etc. So essentially you have:

Subcontinent: Technical => Itihasa

ME and Europe: Myth => Technical

This is a critical distinction because you have to ask yourself the following question: If the technical texts preceded Itihasa, and Itihasa is indeed myth, why would we retard our own philosophical/scientific development? Moreover, does the evidence show this? If not, perhaps its safe to say that universalizing a western narrative isn't the best way of looking at the phenomena of Itihasa.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 29 Jul 2017 22:11

^^^You are on to something... needs more exploration... The West needed a corrective measure to save itself and adopting its convoluted framework and criticising the more formal Indian approach. It is like a company that mimics feature of a competitor (whose offering is of lower quality) mistakenly because the feature currently has higher adoption in social media... never realizing that ones own features are better and adopting the competitors is actually going to make everything one has intrinsically get devalued.
Or in Shiv's language (with apologies) - being married to a 10 and jolling for the pole dancer!
:P

KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

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

Postby KL Dubey » 30 Jul 2017 04:54

:mrgreen: Looks like SriJoy has fawked this thread too. BTW Sarasvati as referred in the Rgveda is not a river but represents some other kind of physical object. Howevah, there was certainly a riva in NW India that took its name from the Rgvedic sound Sarasvati.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4954
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 30 Jul 2017 06:17

Pulikeshi wrote:^^^You are on to something... needs more exploration... The West needed a corrective measure to save itself and adopting its convoluted framework and criticising the more formal Indian approach. It is like a company that mimics feature of a competitor (whose offering is of lower quality) mistakenly because the feature currently has higher adoption in social media... never realizing that ones own features are better and adopting the competitors is actually going to make everything one has intrinsically get devalued.
Or in Shiv's language (with apologies) - being married to a 10 and jolling for the pole dancer!
:P


Many overt thematic elements within the Itihasa literature which come directly from the Upanishads so the influence is non-debatable. Now for Pollock and others, this is a big problem. If you want to prove some sort of in-built oppression within the text, some sophistication is needed in the form of ignoring/editing the historical timeline and using the Semitic experience as a template for textual deconstruction.

Now on SriJoy's point on human conflict stemming from greed, kinship ties, etc contained within the text, I agree with him. We had all of that. It's the underlying response to these phenomena which is in question. The Semitic world used myth to transmit its solution in the form of the idea that sovereignty lie with something external and ordinary man is merely a custodian of the domain granted to it.

On the other hand, we used Itihasa to transmit something completely different which has not till date been matched by the West. Itihasa presents the cause of unhappiness within society as desire and it's effects in the form of conflict, and eventual resolution in the form victory for one side. But what's really unique is that the faculties of mind and goal of meditative techniques are encoded within the story to show how one can bring about that change at the individual level. So in other words, Itihasa gives the reader a framework to induce change within oneself and shows how this change can contribute to victory over conflict brought about by desire in society.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 30 Jul 2017 08:45

I don't know who pointed me to this - if it was on BRF please fess up and accept my gratitude because even after the first 10-12 pages a light has come on in my mind. First the link and then my thoughts
https://archive.org/details/terminologyofved00vidy

The interesting thing here is that Aurobindo too has expressed ideas similar to what the author of this 1890s(?) book has said.

My thoughts were augmented by RoyGs posts above. I think Rudradev also posted something in this connection in 2 threads - will locate and link later)

When you look at western commentators about western civilization (for the last 100 years or more) there is this underlying theme that "man is now mor developed than ever before". This conclusion is easy to reach when you look at all the "technological" movement of the last 200 years - navigation, ships, firearms, steam and later IC engines, biochemistry, biology, mechanical and civil engineering and a long list of other notable milestones. Apart from what are acknowledged as a few token contributions from the east - like paper, gunpowder, the zero, AlJabr-a etc the "west" takes credit for everything in making this assertion.

A question that arises from this is whether man has become "more intelligent" in the recent past and if so, what is the proof that man is now more intelligent or "smart" if you like than ever before.

People speak of evolution and there are plenty of human remains from 300-400 years ago when there were no tech achievements of note and no one seems to have found any genetic "evolution" in humans.

There are western books and western literature from 500 plus years ago. Any indication that humans were "more stupid" than today? As examples of this we are usually pointed to Copernicus versus Galileo, Church versus Galileo, Darwin versus Church and many other examples. But was Copernicus and the big shots of the Church "less smart"/more stupid as humans for having lived 500 odd years ago? Were they incapable of the complex reasoning that we call "logic" and "rationality" today. The answer is no - because even from the west we have examples of super reasoning coming out from Greece - going back more than 2000 years. So if from the viewpoint of human reasoning and the ability to hold rational thought - there appears to be no difference between people of 2-3000 years ago versus people today. Go back further in time and you find that humans did have rationality and intelligence and there is nothing to suggest that they were stupid savages.

In India we go back further. In terms of memes we have the Upanishads and the epics. In the epics the human emotions and reasoning are perfectly "modern". The mathematics and astronomy again are suggestive of "modern minds". the planning and construction of Harappan sites and the furnaces that created high temperature goods like faïence date back 5000 years. There is no clear evidence that humans were "savages with less intelligence" 5000 years ago than today. Archaeologically - human remains from even 10,000 years ago do not reveal bigger brains today. What this means is that human intelligence has not evolved to become much more today than it was 5000 years ago. It is likely that 5000 years is too short for major human evolution - my guess is that 100,000 years would the lower limit for some evolutionary process to manifest. So let me come to the point.

It turns out that a "western meme" is that people were stupid savages 10,000 years ago - like the Flintsones and Stonehenge. It is exactly this thought that apparently held true for people like Max Muller and Jones when they interpreted teh Vedas and created those completely idiotic and brainless "translations". It was savages with less brains than today's people who produced the Vedas - so it is perfectly OK for the Vedas to sound phenomenally stupid in translation.

Finally let me come back to what the link above (and Aurobindo in his own way) say about the Vedas. The author (Pandit Guru Datta Vidyarthi) quotes Yaska as pointing out that the words of the Vedas are "Yaugika" - that is to say that the words consist of a root sound with a meaning and extensions that add to the meaning. This is opposed to other words that are simply words that have no complex break-up in meaning. A person who is able to read the "yaugika" sense of the words of the Vedas is able to extract the philosophy from it, but if that sense is not detected the translation of the Vedas becomes utter trash as we have seen from various people including Muller and Monier Williams

Of course the author blames Sayana (circa 1300 AD) for authoring a poor misinterpretation of the Vedas ignoring the yaugika sense that was swallowed by Max Muller and co. Aurobindo too echoes this. I will try and give examples after I have found a few good ones - but both Vidyarthi and Aurobindo have good English but are very verbose for today's readership style

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4954
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 30 Jul 2017 11:47

KL Dubey wrote::mrgreen: Looks like SriJoy has fawked this thread too. BTW Sarasvati as referred in the Rgveda is not a river but represents some other kind of physical object. Howevah, there was certainly a riva in NW India that took its name from the Rgvedic sound Sarasvati.


He hasn't. I'm glad he brought up Itihasa. His deep assumptions mirror that of Holzmann who used AIT to show how the subcontinental negro tainted the myths brought to them by sweaty white men on horseback. Buddhism was the product of Aryan genius revolting against mythic oppression. So you see, progress was stifled and then resumed just like when the protestants reduced the stranglehold of the catholic church.

AIT is critical to this project. It establishes conflict between groups of people and helps cast the text as some sort of myth similar to the bible which is full of superstition to put the reader victim into a state of borderline mental retardation so that he cant perceive his own oppression.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 30 Jul 2017 21:19

peter wrote:
SriJoy wrote:....
sorry to burst your religion-inspired babble but analysis of sudden pulses of migration in world history (over 100-200 year period) show extensive alliances, massive warfare across several fronts, etc. Ofcourse, you are gonna argue all the other world parallels that hold for rest of the world, should be tossed aside for India in a modelling scenario because of your precious religious narrative.

....

As we have seen earlier in the case of your assertion to the effect that no astronomy existed in Vedas IVC demise is also showing your shallow comprehension.

Have you heard of a river known as Saraswati?

How is this river described in Vedas?

How is this river described in Mahabharata?

How did this river dryup according to modern Science and what is the timeline of this river drying up? (Hint : See research from Woodshole).


1. I have not asserted that there is no astronomy in the Vedas. They had rudimentary, basic astronomy, as is true for pretty much all settled societies 4000+ years ago.
2. The fact that Saraswati is described as a bountiful river, which has been shown in this very thread by others, using qualified geological & meteorological papers, existed prior to 2000 BC and the fact that Mahabharata notes Saraswati as a dying river (disappearing at Vinasana), is supportive of the conclusion that Mahabharata era is post-2000 BC.
3. My assessment re: astronomical phenomena noted in a Smriti literature is simple : they are later additions, just like many other things are.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1146
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 30 Jul 2017 23:36

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote:As we have seen earlier in the case of your assertion to the effect that no astronomy existed in Vedas IVC demise is also showing your shallow comprehension.

Have you heard of a river known as Saraswati?

How is this river described in Vedas?

How is this river described in Mahabharata?

How did this river dryup according to modern Science and what is the timeline of this river drying up? (Hint : See research from Woodshole).


1. I have not asserted that there is no astronomy in the Vedas. They had rudimentary, basic astronomy, as is true for pretty much all settled societies 4000+ years ago.

Rudimentary: Vedic people knowing heliocentric concept ? When did heliocentricity reach the western civilisation?
SriJoy wrote:2. The fact that Saraswati is described as a bountiful river, which has been shown in this very thread by others, using qualified geological & meteorological papers, existed prior to 2000 BC and the fact that Mahabharata notes Saraswati as a dying river (disappearing at Vinasana), is supportive of the conclusion that Mahabharata era is post-2000 BC.

No. Post 2000 BC the river is completely dry. Prior to that it broke up into pieces, formed lakes , and dried up in sections. This was the period from ~3000 BC to ~2000 BC. If you read Balaram's journey section of MBH it is clear the description is pre complete drying up.
SriJoy wrote:3. My assessment re: astronomical phenomena noted in a Smriti literature is simple : they are later additions, just like many other things are.

Alright here is an assignment: how can a sequence of dozens of astronomical observations be made to line up, like they exist in MBH, from the arrival of Krishna for peace negotiations to the death of Bhishma by a "later adder to MBH" say a 1000 years after the actual date of the war?

Let me repeat : say X is the date of war: At X + 1000 years how do you backfit a sequence of dozens of astronomical observations 1000 years ago?

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 31 Jul 2017 04:10

Rudimentary: Vedic people knowing heliocentric concept ? When did heliocentricity reach the western civilisation?


Conventional history states that western world discovered heliocentrism around 15th century. Don’t know of the vedic world. However, it is clear that during the golden age of Indian civilization, aka 300s BC-800s AD, we had a geocentric model, as evidenced by the utter dominance of Aryabhatta’s model, which is a geocentric model with epicycles.

No. Post 2000 BC the river is completely dry. Prior to that it broke up into pieces, formed lakes , and dried up in sections. This was the period from ~3000 BC to ~2000 BC. If you read Balaram's journey section of MBH it is clear the description is pre complete drying up.


There is some ambiguity on this- most historians tend to agree that the Saraswati dried up completely in the 2000-1500 BC period, with the subsequent ‘beginning to dry up’ phase being in the 3000-2000 BC margin. IIRC the PGW pottery found on the riverbed of the Saraswati (indicating that the river is dried up completely and people were occupying the former river-bed) dates from 1500s BC onwards. Feel free to correct me on this, however.

Alright here is an assignment: how can a sequence of dozens of astronomical observations be made to line up, like they exist in MBH, from the arrival of Krishna for peace negotiations to the death of Bhishma by a "later adder to MBH" say a 1000 years after the actual date of the war?

Let me repeat : say X is the date of war: At X + 1000 years how do you backfit a sequence of dozens of astronomical observations 1000 years ago?


Multiple ways this can happen:
a) conflating other textual reference (astronomical observations) with the Mahabharata/Ramayana (since they are Smriti literature).
b) Once the periodicity of the planets and precession of the earth is known, it is simply a matter of current observation and back-calculating the conjunction dates.
c) A few random, lucky guesses: Not all the planetary conjunctions in either text can be explained.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 31 Jul 2017 04:43

Classic advice from a man who cannot get people to agree with him "You read what I read and you will start thinking like me". Amazing how SriJoy finds it necessary to advise random trolls on the internet about what they should be reading - only because they disagree with his concoctions.
Last edited by shiv on 27 Jul 2017 19:06, edited 1 time in total


As you have already noted, due to your reflexive berating of anyone disagreeing with your propaganda, I do have people here agreeing with me. But that is immaterial: truth isn’t party to populism. The very fact that you seem to think so, shows the nature of your propaganda.
My comment was a simple administration of an old axiom and a basic fundamental to the scientific process : Don’t knock it, till you try it. The very fact that you chose to discredit something without even knowing about it (in your own admission, as I highlighted), shows the banality of your propaganda.

A defensive downhill ski if ever I saw one when you saw the problem with your usual tactic applying semantics where precision was necessary

Precision is a relative concept. As I demonstrated and you failed to counter, precision carries different parameters in different fields. As I said, in geology, a dating of +/- 100s of thousands of years is considered highly precise. In history, a pan-civilizational event occurring within a century or so, is considered a sudden event. You are simply barking up the wrong tree if you wish to overturn accepted conventions re: precision in various fields.
So the war may not have occurred - rendering useless your idea that it was a war that followed the "sudden collapse" of the IVC

In terms of absolute certainty, yes obviously: Our ancestors deemed the Mahabharata and Ramayana as lesser literature for a reason. However, conventional wisdom states that in an imperfect system (as are these literature classified by our ancients, which neither your or Nilesh’s wishful thinking will reverse), the more general the picture, the closer its to the truth, the more narrow and specific the picture, the more prone it is to distortion. As such, in bold strokes, the story of Mahabharata – a dynastic feud leading to war- is more likely to be true than the existence of a man the size of a mountain, who’s falling crushes legions of men (Ghatotkacha).

You brought up the subject - but you post so much crap that you don't want to wade through it yourself


False allegation. At no point did I bring up bronze vs iron argument. You did. Feel free to quote me where I stated the Bronze vs Steel argument regarding warfare.

You started it

Wow. Instead of asking for clarification (like I have for your posts), you assume and run away with such childish banalities. Good job with obfuscation !


Trash. cousins fighting is family disagreement, not civil war This is misdirection and misinformation but hardly "masterful"


When cousins wage war on each other, both coveting the throne, its called civil war. These aren’t your cousins fighting with you in the backyard. They are royals with armies behind them. The classic definition of a civil war.
Boss you are the doctor, You are the one analysing me, my motivations and giving me advice about what I should read and what I should avoid I am not asking you to stop writing crap and moving the goalpost every time you are caught with your virtual pants down. I am only reminding you of what you wrote

Your obfuscation does not change the fact that you are wrong about the supposed disadvantage of bronze-weilding IVC people waging war on the iron-weilding Gangetic dwellers. Should you wish to engage further in the incorrect laymen’s assumption that Bronze is inferior to Iron for the purposes of warfare, I will happily provide you various scientific data tables comparing the sharpness and hardness of the materials in concern. I hope you do remember, since you take everything I write so closely to the heart, that I said my entire involvement in history started many, many years ago when I happened by Iron age implements from Magadha by a friend (professor’s desk) and offered to do the metallurgical analysis for it. Should you wish to engage in a discussion about metallurgy, I suggest you start another thread on it, where your misconceptions re: Iron and Bronze can be easily cured.

This guy thinks that he was holding the fort when he was in India and all this has started after he left, insinuating that his presence was needed to cover others views with his with voluminous crap.

Amazing instance of "Going out of India gave me perspective that no one else can have" Srijoy seems to think no one else goes, and seems to imagine that no one can go out, spend a decade or two and return to get an even better perspective than what he imagines he knows


Nice spin. My comment was simply to note the knee-jerk ideology of many Indians (yourself included, amongst several in this thread), to conflate atheism/disregard for unsubstantiated religious nonsense with communism. Its understandable, since post-Independence atleast, the only atheists in India are commies. However, it totally misses the forest for the trees that one does not have to be a communist to be an atheist or have zero regard for mumbo-jumbo of various ancient cultures invoking unsubstantiated nonsense about the great unknown : whether it is Jehovah or Brahma, heaven or cyclical universe, sin or bad karma, they are all one and the same: unsubstantiated BS uttered by people who were far, far inferior to us in understanding the scope of the universe. If you wish to dispute it, feel free to direct me to where in the Vedas or the Puranic literature one talks about the composition of the atoms,dark matter, quasars, black holes etc. All you will find, regardless of religion, are non-specific garble, similar to Nostradamus’s or any straightforward palmist/fortune teller’s wishy-washy imprecise nonsense.

I was aware that the Harappan Civilization did not really collapse but gradually faded, but I was looking for a more scholarly source . The IVC DID_NOT_COLLAPSE suddenly. It faded away over many centuries

False. Material evidence of IVC sharply declines from 1900 BC and it suffers a near total vanishing post 1700 BC. As I said, name me a dozen sites of IVC in existence post 1700 BC other than Pirak. For a civilization the size of IVC, with 1000+ sites, if you wish to contend a ‘gradual decline’, it should be fairly straightforward to demonstrate that by showing continued occupation of atleast 50% of the sites post 1700 BC. Currently you have Kalibangan, Banwali and Pirak. That is 3 out of 1000+. Ie, < 0.3%. Ie, 99.97% sites show abandonment in a 2 century period. That indicates a sudden collapse.

From Page 12
"Around the middle of the second millennium B.C., certain changes in the
Harappan material culture became evident resulting from re-adjustments or
changes in the socio-economic and political organizational structure of the
Harappan society. These changes might have been necessitated by gradual
depletion of economic resources" increased population pressure or perhaps
insecurity created by invading or intruding groups of people, or perhaps, by
combination of various causes. Whatever may be the reasons, it is however
certain that Pan-Indus integration of the Greater Indus Valley which climaxed
during the Mature Harappan Period had weakned but not destroyed. It seems
that the local population re-grouped and readjusted to changed situation in
three principal areas and thus managed to survive for a considerable length of
time. These changes are reflected in the material culture found in each region
of their concentration.They are known as the 'Cemetery H Culture' in the
Punjab, 'Jhukar Culture' in Sind and 'Late degenerate/Post or Late Harappan
Culture' in Gujarat (Western India).


Ofcourse the local population re-grouped and retained some of the original culture. Short of genocide or cataclysm, that is the trajectory of every collapsing civilization. Incan civilization vanished within a century, so did the Aztec and the Maya, but the area was not completely depopulated (it suffered a massive demographic collapse, same as the Indus basin) and even today elements of Aztec and Incan culture survive in Mexico or the Andes. However, they are NOT the Incan or Mayan culture continuum, because of overwhelming material, demographic and culture loss, same with the IVC/indus region.

The context of the author’s proclamation is to ward off the AMT/AIT theorists who early on proposed a complete depopulation of the region and a complete erasure of the local culture. He is merely pointing out that the loss of harappan culture wasn’t total- it was near total. This we can still see today in the survival of the Bangle style of the Banjaras matching the ‘dancing girl’ of Mohenjo-Daro, the ‘Priest-king dress pattern’ still featuring in traditional Sindhi garb.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 31 Jul 2017 04:57

sudarshan wrote:So let me get this straight. You don't want to do read Nilesh's books before passing judgment, but others should read the books you suggest (however irrelevant to the topic) before passing judgment?


You are right- i should give Nilesh's books a try. However, the comparison isn't apt. One is a book supposedly on scientific analysis of phenomena. The other is a book on philosophy. As such, one can be proof-read and pointed out as false on line1 if its the case (eg : a book on particle physics doesn’t need to be read from front to back, to be declared flawed, if it starts with the line “ the nucleus of an atom consists of electrons and protons”).

If your argument is that archaeo-astronomy doesn't work because astronomy is periodic (leave aside for a moment how amateurish this statement is), then my argument is that European philosophy cannot possibly have got anything right, because a bunch of people who abandoned their native culture in favor of an imported religion from Asia, cannot be trusted to think straight. So why should I read Nietzsche, when it has been conclusively proven (see above) that he could not think straight?


Your argument pre-supposes that every native culture is right and one cannot learn anything from other cultures. Which is neither consistent, nor true. Infact, I’d argue the opposite : a culture that shows a greater propensity to adapt to new and foreign ideas as well as keep some of the indigenous ideas- that which are correct- have a greater chance of success than a culture slavishly holding on to its own xenophobic concept of ‘we are right, everyone else is wrong and their ideas are inapplicable to us’. Those cultures inevitably face domination from the ones more adaptable, as history has shown us.

Your notions about agriculture starting only after 9500 BC and only in China, based on your erroneous interpretations of some paper in the field, have been (conclusively, decisively, and permanently, of course, as is *always* the case in science) shown to be false by Rudradev. So what exactly prevents you from taking your own advice and reading up on archaeo-astronomy before judging?

If you got the idea that I stated agriculture started in China, you need to re-read what I wrote. I provided a paper which states RICE FARMING started in China first. It is accepted amongst archaeo-botanists that most grain crops we eat today have 3 centers of domestication : China, Middle east and Central America. I also stated earlier that the cataloging of origin of food crop species (their natural biosphere) and location of their domestication is not exhaustive, but so far, we have not found a SINGLE grain crop that owes its domestication in the Indian subcontinent. The closest we’ve come, are a few varieties of gram (dal) and eggplant. So unless you wish to propose that Ayodhyan’s ate meat,eggplant and gram only, a hypothesis of pre-9000 BCE urban society in India first and foremost requires evidence of any major grain crop to India and its domestication in India. Such evidence is lacking, leading to a dating of pre-9000 BCE for any city in India to be purely speculative.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1146
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 31 Jul 2017 21:06

SriJoy wrote:
Rudimentary: Vedic people knowing heliocentric concept ? When did heliocentricity reach the western civilisation?


Conventional history states that western world discovered heliocentrism around 15th century. Don’t know of the vedic world. However, it is clear that during the golden age of Indian civilization, aka 300s BC-800s AD, we had a geocentric model, as evidenced by the utter dominance of Aryabhatta’s model, which is a geocentric model with epicycles.

During our earlier exchange many weeks ago I had posted verses from Rg Veda describing heliocentric knowledge amongst Rig Vedic Rishis. Did you read it?
Arybhatta was one author. There are literally hundreds of astronomical texts that have survived. To just pick on one, Arybhatta's , and think that is the only one that describes the extant Indian knowledge of astronomy is not kosher.

No. Post 2000 BC the river is completely dry. Prior to that it broke up into pieces, formed lakes , and dried up in sections. This was the period from ~3000 BC to ~2000 BC. If you read Balaram's journey section of MBH it is clear the description is pre complete drying up.


SriJoy wrote:There is some ambiguity on this- most historians tend to agree that the Saraswati dried up completely in the 2000-1500 BC period, with the subsequent ‘beginning to dry up’ phase being in the 3000-2000 BC margin. IIRC the PGW pottery found on the riverbed of the Saraswati (indicating that the river is dried up completely and people were occupying the former river-bed) dates from 1500s BC onwards. Feel free to correct me on this, however.

The consensus is post 1900 BC Saraswati was not flowing. Did you read the description of Balram's Saraswati Tirtha Yatra from MBH? What is your conclusion?

Alright here is an assignment: how can a sequence of dozens of astronomical observations be made to line up, like they exist in MBH, from the arrival of Krishna for peace negotiations to the death of Bhishma by a "later adder to MBH" say a 1000 years after the actual date of the war?

Let me repeat : say X is the date of war: At X + 1000 years how do you backfit a sequence of dozens of astronomical observations 1000 years ago?


SriJoy wrote:Multiple ways this can happen:
a) conflating other textual reference (astronomical observations) with the Mahabharata/Ramayana (since they are Smriti literature).
b) Once the periodicity of the planets and precession of the earth is known, it is simply a matter of current observation and back-calculating the conjunction dates.
c) A few random, lucky guesses: Not all the planetary conjunctions in either text can be explained.


Let me make it more specific. Here is a list:
0 Departure of Krishna to Hastinapur on peace mission on Revathi.
1 Purnima in a few days on the following Kartika nakshatra (three days from 0).
2 Lunar eclipse on Kartika Purnima.
3 Amawasya on Jyestha which is also the solar eclipse.
4 A lunar eclipse 13 days later following the Jyestha amawas.
5 Departure of Balram on Pushya after Jyestha Amawas.
6 Start of the war on Shukla Ekadasi of Mrigasira
7 On the 14 th day of the war late moon rise.
8 On the 14th day of the war moon rose in the east.
9 Last day of the war on Shravan nakshatra and Balram returns.
10 Balram is gone for 42 days.
11 Bhishma Asthami in Magha Shukplapaksh.
12 Thirty six years later Krishna sees a similar sequence
of eclipses as given in 2,3 and 4, above. These are three separate
observations at the time of Vrishni destruction viz a lunar
eclipse followed by a solar eclipse followed by a 13 day apravani
lunar eclipse!

How will you match above 13 observations if you were the author 1000 years after the war and you had to backfit the plausible sequence ?

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

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

Postby Primus » 02 Aug 2017 02:04

Guys, I seriously and humbly suggest we give this a rest. I am getting a big headache here. Our friend is a very clever Wikipedia Warrior as is evident from the tenor of his posts where he assumes expert level knowledge on everything including philosophy. He comes back at you too fast with a detailed rejoinder that is only possible either with superhuman knowledge and faultless retention of every fact therein, OR as is the most likely explanation here, a quick perusal of the Wiki chapter on said topic. There are too many inconsistencies and lapses in his statements, like he professes great knowledge of everything and then says 'vedas, I don't know'. He has not read Nilesh Ji's book and yet assumes everything in it is based on false premises simply because he cannot get off the 'no agriculture in that era' horse.

The hubris of the NRI who believes he knows better than those he 'left behind' is unbelievable. How unfortunate. This could have been so much more meaningful.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

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

Postby gandharva » 02 Aug 2017 04:35

"Itihasa" as defined by Indians.

Image

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4289
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 03 Aug 2017 02:22


Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 03 Aug 2017 08:19

^^^Bajwa thanks for the link - her sentiment is correct - the Sanskrit works are mostly what we consider Western Social Sciences today... but with a vastly different perspective and a much broader framework. When we say "sarve bavanthu..." it is not limited to humans and it does not limit to belief.
What is needed is not just Sanskrit scholars who are also computer experts, but also Sanskrit scholars who can purva paksha all the works that are tainted by singular frameworks based on individuality and belief rather than on actions their consequences and duties to oneself and others.
Thanks for sharing that link...

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5923
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 03 Aug 2017 11:37

SriJoy wrote:1. I have not asserted that there is no astronomy in the Vedas. They had rudimentary, basic astronomy, as is true for pretty much all settled societies 4000+ years ago.


How can you assert that the astronomy in vedas is rudimentary and basic? The same observations of where mars is related to say venus or sun or moon holds true even now as it was during the saraswati-vedic civilization.

Of course you are an expert in astronomy and think that discovery of black hole is the height of astronomy and since you are aware that black hole exists (it is only theorized) think that your astronomy knowledge is more than the knowledge astronomy of vedas., particularly when you do *not* understand the astronomy in vedas.

Or a simple explanation: if it is old., it is rudimentary. That is your take.

2. The fact that Saraswati is described as a bountiful river, which has been shown in this very thread by others, using qualified geological & meteorological papers, existed prior to 2000 BC and the fact that Mahabharata notes Saraswati as a dying river (disappearing at Vinasana), is supportive of the conclusion that Mahabharata era is post-2000 BC.


Are you sure that Saraswati died out in 2000 BC? What happens if Saraswati actually start dying out in 10000 BC and was reduced to a rivulet in 5000 BC and died out in 2000 BC?

It is like the human technology of wheels. The wheel was invented some 5000 BC., but was technologically perfected as carbon fiber compositesome 7000 years later in 2200 AD.

For Srijoys of the future in some 6000 AD (assuming the human kind survives the srijoys)., the wheel was invented in 2200 AD only.

3. My assessment re: astronomical phenomena noted in a Smriti literature is simple : they are later additions, just like many other things are.


My assessment re: your ability noted by your posts on BRF: they are additions of a delusional #AntiHindu mind., just like many of your posts are.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 17:52

peter wrote:During our earlier exchange many weeks ago I had posted verses from Rg Veda describing heliocentric knowledge amongst Rig Vedic Rishis. Did you read it?
Arybhatta was one author. There are literally hundreds of astronomical texts that have survived. To just pick on one, Arybhatta's , and think that is the only one that describes the extant Indian knowledge of astronomy is not kosher.


You are 100% correct, if seeing in the context of entire Indian history. However, what subsequent writings, such as Brahmagupta, Varahamihira, etc. show, is that the geocentric epicyclic model of Aryabhatta came to utterly dominate Indian astronomy after him. The Indian (Hindu as well as Jain) Calendric calculations are also completely based on Aryabhatta. As such, i am not sure, but it'd seem that Vedic heliocentrism died in Indian civilization post Aryabhatta and probably re-introduced by either the arabs or Europeans.


The consensus is post 1900 BC Saraswati was not flowing. Did you read the description of Balram's Saraswati Tirtha Yatra from MBH? What is your conclusion?

The versions i've read (translations obviously- i am not conversant in Sanskrit) is that Saraswati was a dying river, petering out to its death somewhere in the Rajasthan-Cholistan desert, called Vinasana.


How will you match above 13 observations if you were the author 1000 years after the war and you had to backfit the plausible sequence ?


I can do it quiete easily, using math: Using various equations determining the orbital motion of various planetary and interstellar bodies, in relation to earth, pluging them in a matrix and calculating matches.
To put it simply- anyone with multivariable and quadratic analysis skills, can determine a conjunction posed by seperate but overlapping equations in any context: astronomical, for eg. Basically, one can calculate any particular set of conjunctions of any stellar object, using math that was known in India by 600s AD. Sure, a computer makes such math childsplay, but one can do it by hand, if one is willing to dedicate months for such calculation.
If Vedic world was heliocentric (This if, is a figure of speech, not casting doubt on the notion itself), then such calculations are easily possible 1400-1600 years ago India.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 17:59

disha wrote:How can you assert that the astronomy in vedas is rudimentary and basic? The same observations of where mars is related to say venus or sun or moon holds true even now as it was during the saraswati-vedic civilization.


Because in a day and age when we chart motions of quasars billions of light years away, astronomy involving the few planets and constellations visible by naked eye, is rudimentary and basic astronomy.

Of course you are an expert in astronomy and think that discovery of black hole is the height of astronomy and since you are aware that black hole exists (it is only theorized) think that your astronomy knowledge is more than the knowledge astronomy of vedas., particularly when you do *not* understand the astronomy in vedas.


I don't have to be an expert in Astronomy to conclude that any text that does not know the top 9 constituents of the solar system by mass, is a rudimentary text.

Or a simple explanation: if it is old., it is rudimentary. That is your take.

Nope. For eg, Indian rhinoplatsy is old but not rudimentary. Its rudimentary if its very basic in its knowledge. Vedas- or any other astronomical book from 2000+ years ago for that matter- barely represent 0.00001% of stellar bodies currently known to man. Hence, its rudimentary and basic.


Are you sure that Saraswati died out in 2000 BC? What happens if Saraswati actually start dying out in 10000 BC and was reduced to a rivulet in 5000 BC and died out in 2000 BC?


While there is some error-range possible in the Saraswati's lifecycle dating, what you are suggesting, is ruled out in this very thread by others posting geological/climatological data about rainfall (Saraswati was a rain-fed river).

My assessment re: your ability noted by your posts on BRF: they are additions of a delusional #AntiHindu mind., just like many of your posts are.


Nothing but slander from someone who is religious. Same reaction comes from other religions when their basic texts are called out as such. But hey- you are the one trying to convince us that knowledge of less than 50 stellar bodies is 'not rudimentary and basic' in a world where tens of thousands of such objects are tracked with infinitely greater accuracy every ticking second. Same ol case of 'noble super duper advanced ancestors' fable-worship.
The Vedics were highly advanced for their time- but practically EVERY CIVILIZATION is a jumble of rudimentary, basic knowledge compared to the world post 1800, in almost every field of science imaginable. There is no shame in admitting that.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 18:03

Primus wrote:Guys, I seriously and humbly suggest we give this a rest. I am getting a big headache here. Our friend is a very clever Wikipedia Warrior as is evident from the tenor of his posts where he assumes expert level knowledge on everything including philosophy. He comes back at you too fast with a detailed rejoinder that is only possible either with superhuman knowledge and faultless retention of every fact therein, OR as is the most likely explanation here, a quick perusal of the Wiki chapter on said topic. There are too many inconsistencies and lapses in his statements, like he professes great knowledge of everything and then says 'vedas, I don't know'. He has not read Nilesh Ji's book and yet assumes everything in it is based on false premises simply because he cannot get off the 'no agriculture in that era' horse.

The hubris of the NRI who believes he knows better than those he 'left behind' is unbelievable. How unfortunate. This could have been so much more meaningful.


Actually your bolded part is secondary. My primary reason is, our ancestors admitted that the Ramayana and Mahabharata are imperfect, adulterated literature, hence Smriti literature and there is nothing stopping much later additions of astronomical stuff to the original saga, post hoc.

And please, do not mis-label my comments. I never implied i know better than 1.2 billion Indians, i noted the propensity of many an educated Indian to see a challenge to religion as comming from the ' left front', completely ignoring the fact that while that phenomena may be prevalent in India, it has little to do with one another. Many an atheist are cut-throat hyper-capitalist, many a kumbaya-singing eglatarian socialist believe in intelligent design.

The fact that i have made practically zero comments towards politics or economics in this thread, yet have been called a commie by several people, for calling out religion (including Hinduism) as unsubstantiated, unproven speculative polemics, is pretty supportive of said comment by me.
How that implies inferiority or superiority of people, i leave on you to explain.
Last edited by SriJoy on 03 Aug 2017 18:34, edited 1 time in total.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 18:10

RoyG wrote:
KL Dubey wrote::mrgreen: Looks like SriJoy has fawked this thread too. BTW Sarasvati as referred in the Rgveda is not a river but represents some other kind of physical object. Howevah, there was certainly a riva in NW India that took its name from the Rgvedic sound Sarasvati.


He hasn't. I'm glad he brought up Itihasa. His deep assumptions mirror that of Holzmann who used AIT to show how the subcontinental negro tainted the myths brought to them by sweaty white men on horseback. Buddhism was the product of Aryan genius revolting against mythic oppression. So you see, progress was stifled and then resumed just like when the protestants reduced the stranglehold of the catholic church.

AIT is critical to this project. It establishes conflict between groups of people and helps cast the text as some sort of myth similar to the bible which is full of superstition to put the reader victim into a state of borderline mental retardation so that he cant perceive his own oppression.


The first bolded part (by me)- i do not see what that has in relation to your bolded part.
Even if one is OOI proponent, it is undeniable that the golden age of Indian learning coincided with the bulk majority of our (subcontinental) elite class being Buddhist & Jain, with Vedanta Hinduism on the rise.
As such, why can't Buddhism & Jainism be a rebellion against vedic ritualism in the first place and why does that (even if its a supposition), have to include foreign vs native ideology ?
In such a distinction, i feel like you are selling our ancestors short, by implying that the 'ancient Indian' is incapable of change and overthrow of certain systems that are out-dated, on their own, without outside interferance.

What the texts represent, is irrelevant to the Indian civilization as a whole ( or for the matter, any civilization), from a strictly historical perspective, because only a tiny, tiny fraction of Indian society (or any society pre-colonial world) was literate. As such, what those books represent, is oligarchy of knowledge- a tiny, tiny fraction of the population able to read, let alone analyze the texts, while the vast majority are illiterates who 'go by what the priest/king/powerful man is saying'.
Last edited by SriJoy on 03 Aug 2017 18:17, edited 1 time in total.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 18:17

RoyG wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote:^^^You are on to something... needs more exploration... The West needed a corrective measure to save itself and adopting its convoluted framework and criticising the more formal Indian approach. It is like a company that mimics feature of a competitor (whose offering is of lower quality) mistakenly because the feature currently has higher adoption in social media... never realizing that ones own features are better and adopting the competitors is actually going to make everything one has intrinsically get devalued.
Or in Shiv's language (with apologies) - being married to a 10 and jolling for the pole dancer!
:P


Many overt thematic elements within the Itihasa literature which come directly from the Upanishads so the influence is non-debatable. Now for Pollock and others, this is a big problem. If you want to prove some sort of in-built oppression within the text, some sophistication is needed in the form of ignoring/editing the historical timeline and using the Semitic experience as a template for textual deconstruction.

Now on SriJoy's point on human conflict stemming from greed, kinship ties, etc contained within the text, I agree with him. We had all of that. It's the underlying response to these phenomena which is in question. The Semitic world used myth to transmit its solution in the form of the idea that sovereignty lie with something external and ordinary man is merely a custodian of the domain granted to it.

On the other hand, we used Itihasa to transmit something completely different which has not till date been matched by the West. Itihasa presents the cause of unhappiness within society as desire and it's effects in the form of conflict, and eventual resolution in the form victory for one side. But what's really unique is that the faculties of mind and goal of meditative techniques are encoded within the story to show how one can bring about that change at the individual level. So in other words, Itihasa gives the reader a framework to induce change within oneself and shows how this change can contribute to victory over conflict brought about by desire in society.


You will find no arguments from me, whatsoever, if you want to conclude that the Itihasas of India- Hindu as well as Buddhist (where by the way, there are discrepancies, even in the Buddhist tellings of Mahabharata from the Hindu ones)- represent complex moral and philosophical questions- easily the most complex of its time of writing, along with Greek philosophy.
But from a historical perspective, those books are highly flawed and it is a fact that we are chasing shadows, if we want to construct a historical narrative out of those books. I've read, for eg, quiete elaborate pieces by non-western scholars, consiering 'Sarayu' as 'Harayu' of the Achaemenid era nomenclature (modern day Hari Rud, flowing through Herat, Afghanitsan).
A myth, atleast from historical academic perspective, is a tale that cannot be accurately dated and/or has been conflated with other stories. Homer's Illiad is a perfect example of said myth. So are Ramayana and Mahabharata. But unlike the vaunted western classics, ours is not just a tale of wanton warfare-adventure-love story but deep, philosophical analysis and constitutes the most impressive ideological leap in mankind- from absoluteness of morality to relativity of morality (particularly, in the Mahabharata).
Last edited by SriJoy on 03 Aug 2017 18:35, edited 1 time in total.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 18:28

RoyG wrote:The problem I see in SriJoy's argument is this:

He ignores the fact that Itihasa came AFTER the technical treaties of the Upanishads. Contrast this to the development of Christianity in Europe where a purely assumptive anthropology was cast into myth whose influence waned against technical texts discovered/developed in periods like the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Romance, etc. So essentially you have:

Subcontinent: Technical => Itihasa

ME and Europe: Myth => Technical

This is a critical distinction because you have to ask yourself the following question: If the technical texts preceded Itihasa, and Itihasa is indeed myth, why would we retard our own philosophical/scientific development? Moreover, does the evidence show this? If not, perhaps its safe to say that universalizing a western narrative isn't the best way of looking at the phenomena of Itihasa.


1. Because i don't think that saying the word 'myth' is that of automatic retardation of philosophical and scientific development. The bolded section assumes that Indian society was as homogenously considerate towards these Itihasas as it is today. As such, it is looking through the lens of today's prevalence of religion and ideology. For eg, the huge divergence between morality of the Itihasas and Lokayata (that which is of common man), tends to lead to the conclusion that the morality/philosophy/impact of our Itihasas, in our golden age period (or prior) is far, far lesser than it is today. As such, in this option, we can conclude that our technical prowess and development is indepedent of and largely irrelevant to our Itihasas, if the Itihasas occupied as much 'importance' in our society back then as Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter does in today's western society.

2. For option 2, We also see, a general trend of rising religiosity in the super-structure of Indian political class, particularly from the Gupta age period. There are several analysis i can point towards, which present the conclusion- based on the profusion of religious art & literature of 2nd half of 1st millenium CE compared to the millenia prior, that would point towards a rising centralization of religious thought as well as competitions within themselves (various sects) as well as with other religions itself. Stories of 1st millenium CE for eg- of great sages arguing the meaning of cosmos with each other under peepal trees, tends to get mutated into same argument occuring between learned scholars in kings' courts leading to land grants for monasteries and such.
As such, it is not a surprising conclusion and the rise and fall of theological input into a civilization has been noted in other civilizations as well, where the effect (or the disappearance of said effect) is not linear.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2017 18:39

SriJoy wrote:But from a historical perspective, those books are highly flawed and it is a fact that we are chasing shadows, if we want to construct a historical narrative out of those books.

the Vedas were not historical narratives either but a historical narrative has been constructed out of them by western (racist also) Indologists in a tradition that has never been refuted.

However you echo "western scholars" in getting overly uptight about the histrical value of the Itihasas. it is this chicanery that stands out in your verbose rhetoric

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2017 18:54

If you look at Western "translations" of the Vedas which read like the ramblings of half wits it is easy to "understand" that ancient Indians were half wits who recorded stuff like cooking, eating and burying horses and kicking out short nose dasyus. With such a primitive bunch of people having given Hindus their most revered literature it is easy to point out that their so called itihasas are not much better.

However if my aunt really had shown that she had a dick and had proved to be my uncle instead, and history of colonizations by racists had not happened. then the vedas would still be understood in their spiritual sense and the connection of those vedas with the Upanishads would be seen and the itihasas can be read as sociological documents of their time
Last edited by shiv on 03 Aug 2017 19:08, edited 1 time in total.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 03 Aug 2017 18:55

@Srijoy.... since we are all scientists, lets explore something different.

Suppose India conquered west. Since globalisation is falling like house of cards. Lets assume Ethnic Indians somehow become the sole super power of the world.
In this scenario, Ethnic Indians need something to keep the whole order under their control.
Again lets assume we need OOI to achieve this. How do you propagate it to western folks?

I don't want you to bear the burden of truth. This is all hypothetical situation. Please share your how-to on this.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 03 Aug 2017 19:17

SriJoy wrote:You will find no arguments from me, whatsoever, if you want to conclude that the Itihasas of India- Hindu as well as Buddhist (where by the way, there are discrepancies, even in the Buddhist tellings of Mahabharata from the Hindu ones)- represent complex moral and philosophical questions- easily the most complex of its time of writing, along with Greek philosophy.


"You are not a good Muslim!" Islam is what I declare it to be - it is perfect! Now I will declare what is a Hindu, Buddhist or Jain Itihasa :mrgreen:
Only I can evaluate discrepancies and modernity of complex concepts! :rotfl:
You sire would have made Islamic and Western colonialist proud ~ and their pet sishya should you not give up English, it is so yesterday and outdated?
Time to learn Chinese - all hail the new emperor! 萬歲

SriJoy wrote:But from a historical perspective, those books are highly flawed and it is a fact that we are chasing shadows, if we want to construct a historical narrative out of those books. I've read, for eg, quiete elaborate pieces by non-western scholars, consiering 'Sarayu' as 'Harayu' of the Achaemenid era nomenclature (modern day Hari Rud, flowing through Herat, Afghanitsan).


Yes, they are all flawed, precious to some of us, but to the ideologue.... if all one sees is black and white how can u show you colors?

SriJoy wrote:A myth, atleast from historical academic perspective, is a tale that cannot be accurately dated and/or has been conflated with other stories. Homer's Illiad is a perfect example of said myth. So are Ramayana and Mahabharata. But unlike the vaunted western classics, ours is not just a tale of wanton warfare-adventure-love story but deep, philosophical analysis and constitutes the most impressive ideological leap in mankind- from absoluteness of morality to relativity of morality (particularly, in the Mahabharata).


Morality is a western term, Myth is a western term, Religion is a western term, History is a western term, Aryan is a western racist term.
I conclude that this topic and your ramblings needs to be the Western Universalism thread not in OIT thread.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 19:37

shiv wrote:the Vedas were not historical narratives either but a historical narrative has been constructed out of them by western (racist also) Indologists in a tradition that has never been refuted.


Because they are Shruti literature, aka considered preserved extremely well. Hence, any ancillary narrative exacted from them can be held as accurate. Not true for Smriti literature.

However you echo "western scholars" in getting overly uptight about the histrical value of the Itihasas. it is this chicanery that stands out in your verbose rhetoric


The only chicanery is done by religious people here, who want to throw out the Smriti status accorded to the Ramayana/Mahabharata by OUR OWN ANCESTORS. Ie, it wasn't good enough for our own ancestors to be considered accurate, it isn't for us, either. 'Western scholars' is nothing more than knee-jerk chicanery to this simple fact.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 19:43

Pulikeshi wrote:"You are not a good Muslim!" Islam is what I declare it to be - it is perfect! Now I will declare what is a Hindu, Buddhist or Jain Itihasa :mrgreen:
Only I can evaluate discrepancies and modernity of complex concepts! :rotfl:
You sire would have made Islamic and Western colonialist proud ~ and their pet sishya should you not give up English, it is so yesterday and outdated?
Time to learn Chinese - all hail the new emperor! 萬歲


?! Nothing more than more chicanery. I am making no declarations- simply noting the fact that the mahabharata story differs, based on whether one wants to follow Hindu or Buddhist narrative. Just because you are a Hindu and not a Buddhist, does not give any extra credence to 'Balarama' over 'Baladeva'.

Yes, they are all flawed, precious to some of us, but to the ideologue.... if all one sees is black and white how can u show you colors?

The ideologue apparently fails to realize that a book can be both precious and flawed at the same time.

Morality is a western term, Myth is a western term, Religion is a western term, History is a western term, Aryan is a western racist term.
I conclude that this topic and your ramblings needs to be the Western Universalism thread not in OIT thread.



Correction. Morality is not a 'western term'. It is an English term. Function of language,not Philosophy. Same with History and Aryan. If you wish to dis-engange from English terms, i suggest you find a non-english medium to communicate. To trash history, simply because it doesn't align with your religious views, does no service to OIT or any thread relating to history- which, last i checked, is the entire fundamental focus of this thread. So perhaps your views belong elsewhere, not in a thread about history.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 19:47

shiv wrote:If you look at Western "translations" of the Vedas which read like the ramblings of half wits it is easy to "understand" that ancient Indians were half wits who recorded stuff like cooking, eating and burying horses and kicking out short nose dasyus. With such a primitive bunch of people having given Hindus their most revered literature it is easy to point out that their so called itihasas are not much better.

However if my aunt really had shown that she had a dick and had proved to be my uncle instead, and history of colonizations by racists had not happened. then the vedas would still be understood in their spiritual sense and the connection of those vedas with the Upanishads would be seen and the itihasas can be read as sociological documents of their time


If Vedas are sufficiently ancient enough- ie, if it is indeed pre-neolithic revolution, it SHOULD read like a composition of half-wits to us, as would any thought of pre-agricultural society. Religious reverence, the world over, is not a function of empiricism or complexity but simply a matter of what the elites decree. I very much suspect, that if Sudas had lost the Dasaraja war, we might not even have heard of the vedas itself.

Nobody treats Vedas as history texts. However, when it is granted that the Vedas are the best preserved literature in Indian history, when the Vedas do talk about geography, it has far greater credibility than an inferior, Shruti literature.
That much, should be obvious to anyone making a cursory glance at Hinduism, nevermind an actual literate Hindu.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2017 19:57

SriJoy wrote:The only chicanery is done by religious people here, who want to throw out the Smriti status accorded to the Ramayana/Mahabharata by OUR OWN ANCESTORS. Ie, it wasn't good enough for our own ancestors to be considered accurate, it isn't for us, either. 'Western scholars' is nothing more than knee-jerk chicanery to this simple fact.

Emotional appeals about people who want to throw out something is simply avoiding the fact that the vedas, THE shruti have been accorded the status of historical document by Max Muller. William Jones, Witzel, Anthony David and a whole lot of "scholars" from the west. the fact that you are sensitive to some of those scholars being named and shamed as being racist is not my problem, it's your.

Those Western "scholars" (some who simply had racist motives) do not accept this smriti-shruti balderdash that you seem to hold so close to your heart while copious shedding tears for loss of smriti status caused by "religious people here". That is a load of crock that is par for the course for your posts. You don't give a rat's ass for the fact that this "smriti-shruti" sentiment/status has been ignored by racist Western scholars while they glean historical meaning from the Vedas and then get all upset at anyone else who may want to glean historical information from the smritis. And you echo the latter act while obfuscating any other relevant information that you know damn well came from racist_western_"scholars".

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 19:58

syam wrote:@Srijoy.... since we are all scientists, lets explore something different.

Suppose India conquered west. Since globalisation is falling like house of cards. Lets assume Ethnic Indians somehow become the sole super power of the world.
In this scenario, Ethnic Indians need something to keep the whole order under their control.
Again lets assume we need OOI to achieve this. How do you propagate it to western folks?

I don't want you to bear the burden of truth. This is all hypothetical situation. Please share your how-to on this.


1. Operate within scientific framework of established fact. The moment you step into 'its possible, no evidence exists but i will hold it true', it is a faith-based argument, not a fact based one. For eg, it is pretty elementary that for cities to flourish, we need agriculture. No western scholar can propose a date for a city in a period where no evidence of agriculture exists. Thats putting the cart before the horse. Same applies here.

2. Use objective historical evidence from primary sources that are not conflicting or internally inconsistent. Do we believe the Puranas, that 1050 years pass between Parikshit and Mahapadma Nanda or use just a few of the Nakshatras to date the Ramayana to a period before any evidence whatsoever of neolithic revolution (agriculture) in Indian subcontinent ?

3. Expose the flaws in the AMT theory - though to be honest, in absence of decisive evidence (such as translation of IVC seals- if thats even possible), Anatolian hypothesis is far stronger than AMT if we can accept dates of >3000 BC for Indo-European language dispersal.

4. We don't need a historical narrative to control the world. Money controls the world. German history is far, far weaker than Italian or Greek. Yet last i checked, Germany plays the flute and both Italy and Greece dance to the tune. Many such examples exist. So even though i consider correcting AMT to OIT is a historically empirically sound objective, it actually has nothing to do with world domination.

At the end of the day, history of origin of culture is irrelevant to the lives of the large majority. Most white people for eg, do not give a rat's behind about whether history started in Sumer or Egypt or China. Because whether our long-dead ancestors were heroes or chumps, have ultimately very little direct bearing on our lives.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32842
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2017 20:01

SriJoy wrote:If Vedas are sufficiently ancient enough- ie, if it is indeed pre-neolithic revolution, it SHOULD read like a composition of half-wits to us, as would any thought of pre-agricultural society. Religious reverence, the world over, is not a function of empiricism or complexity but simply a matter of what the elites decree. I very much suspect, that if Sudas had lost the Dasaraja war, we might not even have heard of the vedas itself.

Any knowledge that is not understood by someone could look like the ramblings of half wits. So there is at least a 50% possibility that what you say is ignorance - a fact that causes you great discomfort when pointed out.


SriJoy wrote:Nobody treats Vedas as history texts. .

Rubbish. Every half assed racist or non racist western scholar does that. A shruti is not even a text but then again there is a 1:1 probability of your being ignorant of that.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ramesh and 43 guests