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.
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 08:46

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

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

Image


Bajwa ji, that would indeed be impressive if true. I'm no MB guru, but in order to credit the above, I'd really like to know the exact chapter and verse. Chapter might be inferred - the one where Sanjaya starts to narrate to Dhritarashtra, I guess? Would that be Bhishma Parva? And this would also be presumably pre-Bhagavad-Gita.

But there's more I'd like to know. Do we have the exact drawing that Ramanujacharya made (and do we know for a fact that he really made it)? That would be much better corroboration. Else, why would somebody draw those pipal leaves in just that particular way, based on the verse(s) alone? The verse(s) don't supply that much information, do they?

I interpreted "phase" in the verses to mean - phases of the earth, like phases of the moon. So as the earth were rotating, first an observer would see the pipal leaves, and then the rabbit. Only, that Australia leaf spoils that somewhat (though not entirely). Also, it would be extremely interesting if the above were true (and that's a big if for me personally, right now), because it depicts the south pole on top and the north pole on the bottom (which is a very valid viewpoint). But that makes me wonder how the epic would interpret "uttarayana" and "dakshinayana" - would it still be the way we imagine today? I don't know if the MB makes an explicit statement as to the location of the Himalayas WRT jambudvipa.

In short, I'm pretty skeptical about the above (though the verse may well be true, especially if somebody could point out its exact location in the MB), until I can see that Ramanujacharya really did make a drawing like that one. Not saying it can't be true, but as presented, it seems a bit lacking in truthiness.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
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 08:55

sudarshan wrote: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?

It's a bit like tech jargon to exclude you. The medical fraternity talks of strategies to deal with "neoplasia"

An equivalent source of irritation for me is the use of western yugas. The current yuga is 'holocene"- which started about 12 to 10,000 years ago. So you ask, what was the earlier yuga? Well, simple, I tell you, the earlier "scientific, western yuga" was Pleistocene. How long was the Pleistocene?

Here's Wiki for you
The Pleistocene often colloquially referred to as the Ice Age) is the geological epoch which lasted from about 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago, spanning the world's most recent period of repeated glaciations


What sort of classification is that? India was not iced up even the earlier yuga. That earlier pleistocene matters only to Wesht that was iced up because "icing up" is the key to define an age and balls to human history that could not have involved anything other than half-apes before holocene.

The assumptions made by science are sometimes as incredible as human lifespans of 1000 years. Only thing is that we have all been taught to believe only one book and be critical of blasphemers who disbelieve your book

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 09:22

^^^ This is a miss for any 'closed mind' ~ I like ur term - Western Yugas :mrgreen:
The neophyte in their new found dogma actually do disservice to their new found religion.
Most 'Universalisms' of the West tends to generalize too quickly and localize too slowly... in some sense the philia towards India seeks balance

That is let us assume that Science is what you converted to, in treating its best hypotheses as dogma, one does disservice to this new found faith!
These neophytes are more dangerous to Science than even non-believers! :evil:

If you understand what I say, perhaps there is an opportunity to learn together....
We are moving from an age of record keeping... history as ledgers... to prove the purpose of Christ...
To an age of engagement... thus was the experience of the Cambodian people... "First They Killed My Father" the new movie...
To an age of eventual consistency... that there are multiple versions to the same facts...
a catallaxy where ideas could be traded and learnt from... one comes here to understand why there are millions of Gods for Hindus for ex.

Till then, truly Dhobi ka kutta na ghar ka nah ghat ka! :rotfl:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
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 09:35

Pulikeshi wrote:^
That is let us assume that Science is what you converted to, in treating its best hypotheses as dogma, one does disservice to this new found faith!

Absolutely. Science is a quest. Not a book. Once science becomes a book in which "It is written..", it becomes the same as religious dogma. Amazing that people who wear the science logo on their foreheads don't even begin to understand this.

If you read Greek philosophy - which is essentially about what different philosophers said and thought, you find that these people were in a quest and often disputed each other. But at one stage Greek philosophy was frozen into dogma. I suspect that the Church probably had a role there - but I am not sure. Discarding of some philosophers as minor or irrelevant and raising others to demi-god status was akin to making "Allah is the only god. Other gods are false"

An attempt has been made on this thread to equate history and the work of historians as "science" and then freeze that work as "the last word" that brooks no revision, This is utter nonsense and deep ignorance. What a lovely word "moorkhta" is .. मूर्खता

ಪೆಡ್ದ್ ಮುಂಡೇವು

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 14 Sep 2017 09:54

shiv wrote: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.
.
.
.


Thanks for posting but I knew that already. As a hindu I can't reject definition of yugas and accept Brahma as the creator of this universe at the same time. If I did that will be picking and choosing.

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 14 Sep 2017 10:00

shiv wrote:What sort of classification is that? India was not iced up even the earlier yuga. That earlier pleistocene matters only to Wesht that was iced up because "icing up" is the key to define an age and balls to human history that could not have involved anything other than half-apes before holocene.

The assumptions made by science are sometimes as incredible as human lifespans of 1000 years. Only thing is that we have all been taught to believe only one book and be critical of blasphemers who disbelieve your book


It is standard geological time scale. Most recent period is known as Recent or Holocene.

Here it is from oldest to recent.

Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Recent/Holocene.


For e.g. rocks older than Cambrian in age are known as Pre-Cambrian. The period after Cretaceous is also known as Tertiary. The dinosaurs lived in the Jurassic period, hence the Jurassic Park movie.
Last edited by Dipanker on 14 Sep 2017 10:06, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
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 10:06

Dipanker wrote:
It is standard geological time scale. Most recent period is known as Recent or Holocene.

Here it is from oldest to recent.

Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Recent/Holocene.


For e.g. rocks older than Cambrian in age are known as Pre-Cambrian.


I think this is a completely obscure and totally useless classification. Will explain if you are interested.

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 14 Sep 2017 10:08

shiv wrote:I think this is a completely obscure and totally useless classification. Will explain if you are interested.


I studied whole bunch of geology as part of my academic curriculum.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
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 10:10

Dipanker wrote:Thanks for posting but I knew that already. As a hindu I can't reject definition of yugas and accept Brahma as the creator of this universe at the same time. If I did that will be picking and choosing.

It is your prerogative to believe what you want and hold whatever view you want. I hope that leeway is allowed for others as well

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
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 10:14

Dipanker wrote:
shiv wrote:I think this is a completely obscure and totally useless classification. Will explain if you are interested.


I studied whole bunch of geology as part of my academic curriculum.

Your education and degrees make no difference to the fact that these yugas are a useless classification for most forms of exchange of human knowledge and information. Particularly, in terms of history and the human past these yugas are totally useless and should, in my view be rejected as obscure geological jargon that means very little to anyone other than geologists. If they have relevance to you - more power to you. For me and the time scales I am talking about they are completely worthless.

In terms of adding to my own personal knowledge these western science yugas are no more useful than Hindu yugas. Some people find one useful, others may find another useful. Perhaps you find both useful and relevant

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 14 Sep 2017 17:37

shiv wrote:In terms of adding to my own personal knowledge these western science yugas are no more useful than Hindu yugas. Some people find one useful, others may find another useful. Perhaps you find both useful and relevant

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 14 Sep 2017 18:21

Shiv ji

Quick question.....

The reason for upper constraint of ~2000 BCE on AIT, is because otherwise Mittani evidence comes in conflict with Rigveda being earlier to Mittani (and thus destructive for AIT and egos of AIT bozos), correct?

And why is the lower constraint of 1500 BCE on AIT? What are the issues AIT runs into if they claim 'Aryan riding on their horses" anytime after 1500 BCE?

Appreciate your help.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
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 19:59

Nilesh Oak wrote:Shiv ji

Quick question.....

The reason for upper constraint of ~2000 BCE on AIT, is because otherwise Mittani evidence comes in conflict with Rigveda being earlier to Mittani (and thus destructive for AIT and egos of AIT bozos), correct?

And why is the lower constraint of 1500 BCE on AIT? What are the issues AIT runs into if they claim 'Aryan riding on their horses" anytime after 1500 BCE?

Appreciate your help.


Good question. Actually that "constraint" varies from about 1500 to 1000 BC and they are all linguistic constraints because they have so called "attested" evidence of other "Indo-European" languages that start appearing which have been dated after 1000 BC. There are actually many holes in this theory but no one (other than Indians) is bothered.

For example - they know that the Chhand Upastha ("Zend Avesta") mentions the Vedas but Vedas don't mention the latter. Many "weshtern" authors point out the similarities between Atharva Veda and The Zoroastrian book. So the Zoroastrian language is placed as a sister language to "Vedic Sanskrit". Since they have already dated Atharva Veda to beginning of iron age by virtue of mention of black metal, and they place iron age (probably wrongly) in India as 1000 BC - they give a date of about 1000 BC to Atharva Veda and Chhand Upastha/Zend Avesta. Our cunning linguists have "allowed" 500 years for the earlier Rig Veda - placing Rig Veda around 1500 BC

After 1000 BC all sorts of other dates crop up. "Old Persian" is posited to be a daughter language of Zoroastrian - in fact Darius was a Zoroastrian and his Old Persian Behistun inscription in Iran is about 500 BC. between 1000 BC and 500 BC they have placed all sorts of other things including the Buddha. After 500 BC they have Alexander and Chandragupta who is claimed to be Sandrocottus.

I can dispute dates for Panini using various "weshtern" sources - placing him a few centuries earlier. The "Avestan language" is a completely cooked up language - wholly and completely cooked up by cunning linguists from a 12th century Sanskrit rendition of a so called "middle Persian" text by one Neryosang Dhaval.

What is absolutely astounding about these mofos - yes I use a term of contempt - mofos - is that they are perfectly willing to use "linguistc evidence" from Sanskrit texts if its suits their dates. For example "black metal" reference to them is absolute truth. Flat nosed "dasyus" (Dravidians) is absolute truth. "Purs" representing forts of defeated races is truth. IIn fact all these translated words are rubbish. But when the same linguistic evidence from the same texts points to earlier dates like Saraswati river and astronomy dates - they reject all that.

Archaeological evidence is good for them as long as horse bones are not found. When horse bones are found, they are not horses, or there are not enough horse bones. But all this is going to get wiped clean because nowadays there is some real solid paleobotanical and paleo-climactic studies appearing that are giving a very good picture of the environment to correlate with available texts and archaeological evidence. Also Indian explanations of the Vedas showing how people like Muller (who used Sayana) and indeed Sayana himself were going off track in their interpretations of the Vedas contradicting Yaska and earlier commentators on the Veda. Horse sacrifice and horse burials have been conjured up from the Vedas where nothing of the sort is there. A great deal of gaandmasti has gone on..

The Mitanni evidence is actually problematic in many ways because the Sanskrit has a clear link with the Vedas - but it they say that the language was in Syria before reaching India - the route of spread from "Steppe" gets screwed up. Also along with Mitanni are the Sanskrit "Horse training texts of Kikkuli". Current theories claim that people on horses and chariots rode out around 2500 BC - and went in various directions - and towards India they split up into Iranian branch and Indian branch. Iranian became Zoroastrian and Indian branch Sanskrit - both around 1500 BC. But Mitanni is a sort of kabab mein haddi with no clear explanation. It is simply fudged. The only clear explanation is that Vedas already existed by 1800 BC in India and the language was taken to Syria by Indian origin kings. This is a problematic explanation for linguists
Last edited by shiv on 14 Sep 2017 20:33, edited 2 times in total.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 14 Sep 2017 20:24

Shivji, Particularly, in terms of history and the human past these yugas are totally useless and should, in my view be rejected as obscure geological jargon that means very little to anyone other than geologists.


Shivji, This becomes obvious once we consider that the age of the earth is about 4 billion years, neanderthals showed up 200,000 years ago (going by beshtern schience), and human society sprang up after that, and any geological era before the neanderthals is entirely useless when discussing matters related to the human race, since exactly one XYZ geological era covers the entire human history, making all geological eras entirely irrelevant...whether the current geological era is called caenozoic era or nallapayyan era, it would have no bearing on the analysis of matters contained entirely within that era.

(JEMenon saar, corrected. sorry about that...trying to break the habit.)
Last edited by periaswamy on 14 Sep 2017 20:39, edited 1 time in total.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6807
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 14 Sep 2017 20:31

Periavare, while I'm thoroughly enjoying your posts please go easy on the rough language - even the Tamil words. Brought a smile to my face, been a long while since I heard that one!!!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
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 20:55

periaswamy wrote:
Shivji, This becomes obvious once we consider that the age of the earth is about 4 billion years, neanderthals showed up 200,000 years ago (going by beshtern schience), and human society sprang up after that, and any geological era before the neanderthals is entirely useless when discussing matters related to the human race, since exactly one XYZ geological era covers the entire human history, making all geological eras entirely irrelevant...whether the current geological era is called caenozoic era or nallapayyan era, it would have no bearing on the analysis of matters contained entirely within that era.

(JEMenon saar, corrected. sorry about that...trying to break the habit.)


:rotfl:

The chicanery of some of these "scholars" only provokes contempt in me. There are 30,000 year old caves with Neanderthal paintings. Now you can ask yourself (and not get an answer) if a group of beings who had human-style paintings did not have language. There is no evidence either way whether they had spoken language or not. No one in the world refers to any "Neanderthal language". No one is interested although anyone with half a brain should be interested.

On the other hand - these buggers find graves with chariots and horses in the steppe region from 2500 BC. Again there is no evidence of language whatsoever - but guess what? This time it is convenient for them to claim that these horse-burying guys had a language and that was mother language to Sanskrit before they came riding down to India. And because we have faithful Indian sepoys guarding this kind of crap as gospel truth that must never be revised by revisionists we are supposed to sit with one thumb in mouth and other in musharraf - blocking up all orifices.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 15 Sep 2017 00:56

^^^ thank you Shiv ji.

I had it in my head and when I sat down to write, I could not think of the reasons for AIT walla's constraints on the lower limit.

BTW, you and me will be sharing dias, Ganesha willing, soon on AIT.
--
In other news, am almost there (90%) with my 100% online course on 'Archaeoastronomy'. Still admin details to be worked out. Goal is to provide solid foundation for dharmic (indic) individuals in logic of scientific discovery/scientific methods with emphasis (for now) on archaeoastronomy. Plans are also in works to have it accredited in the university system (USA system to begin with) so that many undergraduates who are otherwise keen on learning about Indian civilization, culture, science, history and technology can take the course and also have credit towards their degree of choice..

In due process (not by design or intention..but rather a natural byproduct of this training/demonstration) many great impostors (in and out of India) will be revealed.

Thanks again.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8444
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 15 Sep 2017 01:04

shiv wrote: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.

The years sure are getting longer!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 06:39

Here are Hindu Yugas from Manusmriti. I see no mention of "cubits"
one age of the gods. 72. But know that the sum of
one thousand ages of the gods (makes) one day of Brah-
man, and that his night has the same length. 73. Those
(only, who) know that the holy day of Brahman, indeed,
ends after (the completion of) one thousand ages (of the
gods) and that his night lasts as long, (are really) men
acquainted with (the length of) days and nights. 74. At
the end of that day and night he who was asleep, awakes
and, after awaking, creates mind, which is both real and
unreal. 75. Mind, impelled by (Brahman's) desire to
create, performs the work of creation by modifying it-
self, thence ether is produced; they declare that sound is
the quality of the latter. 76. But from ether, modifying
itself, springs the pure, powerful wind, the vehicle of all
perfumes; that is held to possess the quality of touch.
77. Next from wind modifying itself, proceeds the bril-
liant light, which illuminates and dispels darkness; that
is declared to possess the quality of colour; 78. And
from light, modifying itself, (is produced) water, pos-
sessing the quality of taste, from water earth which has
the quality of smell; such is the creation in the beginning.
79. The before-mentioned age of the gods, (or) twelve
thousand (of their years), being multiplied by seventy-
one, (constitutes what) is here named the period of a
Manu (Manvantara). 80. The Manvantaras, the cre-
ations and destructions (of the world, are) numberless;
sporting, as it were, Brahman repeats this again and
again. 81. In the Krita age Dharma is four-footed and
entire, and (so is) Truth; nor does any gain accrue to
men by unrighteousness. 82. In the other (three ages),
by reason of (unjust) gains (agama), Dharma is deprived
successively of one foot, and through (the prevalence of)
theft, falsehood, and fraud the merit (gained by men) is
diminished by one fourth (in each). 83. (Men are) free
from disease, accomplish all their aims, and live four
hundred years in the Krita age, but in the Treta and (in
each of) the succeeding (ages) their life is lessened by
one quarter. 84. The life of mortals, mentioned in the
Veda, the desired results of sacri cial rites and the (su-
pernatural) power of embodied (spirits) are fruits pro-
portioned among men according to (the character of)
the age. 85. One set of duties (is prescribed) for men
in the Krita age, di erent ones in the Treta and in the
Dvapara, and (again) another (set) in the Kali, in a pro-
portion as (those) ages decrease in length. 86. In the
Krita age the chief (virtue) is declared to be (the perfor-
mance of) austerities, in the Treta (divine) knowledge,
in the Dvapara (the performance of) sacri ces, in the
Kali liberality alone.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 06:56

From an online edition of the "Bhagvata Purana" (Srimad Bhagvatam). WTF is "demi god"
catvāri trīṇi dve caikaṁ
 kṛtādiṣu yathā-kramam
saṅkhyātāni sahasrāṇi
 dvi-guṇāni śatāni ca

Translation:
The duration of the Satya millennium equals 4,800 years of the years of the demigods; the duration of the Tretā millennium equals 3,600 years of the demigods; the duration of the Dvāpara millennium equals 2,400 years; and that of the Kali millennium is 1,200 years of the demigods.
Purport:

As aforementioned, one year of the demigods is equal to 360 years of the human beings. The duration of the Satya-yuga is therefore 4,800 × 360, or 1,728,000 years. The duration of the Tretā-yuga is 3,600 × 360, or 1,296,000 years. The duration of the Dvāpara-yuga is 2,400 × 360, or 864,000 years. And the last, the Kali-yuga, is 1,200 × 360, or 432,000 years.



Satya Yuga: http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/3/11/21
Translation:
O Vidura, in the Satya millennium mankind properly and completely maintained the principles of religion, but in other millenniums religion gradually decreased by one part as irreligion was proportionately admitted.
Purport:

In the Satya millennium, complete execution of religious principles prevailed. Gradually, the principles of religion decreased by one part in each of the subsequent millenniums. In other words, at present there is one part religion and three parts irreligion. Therefore people in this age are not very happy.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 06:58

NOTE: This bloody site has some passages mixed up with the Devnagri part having no connection with the English transcription

Another source - but I have a problem with words used like "Religion and "demi-god" These are English words with no clear Sanskrit parallel
https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/3/11/
Text 18:
Maitreya said: O Vidura, the four millenniums are called the Satya-, Tretā-, Dvāpara- and Kali-yuga. The aggregate number of years of all of these combined is equal to twelve thousand years of the demigods.

Text 19:
The duration of the Satya millennium equals 4,800 years of the years of the demigods; the duration of the Tretā millennium equals 3,600 years of the demigods; the duration of the Dvāpara millennium equals 2,400 years; and that of the Kali millennium is 1,200 years of the demigods.

Text 20:
The transitional periods before and after every millennium, which are a few hundred years as aforementioned, are known as yuga-sandhyās, or the conjunctions of two millenniums, according to the expert astronomers. In those periods all kinds of religious activities are performed.

Text 21:
O Vidura, in the Satya millennium mankind properly and completely maintained the principles of religion, but in other millenniums religion gradually decreased by one part as irreligion was proportionately admitted.

Text 22:
Outside of the three planetary systems [Svarga, Martya and Pātāla], the four yugas multiplied by one thousand comprise one day on the planet of Brahmā. A similar period comprises a night of Brahmā, in which the creator of the universe goes to sleep.

Text 23:
After the end of Brahmā’s night, the creation of the three worlds begins again in the daytime of Brahmā, and they continue to exist through the life durations of fourteen consecutive Manus, or fathers of mankind.



OK here "dharma" is translated as religion. I am in vehement disagreement with that
https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/3/11/21/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 09:58

Specially for Nilesh Oak:

Here is how history has been constructed for us.

Excerpt from David Anthony, "Horse, Wheel and Language"
SINTASHTA AND THE ORIGINS OF THE ARYANS
The oldest texts in Old Indic are the "family books," books 2 through 7, of
the Rig Veda (RV). These hymns and prayers were compiled into "books"
or mandalas about 1500-1300 BCE, but many had been composed earlier.
The oldest parts of the Avesta (AV), the Gathas, the oldest texts in Ira-
nian, were composed by Zarathustra probably about 1200-1000 BCE.
The undocumented language that was the parent of both, common Indo-
Iranian, must be dated well before 1500 BCE, because, by this date, Old
Indic had already appeared in the documents of the Mitanni in North
Syria (see chapter 3). Common Indo-Iranian probably was spoken during
the Sintashta period, 2100-1800 BCE. Archaic Old Indic probably
emerged as a separate tongue from archaic Iranian about 1800-1600 BCE
(see chapter 16). The RV and AV agreed that the essence of their shared
parental Indo-Iranian identity was linguistic and ritual, not racia!' If a
person sacrificed to the right gods in the right way using the correct forms
of the traditional hymns and poems, that person was an Aryan 4S Other-
wise the individual was a Dasyu, again not a racial or ethnic label but a
ritual and linguistic one-a person who interrupted the cycle of giving
between gods and humans, and therefore a person who threatened cosmic
order, r'ta (RV) or afa (AV). Rituals performed in the right words were the
core of being an Aryan.


The Mitanni texts are pure Sanskrit. The Link With the Rig Veda is clear because in the Mitanni documents the following line appears:

"Mitra-Varuna-Indra-Nasatya". The names "Mitra, Varuna, Indra and the "Nasatyas" who are twin Asvins appear only in the Rig Veda in that order. Considering the nasatyas as twins is also in the Rig Veda. Rig Veda is inextricably linked with India. So how did a line that appears only in the Rig Veda appear in Syria?

To expand on this further we need to look at all the names of Gods mentioned in the Mitanni treaty. It was not about just these 5 Vedic deities but dozens of Syrian gods
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroas ... treaty.htm
the Storm-god,
Lord of Heaven and Earth,
the Moon-god and the Sun-god,
the Moon-god of Harran, heaven and earth,
the Storm-god,
Lord of the kurinnu of Kahat,
the Deity of Herds of Kurta,
the Storm-god,
Lord of Uhušuman,
Ea-šarri,
Lord of Wisdom,
Anu,
Antu,
Enlil,
Ninlil,
the Mitra-gods, the Varuna-gods, Indra, the Nasatya-gods,
Lord of Waššukanni,
the Storm-god,
Lord of the Temple Platform (?) of Irrite,
Partahi of Šuta,
Nabarbi,
Šuruhi,
Ištar,
Evening Star,
Šala,
Belet-ekalli,
Damkina,
Išhara,
the mountains and rivers,
the deities of heaven and the deities of earth.

As you can see, the 5 Vedic deities are also rans here. None of the other gods mentioned in that list have anything to do with India. None of them finds mention anywhere in India from 5000 BC to 2000 AD

Now the cunning linguists would have us believe that out of this long list of 35-36 god-names from Syria - only 5 went to India in exactly that order and later placed themselves in the Rig Veda. The rest of them stayed in Syria.

That is not all. In the relevant Sukta of the Rig Veda are other names that do not appear in the Syrian list - such as Rudra, Vasus and Aditya. All names - Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Nasatyas (or Asvins), Rurda, Vasus and Aditya appear time and time again in the Rig veda and are part and parcel of the Rig Veda. While none of the other Syrian god names appear.

It seems more likely that the Syria list is an excerpt from a pre-existing Rig Veda list rather that just five names from the syrian list going to India to get included among dozens of other names and mentioned dozens of times.

In Griffiths translation of Rig Veda
    the name Indra occurs 1071 times
    the name Mitra occurs 304 times
    the name Varuna occurs 101 times
    the twin names "nasatyas" occurs 28 times
    the Asvins (same as nasatyas) are mentioned 109 times

With this kind of weight of evidence of where the names were known in the RiG veda we have-anthropologist historian David Anthony writing this:
The undocumented language that was the parent of both, common Indo-Iranian, must be dated well before 1500 BCE, because, by this date, Old Indic had already appeared in the documents of the Mitanni in North Syria


He is saying that the language "Old Indic" had apperared in Syria by 1800 BC. What he leaves out is that not only had Sanskrit (which he chooses to call Old Indic) "appeared " in the people already has a well developed culture where "Mitra-Varuna-Indra-Nasatya" were part of their pantheon. It was not just language - but a culture based on that language. And he claims that this language simply appeared in Syria - denying the cultural context. That means that the culture with those names must have developed before 1800 BC.

So where did this language and culture develop. According to linguist-historians the language was developing in the Sinthasta grave area of Russia - close to Kazakhstan.

What is the evidence of the culture of Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya in Russia/Kazakhstan? Zero
What is the evidence of the culture of Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya in Syria? One mention among several dozen Syrian gods
What is the evidence of the culture of Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya in India? Thousands of references in the Rig Veda where these names form an integral part of the text

Now someone explain this to me. How does one reach the conclusion that the culture that has "Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya"that was developing en route from Russia to Syria. then it just appeared as a flash in one tablet in Syria in 1800 BC and then went to India?

Excuse my anal-ogy. If you find a pile of bullshit in your garden, footprints with bullshit in your hallway and no bullshit in your kitchen how would you conclude that bullshit originated in the kitchen, left a trace in the hallway and collected up in a huge pile in your garden. The bullshit is in the historian-story-writer's head

AND WE BELIEVE THIS CRAP! Bullshit is what we are trying to clean up, fighting with sepoys along the way

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9750
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 15 Sep 2017 16:41

FYI, the Bakhshali manuscript was dated by the writing, e.g., "the manuscript is written in an earlier form of Śāradā script, which was mainly in use from the 8th to the 12th century". Now it is carbon-dated to five hundred years earlier - to the 3rd or 4th century. That means, in my opinion, the date of everything written in Śāradā needs to be reexamined.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 15 Sep 2017 16:53

Yep - big news for the day! The dates just keep going back in time. The symbol for Zero in Bakshali Manuscript apparently occurs hundreds of times. Which means Zero existed in India from 3rd - 4th century CE. That's a loooooong time ago.

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 15 Sep 2017 17:00

shiv wrote:Now someone explain this to me. How does one reach the conclusion that the culture that has "Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya"that was developing en route from Russia to Syria. then it just appeared as a flash in one tablet in Syria in 1800 BC and then went to India?



The purported Mittani split supposed to have happened in the Northern-Iran/BMAC area. One branch went West to Syria - the Mitanis. The earlier date than India is explained by Syria being closer to Northern-Iran/BMAC than India.

Can't recall where I read this this exactly.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 17:22

Dipanker wrote:
shiv wrote:Now someone explain this to me. How does one reach the conclusion that the culture that has "Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya"that was developing en route from Russia to Syria. then it just appeared as a flash in one tablet in Syria in 1800 BC and then went to India?



The purported Mittani split supposed to have happened in the Northern-Iran/BMAC area. One branch went West to Syria - the Mitanis. The earlier date than India is explained by Syria being closer to Northern-Iran/BMAC than India.

Can't recall where I read this this exactly.


I have read that one. You read it on this thread. Look at the map and you will see that the idea and your idea of geography in the era of online maps are both bullshit.
Distance from Sinashta grave (Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia.) to Damascus, Syria is 4284 km - this includes sailing across the Black Sea or it would be longer
Distance from Sinashta grave (Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia.) to Lahore, Pakistan is 3996 km and no sailing needed.

The idea fails on every count including the fact there is no evidence of the language in Sintashta. Only guesswork.

Remember that "Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya " is not merely language spread. It is indicative of a culture that had already developed those names as deities before they went to Syria
Hence to repeat myself
What is the evidence of the culture of Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya in Russia/Kazakhstan? Zero
What is the evidence of the culture of Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya in Syria? One mention among several dozen Syrian gods
What is the evidence of the culture of Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya in India? Thousands of references in the Rig Veda where these names form an integral part of the text

Now someone explain this to me. How does one reach the conclusion that the culture that has "Mitra-varuna-Indra-nasatya"that was developing en route from Russia to Syria. then it just appeared as a flash in one tablet in Syria in 1800 BC and then went to India?

Excuse my anal-ogy. If you find a pile of bullshit in your garden, footprints with bullshit in your hallway and no bullshit in your kitchen how would you conclude that bullshit originated in the kitchen, left a trace in the hallway and collected up in a huge pile in your garden. The bullshit is in the historian-story-writer's head


Let me also repeat here what I wrote in Swarajya:

https://swarajyamag.com/culture/aryans- ... y-scholars
Almost no one in India knows that Sanskrit language documents dating back to 1500 BCE (3,500 years ago) were found in Syria. These “documents” were actually tablets etched in a language called ‘Hurrian’. The documents refer to a treaty signed by the kings of the ‘Mitanni’ Kingdom that lasted for just 200 years in Syria around 1500 BCE.

The Mitanni kings had Sanskrit-based names like ‘Birasena’ (Virasena) - a name present in the Mahabharata), ‘Birya’ (Virya), ‘Subandhu’ (with good kinsmen) etc. The treaty document mentions 35 gods of Hurrian origin and along with that are mentioned the Vedic gods Mitra, Varuna, Indra and the Nasatyas (twin gods). Only in the Rig Veda are the Nasatyas referred to as twins. How this dynasty ruled in Syria around 1500 BCE, 4,000 km from India remains a mystery to this day, but no historian or linguist has any doubt about the links that these documents have with Sanskrit and the Rig Veda.

Here the tale gets more curious, best explained using an example. I will briefly digress at this point and tell a completely imaginary story. Imagine that an explorer finds an old tomb in Egypt, and opens it and finds documents in the French language. France is thousands of kilometers from Egypt and the presence of French documents in an Egyptian tomb would be a mystery.

What should the explorer conclude?

Should he conclude that the French language was first brought to Egypt by people from places like South Africa and after stopping briefly in Egypt, the French speaking people took their language to France? Or should the conclusion be that some visitor from France had brought the French language to Egypt? It would seem logical to conclude that the French language came to Egypt from France and not from South Africa.

What is astounding is that linguists and ‘orientalists’ who examined the Sanskrit Mitanni treaty documents did not link them with India, where Sanskrit was known all over, but instead, claimed that the language had come to Syria with people from Europe, before vanishing completely from Syria and going to India and spreading all over India. Preposterous as this story may sound, there is documentary evidence that this is exactly what was done, and perfectly good explanations as to why this bluff was propagated. I will explain this in some detail, providing the sources.

..read it all a the link above
Last edited by shiv on 15 Sep 2017 17:39, edited 1 time in total.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9750
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 15 Sep 2017 17:37

Shiv, my guess is that you have not seen "The Aryan Gods of the Mitani People" by Sten Konow (1923) During a previous bout of AIT/AMT/OIT, this reference came up, and not finding it in the libraries here, I actually ordered a copy from Norway, where they were selling from the original publishing run of this article. The yellowing pages have been sitting in my bookshelf since.

Sten Konow was an Aryan Invasionist, like every other Indologist of that time. However, he argues that development of Indra, Varuna and the two Nasatyas from their Indo-European and "period of Aryan unity" prototypes happened entirely within India. At least one of the arguments is invasionist, that the Dasyus were people of a different color, and possibly "noseless" and thick lipped, and the Aryans could have encountered such people only in India. Other arguments are based on geography (e.g., identifying a Vedic name with Mount Abu in Rajasthan). He also points out that the development of the Nasatyas from the singular possible Indo-European prototype to a dual is evidenced in the Rg Veda itself. He also says that while the mention of Varuna, Indra, Mitra are natural in a treaty because of the roles they play, why the Ashwins? It is because they are in the later Rg Veda as "typical groomsmen who are invoked to conduct the bride home in their chariot", and "there is nothing to show that this conception is old in the Rg Veda". "We have seen how the compact was concluded after a war between the Hittite king Subbiluliuma and the Mitani king, and how Subbiluluima installed Mattiuaza as king of the Mitani and gave him his own daughter in marriage. I have no hesitation in asserting that it is on account of this marriage that the Nasatyas are invoked in the treaty."

"I hope to have made it probable that these gods were Indian and not Aryan or even Iranian. If the conception of the Asvins as groomsmen belongs to the later phases of the Rgveda period, as it seems to do, we must further draw the conclusion that the extension of Indo-Aryan civilization into Mesopotamia took place after the bulk of the Rgveda had come into existence. The oldest portions of the collection would consequently have to be considered as considerably older than the Mitani treaty."

Konow mentions near the beginning that "there is no consensus of opinion with regard to the question whether they {Indra, Varuna, etc.} should be considered as purely Indian deities or as such worshipped by the ancient Aryans before their separation into two branches, an Indian and an Iranian. Most scholars favor the second alternative, only Jacobi has argued in favour of the view that we are here faced with Indian and not with Aryan gods. It is evidenct that the question is of importance for our valuation of the age of Vedic civilization. If Jacobi's view should prove to be correct, we should have to state a propagation of ancient Indian civilization into Mesopotamia in the 14th century BC and the Vedic period would consequently have to be pushed back to a more ancient date."

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 17:49

I recall your mentioning this on this thread but I was never able to access the original work. Thanks for the info. I have Paul Thieme's paper though.

But even without this man's work the very use of five Vedic names in Syria indicates that there was a period of development of those names as deities by the people who used those names in the treaty. If the treaty was 1800 BC - a culture with such names has to be much older, wherever it came from

If we talk about evidence - where is the evidence of such a culture that regarded Mitra-Varuna-Indra-Nasatyas as deities?

There is none anywhere in the route from Sintashta to Syria
There is one mention in Syria
The evidence all sits in India so wtf are these linguists trying to bluff about. It was a racist construct from the start - taken up by linguists and evidence constructed to fit their theories

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 18:08

Prem Kumar wrote:Yep - big news for the day! The dates just keep going back in time. The symbol for Zero in Bakshali Manuscript apparently occurs hundreds of times. Which means Zero existed in India from 3rd - 4th century CE. That's a loooooong time ago.

This actually puzzles me. Is this about physical evidence for the zero symbol? If so, fine. But there are dozens of mentions of decimal numbers in the Vedas. Numbers like 99,000 also. So is the idea that these numbers were simply counted mentally with no writing?

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 15 Sep 2017 18:12

shiv wrote:I have read that one. You read it on this thread. Look at the map and you will see that the idea and your idea of geography in the era of online maps are both bullshit.
Distance from Sinashta grave (Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia.) to Damascus, Syria is 4284 km - this includes sailing across the Black Sea or it would be longer
Distance from Sinashta grave (Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia.) to Lahore, Pakistan is 3996 km and no sailing needed.

The idea fails on every count including the fact there is no evidence of the language in Sintashta. Only guesswork.


Shouldn't you consider the distance from Northern-Iran/BMAC to Syria than all the way from Sintashta, Russia ? The archeological digs of BMAC are younger in age than those of Sintashta.

Distance between BMAC (Turkmenistan) to Syria are closer than BMAC/Turkmenistan to India.

Also about the language, will it be fair assumption that Sintashta people spoke some percussor language to modern day Russian?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9750
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 15 Sep 2017 18:16

As far as I can tell, Sten Konow's work was studiously ignored by most Indologists, and possibly mentioned only to dismiss it. scholar.google.com finds this paper cited only once.

As you point out, there is both an absence of evidence - e.g., of Varuna/Mitra paired together, and of Indra as a major deity, and the pair of Ashvins - outside of India; but there is also positive evidence that these are "make in India", regardless of AIT/OIT; and that it is only from the Indian cultural context that one can understand why these would be mentioned in a treaty.

That is, that the Mitanni mention of Indra, Varuna, Mitra, Nasatyas is a mention of Indian gods; and that is true whether or not Aryans invaded India, or originated in India or descended from outer space. Any theory that postulates Aryan ethnicity and theorizes the origin of the Aryans has to take this fact into account.

Of course, that means RgVeda existed during the heyday of the Indus Valley a.k.a. Saraswati/Sindhu civilization. This is of course also suggested by the identification of the Vedic Saraswati (not known or well-known in Sten Konow's day).
Last edited by A_Gupta on 15 Sep 2017 18:17, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 18:17

A_Gupta wrote:Konow mentions near the beginning that "there is no consensus of opinion with regard to the question whether they {Indra, Varuna, etc.} should be considered as purely Indian deities or as such worshipped by the ancient Aryans before their separation into two branches, an Indian and an Iranian. Most scholars favor the second alternative, only Jacobi has argued in favour of the view that we are here faced with Indian and not with Aryan gods. It is evident that the question is of importance for our valuation of the age of Vedic civilization. If Jacobi's view should prove to be correct, we should have to state a propagation of ancient Indian civilization into Mesopotamia in the 14th century BC and the Vedic period would consequently have to be pushed back to a more ancient date."

I am not going to bother checking the dates of publication by the authors you have mentioned, but what you say and what I am about to post constitute and example of why one simply must re-look at the evidence that has been left out while arriving at far reaching conclusions. I will just cross post a passage from my own unpublished work:
James Darmeister, another scholar who translated the Zend Avesta wrote,”the Vedas come from the same source as the Avesta”, Darmeister further records that other scholars too had noticed this. He writes “Roth showed after Burnouf how the epical history of Iran was derived from the same source as the myths of Vedic India, and pointed out the primitive identity of Ahura Mazda, the supreme god of Iran, with Varuna, the supreme god of the Vedic age. In the same direction Windischmann, in his 'Zoroastrian Essays' and in his studies on Mithra and Anâhita, displayed singular sagacity. ” What Darmeister is trying to say is that the Vedas and the Zend Avesta arose from the same source. The statement is interesting because European scholars have always considered the Zend Avesta as the history of Iran as opposed to the Vedas representing an Indian past.

Dr. Martin Haug, in his book on the Zoroastrian religion notes that the Zend Avesta has references to the Atharva Veda, showing that the Atharva Veda already existed at the time of composition of the Zend Avesta.


You probably remember the discussion we had about Mary Boyce. Here is my take:
In her book, “A History of Zoroastrianism (Volume 1)”, Mary Boyce includes a chapter on the “pagan gods” that existed before Zoroaster. Boyce describes in great detail how every one of these gods is also mentioned in in the Vedas. In other words, all pre-Zoroastrian gods that are mentioned in Zoroastrian texts and absorbed into the Zoroastrian tradition are also mentioned in the Vedas. There can be no better evidence of the origin of the Zoroastrian pantheon from an earlier Vedic one. Boyce and other scholars choose to term the earlier common pantheon as “Indo-Iranian” gods that were known before Zoroastrian and Vedic gods. There is no factual basis for this terminology, although it is semantically accurate. The same gods find earlier mention in the Indian vedas and later mention in the supposedly Iranian Zoroastrianism. These so-called Indo-Iranian gods are unknown outside Zoroastrianism and the Vedas. The evidence that Boyce presents points to the Vedic gods having existed earlier. Zoroastrian gods were selected as a later development from the Vedic pantheon. The name “Indo-Iranian gods” might as well be replaced by the perfectly accurate name “Vedic deities”.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 18:22

Dipanker wrote:
Shouldn't you consider the distance from Northern-Iran/BMAC to Syria than all the way from Sintashta, Russia ? The archeological digs of BMAC are younger in age than those of Sintashta.

Distance between BMAC (Turkmenistan) to Syria are closer than BMAC/Turkmenistan to India.

Also about the language, will it be fair assumption that Sintashta people spoke some percussor language to modern day Russian?

We have had a lot of bullshit on this thread about science. Science depends on evidence. It is all about evidence evidence evidence

The evidence of language in all in India and one fragment in Syria. There is no other evidence whatsoever. Only assumptions couched in "earnest and reasonable" sounding rhetoric such as:
will it be fair assumption that Sintashta people spoke some percussor language to modern day Russian?


The difference here is between evidence and assumptions Assumptions must be thrown out when there is evidence.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9750
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 15 Sep 2017 18:23

^^^Great material! I hope the people on this thread with history degrees note carefully how history is often constructed by ignoring the evidence that goes against the narrative one wants to have. In particular, a lot of Indologists and the societies they were embedded in were enamored of the idea of a joyously conquering civilization-bearing white race, and thus built their histories thusly. But if one looks closely, even within the body of their works, some dissent can be found.

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 15 Sep 2017 18:28

A_Gupta wrote:Of course, that means RgVeda existed during the heyday of the Indus Valley a.k.a. Saraswati/Sindhu civilization. This is of course also suggested by the identification of the Vedic Saraswati (not known or well-known in Sten Konow's day).


And that leads to this pesky little problem of presence of horses in IVC. WIth the exception of Surkotada, horse bones only start to appear in the "secured layers" late IVC around 1700 BC or so.
Surkotada itself is controversial, since the bones found here could be those of wild asses of Ran of Kutch.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 18:31

A_Gupta wrote:Of course, that means RgVeda existed during the heyday of the Indus Valley a.k.a. Saraswati/Sindhu civilization. This is of course also suggested by the identification of the Vedic Saraswati (not known or well-known in Sten Konow's day).

The Saraswati, and rigorous archaeological, paleo-geological and paleo-botanical studies indicating that the Saraswati was a massive river exactly where the texts say it was is the biggest AIT killer.

In fact it brought out the most desperate attempts at bluffing by the AIT status-quoists as well as ad hominem references to opponents as revisionists and right-wing Hindus. If you use parts of texts to prove a particular point (like Dasyus and Purs) you cannot then simply discard the Saraswati as imagination. Multiple streams of evidence put the Vedas earlier than 2000 BC . My current hypothesis puts the Vedas around 9-7000 BC

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 18:43

Dipanker wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:Of course, that means RgVeda existed during the heyday of the Indus Valley a.k.a. Saraswati/Sindhu civilization. This is of course also suggested by the identification of the Vedic Saraswati (not known or well-known in Sten Konow's day).


And that leads to this pesky little problem of presence of horses in IVC. WIth the exception of Surkotada, horse bones only start to appear in the "secured layers" late IVC around 1700 BC or so.
Surkotada itself is controversial, since the bones found here could be those of wild asses of Ran of Kutch.


Wrong about the horse in India
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitst ... er%204.pdf
In India, the earliest evidence for the domesticated horse occur in C. 4500
B.C. at Bagor58 . Subsequently the true horse is reported from the Neolithic
levels at Kodekal and Hallur and after that it is reported from proto- historic
59times . Returning to Harappan times, Mortimer Wheeler, a colourful proponent
of the Aryan invasion theory, if ever there was one, admitted long ago that “it is
likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact a familiar feature of the
60Indus caravan

You can check the cross refs yourself

That aside - a reading of Vidyarthi and Aurobindo will show how the word "horse" was used in the Vedas. It was not a "horse culture" as alleged

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 15 Sep 2017 18:50

A layman question to experts here:- When Saraswati was drying up then why not just shift to Indus which was also a huge river and right next to Saraswati?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 19:10

Gyan wrote:A layman question to experts here:- When Saraswati was drying up then why not just shift to Indus which was also a huge river and right next to Saraswati?

Perfectly valid question and you have said exactly what happened. Populations gradually shifted away towards the Ganga/Jamuna (not Sindhu) as per archaeological records. But the Harappan-Saraswati-Sindhu civilization did not die as is frequently stated. It just continued right down to the present day at lower levels of activity and civilizational sophistication

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2017 19:12

Dipanker wrote:Surkotada itself is controversial, since the bones found here could be those of wild asses of Ran of Kutch.

Surkotada is controversial only for those people who are thrashing about trying to stick to a fake horse story.

Same ref as above
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitst ... er%204.pdf
At Surkotada, from all three periods, a good number of bones of horse
(Equus caballus Linn) have been recovered. These are very distinctive bones:
first, second and third phalanges and few vertebrae fragment. Described below
are the bones of Equus caballus.
The above evidence shows that horse was known to the Harappans at
Surkotada. Associated with the horse also existed Equus asinus and Equus
hamionus. Even today, Equus hamionus Khur is found in large numbers in the
62little Rann of Kutch .


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aliya, deWalker, dnivas, Patni, schinnas, sudhan and 32 guests