Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 20:19

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


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

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


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

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4740
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 12 Sep 2017 20:27

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 20:36

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


1.What 'worthless opinion' would you like to be substantiated by first hand sources ?- ask and you shall receive.
2. For closed minds- its funny to hear that from someone who refuses to fact-check a religious book.


There is no comparative analysis here, you goddamned imbecile. Even if the texts were written over a period of time, which is exactly why the problem is framed as determining the narrowest interval of time that covers the observations made in the text, and not a single point in time. If the observations are taken to be ones made by some human, then the date or dates when the observation will map to points in time, and suggest a narrower timeline covering the period when the book was written (or not). That is the whole point of original research -- to take a fresh look at data and to see if our improved understanding of the universe will steer us in new directions.


Incorrect. In a modified book, you have no basis to claim what are observations and what are insertions. If there is no comparative analysis between version X and version Y of a modified book, you have no basis to treat the accounting on a later version Z, as original to the work- especially when the work is self-admittedly modified and is not granted 'factually correct' status by the original authors- which is why they are smriti literature, not shruti literature. If there is no comparative analysis for a modified book, then there is no basis to taking what the book says, as objectively true. Ergo, what you are calling 'data', is not data. Its propaganda. religious propaganda, from a religious book, which is true for virtually ALL religious books.

As i already pointed out, Mahabharata itself is 80% un-original. Kind of a ridiculous assessment then, to consider the nakshatra citings as original through the whole text and is not cut-paste from other tales (unless of course, you wish to believe that our ancestors only had 2-3 stories).


PS: Good job running away from the question asked of you, re: years, under the guise of 'don't feed the trolls', as you know this 'troll' will expose your hijinks regarding history.

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 21:17

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


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

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

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1580
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Sep 2017 21:32

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


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

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

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

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

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

(2)

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


(3)

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

(6) Two measures of Saptarṣi cycle-

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

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


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

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

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

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

(7)

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


(8)

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

(9)

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


(10)

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

(11)

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

(12)

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

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33282
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 21:40

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


You stated earlier

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

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 21:43

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


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

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


the topic is out of India. A topic predominantly dealt with, via archaeology and genetics. Not how true is mahabharata. But thanks to religious people, its been predominantly 'lets show how old mahabharata/ramayana are'. Bravo!

And no, all the 'inserted text does', is change the lower bound. Because insertions happen post-mortem, by definition.
All your 'trivializations' does not change the fact that this whole nakshatra stuff, being later inserted, say 2000-ish years ago, would by no means would make the happenings of Mahabharata/Ramayana in said times.
Ie, if i wanted to use some basic star-charting to put a story in 80,000 BC, it doesn't make my story true. Our ancestors have made contributions to history- far, far few than western/arab/chinese sources exist. Of those who exist- most,like Kalhana, its not of good quality (there are plenty in the west too, who are not good quality. Polybios for example. Pretty apparent if you do read them). Just that those 'ancestors' are not the authors of Mahabharata or Ramayana. People who wrote them, are the same class of people who wrote Confucian commentary/Councils of Nicea/etc. theologians. Not historians.
Homer, XYZ, are not religious material. Mahabharata/Ramayana are. Difference. Big, huge, gigantic difference.

No use pretending that this whole thing is not the Indian version of 'religious conservatives of USA trying to make religious stuff seem true', if you have begun to equate Mahabharata or Ramayana with Homer's, Kalhana's, etc. type of works.

If you want to stick to topic, the topic needs to be more of OOI/amt, not trying to prove religious literature as truth.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1580
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Sep 2017 21:55

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

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 22:13

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


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

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

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

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4740
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 12 Sep 2017 22:19

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


You stated earlier

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


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

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

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

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14330
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 12 Sep 2017 22:27

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

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14330
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 12 Sep 2017 22:30

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


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

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 22:31

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

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


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

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14330
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 12 Sep 2017 22:38

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

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 22:43

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

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2858
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 22:50

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

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


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

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1580
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Sep 2017 00:38

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

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

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

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

hope this helps..

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1580
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Sep 2017 00:51

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

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

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

Does this date Valmiki or Rama/Sita?

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

Enjoy for what it is worth....

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

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Sep 2017 01:08

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


its causing quite a scare to ALL historians- not just the AIT/AMT proponents. Because Nakshatras themselves, have nothing to do with the debate. Reason being, its pseudo-science nonsense.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Sep 2017 01:13

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


this is not the first time i've said in this thread to return to topic.
there is no goal-post being shifted, nothing being cornered- except for those who seek to equate secular literature (Herodotus, Diodorus, etc. are not sources of worship material), with non-secular, religious material (Ramayana, Mahabharata).

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


there is no double standard/different standard. We do not deduce history from the writings of the apostles of Aprodite or Scions of Jupiter either.
we use writings that are non-religious, as objective material. Religious material, as precisely that.
An author who is simply writing stuff as a source, is far more trustworthy than a religious source for obvious reasons: religious people have twisted the truth for religious gain. this is why Kalhana is seen as a historian, Valmiki is not.

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


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

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 13 Sep 2017 01:53

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

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14330
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2017 02:18

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

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1600
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 13 Sep 2017 02:32

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Sep 2017 02:37

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



Its neither western, nor dogmatic. Chinese, Japanese, etc. also reject religious literature as history. this is because, as i've already noted- almost all religious literature is modified for religious gain. Only religious texts i know are not modified, are Koran and the Vedas - books mostly on ritual and commandments, not 'this is what happened' recordings.
A random piece of literature found from a random guy, is not similarly modified as religious literature are. All primary sources of western literature from ancient period- such as Diodorus, Arrian, Plutarch- etc.- these guys were themselves not famous in their times and its not like their textbooks circulated through teaching mediums or such. Yes, they knew of each other- sort of like how philosophers today know of each other's works but any random person would struggle to name 10 current philosophers. these sources as such, have far less reason to be twisted like the Hindu, Chrisitian, Islamic books are. People are not seeking to use it for religious purpose or to form an identity, as of their writing.

this is not my 'personal standard', this is the standard of history worldwide : we do not take religious material as prima facie correct. Period. Because religious mateial have a much, much stronger reason to be doctored, than a random rich guy sitting around writing random stuff that 99% people do not read. Western historians similarly reject the 'stories' of Jupiter cult or Zeus cult, as to how long ago X happened. Same way how western historians today reject Biblical telling of stories as mostly false without corroboration.
Why should there be exceptions for hindu religious books ?
If so, we better start treating the histories of the hadith as equal value to Mahabharata/Ramayana. Not doing so, would be religiously biassed behaviour and not objective study.

this is why we cannot take Nakshatra citings seriously- we have no reason to think they are original to the work and since Nakshatras have a genuine religious component (auspicious/not auspicious), have a strong reason to be entered subsequently, to show good/bad signs during the larger telling.

Yes, we can learn some things from the Mahabharata-Ramayana- such as what was the landscape like, during its last rendition. But beyond that, there is little to learn about the original time of its composition.

the very fact that Puranic king list chronologies and astro-archaeology cannot be reconciled, shows us that the astronomical observations are spurious and later additions.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Sep 2017 02:43

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


it is not an assumption. the mahabharata/Ramayana themselves are classified as shruti literature. Ie, not trustworthy for the kind of analysis.
Religious literature has a strong motive for falsification : control of people and admission of incorrectness, is practically unknown.
On the other hand, a writing compiled by an individual that was not read by the masses or used by the masses, is bereft of such motive.
Nobody can accuse Kalhana for doctoring history to brainwash people. We can make that accusation, successfully i might add- for any religious book.


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

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

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

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

Since your assumptions are wrong to begin with, I don't have to address the rest of your arguments (according to your own world-view).



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

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


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


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

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1600
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 13 Sep 2017 02:45

SriJoy wrote:explain to us...


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

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

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

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Sep 2017 02:50

sudarshan wrote:
SriJoy wrote:explain to us...


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

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

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


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

As i noted before, we are talking history here. not mythologies. Ramayana/Mahabharata analysis belongs with bible analysis. Not alongside Arrian, Diodorus, Sima Qian or Kahlana. those people were historians. wrote history. the former group are people who wrote books of mass control based on morality. not credible.
to say that is an assumption, is just as valid as saying 'Rabindranath's views on physics are irrelevant' is also an assumption....

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1600
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 13 Sep 2017 02:50

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Sep 2017 02:54

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

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

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



internally consistent does not imply merit. Internally consistent simply means there are no holes/inconsistency in your story.
I can write a book, that is internally consistent, on how our ancestors were all slaves to tibetans and Yudhistir was going to pay homage to his overlord in tibet when he croaked. Would you accept such a book, as meritorious, if its internally consistent ?

I can make an alternate Ramayana, say 'Rama went to the forest, Rama ate poisonous mushrooms, Rama died. the end'. that story is internally consistent.
Infact, more consistent than stories about super-men and men with inset gemstones as part of their bodies. All these books- Ramayana, Mahabharata, Hadiths, Bible- they are all internally inconsistent and make fantasical claims. Hence they are all rejected from academia as authority in anything outside of theological studies.

How about i reject fantastic claims of books writing about flying to heaven or having whole world in someone's mouth as incredible, spurious nonsense and apply it uniformly ? Seems lot more sensible than trying to find credibility in books filled with such incredible lies and misinformation- regardless of which religion they are from.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2858
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 13 Sep 2017 04:20

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

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

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

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

hope this helps..


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

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

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

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33282
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 05:48

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

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

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

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

What has all this got to do with yugas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33282
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 05:54

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

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

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

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

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

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Sep 2017 06:18

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


How you can you prove a negative assertion, o good doctor ?
Perhaps you can find me an evidence of Chinese/Japanese lifting directly from their religious books as far as history goes.


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


Nobody accepts Herodotus as correct. He is to history what Freud is to psychology : first guy (that we know of), who tried to study history and wrote about various regions of (his) world. As per ants that dig up gold- seems like there is a grain of truth to it, after all :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-digging_ant
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/25/world ... -ants.html

turns out its not a 'furry ant', but marmot and Potoahris have been collecting gold dust brought to the surface by this marmot for a while now. :D


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


the thread is a great thread, with relevance to our history. What is worthless, is the pollution in this thread about irrelevant stuff regarding Hindu religious literature, which some people are trying to prove correct, despite it being largely irrelevant to the thread topic.

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

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33282
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 06:24

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1580
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Sep 2017 06:56

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

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

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

Too bad, it did not help.

Stick to what you personally follow. All the best.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33282
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 09:23

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

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

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14330
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2017 09:49

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a defense of herodotus

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


then

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


after which

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


then claims of automatically secular etc etc

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

..

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


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

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

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

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

Enough please.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33282
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 14:22

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

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

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

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

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

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

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33282
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Sep 2017 14:44

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9658
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 13 Sep 2017 17:09

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KL Dubey, Raveen, rudradeep, saip, SBajwa, suryag and 36 guests