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.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10343
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 12 Dec 2017 03:57

KL Dubey wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:Yaska has arguments against this point of view that the words in the Veda have no meaning.


I never knew there was a point of view in India that claimed "the words in the Veda have no meaning". I said, the "meanings" of the words in the Veda are yet unknown and are not the same as the meanings derived in the Sanskrit language. Yaska discusses Sanskrit, but the Veda is not in Sanskrit.


I can't reproduce the arguments in Yaska, largely because I don't understand them. I'll quote a little of the commentary of the translator, Lakshman Sarup, and a bit of his translation of the Nirukta.

Lakshman Sarup tells us:
In the fifteenth section of the first chapter of the Nirukta, a critic is introduced in the person of Kautsa, who not only questions the authority of the Vedas, but actually maintains that the Vedic stanzas are meaningless, adducing several arguments in support of his assertion. From the twentieth section of the same chapter it is evident that Yaska believes the Vedic hymns to be revealed, having been handed down from generation to generation by oral tradition, and requiring to be studied with great care; the purpose of his own work being to facilitate this study.

As the Nirukta is one of the six auxiliary treatises of the Veda, it is rather difficult to say with what object Yaska presented and tried to controvert the view of his opponents, for it is inconceivable that the learned theologians would reproduce, in their orthodox books, a controversy which would challenge the most fundamental beliefs of their religion. The reproduction of the Kautsa controversy indicates on the one hand that not only Yaska was endowed with a rationalistic spirit, and was free from bigoted fanaticism, but also that it was possible to carry on such discussions with tolerance at that period of remote antiquity; and implies on the other, that Kautsa was an eminent scholar, or some great personality, or the exponent of some philosophic system, whose thought could not be ignored.

Some however think that Yaska has invented Kautsa as a convenient method of giving expression to Vedic Sceptisism. This view is conjectural, and is not supported by any evidence.


The translation of the Nirukta, section 1.15 contains:

`If (the object of the science {of etymology}) is to ascertain the meaning of Vedic stanzas, it is useless,' says Kautsa, 'for the Vedic stanzas have no meaning'; this is to be established by the following arguments...{stuff I don't understand}


The translation of the Nirukta, section 1.15 begins:
Vedic stanzas are significant because (their) words are identical (with those of the spoken language).


The translation + a footnote further tells us that:
"playing with their sons and grandsons" from RV X.85.42 is an example of the identity of the words of Vedic stanzas with those of classical Sanskrit.

RV X.85.42, Griffiths translation:
42 Be ye not parted; dwell ye here reach the full time of human life.
With sons and grandsons sport and play, rejoicing in your own abode.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 12 Dec 2017 04:04, edited 1 time in total.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Dec 2017 04:03

A_Gupta: This particular one - a lunar eclipse 13 days following the Jyestha amawas is rare.


Thanks. Do you know the period of recurrence of this kind of event?

Since the interval between new moons is about 27 days, and if the periodicity of the eclipse is N days - then 27*N is an upper bound on the interval between recurrences of a particular configuration --- this is probably too simplistic to be correct. But I am trying to see what the lower bound on N should be to make this an interesting observation. N would have to be in the order of a 100 years to be interesting, it seems to me.


Not totally off topic, Something that is of interest to this thread -- dating of the rocks in the "ramar paalam" between India and Sri Lanka. The rocks are geologically dated to around 7000 BC and moved physically from somewhere else to be placed between the two land masses. Wonder what the estimation error is in such geological estimates of rocks that have been under water for 1000s of years.

On the palk strait and Rama's bridge

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10343
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 12 Dec 2017 04:15

periaswamy wrote:
A_Gupta: This particular one - a lunar eclipse 13 days following the Jyestha amawas is rare.


Thanks. Do you know the period of recurrence of this kind of event?

Since the interval between new moons is about 27 days, and if the periodicity of the eclipse is N days - then 27*N is an upper bound on the interval between recurrences of a particular configuration --- this is probably too simplistic to be correct. But I am trying to see what the lower bound on N should be to make this an interesting observation. N would have to be in the order of a 100 years to be interesting, it seems to me.


I will try to find out. It is not just the occurrence of a lunar eclipse, the lunar eclipse must be visible from northern India. That is one source of rarity.

Further, remember
The Moon has phases because it orbits Earth, which causes the portion we see illuminated to change. The Moon takes 27.3 days to orbit Earth, but the lunar phase cycle (from new Moon to new Moon) is 29.5 days. The Moon spends the extra 2.2 days "catching up" because Earth travels about 45 million miles around the Sun during the time the Moon completes one orbit around Earth.


So new moon to full moon (for a lunar eclipse) in an interval 13.x days is, actually, I'm not sure, even possible. For it, the earth has to be at its slowest angular velocity in its orbit around the Sun, i.e., at aphelion, and the Moon has to be in the fastest angular speed in its orbit, i.e., around perigee.

E.g., for instance, the new moon is at perigee - 6.5 days and aphelion - 6.5 days, and full moon with an eclipse is perigee + 6.5 days and aphelion + 6.5 days -- or something like that. Even so, I'm not sure 13 days is feasible.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10343
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 12 Dec 2017 05:22

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/ ... .htm#trend
In the present era the median length of the lunar cycle is about 29d 12h 30m, the average (MSM) is slightly more than 29d 12h 44m, the shortest lunations are about 29d 6h 30m, and the longest are about 29d 20h. Thus the length of the synodic month varies over a range spanning about 13h 30m. These variations were greater in the past and will diminish in the future:

The longest lunar cycles occur when Moon is moving slowest (near apogee) and Earth is moving fastest (near perihelion).
The shortest lunar cycles occur when Moon is moving fastest (near perigee) and Earth is moving slowest (near aphelion).
The declining mean Earth orbital eccentricity tends to reduce the range of lunar cycle variations.
The average lunar cycle (mean synodic month) has miniscule long-term change compared to short-term periodic variations.


Near the present era, the length of each half of the lunar cycle varies over a range of about 41 hours, from a minimum of about 13 days and 21+2/3 hours to a maximum of about 15 days and 14+2/3 hours, with an average or median of about 14 days and 18+1/3 hours.


So I guess 13 days from new moon to lunar eclipse has to mean something like 13 days and 22 hours.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Dec 2017 05:31

distance between earth and sun -- perihelion calculator etc.

The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit 1900 - 2100 according to Meeus (Astronomical Algorithms, Willmann-Bell) is decreasing by 0.000,042 per century (0.0167,086 in 2000).


The above implies that the eccentricity of earth is also a function of time that has to be taken into account -- some sort of simulator (NASA probably has something of this sort) would help figure out at what eccentricity such an interval would have been possible.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10343
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 12 Dec 2017 05:46

periaswamy wrote:distance between earth and sun -- perihelion calculator etc.

The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit 1900 - 2100 according to Meeus (Astronomical Algorithms, Willmann-Bell) is decreasing by 0.000,042 per century (0.0167,086 in 2000).


The above implies that the eccentricity of earth is also a function of time that has to be taken into account -- some sort of simulator (NASA probably has something of this sort) would help figure out at what eccentricity such an interval would have been possible.


The page linked to above mentions "SOLEX" which may be adequate. It is Windows software.
http://www.solexorb.it/

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Dec 2017 06:06

Simple question about rotation of constellations around the celestial north pole in northern hemisphere, from a viewer perspective the stars of constellation which appear to be in "front/top" position in relation to other stars in the same constellation before the culmination will appear to be in "behind/bottom" position after the culmination. So if a star A is seen walking in "front" of star B say around 9 pm in the evening, at 3am after the culmination it will appear walking "behind". Happens every single day. So why is the observation about Alcor/Mizar in MB a big deal?

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Dec 2017 06:20

So why is the observation about Alcor/Mizar in MB a big deal?


A_Gupta asked this question and it was answered in page 75 of this thread in this post by Nilesh Oak » 24 Jul 2017 06:38.

The periodicity of this observation is in the order of 11000 years, not 24 hours.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Dec 2017 07:25

Dipanker wrote:Simple question about rotation of constellations around the celestial north pole in northern hemisphere, from a viewer perspective the stars of constellation which appear to be in "front/top" position in relation to other stars in the same constellation before the culmination will appear to be in "behind/bottom" position after the culmination. So if a star A is seen walking in "front" of star B say around 9 pm in the evening, at 3am after the culmination it will appear walking "behind". Happens every single day. So why is the observation about Alcor/Mizar in MB a big deal?

This is fascinating. It means that it you are watching a Ferris wheel at an amusement park and a red gondola is moving ahead of a blue gondola when they are at the top, the same red gondola will appear to be trailing the blue one by the time the Ferris wheel rotates and comes down. Amazing. I hadn't noticed. There must be some quantum phenomenon going on here that I don't understand.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1662
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 12 Dec 2017 09:19

Dipanker wrote:Simple question about rotation of constellations around the celestial north pole in northern hemisphere, from a viewer perspective the stars of constellation which appear to be in "front/top" position in relation to other stars in the same constellation before the culmination will appear to be in "behind/bottom" position after the culmination. So if a star A is seen walking in "front" of star B say around 9 pm in the evening, at 3am after the culmination it will appear walking "behind". Happens every single day. So why is the observation about Alcor/Mizar in MB a big deal?


:rotfl: :rotfl:

Is there no end to the number of ways this guy can embarrass himself?? "Happens every single day" indeed :mrgreen: .

Johnny-come-lately Dipu, there's been an entire thread going on for three whole years in the now extinct GDF on archaeo astronomy. Suggest you get some basic pointers on astronomy. Or as Shiv saar suggested, just go watch a merry-go-round from the top for a day, and see whether you see something different at 9 PM as opposed to 3 AM.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1662
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 12 Dec 2017 09:24

periaswamy wrote:
So why is the observation about Alcor/Mizar in MB a big deal?


A_Gupta asked this question and it was answered in page 75 of this thread in this post by Nilesh Oak » 24 Jul 2017 06:38.

The periodicity of this observation is in the order of 11000 years, not 24 hours.


Not exactly, Periavare. The A/V observation, as described by Nilesh Oak, is a *one time* phenomenon till the present date, because the phenomenon would not have been observed even in 5565 BC (as Nilesh Oak explained in his book) if not for the concept of "proper motion of stars." As Nilesh explained, he did not observe the phenomenon at all in the Voyager software (which he was using to simulate the night sky), and was about to give up, when he thought of turning on the "proper motion of stars" setting - and then he saw Arundhati begin to walk ahead of Vashistha, as described in the MB.

So the periodicity of the observation to date is - NONE, it was a one-time observation. From now on, since the proper motion of stars has added enough of a linear offset to the apparent positions of these two stars (as seen from earth), the precession of the earth's axis will ensure that (from the point of view of earthlings) A will once more walk ahead of V in about 11- to 13,000 years from now (depending on how accurately you think you know the phenomenon of "precession of the earth's axis").

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Dec 2017 09:29

sudarshan: So the periodicity of the observation to date is - NONE, it was a one-time observation. From now on, due to the proper motion of stars, it will occur about every 11- to 13,000 years (depending on how accurately you think you know the phenomenon of "precession of the earth's axis").


saar, doesn't that mean a lower bound on the periodicity of 11000-13000 years (making assumptions re precession of the earth's axis). since a periodicity of "none" is 'infinite period". Only point there was that it is a rare-enough phenomenon to be considered noteworthy, and certainly not something that happened every few hours, as Dipankar visualized it to be in his post.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1662
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 12 Dec 2017 09:39

periaswamy wrote:
sudarshan: So the periodicity of the observation to date is - NONE, it was a one-time observation. From now on, due to the proper motion of stars, it will occur about every 11- to 13,000 years (depending on how accurately you think you know the phenomenon of "precession of the earth's axis").


saar, doesn't that mean a lower bound on the periodicity of 11000-13000 years (making assumptions re precession of the earth's axis). since a periodicity of "none" is 'infinite period"


My post was badly worded initially, I edited it:

So the periodicity of the observation to date is - NONE, it was a one-time observation. From now on, since the proper motion of stars has added enough of a linear offset to the apparent positions of these two stars (as seen from earth), the precession of the earth's axis will ensure that (from the point of view of earthlings) A will once more walk ahead of V in about 11- to 13,000 years from now (depending on how accurately you think you know the phenomenon of "precession of the earth's axis").


To explain the above better - precession of the earth's axis alone was not enough to make Arundhati periodically walk ahead of Vashishta. If it was left to precession alone, A before V would have never have happened. But added on top of the periodic precession phenomenon, was this (practically) linear phenomenon of "proper motion of stars." Over millions of years, the proper motion of stars has steadily been adding linear offset to both A and V (but at different rates), so that, back in around 6000 BC, the *differential* offset was finally enough for precession to bring A ahead of V, as seen from the earth. Now that there's enough of a differential offset between A and V, the periodic precession will every now and then (as in - every 11 to 13000 years) bring A ahead of V for earthlings.

Of course, proper motion of stars is itself a periodic phenomenon, but its periodicity is of the order of 100's of millions of years, so it's practically linear over 10 or even 100,000 years.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 276
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 12 Dec 2017 10:25

peter wrote:Indian Saraswati is in the aryavrat. Their Harahvaiti is in their region. In any case seem my reply to periaswamy.

You are lying about this Iranian river.

Someone already debunked this fake linguistic connection.
There are scholars like Kocchar, Thapar, Lommel and Hildebrandt who insist on identifying the Saraswati of the Rigveda as either the Arghandab or the Helmand, both rivers of modern-day Afghanistan (e.g. Ref.: Kochhar, Rajesh, 'On the identity and chronology of the Ṛgvedic river Sarasvati' in Archaeology and Language III; Artifacts, languages and texts, Routledge (1999)). Their claim is based upon the single premise that the Avestan term Harahvaiti is an exact linguistic cognate of the Sanskrit term Saraswati. The Avesta is the holy book of the Zoroastrian religion of ancient Iran, and bears striking similarities with the Rigveda in terms of style, language, liturgy and rituals. The Avestan language is the closest sister of Sanskrit, both assumed to have emerged from an extinct Proto-Indo-Iranian language. It so happens that the consonant /s/ of Sanskrit is often and regularly cognate with the /h/ of the Avestan/Persian. This is a Sound Law and is accepted by all Historical Linguists. The Harahvaiti is mentioned in a later text of the Avestan corpus called Videvdat (a.k.a. Vendidad) and is identified with the modern Arghandab river. But the Arghandab is a small and minor river, and is a tributary of the larger Helmand river (from Avestan: Haetumant, lit., the one with many bridges), see image below. So they say that due to some "confusion", the tributary was identified with the main river, and the ancient Saraswati is the modern day Helmand. They say that the Haetumant in the Avesta is described appreciatively in a similar way as the Saraswati: (from Avesta Yasht 10.67) "the bountiful, glorious Haetumant swelling its white waves rolling down its copious flood". The Zoroastrians also have a water divinity called Aredvi Sura Anahita, who is venerated in the Avesta in a similar fashion as the Saraswati in the Vedas. Aredvi Sura Anahita is identified by these scholars with Harahvaiti.
Image


I can clearly identify several serious flaws with this theory, or rather, mental conjecture:

As a student of Historical Linguistics, I can see that the linguistic similarity between Saraswati and Harahvaiti (also romanized as Haraxvaiti) is a false cognate, meaning that the similarity is only superficial and coincidental. The Sanskrit term Saraswati is actually a compound noun consisting of saras+vati. Saras means lake (Skt.: सरस् , reference: any Sanskrit-English dictionary), and vati is a grammatical feminine possessive suffix, therefore: "she with (many) lakes". Harahvaiti, on the other hand, is hara+vaiti. The suffix -vaiti is grammatically the same as -vati, but Hara is derived from the proper noun for the Zoroastrian sacred mountain Hara Berezaiti. Further, the Avestan word for lake is vairi (Reference: online Avestan dictionary), which is not cognate with saras at all. So Harahvaiti means "she from the Mount Hara". Poor and shoddy research is often based on false cognates and fake etymologies, and I am sad to say that many Hindutvavadis do it as well, like presuming Sanskrit etymologies for pre-Islamic Arabian goddesses Lat, Manat and Uzza.

I would like to know how they are identifying the ancient Avestan term Harahvaiti with modern Farsi Arghandab. They all claim that this is via the Greek term Arachosia, but there is very weak evidence to show the linguistic link Harahvaiti > Arachosia > Arghandab. The Avesta itself does not clearly identify where Harahvaiti was. Many of Avestan places have never been identified yet.

The term Haetumant is not at all cognate with Saraswati. The claim that an entire people would somehow "confuse" a river with its tributary is quite ludicrous, like writing a Soap Opera script.

Except calling it in one place as a beautiful land, the Avesta does not describe the Harahvaiti at all. The Haetumant is praised like the Saraswati, but appraisal of two great rivers is too generic and such things are done independently by almost all human societies -- logic of Association Fallacy.

the reference of Harahvaiti itself is anachronistic. It is found only in the Vendidad, which is dated to a very later time scale, c. 500 BC (Ref. Boyce), which is much later than the Rigveda.

The comparison of Saraswati to Aredvi Sura Anahita is also an Association fallacy. In any case they are not linguistic cognates at all. Further, there is absolutely no mention of any kind of identification of Aredvi Sura Anahita with the Harahvaiti in the Avestan corpus.

The vedic Saraswati is described as going to the sea (Sanskrit: samudra, see ff.), whereas the Helmand/Haetumant terminates inland in a lake called Hamun-i-Helmand in Iran. It is noted by these scholars, but then they claim that the Sanskrit term samudra refers to a lake, and not the sea, at least in the Rigveda. This is highly speculative, because all dictionaries of Sanskrit (like Monier-Williams) translate the term samudra as sea or ocean, and never as lake. This is a fallacy of presupposition.

Kocchar assumes the conclusion that the Vedic Indo-Aryans were in the process of immigrating to India from Afghanistan, and then proceeds to interpret the rivers of Afghanistan as the Vedic rivers, sometimes even without linguistic cognates (like identifying ''Arghandab'' with ''Drishadvati'', and ''Tarnak'' with ''Apaya''). He even claims that the Ganga and the Yamuna were minor tributaries of the Afghan Helmand, without any evidence. He claims that the early portions of the Rigveda were written in Afghanistan. This is highly convenient, and is again a case of presupposition fallacy.


http://sarasvatiriver.blogspot.in/2015/ ... n.html?m=1

syam
BRFite
Posts: 276
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 12 Dec 2017 11:38

Short version of the story behind this Harahvaiti, Saraswati and their link to Helmand. . .

Our pidi historians say that, saraswati with the name harahvaiti existed in Afghan back in good ol' days. We actually migrated from that place to here. They come to this conclusion by Harahvaiti > Arachosia > Arghandab.

What avesta says is, the bountiful, glorious Haetumant swelling its white waves rolling down its copious flood. It doesn't mention Harahvaiti at all.

Now they tried to merge these two different stories and whip up new story. It's not easy to follow logic behind this conclusion. My head literally spinning and doing all kinds of gymnastics to connect the dots here. How they come up with the new story is beyond logic. This shows the lengths these historians gone to validate the so called Aryans existence.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 276
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 12 Dec 2017 12:00

This is fraud of highest level. . . .OMG.. .

Look what Avesta says about this so called Harahvaiti,
AVESTA: VENDIDAD (English): Fargard 1.

12. The tenth of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the beautiful Harahvaiti29.
Thereupon came Angra Mainyu, who is all death, and he counter-created a sin for which there is no atonement, the burying of the dead30.



Harahvaiti is not river. But land. Avesta name is Harahvaiti. Old persian name is Harauvati and greek name Aracwsia. That is why Greeks called the river Arachōtós. Our pidi historians came to conclusion by using this logic.

Greeks called the river in Aracwsia as Arachotos. Lets call the river in Harahvaiti as Harahvaiti ourselves. There it solves Sarasvathi mystery. We were from the Iran. :rotfl:

Interesting stuff from Avesta. . . .Apparantly these aryans fought brahmins from India. All magic based on astrology.
13. The eleventh of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the bright, glorious Haetumant

In Haetumant. — 'The plague created against Saistan is abundance of witchcraft: and that character appears from this, that all people from that place practise astrology: those wizards produce ... snow, hail, spiders, and locusts ' (Gr Bd.) Saistan, like Kabul, was half Indian (Maçoudi, II, 79-82), and Brahmans and Buddhists have the credit of being proficient in the darker sciences.


Something wrong with Ahura Mazda. He keep giving names of rivers to lands.

Ok. . .This is becoming more interesting. .
In original verse of Zamyad Yasth, nothing like Haetumant mentioned. the name is like Hae......(dots included). Darmesteter presumed the word as Haetumant. Surprisingly(not surprisingly) no Harahvaiti there.

Sorry Ahura Mazda. Fault is with James Darmesteter*. He presumed it.

*James Darmesteter (28 March 1849 – 19 October 1894) was a French author, orientalist, and antiquarian.

ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 232
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby ricky_v » 12 Dec 2017 13:44

According to Sri. Talageri, paraphrashing some, the bharatas priestly caste of angiras mastered in astrology, there is even a phrase uttered by the opposing group ,"how can we defeat them who have masters the heavens".
The bhrigus were priestly caste of the Iranians who introduced fire worship and soma preparation.
The third priestly caste of druh is mentioned in some Greek works as being tree nymphs. This association of trees and sorcery is much prevalent in the northern regions as Yggrdasil, there are tree legends in Iranian mythology as well.
Supposedly the druhs were gone long before the dasrajanaya , and there is not much mention of them in the vedas, it being chiefly concerned between indics and iranics.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Dec 2017 13:57

sudarshan wrote:
To explain the above better - precession of the earth's axis alone was not enough to make Arundhati periodically walk ahead of Vashishta. If it was left to precession alone, A before V would have never have happened. But added on top of the periodic precession phenomenon, was this (practically) linear phenomenon of "proper motion of stars." Over millions of years, the proper motion of stars has steadily been adding linear offset to both A and V (but at different rates), so that, back in around 6000 BC, the *differential* offset was finally enough for precession to bring A ahead of V, as seen from the earth. Now that there's enough of a differential offset between A and V, the periodic precession will every now and then (as in - every 11 to 13000 years) bring A ahead of V for earthlings.

Of course, proper motion of stars is itself a periodic phenomenon, but its periodicity is of the order of 100's of millions of years, so it's practically linear over 10 or even 100,000 years.


And that "differential offset" is still pretty much the same. Check out the proper motion data of Alcor/Mizar posted in this thread about 6 weeks back ( or look it up and do your own calculation). Current separation between Alcor and Mizar is about 12 arcminutes (alcor 12 arcminutes NE of Mizar), in the last 7000 years, the change has been of the order of ~3 arcminutes , meaning back in 5000 BC the separation was 12 +-3 arcminutes but relative position same as it is now. Or in other words if Alcor was "walking ahead" of Mizar then for all practical purpose Alcor is still "walking ahead" to a naked eye viewer, given amount of meagre change in the offset.
Last edited by Dipanker on 12 Dec 2017 14:06, edited 1 time in total.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5988
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 12 Dec 2017 14:05

periaswamy wrote:
So why is the observation about Alcor/Mizar in MB a big deal?

.....
The periodicity of this observation is in the order of 11000 years, not 24 hours.

The "period" is about 26000 years - At least that is the basis of such calculations. For those who are interested ... any good book on astronomy will help to get the basic fundamental math - (I have several posts in NO's thread as well as in physics math thread where I posted the solve such problems using basic (college level) spherical trigonometry. (Or check out say this article https://www.britannica.com/topic/precession-of-the-equinoxes
***
Dipanker wrote:Simple question about rotation of constellations around the celestial north pole in northern hemisphere, from a viewer perspective the stars of constellation which appear to be in "front/top" position in relation to other stars in the same constellation before the culmination will appear to be in "behind/bottom" position after the culmination. So if a star A is seen walking in "front" of star B say around 9 pm in the evening, at 3am after the culmination it will appear walking "behind". Happens every single day. So why is the observation about Alcor/Mizar in MB a big deal?


Basic trouble here, I think, is "front/top/behind/bottom" part was sloppily used and thus may cause confusion.. Better word would be "east/west" for the star's position in celestial sphere. I.. but I understand what you are trying to ask. Let me answer in simple words, I hope the following will be helpful to those who are not familiar with precision of equinoxes.

First to be clear, we are NOT talking about daily motion of stars -24 hours -- or rather about 23 hours 56 minutes -- it takes for earth to spin , This daily motion makes the stars rise and set. Their position with respect to horizon at a given time may change but their relative position does not change. (We are assuming that stars remains fixed -- some stars do move but since they are so far away relative position more or less remains the same for thousands (or even millions) of years).

But axis of earth's spin (line joining N and S pole) does not remain fix with respect to stars. At present it is pointing appox to a star called polaris (or north star), but this axis "precesses" and makes a complete a cycle in about 26000 years. It is like a children's top.

But this precession may change relative "east/west" position of two stars.

To illustrate this, imagine two points on earth, say Jaipur and Kota - if you look at the map longitude of Kota is 75.9 while Jaipur is 75.8 so Kota is a little east. (one can measure this, say by noticing that sunrise in Kota will be a little earlier than in Jaipur)

Now suppose position of North pole (and thus equator too) is changed. It is possible that Kota may now be a little west from Jaipur.

***
Thus relative east/west ness of a particular star may change when direction of earth's spin axis changes...
For more details look up "precession of equinoxes"

Hope this helps.

Of course, there are other factors to consider, which may or may not make measurable difference -- such as -
- proper motion of stars ... (stars over long period may move , generally negligible within 1000 or 10,000 years)
- light refraction (where star's position may look different depending on even atmospheric temperature.
- Earth's spin slowing down .. (this affects measurement of time)
- Change of earth's orbit
ityadi ityadi ..

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5988
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 12 Dec 2017 14:24

Dipanker wrote:
sudarshan wrote:
To explain the above better - precession of the earth's axis alone was not enough to make Arundhati periodically walk ahead of Vashishta. If it was left to precession alone, A before V would have never have happened. But added on top of the periodic precession phenomenon, was this (practically) linear phenomenon of "proper motion of stars." Over millions of years, the proper motion of stars has steadily been adding linear offset to both A and V (but at different rates), so that, back in around 6000 BC, the *differential* offset was finally enough for precession to bring A ahead of V, as seen from the earth. Now that there's enough of a differential offset between A and V, the periodic precession will every now and then (as in - every 11 to 13000 years) bring A ahead of V for earthlings.

Of course, proper motion of stars is itself a periodic phenomenon, but its periodicity is of the order of 100's of millions of years, so it's practically linear over 10 or even 100,000 years.


And that "differential offset" is still pretty much the same. Check out the proper motion data of Alcor/Mizar posted in this thread about 6 weeks back ( or look it up and do your own calculation). Current separation between Alcor and Mizar is about 12 arcminutes (alcor 12 arcminutes NE of Mizar), in the last 7000 years, the change has been of the order of ~3 arcminutes , meaning back in 5000 BC the separation was 12 +-3 arcminutes but relative position same as it is now. Or in other words if Alcor was "walking ahead" of Mizar then for all practical purpose Alcor is still "walking ahead" to a naked eye viewer, given amount of meagre change in the offset.


Dipankar, Sudarshan and others..
This may be of interest. In GDF dhaga I have made many comments - (Thanks to Nilesh Oak, I have read his book which he generously sent to me).. but the exact problem is asked -- including A and V star's actual position as an exercise in the math dhaga.. please do look at:
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1354623#p1354623
(The problem is for two towns called "Arundhati " and "Vasistha" but answer is same for the two stars :)

There is nice discussion including my solution too so look for following posts.

Hope this is helpful.
Last edited by Amber G. on 12 Dec 2017 14:36, edited 1 time in total.

vinod
BRFite
Posts: 591
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby vinod » 12 Dec 2017 14:34

periaswamy wrote: Wonder what the estimation error is in such geological estimates of rocks that have been under water for 1000s of years.

On the palk strait and Rama's bridge


Theory: The floating rocks settled on the sandbar formed below after 2000 years!

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Dec 2017 14:42

I would tend to think that if a constellation of stars appear more or less in same relative position with respect to each other during the course of 1 year ( period of earth's revolution around sun), then precession of equinoxes should not have any effect on appearance of such constellations, for e.g. Big Dipper, since the radius of wobble of celestial north pole around the precession circle is much - much -much smaller than the radius of earth orbit around sun.
OSU astronomy dept. has a 8 sec animation of changing Big Dipper appearance due to proper motion of stars for period from 50,000 BC to 50,000 AD, and the shape changes quite a bit, unfortunetly there are only very few frames for period of 8000BC to 2000AD, not much change in the shape either.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Dec 2017 14:58

shiv wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Simple question about rotation of constellations around the celestial north pole in northern hemisphere, from a viewer perspective the stars of constellation which appear to be in "front/top" position in relation to other stars in the same constellation before the culmination will appear to be in "behind/bottom" position after the culmination. So if a star A is seen walking in "front" of star B say around 9 pm in the evening, at 3am after the culmination it will appear walking "behind". Happens every single day. So why is the observation about Alcor/Mizar in MB a big deal?

This is fascinating. It means that it you are watching a Ferris wheel at an amusement park and a red gondola is moving ahead of a blue gondola when they are at the top, the same red gondola will appear to be trailing the blue one by the time the Ferris wheel rotates and comes down. Amazing. I hadn't noticed. There must be some quantum phenomenon going on here that I don't understand.


Try this experiment (purportedly) in 5000 BC. Tell your wife, "Honey I am gonna be up all night and watch the stars!" and don't go to sleep before 3AM!

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5988
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 12 Dec 2017 15:15

periaswamy wrote:
A_Gupta: This particular one - a lunar eclipse 13 days following the Jyestha amawas is rare.


Thanks. Do you know the period of recurrence of this kind of event?

Since the interval between new moons is about 27 days, and if the periodicity of the eclipse is N days - then 27*N is an upper bound on the interval between recurrences of a particular configuration ---
]


Sorry have not seen all the messages .. so this may (or may not) help..

The period of time from new moon to new moon is on average is about 29.53 days, it varies quite a bit if my rough calculation is correct it may be as long as 29 days 20 hours (perhaps a little less) or as small as 29 days 6 hours (perhaps a little more). ...

A few minutes variation can be caused by refraction, parallax etc...

Important things I would think are:
1 - A eclipse (lunar or solar) is precise time (may be measured in time of day within minutes accuracy even in old days).
2 - This is true also for true "purnima" or "Amawas" for astronomers. For (It is not a tithi or day but exact time in hours/minutes etc)
3- For ordinary people a tithi (or purnima/Amawas) is a whole day affair. To complicate the matter, in Hindu calendar the whole day takes the "tithi" at the sunrise. (Sunrise at say Ujjain or Kashi or some standard place according to standard panchang used)

The time of sunrise, at least to measure, is very irregular --earlier in summer, later in winter and highly dependent even on temperature of the atmosphere (refraction).... this is why some times you have two tithis on the same day or some times one skips a tithi.. so number of calendar tithis need not correspond to number of elapse days between two events.

Hope this helps.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5988
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 12 Dec 2017 15:20

shiv wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Simple question about rotation of constellations around the celestial north pole in northern hemisphere, from a viewer perspective the stars of constellation which appear to be in "front/top" position in relation to other stars in the same constellation before the culmination will appear to be in "behind/bottom" position after the culmination. So if a star A is seen walking in "front" of star B say around 9 pm in the evening, at 3am after the culmination it will appear walking "behind". Happens every single day. So why is the observation about Alcor/Mizar in MB a big deal?

This is fascinating. It means that it you are watching a Ferris wheel at an amusement park and a red gondola is moving ahead of a blue gondola when they are at the top, the same red gondola will appear to be trailing the blue one by the time the Ferris wheel rotates and comes down. Amazing. I hadn't noticed. There must be some quantum phenomenon going on here that I don't understand.

Red gandola can be "above" green at one point and "below" green after pi radian rotation.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Dec 2017 17:59

A_Gupta wrote:
periaswamy wrote:
No, that is incorrect and a silly counterpoint. They do not have to match a specific day, as long as there is an interval of time where not only these observations but ALL other observations outside of these dates also match. In fact, the set of observations like lunar eclipses are just noise because they will match pretty much any interval of time you pull up from the past. 100-200AD will contain a match for those, as will 5000BCE-6000BCE, so in essence these observations are completely useless w.r.t. dating the text.


This particular one - a lunar eclipse 13 days following the Jyestha amawas is rare.

Except one has to read all the variations related to this specific Mahabharata reference (e.g. BORI edition) to understand that there are few different ways to understand this including the fact that the verse itself may not have ANYTHING to do with eclipses.

Then add to the mix, all the uncertainties due to 'Delta T' time correction, and it should be clear to the knowledgeable that eclipse evidence (beyond ~2000 BCE) can not be used to falsify any claim and can act only as 'WEAK' evidence to corroborate a certain claim

This same 'Delta T' is responsible for positions of the moon and thus the tithi and nakshatra of the day. Thus one should expect an error of up to +/-2 days in all ancient calculations.

Thus observations driven by long-term phenomenon (e.g. AV observation, Bhishma Nirvana, Margashirsha Shukla and early part of Sharad) are key in defining the epoch of the event and then observations due to 'near earth phenomenon' should be employed to fine tune the day, month and year of specific ancient events.

https://youtu.be/ryTJHrnkL4A
Last edited by Nilesh Oak on 12 Dec 2017 18:32, edited 1 time in total.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Dec 2017 18:11

A_Gupta wrote:
periaswamy wrote:
No, that is incorrect and a silly counterpoint. They do not have to match a specific day, as long as there is an interval of time where not only these observations but ALL other observations outside of these dates also match. In fact, the set of observations like lunar eclipses are just noise because they will match pretty much any interval of time you pull up from the past. 100-200AD will contain a match for those, as will 5000BCE-6000BCE, so in essence these observations are completely useless w.r.t. dating the text.


This particular one - a lunar eclipse 13 days following the Jyestha amawas is rare.

'Jyeshtha Amavasya' is also an interpretation. There is no word Jyeshtha used in this reference of Mahabharata text.

When I nailed one skeptic with specific positions of two Amavasyas near nakshatra Jyeshtha and asked him which of the two he considers as 'Jyestha Amavasya', instead of admitting that he knows nothing about how lunar tithis (purnima and Amavasya are named) and admitting his defeat, he responded, "There was no 'Jyestha Amavasya' in that year"

This is the level of nonsensical skepticism one runs into. Not the scientific kind one eagerly looks forward to!
--

As to the nonsensical, deliberately misleading comments of the Troll, I can only thank him for keeping the interest of folks alive in this subject. I am confident that this will lead many to study my works in the original.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Dec 2017 18:17

periaswamy wrote:
Not totally off topic, Something that is of interest to this thread -- dating of the rocks in the "ramar paalam" between India and Sri Lanka. The rocks are geologically dated to around 7000 BC and moved physically from somewhere else to be placed between the two land masses. Wonder what the estimation error is in such geological estimates of rocks that have been under water for 1000s of years.

On the palk strait and Rama's bridge


If they are indeed from ~7000 BCE(I think the clip said 7000 years ago.. Let's go with an error of +/- 2000 here) , this refers to the restoration of damaged Nala-setu (after 5000+ years since it was built by Nala in the year 12209 BCE) by forces of Sahadeva as he has to visit Sri Lanka to meet the king of that time - Vibhishan (a descendant of Vibhishan of Ramayana times) during his march to the south related to Rajasuya of Yudhishthir. The year was 5560 BCE

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Dec 2017 18:22

A_Gupta wrote:
Near the present era, the length of each half of the lunar cycle varies over a range of about 41 hours, from a minimum of about 13 days and 21+2/3 hours to a maximum of about 15 days and 14+2/3 hours, with an average or median of about 14 days and 18+1/3 hours.


So I guess 13 days from new moon to lunar eclipse has to mean something like 13 days and 22 hours.

Or in practical terms two eclipses separated by 13 days -not counting the days of the eclipses themselves (when they were observed by people in the sky).

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Dec 2017 18:30

A_Gupta wrote:
So I guess 13 days from new moon to lunar eclipse has to mean something like 13 days and 22 hours.

Thank you A Gupta ji for taking the pain to go through such minute details and thank you for sharing it here.

Of course, I did this analysis in 2009, however, decided to not include it in the book since the book was becoming too technical already.
--
The advantage of someone else doing such useful analysis is that no one will claim that I was saying this (e.g. 13 days 22 hours, etc.) only to justify my claim of 16 October 5561 BCE (potential solar eclipse) and 30 October 5561 BCE (potential lunar eclipse). Both were visible from Kurukshetra, as explained in my book, in the minutest details.

[The word potential is used to account for uncertainties due to 'Delta T' + other significant error that affects eclipse or not and the type of eclipse, especially as one goes beyond 2000 BCE, in antiquity]

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Dec 2017 18:39

sudarshan wrote:
periaswamy wrote:
A_Gupta asked this question and it was answered in page 75 of this thread in this post by Nilesh Oak » 24 Jul 2017 06:38.

The periodicity of this observation is in the order of 11000 years, not 24 hours.


Not exactly, Periavare. The A/V observation, as described by Nilesh Oak, is a *one time* phenomenon till the present date, because the phenomenon would not have been observed even in 5565 BC (as Nilesh Oak explained in his book) if not for the concept of "proper motion of stars." As Nilesh explained, he did not observe the phenomenon at all in the Voyager software (which he was using to simulate the night sky), and was about to give up, when he thought of turning on the "proper motion of stars" setting - and then he saw Arundhati begin to walk ahead of Vashistha, as described in the MB.

ad of V in about 11- to 13,000 years from now (depending on how accurately you think you know the phenomenon of "precession of the earth's axis").


Sudarshan ji

Need to correct you here....
The phonomenon can INDEED be observed during epoch of Arundhati, without bringing in 'Proper motion' business

In the absence of 'proper motion' corrections, the phenomenon would appear as cycle phenomenon (even in the past) that occurs for about ~7000 years in each cycle of 26K years.

What 'proper motions' correction did is that it established as unique phenomeon (as far as past is concerned) that occurred 11091 BCE through 4508 BCE.

Hope this helps.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Dec 2017 18:40

Amber G. wrote:
shiv wrote:This is fascinating. It means that it you are watching a Ferris wheel at an amusement park and a red gondola is moving ahead of a blue gondola when they are at the top, the same red gondola will appear to be trailing the blue one by the time the Ferris wheel rotates and comes down. Amazing. I hadn't noticed. There must be some quantum phenomenon going on here that I don't understand.

Red gandola can be "above" green at one point and "below" green after pi radian rotation.

At any given point in time red gondola is situated at a different point on the circle than the blue. By looking at a still image or glancing at stars once - only the relative points will be seen. But when movement is observed serially - the red gondola will always reach a point on the circle before the blue. That would make "moving ahead" a vector and not a description of a static point in space. No?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Dec 2017 18:46

ricky_v wrote:According to Sri. Talageri, paraphrashing some, the bharatas priestly caste of angiras mastered in astrology, there is even a phrase uttered by the opposing group ,"how can we defeat them who have masters the heavens".
The bhrigus were priestly caste of the Iranians who introduced fire worship and soma preparation.

No. Bhrigu was Bhargava and was very much a vedic rishi. "Bhuj" in Gujarat is Bhrigu-kaksha. They were "Atharvans"

The Atharva Veda was in two parts. We Hindus have only one part now - the Angirasa atharva Veda. The Parsi holy book is the "Bhargava artharva Veda". the so called "Zend Avesta" was the Chhanf Upastha(The Frenchman who gave it that name probably used the French pronunciation for "Zend" -i. e. Zond.

I will post more about this in due course. The Parsis moved west out of India. No Veda scholar who reads the "zend Avesta" can fail to recognize its link with the Atharva Veda.
Last edited by shiv on 12 Dec 2017 19:32, edited 2 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Dec 2017 18:59

shiv wrote:
ricky_v wrote:According to Sri. Talageri, paraphrashing some, the bharatas priestly caste of angiras mastered in astrology, there is even a phrase uttered by the opposing group ,"how can we defeat them who have masters the heavens".
The bhrigus were priestly caste of the Iranians who introduced fire worship and soma preparation.

No. Bhrigu was Bhargava and was very much a vedic rishi. "Bhuj" in Gujarat is Bhrigu-kaksha. They were "Atharvans"

The Atharva Veda was in two parts. We Hindus have only one part now - the Angirasa atharva Veda. The Parsi holy book is the "Bhargava artharva Veda". the so called "Zend Avesta" was the Chhanf Upastha(The Frenchman who gave it that name probably used the French pronunciation for "Zend" -i. e. Zond.

I will post more about this in due course. The Parsis moved east out of India. No one who reads the "zend Avesta" can fail to recognize its link with the Atharva Veda.

Here is a quote from my unpublished work
An ancient Indian text called the Gopatha Brahmana refers to five Vedas, although only four are traditionally known, and there are references to the Atharva Veda as the Angirasa­Bhargava Samhita, or the texts of Angiras and Bhargava. The surviving Indian Atharva Veda is merely the Angirasa Atharva Veda. The Zend Avesta is the missing fifth Veda ­ the Bhargava Atharva Veda. The Atharva Veda itself is referred to in the Zend Avesta according to Indologist Dr. Haug. But this knowledge was to be rediscovered only years later when the Zend Avesta was read by true Vedic scholars in
Sanskrit. The content of the Zend Avesta reads like the Atharva Veda and the likelihood that the original language of the Zoroastrians was Vedic Sanskrit cannot be dismissed in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

James Darmeister in an introduction to his translation of the Zend Avesta wrote: “.​
.the deeper one penetrated into that oldest form of Indian words and thoughts, the more striking appeared its close affinity with the Avesta words and thoughts. Many a mysterious line in the Avesta received an unlooked ­for light from the poems of the Indian Rishis, and the long­ forgotten
past and the origin of many gods and heroes, whom the Parsi worships and extols without knowing who they were and whence they came, were suddenly revealed by the Vedas ​.”


While the above quote reflects the words of a scholar who has studied both the Vedas and the Zend Avesta, most linguists remain well below that benchmark of competence and learning.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 Dec 2017 19:00

^^The "Magi" - of "Iran" were probably Zorastrian Atharvans. The Magi (from which the word "Magic" is derived) were apparently well versed in astrology

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Dec 2017 19:21

deleted
Last edited by periaswamy on 12 Dec 2017 19:27, edited 1 time in total.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Dec 2017 19:26

Nilesh Oak: If they are indeed from ~7000 BCE(I think the clip said 7000 years ago


Oakji, Yes, that was wrongly stated in the post with the video link -- the land bridge existed 7000 years ago, i.e., 5000 BCE not 7000 BCE.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Dec 2017 19:33

AmberG. mportant things I would think are:
1 - A eclipse (lunar or solar) is precise time (may be measured in time of day within minutes accuracy even in old days).
2 - This is true also for true "purnima" or "Amawas" for astronomers. For (It is not a tithi or day but exact time in hours/minutes etc)
3- For ordinary people a tithi (or purnima/Amawas) is a whole day affair. To complicate the matter, in Hindu calendar the whole day takes the "tithi" at the sunrise. (Sunrise at say Ujjain or Kashi or some standard place according to standard panchang used)

The time of sunrise, at least to measure, is very irregular --earlier in summer, later in winter and highly dependent even on temperature of the atmosphere (refraction).... this is why some times you have two tithis on the same day or some times one skips a tithi.. so number of calendar tithis need not correspond to number of elapse days between two events.


Thanks, ji. I was trying to estimate a bound on the periodicity of an event (13 days X hours between an eclipse and a new moon day), using individual periodicities of each of these relatively common events, but I think it is not all that straightforward (like multiplying the periods) especially given that the shape of the ellipse itself changes over time, because of a constant decrease in eccentricity. Trying to get my windows machine back from the dead so I can load that software and try it out. Anyway, looks like the observation itself is incorrect/wrongly interpreted going by later post by Nilesh Oakji.

ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 232
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby ricky_v » 12 Dec 2017 19:48

Why, sir, cant the bhrigus be both, iranic priests and Vedic rishis, before the dasrajayana yuddha, would'nt the entire corpus been the same? I think that the bhrig-kuch name was given to the family from jamdagani who were half bhrigus and on the eastern side of the conflict.
Oddly, the ancient iranics have some association with the deceased, with shukracharya being the priest of asuras and of bhrigu lineage being the inventor of the "bringing dead person to life"mantra. Also,yama is revered there as the just ruler named yama-xita(jamshed-corrupted name), indics in the earlier mandals do not mention yama,only manu. It is only during the later mandals, when the bhrigu and kashyapa family corpus is introduced, that yama is deified.
It is also here that soma worship sees an uptick, with the kashyapa arpi sukta being the only one devoted to soma, the rest 9 families have devoted it to agni.(As an aside, yama had two dogs guarding his city, the greeks have the hounds that guard the underworld, odin has wolves to do his bidding.)
The point about the priestly class was simply to divide the opposing parties in the camps of ideology, the angiras who were the priestly class for the bharatas were well versed in astrology, bhrigus gave the fire worship and soma preparation(some competition must have existed for the evil in Persian literature is angra mainyu, not a coincidence), the druhs were probably linked to woodlands, with Yggrdasil and the world tree concept, but they are mentioned rarely in the earlier literature and only contemptuously.
Also, bharat/sudas changed his priest in between casting out vishvamitra and bringing in vashishta, vishvamitra is supposed to have gone over to the pars side in the conflict.

ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 232
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby ricky_v » 12 Dec 2017 20:30

shiv wrote:
shiv wrote:No. Bhrigu was Bhargava and was very much a vedic rishi. "Bhuj" in Gujarat is Bhrigu-kaksha. They were "Atharvans"

The Atharva Veda was in two parts. We Hindus have only one part now - the Angirasa atharva Veda. The Parsi holy book is the "Bhargava artharva Veda". the so called "Zend Avesta" was the Chhanf Upastha(The Frenchman who gave it that name probably used the French pronunciation for "Zend" -i. e. Zond.

I will post more about this in due course. The Parsis moved east out of India. No one who reads the "zend Avesta" can fail to recognize its link with the Atharva Veda.

Here is a quote from my unpublished work
An ancient Indian text called the Gopatha Brahmana refers to five Vedas, although only four are traditionally known, and there are references to the Atharva Veda as the Angirasa­Bhargava Samhita, or the texts of Angiras and Bhargava. The surviving Indian Atharva Veda is merely the Angirasa Atharva Veda. The Zend Avesta is the missing fifth Veda ­ the Bhargava Atharva Veda. The Atharva Veda itself is referred to in the Zend Avesta according to Indologist Dr. Haug. But this knowledge was to be rediscovered only years later when the Zend Avesta was read by true Vedic scholars in
Sanskrit. The content of the Zend Avesta reads like the Atharva Veda and the likelihood that the original language of the Zoroastrians was Vedic Sanskrit cannot be dismissed in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

James Darmeister in an introduction to his translation of the Zend Avesta wrote: “.​
.the deeper one penetrated into that oldest form of Indian words and thoughts, the more striking appeared its close affinity with the Avesta words and thoughts. Many a mysterious line in the Avesta received an unlooked ­for light from the poems of the Indian Rishis, and the long­ forgotten
past and the origin of many gods and heroes, whom the Parsi worships and extols without knowing who they were and whence they came, were suddenly revealed by the Vedas ​.”


While the above quote reflects the words of a scholar who has studied both the Vedas and the Zend Avesta, most linguists remain well below that benchmark of competence and learning.
l
Which family was involved in writing the vendidad is an interseting question as well.As per books, the division of priests politicaly was as follows:
1)bharatas royal class victor in the dasarajanya yuddha.
2)angiras-priestly class of bharatas
3)vashishta-later addition to the bharatas priestly class
4)vishvamitras-originally affiliated to bharatas, but replaced by sudas in favour of vashishta
5)bhrgus-priestly class of the opponents.
6)agastyas-no role/impartial
7)kashyapa-no role, mandalas related to religious subjects(not political)
8 -grtsamada(kevala-bhrigu)-no role, mandalas related to religious subjects(not political)
9)atris-called panchajanya-belonging to all 5 tribes
10)kanvas-(kevala-angiras)-associated with yadus,trvasus.
Also all the arpi suktas mention three rivers/goddesses in a particular order related to period-Ila, Bharati,Sarasvati.
The vedas are about the bharatas/purus and thus only they are termed aryan, noble. even, trasdasyu the ikshwaku scion when saves them from some defeat is referred to as as "ardhadeva"and not aryan.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests