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.
chandrasekaran
BRFite
Posts: 425
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 15:07

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

Postby chandrasekaran » 30 Jun 2017 11:36

In fact Wikipedia on Panini too discusses this.

<quote>
Some proposals have attempted to date Pāṇini from references within the text. The first proposal is based on sutra 2.1.70 of Panini, which mentions kumara-sramana with the word sramana interpreted to imply that he may have had "Buddhist nuns" in mind, and therefore he should be placed after the Buddha. Other scholars question this theory because nuns in the Indian traditions existed outside of and before Buddhism, such as in Jainism.[20] The second proposal is based on the occurrence of the word yavanānī (in 4.1.49, either "Greek woman", or "Greek alphabet").[20] This occurrence of yavanānī, some suggest a terminus post quem as 519 BCE, i.e. the time of Darius I's Behistun Inscription that included the province of Gandhara (IAST: Gandhāra). However, Max Muller in 1862, objected to this interpretation with the statement that there is no reason to assume that yavana meant "Greek" before and in the century Panini lived, and it could as well might have been a reference in a Semitic or a South Indian context.[21] More recently, Patrick Olivelle – a professor of Sanskrit and Indian religions, concurs and states that the term yona or yavana in Panini is "merely linguistic and does not necessarily indicate that he knew or was in contact with Greek settlers", adding that while Panini is generally estimated around the 5th century BCE, placing Panini in a century "is an educated guess".[22]
</quote>

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 30 Jun 2017 11:45

SriJoy wrote:, i am capable of parsing most scientific paper with time, especially if not extremely technical and out of my field.
I think you are feeling insecure by the idea that for better or worse, so far most of Indian history has been discovered & researched by the westerners.

:rotfl: Let us keep off the psychological profiling. You are the man who needs to fluff up your posts with boasts about how much you love accuracy and how you can parse any scientific paper but you say I am insecure. My insecurity, happiness, sorrow, horniness etc are as irrelevant to the topic as your self aggrandization.

I have deliberately made it a point to use predominantly western sources as far as possible simply because Indian sources are rejected as biased RW agenda driven sources. You have just not read or researched anything outside what you believe are credible to know that even Western sources fully support the so called agenda driven right wing opponents of AIT and these western sources have been comprehensively ignored by the AIT group. Who is agenda driven and who is not is a call one can take after looking at all the data, not selected parts of it

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 30 Jun 2017 11:57

SriJoy wrote:i can say is, Panini at height of archaic Sanskrit sort of doesn't work because we see no Archaic Sanskrit past Panini.

This is yet another copy-paste from the usual sources. There is no evidence whatsoever that "archaic" Vedic Sanskrit was a spoken language before Panini. In fact the meanings of much of that archaic Sanskrit are unkown. It is simply an assumption that it was spoken in India before Panini codified classical Sanskrit.

Putting a date for the Vedas was itself fudging. Using those dates to put a date on Panini is garbage. But saying such things perhaps indicates my insecurity and the great scholarship of others? That gets a ludicrousness score of 10 on 10

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 30 Jun 2017 12:46

SriJoy wrote:
So archaic vedic was never a spoken language ?! I find that hard to reconcile,given how archaic hittite, a close relative to ancient sanskrit, was a spoken language

Er wha? Not sure if you are trying to pass this off as logic or as science. If Hittite was spoken why does that mean that Vedic sanskrit was conversational Sanskrit?




But you are assigning 'agenda' to simple, non-agenda driven concepts like ' evolutionary age of mankind'....

Ah I understand now. When I dispute something you said I am "assigning an agenda". When you dispute something it is your competence in science and yearning for accuracy.

And I have the agenda and feeling of insecurity. You are doing nothing for your own credibility here. You are not even coming up with any new information outside of the same stuff that linguists like Witzel have tried to pass off as science

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 30 Jun 2017 12:54

SriJoy wrote:Greeks in Indian history arrive around 325 BC, get pushed out of Punjab-Sindh by 320 or so and out of the picture completely (beyond the Hindu Kush) by 305 BC. they re-appaer again in 180s BC-0 BC/100 AD period.
But i see no reason why Greeks and Indians couldn't have had contacts prior to that date, even in an extremely limited way to be aware of each other (sort of like how Romans were aware of Scandinavia but never been there).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indica_(Ctesias)

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 30 Jun 2017 12:57

Danino's rebuttal on the Josephine fantasy with of course his rebuttal to the rebuttal :-)

The problematics of genetics and the Aryan issue

Some salient points:

1. IIRC I proposed this on this forum many eons ago - why not Ancestral West and East Indian - looks like Danino agrees :mrgreen:
If one draws two arcs - one from Iran to South India and another from Tibet to South India... these two arcs of humanity, I'd bet, holds the key to unraveling the migration patterns of the World Island.
We might as well put forth constructs of “Ancestral Eastern Indians” and “Ancestral Western Indians” and demonstrate that most Indian populations “can be approximated as a mixture of these two” — the approach would be just as valid, or invalid, as that of Reich et al.


2. This is the strongest criticism of the fantasy published in BMC Pheer Reviewed Jernail : costs about $2k and some drinking buddies to paper a 3 impact factor for yourself...
Silva et al.’s study suffers from this argument from circularity by constantly assuming that any populations migrating in or about central Asia during the Bronze Age must have been “speaking a proto-Indo-Iranian language”; the genetic data are not allowed to gradually build up a picture of possible population movements but immediately squeezed into the mainstream linguistic model.


3. The westward history of Injuns has never been given its due in research, field work or publications....
on the other hand, we do have clear archaeological trails for a Harappan presence in central Asia, across Iran, in the Persian Gulf (with a few Harappan colonies, outposts or “enclaves” all the way to Mesopotamia). Those are not isolated, punctual cases, but occurrences repeated over several centuries.


The same applies to the historical period: no doubt, Persian, Greek, Kushana etc. invasions did take place, but there is also firm historical evidence for an Indian presence in Persia, Anatolia, Armenia and Greece, besides of course Afghanistan and central Asia (to look only northward and westward): why is this never factored in?


4. This debate will settle only when India becomes economically powerful and funds multi-disciplinary approach to the problem till then....
At bottom, few scholars from either side, or from any side, seem to realise that the Indo-European problem will be laid to rest only when a theory can effectively take care of all the above disciplines, and a few more: the problem is essentially multidisciplinary.


Finally Tony does not disappoint - his response clearly makes the project suspect - to claim the BMC is a reputed journal is a stretch... :rotfl:
What is astonishing to me is with a bit of digging it is clear that with less than $10k funding one can 'fix' this illogical position with constancy...
His conclusion is reduced to mere khichri and aviyal (see his last para)- clearly highlighting his skills at cooking things up rather than at the hard knocks of science...

For those interested in the mess called Scientific Publishing today... a reasonably depressing article in the Guardian ;-)

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 30 Jun 2017 13:01

SriJoy wrote:Ie, if you find a John Doe talk about 'Prussia', he must've been alive in the span of 1000 AD-1870s AD, because there is no 'Prussia' before that or after. Similar argument made in case of 'Yavana and Panini'. that has nothing to do with linguistic theory.


This is purely in humor not to distract you from the academic discussion you are having...

By the above logic - you belong to 1000 - 1870 CE as well - given you are talking about Prussia :mrgreen:

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13449
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 30 Jun 2017 17:43

A_Gupta wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:Thanx, srji. Will retreat to cave now pending Deliverance. Need a refutation to the claim that
Assuming a common single origin for life on earth, all of our DNA is of the same age. :roll:
Having said that, the point is that if we try to construct a family tree from the DNA of populations extant today, then the African/non-African split occurs at the top of the tree; and in the relevant measures, Africa has more human genetic diversity than the rest of the world (suggesting that small founder populations left Africa to populate the rest of the world).


Partial Deliverance. May your goats all have 400-proof Pakistani DNA in them.

I have to think more (or await more Deliverance) on the Tree bijnej. But for the second point, let's say you have two containers, separated by a fine membrane like the YellowSea. One contains pure H2 and He mixture onlee. The other contained O2, CO2, N2 etc at the start, but now has O2, CO2, N2, H2, H2O, NH3 and He.

Why does that prove that Container 2 is the original source, since it has more Diversity and H2 and He migrated from Container 2 to Container 1? :?: Madarssa ied-making science would suggest that container 1 is the original source of the H2 and He. He is known to diffuse very rapidly through YellowSeas. Curious onlee.

The other thing is about this DNA-agine bijnej. AFAIK, I am made of the elements H, O, C, N and maybe some S, other than being full of pakistan. There may be a propensity for these molecules to form into certain proteins in some strange manner based on my lineage. When I die, my body will return to some form of these elements, and at some future date perhaps another living being may contain some of those very atoms in whatever form.

Today, thanx to Hargobind Khoranaji, we believe that these molecule formations can be traced in ancestry etc. But why is it not possible that external factors such as radiation environment, air pollution, types of activity undertaken, food eaten etc have no influence on these formation propensities? I am sure this is there deep inside DNA theory but it is way over my head. Whatever be the African DNA structure, some physical process must have occurred to make it form that way from the basic elements. Why was this unique to one place?

IOW, whatever happened in Africa 1,732,364 years ago, could have happened in Tahiti 643,892 years ago, and in Patagonia 1,733,001 years ago. Why would u believe that Patagonians came Out of Tahiti based on this?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13449
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 30 Jun 2017 17:48

BTW, I thought the term "Yavana" came out of the term "Youni" which I will not expand further here.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 30 Jun 2017 18:42

by Sudarshan
If so, are we back at the original question: "why couldn't somebody in 0 AD/BC have back-calculated these planetary positions using panchang data, and inserted them into the MB?"


Why are we even questioning that somebody could have falsify the sacred texts when the national motto is "Satyamev Jayate"., "Truth alone Triumphs".

Agasthi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 18 Jan 2017 08:29

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

Postby Agasthi » 30 Jun 2017 19:57

From the moment archaeological evidence is found, Yavana = Greek is 100% supported.
1. For eg, we have Ashoka's pillars, who specifically name Yavana kings who's names are close transliterations of Greek names, which we all find in the 30-40 year period of Ashoka's reign. I hope history buffs here recognize the true enormity of it: it is bloody rare, if ever, to find inscriptions of civilization X, naming kings A,B,C&D of civilization Y.


Very true, Ashoka Pillars are evidence enough but is it 100% accurate to assume that our ancestors were keen on differentiating foreigners or did our ancients put certain number of them all in one size fits all bucket. Like, Mlechaas = uncivilized non vedic, Yavanas = civilized non vedic. Did Greeks call themselves Ionians during the Maurya period? I thought they called themselves Hellas or Macedonians. Ancient Indians seem to have taken the pains to name the kings but why would they not transliterate Hellas or its close Transliteration. Why would they suddenly develop laziness to call them Yavanas?

Greeks in Indian history arrive around 325 BC, get pushed out of Punjab-Sindh by 320 or so and out of the picture completely (beyond the Hindu Kush) by 305 BC. they re-appaer again in 180s BC-0 BC/100 AD period.
But i see no reason why Greeks and Indians couldn't have had contacts prior to that date, even in an extremely limited way to be aware of each other (sort of like how Romans were aware of Scandinavia but never been there)



The Yavana of 325 BC may not be the same Yavana of 600 BC or 1000 BC. Because, if Yavana=Greek is absolute, then for the young Pandava princes to subdue a great Yavana King that Pandu could not defeat would mean that there has to be a great greek army and a greek kingdom in the environs of Kuru lands. Or the Pandava princes campaigned upto Greece. Does not quite fit into the extremely limited contacts type scenario being described and neither is MB as recent as 325 BC.

The MB mentions river Saraswathi as still flowing but now disappearing into the desert. The earliest forays by Ionians outside greece was only as late as 700-600 BC and that to Turkey. MB surely is much older than that to equate Yavanas and Greeks as one.

In the Bajirao Mastani movie, the family priest calls Mastani a Yavni, does that mean she is a Greek?

What our ancients perceived and interpreted and the interpretation by modern historians is separated by millenia. The Eurocentric scholar made the right translation but did they make the right interpretation in the context of those times is something to be questioned.

Added Later: Also, when Alexander and his macedonians invaded India proper, it appears from the accounts as if they entered a new world and had never encountered elephants before and were on a exploration/invasion mode. If they had contacts albeit limited for centuries why do they they appear so lost. And, it appears there were a few elephants in Guagamela. Clearly the conquered persians didnt give them a proper briefing or something is amiss in our histories.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 30 Jun 2017 20:23

SriJoy wrote:
logic. Both closely related- one a spoken language. One undocumented beyond few scattered epics. Probability of it not being a spoken language at any point is extremely rare. Can you find languages that have never been a spoken language of the masses but solely existed as a liturgical language only ?

Not so fast sir.

No one has heard Hurrian being spoken. There is no evidence that the texts that were described as the Hurrian language was actually known as Hurrian by the speakers. Unless phonological rules are rigid (and known to contemporary speakers) the actual pronunciation of extinct languages discovered in text form is pure guesswork. Now you are telling me that this language whose name had been cooked up and whose phonology is guesswork but exists in cuneiform tablets was a spoken language.

On the other hand you have Vedic Sanskrit which you have rightly described as a shruti is, according to you, "undocumented beyond a few scattered epics". That is nonsense sir. You do know the meaning of shruti. Its is about sound. Shrutis are auditory information handed to us down the millennia by recitation with phonological accuracy maintained by inbuilt error correction mechanisms. It is the only ancient language whose pronunciation and intonation are well known. So the documentation is real and vast. But like Hurrian it has never been spoken conversationally in living memory. They idea that lay people spoke that language is simply guesswork. By linguists. The "scattered epics" do not make that claim. Only European lingusists and philologists say so. The meanings of Vedic Sanskrit are obscure, mostly lost. The scholarship of the Vedas was beyond the ordinary individual and the actual spoken language may have differed quite greatly from the language of the scholars. And it was that spoken language that Panini codified.

Let me digress briefly to the "Pontic steppe" where horse graves are found but no evidence of language from the era of those graves. However the people who live there now speak an "Indo-European" language. If someone speaks an IE language in 2017 (or maybe back in 1950 if you like) how can anyone conclude that people used to speak an IE language in 2400 BC. It is pure sophistry to make such a claim. Yet linguists have done exactly that. I see historical linguists as the most irresponsible group of liars claiming to be scholars

It is specious to claim that you are saying nothing about linguistics when you come and pour out the theories made up by linguists on here. It so happens that I have strong reasons to disagree with linguistic cookery. But you need not agree with me. Your viewpoint is your prerogative as is mine.

I am simply pointing out that people can be dated by when they mention other people and by what name. Ie, if you find a John Doe talk about 'Prussia', he must've been alive in the span of 1000 AD-1870s AD, because there is no 'Prussia' before that or after. Similar argument made in case of 'Yavana and Panini'. that has nothing to do with linguistic theory.


I see. So a person who mentions seeing the Saraswati river must have been there before1800 BC because there was no river after that date

That provides some interesting dates. Let me explain. The Mahabharata mentions the Saraswati river - so the epic was clearly before 1800 BC. The epic is is early Classical Sanskrit so the Vedas with their archaic Sanskit pre date the Mahabharata and other texts that mention the Saraswati. So the Vedas are older than 1800 BC. Panini is placed between the Vedas (archaic Sanskrit) and the epics (early classical sanskrit) so Panini must be dated well before 1500 BC using YOUR logic.

Either your dates are wrong or your logic is faulty. Take your pick
Last edited by shiv on 30 Jun 2017 20:33, edited 2 times in total.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 30 Jun 2017 20:26

SriJoy wrote:
the fact that archaeo-astronomy is 'in the eye of the beholder' is demonstrated by the fact that the internet is full of several major hindu websites that postulate dates anywhere in the 4000-7000 BCE for Ramayana.


What a stupidity! The fact there are more than a dozen different mutually exclusive theories trying to explain the fundamentals of 'QM experimental outcome' speaks of 'complexity and challenging nature of the problem these scientists are trying to solve.. not due to the 'QM experimental outcome' itself.
--
As to why there are multiple claims for either Ramayana and Mahabharata, using Archaeo-astronomy, is been explained by me numerous times. The reasons are many....but a simple act of taking all research claims and dividing them based on 'evidence' and 'testing' makes it clear why that is so. This speaks of immaturity, lack of knowledge of scientific method, and lack of logical thinking and inferential acumen (as is demonstrated here amply) of researchers (Ramayana and Mahabharata) and has nothing to say about the field of 'Archaeo-astronomy'.
--
And only as a demonstration of this 'lack of logical thinking and inferential acumen, one may read the following:

Any date of the Ramayana prior to 10,000 BCE cannot be supported, as i noted before: we have zero evidence of agriculture in India or anywhere in the world prior to that date.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 30 Jun 2017 20:34

How are the origin of agriculture traced? How do we know that Wheat was discovered in Turkey and Rice in China? what is the evidence?

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3511
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 30 Jun 2017 20:43

A_Gupta wrote:
SriJoy wrote:




I think you and Rudradev are talking about entirely different time-scales. Rudradev is talking about time-scales on which evolution worked - hundreds of thousands of years. Assuming that the last few thousand years of civilization had the same fashions throughout, it is too short a time to have affected evolution.

Consider this - in the 19th century, among American whites, the "red-neck" - the one who works out in the sun - was looked down upon, compared to the slave-owner, who commanded a labor force of black slaves. When people became increasingly working indoors - in factories or in offices - and were pale without the sun, then the sun-tan became a mark of the leisured class. And so on. The former Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, looked pretty orange with his frequent tanning.


Arun ji,

Yes, the notion that sexual selection would have worked in favor of darker skin in the low latitudes is borne out by the studies of Jablonski and Chapel (recounted here http://essays.backintyme.com/item/4) , which were based on data accumulated over evolutionary timescales. But there can be no doubt that the same principles apply to the dynamics of variation within populations even on much smaller timescales.

The other relevant finding is that variations that produce lighter skin occur frequently amongst darker-skinned (low latitude) populations, but the reverse is not true.

Given this dynamic, there are many forces at work determining the lightness of skin of populations in low latitudes, varying even from one generation to another and within/across different social groups.

The net effect of this is to confound, beyond any hope of consistency, any model which tries to relate darkness of skin to economic class/"hours spent working in the sun" as a uniform trend (uniform enough to produce a "subconscious preference for fair skin" in and of itself, as is being claimed). Even if the "hours working in the sun" has some effect it is a far weaker correlate than genetics.

For instance, it has been claimed:
...because of law of large numbers. Even the 'tan-resistant farmer' will tan more than the king/merchant who stays indoors all life in overwhelming majority of cases. On a whole, you will have upper classes = indoor people = a shade or two lighter than lower classes = outdoor people.


Unfortunately, in population genetics, the "law of large numbers" works in precisely the opposite direction. The larger a population, the closer it is to the ideal population postulated in the Hardy-Weinberg principle, and the more phenotypic variation will exist that is allelically driven... cutting right across any socio-economic lines.

Meaning: even if the correlate of "outdoor occupation = darker skin" could possibly exert itself to some extent in a small local population, it becomes increasingly swamped by allele-driven phenotypic variation the larger the population you're considering.

Now spontaneous mutations leading to skin color changes do NOT occur amongst people at upper latitudes. White skinned people do not spontaneously become dark skinned as a result of point mutations; hence, there is less allele-driven phenotypic variation, and the correlate of skin color to hours per day spent working in the sun may have more of an effect with Europeans (as you described in your example of the rednecks).

Meaning: even if the correlate of "outdoor occupation = darker skin" could possibly exert itself to some extent amongst fair-skinned populations of European descent, it dwindles towards insignificance when you consider dark-skinned populations native to the lower latitudes, because of the reality that mutations causing fairer skin occur frequently in darker populations while the reverse is not true.

Note that the naive universalization of patterns observed amongst white people, and their uncritical application as general principles to people of other races, is a habitual error that has consistently undermined the conclusions of social science and the humanities in Western academia. We wouldn't have an AIT problem if this were not the case!

Finally, the essay records something really significant with respect to this highly dubious "more sun= darker skin" correlation. Native American peoples living at the same latitudes, and receiving the same "sun" on average as certain African peoples, nonetheless have lighter skin. Why is that?

According to the results of multiple studies (again recounted here http://essays.backintyme.com/item/4) it is precisely because of what I have described. Mutations occur all the time amongst dark skinned people, making them lighter. The Native American populations, once in the New World, experienced an overwhelming frequency of skin-lightening mutations that made them fairer skinned (despite getting every bit as much sun as the Africans from whom they descended). Once they lost their ancestral dark skin colour they never got it back, again despite living in the same sun-drenched latitudes as much darker Africans, because mutations that reverse that phenotype never occur.

The way our genes behave in determining skin colour... not just over hundreds of thousands of years but even single generations... leads to certain inescapable conclusions. If you want evidence of this, note that the Indian population has, across ALL socio-economic lines, FAR more variations and gradations of skin color than any single Caucasian population... Irish or Norwegian or Dutch. Where variation exists amongst white populations it is because of interbreeding... such as in the USA or the Mediterranean and Adriatic coasts of Europe, where caucasians interbred with darker-skinned peoples.

Amongst Indians and Africans, the nature of the five human pigmentation genes
“TYR” at 11q14-21, “TYRP1” at 9p23, “TYRP2” at 13q31-32, “P” at 15q11.2-12, and “MC1R” at 16q24.3
is sufficient to produce a much broader band of variation than amongst Caucasians without the involvement of any external gene flow. And certainly without any regard how much "sun" an individual is exposed to.

This is enough to utterly confound any simplistic notion that social class, by determining hours spent in the sun, is a strong enough correlate of skin color to produce subconscious preferences for fairness across societies; particularly across societies native to the lower latitudes.

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 30 Jun 2017 20:55

Question:

Is there a logical fallacy in deriving that a Civilization A which wrote it's poetry in a language X also spoke the language X ?

Thus if the Rigvedic Aryans who wrote their poetry in Rigvedic Sanskrit also spoke Rigvedic Sanskrit?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 30 Jun 2017 21:56

Dipanker wrote:Question:

Is there a logical fallacy in deriving that a Civilization A which wrote it's poetry in a language X also spoke the language X ?

Thus if the Rigvedic Aryans who wrote their poetry in Rigvedic Sanskrit also spoke Rigvedic Sanskrit?


Minor quibble. No written records survive. Writing may have been on materials that have perished since. No proof

One can take modern day analogies and say that language constructed for poetry in a particular meter is necessarily cryptic and not given to an easy conversational style. But that would be a hypothesis. In reality we do not know and will not know unless there are specific references of people speaking that language.

Oh yeah one can call guesswork as "logical assumptions" to suit every gut feeling. That is what linguists did, If you are very good at science this crap may floor you because there is no science there

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13449
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 30 Jun 2017 22:11

SBajwa wrote:How are the origin of agriculture traced? How do we know that Wheat was discovered in Turkey and Rice in China? what is the evidence?

Same way you know that The Masked Maniac is one of the top 3 Wrestlers in the world. Because someone declared that the antics shown on Turner Network TV from the Omni Hotel in Atlanta is Georgia WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP wrestling.
You want the origin of rooh-afza to be from your village? Post a sign saying:
SBajwaPuri: Home Of Rooh Afza.
If you want to nail the historical credibility angle, put up a Historic Marker that says:
This is where in BCE 75,321, Abdul bin Kabul invented Rooh Afza.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Jun 2017 22:59

Metals generally survive in the archaeological record, where cotton, wool, wood may not have. Or farming implements or grain residues.

If the Ramayana war took place 10,000BC and was with metal weapons, then there should be some evidence of metal in what is otherwise known as the Neolithic age.

There was no general collapse after the Ramayana, by tradition the Ikshvaku line continued for generations, so there is no reason for disappearance of metals for several thousand years after the Ramayana.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 30 Jun 2017 23:00


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 30 Jun 2017 23:14

SriJoy wrote: then 'Vedic sanskrit = liturgical & administrative only' becomes an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof.



People have accepted that a precursor to Sanskrit was spoken in the steppe region of Eurasia with zero proof. By default that is accepted as the truth. And if I come up with a hypothesis that contradicts what Western scholars seem to have cooked up you ask me for "extraordinary proof". This is the difference between what is written in paper and book form and not open to debate versus a forum which is open to debate. The former are taken as true even when they are incredible


What i meant by few scattered epics, is that the entire compendium of vedic sanskrit literature can fit on one shelf of a standard bookshelf. i.e., paucity of body of work. Which gives us a small sample space to work with.

15 years of medical education can fit on a bookshelf. Vedic education takes 5-15 years. The argument is a specious one. The size of bookshelf is hardly an index of knowledge. Nowadays all the knowledge in the world can fit into a few petabytes of hard disk space - and I would say it is ridiculous if someone said " a few scattered square inches of space represent all the knowledge in the world


I see. So a person who mentions seeing the Saraswati river must have been there before1800 BC because there was no river after that date

That provides some interesting dates. Let me explain. The Mahabharata mentions the Saraswati river - so the epic was clearly before 1800 BC. The epic is is early Classical Sanskrit so the Vedas with their archaic Sanskit pre date the Mahabharata and other texts that mention the Saraswati. So the Vedas are older than 1800 BC. Panini is placed between the Vedas (archaic Sanskrit) and the epics (early classical sanskrit) so Panini must be dated well before 1500 BC using YOUR logic.

Either your dates are wrong or your logic is faulty. Take your pick

I agree 100% with all but the bolded part. I see no reason to reliably place Panini 'between Vedas and the epics of early classical sanskrit' because the mahabharata has been re-written several times, making its 'final version' much,much later than its original core story.


We are going to remain in disagreement. As far as my information goes there are several points that suggest a date for Panini earlier than 3-400 BC but only one word "Yavana" is a clincher for you. It is not for me.

However I will not post further voluminous arguments which constitute a chapter in an unpublished book on the grounds that the effort to rebut bullshit is an order of magnitude higher than the effort to produce that bullshit, and my firm view is that one word "Yavana" argument made by none other than Witzel and his cronies is bullshit

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3511
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 01 Jul 2017 00:16

SriJoy wrote:
SBajwa wrote:How are the origin of agriculture traced? How do we know that Wheat was discovered in Turkey and Rice in China? what is the evidence?


If we cultivate the said plant, we end up modifying its gene-structure quickly by selectively breeding for specific purpose - like greater yield and shorter growing time. So genetic drift occurs when we do that.


This is wrong. What you are describing is selection.

Genetic drift is a stochastic (random) process by which allele frequencies change in a process analogous to random sampling error... not selective breeding.

Like this:

Image

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3511
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 01 Jul 2017 00:30

That is simply referred to as an effect of selection pressure upon allele frequencies. No specific term for it.

"Genetic drift", however, is a term for a specific phenomenon whereby allele frequencies may be altered from one generation to another, even in the absence of the usual processes by which they can be expected to change: mutation, migration (a.k.a. "gene flow") and selection (natural or otherwise).

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 01 Jul 2017 04:26

shiv wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Question:

Is there a logical fallacy in deriving that a Civilization A which wrote it's poetry in a language X also spoke the language X ?

Thus if the Rigvedic Aryans who wrote their poetry in Rigvedic Sanskrit also spoke Rigvedic Sanskrit?


Minor quibble. No written records survive. Writing may have been on materials that have perished since. No proof

One can take modern day analogies and say that language constructed for poetry in a particular meter is necessarily cryptic and not given to an easy conversational style. But that would be a hypothesis. In reality we do not know and will not know unless there are specific references of people speaking that language.

Oh yeah one can call guesswork as "logical assumptions" to suit every gut feeling. That is what linguists did, If you are very good at science this crap may floor you because there is no science there


But do we really need proof before we can say that since Aryan wrote poetry in Rigvedic Sanskrit they spoke Rigvedic Sanskrit too? Personally I don't think so. Sure any proof would be icing on the cake, but implication in this case is in my opinion straightforward enough.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2071
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 01 Jul 2017 05:03

SBajwa wrote:
by Sudarshan
If so, are we back at the original question: "why couldn't somebody in 0 AD/BC have back-calculated these planetary positions using panchang data, and inserted them into the MB?"


Why are we even questioning that somebody could have falsify the sacred texts when the national motto is "Satyamev Jayate"., "Truth alone Triumphs".


Not "we" sir, specific persons - see the quote below. No matter how many times this point of "back-calculation" is addressed, somebody or the other pulls it up again, as if it is some smart and infallible argument against archaeo-astronomy that only this person has ever thought of.

Case in point below:

SriJoy wrote:I have already explained why i consider archaeo-astronomy a pointless exercise. But i will say again:

1. Any archaeo-astronomy based on planetary and stellar conjunction,is on a repeater cycle. By itself, we can simply insert any of the dates from the cycle for it to be just as valid, thus failing to yield a 'most probable date' in most cases

2. It can easily be inserted hundreds/thousand years later, so we have no basis to conclude those stellar phenomena are from the original author, owing to the fact that versions of Ramayana that survives for us, are all in classical sanskrit, which is much younger than archaic Sanskrit.


Hoo boy!! Is there a limit to how many times this same lame argument has to be addressed? I've already addressed this in the past in other threads, for the benefit of certain posters, who admitted that they knew next to nothing about astronomy, but never made the effort to understand why this "infallible argument against archaeo astronomy" was lame and uninformed.

And on this very thread, I again explained why this "back-calculation" stuff wasn't going to work, at least for the MB. Should I explain one more time? Very well, for the benefit of any lurkers who might be interested.

Yes, planetary and stellar conjunction is on a repeater cycle. This is not some great discovery that the critics have made, it's been addressed by the field of archaeo astronomy itself. Since this is a repeater cycle, the best we can do is to find the latest possible date at which all the specified conjunctions could have happened. So when somebody says - "I looked at the astronomical observations mentioned in the MB, and concluded that it could have happened in 5565 BC," that date is the latest possible date which simultaneously accommodates all those observations. Sure, those conjunctions could have lined up earlier than 5565 BC - but not later, at least to present time.

So why do researchers end up with such vastly differing estimates for the date of the Ramayana or MB, from the same astronomical data? Simple answer: they don't. The differing estimates are because some "researchers" ignore subsets of the astronomical observations, and focus on those observations which lead to their already pre-conceived date. So the "latest possible date" is pushed closer to recent times. However, for the MB, the two astronomical dating attempts which considered all the data (or most of the data), namely, those of Vartak and Nilesh Oak, ended up with practically the same date - using different methods.

Now about back-calculation (AGAIN). Vartak's dating attempt considered periodic observations. So one can argue here, that even if the observations line up around 5565 BC (being the LATEST possible date for the line up), that somebody could have simply back-calculated the dates. But - Nilesh Oak's attempt also considered one NON-PERIODIC observation (I'm not going to keep repeating what this is, I've already talked about it in an earlier post in this same thread, just yesterday), which is in excellent agreement with the other observations. If somebody can explain to me how anybody can back-calculate a one-time non-periodic observation and insert it into the MB, I'm all ears.

Hopefully at least a couple of unconvinced folks here will read through this and understand the real issues behind archaeo-astronomical-dating (periodicity and - at least for the MB dating - "back-calculation" are not issues).

Edit: I got to say, it's not just the planetary conjunctions which are on a "repeater cycle," some lame arguments are also on a repeater cycle. I look forward to the next conjunction which will bring up this same lame "argument against archaeo-astronomy." It could open up a fascinating field of thread-dating using the periodicity of lame arguments.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jul 2017 05:21

Dipanker wrote:But do we really need proof before we can say that since Aryan wrote poetry in Rigvedic Sanskrit they spoke Rigvedic Sanskrit too? Personally I don't think so. Sure any proof would be icing on the cake, but implication in this case is in my opinion straightforward enough.

The meaning of the word proof implies that the idea cannot be taken for granted until proof is obtained.

Let me move a step further and I do this deliberately. I say that Vedic Sanskrit was never spoken conversationally, but what was spoken was a variant that later became codified as classical Sanskrit, Do I have proof? None at all.

Is proof needed?

That is the crux of the question. Theories made up by linguists were allowed in without question. The Aryan race, the Dravidian race and the origin and direction of movement of language were all simply cooked up as were the "sounds" of dead languages. Linguists have never been held to account for the travesty they foisted on the history of Indians.

Now we have reached a stage where we implicitly agree with the Aryan invasion theory and we hold anyone who opposes it to account. We demand "proof" that AIT was false. This is not just about those who agree with AIT, It is about you and me and others who are against AIT. All of us too are bewitched enough by AIT to ask for "proof" against a lie. Can you believe the ludicrousness of this situation? We know its a lie but we hold each other to high standards demanding "proof" when someone tries to knock down the original lie.

This is where many authors like Talageri come in. Even opponents of AIT have questioned Talageri. But why do they hold Talageri to account rather than holding the original racists and their theories to account? Why accuse Talageri or shiv of bluffing when the original bluff is now textbook knowledge? No one needs to find "proof " of a lie. Lies can always be extended to remain true forever. Lies can only be countered by calling out the lie and not by providing alternate proof of a cooked up event. If I say Modi has a girlfriend in the Netherlands it is up to me to prove it, not up to you to disprove it. But with AIT - the entire world has already swallowed the story and demands proof from anyone who disagrees.

That has been my motivation for writing that yet to see the light of day book. However this "no spoken Vedic Sanskrit" is a bluff I cooked up for BRF to make a point. I say that my bluff is more true that linguists bluffs. I do not have proof, But why is anyone asking me for proof when we cheerfully accept linguists bluffs. My sole motivation has been to call out bluffs using western sources as far as possible rather that searching for alternate opinions to dig up a story to oppose a lie.

i hope this explanation helps. In my next post I will cross post Koenraad's Elst's response to my new article and my reply. he is right, but I am not wrong either.
Last edited by shiv on 01 Jul 2017 06:05, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jul 2017 05:34

First let me link (again) my new article calling out the racist origins of AIT
Aryans And Dravidians: An Invention Of Racist Nineteenth Century Scholars

I will post Koenraad Elst's response and my reply
Koenraad Elst wrote:Interesting article, but rather beside the point. There is an Aryan origins debate going on right now, to which this text is entirely immaterial. In the West, the Aryan Invasion Theory has discarded all racial interpretations of its data after 1945. Yet, the AIT is still holding out and being taught from all platforms worldwide except a few private Hindu ones. The Biblical and Darwinian race theories discussed are not needed for the AIT. It is significant that the few Indians who have actually joined the struggle, and who therefore engage with what the AIT camp actually writes, hardly ever mention race or race theories; whereas those who fill their pages with indignation about 19th-century race theories, contribute nothing to the debate. Most AIT upholders would not find anything to disagree with in this article, which on its own admission is a rewording of a Western book anyway. It is only in India that racial categories like "Dravidian race" are still being kept alive by Dravidianists, Ambedkarites and Nehruvians. They too have nothing to contribute to the debate, which has remained mainly a matter of linguistics and philology, and in secondary order of archaeology and now also genetics. The latter is sort of a grandchild of the early race theories, but far clearer and finding very different and more complex divisions of mankind than the cited Gobineau thought up. And even then, by indicating demic migrations genetics can only very approximatively show up the migration of languages. Sorry there, but moralizing about ideas that once accompanied the AIT is never going to achieve the really worthy goal of defeating the AIT,



Here is my reply
shiv a.k.a, benedose wrote:How does one conjure up the gumption to actually disagree with a man of Koenraad Elst's stature?

The point of the article is not to moralize, but to inform. The origin of the word Aryan was racist - and although that is forgotten now, many Indians and still feel pride in paleness of their complexion having inherited the idea that they are the descendants of a victorious race. As Shri Elst says Dravidianists, Ambedkarites and Nehruvians may pride themselves in the Dravidian identity - but they too need to know that they have been "had", hoodwinked if you will. This realization will be met with denial of course, or else it will cause the anger of cognitive dissonance. But Indians need to be angry that they have been quite foolish in swallowing and propagating a theory that was racist in origin, even if that part has now been conveniently consigned to a footnote of history.

Genetics will do nothing to solve this issue. Genetics is simply a diversion. geneticists looking for information on human migrations fill themselves up with AIT theories without realizing that those very AIT theories had no raison d'etre other than a racist need to prove white European superiority over semitic and other races. Indians are foolish to take this issue further as if there is some real history or science there. they need to know the truth. From the beginning, warts and all.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jul 2017 05:57

Look at the irony of the situation today and it sometimes makes me both sad and angry that we Indians have really been hoodwinked but we remain too stupid to call it out.

If you follow the Aryan invasion theory as cooked up by linguists from beginning to what it is now you find a series of bluffs. An early bluff was the racist theory that Aryans existed. The next bluff was to put a date on the arrival of the Aryans - around 1500-1000 BC. The third bluff was to date the Vedas based on the earlier bluff of the arrival of the Aryan. After the bluff about date of Vedas was made mainstream - everything else - including dates for Panini was simply squared to fit the round hole. And at the end of all this the racist origins were wiped out leaving the theory invented by racists.

But the intent to prove the language did not go away. The current bluff of course is to call the Vedas "horse culture" - and just like one word "Yavana" is being used to date Panini one mistranslated verse is used to say that Vedic people used to eat and bury horses. This bluff connects us with Pontic steppe, Pontic steppe graves have horses in them Pontic step has NO evidence of language in 2400 BC, But the language of 2400 BC has been declared to be PIE before it went to India and became Vedas. If the level of academic tomfoolery is astounding the level to which Indians have been made to look stupid by all this should make one cry in anguish.

And anybody who questions accepted AIT "wisdom" is now being held to account. He is told 'So much evidence exists for AIT. You are a right winger with an agenda" Ironic is too mild a word here.

I do not believe we are stupid as a nation. But I think our people have suffered from not knowing the truth. Of course studies in Astronomy and genetics are important in themselves but it is unfortunate to witness the monkey-dancing when anyone comes up with an astronomical date that is at variance with AIT. The bluff is true until disproved. It is equally bad to see the anxiety caused by genetic dates that might agree with AIT. Thankfully genetics is moving away to areas which are in disagreement with AIT, but AIT will nott be killed by genetics. AIT has to be killed by calling out lies.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13449
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 01 Jul 2017 07:39

Mullahs, My 2 paise:
Genuflecting to Shri Elst is a mistake. His comment follows a very familiar pattern
No no no no no no yaar! That is no point onlee! I am knowing all about Bhesht, and the only one who knows about Bhesht and all yindoos should do saashtang-pranaam 2 me onlee. All is in vain!


Elst is not the only one around who has published in the "Bhesht". In fact these days, no doubt with his advancing age, he has become less active and less relevant (being polite).

Why should his observation about how the "Bhesht" has evolved in recent years, carry any more weight than that of any of us who see the prejudices first-hand? We have to go through him to get Bheshtern articles translated and explained to us real slowly?

I have not seen any advice from him on how to solve problems. Just on how all of us are ignorant wild-eyed scatter-brains who have no hope of prevailing over the wisdom of the (bigoted) "Bhesht".

I think his comment should be subjected to the same level of kind analysis as if it was, say, Shri Shrijoyji posting it. :mrgreen: Much tougher, in fact.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Jul 2017 08:26

SBajwa wrote:How are the origin of agriculture traced?


1. Archaeology
http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c0 ... -02-02.pdf
The archaeological study of farming initially focused on the identification of primary and secondary centers of domestication. However, as research progressed it became evident that humans succeeded in domestic ating nearly 300 plants, although only about 25 are considered staples today. This very large number of domestic ates indicates that the coevolution of plants and people is a nearly universal phenomenon.
Evidence for plant domestication has increased dramatically in recent years with the emergence of paleoethnobotany as a subdiscipline. The major advance was the introduction of systematic collection techniques (such as flotation) for the recovery of plant remains from archaeological sites. Inve stigators have also developed or improved microtechniques for pollen analysis, mineralized plants, phytoliths (silica structures), isozymes, DNA, chemical analyses, plant is otopes, and coprolite (fossilized feces) studies. Combined with the study of macr oremains, these techniques have greatly expanded our understanding of prehistoric plant use. In addition, AMS dating has made it possible to determine the age of individual seeds, thus giving more accurate dates for the appearance of plants in an area. Finall y, remote sensing and GIS promise to provide improved methods for evaluating large-scale earthworks associated with irrigation and raised and drained fields.


Phytoliths survive nicely in the archaeological setting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytolith
Phytoliths (from Greek, "plant stone") are rigid, microscopic structures made of silica, found in some plant tissues and persisting after the decay of the plant. These plants take up silica from the soil, whereupon it is deposited within different intracellular and extracellular structures of the plant.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Jul 2017 08:47

I think one needs to take the bull by the horns, in excellent Jallikattu style, and ask plainly: Why is what happened 4000 years ago **POLITICALLY** relevant today?

It could start off with - do you even know the names of your great-great grandfathers? If they are not relevant enough to the reader for them to know their names, then why is 4000 years ago relevant? Presumably because of some grand narrative of history that "explains" the reader's current situation and difficulties, and thus makes itself more relevant to the reader than the great-great grandfathers. So, why is this historical explanation a flawed explanation?

Shiv's article starts answering it, but without explicitly posing the question in the first place. I think one has to continue with the political situation; what the genuine grievances are, how they are being addressed, completely, partly, or not at all; but how a false political/historical narrative is being used for damaging India; how people can address their problems without creating such divisions.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jul 2017 09:02

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv's article starts answering it, but without explicitly posing the question in the first place. I think one has to continue with the political situation; what the genuine grievances are, how they are being addressed, completely, partly, or not at all; but how a false political/historical narrative is being used for damaging India; how people can address their problems without creating such divisions.

+1
Valid points.

My personal dilemma centered around the fact that it is difficult to enter into the political debate and still point out the truth - that is
    1. Dravidian parties are based on a hilarious bluff that they have swallowed because white man gave it and we accepted it
    2. Those Indians who get a warm fuzzy about being of Aryan descent (light skinned people, Brahmins) are also suckers who were made jackasses by the Europeans who first embraced them as long lost brothers and then discarded them as impure while they kept the language.
No one likes to hear how much of an idiot he is shown up to be. It has to be introduced gently, in small doses.

Dravidians now have to face up to the idea that they were a weak inferior race who were decimated and pushed away from their lands by people bringing a superior culture. They have believed that and that is why Tamil Brahmins are cursed - because they are "Aryans"

As regards fairer skinned people in North and South - they have all swallowed this racist story and believe themselves to be a superior race - and they need to know that the story was cooked up only to pull them down and prove that that too are not white enough or great enough to own their own culture.

Wah Wah! Yeh mera India

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2377
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 01 Jul 2017 09:12

Excellent piece once again, Shiv!

I've responded to Elst in the article's comments. AIT may be an intellectual exercise for him, but is much more serious for us. Its like that story of a chicken & a pig opening a ham-n-eggs restaurant. The pig refuses because he "is committed" but the chicken is only "involved".

All of Rajiv Malhotra's book start out by tracing the lineage of some Western Theory, going back a couple of centuries. It shines an important light on the origin & motivations of the said theory. And social sciences is not physics. Here, motivations, players, lens-used - everything matters. To understand the plant, we need to examine the seed. All this might be irrelevant or "already known" to Elst. But its unknown to nearly 100% of Indians. So, you are doing a very important job of educating the average Indian.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2377
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 01 Jul 2017 09:23

A_Gupta wrote:I think one needs to take the bull by the horns, in excellent Jallikattu style, and ask plainly: Why is what happened 4000 years ago **POLITICALLY** relevant today?


AIT is politically relevant today to India but not to the West because of 1 reason, IMHO. India is still a "continuous civilization" from 1000s of years ago. The West is not. So, for them, Aryans etc are all just of academic importance. They've lost their virginity (religion/culture/language) long time ago. The first round of invaders imposed IE-languages & its associated religion/culture. The 2nd set of invaders imposed monotheism after wiping out IE-culture.

India has withstood these invasions and retained its culture & religion. So, the West has penis-envy towards India. Therefore they try to do what puerile kids do: bring us down to their level. Ensure our civilization doesn't survive.

On our part, since AIT calls into question our very ancient but living identity, it becomes a political pawn.

The West has lost its identity multiple times. Its newest identity is based on partly Christianity & partly Renaissance. So, any theory that questions these "civilizational constructs" will have political ramifications in the West. This is why Islam presents a big political problem there, even though Islam is a 1400 year old theory. Similarly, if there is a Indo_European_Pagan religion revival in Europe, there will be huge political ramifications. Just like in Tamil Nadu.

Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Abhibhushan » 01 Jul 2017 10:25

A lot of discussion above about existence of colour prejudice universally. A thought crosses my mind: Can some learned poster quote a line of such prejudice from our scriptures? Shruti/Smriti/Itihas/Purana/MB/Ramayan?

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7031
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 01 Jul 2017 11:17

Solid piece Shiv. The commentariat are active. Strange that Koenraad Elst has come up with a peculiarly disjointed comment. Fortunately for our whiteskin worshipping countrymen, even whiter people are commenting positively.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Jul 2017 11:23

Prem Kumar wrote:AIT is politically relevant today to India but not to the West because of 1 reason, IMHO. India is still a "continuous civilization" from 1000s of years ago. The West is not. So, for them, Aryans etc are all just of academic importance. They've lost their virginity (religion/culture/language) long time ago. The first round of invaders imposed IE-languages & its associated religion/culture. The 2nd set of invaders imposed monotheism after wiping out IE-culture.

India has withstood these invasions and retained its culture & religion.


This certainly is one aspect of AIT. But what does "retained its culture & religion" really mean?

One has to point out that there is an **unbroken cultural continuity** in India. But the culture & religion certainly changed and evolved; and will continue to change and evolve. AIT is used along with the idea of an unchanging India, so today's injustices, oppressions, difficulties are all traced to the "moment of origin", (almost like an "original sin").

The point to be emphasized is that India's culture has been dynamic; some of the injustices and problems are as a result of much more recent evolution than what happened 4000 years ago. India is not a culture of the book and dead prophets; it is a culture of adaptation, of living gurus, and with its political independence is now freer to change and improve faster than any time in many centuries. India can maintain its cultural continuity **and** wipe the tears from every eye as well.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2377
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 01 Jul 2017 11:53

"Retained its culture & religion" means that our ethos, many cultural practices, fundamental beliefs (reincarnation/Karma, seeing divinity in everything etc) have been preserved.

No doubt that our culture & religion has also evolved. Bad practices had creeped in. Good people arose to reform the system "from within". If it hadn't evolved, it would have died out. Its like Yin & Yang: we have the unchanging core but also the dynamic evolution. Both are necessary. Like Shiva & Shakti.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jul 2017 16:28

Abhibhushan wrote:A lot of discussion above about existence of colour prejudice universally. A thought crosses my mind: Can some learned poster quote a line of such prejudice from our scriptures? Shruti/Smriti/Itihas/Purana/MB/Ramayan?

That is a good question.

I can answer that through indirect means. There is no colour prejudice mentioned in the texts because if there was all the scholars trying to bash Hinduism down as useless would have ferreted it out by now.

That said - and I think you know this. Krishna was a black man. I vaguely recall reading that Bhim too was dark complexioned. We need to remember that in India "fair complexion" itself is not very fair and a lot of families have people ranging from light cafe au lait to chocolate. My own complexion generally described by others as fair is about that of the coffee with milk that I prepare every morning - so our own fair and dark standards are "different"

This topic has come up before and I know there is at least one reference to people in Kashmir cursing a white person as being too light complexioned. I need to find that ref.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jul 2017 16:40

SriJoy wrote:
As for Vartak and Nilesh-ji coming to the same conclusion- it wouldn't be the first time multiple people came to the same erroneous conclusion.

Sir your boast about "knowing science " is as hollow as a puri. You reach conclusions about Nilesh Oak's work without actually reading it. Sri Oak begs people to read his work and then tear it down and is open to criticism. But your rhetorical prose is no substitute for honesty and accuracy. Your self proclaimed ability to parse any scientific paper given time demands that you need to put your money where your mouth is. What you have done so far is put your foot in your mouth.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vikas and 68 guests