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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 01 Jul 2017 19:34

SriJoy wrote:You think its illogical to say 'date X for civilization Y is invalid, because Y is a farming society and X is older than any evidence of farming itself ' ?!
Care to point out what is so illogical about it ..... ?

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Simple, no?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21350
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 01 Jul 2017 19:42

shiv wrote:
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.


doesn't it bring to mind certain EJs who argue the Hindu literature/books after some superficial "study" to portray and establish themselves as well wishers but are actually striving to tear down the edifice from within??

sort of a modified zakir naik gambit??

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2095
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 01 Jul 2017 20:00

SriJoy wrote:
If the answer to archaeo-astronomical analysis was so simple, we'd not have such vastly different dates.
Here's some example:
7500 BC : http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/a ... artak.html
5114 BC : http://serveveda.org/?p=87
7292 BC : https://dochub.com/marvinsfreeundergrou ... vedas?pg=8
14,000 BC: Nilesh-ji


After I offer an explanation for why there are such vastly differing dates, you go saying "see, there are so many differing dates, so archaeo-astronomy is not simple!" Have you actually read the dating attempts for the MB by Yardi, Pushkar Bhatnagar, etc., and seen the assumptions they make and the observations they ignore? Have you compared that with the methods employed by more honest researchers such as Vartak and Nilesh Oak? And minor nitpick - Nilesh's dating of the Ramayana is 14000 YBP or 12000 BC, not 14000 BC.

the list is endless practically and starting to sound like various sects of Islam/Christianity, each accusing all others to be wrong/flawed and only they are correct.
All depending on which nakshatras to choose.


Interesting that you mention Islam/ Christianity, because the agenda-driven dating by some researchers is exactly like those religions. I already told you that this is the reason why there are seemingly so many different dates for the MB or Ramayana using astronomy, and that these dating attempts can't be trusted. Certainly you can't place agenda-driven "science" on the same pedestal as honest science, and claim that "see, science doesn't work, the scientists can't even agree with each other." This is what you are doing. Looks like you haven't made the attempt to understand the process of archaeo-astronomy, and more importantly, you are unable to distinguish between the quacks and the genuine practitioners, so you take the easy way out of labeling all of them as quacks. And most interestingly, you quote back at me what I have already told you - that it all depends on which subset of nakshatras you choose. To do a serious job of dating, you have to consider the largest subset of the observations, or ideally all the observations, and explain all of them. This should be your ranking criteria to choose between the vastly differing dates that various "researchers" came up with - "what fraction of the observations do they actually explain with their date?" Instead you tar everybody with the same brush.

Needless to say, there is a good reason why Archaeo-astronomy is not entertained by anyone in academia in India or outside : its like Palmistry, with wildly different claims, simply based on star alignments. And conclusions for such varience is obvious : these nakshatras are later insertions into the text, which is why they diverge so much from each other.


Dude, you seem to be confusing archaeo-astronomy with astrology. Looks like you have no clue how the process works. There's an entire thread that discussed archaeo-astronomy over a couple of years, right here on this forum. I suggest you go through it.

Just because a favorite book of mine which i consider holy makes a claim, it doesn't have to be true. Faith-based arguments are data-mining: pre-supposing the correctness of a scenario and then hunting for evidence to support it, instead of taking where the evidence leads us. thats how we end up with absurdities like Ramayana being preserved for 15,000 years in a complex tale, while no other human story has made it unchanged for even 5,000 years. Or how Rama's farming city was thousands of years prior to existence of agriculture.


Ha! I already told you that most of the dating attempts of the Ramayana and MB are exactly like this - presupposing a date and then hunting (selectively) for evidence to support it. I also told you that the attempts by Vartak and Nilesh Oak were not like that, that they were genuine attempts which considered a much larger subset of the available data (though still not all of it), and that these attempts are the most trustworthy. Instead of addressing specific instances of errors in the attempts of Vartak and Oak, you keep parroting your original claim - "all the dating attempts of the R or the MB are fraudulent." Without even reading through the specifics. What do you expect me to say to this?

Our ancestors got it right when they labelled the Ramayana and Mahabharata as Smriti : it is not completely, adulterated and not preserved exactly. Which is why it is a Smriti. If it were accurate, reliable and unadulterated, our own ancestors would've designated it as a Shruti. Pretty self-explanatory with the designations in Hindu tradition itself.


Just curious. How does your pronouncement above gel with your claim of being interested in "scientific accuracy?" Have you made an accurate assessment and concluded the above based on certain data, within given bounds of error, or is the above just your own hot-air?

So trying to get super-technical and holding each and every item of the texts as correct, in 2017, when Ramayana and mahabharata have mass divine status, is a bit ironic, when our own ancestors saw it as non-cannonical.


Lol! Again, please go through the specifics of archaeo-astronomy and the various dating attempts, and then tell me which ones of them makes this claim that each and every item of the texts is correct. And why should we take what our own ancestors said as fact, when our ancestors said that the Ramayana occurred in the Treta Yuga, which should have been at least 864,000 years ago (being the duration of the Dwapara Yuga)? Did we have farming back then, and does this gel with your claims of scientific accuracy?

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 01 Jul 2017 20:12

sudarshan wrote: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 5561 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.

Excellent summary, Sudarshan ji

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 20:14

chetak wrote:
shiv wrote: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.


doesn't it bring to mind certain EJs who argue the Hindu literature/books after some superficial "study" to portray and establish themselves as well wishers but are actually striving to tear down the edifice from within??

sort of a modified zakir naik gambit??

Chetak forceful and effective use of English along with assertions of one's own prowess will only go so far. Ultimately actual sweat put in will have to show rather than fancily worded arguments. It's only a matter of time.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 01 Jul 2017 20:21

Shri Sudarshan ji writes...

I also told you that the attempts by Vartak and Nilesh Oak were not like that, that they were genuine attempts which considered a much larger subset of the available data (though still not all of it)


Actually, I have tested 'ALL' evidence (astronomy that is which also includes contextual chronology and seasons observations).

My disclaimer about 215+ (in case of Mahabharata) and 575+ (in case of Ramayana) is to emphasize that I might have missed relevant observations and also to emphasize that as additional nuances are considered (calendars of MBH time, or evidence from other branches of science.. hydrology, geology, climatology, oceanography and such), additional references (evidence) may become relevant for testing...in general.. but even in the context of archaeo-astronomy.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2095
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 01 Jul 2017 20:45

Ok, I stand corrected. But IIRC, though you did test all the evidence, you did find that a small fraction of the evidence was not in agreement with the date you suggested for the MB and Ramayana, right? That's why you were using the metric of "truth score" (fraction of observations in agreement with the claimed date) to rank the various dating attempts?

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

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

Postby Agasthi » 01 Jul 2017 20:56

the likely explanation is, when Persians conquered Ionia (which in 500 BC was the centre of gravity of Greek thought. Look it up, almost all the pre 500 BC Greek scholars are Ionian), they involved Ionians in building Persepolis. Idea is, since we have evidence of Ionian Greeks coming in and out of central Persia, we most likely had some Greco-Gandhara/Kamboja contact as these were border lands.


That's a lot of 'likely' used in you explanation. That's confirmation bias. As I said earlier, in the Baja Rao Mastani movie, Mastani is called a 'Yavana', by your logic, is she Greek then?

You have taken one evidence of Ashoka equating yavana with indo Greek kings and have worked backwards to establish Greek antiquity without evidence and yet you say Ramayana can't be older than 10000 BC because there is no evidence of agriculture. How come you give so much belief and value to eurocentrism but not to our own interpretations of our own history?

Also, apparantely Greeks spoke 'koine' during Alexander era when there was much direct contact with Indians. How does that translate to yavana.

Look all I'm saying is you have a version of history based on some interpretations one of which is yavana=Greek is absolute and rigid, it maybe worthwhile to revisit all those interpretations and not have a mental block.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 01 Jul 2017 21:01

sudarshan wrote:Ok, I stand corrected. But IIRC, though you did test all the evidence, you did find that a small fraction of the evidence was not in agreement with the date you suggested for the MB and Ramayana, right? That's why you were using the metric of "truth score" (fraction of observations in agreement with the claimed date) to rank the various dating attempts?

That is correct.

Truthlikeness (Verisimilitude) = # of observations corrborated - # of observations NOT corroborated.

--
Identical method employed in testing scientific theories from Ptolemy to Copenicus- Faraday- Maxwell-Kepler-Newton-Einstein-Feynman.....et al.

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 » 02 Jul 2017 04:50

SriJoy wrote:So let me get it straight- it is 'unscientific' to say a claim of farming civilization is null and void, because dates proposed are thousands of years prior to any evidence of farming anywhere on the planet ?!
thats like saying i need to read the whole paper before i can comment on an obvious scientific improbability/inconsistency. Do you read the entire medical journal to confirm its wrong when it claims an obvious medical inconsistency ?

Your argumentative rhetoric exceeds your displayed scientific ability by a gigantic margin. If you do not read an entire paper AND check all the cross references at the end before reaching conclusions you are wrong. You miss the point that the number of books in a shelf is less important than the content of the said books.

Once again you are trying to divert the subject to what I do or do not do.It is you who have failed to read Nilesh Oaks work and are trying to wriggle free with rhetoric.

Improbability and inconsistency are fancy words that describe your opinions, not proof of falsehood. Your pathetic protestations about your own ability in science are being laid bare by your prejudices that would do an evangelist preacher proud.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2095
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 02 Jul 2017 06:28

SriJoy wrote:
sudarshan wrote:And minor nitpick - Nilesh's dating of the Ramayana is 14000 YBP or 12000 BC, not 14000 BC.


that is a pretty big error, because its still 2000 years prior to any evidence of agriculture anywhere on the planet and decisively Wow, what a scientific observation this is - a truly scientific person wouldn't say "decisively," especially in a case like this. A truly scientific person would say - we as yet do not have evidence of agriculture anywhere on the planet in 12000 BC, so pending such confirmation, this theory of 12000 BC for the Ramayana is not fully validated. That is also my stance. But of course, you prefer the scientifically accurate "decisiveness" that it is "impossible" for the Ramayana to have happened in 12000 BC. so before Rice or wheat are farmed.
So my question to you ( or any ice age Ramayana followers) is simple : what did Rama eat then? Meat, maybe? We have scientifically proven Again, that scientific absolute certainty. No true scientist works on certainties like this. It is always tentative acceptance or rejection of theories, until better evidence comes along. The "scientifically proven" facts of today will undergo revision tomorrow. So anybody making these claims of "decisively disproving" or "decisively proving" stuff, doesn't understand what science really is, IMHO. You are free to have a different opinion, of course. that rice was domesticated in Southern China around 9000 BC. Wheat is from fertile crescent from 10,000-9,000 BC. So is barley. Oats are north Eurasian (cold climate) plants. Corn and potato are American, not seen in old world till 500 or so years ago. Oldest evidence of millet domestication is from NE China/Korean peninsula.
We are running out of grains that these ' ice-age Indian theoretical farmers' could be eating.

Lol! Again, please go through the specifics of archaeo-astronomy and the various dating attempts, and then tell me which ones of them makes this claim that each and every item of the texts is correct. And why should we take what our own ancestors said as fact, when our ancestors said that the Ramayana occurred in the Treta Yuga, which should have been at least 864,000 years ago (being the duration of the Dwapara Yuga)? Did we have farming back then, and does this gel with your claims of scientific accuracy?


if the concession is made that everything in Ramayana/mahabharata are not correct, then archaeo-astronomical angle again breaks down, because we cannot assume any of the nakshatras mentioned are not later additions or even then, which one is a later addition, which one isn't. Ergo, all the 'selective nakshatra usage' like you assign for vastly varying dates- they are all equally valid on their own.
So we end up at square 1 again.


This has already been thought of. The idea behind the archaeo-astronomical dating is to find "corroborative evidence" for a specific date. That's how the theory is built. Neither Vartak nor Nilesh Oak is claiming to have the last word on this date for the MB (or the Ramayana, in the case of Nilesh Oak). Their stance is, that this is the best theory available to date for the date of the MB or the Ramayana, not that they have "scientifically proven" that this is the date on which the MB war or the Ramayana events happened. Shri Nilesh Oak has, multiple times, welcomed the arrival of a better theory than his, and only lays claim to having the "best theory to date, based on astronomical evidence," for the date of the epics. Shri Nilesh Oak also mentioned, at the outset, that if his attempts to date the MB or the Ramayana instead proved that both these epics were pure fiction with no basis in facts, that he would happily embrace that theory. Shri Nilesh Oak has also outlined the reasons, step-by-step, why he slowly became convinced that the numerous astronomical references in the MB were mutually consistent, and also consistent with the observations of seasonal phenomenon (after accounting for precession, etc.) mentioned in the MB. This is all he's claiming, and all that I'm defending.

It is you who is bringing in these essentially unscientific notions of certainty and absolute proof that this cannot be the case. This, to me, is the marker of a highly unscientific mind. The scientific method does not deal with certainties and absolute truth theories, but with corroboration and falsification. If you don't understand this basic fact about science, and insist on certainties, then I'm through with this argument. Good luck on finding that certainty in any scientific theory.

Having said that, what is your objection to the date of 5565 BC for the MB? Your objections of "absolute certainty that there was no such thing as agriculture anywhere in the world before 10000 BC" don't hold good here. Do you have some other reason for rejecting this dating, other than your frivolous "archaeo-astronomy is a stupid field, because of the periodicity of astronomical phenomena" argument? Are you still concerned with "back-calculations?"

If it's back-calculation you're worried about, then please answer my earlier question about how anybody can back-calculate a one-time, non-periodic event, and insert that into the MB? If your claim is that it is just coincidental that this one-time event happened at a time which agrees with the rest of the "back-calculated and inserted into the MB" observations, than that is your theory, which it is upon you to prove. None of us have to buy your theory without "absolute certain proof that it is true" (which seems to be your gold-standard) or without "corroboration and lack of falsification" (which is the scientific standard).

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 » 02 Jul 2017 08:41

shiv wrote:Your argumentative rhetoric exceeds your displayed scientific ability by a gigantic margin. If you do not read an entire paper AND check all the cross references at the end before reaching conclusions you are wrong. You miss the point that the number of books in a shelf is less important than the content of the said books.


Shiv,

Now you are playing the game Western linguists play with Indians. Until you have read their literature and chased all their citations down, you can't comment on their conclusions, etc. -- really? Is that what you want to assert?

Unless you postulate that the people described in the Ramayana had cities, forts, grain farming, metal, writing, etc., that was since lost, later rediscovered a date like 14,000 years before present is untenable. Or else, there are some truly revolutionary archaeological discoveries to be made.

Unless you postulate that the Ramayana was pre-Vedic, or the archaeo-astronomical dates indicated in the Vedanga are artificially late dates, you cannot square a 14,000 year before present date for the Ramayana with the 5000-4000 years before present dates seemingly found in the Vedanga.

Or else you have to postulate that the Ramayana as we have it today, is a projection of an ancient story on to the material culture of a much later era, but somehow while all the references to material culture were reworked, the most ancient astronomical references remained intact.

One does not need to read an entire paper to be able to state this much. This is not some arguable thing like where R1a originated. This is closer to arguing that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. No one needs to read the citations and cross references first.

-Arun

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 » 02 Jul 2017 11:25

A_Gupta wrote:
shiv wrote:Your argumentative rhetoric exceeds your displayed scientific ability by a gigantic margin. If you do not read an entire paper AND check all the cross references at the end before reaching conclusions you are wrong. You miss the point that the number of books in a shelf is less important than the content of the said books.


Shiv,

Now you are playing the game Western linguists play with Indians. Until you have read their literature and chased all their citations down, you can't comment on their conclusions, etc. -- really? Is that what you want to assert?

No Arun. You don't normally miss nuances but this time you have. Please re read my sentence. I post it again for emphasis
If you do not read an entire paper AND check all the cross references at the end before reaching conclusions you are wrong.


I am referring to individual scientific papers, not entire bodies of literature. If you are going to rebut Nilesh Oak you need to have the basic courtesy to read his work before rebutting. You do not need to read all existing knowledge of astronomy and astrophysics.

Since you brought up the topic I would like to highlight the rhetorical trick played by SriJoy in the post to which I responded as above. He wrote, and I quote:
thats like saying i need to read the whole paper before i can comment on an obvious scientific improbability/inconsistency. Do you read the entire medical journal to confirm its wrong when it claims an obvious medical inconsistency


I asked him if he has read a paper and he asks me if I read an entire journal before reaching a conclusion. That is as clever a rhetorical shift of goalpost as I have ever seen. No do not need to read the entire journal, but if I am going to comment on a paper I_WILL_READ every word of the paper, look at every chart and table and image and go down the entire list of references to see if I can find the source of the information in the paper. This is basic stuff in reading scientific papers - something that I was taught in my early 20s while doing stuff like journal critiques and helping to write papers. And this is expected of anyone who reads a scientific paper.

The comment made by SriJoy is a laughable one as far as I am concerned - coming as it does from a person who boasted a few pages ago that he can parse almost any scientific paper on any subject given time. Bah. He does not even think it is necessary to read them in full. That is not science. It is rhetoric being passed off as scholarship, like linguists do,

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 » 02 Jul 2017 13:00

A_Gupta wrote:Unless you postulate that the people described in the Ramayana had cities, forts, grain farming, metal, writing, etc., that was since lost, later rediscovered a date like 14,000 years before present is untenable. Or else, there are some truly revolutionary archaeological discoveries to be made.

Unless you postulate that the Ramayana was pre-Vedic, or the archaeo-astronomical dates indicated in the Vedanga are artificially late dates, you cannot square a 14,000 year before present date for the Ramayana with the 5000-4000 years before present dates seemingly found in the Vedanga.

Or else you have to postulate that the Ramayana as we have it today, is a projection of an ancient story on to the material culture of a much later era, but somehow while all the references to material culture were reworked, the most ancient astronomical references remained intact.

One does not need to read an entire paper to be able to state this much. This is not some arguable thing like where R1a originated. This is closer to arguing that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. No one needs to read the citations and cross references first.

-Arun


Let me deal with this part separately - it has nothing to do with my earlier response and I will treat it as a separate question. And I will (as is perfectly convenient for me) simply not bother about any previous reading or any previous knowledge and make comments based solely on my existing biases.

It makes very little difference to me whether the date is 5000 bce or 14000 bce. If the story says that there were certain materials available back then I believe it because I have done no reading and have no information to the contrary, The idea that new materials were fitted into later tellings of the Ramayana mean nothing to me. As far as I am concerned those materials were probably there back in 5000 bce, 14000 bce or whenever.

Once I start reading more and more literature I start developing biases. Someone ( a reader of papers) says "there was no metal in 14000 bce". I ask "how do you know?" and that person says "Well archaeological finds have not found any metal and the technology did not exist"

I say "Balls, That means nothing. All metals are always re used and recycled - no one leaves metal lying around. And you don't know what technology existed back then"

Other than what you call as "education" which is what you are taught to believe as the truth today, there is no objection to the idea that the Ramayana is true in its entirety and took place 14,000 or more years ago

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1625
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

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

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 02 Jul 2017 13:54

I have a question for the gyanis and gurus :

I find that in the consciousness of the real India (leave aside the upper class urbantites and what is taught in schools) the vedas are thousands of years old..certainly much older than 3500 BC that I see on wikipedia. There is a cultural understanding of the different yugas as well so as a people we don't really identify with these 3500 BC dates. Also I have lived and travelled all over India and have never really found any big cultural differences...it all seems the same culture to me asking the same questions .....who am I, where am I going , why am I here, how does the universe work, what is karma. And the answers are the same, the epics are the same, the morals are the same, the stories are the same.

I don't find that when I came to the west or in the middle east. Its clearly a very different culture.

So how come this culture our culture has spread all across the country so organically and yet where we have had invasions (Pakistan and Afghanistan) its vanished. How can such a long lasting and deeply ingrained culture be the result of a primarily external influence. Doesn't compute.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1625
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

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

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 02 Jul 2017 14:03

another question...how doe we reconcile the yugas with these timelines. Are yugas as we know from Bhagwatam wrong and should we go for Sri Yukteswara's calculations ?

And how can Upansishads be dated only 500 BC ? They are the very basis of the philosophy....they permeate all other scriptures and epics.

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 » 02 Jul 2017 15:09

shiv wrote:Let me deal with this part separately - it has nothing to do with my earlier response and I will treat it as a separate question. And I will (as is perfectly convenient for me) simply not bother about any previous reading or any previous knowledge and make comments based solely on my existing biases.


OK

It makes very little difference to me whether the date is 5000 bce or 14000 bce. If the story says that there were certain materials available back then I believe it because I have done no reading and have no information to the contrary, The idea that new materials were fitted into later tellings of the Ramayana mean nothing to me. As far as I am concerned those materials were probably there back in 5000 bce, 14000 bce or whenever.


You do want a date for Sanskrit, I thought. The date when the Ramayana was written might help, no?

Once I start reading more and more literature I start developing biases. Someone ( a reader of papers) says "there was no metal in 14000 bce". I ask "how do you know?" and that person says "Well archaeological finds have not found any metal and the technology did not exist"

I say "Balls, That means nothing. All metals are always re used and recycled - no one leaves metal lying around. And you don't know what technology existed back then"


The fact is that while metals may be reused and recycled, some is lost, and that is why we find coins and tools and such from the past.

And btw, similar arguments can be used as to why there isn't archaeological evidence of chariots, a fact which you use against a connection between central Asia and India in the "Aryan" time-frame; namely "India developed a chariot-recycling culture".

Other than what you call as "education" which is what you are taught to believe as the truth today, there is no objection to the idea that the Ramayana is true in its entirety and took place 14,000 or more years ago


We can only deal with the truth as we know it today. We do know that it is always only provisional truth. And there is a tremendous body of knowledge that objects to the idea that the Ramayana took place 14,000 or more years ago. And most of it is not "education" it is by going around in the world. The same science that gives you nuclear power also gives you radiocarbon dating for example, and it gives dates for all kinds of things that contraindicate that 14,000 years.

But if you're retreating into la-la-land, I'll leave you alone. My word of caution though - the credibility of your work on the Aryan-Dravidian myth will be hit when young readers - whom presumably are the ones you want to reach - find out how ascientific you are being.

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 » 02 Jul 2017 15:12

shiv wrote:No Arun. You don't normally miss nuances but this time you have. Please re read my sentence. I post it again for emphasis
If you do not read an entire paper AND check all the cross references at the end before reaching conclusions you are wrong.


I am referring to individual scientific papers, not entire bodies of literature. If you are going to rebut Nilesh Oak you need to have the basic courtesy to read his work before rebutting. You do not need to read all existing knowledge of astronomy and astrophysics.


OK, missed that. Fair enough.

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 » 02 Jul 2017 15:39

shiv wrote:Here is a pdf of the translation of the Vedanga Jyotisha of 1280 BC. See pages 11 and 12 for "datable Vedic events"
http://www.insa.nic.in/writereaddata/Up ... Lagdha.pdf

Feel free to dismiss it as mumbo jumbo.


This is an excellent addition to the library. The oldest suggested date I could find in the text is 6000 years before present.

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 » 02 Jul 2017 15:49

Regarding backdating -
1. Something like the precession of equinoxes, once known, does not require sophisticated math to back-date.

2. The planetary conjunctions are probably backdated by computations that are sufficiently imprecise, which is why the dates that emerge are so out-of-tune with everything else that we know.

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 » 02 Jul 2017 16:20

shiv wrote:I forgot swords. I was thinking too much about the use of maces and arrows. At the risk of sounding stupid I ask - are swords mentioned in the Mahabharata?


In the Ramayana, Surpanakha's nose and ears are cut by Lakshmana's sword.
In the Mahabharata, the Pandavas Nakula & Sahadeva were masters of swordsmanship.

For that matter, the Rg Veda also mentions swords - but with the Veda one never knows if the translation is flawed.

A copper sword from the Harappan period can be seen in this youtube (an "antenna sword"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eXPPREV8To
I guess it escaped recycling :D

PS: the sword was burial goods.
http://asi.nic.in/asi_exca_2007_sanauli.asp

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 » 02 Jul 2017 16:45

People might remember this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26555

It proposes to push back the start of occupation of Ghagghar-Hakra sites of the Harappan culture from 5700 years before present to 9000 years before present.

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 » 02 Jul 2017 17:47

A_Gupta wrote:You do want a date for Sanskrit, I thought. The date when the Ramayana was written might help, no?

Correct. But I forgot to mention that my quest is a conditional one. The dates have to be obtained from sources that are acceptable to AITans. My work is completely pointless if I accept anything that Nilesh Oak or Vartak or Talageri has written. The idea it to let those works stand on their own merit. I cannot add to them but will not use them either (as far as possible) in order to collect up as much as possible from Western sources normally ignored by AIT supporters.

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 » 02 Jul 2017 18:42

A_Gupta wrote:
And btw, similar arguments can be used as to why there isn't archaeological evidence of chariots, a fact which you use against a connection between central Asia and India in the "Aryan" time-frame; namely "India developed a chariot-recycling culture".

Wood left on the surface rots. Wood can be recycled - to an extent. Gold can be recycled pretty much forever. Everything else corrodes. There is no evidence at all of chariots being buried anywhere south of BMAC (IIRC)

My argument is not that there are no buried chariots. Chariot burial and horse burial was not done. My argument is that one (ONE, 1, ek,) verse from the Rig Veda has been mistranslated to indicate a burial and further corrupted and mistranslated by Anthony as indicating horse burial. This mistranslation has been used to make the connection with Eurasia. There is more evidence of connection with the Levant and Arabia from Harappan times. You might also recall from earlier discussions that camel bones in Harappa are of the one-humped Arabian type and not the two-humped central Asian type.

Everyone thinks that the science of his era is the best ever. Carbon dating may give one dates where the carbon can be found. It will not date metal if metal is found. And where neither are found we will not get dates other than by indirect methods such as layers above or below that happen to have carbon dates. The problem is in getting dates where there is no physical evidence. That is what linguists have done. That is also accepted as "modern science" in an environment of "lets slap each other's backs and accept each other's words so long as we all publish within our framework and validate each other with our peers" style Universities where science and mumbo jumbo mix together to create "more knowledge" . Some of that, when critical to human life gets knocked down in a few years or decades. But huge lies that do not matter much simply carry on

In the 40s and 50s water bodies and rivers were though to be large enough to dilute effluents and render them harmless. We know how far that got us

Later plastics were the answer to every modern day convenience. 1960s science documentaries had plastic houses. Now we have discovered something called microplastics and we don't seem to like it.

Cholesterol. good fat, bad fat were all cursed or praised at one time and now everything is turning upside down

Science is good but when science has failed or has been too attractive to discard, both mumbo jumbo and assumptions have been par for the course and we need to keep an open mind about that. Archaeology and history are both examples of specialities where mumbo-jumbo has created fact where science fails and since no one dies or gets poisoned, peer reviewed bullshit can be passed of as truth. My la la land is no more ridiculous than what I have been taught by historians


We can only deal with the truth as we know it today. We do know that it is always only provisional truth.

Truth is always subjective. it requires great scholarship and wisdom to accept that as provisional. Most people don't get there - a fact that was utilized by "scientists", historians, orientalists, anthropologists and assorted charlatans and is increasingly being utilized by scientists today


But if you're retreating into la-la-land, I'll leave you alone.
Wise choice. Leaving me in la la land is a good idea because it is the historian and philologists prerogative to live in la la land knowing that no one can go back and check. I want a piece of that.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 02 Jul 2017 20:57

A_Gupta wrote:Unless you postulate that the Ramayana was pre-Vedic, or the archaeo-astronomical dates indicated in the Vedanga are artificially late dates, you cannot square a 14,000 year before present date for the Ramayana with the 5000-4000 years before present dates seemingly found in the Vedanga.

What am I missing here?

There is no need to postulate Ramayana as Pre-vedic and one can not postulate it as pre-vedic, otherwise it conflicts with chronological evidence of Veda-Ramayana-Mahabharata, etc.

Surya-Siddhanta is also a Vedanga and its latest update can be assigned to ~500 CE. Why that should have any perceived conflict with Ramayana occurring in ~12000 BCE!

Or else you have to postulate that the Ramayana as we have it today, is a projection of an ancient story on to the material culture of a much later era, but somehow while all the references to material culture were reworked, the most ancient astronomical references remained intact.

No need to do this. Ramayana descriptions do not contradict its timeline based on available evidence.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 03 Jul 2017 01:15

Arre baba, you are missing the point that 'evidence of agriculture' is not just about the archeological 'luck' of finding grains.It also involves genetic analysis of food grains with their wild counterparts to determine when divergence (thus domestication, thus farming) occurred. And that lines up with an upper limit of 8000-12,000 years ago, depending on the food crop we pick. This is what decisively contradicts Sir Nilesh Oak's theory. Only possibility remains that 'Rama civilization' just ate dal. But that is speculation form my part, because i don't know when dal was domesticated.

(1) You are confusing 'Absence of evidence with evidence of absence'

(2) Then you are falling prey to a disease worse than stated in (1), viz. Whatever is not found yet will never be found in the future.

(3) Then logical fallacy. e.g. "This is what decisively contradicts Sir Nilesh Oak's theory.". This neither contradicts DR. NO theory nor decisively. All it is saying is we have evidence for domestication of crops during 8000-12000 BP, or 'We do not have any evidence of domestication before 12000 BP, YET.

There are many more issues and challenges with how you infer things.. but this will do for now.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 03 Jul 2017 01:22

It doesn't matter if the whole arguement is 'absence of evidence is no evidence of absence' - a theory still must have evidence to support it. Otherwise we enter the same BS realm of religion, where any claim does not require evidence, just internal consistency.


'Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence' is not the argument. This is an explanation to show logical fallacy in your inferences.
--
Theory must have evidence in order to support it. The problem is you are looking for evidence in a wrong place, i.e. for a theory based on astronomy in domestication of crops.

A visual astronomy theory should be tested using relevant astronomy evidence. Of course, once you are convinced of it, then you can move on to other disciplines of sciences (genetics, domestication, migration, hydrology, geology, anthropology, oceanography, climatology, archaeology...on and on) and state what evidence (if any) from one or more of these disciplines of science seems to contradict inferences due to 'Astronomy theory'.

That is the method of science. One may make progress by following such path. Otherwise it is Cavil - Vitanda-Vada.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 03 Jul 2017 01:27

You know perfectly well that 'proof of falsehood' is not how science works, it works on the basis of proving a positive (i.e.,prove your position).
As for prejudices, i am sorry but the only prejudice shown here, are the ones wishing a date on an ancient epic that is thousands of years older than any evidence found for farming anywhere on the planet.


May be this is what is causing such a confused stuff coming from you.

Nope, science does not work the way you are describing. Science is not into 'Proving a theory'. Yes, likes of Francis Beacon were confused about it, but science and logic of scientific method have come long way from such inductive nonsense.

Science is all about making bold, courageous theories and then testing their consequences against the evidence. Science is about CORROBORATION (and NOT PROVING) and about FALSIFICATION (and not DISPROVING).

And one only hopes that you get out of your rut.. where you are trying test a astronomy theory by citing ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE for domestication of crops (farming).

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 03 Jul 2017 02:01

A_Gupta wrote:Regarding backdating -
1. Something like the precession of equinoxes, once known, does not require sophisticated math to back-date.

2. The planetary conjunctions are probably backdated by computations that are sufficiently imprecise, which is why the dates that emerge are so out-of-tune with everything else that we know.


(1) Fair.

(2) Why deal in probabilities and speculations! Why not cite specific planetary conjunctions and then state what is 'sufficiently imprecise' about them!

The dates that emerge are well corroborated with evidence THAT IS FOUND from hydrology, oceanography, seismology, anthropology, genetics.

THE EVIDENCE THAT IS FOUND from the field of archaeology, evolution, linguistics or any other (name it here) DOES NOT contradict my findings based on astronomy theory (12209 BCE for Ramayana or 5561 BCE for Mahabharata).

So, I am at loss to understand the basis of such speculations ("the dates that emerge are so out-of-tune with everything else that we know.")

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 03 Jul 2017 02:04

err, science is all about calling proven/provable ideas as facts and having a clear difference between hypothesis (theoretically possible but unproven) and fact.
It most definitely is not about ' i have a hypothesis, which is theoretically possible but with zero proof, so its fact until you can find evidence otherwise'.
Science is empiric-meaning proof is what makes a hypothesis into a scientific theory (which is not what 'theory' means in common english. thats where the confusion is- what common English calls a 'theory', is actually a hypothesis).


This is all good. What prevents you from practicing it?

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 03 Jul 2017 02:28

SriJoy,

If you refuse to comprehend, not much can be done. If you were sincere, you would have taken advice of many others, read my books and critiqued specific points.

You are going in circles and that is trolling.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2095
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 03 Jul 2017 02:48

when we put wheat, rice, etc under test and analyze their genome, we find their domestication dates in 8000-12,000 years ago date- which is 2000 years newer at the very least, from your proposed date.
Put it another way: For e.g.: Man was *definitely not* farming rice 14,000 years ago. Because rice was domesticated around 8,000 BC. Paper quoting it is already provided.


So they tested rice and wheat, and found that their domestication dates were later than 10000 BC. Pardon the q by a genetics noob, but what if there were strains which were farmed before 10000 BC, say in 15000 BC, which went totally extinct in say 5000 BC (so that we have no access to their genes for analysis today), and other strains which were farmed in 8000 BC managed to survive to the present day? We analyze the surviving strains, and that shows that these strains could not have been domesticated before 10000 BC. What do we know of what strains (or even wholly different species of grain which might have served as food in 12000 BC) went extinct in the interim?

IOW, all we can say is, that the strains of rice and wheat which we have available for analysis today, could not have been domesticated earlier than 10000 BC. Right?

Am I missing something here? If so, would appreciate some gyaan on this.

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 » 03 Jul 2017 04:32

shiv wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:You do want a date for Sanskrit, I thought. The date when the Ramayana was written might help, no?

Correct. But I forgot to mention that my quest is a conditional one. The dates have to be obtained from sources that are acceptable to AITans. My work is completely pointless if I accept anything that Nilesh Oak or Vartak or Talageri has written. The idea it to let those works stand on their own merit. I cannot add to them but will not use them either (as far as possible) in order to collect up as much as possible from Western sources normally ignored by AIT supporters.


Thanks!

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 » 03 Jul 2017 08:09

sudarshan wrote:
when we put wheat, rice, etc under test and analyze their genome, we find their domestication dates in 8000-12,000 years ago date- which is 2000 years newer at the very least, from your proposed date.
Put it another way: For e.g.: Man was *definitely not* farming rice 14,000 years ago. Because rice was domesticated around 8,000 BC. Paper quoting it is already provided.


So they tested rice and wheat, and found that their domestication dates were later than 10000 BC. Pardon the q by a genetics noob, but what if there were strains which were farmed before 10000 BC, say in 15000 BC, which went totally extinct in say 5000 BC (so that we have no access to their genes for analysis today), and other strains which were farmed in 8000 BC managed to survive to the present day? We analyze the surviving strains, and that shows that these strains could not have been domesticated before 10000 BC. What do we know of what strains (or even wholly different species of grain which might have served as food in 12000 BC) went extinct in the interim?

IOW, all we can say is, that the strains of rice and wheat which we have available for analysis today, could not have been domesticated earlier than 10000 BC. Right?

Am I missing something here? If so, would appreciate some gyaan on this.


It's about blinkers and far reaching conclusions from a very narrow knowledge base
Here 's a link to Harappan agriculture from a very recent date - about 4500 years ago.
http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/kashyap326/

It lists the following food items being consumed at Harappa
    Wheat
    Rice
    Barley
    Millet
    Gram
    Horsegram
    Squash
    Eggplant
    Mango
    Ginger
    Garlic
    Turmeric
    Yam

This indicates not just highly developed agriculture - but advanced culinary practices for food flavoring and colour because no one actually eats Turmeric or garlic directly as food.

What we are discussing here are the genomes of only rice and wheat. There are dozens or other plant genomes that need to be compared with ancient finds in order to reach conclusions about the antiquity of agriculture in general

But so far the following has been described as "scientific fact from "pir" reviewed sources"
    1 Rig Veda: One verse fits the bill - therefore vedas related to Eurasian horse burial
    2. Yavana: One word = Greek and therefore Panini was contemporaneous with what we think we know of Greeks in India
    3. Rice One genome: has been dated to X years and therefore ALL agriculture can be dated to that date
    4. Mitanni: A few tablets found from 1500 BC and we claim that that must have existed before language came to India - so Rig Veda = 1000 BC

We are conditioned to swallowing crap form western sources even when there is plenty of information present that needs to be analyzed but is simply ignored to reach dogmatic conclusion

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 » 03 Jul 2017 08:46

SriJoy wrote:Seems to me that your implication is that whatever science is presented, if its from western sources and not aligned to our literature, it *must* be wrong.

"Seems to me" - is correct. It is your prerogative to state what you think and not present it as the ultimate truth, buttressed by boastful claims to a monopoly on scientific temper. You spend more time boasting and analyzing other people's motivations and psyche than actually showing an ability to read and accept another viewpoint as a viewpoint and not as dogma.

I am quite content to accept that you dispute the dates I have for Panini. I dispute your claims. I do not give a rat's ass about what you feel about that or my motivations and my moods - all of which you have commented about earlier. That means nothing to me or to dates of Panini's life. Ultimately what matters is what people see and find in literature over a period of many years and hundreds of publications. Your acceptance and my insistence and vice versa mean zilch other than temporary forum ego massaging

In my opinion you are wasting your time posting irrelevant tripe about your personal abilities and other's motivations. You are allowed to have different views - you don't need my permission for that. But if you get upset with alternate viewpoints and try and push your view as the best and most well informed because of your singular abilities as opposed to others' moods and motivations as analyzed by you - no one actually gives a damn. Except maybe to have a laugh at yet another guy who is on here jumping up and down telling everyone that he knows best.

Post your view and any proof that you have and people will either accept or not accept. That is all. The rest is fluff.

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 » 03 Jul 2017 09:00

SriJoy wrote:its disingenous to insert biological analysis such as rice genomics, in the same category as Rig Veda or Yavana. the former is peer reviewed empirical science. the latter are not empirical science fields.
.

The following reply is not about you or your towering scientific wisdom. It is about how your beloved science is used in academic circles.

It is equally disingenuous to take carbon dates of Steppe burials of horses and link that to third-party translations of the Vedas that mention horses and claim that Horses existed in the steppe in 2400 BC and therefore found mention in the Vedas later and therefore dating the Vedas to 1500 BC. And to add to this stupidity we now have geneticists looking for migrations - reading "history books" that tell them that Aryans migrated from the steppe with language (and horses) and arrived in India around 1500 BC - and therefore any genetic evidence of migration around 1500 BC was the Aryan migration.

Anyhow - this will be my last post addressed to you. You are a forum member with full rights to post what you want, but I have those rights too and will exercise my rights without wasting any more time on your views - which are your own and your prerogative to hold.
Last edited by shiv on 03 Jul 2017 09:31, 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 » 03 Jul 2017 09:08

Akshay Kapoor wrote:I find that in the consciousness of the real India (leave aside the upper class urbantites and what is taught in schools) the vedas are thousands of years old..certainly much older than 3500 BC that I see on wikipedia. There is a cultural understanding of the different yugas as well so as a people we don't really identify with these 3500 BC dates. Also I have lived and travelled all over India and have never really found any big cultural differences...it all seems the same culture to me asking the same questions .....who am I, where am I going , why am I here, how does the universe work, what is karma. And the answers are the same, the epics are the same, the morals are the same, the stories are the same.

I don't find that when I came to the west or in the middle east. Its clearly a very different culture.

So how come this culture our culture has spread all across the country so organically and yet where we have had invasions (Pakistan and Afghanistan) its vanished. How can such a long lasting and deeply ingrained culture be the result of a primarily external influence. Doesn't compute.


Akshay I think the answer is OT here.

If you look at Africa, Europe, Australia and South America from before 1 BC they had multiple religions, multiple faiths and multiple Gods. Some even had philosophies that would sound familiar to us. These faiths were all killed by Christianity first and later Islam. Both are similar religions where
1. God is said to punish people who don't accept him
2. that punishment is meted out by humans who believe in that God.

To me, what is surprising is not that the culture does in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but that it survived in India against religions that use death as punishment for not agreeing with them

Nowadays that tendency is showing a rethink in the west, but islam remains as it was - killing those who disagree

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2095
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 03 Jul 2017 09:11

If that's what the current state of genetics says about rice or wheat domestication, then that's that, but treating that as the final word on domestication is still silly. Evidence to date from genetics does not agree with the astronomically derived dating for the Ramayana. This is still not falsification of the astronomically derived date, though. So on that note, I'm signing off on this particular debate.

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 » 03 Jul 2017 09:21

Akshay Kapoor wrote:another question...how doe we reconcile the yugas with these timelines. Are yugas as we know from Bhagwatam wrong and should we go for Sri Yukteswara's calculations ?

And how can Upansishads be dated only 500 BC ? They are the very basis of the philosophy....they permeate all other scriptures and epics.


Upanishads have been dated to 500 BC as follows:

William Jones did an English translation of Vedas and felt they were older than Biblical dates. Jones speculated that the Vedas dated from the 1500 to 1000 BC time period.

Jones and later European "scholars" said: (in summary)

1. We date Rig Veda to 1500 BC (this was simply speculation - starting from Jones)
2. We think it must have taken at least 500 years to compose verses starting with Rig veda and ending with Atharva Veda - so Atharva Veda was dated to 1000 BC
3. We think that commentaries on the Vedas and post-Vedic texts must have taken 500 years to write. So we date Upanishads to about 500 BC

I am not bluffing but you will need to do a lot of searching to get the sources of this information . But it is all "out there" No secret. Starting with William Jones' is a good idea. A fellow called Witzel also corroborates this but Witzel's work is voluminous and boring.

Note that no science was used in cooking up these dates. Amazingly educated Indians believe this shit.

For further information about how dates were "created" I request you to read my two articles in Swarajya that have appeared in the last 2-3 weeks. I can discuss further after that.

https://swarajyamag.com/culture/migrati ... not-really
https://swarajyamag.com/culture/aryans- ... y-scholars

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

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

Postby chandrasekaran » 03 Jul 2017 10:51

Some very interesting readings, about Ramayana and Rama Sethu here.

http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/s ... am%20Sethu


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinash Rav, dinesh_kimar, dineshchaturvedi, KJo, kumarn, yensoy and 73 guests