Bharat Rakshak

Here is more info for the next bang reasearch. All we need is to find few DNA in desh.. wonder asvah was considered Hindu cremation rights like gau-mata.. then most likely we will never find evidences.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/ ... amily-tree

BhishamPitamah on Bed Of Arrow :

Prem wrote:BhishamPitamah on Bed Of Arrow :

Prem ji, Any specific time segment out of this 48 min long clip that is specific to Bhishma on bed of arrows?

Thanks

Nilesh

Starting at 5.10. Interesting take on Bhishma teaching Dharma to Yudishtra.

Had an exchange with Dr. Kumaraswamy Thangaraj. He said Rakhigarhi DNA publication would take several months. So, those holding their breath, please don't. The article in Chindu by Tony Joseph earlier this year (that a paper was due soon), was a lie - just like other lies by him and the Chindu.

Mahabharata workshop at AdiShankara Nilayam (Birthplace of Adi Shankaracharya) with Nilesh Nilkanth Oak & Nagaraj Paturi

Focus: Statecraft & Astronomy of Mahabharata (with relevance for current and future issues facing Modern Bharat). This includes AIT, OIT, among many others.

(organized by Chinmaya International Foundation & Chinmaya Vishwa Vidyapeeth)

2-6 June 2018

Will you be there?

For more info (additional information coming soon to the link below). Feel free to forward to those you think would be interested in attending.

https://www.chinfo.org/index.php/event/ ... ern-bharat

Prem wrote:Starting at 5.10. Interesting take on Bhishma teaching Dharma to Yudishtra.

It was an enjoyable discussion. Is Amish in the PIF camp? I hope he is not another Devdutt Pattanaik in making.

Interesting take on IVC seals at 35.00. Planetary alignment in 3102 BC and then ASI politics at 38.00

http://prekshaa.in/debunking-aryan-drav ... p532oLas3E
Debunking the Aryan-Dravidian Issue: An Indigenous Approach

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 209959.cms
Filling up gaps created by earlier historians: Minister

NEW DELHI: Carbon dating of archaeological sites like Bhirrana and Rakhigarhi in Haryana suggest origins of civilisation in India date back to 7,000-6,000 BC and there is a need to establish a correlation of these dates with those of the Vedas, a committee on Indic culture has held.
The discussion in the committee, under the ministry of culture, and mandated with conducting a "holistic study" of evolution of Indian culture, point to an effort to examine the historicity of Indian traditions and ancient religious literature.

The minutes of the deliberations, accessed by TOI, show that committee's chairman and former Archaeological Survey of India functionary K N Dikshit recommended that it is essential "to establish a correlation of these dates vis-a-vis the dates of Vedas and the epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata".

My latest commentary at Pragyata.com (4 of 4)

http://www.pragyata.com/mag/mahabharata ... 67-bce-474

--
For the context, here is the background, in that sequence....

Prof. Achar writes.. (1 of 4)

http://www.pragyata.com/mag/thoughts-on ... ta-war-453

Nilesh responds... (2 of 4)

http://www.pragyata.com/mag/thoughts-on ... ta-war-462

Prof. Achar responds... (3 of 4)

http://www.pragyata.com/mag/mahabharata ... 61-bce-466

The western limits of migration from the Pontic steppe.
Four millennia of Iberian biomolecular prehistory illustrate the impact of prehistoric migrations at the far end of Eurasia
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1717762115
Abstract:

Abstract

Population genomic studies of ancient human remains have shown how modern-day European population structure has been shaped by a number of prehistoric migrations. The Neolithization of Europe has been associated with large-scale migrations from Anatolia, which was followed by migrations of herders from the Pontic steppe at the onset of the Bronze Age. Southwestern Europe was one of the last parts of the continent reached by these migrations, and modern-day populations from this region show intriguing similarities to the initial Neolithic migrants. Partly due to climatic conditions that are unfavorable for DNA preservation, regional studies on the Mediterranean remain challenging. Here, we present genome-wide sequence data from 13 individuals combined with stable isotope analysis from the north and south of Iberia covering a four-millennial temporal transect (7,500–3,500 BP). Early Iberian farmers and Early Central European farmers exhibit significant genetic differences, suggesting two independent fronts of the Neolithic expansion. The first Neolithic migrants that arrived in Iberia had low levels of genetic diversity, potentially reflecting a small number of individuals; this diversity gradually increased over time from mixing with local hunter-gatherers and potential population expansion. The impact of post-Neolithic migrations on Iberia was much smaller than for the rest of the continent, showing little external influence from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. Paleodietary reconstruction shows that these populations have a remarkable degree of dietary homogeneity across space and time, suggesting a strong reliance on terrestrial food resources despite changing culture and genetic make-up.

Nilesh Oak wrote:My latest commentary at Pragyata.com (4 of 4)

Prof. Achar responds... (3 of 4)

http://www.pragyata.com/mag/mahabharata ... 61-bce-466

The change in her behavior occurs in 11091 BCE. She was following Vasishtha, but changes into leading Vasishtha. That is when the change triggers an omen. Not in 4508 BCE, when the change is in the opposite direction and certainly not in 5561 BCE. In 5501 BCE, she is still leading Vasishtha, but the amount by which she leads is decreasing. For some five thousand and five hundred years, Arundhati is leading Vasistha, not following! If Oak were to use this information, then the War should have taken place in 11091 BCE and not in 5561 BCE.

Nileshji, Do you think you need to discuss further with this gentleman for giving such an absurd reply ?

Murugan wrote:

Nilesh Oak wrote:My latest commentary at Pragyata.com (4 of 4)

Prof. Achar responds... (3 of 4)

http://www.pragyata.com/mag/mahabharata ... 61-bce-466

The change in her behavior occurs in 11091 BCE. She was following Vasishtha, but changes into leading Vasishtha. That is when the change triggers an omen. Not in 4508 BCE, when the change is in the opposite direction and certainly not in 5561 BCE. In 5501 BCE, she is still leading Vasishtha, but the amount by which she leads is decreasing. For some five thousand and five hundred years, Arundhati is leading Vasistha, not following! If Oak were to use this information, then the War should have taken place in 11091 BCE and not in 5561 BCE.

Nileshji, Do you think you need to discuss further with this gentleman for giving such an absurd reply ?

Please write your comment (ditto) at Pragyata.com, in response to this article (3 of 4).

Some dull brained individuals who are commenting there think I am being offensive in my language to the old and learned Professor!

Interview with aDNA-ist David Reich:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ry/554798/

A_Gupta wrote:Interview with aDNA-ist David Reich:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ry/554798/

one of the things the ancient DNA is showing is actually the Corded Ware culture does correspond coherently to a group of people....Our results are actually almost diametrically opposite from what Kossina thought because these Corded Ware people come from the East, a place that Kossina would have despised as a source for them.

^^^Nazis looked down on the Slavs as an inferior people.

The number of times the European genetic picture has been "rebooted" is interesting. It will be 3000 years before linguists and archaeologists understand.

There is a simple way out for all the groups who have made expansion of "PIE" a sort of political slugfest..

Just expand on the concept of 16 lands (give similar theory) created by Ahura Mazda...all outposts of late PIE and each expanding to varying degrees and making up later "cultures" and civilizations and "Zoroaster" belonging to one of them..
Just Forget PIE

sudarshan wrote:

sudarshan wrote: Now, please tell me, the naked eye resolving limit being about 1 arc minute, is 9 arc minutes enough of a difference for a human observer, or not?

I'm guilty of a little oversight in my earlier post. The RA difference between Mizar and Alcor is indeed 19.5 arc minutes currently, and (if Voyager, Stellarium, etc. can be trusted) was around -8.7 arc minutes (Alcor being ahead of Mizar) back in 5900 BC. But this is not the same as angular separation.

Whether or not the stars can be distinguished by the naked eye, depends on the angular separation (not the RA difference), but which one is "ahead" on the celestial sphere depends on the RA difference (not on the angular separation).

I'll elaborate in a later post.

Soon to elaborate on the above, with a nice little chart .

In the meantime, I've downloaded Stellarium version L.G. (Latest.Greatest., as of last month) and played with it. I remember the earlier version of Stellarium that I tried out clearly showed the Arundhati/ Vashishta phenomenon, and this version is no different. In fact, I (re)-re-generated the graph that Nilesh Oak had in his MB dating book, using Stellarium 0.17. I had re-generated Nilesh ji's graph earlier, using the older version of Stellarium also. The numbers are practically identical to Voyager (Nilesh's work), i.e, about 500 arc-seconds RA separation back in around 5900 BC (between A and V) and about 1200 arc-seconds RA separation currently (but V leading A now, instead of A leading V back in 5900 BC). I can post the graphs here.

But the more important point is (and this is part of the elaboration on the point I made in my earlier post), that RA difference is NOT the same as angular separation. The angular separation between A and V back in 5900 BC was actually slightly GREATER than it is today. So A and V would have been better distinguishable back then, especially without all the light pollution we have today (this of course assumes that people back then had about the same vision that we do now - if anybody wants to quibble about that, please feel free to do so).

So, even though the RA difference between A and V back in 5900 BC was ~9 arc minutes, and is around 19.5 arc minutes today, A and V were BETTER distinguishable back in 5900 BC.

As an analogy (this analogy is actually pretty exact, since latitude and longitude on earth are essentially the same coordinate measures as declination and RA on the celestial sphere):

Helsinki, Finland, lies at a longitude of around 24.95 deg. E.

Kimberly, S. Africa, lies at a longitude of around 24.74 deg. E.

Does this mean that Helsinki, Finland, is practically at the same location as Kimberly, S. Africa? No, because the latitudes are way different. Elementary, right? Same with Arundhati and Vashishta back in 5900 BC - the RA difference was less than today, but there is also another celestial coordinate (Declination), and the overall angular separation was actually greater back in 5900 BC than today.

Nilesh ji, for those quibbling about "Oh,Arundhati had been ahead of Vashishta for X,000 years by 5565 BC, if Vyasa had really lived in 5565 BCE, why would He make such a big deal of A/ V?" Maybe an appropriate response would be:

Why do people today keep saying "ghor Kaliyug," and blaming all the ills of the present on Kaliyug? Why only today, when Kaliyug has been going on X,000 years? So future generations, if they read about someone in our current generation complaining about Kaliyug, must assume that the guy complaining lived, not in 2018 CE, but back in X,000 BCE. Or that any guy living in 2018 CE has no cause to complain about Kaliyug. Same logic, yes?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... es/555674/
"New finds from Kenya suggest that humans used long-distance trade networks, sophisticated tools, and symbolic pigments right from the dawn of our species."

Murugan wrote:

Nilesh Oak wrote:My latest commentary at Pragyata.com (4 of 4)

Prof. Achar responds... (3 of 4)

http://www.pragyata.com/mag/mahabharata ... 61-bce-466

The change in her behavior occurs in 11091 BCE. She was following Vasishtha, but changes into leading Vasishtha. That is when the change triggers an omen. Not in 4508 BCE, when the change is in the opposite direction and certainly not in 5561 BCE. In 5501 BCE, she is still leading Vasishtha, but the amount by which she leads is decreasing. For some five thousand and five hundred years, Arundhati is leading Vasistha, not following! If Oak were to use this information, then the War should have taken place in 11091 BCE and not in 5561 BCE.

Nileshji, Do you think you need to discuss further with this gentleman for giving such an absurd reply ?

What is absurd in the reply?

sudarshan wrote:Nilesh ji, for those quibbling about "Oh,Arundhati had been ahead of Vashishta for X,000 years by 5565 BC, if Vyasa had really lived in 5565 BCE, why would He make such a big deal of A/ V?" Maybe an appropriate response would be:

Why do people today keep saying "ghor Kaliyug," and blaming all the ills of the present on Kaliyug? ....

Because it is written in the Purans the various ills that would descend on the society because of Kaliyuga. In a way the prediction is coming true. It is definetely not a case of omen! Dr Achar makes a solid point that AV was no omen in 5565 BC. It certainly could be construed one in ~11000 BC. Achar has hit a six.

sudarshan wrote:

sudarshan wrote:
I'm guilty of a little oversight in my earlier post. The RA difference between Mizar and Alcor is indeed 19.5 arc minutes currently, and (if Voyager, Stellarium, etc. can be trusted) was around -8.7 arc minutes (Alcor being ahead of Mizar) back in 5900 BC. But this is not the same as angular separation.

Whether or not the stars can be distinguished by the naked eye, depends on the angular separation (not the RA difference), but which one is "ahead" on the celestial sphere depends on the RA difference (not on the angular separation).

I'll elaborate in a later post.

Soon to elaborate on the above, with a nice little chart .

In the meantime, I've downloaded Stellarium version L.G. (Latest.Greatest., as of last month) and played with it. I remember the earlier version of Stellarium that I tried out clearly showed the Arundhati/ Vashishta phenomenon, and this version is no different. In fact, I (re)-re-generated the graph that Nilesh Oak had in his MB dating book, using Stellarium 0.17. I had re-generated Nilesh ji's graph earlier, using the older version of Stellarium also. The numbers are practically identical to Voyager (Nilesh's work), i.e, about 500 arc-seconds RA separation back in around 5900 BC (between A and V) and about 1200 arc-seconds RA separation currently (but V leading A now, instead of A leading V back in 5900 BC). I can post the graphs here.

But the more important point is (and this is part of the elaboration on the point I made in my earlier post), that RA difference is NOT the same as angular separation. The angular separation between A and V back in 5900 BC was actually slightly GREATER than it is today. So A and V would have been better distinguishable back then, especially without all the light pollution we have today (this of course assumes that people back then had about the same vision that we do now - if anybody wants to quibble about that, please feel free to do so).

So, even though the RA difference between A and V back in 5900 BC was ~9 arc minutes, and is around 19.5 arc minutes today, A and V were BETTER distinguishable back in 5900 BC.

As an analogy (this analogy is actually pretty exact, since latitude and longitude on earth are essentially the same coordinate measures as declination and RA on the celestial sphere):

Helsinki, Finland, lies at a longitude of around 24.95 deg. E.

Kimberly, S. Africa, lies at a longitude of around 24.74 deg. E.

Does this mean that Helsinki, Finland, is practically at the same location as Kimberly, S. Africa? No, because the latitudes are way different. Elementary, right? Same with Arundhati and Vashishta back in 5900 BC - the RA difference was less than today, but there is also another celestial coordinate (Declination), and the overall angular separation was actually greater back in 5900 BC than today.

Have you noticed that ~11000 BC AV system does rise but not in 5565

Lets keep aside the point of whether Vyasa meant the AV observation as a "bad omen" or not. Achar's argument occurred to me and to several others as well.

The bottomline is this: if Vyasa described the AV phenomenon, then our archaeo-astronomy needs to take it into account. We cannot selectively leave it out. Give me a good reason to leave out the AV observation, while taking all others into account.

What do things like the following have to do with "Out-of-India"?
Nothing direct.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/e ... ce.aar8380
Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations
Abstract:
North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.

Summary:
https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/st ... qwLDGeBxps

Prem Kumar wrote:Lets keep aside the point of whether Vyasa meant the AV observation as a "bad omen" or not. ..

But that is precisely the point. Vyasa starts off that discussion with Dhritrashtra by talking about bad omens. How does one leave it out?

An observation that became true in 11000 BC and remained true for thousands of years cannot be considered a bad omen in 5565 BC.

Prem Kumar wrote:Lets keep aside the point of whether Vyasa meant the AV observation as a "bad omen" or not. Achar's argument occurred to me and to several others as well.

The bottom-line is this: if Vyasa described the AV phenomenon, then our archaeo-astronomy needs to take it into account. We cannot selectively leave it out. Give me a good reason to leave out the AV observation, while taking all others into account.

Correct.

In addition, It does not matter who is confused beyond measure ...whether it is Prof Achar or our dear San Pietro, each one of them have to explain this AV observation for their own borrowed proposal, 3067 BCE (courtesy: Prof. Srinivas Raghavan)

Since they cannot do it, they are doing Vitanda! If Achar or San Pietro think 11000 BCE is the time of Mahabharata, they have to show how it matches with evidence. Any date after 11091 BCE and before 4508 BCE will corroborate AV observation. This is my gift to them. After that, they are on their own!
--

Sage Gotama defines Vitanda crisply and succinctly

स्वप्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनो "वितंडा " Nyayadarshan 1:2:3

(वितंडा (cavil) is wrangling (जल्प ) yet worse because this consists in mere attacks on the other side without one providing the solution to the problem one is claiming!

sudarshan wrote:Nilesh ji, for those quibbling about "Oh,Arundhati had been ahead of Vashishta for X,000 years by 5565 BC, if Vyasa had really lived in 5565 BCE, why would He make such a big deal of A/ V?" Maybe an appropriate response would be:

Why do people today keep saying "ghor Kaliyug," and blaming all the ills of the present on Kaliyug? Why only today, when Kaliyug has been going on X,000 years? So future generations, if they read about someone in our current generation complaining about Kaliyug, must assume that the guy complaining lived, not in 2018 CE, but back in X,000 BCE. Or that any guy living in 2018 CE has no cause to complain about Kaliyug. Same logic, yes?

Sudarshan ji

This is indeed a great response.

The issue, of course, is that the dogmatic crowd who has placed all their eggs in one basket; have employed a nonsensical/nonscientific approach to the problem of Mahabharata chronology are fearful, scared and finding popular means to distract innocent individuals.

This is a standard reaction experienced by all revolutionary theories. And for that reason, we should welcome it.

Thanks

Cheers!

All,

My plenary talk at Swadeshi Indology conference - 3 @ IIT -Chennai (Madras) on 'What falsifies Aryan Invasion Theory'

https://youtu.be/ctH7SW0_TFA

(I expect that you will see links to talks by many of our BRFites in the next few days).

Warm regards,

Nilesh Oak

Nilesh Oak wrote:All,

My plenary talk at Swadeshi Indology conference - 3 @ IIT -Chennai (Madras) on 'What falsifies Aryan Invasion Theory'

Nilesh Oak

Nilesh Ji,

How was your talk received at IIT Chennai? I am asking because IIT-C has a lots of people who are proponents of AIT and the Aryan / Dravidian divide. I enjoyed your talk.

Regards
A

ashbhee wrote:

Nilesh Oak wrote:All,

My plenary talk at Swadeshi Indology conference - 3 @ IIT -Chennai (Madras) on 'What falsifies Aryan Invasion Theory'

Nilesh Oak

Nilesh Ji,

How was your talk received at IIT Chennai? I am asking because IIT-C has a lots of people who are proponents of AIT and the Aryan / Dravidian divide. I enjoyed your talk.

Regards
A

Thank you for your kind words.

The talk was received very well (exceedingly well) by those who attended. Do keep in mind that the audience was from all over and not limited to those from IIT-Chennai.

Majority of those who attended my talk approached me after the talk, during the next 3 days, and made specific comments (all of them either congratulatory or affirmative). Some of them spent extended time discussing deeper aspects of points I covered only as summary during the talk itself.

Not strictly speaking out of India, but this landmark (but largely unnoticed I think - apologies if it has been posted before) talk by Professors Joydeep Bagchi and Vishwa Adluri - on the deliberate distortions of history, the systematic erasure of civlisational meaning in non-Western environments and of their own pre-Christian milieu, the almost evil and considered manner in which this is done - is an ABSOLUTE MUST WATCH in its entirety. It has tremendous resonance with what we have been discussing in this thread and for decades on BRF.

Part 1 - Indic Talk on ''The Enduring Meaning of the Mahabharata'' - Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqtGUs_OW54

Part 2 - Indic Talk on ''The Enduring Meaning of the Mahabharata'' - Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7ClV9M3Lco

^^^^ JEM, thanks!
Brilliant question - Who wants to trap you in history and why?

Other JEMs -- paraphrasing
History only lies, mythology tells you the truth.
History tries to hide the fact that it is only yet another narrative.
History is such an epistemically deficient category that raising the question (of the historicity of the Mahabharata) is going to block off your understanding of the epic in the first place.
(HIstory cannot serve the purpose of answering two questions vital to humans - what is real?, and what should I do?)
The worst thing that can happen to the Ramayana is the finding of Rama Setu - in one instant, the Ramayana will be turned into a dinosaur bone in Jurassic Park.
The worst thing that can happen to the epics is to be historicized when their function is to historicize history itself (i.e., put history in perspective to the cosmos).
Indian culture has resisted history more than any other.
"If history is reality, you have to die before you are real".

Panel Discussion on the Current state of Aryan Theories : Swadeshi Indology

Panelists Sri Shrikant Talageri , Sri Shiv Shastry, Sri Gyaneshwer Chaubey , Sri P Priyadarshi, Sri Nilesh Oak, Moderated by Sri Rajiv Malhotra

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmeVR8sqSd4

I know it. You guys are twice the age I am, at least.

On Topic,

These days, people are bringing up genetics to AMT discussions. I admit I have next to no knowledge when it comes to genetics. Small confusion bugging me too much though.

Let's consider this scenario,

Many Africans were trafficked to US during old days. Fast forward 2000 years into future. Blacks became dominant race in US. How does genetics help me identify the founding fathers of US fortunes?

I remember watching The Men Who Built America TV series on History channel. They might be not accurate. But one thing is evident. White people from Europe built today's US.

Now some genetic guy comes to me. And tells me that Africans migrated to US and brought the culture. He shows me the evidence from genetic studies. There is clear movement of male thing in genome(?). It's true. There was a movement from Africa to America. But did they bring English language and culture to America?

syam wrote:He shows me the evidence from genetic studies. There is clear movement of male thing in genome(?). It's true. There was a movement from Africa to America. But did they bring English language and culture to America?

Genetics will NOT tell you about language and culture.

shiv wrote: Genetics will NOT tell you about language and culture.

Then how come it helps AMT?

According to Dipankar and some other folks, this is final proof to migration theory..

syam wrote:

shiv wrote: Genetics will NOT tell you about language and culture.

Then how come it helps AMT?

According to Dipankar and some other folks, this is final proof to migration theory..

That is easily explained.

You have to first believe that AIT occurred and believe the dates that the AIT people have given based on racist linguistic theories. Those racist theories have become "mainstream" so everyone already believes that there was an AIT. After this you are only looking for migrations around those dates. If you already believe that God made man in 5,000 BC you will not want to hear about any evidence of man before 5,000 BC

With this academic bias as "commonly accepted knowledge" geneticists started looking for evidence of migration that coincided with AIT dates and as soon as they found something people started saying "Aaaaah! This is genetic proof of AIT". Only later the "Aaah" became "Duuuh! because the real migrations were 45-60,000 years ago - long before AIT/AMT dates and the Indian genetic picture coincides with those early dates. Later dates show both OIT and AMT and these dates do not correspond to the rigid linguists AMT date of 4000-3500 ybp. That aside Saraswati evidence, lack of evidence of language outside India before AIT dates, increasing evidence of language and culture within India long before AIT dates and openly available data to prove that the original AIT/AMT was racist in origin with "Aryan race" and "Dravidian race" cooked up to suit a Eurocentric viewpoin tbasically kills AIT dead.