Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[RajeshA]

Saik ji,

far more important about from where Āryabhaṭa was is when he was!

That is what we need to clarify! I am trying to get in touch with Dr. S.G. Leela, his co-writer, but have been as yet unable to get his email. It seems Dr. S.G. Leela's email address at State University of New York isn't really working!

I wonder if somebody here knows him!

[A_Gupta]

I'm spending the time putting all of this in under the assumption that this thread will not be discarded.

Colin Renfrew writes:

"To reconstruct, from the existing languages, a proto-language at a particular point in time is thus an over-ambitious task. The linguist, Ernst Pulgram, cariacatured this tendency, and following Fraser, offered a splendid reductio ad absurdum:

If we reconstructed Latin on the evidence of the Romanic languages alone, ignoring and neglecting the existence of Greek, Keltic, Germanic and other ancient Indo-European dialects, and if thereupon we derived from the state of the common Romanic vocabulary conclusions on the culture of the speakers of Latin (whom then we should call Latins, I suppose and ascribe one race or another, depending on our patriotic or political leanings), we might well arrive at the following results:

Proto-Romanic regem and imperatorem show us that the Latins lived in a monarchy under kings or emperors (but what shall we make of rem publicam, which could pre-suppose a Latin republic?);

since all Romanic languages contain words cognate with French prêtre and évêque, 'priest' and 'bishop', the Latins were Christians;

also words cognate with French bière, tabac, café are common Romanic, evoking a picture of Caesar's soldiers guzzling beer and smoking cigars in sidewalk cafes;

and since all Romanic languages name a certain animal cheval, caballo, cal, etc., and have words for war like guerre, guerra, the Latins called the horse caballum and the war guerram and were no doubt a warlike people with a strong cavalry.

In reality, of course, the Roman words for 'horse' and 'war' are equus and bellum, and this marvellous piece of nonsense reconstruction brilliantly exemplifies the dangers of linguistic palaeontology.

Now, these arguments are not intended as an attack upon the comparative method, as used by competent linguists to examine the histories of particular words, and to study by this means the relationships between specific languages. I hope that I am aware of the very considerable erudition which underlies many of the linguistic arguments which are put forward. My criticism is of the simplistic use of such data to reach supposedly historical conclusions.

Certainly the circumstance that the Sanskrit word for 'chariot', ratha, is agreed by competent linguists to be cognate with the Latin for 'wheel', rota, is interesting, and merits historical explanation. But that is a far cry from saying that the two cognate words tell us that some hypothetical Proto-Indo-Europeans used chariots with wheels (or indeed carts with wheels) in their original homeland.

(As I've mentioned before, Renfrew, an archaeologist, is not popular in the historical linguistics crowd.)

PS: just to be sure people get it, Rome was a republic approx. 500 BC - 31 BC. Only after that, it had an emperor. Obviously, there was no Christianity in the founding era of Rome. Tobacco was introduced to Europe only 1518 AD from the New World, and coffee was introduced to Europe via the Muslim world only in the 16th century. Romans preferred their wine over the Germanic beers, and called the beer they brewed cerevisia (as per Wiki). While the Romans had cavalry, they were really known for their infantry. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural ... n_military ) As noted already, their (well-known) words for horse and war do not match the Romanic reconstruction.

[Vayutuvan]

My criticism is of the simplistic use of such data to reach supposedly historical conclusions.

Fantastic - just thinking the same thought while driving. One way to refute the theory of PIE is to attack the methodology used. The model itself seems to be overly simplistic to have the kind of predictive power, the kind that can successfully be applied in reverse to arrive at the initial conditions which have given rise to the current state of a complex dynamic system, the linguists are claiming it has.

MasnishH ji, I am not refuting a particular theory. My contention is that the methodology used - essentially it goes back to the modelling aspects - is not powerful enough to warrant the very specific conclusions regarding pre-historic evolution of the languages.

[RajeshA]

Online Books



Publication Date: 1880
Author: Bishop Paul Ambrose Bigandet
The Life or Legend of Gaudama - The Buddha of the Burmese Volume I [Project Gutenberg] [Google] [Amazon]




Publication Date: 1880
Author: Bishop Paul Ambrose Bigandet
The Life or Legend of Gaudama - The Buddha of the Burmese Volume II

How did Bishop Paul Ambrose Bigandet feel about Buddhism in the words of H. Fielding

But I cannot end this chapter on the monks of the Buddha without a reference to what Bishop Bigandet has said on the same subject, for he is no observer prejudiced in favour of Buddhism, but the reverse. He was a bishop of the Church of Rome, believing always that his faith contained all truth, and that the Buddha was but a 'pretended saviour,' his teachings based on 'capital and revolting errors,' and marked with an 'inexplicable and deplorable eccentricity.' Bishop Bigandet was in no sympathy with Buddhism, but its avowed foe, desirous of undermining and destroying its influence over the hearts of men, and yet this is the way he ends his chapter:

'There is in that religious body--the monks--a latent principle of vitality that keeps it up and communicates to it an amount of strength and energy that has hitherto maintained it in the midst of wars, revolutionary and political, convulsions of all descriptions. Whether supported or not by the ruling power, it has remained always firm and unchanged. It is impossible to account satisfactorily for such a phenomenon, unless we find a clear and evident cause of such extraordinary vitality, a cause independent of ordinary occurrences of time and circumstances, a cause deeply rooted in the very soul of the populations that exhibit before the observer this great and striking religious feature.

But we all know why Christian clergymen study other religions, Right?!

But what is of interest here is that the book is cited by Pandit Kota Venkatachelam in his book: "Age of Buddha, Milinda & Amtiyoka and Yugapurana" on page 57

"This shows that according to Kauzda Era, the Ikshwaku dynasty was in existence even as early as thirteen thousand years ago."

Here is one reference to the Kauzda Era in "The Life or Legend of Gaudama - The Buddha of the Burmese" Volume I Page 12

From Ookamukka, the first king of Kapilawot, to Prince Wethandra, there are but seven successive kings. From Dzali, the son of Wethandra, to Dzeyathana, the great-grandfather of Gaudama, there were 82,002 kings. Let it be borne in mind, that, during that period of time, our Phralaong, or future of Gaudama, was in one of the Nats' seats. The princes of Kapilawot were wont to go and sport on the water of a lake somewhat distant from the city. They at first erected a temporary place of residence in the vicinity of that sheet of water, and finally built a city which received the name of Dewaha. It had likewise its kings of the same Thagiwi race. Dzeyathana, the king of Kapilawot, had a son named Thiahanoo, and a daughter named Yathaudara. Aukaka, king of Dewaha, his contemporary, had also a son and a daughter, Eetzana and Kitzana. Thiahanoo was married to Kitzana, who bore unto him five sons, Thoodaudana, Kanwaudana, Thoukkaudana, Thekkaudana, and Amittaudana; and two daughters, Amita and Pilita. Eetzana, the son of the king of Dewa, married Yathaudara, daughter of Dzeyathana, king of Kapilawot. From this marriage were born two sons, Thoopabuddha and Dantapani, and two daughters, Maia and Patzapati.

When Eetzana became king of Dewaha, a considerable error had crept into the calendar. A correction was deemed necessary. There lived a celebrated hermit, or Rathee, named Deweela, well versed in the science of calculation. After several consultations held on this important subject in the presence of the king, it was agreed that the Kaudza era of 8640 years should be done away with on a Saturday, the first of the moon of Tabaong, and that the new era should be made to begin on a Sunday, on the first day of the waxing moon of the month Tagoo. This was called the Eetzana era.

I will have to see how Pandit Kota Venkatachelam comes to 13,000 years, but it seems promising!

Added Later:
Kaudza Era: 8640 years
Birth of Buddha: 68 Eetzana Era = 1886 BCE
__________

Total: 8640 + 68 + 3898 = 12606 years!

So can the Burmese monks help save the day?

[vishvak]

Glad to read about dating from and of other traditions also along with Hindu traditions.

[member_22872]

Actually Buddhism always maintained that Buddha is one of another Buddha, and there were so many Buddhas before him. Because of the time lines we talk about span thousands of years, unfortunately boundaries between mythology and history blur and western perspective doesn't allow us to question if mythology could actually be history.

[Kaushal]

there are so many questions addressed to me in this thread that i have to congratulate shiv and his merry band of moderators fqr maintaining the preeminence of the BR brand not only in military matters but also in esoteric subects that are only of interest to specialists in civiliztional questions.
i am also impressed that i am seeing material some of which is even new to me.

[shiv]

there are so many questions addressed to me in this thread that i have to congratulate shiv and his merry band of moderators fqr maintaining the preeminence of the BR brand not only in military matters but also in esoteric subects that are only of interest to specialists in civiliztional questions.
i am also impressed that i am seeing material some of which is even new to me.

Thanks Kaushal, but I stepped down from moderating a few years ago. Perhaps the infusion of new blood made a difference.

[shiv]

My criticism is of the simplistic use of such data to reach supposedly historical conclusions.

Fantastic - just thinking the same thought while driving. One way to refute the theory of PIE is to attack the methodology used. The model itself seems to be overly simplistic to have the kind of predictive power, the kind that can successfully be applied in reverse to arrive at the initial conditions which have given rise to the current state of a complex dynamic system, the linguists are claiming it has.

MasnishH ji, I am not refuting a particular theory. My contention is that the methodology used - essentially it goes back to the modelling aspects - is not powerful enough to warrant the very specific conclusions regarding pre-historic evolution of the languages.

I think Renfrew has experssed it perfectly

these arguments are not intended as an attack upon the comparative method, as used by competent linguists to examine the histories of particular words, and to study by this means the relationships between specific languages. I hope that I am aware of the very considerable erudition which underlies many of the linguistic arguments which are put forward. My criticism is of the simplistic use of such data to reach supposedly historical conclusions.

Unfortunately on this thread, and possibly in the outside world in general the discussion has denegenerated because of the attempt to reach dogmatic conclusions about "older" and "younger" based on sound changes and basing the argument upon "consistent laws of sound change" about which work has primarily been done in the Germanic languages and maybe Red Indian languages. Applying that across the board to all languages as a "normal human neural mechanism" is fake until it is backed up by credible evidence. Claiming that all the "h" of older languages became "s" in later languages and that this is normal for all humans is a stretch. It is easy to see why the complex neuromuscular exercise of saying dha-rrr-ma (dharma) gets changed to dhamma. R is a difficult trick even for children and requires more work in the mouth and tends to get skipped for various reasons. Children often say L rather than R especially if the R comes immediately after an initial vowel or consonant ("around", "drive") The Hindi playback singer who sings "kalma" for "karma" reflects a very Indian change of R to L. The same R often becomes a drawl or becomes a "D" for other languages. Even in India. And our tarrel than mountains fliends are an old BR joke.

But just because R becomes L or D does not mean that H can become S for similar neuromuscular reasons. In fact a person who says "haptahindu" would, for a diligent Sanskrit speaker, sound like a cop out of a lazy bum who is unable to put in the extra neuromusular effort to move his tongue forward and backward twice to pronounce the word "saptasindhu". From the neuromuscular viewpoint, saptasindhu can degenerate to haptahindu, but haptahindu will not become saptasindhu. All you need is to painfully bite or burn the tip of your tongue or develop a painful aphthous ulcer on the tip of your tongue to check which requires more easy use of the tongue. - "saptasindhu" or "haptahindu". Sapta can become satta for the same "less work" reason, But sapta requires more work (fine and intricate neuromuscular coordination) than hapta and there is no fundamental neuromuscular reason for hapta to become sapta. In the course of speech, sapta is more likely to become satta or hapta rather than the other way round.

But guess what? It is claimed that haptahindu is earlier and saptasindhu later. This is not phonetics. It is using dates from other theories or archaeology to infer the direction of sound change over time and then claiming that "Linguistics has proved this. Just look at phonetics textbooks" Manish denied that this has been done, but I think this is exactly what has been done.

The other point is about aspirated sounds. This jargon means the expulsion of breath along with sound such as "tha" of "thak gaya" and "dha" of "dharma". You will find Tamil speakers saying tak gaya because aspirated sounds are ordinarily missing from Tamil. However my old Tamil speaking classmates from Tamil Nadu Education Society of Delhi were all toppers in Hindi (apart from everything else), showing that training can overcome the neuromuscular "laziness" associated with not pronouncing aspirated sounds that require more effort. More effort means more time as well and fast speech to can reduce the emphasis of aspirated sounds. The tendency is to change from tha to ta, or dha to da. But native speakers of a language without aspirated sounds may not use them and if they had to use a langauge that had aspirated sounds (like Tamilians speaking Hindi) the aspiration may be dropped. But pronunciation here is not an indicator of age of language. Hindi does not become older than Tamil because Tamil speakers as not adept at aspirated sounds. Dogmatic conclusions about age of language from change of sound must explain all other possibilities.

Changes from P to B and vice versa are in my view unpredictable. P and B often get confused and mixed up. In terms of neuromuscular work required B requires marginally more work than P, but the difference is slight. The only difference is that the tongue and floor of the mouth are slightly lower in B than P. It is possible that languages may have consistent changes from P to B or vice versa and the auditory (hearing) component cannot be ignored in creating these changes.

[shiv]

Sound and hearing are intimately connected (How much more banal can a truism get?). Change of sound in language need not always be due to the neuromuscular issues related to the mouth and voice, but because of what we hear. And if what a non-native speaker hears (or mis-hears) is written down in his native script, you can get a completely new language. This is why I have a problem with exactly how various text fragments bearing Hurrian and Hittite langauges have been given "sounds" which are then judged as 100% correct without any evidence of revalidation by modern day researchers.


These two videos show the interplay between speech and hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm ... page#t=30s

And this is a really funny one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR0lWICH3rY

[shiv]

The interesting question is if the Vedics could have spread as far as Syria / Anatolia by mid second millenium BC, why could they not have had a major role to play in Greece thereafter, especially considering the correspondence between Sanskrit and Greek ? A key issue that remains to be uncovered...

Thanks for the Malati Shengde hint. I am reading the online book now.

I believe that the name Hapta Hindu is old. i also believe that Haptahindu is a degeneration of Saptasindhu and not the other way around for reasons I stated earlier. The name "Hindu" itself probably is derived from this degeneration.

The Akkadian word for seven is sebe
The Sumerian word is sebet
Most IE languages use a word that starts with S for the numeral seven

Only Greek and Persian are exceptions. Turkic languages have a mix of s, c and h The possibility of Persian influence on Greek might be an explanation.

[Satya_anveshi]

As a child I wondered who (and on what basis) might have named the planet Uranus as it sounds like "YourAnus' and laughed thinking it it might have been a mischievous attempt. Later I leant that it might have been named after some greeko-roman character or god. Hated history at that time.

Recently, with all the discussion going on here, I found that the name Uranus is actually derived from "Ournaus" (sounds like OurAnus - another clincher!). Names of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune seem to be all linked and names of Greek/Roman gods. This Greek/Roman/Latin kichadi causes major confusion while reading.

During the Mitra-Varun discussion in Mittani references, I was looking at this and seems like this name Uranus/Ouranus actually been after Rig Vedic God Varun.

We also have DyausPitr ->Zues->Jupiter (or is it Jupiter->Zues), it looks like Vedic Gods made their impact in that part (Greece) of the world too. I also note some very interesting posts on Anus by Rajesh ji.

However, I recall ManishH ji ruling out the possibility (hope I am not mis-stating him) that "Alexander"/"Alakshendra" could be derived from "Indra", the most visible god in Rig Veda. Not sure I cought his reasons / theories regarding this.

I am wondering what is really at stake here that that seemingly obvious looking "Indra" connection should be based on some complicated theory to negate it? Is it that such a notion will blurr the West vs East and that it actually was East vs East (or Near East vs Middle East) leaving nothing to the West?

[Kaushal]

Replies: 4811
Views: 109485

... That's where the exact duration of intercalary month becomes the important, missing piece, without which we have the error factor. Nilesh Oak ji, Kaushal ji, if you would be so kind, could you comment on the above! Thanks RajeshA Ji, When I read this quote, quoted by ManisH ji, I knew I had read ...

The indian intercalary month or adhikmaasa is not necesarily of fixed duration but is made up of 30 tithis. The problem is that each of these tithis a little different from the other becuase the orbit is not a circle and the angular velocity of the earth and the moon are constantly varying. i have done an analysis in my book . i recommend you find it in chapter 5 or 6 .

[Pratyush]

"b" + "*ekhwas" would then be "the Horse"!

In Bhojpuri, the word Ekka is used to describe the horse driven cart. The alternative word is Tanga. Keeping in view the word Ekhwas. It would seem that Ekka is a derivative of Ekhwas.

[RajeshA]

"b" + "*ekhwas" would then be "the Horse"!

In Bhojpuri, the word Ekka is used to describe the horse driven cart. The alternative word is Tanga. Keeping in view the word Ekhwas. It would seem that Ekka is a derivative of Ekhwas.

Pratyush ji,

In that case Bhojpuri must be the only Indian language which could have some similarity with Latin!

[Pratyush]

Hey, how can one similar / derivative word make two languages similar. Besides Bhojpuri is a daughter language of Sanskrit. Its vocabulary is primarily derived from Sanskrit. If Sanskrit took the said word from Latin, I don't know. It is equally possible that Latin took the base word from Sanskrit.

No........

[Lalmohan]

what if the words arose in parallel independently?

[RajeshA]

Pratyush ji,

what I had written earlier

"b" + "*ekhwas" would then be "the Horse"!

was just a joke to highlight that the Horse cognate theory for Indo-European languages is simply "b + ekhwas" = "bakwas"! There is nothing to it!

"ekhwas" or "equos" is horse in Latin and has NO cognate word in Sanskrit, like asva! You however wish to suggest otherwise, so if you wish you can try and make a case for it!

[Lalmohan]

one could argue that eqqus == aswa as a cognate if one wanted to
but i don't think the linguistic linear timeline model works, so for me atleast, i can disregard/discard this line of reasoning
i think we are literally flogging a dead horse now with trying to disprove linguistic patterns/inheritance stuff
case closed imho

[Murugan]

Claiming that all the "h" of older languages became "s" in later languages and that this is normal for all humans is a stretch.

Here is a coin of Akbar with Persian Dates in Words

http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=57771

AH 979

is written as

Fi tarikh nuhsad haftad wa nuh
Nushad =NavShat
Haftad = SaptaDash
Nuh = Nav

Persian Haft for Sanskrit Sapta did not change till AH 979, AD 1572 in general practice, even in India.

[Pratyush]

Pratyush ji,

what I had written earlier

"b" + "*ekhwas" would then be "the Horse"!

was just a joke to highlight that the Horse cognate theory for Indo-European languages is simply "b + ekhwas" = "bakwas"! There is nothing to it!

"ekhwas" or "equos" is horse in Latin and has NO cognate word in Sanskrit, like asva! You however wish to suggest otherwise, so if you wish you can try and make a case for it!

Hi,

I am not making a case that the word is derived from the other. I merely suggested that it seems be derived. Considering the similarity between the two words.

Having said so, I clearly seem to have missed your attempt at humor.

[member_22872]

I wonder the origin of Marathi word for mother 'Aayi' is, if Marathi too is IE, and words for mother, body parts usually sound the same(?), how come this is different in case of Marathi? we all know the word for mother is more or less is the same across many IE languages.

[RajeshA]

Books for the Library

Books by Kosla Vepa (Kaushal)



Publication Date: May 27, 2010
Editor: Kosla Vepa
Astronomical Dating of Events & Select Vignettes from Indian History Part I Online Book [@lulu]




Publication Date: June 11, 2008
Author: Kosla Vepa
The South Asia File - a Colonial Paradigm of Indian History [lulu] [Amazon]




The Pernicious Effects of the Misinterpreted Greek Synchronism in Ancient Indian History Online Book




Reality of Knowledge Transmission @lulu.com




The Āryabhaṭa-Nīlakaṇṭa-Sāmanta Evolution Online Book [@lulu]




The Indic Intellectual Tradition [lulu]




Publication Date: Sep 21, 2011
The Origins of Astronomy, the Calendar and Time [lulu HC] [lulu Ebook] [Amazon]

Background for book

[Satya_anveshi]

I wonder the origin of Marathi word for mother 'Aayi' is, if Marathi too is IE, and words for mother, body parts usually sound the same(?), how come this is different in case of Marathi? we all know the word for mother is more or less is the same across many IE languages.

I am thinking it is no different than other languages: Maa->Maay->Maai->Aai or Aayi. Just the "Ma' is used optionally and Aai is definitely not standardized across all speakers.

Further, in Telugu what you call "Talligarillu" aka Mayke in Hindi (for Mom's place) is called Maaher (may be short form for Maaye cha ghari).

[member_22872]

Satya_Anveshi ji, transformation from Maayi to Aaayi seems likely. Sounds seem to change also based on convenience and adstratum effects. If you think about it, the way father is said in various languages also varies, Telugu may not be IE, but language rules should be the same, and word for father in Telugu is nanna-garu, no relation to papa, or pop or appa of Tamil and Kannada or pitha of Sanskrit or Hindi.

[Satya_anveshi]

Satya_Anveshi ji, transformation from Maayi to Aaayi seems likely. Sounds seem to change also based on convenience and adstratum effects. If you think about it, the way father is said in various languages also varies, Telugu may not be IE, but language rules should be the same, and word for father in Telugu is nanna-garu, no relation to papa, or pop or appa of Tamil and Kannada or pitha of Sanskrit or Hindi.

Venug ji,

I think the proper Telugu word for father is Ayya/Ayya-garu which might have been derived from Arya-garu. This is definitely the case in villages/remote villages with not much influence of different administrations/kings/religions etc. In Telangana villages, even to this day, not many use Nanna or actually even garu. Ayya is very common.

Mother is called Avva (form of Amma).

Nana/Anna may have been later words but I am no linguist/philologist/historian so could be wrong/dead-wrong.

[shiv]

I wonder the origin of Marathi word for mother 'Aayi' is, if Marathi too is IE, and words for mother, body parts usually sound the same(?), how come this is different in case of Marathi? we all know the word for mother is more or less is the same across many IE languages.

Marathi has some things that it shares with Dravidian languages with some occasional similarities with Kannada. Ikde and Tikde - esp Ikde is virtually the same as "Ee Kaday (this way/here in Kannada). Another word that used to strike me was "bandli" for vessels. The extra letter "Dl" in the alphabet (retroflexed "L") is also a Dravidian characteristic. Anna is another shared word with Dravidian languages

[ShyamSP]

Satya_Anveshi ji, transformation from Maayi to Aaayi seems likely. Sounds seem to change also based on convenience and adstratum effects. If you think about it, the way father is said in various languages also varies, Telugu may not be IE, but language rules should be the same, and word for father in Telugu is nanna-garu, no relation to papa, or pop or appa of Tamil and Kannada or pitha of Sanskrit or Hindi.

Venug ji,

I think the proper Telugu word for father is Ayya/Ayya-garu which might have been derived from Arya-garu. This is definitely the case in villages/remote villages with not much influence of different administrations/kings/religions etc. In Telangana villages, even to this day, not many use Nanna or actually even garu. Ayya is very common.

Mother is called Avva (form of Amma).

Nana/Anna may have been later words but I am no linguist/philologist/historian so could be wrong/dead-wrong.

Nana <== Na-Ayana <== Na-Arya == My Arya == father

Nanagaru <== Na Arya (Nana) Gauravaniyulu (Garu) == My respectable Arya == Respectable father

Ayya Garu == Respectable Arya

Na-Ayana == father
Ma-Ayana == Husband


Amma (mother), Avva (grandmother), Akka (elder sister), Anna (elder brother), Ayya (father/husband/Sir), Appa (father), Attha (aunt) may have similar derivations

Thata (grand father), Chelli (younger sister), Tammu (younger brother) - 3 words don't follow above derivations for words of close relationships.

[Satya_anveshi]

Perhaps going OT without technical rule definition: Interesting thing is in Telugu, Grandfather is called Tata/Thata across the board (as with other south languages), which in Sanskrit is actually father (Tatah). Whereas in both Kannada and Marathi, Ajja/Ajoba is used and Ajji for Grandmother (and Aayi for grandmother in Telangana/parts of AP).

Overall, I see a continuity/similarity between Marathi, Telugu and Kannada and relation to Sanskrit.

(added after seeing ShyamSP's post)
Avva is grandmother in Rayalaseema and not in Telangana. Here I see Aayi is used. Avva is used for mother. But these terms can easily get used one for the other because kid can grow up in the close vicinity of mother and grandmother so the kid may pickup whatever term that mother is using or the right word.

[fanne]

Replies: 4811
Views: 109485

... That's where the exact duration of intercalary month becomes the important, missing piece, without which we have the error factor. Nilesh Oak ji, Kaushal ji, if you would be so kind, could you comment on the above! Thanks RajeshA Ji, When I read this quote, quoted by ManisH ji, I knew I had read ...

The indian intercalary month or adhikmaasa is not necesarily of fixed duration but is made up of 30 tithis. The problem is that each of these tithis a little different from the other becuase the orbit is not a circle and the angular velocity of the earth and the moon are constantly varying. i have done an analysis in my book . i recommend you find it in chapter 5 or 6 .

A primer on Indian Calendar –
Points to remember – There are 12 rashis (or Jodiac). Each rashi contains 2.5 Nakshatras (total 27/28). Sun takes an year to go through each rashi, so is approximately 30 days in each rashi, 1 degree movement a day. The moon however goes through all 12 rashis in a approx 29/30 days.
The Indian days are based on Moon’s movement with respect to Sun. When Moon and Sun are exactly at the same longitude, the first day of the month starts. (So if you were born on the first day of a month, it will be amavasya +- day (dark moon) and your sun and Moon are in the same house). While the sun is in the same rashi, the moon goes around in all 12 rashis and catches again with the sun in the next rashi ( the moon and sun are at same longitude and the next month starts). This conjuction typically happens 12 times a year, so we have 12 months. The name of Hindu months are based on what Nakshatra will (most likely not always) have the full moon, so Chaitra Month (the first month around March/April), the Sun-Moon conjunction happens in Pisces and Full moon will most likely happen in the Nakshtra of Chitra (hence the name Chaitra).
Adhimasa – The lunar year is 355.x days (as lunar months are typically 29/30 days). In three years, the difference is 365-355 = 10*3 = 30 Tithis. It so happens that in that third year, the Sun-Moon conjunction happens twice in the same Rashi (like this year we have an adhimasa, that just finished 10 days ago). The thumb rule is that whenever the Sun –Moon conjunction happens, it is start of new month (here conjuction = at the same longitude). So every three years, we have that extra month. I suspect this is similar to western concept of blue moon where, full moon happens twice in the same month (but may not be that rigorous in logic). So every 4th year, the Julian Calender and Hindu Calender will match (i.e. ifwatch your birthday, every 4 year it will have the same date as per western and Hindu Calender (you should be following the same convention, South Indian or North, if you mix, you may get a day difference).
For our discussion, this Indian Calendar has been used since eternity. For calculation purposes the Indian calendar should be treated to have 365 days (or 355, 355, 385 days in 3 year cycle).
Rgds,
fanne

[member_22872]

Shyamji, Satya Anveshi ji,
Thanks, that makes sense. I was thinking about the words for father/mother in various languages if they vary at all, it is indeed remarkable to note that forms of Amma/mama/papa are the same across many languages. Even some animals call out their mothers like humans do.

[A_Gupta]

Books for the Library

The Pernicious Effects of the Misinterpreted Greek Synchronism in Ancient Indian History Online Book

I like the idea of reexamining the entire set of dating of Indian history; but the problem I have with the proposed timeline is that the average years per ruler in the various dynasties range from 25 years to 45 years per ruler for the various dynasties. This is very high.

For comparative purposes, the Chinese dynasties are listed here:
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/ch ... n10-u.html

[RajeshA]

Books for the Library



Publication Date: January 1, 2007
Author: Professor B.N. Goswamy
The Word is Sacred; Sacred is the Word: The Indian Manuscript Tradition [Amazon]

One quote from here:

The presumption that the Occidentalist makes that he has seen all the literature there is to see. There is considerable hubris in such an assertion primarily because the manuscript wealth of India is so staggering, amounting to over 5 million manuscripts, out of which only a million have been catalogued and the number that have been read and translated is far less. (It is estimated that the number of texts written in Sanskrit dealing with Jyotiṣa number around 100.000.)

[ramana]

RajeshA,
Maybe the Freudian thinking behind
b+*ekhwaas = bakhwas?

[RajeshA]

Books for the Library

The Pernicious Effects of the Misinterpreted Greek Synchronism in Ancient Indian History Online Book

I like the idea of reexamining the entire set of dating of Indian history; but the problem I have with the proposed timeline is that the average years per ruler in the various dynasties range from 25 years to 45 years per ruler for the various dynasties. This is very high.

For comparative purposes, the Chinese dynasties are listed here:
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/ch ... n10-u.html

A_Gupta ji,

Sometimes it was the case, that regents have ruled in the name of a King, who was still too young to take charge, but the years would be counted in the King's account!

Then there can also be a period of strife and conflict among the possible heirs to the throne after say the king dies. This may take some years in being settled. This period of strife also would not be counted as such and the monarch taking over would act as if no discontinuity or disagreement was there.

Then it can happen that after some strife, the record of some intermediate king would simply be deleted, and the next monarch would consider his reign to have started much earlier.

There can also be wars with neighbors, and if a dynasty was deposed for some time, because a rival king took over the kingdom, and then this kingdom is recovered, reconquered, again this interregnum when the dynasty was not in power, may be skipped.

[Dan Mazer]

If PIE originated and spread from outside India, the very first question becomes, when did it enter India and what was the causative event? There are two main answers - first, with the horse and chariot, around 1500 BC and second, with the advent of agriculture, some five thousand years earlier.

Assuming that the linguistic arguments are correct is a pathetic cop out. They are demonstrably fake. However I had earlier summrized the AIT points and here is a rehashed version of that

Thanks for listing the arguments. We need not assume the linguistic arguments to be correct. Instead just consider a point in time when Sanskrit is present in NW India (somehow) and the Rig Veda is being composed.

Now the AIT argument is that the Rig Veda can be dated and located by searching for the archaeological evidence of some particular ritual in it. Now this can only be done if the Rig Veda is assumed to be a unified whole, an expression of a 'Vedic religion' with an underlying ideology. Without this assumption, the Rig Veda would be a record of some of the many rituals and traditions (home-grown or otherwise) being practised by various groups in N.W.India at this time. Archaeological evidence of horse burials would only be dating/locating the origin of that particular ritual.

[member_22872]

Eeveryone, I created a OIT/AIT reference thread in GDF as per ramana ji's suggestion.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1336278
The purpose of that thread is to collect all the references into one place for posterity and to find everything in one place for easy reference. If posting a reference to some material, I would request you to kindly x-post it in there too, I would try to post if you can't post yourself but I might forget too, so anyone who can help, you are most welcome to do so. I would suggest you be clear in what you are posting by clearly stating or clarifying what you are posting, this will only help us in the future. If someone is interested, please feel free and indicate what pages of this thread you will be covering so it will help me concentrate on other pages.
Thanks,
Venu.

[Nilesh Oak]

Details of signboard found at Dholavira, Gujrath, (SSVC) India.

along with translation and possible meaning per Sullivan Code. And while 'Rangapur' is not that uncommon name, I am being told that there exists a place 'Rangapur (or used to be a place with same name) near Dholavira.



'Raksha' may lead to translation such as 'Asuras protecting Rangapur' or "Assuras, protectors of Ranagapur'. My $0.02

[shiv]

RajeshA,
Maybe the Freudian thinking behind
b+*ekhwaas = bakhwas?

Yes ramana - adding b to ekhwas was meant to be a joke. The attempt to create a proto word out of equus and ashwa that has elements of both and can be assumed to produce either equus or ashwa from it by saying "q" became "ha" became "sh" is begging for the addition of a b for bullshit as a prefix.

"kh" can certainly become "ha". There are no "natural rules" of human phonation that will convert "h" to "s". A man who is totally stoned with too much soma or has a mouth full of paan while asking for more soma will pronounce homa as "Homa" or "Hauma". But a man who says hauma is not going to start saying soma. I do not see any "natural physiological neuromuscular" reasons for "ha" to become "sa" in human speech.

Greek "ha' did not become Sanskrit "sa" from a proto language. Greek "ha" could have come from a corruption of Sanskrit "sa"

[shiv]

Thanks for listing the arguments. We need not assume the linguistic arguments to be correct. Instead just consider a point in time when Sanskrit is present in NW India (somehow) and the Rig Veda is being composed.

Now the AIT argument is that the Rig Veda can be dated and located by searching for the archaeological evidence of some particular ritual in it. Now this can only be done if the Rig Veda is assumed to be a unified whole, an expression of a 'Vedic religion' with an underlying ideology. Without this assumption, the Rig Veda would be a record of some of the many rituals and traditions (home-grown or otherwise) being practised by various groups in N.W.India at this time. Archaeological evidence of horse burials would only be dating/locating the origin of that particular ritual.

Other than the finds of the Saraswati Sindhu civilization (includes Indus valley and Harappa) which have revealed nothing that is non vedic in nature there are exactly zero vedic archaeological finds in India or Pakistan or Afghanistan dating to a period that corresponds to the lies cooked up about the Vedas. There are zero references to horse burials in the Rig veda.

I think you missed the bulk of this thread where all this has been pointed out repeatedly. Perhaps you, like most others will find it difficult to accept that actual, open and blatant bluffing has been used to connect the Rig Veda with a set of graves containing chariots and horses in central Asia 3000 km away. This thread is going to pass 150 pages because scholars have bluffed and cooked up Indian history to suit their biases. These "scholars" do not want to connect the Saraswati-Sindhu (Indus Valley) Civilization with the vedas because those buried Chariots in central Asia date from 2000 BC. If they say Vedas are associated with Indus valley of 2500 BC (or Vedas are older) then the story that horses and chariots, Sanskrit and Rig veda all came to India in one package in 1200 BC after leaving Central Asia in 2000 BC will be shown up for the lie that it is. It is necessary to lie about the Rig Veda to make the story true. Once you start bluffing, anything can be made to fit any story you want.

As Indians we are taught to respect gurus and scholars and will always "Yes sir yes sir" them. We do not question them and find it tough to say that those gurus may be cultural looters and academic racists.