Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2012 01:43

Dubeyji, Isn't the dating the Rig Veda essentially a Max Mueller project? To me Vedas are eternal and timeless and this dating them is a quest like that embarked upon to date the Bible.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 30 Sep 2012 01:46

Dubey ji, thanks again for clarifying.

KLP Dubey wrote:Rather than making judgements on "positions of people who consider themselves Vedic", please realize this is a simple matter of actually being familiar with Vedic words. There are too many people in circulation who are just randomly picking up words from here and there in the RV and using it for their own purposes.

I do agree, the claim of affiliation with "Vedic" is much abused. But just in case you misunderstood, by "positions of people who consider themselves Vedic" I meant to validate from your succinct post what I had read elsewhere. I appreciate the logical basis of the positions you had taken, and was not suggesting it was some kind of group-think. Moving on to a couple of follow-up questions:

KLP Dubey wrote:Have you looked at the contents of the Atharvaveda ? It is mainly a "manual of handy mantras for all stages of life", used for various purposes such as curing diseases (e.g, leprosy, dysentery, etc), conducting warfare, overcoming your enemies through black magic, etc. Then there are philosophical speculations, as well as some borrowed text from the RV. The brahmanas and upanishads of the Atharvaveda are targeted at somehow insinuating it into the established Vedic Yajna which is truly based upon Rk, Saman, and Yajus, and into the philosophical speculations of the old Upanishads of the RV/SV/YV. It is a "me too" type of document that tries to imitate the RV in style.

With all due respect, I think this is a somewhat tendentious characterization of its contents. It is true that a different spirit pervades the Atharva as compared to the other three Vedas, its language is simpler, and it does seem to have a circle of concern that is more "worldly", both in content as well as in attitude. But whether the Atharva Veda is just voodoo or whether it has a different level of meaning depends on who is interpreting it - just like the other Vedas.

Others have presented the Atharva Veda in a different light altogether. E.g. Swami Dayananda (who, like you, considered the RgVeda to be at the top) considers the Atharva to encompass all aspects of the science of governance. This socio-political aspect is relevant to the individual's own psycho-social being, as well as social inter-relations and institutions. In particular, its root lies in the tendency of a part of the human mind to objectify -- by which we mean to understand words as identities. This interesting semantics is an observable fact, and if one is to logically speak of "reality", then it must account for this also. The fact that this part of the human mind (that thinks in identities) is usually responsible for a lot of pettiness and even insanity in behaviour does not mean it is not part of reality. IMHO it would be hypocritical to sit on a high Vedic horse (

) and reject the Atharva Veda on the basis that it is speaking from a corner of the room from which a lot of pettiness seems to emanate. Rather, I would imagine that it would have to be factored into the big picture so that humans can responsibly rise above that level rather than dissociate from it.

The practical implications of scrubbing clean or un-knotting this psycho-physical-social mind are:
(a) Removal of the psychosomatic cause of physical disease.
(b) Removal of the subconscious compulsions, repressions, neuroses and psychoses that cause war and violence -- and yet being able to conduct war in the right frame of mind, without making an absolute out of physical non-violence either.
(c) Making war on the demons that infest this subconscious memory, setting up their own circuits that parasitically steal energy from the body, and which either occlude memory altogether or throw a spanner in the works.
(d) Setting up a system of social and political relationships and processes to prevent the spread of such psychic contagion, or to heal it where it exists, and to continue to research the subject.
Etc...

As for borrowing verses from RgVeda, the Atharva Veda is not the only "culprit". Practically the whole SamaVeda is just a musically annotated RgVeda - but in doing so it brings out an important dimension from the RgVedic manifold. Philosophy and relative hierarchy of tattvas is also a part of the Atharva, of course, because it is suggesting a science. Lastly, you compared it to the Dhanurveda, Ayurveda, etc. But these have been called upa-Vedas. I have never heard them being referred to as Veda. However, the Atharva Veda is usually clubbed with the 4 Vedas, and yet I found this negligence of it in some circles. Therefore I asked the question.

This forces the fundamental question pertinent to this thread (and philosophy in general): Do you consider Vedas to have entirely nothing to do with the physical-biological level of reality, including historical time? Granted that mathematically the physical world can be reduced to zero, but that does not indicate a lack of its reality, would you agree? I believe that the Veda has a transcendental locus in terms of time, but an emanation of Veda does traverse through the physical universe also - its material and genetic fields. Yet, this emanation is non-different from Veda itself, in that it cannot be artificially separated. Giving due respect to the Atharva Veda would permit one to appreciate the idea that ontological difference is itself a part of reality. This was Madhvacharya's philosophy's main point, for example. If that is true, then surely the Atharva Veda deserves to be called Veda while acknowledging that it is coming at reality from that part of the human mind that is nebulous and thinks in identities. Surely, the larger process must have a component that goes through that mind also. The consequence of this would be that the historical component of time is not entirely irrelevant to understanding Veda (though doing the opposite requires a different mind and method).

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 30 Sep 2012 01:58

RajeshA wrote:
krisna wrote:OIT is the only or most likely explanation for the appearance of elephants(symbolically) in American continent.
The dates are much past than what has been "traditionally" associated with vedic age.
I had earlier posted on the elephant connection between India and the Mayans.

I had it also posted earlier--

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1306910
your reply manifested in the above post I guess.

Important to note that oiropeans/christians and missionaries willfully destroyed, manipulated the history to their convenience.
Look at the dates also.
Ganesha is also later pheneomenon in Hindu pantheon of Gods.
If americas which is very far away from mainland Maha Bharat had contacts thru seas, it is likely that we had spread ourselves to europe also thru land!!.
OIT is surely the answer rather than ait.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 30 Sep 2012 02:16

Carl wrote:This forces the fundamental question pertinent to this thread (and philosophy in general): Do you consider Vedas to have entirely nothing to do with the physical-biological level of reality, including historical time?

This is for the Mods: I am not engaging in any more "philosophical discussions" on this thread. I am only sticking to AIT/OIT issues.

Dear Carl,

Thanks for the post. You raise philosophical issues which we can discuss offline or in another thread if time permits. What philosophical underpinnings may exist in my posts, have already been explained in my first few posts on this thread.

From your previous posts and this one, I deduce you have some connections with Vaishnavism. If so, I am totally incompetent to discuss such philosophical or metaphysical issues. I have no truck with theology. I am a "Hindu" only in the sense of the conviction of eternal Veda, and Dharma as pertaining to reproduction and examination of RV sounds. I have no "religious faith" whatsoever that guides any of my actions or views.

Namaskar,

KL

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 30 Sep 2012 02:21

ramana wrote:Dubeyji, Isn't the dating the Rig Veda essentially a Max Mueller project? To me Vedas are eternal and timeless and this dating them is a quest like that embarked upon to date the Bible.

Quite possible the project was started by Mueller. But it continues. Nothing wrong whatsoever in dating the Bible since it is well-known authored work (claimed to be under some divine inspirations). Agree that lumping the Rgveda with "scriptures" was part of a larger plan of diminishing its significance and influence on world cultures.

KL

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 30 Sep 2012 03:35

Carl wrote:Granted that mathematically the physical world can be reduced to zero, ...

Carl ji, a bold claim - how so? Please answer in another thread as it is OT here (or not answering is also fine).

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 Sep 2012 03:41

Peter

I deleted that post. It is ot and you have been repeatedly requested to take it to appropriate thread. Any more of that and you will be cautioned, warned and subsequently banned. So kindly take it to the relevant thread.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2012 04:05

The Prātiśākhyas of the Vedas

Publication Date: 1894
Editors: Pandits of Benaras Sanskrit College
Saunaka's Prātiśākhya of the Rigveda, with Commentary of Uvaṭa

Publication Date: 1922
Translator: Mangal Deva Shastri
The Ṛg-Veda Prātiśākhya with Commentary of Uvaṭa (Vol I)

Publication Date: 1931
Translator: Mangal Deva Shastri
The Rg-Veda Pratisakhya with Commentary of Uvaṭa (Vol II)

Publication Date: 1937
Translator: Mangal Deva Shastri
The Ṛg-Veda Prātiśākhya with Commentary of Uvaṭa (Vol III)

Publication Date: 1868
Author: William D Whitney
The Taittiriya Pratisakhya (Black Yajurveda)

Publication Date: 1934
Editor: V Venkatarama Sharma
Vajasaneyi Pratisakhya Of Katyayana

Publication Date: 1936
Editor: Dr. Raghu Vira
Atharva Veda of the Paippalādas (Books 1-13) - Volume 1

Publication Date: 1940
Editor: Dr. Raghu Vira
Atharva Veda of the Paippalādas (Books 14-18) - Volume 2

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 30 Sep 2012 04:19

Dear Dubey ji / matrimc ji,
Sure, let's take it to an appropriate thread in the General discussion forum.

Dubey ji, I do have an interest in Madhvacharya's books on logic and hermeneutics (rather than theology), and so I cited him. Right now I am driven not by religious faith but by an investigation of true sanity, rationalism and life. I have been trying to approach and understand the Vedas, but as you said, it often gets entangled in theology or other contentious subjects. Rest assured I do not intend to digress into those things. I seek to know more about how people committed to the Vedas alone see it in terms of its consistency and completeness. In this, I appreciate any inputs you and others have.

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 30 Sep 2012 04:33

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... ian-onion/

Interesting comment from someone:
The Abrahamic laced intellectual world is slowly but surely coming to this realization, that ANI are the ancestors of west Asians. Not the other way as was forced onto the world…aka Aryan theory the invasion of the sons of Shem and Japeth to enslave the cursed sons of Ham. I cannot believe that Christian and Muslims are not aware of their own historical ruling elite. If anyone knows about Aryan theory its VERY CLEAR why it was needed. To confirm the home of the jews, christians and muslims aka the abrahamic tribe to the middle east and attach ‘home of civilization’ to it, they needed to show that India was indeed younger than abrahamic origins, to justify their own claim to civilization fame. To look at it deeper, its very easy to see why, first two sons of Noah, where Shem and Japeth, the light skinned special tribe of god, the chosen people. Who set up judaism, christianity and islam. However Noah had third son, who was Ham, and he was cursed and made dark to be servant of the other two sons. This curse of ham, was the Reason why aryan invasion was created, to justify to themselves that india was not the home of civilisation, and in fact the reason why india is civilized is because of an unknown group of white aryans from europe or central asia, or somewhere else, came and civilised india. Therefore the religous sanction is given. Ham was not civilised he was civilised by sons of shem and japeth.
That is the aryan theory. Muslims, christians, and jews fully support this lie.
‘Researchers found that the Indian populations had more genetic diversity than Europeans and East Asians, which gives a good indicator of the age of a population” Genographic project IBM.
Sahoo et al had actually written the following words:“The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through thenorthwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny.Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a,and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are REJECTED, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H.” .They also rule out arrivals from Southwest Asia because West Asian haplogroups (like Y-Hg G) are not found in India.
Kivisild’s findings (2003) too had shown that humans could not have arrived from West Asia into Indiabecause of lack of West Asian Y-hgs E, G, I, J* and J2f. Kivisild et al wrote,“When compared with European and Middle Eastern populations (Semino et al. 2000), Indians (i) share with themclades J2 and M173 derived sister groups R1b and R1a, the latter of which is particularly frequent in India; and (ii) lack or show amarginal frequency of clades E, G, I, J*, and J2f.”
There is a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.- Scientists Susanta Roychoudhury and thirteen others studying 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups.
Dravidian” authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization rejected indirectly, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus….” They found, in conclusion, “overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.”The frequencies of R2 seems to mirror the frequencies of R1a (i.e. both lineages are strong and weak in the same social and linguistic subgroups). This may indicate that both R1a and R2 moved into India at roughly the same time. R2 is very rare in Europe.Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majuder, and P. A. Underhill. – 2006.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2012 04:55

KLP Dubey ji,

Could you perhaps give some guidance as to how one should go about learning the basics of Rigvedic pronunciation. Would there be any particular texts available?

I know that reading a text is usually not the way to go about learning pronunciation, but are there any good texts on the subject?

Thanks

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2012 04:56

The comment sums up the case very well. Its time for the AIT guys to jump into a bucket of wash water.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2012 05:28

AIT-Nazi Books

Publication Date: 1859
Author: Friedrich Max Müller
A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature So Far as it Illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans [Internet Archive]

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Sep 2012 05:39

On the dating of the Mahabharata: the counter argument to the astronomical data is that the Mahabharata is not as pristine as the Rg Veda Samhita, there are most certainly interpolations, and it is entirely possible that the astronomical references were added later. To the argument that the ancients could not retrofit, the answer would be, yes, they could not do so reliably, and that is why the dates you get are all over the place. It is necessary that all the dates coincide, that could not be a retro diction and would have to be actual contemporaneous observation.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2012 05:49

Valmiki Ramayana Online

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 30 Sep 2012 06:45

Carl wrote:Dear Dubey ji / matrimc ji,
Sure, let's take it to an appropriate thread in the General discussion forum.

Dubey ji, I do have an interest in Madhvacharya's books on logic and hermeneutics (rather than theology), and so I cited him. Right now I am driven not by religious faith but by an investigation of true sanity, rationalism and life. I have been trying to approach and understand the Vedas, but as you said, it often gets entangled in theology or other contentious subjects. Rest assured I do not intend to digress into those things. I seek to know more about how people committed to the Vedas alone see it in terms of its consistency and completeness. In this, I appreciate any inputs you and others have.

Is there any chance that this discussion can happen in Samskritam? Because all I keep hearing about this is: someone is not competent in samskrit, but then it goes off tangent and talks in terminology derived from latin/greek framework (example: - such as epistemology yada yada...) . Why should any discussion about Vedas done in English be considered relevant? So my position would be any commentary/discussion on "vedas or vedic terms" are done in language other than samskritam it will be deemed purely second rate! So, can we expect discussion to go on in samskritam? (even in GDF?) Maybe I could persuade dyed in wool samskritam pundits to take part.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2012 06:53

krisna wrote:The Idea of the Elephant in Cultures of Pre-15th Century Americas

Given the evidence from both the Old World (South and Southeast Asia primarily) and the Americas it is evident that there was regular and sustained transoceanic trade between these tropical cultures long before Columbus (Sorenson and Johannessen 2009). The sculptural evidence of the images of the elephant being present in the Olmec (1400 B.C.E. – 400 B.C.E.) and Mayan (2000 B.C.E. – 1500 C.E.) cultures, long before European contact with these peoples, also strengthen this position. The presence of bas-reliefs of numerous plants of American origin in the temples of Southern Indian Hoysala Dynasty (950 C.E. - 1268 C.E.) further bolsters the evidence of regular and sustained interaction between the hemispheres. It is important to note that we are here discussing the images and concepts of the elephant and not elephants themselves being present.
OIT is the only or most likely explanation for the appearance of elephants(symbolically) in American continent.
The dates are much past than what has been "traditionally" associated with vedic age.

Olmec elephant

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 30 Sep 2012 06:59

JwalaMukhi wrote: Is there any chance that this discussion can happen in Samskritam?

Jwalamukhi ji, Does it matter what the metalanguage is? It should not be the case that the truth values of statements is dependent on the metalanguage. Of course, certain assumptions apply on the expressive power of the metalanguage itself. Both Samskritam and English satisfy these assumptions.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2012 07:01

Books by "Linguists"

ManishH ji had recommended a few books on phonetics.

Publication Date: 1978
Author: Joseph H. Greenberg
Universals of Human Language [Google]

Publication Date: August 17, 2009
Authors: Hans Henrich Hock, Brian D. Joseph
Language History, Language Change and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics [Google] [Amazon]

Publication Date: November 9, 2006
Author: James Patrick Mallory
The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World [Amazon]

Download Links

Code: Select all

http://uploading.com/files/EQ8I6YFH/ProtIndEuWo.zip.htm
http://depositfiles.com/files/qhma93w4a

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 30 Sep 2012 07:05

JwalaMukhi wrote:Is there any chance that this discussion can happen in Samskritam? Because all I keep hearing about this is: someone is not competent in samskrit, but then it goes off tangent and talks in terminology derived from latin/greek framework (example: - such as epistemology yada yada...) . Why should any discussion about Vedas done in English be considered relevant?

The objective of such discussions are presumably to inform/educate/provoke/involve a larger number of readers, not just a useless academic exercise among a very small group. Discussions in English are by far the best means of dissemination, as long as the terminology is explained properly.

If you know Sanskrit pandits willing to join such discussions, they are more than welcome. I would suggest that they write their thoughts/insights in English in order to reach a broader readership.

For that matter, why should discussion of the Veda be done in classical Sanskrit, which hardly captures the spirit of the Veda? Only the accented vocabulary of Vedic Sanskrit should be used, and in the oral form. So, good luck finding pandits willing to do that (when even Kumarila and Sankara themselves used only classical Sanskrit). And even better luck finding equivalent words for "epistemology" and such in Vedic Sanskrit, where these concepts do not exist.

KL

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 30 Sep 2012 07:36

Dear Dubey ji, matrimc ji, JwalaMukhi ji and others, let's take the discussion to GDF, to this post in a thread called "Deracination - From What?". Thanks.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2012 08:04

A_Gupta wrote:On the dating of the Mahabharata: the counter argument to the astronomical data is that the Mahabharata is not as pristine as the Rg Veda Samhita, there are most certainly interpolations, and it is entirely possible that the astronomical references were added later. To the argument that the ancients could not retrofit, the answer would be, yes, they could not do so reliably, and that is why the dates you get are all over the place. It is necessary that all the dates coincide, that could not be a retro diction and would have to be actual contemporaneous observation.

This is exactly the kind of argument that suits one who wants to argue forever - a person such as myself, for example. Talageri may be another.

It is quite alright if the dates were added later, but the ability to compute star positions thousands of years in the past indicate a degree of civilizational awareness of information that has been studied for centuries. For a random observer of stars, one human lifetime of observation will simply give the idea that the stars were always in exactly the same positions with regard to each other. How many man years of static observation are required to come up with a calendar such as the Hindu calendar and then use the calendar to calculate star positions in the past? This is not a trivial calculation - considering that the natural human tendency would be to assume that all is static. Add to this the well documented and visible evidence of fidelity and sustained phonetic and lexical accuracy in the Rig Veda we get the definite impression of a deliberate information transmission (education) system. Absolutely nothing unique about this in human terms, but it does not suggest a society that was moving with horses, chariots and language 2000 km from Syria to the Indus in 300 years from 1500 BC to 1200 BC, an average of 300 km per human lifetime of 50 years. And following this they still had to cover another 2000 km to east India teaching the native retroflexers to speak Indo-European from 1200 BC to 600 BC, by which time all the Vedas and the Mahabharata had been composed by this pastoral, on the move society bringing the language on the wheel at an average of an astounding 200 km of migration per lifetime. Where were the schools and the astronomical observation points set up if people were moving 30 to 40 km per decade?

These people, while on the move composed the Vedas and all the Vedic texts and the epics and codified an accurate system of oral transmission and quickly interpolated all the astronomical observations needed to make it all look like a genuine fake encoding information that was not discovered in Europe till Copernicus who came 2000 years later.

Either the Vedas and Mahabharat do not exist at all, or the information supposedly encoded within them was all done by 600 BC as dated by the very scholars who tell us our history via language. Whatever angle you approach this from the idea that horses, wheeled chariots and language came to India in 1200 BC and gave the world the Vedas and Mahabharata in just 600 years seems to indicate an unbelievable cock and bull story.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 30 Sep 2012 08:11

A Gupta ji,

All good questions. My responses follow...

On the dating of the Mahabharata: the counter argument to the astronomical data is that the Mahabharata is not as pristine as the Rg Veda Samhita

Nothing to comment until someone (not necessarily you A gupta ji) can explain what they mean by 'pristine' and how to 'measure' it.

there are most certainly interpolations

This is trivially true statement and not limited to Mahabharata. It can be said about anything. I repeat 'ANYTING' no bar whatsoever, unless one is willing to discuss specific verse/observation.

and it is entirely possible that the astronomical references were added later.

And it is entirely possible that they were observations made at the time of war and written down when MBH was first written. No different between statement in quote and one written by me. Null Hypothesis is NOT guilty.. unless prove otherwise.

To the argument that the ancients could not retrofit, the answer would be, yes, they could not do so reliably, and that is why the dates you get are all over the place.

When it comes to Quantum mechanics experiments, there is ABSOLUTELY no disagreement when it comes to results of experiments (two slit experiments, splitting of single photon, delayed path of the photon, Geiger counter--its position, is apparent thread to photon and so on). Even then there are multiple theories/proposals to explain the causality/consequences.... ontological/epistemologcal explanations.

in the context of MBH, Multiple proposals are due to varied assumptions of reserarchers, varied data sets used by them, external limitation imposed by researchers on themselve (earliest date of iron, horse domestication, civilization, accepting techonology ...e.g. iron, weapons , horse domestication of MBH, but not acccpeting what astronomy evidence is telling them),dogmatic insistance on one observation being more critical that otheres and also 'dogmatic-traditional-relgious grounded assumptions that limit them.. Kaliyuga, Bhagavata reference of Krishna passing away = Beginning of Kaliyuga.

Add to it, inductive method of doing research, i.e. fitting of few observations to a given timeline is taken as validation of that timeline and ignoring the need to corroborate remaining observations.

It is necessary that all the dates coincide, that could not be a retro diction and would have to be actual contemporaneous observation.

I don't undestand what you mean by this.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 30 Sep 2012 08:12

To the argument that the ancients could not retrofit, the answer would be, yes, they could not do so reliably, and that is why the dates you get are all over the place. It is necessary that all the dates coincide, that could not be a retro diction and would have to be actual contemporaneous observation.

The dates are everywhere not because there was retrofitting but because of the interpretations and later use of what is understood of astronomical sightings in calculating the dates. For retrofitting you need motivation, it is not like ancients were engaged in AIT/OIT debates even then that they had the necessity is throwing in astronomical events.

Added later:
If anything our ancients were worried about our past not history. History is a modern construct, hence the search for dates.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Sep 2012 08:17

peter ji,
no, it doesnt. I suggested stellarium on this thread, and I have used it for some time. When you zoom in it fixes on the point you selected, and keeps it fixed with respect to the viewing frame - which to you appears to be relative to its supposed position of rising etc. There is no position of rising as such. To see why zoomed in figure compensates for the seasonal/precessional changes - you have to magnify only to the scale that keeps both the North cardinal marker on the horizon as well as the binary within your display's frame. Then just bring up the date-time dialogue and use your cursor/mouse to roll back the years and see how the whole orientation changes when you change the years but keep month+day+time fixed.

You still dont get it that using the same Julian day and time within the year - but spaced >1000 years apart, changes the entire orientation relative not only to the virtual instantaneous north, but also the binary's own orientation changes. If you zoom in, you lose this change from view because the software rotates the sky wrt your zoom point and compensates to keep the binary within the frame at the same relative position.

If you are determined not see any changes, you will not see one anyway, hence no point in discussing perhaps.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 30 Sep 2012 08:38

KLP Dubey wrote:Thirdly, the lack of history in the Veda immediately cancels AIT claims, which fundamentally are based upon the idea that the RV is the oldest of the "Indo-Aryan" historical texts and later texts are not useful to them.

Dubey ji, could you illustrate your point about 'lack of history in Vedas' canceling AIT claims by specifically applying them to horse, chariot and other philological cornerstones of AIT ? Here is a post I had made earlier on this asking the same question:

Arjun wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote: You are getting it all wrong. If the RV is seen, correctly, to have no historical bearing on deciding the AIT/OIT/PIE question, then the AIT loses immediately.
How does the acknowledgement of RV as 'revealed and deciphered sounds' as opposed to 'authored work' kill AIT ?

- The fact that the sounds 'asva' and ' ratha' were assigned the meanings as we know them in the RV indicates that the people who undertook the decipherment were familiar with the domesticated horse and the chariot.

- The meaning assigned to 'ayas' would indicate that the people who 'deciphered' the Vedas were familiar with metal objects- so must have belonged to bronze age in the least.

And so on...basically 'RV dating' would take on the slightly different meaning of when the RV sounds were deciphered as opposed to when it was authored. Further the clues would now relate to the geography of the people undertaking the decipherment as opposed to the geography of those authoring the work.

Would be good to understand how this would be an AIT-killer.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 30 Sep 2012 08:53

OT alert
KPLD ji, I don't get your point re. Vedas. Semantics and sound would have developed side by side. Same sounds would mean different things at different (time,space) coordinates, but would have evolved such that the function of evolution is continuous.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 30 Sep 2012 09:18

Dubey ji

you wrote,

Again, you are not coming back to me on the substance of my assertions.

Assertion always carries with it a burden of proof, is it not? Assertion implies significant committment to the proposition asserted.
I did not see this proof in your response, or may be I missed it.

Secondly and similarly, it is not even necessary to accept the point that "there is no history in the Veda". Simply realizing that "there is no way to reliably deduce history from the Veda" would be more than enough.

If I understand you correctly, It is ok (if someone insist) for one to assume that 'there may be some history in veda'. Your insistence is on 'reliable deduction of history from Veda'. If you agree that I did not misrepresent your views in above quote,

Then, I may humbly point out that Talageri is simply pointing out (this is my interpreation, Sri Talageri may not agree with it) that using the same methodology claimed by AIT, it could be shown that closer scrutiny of Veda can show reverse to be true.

As a startegic argument (think of it as arugment in court), this has immense value. At a minimum, the witness (i.e. methodology... employed by AIT and Talageri...is dismissed).

I was hoping for a proof for your assertion, not the repeatition of assertion itself. By proof, I meant something from independant sources. Well, by stating that Anukramanika is confusing, not consistent etc, you did generate a doubt in the mind of one who took 'Anukramanika' as revealed truth.

Thirdly, the lack of history in the Veda immediately cancels AIT claims, which fundamentally are based upon the idea that the RV is the oldest of the "Indo-Aryan" historical texts and later texts are not useful to them.

I agree. My point is Talageri's work, at a minimum, shows futility of AIT logic. I am not saying AIT club will comprehend it or would want to comprehend it. But rationalists would.

You will find very few living AITers conversant with the Puranas, Upanishads, and even Brahmanas.

I have to yet come across (or meet) any AITer who is conversant with anything.. other than their own cooked up nonsense.

1)The notion that the names attached to the Suktas have always been a part and parcel of the RV as it was transmitted through generations, is simply false.

I am not arguing against this position. I hear your assertion, I don't see the proof.

2) On top of that, the notion that the Mandalas have always had the same set of Suktas in them, is also false. If they had been rearranged slightly differently, the conclusions would be different.

Fair. However Assuming the current arrangement is what we have, is there a possibility of deciding who is closer to the truth .. in interpreation (AITers or Talageri), using their (rivers, geography, location of Soma, etc.)?

4) Many more obvious things invalidate these odd claims of "human composers". For instance, if the composer names came down to us all the way from the Vedic period, they would be Vedic Sanskrit words themselves. In that case, why are the names not accented in the Anukramani manuscripts ? Forget Katyayana, even the names in the older Anuvakanukramani of Shaunaka are not accented. Note the names listed in the Anukramanis are in the nominative case, and hence need to be accented. I have NEVER seen anybody who argues for a word being of Vedic origin but not able to tell the accent. Talageri seems to be blissfully unaware of such things.

Excellent point. I will write to Talageri and see what he says.

All in all, any reasonable person would conclude that the historical nature/connection of these works is so flimsy that nobody in their right senses should use it to bolster any historical claims, be it AIT, OIT, or whatever. This has nothing to do with Mimamsa or philosophy.

What you say applies not to just Rigveda, but can be said to be true of Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas and rest.

I still fail to see what are you going to say to a person who says...Rigveda is an ancient document, may be older/oldest but not unlike any other document....Brahmanas, Ramayan,MBH, puranas, etc., what is your response, besides, "Good for you, but I don't agree with it. Play with other documents if you like searching for history, but don't touch Rigveda?"

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 30 Sep 2012 12:09

Nilesh Oak wrote:Assertion always carries with it a burden of proof, is it not? Assertion implies significant committment to the proposition asserted.
I did not see this proof in your response, or may be I missed it.

Just because I said "assertion" in the opening sentences of my post, doesn't mean I left it at that. For example, in Section V, I clearly showed the composer references to be absurd. Now if you want to me to keep showing more and more absurdities, I'll be more than happy to do so.

If I understand you correctly, It is ok (if someone insist) for one to assume that 'there may be some history in veda'. Your insistence is on 'reliable deduction of history from Veda'. If you agree that I did not misrepresent your views in above quote,

Then, I may humbly point out that Talageri is simply pointing out (this is my interpreation, Sri Talageri may not agree with it) that using the same methodology claimed by AIT, it could be shown that closer scrutiny of Veda can show reverse to be true.

I am saying quite clearly that there is no way to reliably deduce any history in the RV Samhita, based upon a beginning-to-end analysis of its contents. Whether there may/may not be history there is totally redundant, if there is no way to "get there and find out" in the first place!

As a startegic argument (think of it as arugment in court), this has immense value. At a minimum, the witness (i.e. methodology... employed by AIT and Talageri...is dismissed).

You do not need Talageri's argument for that. What I have shown (and it is hardly an "original" argument) is entirely impartial and negates both approaches including the AIT first and foremost.

I was hoping for a proof for your assertion, not the repeatition of assertion itself. By proof, I meant something from independant sources. Well, by stating that Anukramanika is confusing, not consistent etc, you did generate a doubt in the mind of one who took 'Anukramanika' as revealed truth.

Nilesh Oak, I think you really are stretching skepticism to the extreme here. When the RV contents themselves do not support any history as it clearly seen from reading the words themselves, and there CAN be no other independent sources, indeed the right thing is to step back and stop any historical analysis of the RV.

I am not arguing against this position. I hear your assertion, I don't see the proof.

Sir, I have already shown it in detail. Did you not read the section on Vasishtha and Agastya. When the ancestors themselves are not real persons, how do you expect real descendants ? Or are you asking for an independent proof of that too ??

Fair. However Assuming the current arrangement is what we have, is there a possibility of deciding who is closer to the truth .. in interpreation (AITers or Talageri), using their (rivers, geography, location of Soma, etc.)?

I am coming to that next. Also the questions of horses, horse burials, chariots etc requested by other posters. Please try and see the simple point here. The RV words themselves do not support any history. There is really no way to get around that, except to insist in a recalcitrant manner that "there is still something there". That has led to a huge pile of AIT garbage. We need to clean it out, not add OIT garbage to it.

Excellent point. I will write to Talageri and see what he says.

Thanks.

What you say applies not to just Rigveda, but can be said to be true of Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas and rest.

That is quite possible (though not automatic), if one looks at only their contents. But in the case of the Epics and Puranas we can certainly turn to other evidence (other contemporary historical works, material artefacts, etc). In the case of the RV, there is NO such evidence.

I still fail to see what are you going to say to a person who says...Rigveda is an ancient document, may be older/oldest but not unlike any other document....Brahmanas, Ramayan,MBH, puranas, etc., what is your response, besides, "Good for you, but I don't agree with it. Play with other documents if you like searching for history, but don't touch Rigveda?"

Yes. And the reason has already been given. Quite simply:

1) RV has NO consistent description of any earthly objects or events useful for historical analysis. One has to resort to selective quotation, which invariably in the past has demonstrated absurd results. There has been no change in the approaches to historical analysis, whether AIT or OIT. Talageri's approach is nothing really new. At the end of the day, it too is based on questionable and selective extraction of a very tiny amount of information from the RV (a total of perhaps 500 sounds) and using it to make historical claims that fix the "dates" of all 400,000 sounds. As a matter of fact, Talageri probably knows this by itself would not have much chance of success, so he has turned (unfortunately) to an index of the RV which is thousands of years removed from "proposed dates" for the composition of the RV!

2) There is no possibility of attestation by "independent sources" or "older works". This is different for authored works like the Ramayana (author: Valmiki) and Mahabharata (author: Vyasa), which are essentially works of "fiction" built possibly around some real events and characters. Such genres of writing are quite common even today, but nobody considers these works so important that they need to be preserved in "exact" form orally for generations. The RV has no attested authors, betrays no sign of describing any real historical events, and has been deemed to be of a much greater importance than any authored work.

I have already proposed a new and more comprehensive path forward to glean more reliable data from the RV. It could start with a detailed computational analysis of possible consistent meanings starting from the list of the Vedic roots as well as a "seed quantity" of "known meanings".

KL

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2012 12:41

KLP Dubey wrote:You do not need Talageri's argument for that. What I have shown (and it is hardly an "original" argument) is entirely impartial and negates both approaches including the AIT first and foremost.

KLP Dubey ji,

What part of the AIT claims does this negate?

Even by the model suggested by you, AIT-Nazis can simply claim that the work of developing an Indo-European language (Sanskrit-similar language) from the sounds of the Rigveda started in the Pontic Steppes. Later these "Europoid" people invaded India, and brought their knowledge of such a language to India giving it to the native people!

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 30 Sep 2012 13:08

RajeshA wrote:What part of the AIT claims does this negate?

Even by the model suggested by you, AIT-Nazis can simply claim that the work of developing an Indo-European language (Sanskrit-similar language) from the sounds of the Rigveda started in the Pontic Steppes. Later these "Europoid" people invaded India, and brought their knowledge of such a language to India giving it to the native people!

RajeshA,

Sure! But then it would also be possible to claim the exact same people coming from China, Africa, North America, the Moon, outside the Solar System, etc. Or, of course, being indigenous to India too.

I am surprised that, after creating an entire thread aimed at refuting the AIT, you are appearing disingenuous about where its sources of support come from.

Look, the AIT does not stand "by itself" just by making a claim that it can't bolster. The two MAIN things used to bolster it are:

1) Claims of actual historical references in the RV, involving horses, chariots, battles between fair-skinned and dark-skinned people, etc etc. These will be canceled. Now if someone wants to propose an entirely new model based on what you said, it will be left as just a random speculation with no philological support for it!

2) Claims of sound changes occurring from supposed Central Asian languages as these people moved from west to east. These will also be canceled by addressing the PIE fraud separately.

To summarize, this whole fraud is propped up by: fraudulent philology of Vedic Sanskrit, and fraudulent linguistics. Most of the influential AITers over the last 150 years have been either philologists or linguists.

As for the Veda, it is indeed a Universal Heritage, and could have been "received" (and may be received at any moment) at any place in the Universe. Indians do not have any "monopoly" on it; however, as far as the Earth is concerned, it turns out that the Veda has been preserved only in India, and hence it is our responsibility to continue this practice and keep the tenuous human connection with these primeval and eternal sounds.

KL

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2012 13:45

Anantha wrote:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... ian-onion/
.

I can almost say "Ho hum, so what's new?'

The original paper about which the comments are being made is available at this link (got it from Anantha's link above)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9711004885

If you spend a little time rejecting technical detail and looking at the findings three things are clear:

1. Too may earlier papers have over represented Pakistani samples and under represented samples from India. This paper seeks to correct that
2. Central Asian populations actually inherited a lot of East Asian at some remote time in the past. None of those East Asian genes show up among Indians ruling out any Central Asia to India spread.
3, Genetic diversity in India is highest suggesting most ancient populations and/or highest number of people
3. There was no Aryan migration or any other migration detectable up to 12,500 years ago

Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration.

Yaaaaawnnn. Someone wake me up when "evidence" of AIT is found.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 30 Sep 2012 15:19

KLP Dubey wrote:I am coming to that next. Also the questions of horses, horse burials, chariots etc requested by other posters.

KLP Dubey wrote:1) Claims of actual historical references in the RV, involving horses, chariots, battles between fair-skinned and dark-skinned people, etc etc. These will be canceled.

KLP Dubey wrote:2) Claims of sound changes occurring from supposed Central Asian languages as these people moved from west to east. These will also be canceled by addressing the PIE fraud separately.

RajeshA ji, from what I can glean from these posts by Dubey ji - he intends to specifically address the application of 'no history in the Vedas' to the horse /chariot question as well as the PIE issue, in subsequent posts.

We would all look forward to this - clearly this would be the touchstone with which to determine whether the argument of 'no history in the Vedas' is better than competing ones (including that of Talegeri's) or not.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Sep 2012 17:28

For example, the Saros cycle was known to the ancients, and could be used for retrodiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)

Ps- forget about this guy's history of Surya Siddhanta. Accuracy wise,

http://users.hartwick.edu/hartleyc/hind ... cribe.html

The times of solar eclipses predicted by the Surya Siddhanta algorithms compare well with modern calculations considering the simplicity of the methods. They are often within 30 minutes. This is not an acceptable error, however, if you are using these calculations to determine the location on Earth from which one will see the total eclipse. The Earth rotates by 7.5 degrees in 30 minutes which means, if there is a 30 minute error, the shadow of the Moon on the Earth will be 7.5 degrees in longitude different from where the Surya Siddhanta predicts it will be at the moment of the New Moon. At the equator this amounts to about 500 miles. The accuracy is sufficient however to determine the approximate time of day of an eclipse and one would be amply warned to start looking for the eclipse.

The calculation of the celestial latitude of the Moon at the time of the New Moon is close enough to allow one to get a good idea as to whether an eclipse will occur or not and also in which hemisphere of the Earth it might be total

.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Sep 2012 18:12

How Bishop Ussher arrived at the Biblical date of creation
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... ssher.html

An example of the Hindu results

Creation ended 1,955,880,000 years before midnight February 18, 3102 B.C. at Ujjayni, India

One needs a similar explanation - what were they calculating, and how? Where did that 1,955,880,000 come from? (the precise number is not the issue, the question is what was the underlying model?) I do not think we have understood that.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Sep 2012 19:26

I am with KLP ji, in that I also suspect the formulation/codification of RV to have been done with one of two possible purposes : a rearrangement of pre-existing verses/knowledge to enhance the reputation/importance of certain figues/regimes who had taken on names or identifications connected to words/phrases [this in turn could then also mean a very high importance given to the meanings of the words, or those who maintained the word collections and interpretations from a much earlier phase].

However the other purpose could be slightly disagreeing with him in that this one could have astronomical or physical observations encoded. The other purpose could be independent of any political or ideological programme, but be all about encoding important data/information through the structural forms of the verses, their numbers, patterns of arrangements of words, and could at least partly be numerical information connected to scientific observations or theories. Why a device of using mostly laudatory verse to encode hard data - well that could be a very philosophical approach, verys imilar to how many modern mathemateticans or physicists go gaga over the beauty and magnificence of theorems or theories for example, and often express their feelings and summaries through poetic exuberance and analogies. In this sense, if it does encode astronomical obseravtions if any, it might be also talking of history or fixing time periods of observations.

It does need research.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 30 Sep 2012 19:58

Dubey ji wrote

4) Many more obvious things invalidate these odd claims of "human composers". For instance, if the composer names came down to us all the way from the Vedic period, they would be Vedic Sanskrit words themselves. In that case, why are the names not accented in the Anukramani manuscripts ? Forget Katyayana, even the names in the older Anuvakanukramani of Shaunaka are not accented. Note the names listed in the Anukramanis are in the nominative case, and hence need to be accented. I have NEVER seen anybody who argues for a word being of Vedic origin but not able to tell the accent. Talageri seems to be blissfully unaware of such things.

I wrote...

Excellent point. I will write to Talageri and see what he says.

Here is response from Shri. Talageri, I am reproducing it without claiming comprehension or subtlities and nuances.. finer points of articulation....

I do not know who it is who finds it "odd" that the composers of hymns should be "human"! The phrase "blissfully unaware" as well as the criticism of the anukramanis seem to be inspired by Witzel, although the implication that the hymns are of divine rather than "human" origin is clearly not.

The anukramanis, whether the names are accented or not, tell us the names of the composers of the hymns. This has ALWAYS been accepted, even by people who have NEVER argued for a word being of Vedic origin if not accented. Witzel also accepts (except when arguing against my evidence) that the names of the composer, deity and metre were recited before every hymn from the earliest Vedic days, and his disciple Thedore Proferes has devoted an entire thesis to pointing out the general validity of the composer names in the anukramanis.

Also check out the analysis of the composer names in the Rigveda in the first chapter of my book "The Rigveda and the Avesta- The Final Evidence". Large categories of composer names, with equivalents in the Zend Avesta, occur only in those books of the Rigveda (books 5, 1, 8, 9 and 10, and only in the interpolated hymns in the other five books) in which similar names are found within the actual hymns as well. This confirms their genuinity.

I wish people would read the evidence carefully before raising childish objections.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 30 Sep 2012 20:19

brihaspati wrote:However the other purpose could be slightly disagreeing with him in that this one could have astronomical or physical observations encoded. The other purpose could be independent of any political or ideological programme, but be all about encoding important data/information through the structural forms of the verses, their numbers, patterns of arrangements of words, and could at least partly be numerical information connected to scientific observations or theories. Why a device of using mostly laudatory verse to encode hard data - well that could be a very philosophical approach, verys imilar to how many modern mathemateticans or physicists go gaga over the beauty and magnificence of theorems or theories for example, and often express their feelings and summaries through poetic exuberance and analogies. In this sense, if it does encode astronomical obseravtions if any, it might be also talking of history or fixing time periods of observations.It does need research.

Not from Rigveda, bur this time from MBH text - VanaParva CE 219/GP 230 and subject of Chapter 5 of my book.

8 अभिजित सपर्धमाना तु रॊहिण्या कन्यसी सवसा
इच्छन्ती जयेष्ठतां देवी तपस तप्तुं वनं गता
9 तत्र मूढॊ ऽसमि भद्रं ते नक्षत्रं गगनाच चयुतम
कालं तव इमं परं सकन्द बरह्मणा सह चिन्तय
10 धनिष्ठादिस तदा कालॊ बरह्मणा परिनिर्मितः
रॊहिण्याद्यॊ ऽभवत पूर्वम एवं संख्या समाभवत
11 एवम उक्ते तु शक्रेण तरिविदं कृत्तिका गताः
नक्षत्रं शकटाकारं भाति तद वह्नि दैवतम

Yes, A Gupta ji, Transcription is bad. Only way I will get around is if I post it as image from original (which is in PDF).

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Sep 2012 20:34

^^^ the transcription of that passage from MbH is bad!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2012 22:49

KLP Dubey wrote:
RajeshA wrote:What part of the AIT claims does this negate?

Even by the model suggested by you, AIT-Nazis can simply claim that the work of developing an Indo-European language (Sanskrit-similar language) from the sounds of the Rigveda started in the Pontic Steppes. Later these "Europoid" people invaded India, and brought their knowledge of such a language to India giving it to the native people!
RajeshA,

Sure! But then it would also be possible to claim the exact same people coming from China, Africa, North America, the Moon, outside the Solar System, etc. Or, of course, being indigenous to India too.

Yes arbitrary claims can be made, but the claims have been defined by the adversary as being from outside India, regardless of whether it is from Pontic Steppes, Anatolia, Armenia, or elsewhere; or by us, being indigenous to India.

What are the stakes here:
a) For the AIT-Nazis, it is all about having a non-Indic origin of their civilizational influences - language, mythology, to some extent genes. They do not want to owe anything to a non-Western living civilization. Their racism is dictating their course of action, and that is all they would lose, if something contrary is proven. It is minimal stakes, and whatever stakes there are were waged by their own wish.

b) For us Indics, it is about asserting our civilizational indigeneousness, for so says our tradition, as well as the compulsions arising out of manufactured social and political faults in India, which lead us to complete deracination. For us the stakes are maximum, and we have been pulled into this tussle involuntarily. It is not just an academic exercise.

Due to difference in stakes, the above options of Aryan Urheimat, are for us not equivalued. For AIT-Nazis it can be anything, except India. So this equivalence as well as arbitrariness achieved by your proposal is to our disadvantage.

KLP Dubey wrote:I am surprised that, after creating an entire thread aimed at refuting the AIT, you are appearing disingenuous about where its sources of support come from.

Look, the AIT does not stand "by itself" just by making a claim that it can't bolster. The two MAIN things used to bolster it are:

1) Claims of actual historical references in the RV, involving horses, chariots, battles between fair-skinned and dark-skinned people, etc etc. These will be canceled. Now if someone wants to propose an entirely new model based on what you said, it will be left as just a random speculation with no philological support for it!

I would like to point to a certain style of argumentation by the other camp. Here is one response from ManishH ji to a suggestion by ukumar. I am reproducing it below.

ManishH wrote:
ukumar wrote:4. PIE is familiar with wild horses. Disperses from India and domesticates horse in Steppe.
Ok. But that would need the horse to be found in India @5000 BC (by conservative estimates). Since OIT says Mahabharata was ~3000 BC and Talageri's book says 2000 BC.

What we see here is one OIT position of one camp being undermined by the another OIT position of another camp.

Somehow the belief is there that if the argument of non-historic nature of Rigveda is proposed, the adversary would accept the parameters given by this position. No they won't. They will continue to make their arguments just as they have been making till today, and for their purposes simply ignore the position that Rigveda has neither history nor geography. They will continue to posit natural evolution of languages based on sound changes, and the Sanskritic base of Rigveda, including all those associations they build between their horses in Central Asia and Rigvedic rites. No, the adversary would not just pack up and accept this Indic position. In fact many Indians would agree with the position of presence of history and geography in Rigveda.

The only time AIT-Nazis would bring up the ahistorical ageographical nature of Rigveda is when the OIT side makes a cogent argument which destroys their position. Then they will say, "well isn't it true that Rigveda has no history and geography, so how does this argument square with that theory"! This they will say only in the context of that argument, otherwise they will continue to hang on to their position.

I simply see it as an arrogance in stance, when one says that when we take a philosophical position, the other would also have no choice but to accept those premises. Why would the AIT-Nazis accept this philosophical position?!

KLP Dubey wrote:2) Claims of sound changes occurring from supposed Central Asian languages as these people moved from west to east. These will also be canceled by addressing the PIE fraud separately.

To summarize, this whole fraud is propped up by: fraudulent philology of Vedic Sanskrit, and fraudulent linguistics. Most of the influential AITers over the last 150 years have been either philologists or linguists.

The information on sound corruption in the various Prātiśākhyas can be very helpful in creating an anti-AIT position in linguistics. Thank you very much for pointing this out.

The preexisting theories need to be shown that they are wrong by showing their internal logical inconsistency as well, or contrary evidence.

KLP Dubey wrote:As for the Veda, it is indeed a Universal Heritage, and could have been "received" (and may be received at any moment) at any place in the Universe. Indians do not have any "monopoly" on it; however, as far as the Earth is concerned, it turns out that the Veda has been preserved only in India, and hence it is our responsibility to continue this practice and keep the tenuous human connection with these primeval and eternal sounds.

On this I would agree: Veda can be availed of by all humanity. Indics don't have a monopoly on the spiritual benefits of the Veda.

If one says that the Veda has only been preserved in India, then the question of interest is a) since when has this "preservation" in India been going on, and b) who were the ones in India who first took up this arduous responsibility. Since the Anukramanis are not to be considered as legitimate, then obviously the burden of proof is on those who question their legitimacy, to show alternative "receivers" of the Veda, or for that matter alternative "preservation initiators" of the Veda. The option that speculation and research into this question cannot be undertaken, would simply not be acceptable to many as the mystery actually becomes a challenge to the intellect.