Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[vishvak]

A reason why AIT could be refuted using the same frameworks and arguments that western theory mongers propound against OIT is that we don't have to define, term and spend time on nomenclature of refutation as per other discourses, stories and theories.

As mentioned by ShauryaT ji, refuting AIT therefore becomes independent of discourse of our own, and also makes it independent w.r.t. way of refutation to connect anything in our own discourse to western narrative.

This could avoid giving any credit to western narrative and any credibility from within Indian discourse, for any western story teller to latch onto, in terms of refutation nomenclature. It will also mean that AIT or such theories would have to burden 'historic baggage', perhaps increasing with time, of its own refutation nomenclature.

Repeating, It can also avoid creating unnecessary refutation nomenclature within Indian discourse connected in any other stories such as AIT.

[JwalaMukhi]

It would be very difficult to teach our chilldren about dharma and vedas if sages and thinkers like sri aurobindo and dayanand saraswati are just introduced as spiritual health doctors.

People who accuse klpd for making unpleasant comment about shrikantji also stand accused of minimizing other great people of india, without of course knowing them, reading them and understanding their work.

Correct. Here is a draft that I did not post, but now probably is relevant. Because most of them are behaving as RajeshJi as come out with nice terminology of vedic parachuters. Vedas are eternal, hence by definition they are beyond the scope of time and space. Hence, what is so special about SDREs, that anyone can access and approach it at any time of their choosing and any type of liking. So people who try to proudly wear badge of being non-religious (sic) and strut rationality are propagating the 'purist' view of vedas. Which squarely looks like Vedic parachuters. Most people who have competency to talk about vedas are generally religious(sic) types. Please let me know if it is incorrect!

As a common man living at present time, I would like some one to present in a simple way what one thinks of vedas. I dont like the esoteric stuff which I dont understand. i find it hard to believe. Not that it is wrong just that one has failed to convince simple folks like me. that is all.

I'm going to go out on a limb, that vast majority of purists who hold vedas in highest regards are by defacto religious (sic) whatever it may mean. But KPLDji et.al, have on this very thread disassociate proudly from being religious and want to continue with discourse in a detached manner. That's the reason, when the debate to happen in Samskrit where the pandits who can debate that happen to be deeply religious (sic), there was lot of hesitation on that front on the grounds that such discussion should not be confined to only a narrow field of experts! Well, that plainly is a cop out.
Krisna Ji,
I am afraid you may not get a satisfactory answer here, because most of those who proudly disassociate from being religious (sic) and think that as a badge of honor and rationality (sic!) are going to talk about vedas (which are mostly maintained by deeply religious )(sic). So the best bet would be talk to many deeply religious (sic) samskrit pundits who are practitioners of preserving vedas, who are most closely associated with it.
But then again they may refer to use panchama veda - Mahabharata as guideline to understand the vedic principles.

[Shankk]

I just want to thank you Rajeshji for your interest, time and efforts in this topic. The way you have handled some of the posters on here was a masterstoke. As PuLa's Antu Barwa said, I am myself not very familiar with the topic so refrained from posting much here but I do understand or at least make well educated guess about intents. Dubeyji remind me of one seasonal poster that popped up during Indo-US nuclear deal to vociferously support that deal. Dubeyji's viewpoint may be different and style is certainly different. I could never agree with the very fundamental basis of Dubeyji's argument that Vedas are beyond humans (anaadi and apurusheya) and should be treated that way. This is the same premise on which book/prophet based religions are based and the roots of which are trying to deny the legitimacy and at times even existence of Indian civilization. They have a very long head start in that business that they mistakenly call religion (specifically the two) and they must be denied that premise. Nothing is beyond the logic and reasoning; not the prophets nor their books and that includes Vedas, Bible, Koran and others.

[A_Gupta]

A_Gupta ji,

I'll put the question differently. The West is already in the process of digesting Buddhism as well as Hinduism, minus the idols. How about letting this process to continue. When the West has finished its digestion, they can propagate to the Cambodians as well as Indians, the virtues of Dharma and all the rest.

The West is able to do so because Indians have lost faith in indigenous knowledge systems.

Why do we try to squeeze ourselves, us SDRE Indians, into the equation? There is nothing special about us! Whatever discoveries were made were made by some Aryan rishis who had more to do with Europeans than the natives of India, and in any way they are long gone and India does not represent their legacy!

Yes, there is nothing special about you, me, etc., by virtue of being somebody's son, grandson, etc. Witzel owns more Sanskrit than you, until you know Sanskrit better than him. Of course, what you have, and he doesn't, is a stronger connection to the Indian ethos, and therefore the hope is you (I/we) will connect back to it fully again.

As KLP Dubey ji has already predicted that the last Vedic would be a Westerner, so I don't think there is any need for us to struggle here against the inevitable. I guess the ivory tower of Vedic scholars in India itself plans on shifting to the West, leaving the SDRE Indians to choose between Allah and Jesus!

I try to support Swami Dayananda Saraswati, whose ashram here is the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam at Saylorsburg, PA. He even at past 80 years of age, is doing more than most to keep your inevitable outcome from happening. The question is - are SDRE Indians going to walk the walk, not just talk it?

Perhaps we SDREs are really a "kabab men haddi", because we are insisting on some ownership of Sanskrit and the Vedic culture for ourselves. But then Vedas is for everybody and so we should not insist on any copyrights! Right?

Ownership comes from expertise and practice.

Also why worry about all those dead kings who ruled India in the last 15,000 years! They are all dead, and what does it matter whether they are considered fiction or real?! Does it also matter whether Mathematics came from India or from the Greeks? For the modern world, important is that it is there! We SDREs should not try to act immodestly or chauvinistically!

Some of the things chauvinist Indians have done have damaged faith in Indian knowledge systems. Because the chauvinist leaves behind the touchstone of what is true, what is demonstrable, what will require faith to accept.

Let's be clear about something! Either we make a stand and demand that we be treated as a civilization with its accomplishments and that means destroying AIT and correcting our history, or we put up our hands and say it is a good thing that now more Americans know Veda and Sanskrit and Veda has been saved, regardless of whether our civilization lies fully fragmented with the Sanskriti long having left our shores.

If we behave like a civilization, we have no demands to make of anyone else, we stand on our own. "Demand we be treated..." already conceded the battle that someone else determines our status.

Why I like this thread is that it has given a lot of people enthusiasm to examine
1. the past
2. the ancient works
3. dharma

Trying to predetermine the outcome, and demanding that anything but OIT will be a failure, is not a recipe for long-term success. The goal is, that whatever the history turns out to be, it will be Indians who are the foremost experts on it. There are no shortcuts.

[Arjun]

Trying to predetermine the outcome, and demanding that anything but OIT will be a failure, is not a recipe for long-term success. The goal is, that whatever the history turns out to be, it will be Indians who are the foremost experts on it. There are no shortcuts.

Nobody out here is trying to predetermine anything. All outcomes are only based on scholarship and science.

But the thread rules dictate that AIT vs Anti-AIT vs OIT debate happen here, and inter-OIT debate happen in other threads.

Can you summarize what exactly your position is at this point? Are you indicating that you don't like the thread objectives and want to stop participating, or is it that you want the thread to jettison AIT and focus on propagating Vedic Dharma ? What is the outcome you are looking for?

[krisna]

I'm going to go out on a limb, that vast majority of purists who hold vedas in highest regards are by defacto religious (sic) whatever it may mean. But KPLDji et.al, have on this very thread disassociate proudly from being religious and want to continue with discourse in a detached manner. That's the reason, when the debate to happen in Samskrit where the pandits who can debate that happen to be deeply religious (sic), there was lot of hesitation on that front on the grounds that such discussion should not be confined to only a narrow field of experts! Well, that plainly is a cop out.
Krisna Ji,
I am afraid you may not get a satisfactory answer here, because most of those who proudly disassociate from being religious (sic) and think that as a badge of honor and rationality (sic!) are going to talk about vedas (which are mostly maintained by deeply religious )(sic). So the best bet would be talk to many deeply religious (sic) samskrit pundits who are practitioners of preserving vedas, who are most closely associated with it.
But then again they may refer to use panchama veda - Mahabharata as guideline to understand the vedic principles.

I reiterate again that as we are the followers of Sanatan Dharma we should be informed in simple terms about our faith/belief systems. If the common sdre understands it he/she will gave a better grip on themselves and fend off any abrahamic attack. we have much to do in this aspect. So anyone who has knowledge about it should try their best to explain it in simple terms. I know that all are not gifted in speaking or writing. However that should not deter knowledgeable people from explaining it to common folks like me in simple terms.
By knowing ourselves and our Dharma we become more confident of ourselves and our faith/belief systems. We have the best among all faiths. It stands upto the scrutiny of all and sundry irrespective of any faith. It has withstood the time so far.

If the knowledegable folks think it is a waste of time then it is not worth reading or listening to them.

Now why do we have stories of the greatest epics of all times -- Ramayana and Mahabharata. the stories are great-- genius , a masterstroke-- they inform common folks like me the Dharma, righteous way in form of a story. As ShauryaTji said "soaps are more popular than documentaries".
No wonder common man understands it much better.
In fact my grandmom told me that Mahabharata is itself is a veda in its own terms. If you understand it well you have become a good human being.

[krisna]

I do not believe that vedas are authorless.
It is bunkum for my point of view. vedas are not produced de novo from air or water or whatever one calls it.
It is told or written by great seers/rishis--I mean great intellectual people in the past.
we should not fall into what non SD followers routinely claim about their books.( I easily question their versions and non sdres have trouble answering back)
vedas do not have names of authors -- in that sense it is authorless.

if anyone can explain how the vedas are authorless and how they are formed or written etc please in simple terms I would be grateful.

===================================================================================
It is important that we know our faith/belief systems well. It should be the truth not falsehoods.

previously chritian missionaries came to 'Maha Bharath' to conquer and convert people to their religion. It was totally different to their beliefs. they could not convert sdres because of their openess to welcoming their belief also. Hence christian missionaries had to debunk our roots and make ourselves ashamed of our past. This led to the falsifications of our history.
They told that we are came from west, languages evolved from other western ones etc etc .They stole a lot of Indian works from the past. They now in private musuems and personal collections and govts of the west.
They did it on purpose to make us believe in falsehoods. Once we fall into their machinations we will fall prey to their propaganda. we will be ripe for their pickings.

Hence it is necessary
1) to debunk these bast1rds versions of the story.
2) present the truth.

we do require both to occur in parallel or one after another. I am of firm opinion this thread will achieve it. The brfites are doing a tremendous job in this regard. I am grateful for all of you. some are excellent writers and do a good job of dissecting it in simple way whereas other are good-- easily can understand that they have indepth knowledge but difficult to comprehend. we require all of you to post here and help all sdres to find our roots honestly and with confidence.

if people say that we dont have to worry about corrupt versions of our story then they are living in cuckoo's land. Presenting truth is alone is inadequate and insufficient. Because some people do believe in falsehoods due to default or deliberately. By default as in textbooks or at young age when they do not have the capacity to question it. Deliberately due to various other reasons example non sdres and lefttists,western academics etc .
we have to fight for our faith-- nothing but the truth and whole truth along with demolishing faulty versions factually


JMTs.

[Nilesh Oak]

Trying to predetermine the outcome, and demanding that anything but OIT will be a failure, is not a recipe for long-term success. The goal is, that whatever the history turns out to be, it will be Indians who are the foremost experts on it. There are no shortcuts.

This is precisely the reason why no document (Rigveda included) is beyond scrutiny. Since this thread is about AIT, non-AIT and OIT, many things we may want to discuss may be OT here and thus should be moved to other apprpriate threads.

Anyone reading the thread would realize that there is overwhleming evidence for non-AIT and decent evidence for OIT. We will never be 100% sure about our past, as much as we are never 100% sure about Newton's laws or Einstein's relativity.

Talking about my research of last 20 years, I researched origin of Veda in arctic circle (AHV- Tilak) with as much zeal as observation of AV, without worrying about final outcome. I explore theories of 'continental drift' and 'earth crust displacement' with equal enthusiasm and also theories of 'astral travel' or multiuniverse theory of QM.

I will repeat, if someone today brings incontrovertible evidence for AIT, I would neither flinch nor blink. My reaction would be identical if incontrovertible evidence is presented for year of MBH War other than 5561 BC or fictional nature of entire MBH corpus.

Those who truly want to find out what happened (or how something works) need not worry about final outcome, however anyone working on these issues, at any given time, must have a solid conjecture they are trying to test (besides.... to test a given theory is to make it fail, an attempt to falsify...a small curious fact lost on many). My such conejcture ...as far as this thread is concerned.. is OIT.
------------------------------------------------------------------

What is 'SDRE' and 'SD'? Is there a link to BRF nomenclature somewhere?

[shiv]

However, I do not think we have to refute AIT using the same frameworks and arguments that they propound. Just like they have developed the art of dismissing vast corpuses of our texts as "fiction" and unreliable, we can do the same and negate their concocted history as not worthy of detail analysis, as their base assumptions based on the Vedas and language and so many other areas are faulty.

What we ought to do is to rebuild our own narratives of ourselves first, before talking about OIT et al. For this purpose, we do not have to touch the vedas at all. We have 800,000 other documents, sites and digs, history of kingdoms that we need to understand without ANY reference to AIT/PIE or Horse grave BS.

I agree that we need to build our own narrative, and in that sense I see a change that has come over me after doing so much reading on the subject. Ultimately, when it comes down to believing or not believing something about which very little is known it becomes a matter of faith. Right across the bord I find that in western scholarship this has occurred - there is a consensus that "We believe this, we accept this. We reject that" And this is often done with no strong basis for rejecting "that" - the decision is reached merely on a sort of civilizational comfort level. If you are in Europe your civilizational comfort level comes more easily by believing Herodotus and not some unpronounceable Sanskrit name.

I now realise that the first thing one needs to do is to believe what one's own civilization tells you about its past because it has no reason to lie to you.I am finding myself less of a doubter and more inclined to look positively at concepts like Hindu temple in Kaaba or even Tejo Mahalaya. In fact recorded history shows curious facts that are simply discarded by current historians on the arbitrary rule "I believe this and not that because I am more comfortable with this"

There are many unexplained facts that are discarded for want of evidence, but evidence is simply cooked up for many theories to make them fact. The cooking up of a single origin PIE and its placement in one particular area is a classic example of that. The evidence seems to point to a much more complex and older history.

There have been links between India, Iran, Egypt and Greece in the remote past long before westrn historic records are willing to admit. The Sanskrit link in my view is via Avestan and Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism has been known in Greece from the earliest times because Persia and Greece were in contact. The Avestan of Zorastrianism is a late language discovered from Pahlavi. The early language was probably far closer to Sanskrit, shared the books and beliefs but split away from the Indian Vedic line. It was Zorastrianism that demanded prayer five times a day and Zoroastrianism that discouraged disposal of bodies in fire.

But at even more remote times, there are other links. Socrates (and Plato's) works seem to suggest some awareness of reality and maya that seems to have come down from the Upanishads. There must have been travelers and seers from India going to Greece and vice versa. Ancient Greek texts do not always see Indian gods as alien but assume the same god with a different name.

Ancient Egyptian myths of Osiris and Isis tell of an Osiris whose body was cut into pieces and temples were put up in places where pieces fell. There is a story that his penis was found only later and a temple set of where his phallus fell. The bull Apis is associated with Osiris. Folks this is Egypt and there is clearly some parallel between phallus temples and an associated bull and Shiva. From this it would not surprise me at all to discover that the Kaaba may have been a temple to an ancient God that had some similar legend attached to it.

There are deep civilzational links in the entire area from India to Iran, to Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Turkey and Greece. The further back you go in time the fewer the records. But the legends are there and the similarities in concept are uncanny. The Vedas cause anger because they are records of a time that was wiped out in other areas by newer religions that sought to erase the past.

[shiv]

What is 'SDRE' and 'SD'? Is there a link to BRF nomenclature somewhere?

BRF dictionary
https://sites.google.com/site/brfdictionary/

SDRE: https://sites.google.com/site/brfdictio ... ary/s/sdre

SD may be Sanatana Dharma

[JwalaMukhi]

I do not believe that vedas are authorless.
It is bunkum for my point of view. vedas are not produced de novo from air or water or whatever one calls it.
It is told or written by great seers/rishis--I mean great intellectual people in the past.
we should not fall into what non SD followers routinely claim about their books.( I easily question their versions and non sdres have trouble answering back)
vedas do not have names of authors -- in that sense it is authorless.

if anyone can explain how the vedas are authorless and how they are formed or written etc please in simple terms I would be grateful.

KrisnaJi,
Here is a feeble attempt of how vedas are apaurushyas are of non-human origins. I will be liberally using descriptions of modern parlance, albeit it could be quite erroneous. The error will purely a reflection of my limited understanding. TFWIW.

All matter ultimately can be reduced to phenomena of energy. The laws of thermodynamics etc., are to be discovered. In that sense the laws themselves are of non-human origins. The descriptions and discovery of those laws are by humans. The vedas can be considered to be such eternal laws that are discovered. When Shruthi is meant, it is not mere audible hearing. It has even deeper meaning. It is perceived by some human faculty that is closely approximated to the process of hearing.
So the act of perception is done by an instrument (if you wish - one/many faculty/faculties of human). This act of perception of tapping into the "vedas" - energy field (that is eternal - beyond the bounds of space and time) is done by seers.
The clever SDREs took the route of first understanding the instrument (human faculties), its limitations and how to condition that where it is possible to go beyond those limitations. Once a thorough study of the instrument (human faculties) was conducted it was made conducive to actually explore the eternal laws. This method of unlocking the mysteries of eternal laws yields was dependent on many factors, including lot of discipline (devotion etc). One such factor is famously referred to as "revealing grace" or anugraha. Many of the vedic seers were lucky enough to tap into that ever present eternal law and try to grasp its importance and convey it. The very act of grasping and describing that process is considered so tremendous that many life times are necessary and even then it is limitless and boundless. Only a glimpse of that gets revelation.
This act of discovering the eternal laws has a certain methodology which those seers perfected. The eternal laws remain non-human. The act of partial discoveryrevelation is human, but the laws themselves are treated as non-human.
The power of mantras are control of energy through subtle sound energy. To paraphrase arthur clarke - When a civilization is sufficiently advanced most things will start looking like magic.

[KLP Dubey]

If we behave like a civilization, we have no demands to make of anyone else, we stand on our own. "Demand we be treated..." already conceded the battle that someone else determines our status.

The OIT will take India the Egypt or China way. To this day everybody showers praise on these civilizations for their "achievements", but the natives of those countries have been long converted to other, externally imposed, ways of thinking and derive no benefit from their past "history". They are just given some "bragging rights to keep" but little else of value.

In this very thread we have people stating they "do not believe the Veda is authorless". They had rather believe the Veda was a creation of some Indian tribals wandering around and fighting each other on the plains of North India. This is supposed to be a great historical achievement, particular because these tribals did not come from outside as was originally claimed by AIT. This is what the "scrutiny" of the Rgveda has unearthed according to these folks. We should then shut down the Arya Samaj, Chinmaya Mission, Ramakrishna Mission, Vedic schools, etc. Why should anyone make a great effort to keep reciting the Veda when it is just an old poem telling about the struggles of ancient tribals?

The OIT may one day get for India what its followers demand: the "world history and culture prize" to keep as a consolation. But the "civilizational prizes" will have been carried off by others. The AIT is just a small-time academic "front operation" to distract Indians. The larger war is being played out in real life by the onslaught of "messianic" beliefs backed by fanatical missionaries and petrodollars. It seems Indians will never learn - always one step behind in strategy as well as in details.

Verily, Centurion RajeshA and the OIT Legion are 100% correct in their objectives and methods ! We will all be saved by them.

KL

[shiv]

I think the argument about the Vedas having or not having authors is more about semantics than anything else.

If you follow "logic" then you must ask if the Vedas are recited by humans they must have a source and that source must be either human or divine. If you ask for proof of divine origin and don't get it you must fall back to the human explanation.

Actually the solution could be neither of these. There are no known authors. There is no known identity for the author or authors. That is in fact the truth and is taken as an article of faith. If one insists on finding an author he will reach a dead end and will have to cook up a PIE like story and place it in Central Asia or Pakistan or Sopore. Naming authors or calling for a divine explanation is as shaky as PIE in Pontic steppe. It reflects more on the inability of the questioner to accept uncertainty and a demand that some explanation be given where the bald truth is that there is no explanation. Like origin of the universe. We seem to have no problem accepting "scientific explanation" of the latter. Why should the origin of the Vedas be held to a different standard?

[shiv]

Having been a devoted bhakta of science as taught to me from the 1960s one of the concepts that was insidiously placed in my mind was that science had explanations for everything. I grew up in a family of people who had no trouble inundating my environment with the most colourful and fascinating science books of a type that are no longer available - sourced from the best in the world at that time. Names like Perelman and George Gamow come to mind, but there were many others whose names I cannot recall and whose names were only in small print acknowledgements, if at all. (therefore "authorless" books)

I was taught to admire those who did not take no for an answer and without my realizing it I was exposed to fairy tales/cooked up tales as a tool to teach me the value of something else. Long before I did medicine I saw an encyclopedia that had a colour picture of Andreas Vesalius, one of the fathers of human anatomy for hakims of the western method asking his mother what made his fingers move. And she did not know, and that curiosity made him study medicine and later acquire dead bodies to dissect. This is part fairy tale, but I swallowed it. But one of the things that this education did to me was to cause me to reach my twenties before I realised that everything was not known. It took me longer to understand that some things are not only unknown, but they may be unknowable. But no harm in searching.

The fact that there are certain things that are considered unknown should not be difficult to accept provided one is mentally equipped to accept that and not primed to expect an answer to all questions, as I was until my twenties. We are all taught where our Mecca is and we are all taught to turn to Mecca when we have a problem. When we want to know what came at the beginning of time and what started the universe or why a Big Bang occurred at all, we turn to Mecca which is currently the physics labs of the West, perhaps at CERN near Anatolia and the Pontic Steppe. And when the high priests of our Mecca tell us that they do not yet know, we take it from them as a good explanation. But our Mecca is there, not with Vedic seers. The Vedas are considered authorless as a point of faith, but our Mecca is not in India.

[KLP Dubey]

First of all, this post (i.e., mine) is likely a totally baseless and irrelevant one. Its only excuse is "freedom of speech". The correct views are held by the OIT followers.

I think the argument about the Vedas having or not having authors is more about semantics than anything else.

If you follow "logic" then you must ask if the Vedas are recited by humans they must have a source and that source must be either human or divine. If you ask for proof of divine origin and don't get it you must fall back to the human explanation. ....

......Actually the solution could be neither of these.

Both the Mimamsa and the Vedanta - after a detailed "scrutiny" - conclude on a third answer, namely that it is eternal, i.e. it has no origin whether human or "divine". It is birthless (ajAta).

However, your choice of the word "logic" is curiously appropriate (and perhaps you knew it was). The view that the source of the Veda must be either human or divine (no other choice) stems from the schools of Nyaya-Vaisheshika (which together are often referred to as the "Indian school of logic").

Indians would have done better if they had made a more thorough study of the "History of Indian Inquiry". These questions have been literally beaten to death by Indian thought, we are now at the the point that people think they are the first to "scrutinize" the Veda as if nobody in India had done so before.

But this, at the end of the day, is a totally nonsensical viewpoint. OIT is correct.

KL

[shiv]

Indians would have done better if they had made a more thorough study of the "History of Indian Inquiry". These questions have been literally beaten to death by Indian thought, we are now at the the point that people think they are the first to "scrutinize" the Veda as if nobody in India had done so before.

It all depends on which direction you face to pray and get answers. Where is YOUR Mecca?

[KLP Dubey]

It all depends on which direction you face to pray and get answers. Where is YOUR Mecca?

I do not want an answer. I am mindlessly - like an oversized parrot - producing and repeating the sounds of the Veda, with no other objective but to keep doing it till I die.

The OIT is correct.

KL

[Murugan]

The vedic enthusiasts and non vedic enthusiasts here are due to two distinct situation

1. There are members who have been introduced to vedas very early in their lives. They are studying them for at leat a couple of decades and perhaps researching or thinking on them
2. Others are little less exposed to vedas but they feel strong conection.

Well, revival in India always happen on the platfroms of dharma,be him adi shankara, madhavacharya, tulsidas, mahaprabhu, dayanand saraswati, sri aurobindo, Tilakji, mahatma gandhi or swami bhaktivedana or vinoba bhave, pandurang shahstri or ramdev. The last few names have more to do with people movement and bringing people together without consideration of anything like castes etc. But their platform is built on dharmic understanding and platforms base is only vedas. Ultimately vedas bring people of india together.

Swami dayanad saraswati first thougt about independent india while sriaurobindo who was a freedom fighter envisioned freedom with possible date of independence day. Gandhiji and Tilakji brought such a vast, fragmented and injured mass together to drive away briturds. Their inspiration was vedas, upanishads and gita. These three things connect our people it is proven. Lately pandurang shastri s efforts had stopped the onslaughts of vidharmis in gujarat coastal belt, hinterland while made affluent people and villagers to chant vedic prayers thrice a day. Ramdev is arya samaji, sanskrit pandit and staunch follower of dayanand saraswati. All vedic connections onlee.

Vedas, upanishads, gita are these three thread that bind people together in india irrespective of caste and creed. No other platforms have proven so far. It would be great OIT or any other theory that reestablishes bharat has this base, success is guaranteed, if the above examples are enough.

[ShauryaT]

But at even more remote times, there are other links. Socrates (and Plato's) works seem to suggest some awareness of reality and maya that seems to have come down from the Upanishads. There must have been travelers and seers from India going to Greece and vice versa. Ancient Greek texts do not always see Indian gods as alien but assume the same god with a different name.

Ancient Egyptian myths of Osiris and Isis tell of an Osiris whose body was cut into pieces and temples were put up in places where pieces fell. There is a story that his penis was found only later and a temple set of where his phallus fell. The bull Apis is associated with Osiris. Folks this is Egypt and there is clearly some parallel between phallus temples and an associated bull and Shiva. From this it would not surprise me at all to discover that the Kaaba may have been a temple to an ancient God that had some similar legend attached to it.

There are deep civilzational links in the entire area from India to Iran, to Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Turkey and Greece. The further back you go in time the fewer the records. But the legends are there and the similarities in concept are uncanny. The Vedas cause anger because they are records of a time that was wiped out in other areas by newer religions that sought to erase the past.

The links between Greece and the rest of Asia to Indian language, thoughts, works, artifacts are unmistakable and widely documented. Shiv ji: I would request you to read Ram Swarup's Indo-European Encounter: An Indian Perspective, it is a chapter in his book Hinduism: Reviews and Reflections. Amongst all the works of modern Indian authors, I have admired his works the most and read this book, which is also available on the net now for the the past 7-8 years regularly.

Here is an excerpt on the above from the book.

India and Europe opens with the "Philosophical View of India in Classical Antiquity", or India in the old Greek tradition. It assumes that Classical Greece provides Europe's antiquity and that the two are related in some special way. It is a debatable point but it has been assumed here as axiomatic. The fact is that at the time when Greece represented a living culture, it did not know Europe, nor Europe of that time knew Greece.

The Greeks knew themselves as Hellenists, not Europeans. And whenever they sought the origins of, or influences upon, their own philosophy and religion, they thought of Egypt, Chaldea and India, not of Europe. They received little from Europe and they bequeathed not much to it, at least at the time when they represented a living culture. In fact, Christian Europe as it was taking shape first grew in opposition to and later in forgetfulness of Greek culture. Christian Europe in its early period used Greek language and Greek philosophy to establish itself; then it attacked ferociously Greek culture. Christian Europe in its early period used Greek language and Greek philosophy to establish itself; then it attacked ferociously Greek religion and culture; it destroyed Greek literature, its schools and libraries.2 The work of destruction was so complete that even the memory of Plato and Socrates was obliterated and for a thousand years Christian Europe grew in complete ignorance of what it calls its classical antiquity.

When Greek learning revived again, it was too late for it to exert a living influence on anyone. It had died as a living tradition and it was now a thing belonging to museums and libraries and was a topic only for learned dissertations. But even in this form, it began to invite fierce opposition. The Reformation was a revolt against the classical Renaissance, a "reaction of backward minds", or a "protest of antiquated spirits", as Nietzsche saw it. The call to go back to the Bible and to Jehovah was in a very deep sense a repudiation of the Greek tradition, whether spiritual or intellectual. Today what Europe calls the Greek learning is not the learning as it was seen by the Greeks, but as it is understood by the Europeans through their own categories of thought. To the Greeks, Homer and its Gods were great realities, part and parcel of their lives; to Europeans of the Renaissance period, they were legends and interesting tales.

Even earlier, during the first centuries of Christianity, it was clear that the Greek and Christian approaches to the life of the spirit were incompatible and Christianity waged a relentless war against the Greco-Roman approach; and when the Greek learning revived again, the old incompatibility was still there undiminished. But if the Greek learning still found a certain receptivity the reason was that by this time, it was totally misunderstood and misconceived. For any truly classical revival, Christian soil was very inhospitable indeed.

This however does not mean that modern Europe had no link with old Greece. An unknown link connected the two intimately and the link was established when Sanskrit was discovered. When this discovery was made, it became obvious that India, Greece, Rome and Europe had great linguistic, spiritual and ethnic affinity and even a common ancestry derived probably from India and Sanskrit. But this suggestion was soon resisted by rising European colonialism. To counter such a suggestion, it postulated on the other hand a third, conjectural source still more remote in time and also far removed from India. But according to all the testimony available at present, the old affinity between these regions and peoples, particularly in its spiritual dimension, is still best represented by India. The Christian interlude in Europe and the Muslim interlude in Iran are merely distorters or aberrations of this old affinity.

http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/ohrr/ch04.htm

[ramana]

Dubeyji, Pothana the Telugu poet who Andhraised Bhagavatam, in Gajendra Moksham writes about Gajanan seeking "Everche janinchu, jagam everu nindu moola karanam...." He seeks "the one from whom the world is born, one whom the world emanates from....."

A physicist friend says this is the best description of the God particle!

BTW comparing yourself to the parrot, it was through the parrot Suka maharishi we have the Bhagavatam and the Mahabharat!

Shiv, Its goddess Sati devi/Dakshayani whose parts fell all over the jambudvipa and we have the temples to Shakti in those places aka Shakti peethas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Peethas

BTW, Rejection causes inversion. We see that in the ancient Persians who revere the Asuras same way maybe the Osris worship is inversion of the Shakti peethas?

[Murugan]

Vedas is about vastnes and ever xpanding nature of knowledge. Being apaurushey, eliminates identification with any caste, creed or godgead. This gives a good headstart.

Upanishads bring wisdom, logic and fearlessness.

Gita brings history, war mamagement, politics, science and astronomy of arundhati walking ahead of vasishtha and other events which are more anicient than whitemen's pre history. geography, relations, sociology etc. Are automatically learnt while learning about gita.

A person with exposure to above or a society or a discussion group wth above as solid platforms will never have to demand any place in the world. It is earned automatically.

[ShauryaT]

Ram Swarup on Sanskrit

Sanskrit

Europe's discovery of Sanskrit also worked in the same direction. F. Sassetti had observed as early as the second half of the sixteenth century that Sanskrit and Europe's classical languages were related in some way. Jones also saw the basic similarities between these languages and soon some basic concepts of linguistics and history were revolutionised. The discovery of Sanskrit proved a great event in Europe's intellectual history. It upset Europe's self-image; it showed that its Semitic association and identification were brief and accidental and that its linguistic and, therefore, its philosophic, religious and cultural roots lay elsewhere. Europe's close affinity with India could no longer be a matter of speculation; it was written all over in the languages of Europe, classical or modern. J.G. Herder asked himself. "All the peoples of Europe, where are they from?" And he answered: "From Asia."

Sanskrit was found to be the oldest of all Aryan languages and therefore also their ancestor. Hegel, no admirer of India, admitted: "It is a great discovery in history - as of a new world - which has been made within rather more than the last twenty years, respecting the Sanskrit and the connection of the European languages with it. In particular, the connection of the German and Indian peoples has been demonstrated." German Oriental Renaissance was erected on Bopp's linguistic foundation.

The enthusiasm for Indian culture was widespread. Amaury de Riencourt in his The Soul of India tells us that philosophers like Schelling, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer and Schleiermacher, poets such as Goethe, Schillar, Novalis, Tieck and Brentano, historians like Herder and Schlegel, all acclaimed the discovery of Indian culture with cries of ecstasy: "India, the home of universal religion, the cradle of the noblest human race, of all literature, of all philosophies and metaphysics." And he adds that "this enthusiasm was not confined to Germany. The entire Romantic movement in the West put Indian culture on a lofty pedestal which the preceding Classical Movement had reserved for Greece and Rome."

Tolstoy, a late-comer, was also deeply influenced by Indian religious thought. Like Wagner, his introduction to it was through Burnouf and Schopenhauer. Beginning with his Confessions, there is no work of his "which is not inspired, in part by Hindu thought", to put it in the words of Markovitch quoted by Raymond Schwab in The Oriental Renaissance. He further adds that Tolstoy also "remains the most striking example, among a great many, of those who sought a cure for the western spirit in India".

Thus we see that India's influence was widespread throughout Europe, but it was the greatest in Germany. In fact' Germany was called "the India of the Occident". Hugo said that "Germany is to the West what India is to the East, a sort of great forbear. Let us venerate her". These words (September 1870) might have been said though in order to flatter Germany in the hope that she would spare Paris which her armies had besieged.


Importance of Indian Influence

While the Oriental Movement expanded the West's intellectual horizon and influenced it at a deeper level, it was also used in the current controversies and polemics of the day. Some used it in support of the forces of Enlightenment and rationalism to give themselves an example of high-minded religion and ethics which did not depend on revelation and dogmas; others used it against the naive rationalism of the eighteenth century.

Some found that the Bible's Hebraic tradition with its narrow-mindedness, intolerant monotheism, its coarse materialism and lack of mysticism had a corrupting influence on European culture and they found their answer in Indian religious culture which was both rational and mystical.

Oriental Renaissance was also used against classical Renaissance, particularly in Germany. For long, Germans had been accused, particularly by Latin people, of being Teutonic barbarians who destroyed the great Mediterranean culture. In return, the Germans by identifying themselves with the more ancient Indian culture rejected the cultural superiority of the Latin races and especially of French Classicism. Thus by identifying themselves with ancient India and by claiming a new lineage, the Germans restored their self-respect and equality with their accusers.

Opposition

Thus the Oriental Renaissance came to tread over too many toes and its results were disturbing even to many Orientalists who had intended their labour to yield a different kind of harvest. For example, H.H. Wilson, a celebrated Indologist, Boden Professor, translator of the Rg Veda and the ViSNu PurâNa, speaking at the University of Oxford in 1840, said that the objects of Indian studies were "to contribute to the religious enlightenment of a benighted, but intelligent and interesting and amiable people"; another object was "to confute the falsities of Hinduism". Earlier William Carey had said that the purpose of translating Sanskrit texts was to show they were "filled with nothing but pebbles and trash". But the results were just the opposite. Many of the best minds of Europe thought that these texts were sublime, and the possessors of those texts could not be benighted and needed no foreign aid in religious enlightenment. Some also used these texts to show the inadequacy of Christianity.

Oriental Renaissance began to invite opposition. Missionaries were one obvious source of it. Another source was Imperialism. European powers were becoming self-conscious imperialists and they could not rule with a clean conscience over peoples who were proud possessors of great cultures. Therefore they opposed views which exalted the ideological status of their colonies. Another source, a natural result of Imperialism, was growing Eurocentricity. Europe became less and less inclined to believe that anything worthwhile could be found anywhere outside of Europe. Therefore, the Oriental Movement began to be downgraded. It was called "romantic", and even "fanatic"; its fascination for India was a form of "Indo-mania". Others dealt with it in a more intellectual, but equally hostile way. They admitted a certain antiquity and even priority for Indian people and their culture, facts which could no longer be denied, but they saw in it no reason for departing from their low estimate of India. Hegel, for example, admitted that India "was the centre of emigration for all the western world", but he said that it was merely a "physical diffusion". "The people of India have achieved no foreign conquests, but have been on every occasion vanquished them-selves."

Similarly, though he admitted the fact of India's cultural spread arguing that Sanskrit lies at the foundation of all those further developments which form the languages of Europe Greek, Latin, German - but he also found in this cultural diffusion only "a dumb, deedless expansion", which "presented no political action". No wars, no forcible conversions, no cultural impositions; therefore, worth nothing much, nothing creditable!

Others dealt with the problem in other ways. They retained old facts but gave them a new rendering; or they retained some facts and changed others and offered a new combination. For example, Indians were allowed to possess the Vedas, the oldest literature of the Aryans, but the Aryans themselves were made to migrate, this time from Europe to India as conquerors. Thus the tables were turned. Migration remained but its direction changed. India which was hitherto regarded as the home of European languages and people now became the happy hunting ground of the same people who came and conquered and imposed their will and culture on India. The theory of Aryan invasion was born. History was written in support of the new hegemony and power relations.

Other scholars made other kinds of attempts. Considering that Europe's religious and philosophical tradition was a late corner, some European thinkers had derived it from India, a common enough practice in the academic field in such matters. But William Jones now offered the hypothesis of a third unknown source. He said that India was not the original home of the religious and philosophic tradition of the West, but itself represented an old offshoot of an original source common to both East and West. "Pythagoras and Plato derive their sublime theories from the same fountain with the sages of India", he said. As the attitude in Europe changed, the hypothesis was lapped up and it was accepted as fact.

The hypothesis of a third lost source began to be applied to many fields but more particularly to linguistics. Some scholars even began to reconstruct this common source and invented "Indo-European roots". These roots were a logical construct and the already existing Sanskrit roots could have done as well, but possibly a psychological motive was at work. Though Sanskrit had the oldest literature, the idea that it could have some sort of a primacy in the Aryan family of languages was not acceptable. Therefore they accepted the next best hypothesis that both Sanskrit and European languages had a common source still more ancient but now lost. To own a filial relationship with India was no matter of pride for Europe; so the next best thing under the circumstances was to make this relationship collateral and push it as far back in the past as possible. Things may change and India's social status may improve after its political and economic status improves.

[ShauryaT]

But this, at the end of the day, is a totally nonsensical viewpoint. OIT is correct.

KL

No, it is not. What you are seeing is a lot of deracinated individuals, including myself, who are alienated from our culture and its works, let alone the recitations of the vedas. Even many Acharyas and purohits do not know how to do this anymore.

[Arjun]

I know intensive study of the Vedas gives one the ability to write Rig-Vedic style poetry and massive philosophical tomes at the drop of a hat. Fortunately, we have a number of threads in GDF that provide space for the talent of such individuals.

But can one of these gifted beings that have descended on this thread please succintly summarize in 3 or 4 sentences what exactly they are looking for from this thread? Or is that an ability that doesn't necessarily follow from decades of Vedic study?

[shiv]

Others dealt with the problem in other ways. They retained old facts but gave them a new rendering; or they retained some facts and changed others and offered a new combination. For example, Indians were allowed to possess the Vedas, the oldest literature of the Aryans, but the Aryans themselves were made to migrate, this time from Europe to India as conquerors. Thus the tables were turned. Migration remained but its direction changed. India which was hitherto regarded as the home of European languages and people now became the happy hunting ground of the same people who came and conquered and imposed their will and culture on India. The theory of Aryan invasion was born. History was written in support of the new hegemony and power relations.

Other scholars made other kinds of attempts. Considering that Europe's religious and philosophical tradition was a late corner, some European thinkers had derived it from India, a common enough practice in the academic field in such matters. But William Jones now offered the hypothesis of a third unknown source. He said that India was not the original home of the religious and philosophic tradition of the West, but itself represented an old offshoot of an original source common to both East and West. "Pythagoras and Plato derive their sublime theories from the same fountain with the sages of India", he said. As the attitude in Europe changed, the hypothesis was lapped up and it was accepted as fact.

The hypothesis of a third lost source began to be applied to many fields but more particularly to linguistics. Some scholars even began to reconstruct this common source and invented "Indo-European roots". These roots were a logical construct and the already existing Sanskrit roots could have done as well, but possibly a psychological motive was at work. Though Sanskrit had the oldest literature, the idea that it could have some sort of a primacy in the Aryan family of languages was not acceptable. Therefore they accepted the next best hypothesis that both Sanskrit and European languages had a common source still more ancient but now lost. To own a filial relationship with India was no matter of pride for Europe; so the next best thing under the circumstances was to make this relationship collateral and push it as far back in the past as possible. Things may change and India's social status may improve after its political and economic status improves.

http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/ohrr/ch04.htm

Brilliant. I will buy the print book. All this is still going on and I find myself digging up the data points.

The latest data point is what I found in the last 2-3 days. Avestan, touted as a sister language of Vedic Sanskrit and dated by AIT Nazis from the same time is hardly a "sister language". What is left from Avestan comes entirely from Middle Persian (Pahlavi) sources. Old Persian is defined by the 500 BC Behistun inscriptions od Darius. Middle Persian is later and whatever verbal changes had occurred by the 15th century AD were preserved in the 15 century AD Pahlavi Avestan. By a clear act of bluffing, a word for which I have been repeatedly criticized by ManishH, the Avestan recorded in 1500 AD after 2000 plus years of language change is placed side by side for linguistic comparison with Vedic Sanskrit.

Now I have an idea of how the date of birth/life of Zoroaster has been cooked up. That will be my next quest.

The "reversal" of migration and the postulation of a "PIE" are the tricks that have been used to deny and create a cock and bull story version of Eurocentric history.

[Murugan]

Arjunji

We should fight AIT with platfrom built on vedic, upanishadic solid base. I have listed some very, highly successful
VEDIC PARACHUTERS, who never lost their humility and never became arrogant even after bringing millions
TOGETHER. HERE things are just being undone after discussing for just 150 pages not knowing or refusing to know how vedic parachuters are working to save bharat, the latest vedic parachuter is baba ramdev, he runs 2000 bed hospital, what we do? he educates lacs of people about our heritage, spends million of dollars in studies of our knowledge system.

If AIT is front operation of vested academics of west to distract Indis, we can also run mayavi operations, OIT can be one of them and should be. But just dont alienate vedicparachuters, ultimately they have proven themselves to be special and effective force, time tells agsin and again. Arrogance will bring us down.

[Murugan]

VEDIC PARACHUTER s = Indomitable, highly effective, special force of Bharat Varsh, proven beyond doubt.

[Arjun]

Arrogance will bring us down.

Murugan ji - I have no problem with that whatsoever, except that this attitude should be mutual.

The problem arose due to the Arrogance of the 'Vedic Parachuters' in terming Talageri a 'buffoon'. There are two issues with that - 1) The whole issue of Inter-OIT debate is OT for this thread and therefore on that count alone it is right to put to a stop to it. 2) The respect the Vedic Parachuters are looking for is highly asymmetric, and hardly mutual. The Vedic Parachuters apparently feel they can freely call Talageri all kind of names - but believe that their breed alone should be above all name-calling.

That's not going to work on this thread.

[Murugan]

If talking about vedic parachuters in general, this special force will keep the forest around clean from wolves. Chowkidars will be able to do some proactive duties than reactive.

Shikantji related comments may be unwelcome or may be vedic parachuters doing some `positive` nagging, but that should be left shrikantji to refute and debate in mvho.

We need more like oit and other mayavi apparatus to misguide wolves to other forests or just starve them to death.

[Murugan]

I forgot one very prominent vedic parachuter = Chanakya.

With his name let us ring the death knell of AIT, together!

HAR HAR MAHADEV!

»»»»

For a true vedic parachuters there is no ivory tower to rest, they work behind enemy lines, in hideouts and bunkers, vedic prachuterasyen kutah sukham?

[Agnimitra]

Dear krisna ji, shiv ji, Arjun ji, RajeshA ji and others:

I do not believe that vedas are authorless.
It is bunkum for my point of view. vedas are not produced de novo from air or water or whatever one calls it.

Here is my understanding of this:

The concept of "apauruSheyatva" of Vedas and shruti in general is not in the text of the Veda itself as far as I have come across. Could someone point me to such a statement in the Veda?

AFAIK, it was a later idea which was given the status of a dogma once it became an article of identification for a corporatized culture consisting of various theoretical schools that were built around it. Some schools were Veda-parachuters, others were Veda-bashers. All such concepts like apauruSheytva or it being "beginning-less", etc can reasonably be considered later versions. If not historically later, it can be positioned as a logically later conclusion.

So Mimamsa and Vedanta aside, what the Veda does say about itself is simply its continuity from "olden times" into the "present time". I had mentioned this to RajeshA ji in a previous post. E.g. the very second mantra of the RgVeda says this:

अग्निः पूर्वेभिर्ऋषिभिरीड्यो नूतनैरुत । स देवाँ एह वक्षति ॥ [RgVeda 1.1.2]
"Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers. He shall bring hitherward the Gods."

Swami Dayananda's commentary to this has this explanation (translated):

pUrvebhiH - The learned of the present time and of the past;
nUtanaiH - the brahmachaaris who currently study the meanings of the Vedas and who are involved with the latest logical paradigms and technologies;
RShibhiH - the learned who see the meanings of the Veda, and those lives that stay involved in these learned men's logics and etiologies;
agniH - That supreme Lord;
IDyaH - worthy of praise and being continuously inquired into and discovered;

[...]

Whatever meanings the Nirukti has given for this mantra, that I have written here.

1. AFAIK, nothing is being said about being "beginning-less", even in this Nirukti-based interpretation. Rather it is about a progressive continuity from "past" into the "present".

2. Consider the word Rishi...when we speak of what relates to or belongs to or is derived from the Rishis, the word is Arsha. this is cognate wit Greek and Latin and English words like "archaic", "archives", etc. These words do not imply authorlessness or "without beginning". Rather, the best meanings can be taken from the related word "archaic":

ar·cha·ic   [ahr-key-ik]
adjective

1. marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated: an archaic manner; an archaic notion.

2. (of a linguistic form) commonly used in an earlier time but rare in present-day usage except to suggest the older time, as in religious rituals or historical novels. Examples: thou; wast; methinks; forsooth.

3. forming the earliest stage; prior to full development: the archaic period of psychoanalytic research.

3. Now this idea of the progressive continuity and constantly updated and relayed knowledge is a very important pillar of The General Theory of Semantics, called time-binding. Time-binding is a unique feature of the human race that makes us different from animals, because we keep learning at a potentially exponential pace, and driven by the purpose to understand, change and control the environment and take responsibility for it. General Semantics is a solid scientific enquiry first put forward by Alfred Korzybski in 1950 in his landmark book Science and Sanity. This is a must read. Korzybski was ahead of his time when he wrote that. But today, his theory and studies are finding new life and relevance.

This, then, is the scientific and logical basis of this pillar of understanding Veda according to what it says about itself (rather than what Mimamsaka, Vedanta or other schools made a peg to hang their balls on). It merely signifies the reality of something that is already ancient, has to be re-cognized as per the current sciences and epistemologies, and its understanding translated in such a way that the baton can be passed on to the next generation of students.

Now is there any scientific evidence of when and how the Veda originated? If AIT can prove when Veda originated, an approximate date, then we will certainly accept it. AIT says PIE existed before Sanskrit. OK, then what existed before Proto-Indo-European? Was it Proto-Afro-Eurasian? There must be something before PIE too, or do they think they have arrived at some linguistic phonemes that are so "pure" that there could be nothing before that?

But the fact is that the oldest sources we have about the Veda say that it is ancient. The fact is that the Veda says about itself that it has been coming down from ancient seers. The fact is that the Sanskrit language according to its own history was derived from analyzing Vedic sounds and trying to frame grammatical laws that describe their combination. And the fact is that the most current theories of semantics and epistemology have a pillar that is identical with this self-claim about the Veda.

AFAIU, that's all that is meant by the ancient-ness of Veda. IMHO, people should not say less or more than what the Veda has said about itself. To not mention this property is an act of theoretical logical omission. To say it is "without beginning" or that it began in 1500 BC is to say more than Veda and all scientific evidence permits.

In order to kick this pillar down, AIT (or anyone here) needs to be able to solidly prove an approximate historical date when it suddenly came down to one man or a succession of men. Is anyone here saying that the Anukramanis do that?

[Murugan]

Vedic approach to challenges thrown by AIT etc = Proactive
OIT approach is revisionary and reactive

Both the approaches are needed. The first to keep the base solid and unique.
The other for surgical purpose.
Two sides of one coin!

[Murugan]

The seers could foresee the importance of keeping the vedas as apaurushey.
They perhaps knew that people divided in the line of ideology will fight over ownership, in the name of caste or PRO OIT and NON pro OIT.

They overcame this situatuon from day one and kept the vedas secular. Thats why they are called seers!

[Agnimitra]

Murugan ji,

Sorry, but I don't think the Vedic self-descriptive property has any political purpose. It is purely an epistemological principle. Please see above.

[Arjun]

The fact is that the Sanskrit language according to its own history was derived from analyzing Vedic sounds and trying to frame grammatical laws that describe their combination.

I have been looking for a source for this statement other than Dubey ji's testimony. Can you provide any document / source of 'Sanskrit's own history' that mentions it being derived from RV?

[Murugan]

Murugan ji,

Sorry, but I don't think the Vedic self-descriptive property has any political purpose. It is purely an epistemological principle. Please see above.

Carlji, i agree with you completely. I forgot to put a smiley in my post

[member_23700]

Folks,

All this discussion ---Veda as apaurusheya or soemthing else---Seers and Vedic Parachuters..., IMHO are OT for OIT thread. Their final conclusions, not unlike final conclustion one would want likes of Peter to reach regarding MBH War dates, are relevant to OIT. For this very reasons, I request that someone knowledgeble move these discussions to appropriate threads, copy those links on this thread.. so that OIT can get back to work.

BTW, I was told that Peter finally figured out how 'Alcor walks ahead of Mizar', but now claiming on other threads or other forums (not sure where) that 'Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha' for a certain period does not mean MBH War happened then. In any case, Peter, if you read this, post your thoughts on special Archeoastronomy thread.

And No, OIT is not some 'Mayavi' face created to fight AIT, as much as Mahabharata did not take place so that Krishna had an opportunity to tell Gita (Murugan ji, this is not directed at you, I am simply borrowing your analogy of 'Mayavi' OIT

[Agnimitra]

I have been looking for a source for this statement other than Dubey ji's testimony. Can you provide any document / source of 'Sanskrit's own history' that mentions it being derived from RV?

Here's a little something based on my very limited reading:

Patanjali, the author of the Mahabhashya, says:

व्याकृयन्ते व्युत्पाद्यन्ते शब्द अनेन इति शब्दज्ञानजनकं व्याकरणम् ।

"Grammar is a science which tells us about the correctness of the words and segregates wrong words from right words. It is also called Shabdanushasanam which means 'The systematization of shabda'."

व्याकरणं नाम अस्मिन्नर्थे अयं प्रत्ययो भवति इति विधिसामर्थ्यात् अर्थनिश्चय ।

"Grammar helps us to determine the meaning of words by way of deriving that a particular suffix has a particular import."

प्रथममेतदधीत्य विद्वान् शास्त्रान्तरस्य भवति श्रवणाधिकारी ।

"it is said that one has to be involved in Vyakarana first to attain the eligibility for the study of other sciences of Vedic expression."

षट्ष्वङगेषु प्रधानं व्याकरणम् । प्रधाने च कृतो यत्नः फलवान् भवति ।

"Vyakarana occupies the prime place among the Six (i.e, six Vedangas viz., Siksha, Kalpa, Vyakaranam, Chandah, Niruktam, Jyotisham). As our effort in the prominent will be more fruitful, one has to first study Vyakarana."

मुखं व्याकरणम् तस्य ।

"Grammar is its (Veda's) face."

रक्षोहागमलघ्वसंदेहाः प्रयोजनम् ।

"By learning Vyakarana we can protect the Vedas."

How so? For the one who has the right knowledge of Lopa, Agama, Vikara can protect the Vedas. This is possible only by the knowledge of Vyakarana.

Now importantly, there is the process of "guesstimation" (ऊहा) in selection and application of mantras during Yajna. Whatever procedure is not mentioned in the Vikriti must be filled in by Prakriti; i.e., in order to guess the right mantra to take the place of another in a particular context, one has to have a knowledge of the grammatical patterns of the Veda.

Etc, etc. So, the purpose here is to detect the combinatorics of the sounds of the Veda, the patterns and sequences and contextual meanings, in such a way as to be able to approximate the laws of its expression so that it can be used in practical life (Yajna) according to the exigencies of the situation. Just like trying to formulate the observable expressions of nature into laws that we can use to build machines, etc. Except that here its not about the expressions of physical reality, but about the expressions of epistemological principles.

[Agnimitra]

Folks,

All this discussion ---Veda as apaurusheya or soemthing else---Seers and Vedic Parachuters..., IMHO are OT for OIT thread.

What? The purpose is to get an idea of what the Veda is about! -- not just what tradition says its about, but what it says about itself, its self-descriptive markers.

If we know what the Veda is about, only then can we speculate about "origin", circumscribe its validity, etc.

If its about an epic historical migration and battle, then that opens several possibilities and imposes several limitations.

If its about epistemological processes and states, then that opens entirely new vistas. If by its very content it is "eternal" and not historical (like the law of gravity), then that simply puts it in a different category.

[Arjun]

Antubarwa ji, What the Veda says about its own 'ancient-ness' is definitely one input to its historicity...so that would not be OT. Also - whether 'apaurusheya' was supposed to mean 'eternal' or 'author not known' or 'author not important' etc are also valid points of discussion, IMVHO.

At the same time we don't want the wheel to be reinvented every time on the same topics - so after a certain amount of discussion, if there is still divergence that should probably be discussed elsewhere