Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[RajeshA]

A blog writing on the topic of Out-of-India Theory, partly inspired by Shri Shrikant Talageri's works. It is a 11 parts series.

Published on Apr 12, 2012
By Ashutosh Kulkarni
Ancient Indian History- Voices from the past (01 of 11)


Also a 3 part series on Debunking AIT

Published on May 07, 2012
By Ashutosh Kulkarni
The Myth of an Aryan Invasion (01 of 03)

[A_Gupta]

Points of attack:-

1. Laryngeal theory - a mainstay of the "late" PIE theories
http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/ ... lists.html
and references there-in.
Will need Spanish to pursue further.
As far as I can tell, Xaverio Ballester is a highly respected scholar.

2. Xaverio Ballester's Zoónimos Ancestrales (Biblioteca Valenciana, Valencia, 2006)

Another interesting aspect of this book is the fact that, applying this combination of etymology and anthropology, Ballester is also able to refute some generally established assumptions about animals in antiquity, e.g. the ones about horses in connection with Indo-Europeans. I personally think that his chapter about horses will become a classic in historical linguistics.

http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/ ... onyms.html

Need to obtain this book, get a respectable translation into English and push in the academic community. If four years later, this chapter is not yet a classic, we need to push it

[A_Gupta]

http://www.continuitas.org/texts/ronzit ... phered.pdf
A Still Undeciphered Text? Il recente dibattito sulle nuove basi interpretative
del R̥gveda ‒ JIES 37/1-2 (2009)

Google translate from the Italian of a passage from there:

Among the issues of contention, whether it is possible to recognize the existence of a
See {should be sea} shipping is still the subject of a dispute incandescent, which has now gone beyond the limit of the insult (number 30, 2002 of JIES give you an idea of the debate).
This recognition implies a framework of civilization indoaria very different from the one usually
outlined in the manuals classic indoeuropeistica: not (or not only) invaders
horse seminomadici and from the northern steppes, but also a nation of
enterprising merchants and navigators, have long been present in north-western coastal areas of India.

[RajeshA]

There is recent article by Priyadarshi (I will try to upload somewhere and post link here) but key aspect (not verified for authenticity.. i.e. authenticity of first person read of referred papers), are as follows..

There is one article by Premendra Priyadarshi on horses. Premendra Priyadarshi has earlier provided OIT with some great papers. Here is one more.




Published on Apr 13, 2012
Author: Premendra Priyadarshi
Linguistic, Archaeological and DNA Evidence Favoring Origin of Some Breeds of Domestic Horse "Equus Caballus" from India

An absolutely fantastic paper!

____________


During the glacial peak between 25,000 and 19,000 years ago, and then again between 12,700 and 11,500 years ago, there was extreme cold and aridity in the northern latitudes of Eurasia, and also in the West Asia and Iran. There were no herbs for the horses to feed on in the Ukranian and Turkestani tundra climate of the Last Glacial Maximum. Most of the horses of Eurasia died during these cold and arid periods (Achilli: 4 of pdf version). Following warming of climate, horse population re-expanded from some eastern location (ibid). It is possible that the relatively cold adapted Przewalskii's horse may have survived in Ukraine during the Last Glacial Maximum. However DNA studies have proved that these horses have nothing to do with our domesticated or the "caballus" horse, which have descended from other Asian and European races, but not from the Przewalskii's horse of the steppe region (Achilli et al).

Yet India, the Iberian Peninsula of Europe and the Southeast Asia were the places where climate was not so bad and horses survived in these refugia, and flourished during the Last Glacial maximum (Warmuth). Thus after the end of the LGM up to 10,000 years before present India was a prime home of the wild horses.

Today, the Rann of Cutch is a place on the western coast of Gujarat, where there is a natural habitat for wild horses and asses, and ghur (Equus hemionus) is found in the wild there. Before 10,000 BP, wild "true horses" of sivalensis type were found in India widely. It is claimed that they became extinct after 10,000 BP. However, no one mentions how, or why they became extinct. Extinction of Equus sivalensis did not occur because of any climatic difficulty in India.

The wild stock of Equus sivalensis became extinct largely because of dense anthropization of India about 10,000 BP, leading to loss of habitat to the wild horses. Added to this, regular hunting for food, as well as regular capturing for domestication led to extinction of the wild stock of the Equus sivalensis. However, the gene of the wild Equus sivalensis survives today in the domesticated horses of India, Arabia, Southeast Asia and Europe.

Hence the supposed extinction of the wild sivalensis from India at 10,000 BP, does not allow another assumption that at 10,000 BP, India became devoid of all horses, and that there were no domesticated horse in India after that time.

[KLP Dubey]

Thus, e.g., both Western and Indian scholarship (taking KLPDji to be representative) is dismissive of the anukramanis.

I see you set great store by the 'scholarship' of certain Western and Indian sources

Irrespective, As per Talageri, one of Witzel's associates Theodore Proferes has published a paper "Remarks on the transition from Rgvedic composition to Srauta Compilation" that uses the Anukramanis in the same fashion as Talageri. Its a paid paper - but may be available from some academic networks. Would somebody be able to read through it / download and post a summary ?

At the very least, these sources are well-informed of the material they are talking about.

I have the paper by Proferes in the Indo-Iranian Journal. Interested folks - for 'academic purposes' only - can contact me by email, which I provided in page 101 of this thread. I will also post a summary of it later, but it will be more useful if interested folks also take a look at the whole paper.

KL

[A_Gupta]

Published on Apr 13, 2012
Author: Premendra Priyadarshi
Linguistic, Archaeological and DNA Evidence Favoring Origin of Some Breeds of Domestic Horse "Equus Caballus" from India

An absolutely fantastic paper!

As far as I can tell, the GL Badam paper cited,

At Imamgaon, 80 kilometers east of Poona, 20,000 year old radiocarbon dated level yielded wild animal skeletons including Equus namadicus and Equus sivalensis

, only reports Equus namadicus. (you can find the paper on books.google.com). (Why I am not certain is because of

Equus namadicus might be equivalent to Equus sivalensis, this was argued by GL Badam in "First Record of a Middle Palaeolithic Fossil from Gujarat, India" (Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India, Volume 20, 1977, 314-319), available via here: http://palaeontologicalsociety.in/publication.php

Still, encouraging. A few mere millenia to go to establish that Equus Sivalensis was around and kicking at 10,000 Before Present.

[KLP Dubey]

Actually, it is my sense that this business of no meanings can be derived, or have been derived till date seems to be a KLPD ji -specific innovation to Mimamsa Theory.

Your "sense" is usually "nonsense". I have resolved not to respond to most of your posts - since you neither read nor listen - but sometimes your claims are so absurd that I must.

1) I did not say "No Meanings" in the Veda. I simply said the verdict of Mimamsa is that the meanings of the Mantras (i.e. the Samhita) cannot be understood using the meanings of ordinary parlance. That is not the same as the Brahmanas. I wrote a detailed post explaining how the Mimamsakas had to defend the Mantras while explicitly stating that their true meanings are unknown. You obviously either ignored or forgot it.

2) I have provided you my sources explicitly. They include the key works of Purvamimamsa. Specifically, the commentaries of Kumarila and Prabhakara on the first adhyaya of Jaimini's mimamsasutra.

Now you please tell me where your "sense" is coming from. If you do not do that, I will assume - and explicitly declare again - that your comments are unsubstantiated and not to be taken seriously.

Mimamsa does affirm eternal nature of Vedas, and their non-human origins. Ancient Mimamsa philosphers hve also speculated on Proper Nouns in the Vedas and have raised some doubts - but as far as I know, they hve NEVER doubted the meanings ascribed to the rest of the Vedas.

As far as you know from where ? Please tell us where you are getting this knowledge from.

As I have already told you before, the Mimamsakas do not doubt the meaning of the Veda as in the Brahmana. For all practical purposes (Yajna), the Veda is clearly defined as being the Brahmana, not the Mantra. It is a simple confusion on your part. All the more sickening since I have told this to you twice or thrice already. I feel as though I am talking to someone really dull, who does not listen to me despite repetition.

To make it clear - according to Mimamsa:

1) The Mantras are not understandable at present. However, it is possible that by continued deliberation their meanings will become clear in the future. Furthermore, knowledge of the Mantra meanings is unnecessary for Dharma, since the meanings are of no/little consequence for the performance of Yajna.

2) The Brahmanas are understandable and provide the "translation" of cosmic/transcendental actions of the Mantras to the practical actions of the Yajnas. That is the fundamental rationale of Mimamsa and the existence of the Brahmanas, O genius.

Further, I wonder what a 'meaning-less' Veda theory does to Mimamsaks' own insistence on strict observance of Vedic rituals - goes for a complete toss I presume.

When somebody is told repeatedly the difference between the Mantra and the Brahmana and their position in the Mimamsa, yet spends post after post making random speculations disparaging others who have looked into it in detail - it becomes clear that you have no credibility in defending India or its legacy.

KL

[JwalaMukhi]

Well, BG was quoted previously about "bhuddhi vinashyati".. . Let's examine what Gitacharya in BG has to say about the vedas and what is the use of such in Chapter 9 slokas 17 through 22.

Bhagavad Gita: chapter 9 sloka:17

Pitaahamasya jagato maataa dhaataa pitaamahah;
Vedyam pavitramonkaara riksaama yajureva cha.

Bhagavad Gita: chapter 9 sloka:20

Traividyaa maam somapaah pootapaapaa
Yajnairishtwaa swargatim praarthayante;
Te punyamaasaadya surendraloka-
Mashnanti divyaan divi devabhogaan.

Bhagavad Gita: chapter 9 sloka:21

Te tam bhuktwaa swargalokam vishaalam
Ksheene punye martyalokam vishanti;
Evam trayeedharmamanuprapannaa
Gataagatam kaamakaamaa labhante

Bhagavad Gita: chapter 9 sloka:22

Ananyaashchintayanto maam ye janaah paryupaasate;
Teshaam nityaabhiyuktaanaam yogakshemam vahaamyaham.

Just the gist of the slokas. Those who know about the tri vedas (purva bhaga) are concerned only about the "karma" or "works" (purva bhaga of vedas) and not about the "reason" behind that (the uttara bhaga of vedas or brahma bhaga aka vedanta/upanishads). Those with purva bhaga will onlee get the lower merits, while those who go to the brahma bhaga per sloka 22 will obtain yogashema.

Those who pursue the "karma" thro the purva bhaga will obtain yoga phala. Fulfilment of desires thro prescribed yagnas. But there is no sustenance of that fulfilment. will cycle again thro samsara. i.e., no yogashema.

Those who pursue the "reason - Kaarana" thro the uttara bhaga will obtain yogashema. Fulfilment and sustenance of desire - escape from samsara.

[JwalaMukhi]

Anyways, If I were Herr Witzel, would I hire a "mimamsaka" to bat for me?
Absolutely! one who could effectively deliver a broadside to the theistic side and create enough scatter and schism amongst the "vedic believers". Why not, because as Witzel, will be more interested in creating chaos and self doubt among the "vedics" anyhow they are primitive tribals. As Witzel, I will be excused for not buying the hoary part of vedas, because either the well being of vedas or its followers are none of my concern!

[KLP Dubey]

Anyways, If I were Herr Witzel, would I hire a "mimamsaka" to bat for me?
Absolutely! one who could effectively deliver a broadside to the theistic side and create enough scatter and schism amongst the "vedic believers". Why not, because as Witzel, will be more interested in creating chaos and self doubt among the "vedics" anyhow they are primitive tribals. As Witzel, I will be excused for not buying the hoary part of vedas, because either the well being of vedas or its followers are none of my concern!

I can certainly understand your posts as coming from an individual already liberated from "samsara". Which is why I have not needed to respond in much detail to you.

Shankara likens the knower of the "Veda" (in his view, the Upanishads) to a man riding a spirited elephant, a man who restrains his beast yet knows none can withstand him. If a lunatic - believing himself to also be on an elephant - rushes in front and challenges him to charge, the knower simply laughs and turns the elephant in another direction.

KL

[JwalaMukhi]

^Thanks. In fact, come to think of it. You hardly have responded in much detail to anyone expect perhaps to a coterie of mimamsakas. Well, good luck as long as you are aware that mimamsakas are later day dabblers in the long line of vedic enquirers, (unfortunately most of whom have been theistic in bent) and mimamsakas are not the only Valid ones.

P.S: Anyways will be in cave complex and take the advice of Shankara and chant "Bhaja Govindam..." while the elephant riders can indulge in maneuver calisthenics.

[JwalaMukhi]

In fact, come to think of this. This thread has caused so much Khujli that it has woken up few quarters to come out and liberally abuse. So something must be really be done right and that is causing lot of takleef in many quarters.

[shiv]

There is recent article by Priyadarshi (I will try to upload somewhere and post link here) but key aspect (not verified for authenticity.. i.e. authenticity of first person read of referred papers), are as follows..

Long post ..but worth reading if you are still not dizzy with AIT logic of horse.

Nileshji - I need this article and the source url

[Nilesh Oak]

JwalaMukhi,

Agree with everything you said....

Not to forget ---BG 15:1 ...Chandamsi yasya parnani yastam veda sa vedavit (emphasis on doing, trying, attempting.. not unlike method of science.. to understand a problem is to try solving it and (may be) fail many times).

Anyway, I will take a mini BRF break for say 10 days and see when I return if there is anything new.. or more of 'Charvita Charvanam'

[Nilesh Oak]

There is recent article by Priyadarshi (I will try to upload somewhere and post link here) but key aspect (not verified for authenticity.. i.e. authenticity of first person read of referred papers), are as follows..

Long post ..but worth reading if you are still not dizzy with AIT logic of horse.

Nileshji - I need this article and the source url

Sent 9:40 PM EST

[Vayutuvan]

Perhaps it is the masses that has abandoned the learned Vedic fraternity.

Accuse me for being pragmatic, but what exactly are the masses going to get by supporting the Vedic fraternity? By incessantly chanting the Vedas as KLPD ji wants?
[rant]
Let me predict they are going to be referred to as "village idiots" not worthy of the gnyan to be dished out by the oh so learned "elite of the elite". (no offense to ShauryaT ji and Shiv ji)

Today, Vedic and Indic knowledge tradition is not going to build your roads, bridges, or power plants nor is it going to put food on the table.
[/rant]

[Dipanker]

^Beside true meaning of RV is unknown as claimed on this thread, so nobody really knows what the hell he/she is talking about, including the person who claims that the true meaning of RV is unknown!

[KLP Dubey]

Accuse me for being pragmatic, but what exactly are the masses going to get by supporting the Vedic fraternity?

Sanskara.

By incessantly chanting the Vedas as KLPD ji wants?

As of today, there are kids and adults articulating the Veda throughout the length and breadth of India. Not necessarily incessant, but even a little.

Let me predict they are going to be referred to as "village idiots" not worthy of the gnyan to be dished out by the oh so learned "elite of the elite". (no offense to ShauryaT ji and Shiv ji)

All this emotional rhetoric is of no avail. Just armchair stuff. Reality is different: there are today, for example, about 5 million Arya Samaj adherents in India and elsewhere who don't consider themselves "village idiots" but take pride in reciting the Veda and performing Yajna.

Today, Vedic and Indic knowledge tradition is not going to build your roads, bridges, or power plants nor is it going to put food on the table.

But it will develop the ethical and cultural foundation of becoming a real human being (not just an automaton). Human beings who build roads and bridges with little effort but also devote themselves to higher purposes. You're welcome to try a different approach, nobody is stopping you!

KL

[Arjun]

Your "sense" is usually "nonsense".

Aah, the familiar 'Vedic' Mantra from our very humble 'Vedic' custodian. Maybe we should, Mimamsa-style, stop looking for meaning in Dubey-ji's well-worn Mantras.

1) I did not say "No Meanings" in the Veda. I simply said the verdict of Mimamsa is that the meanings of the Mantras (i.e. the Samhita) cannot be understood using the meanings of ordinary parlance. That is not the same as the Brahmanas. I wrote a detailed post explaining how the Mimamsakas had to defend the Mantras while explicitly stating that their true meanings are unknown. You obviously either ignored or forgot it.

2) I have provided you my sources explicitly. They include the key works of Purvamimamsa. Specifically, the commentaries of Kumarila and Prabhakara on the first adhyaya of Jaimini's mimamsasutra.

1) When Mimamsa discusses the meanings of the Mantras are they referring to the interpretation of Mantra verses as a whole, or are they referring to the meaning of individual words in the Mantras ? You believe they are referring to the latter - can you point me to where this is specified? As a matter of fact, the Mimamsa Theory of Sabda suggests that the sound produced in pronouncing a word is not the result of human choice or construction - rather every Sabda or word has an eternal meaning.

2) You say the meaning of the Brahmanas can be correctly interpreted but not the meaning of the Samhitas. If, as per your theory, the Samhita word-meanings cannot be ascertained are we saying that the Brahmanas and Samhitas have no overlap in terms of words used? Assuming that is not the case, how would it be possible for the same words not to be intelligible in the Samhitas but become so in the Brahmanas and Aranyakas?

3) All of this, of course, does not even take into account the non-Mimamsa Sphota Theory of Bhrtrihari, as per which the Mantra is a manifestation of Sabda-Brahman ('divine word-consciousness'). The meanings of Mantras would then become increasingly clear the more it is chanted. Words, meanings and consciousness - as per Bhrtrihari, are always eternally connected.

[KLP Dubey]

1) When Mimamsa discusses the meanings of the Mantras are they referring

2) You say the meaning of the Brahmanas can be correctly interpreted but not the meaning of

3) All of this, of course, does not even take into account the non-Mimamsa Sphota Theory of Bhrtrihari

Wikipedia's a mighty useful thang, ain't it ?

I asked for your sources. I am still waiting on them, because I would like to look them up. If you can't substantiate your previous claims with Mimamsa literature (presumably you have read it), we have nothing to discuss.

To remind you:

Mimamsa does affirm eternal nature of Vedas, and their non-human origins. Ancient Mimamsa philosphers hve also speculated on Proper Nouns in the Vedas and have raised some doubts - but as far as I know, they hve NEVER doubted the meanings ascribed to the rest of the Vedas.

I am asking for the source of your information. I have all the primary texts of Mimamsa right here on my library shelves, I just need your assistance to look up the right place where your assertions are supported. Take me to the primary sources.

KL

[Arjun]

I am asking for the source of your information. I have all the primary texts of Mimamsa right here on my library shelves, I just need your assistance to look up the right place where your assertions are supported. Take me to the primary sources.

You want me to substantiate my previous phrase "as far as I know, they hve NEVER doubted the meanings ascribed to the rest of the Vedas" by producing a source document ? What kind of logic is that, Dubey ji?

My statement obviously implies that there is no source document I have come across that validates your precise claims on Samhita word-meanings. So what exactly do you want me to produce?

It is upto you to refute my statement by producing a Mimamsa document that backsup your assertion regarding Samhita word meanings.

[KLP Dubey]

If Sanskrit was really created to force fit Vedic sounds and assigned meanings that make it sensible, meaningful, and consistent too for the most part across the entire corpus of Vedas, then I think the status of Sanskrit becomes even more elevated and amazing.

I am not disagreeing with you. I wish people (not reflecting on you specifically) would read my posts with care, instead of just "snapping at my heels".

I have a deep love for the Sanskrit language. I think it has made a great effort to elevate the human race, including the effort to interpret the Rgvedic sounds. That effort has let to interpretations that are inspiring (Gayatri), astounding (Nasadiya), beautiful (Usha), humorous (Manduka), and sometimes disturbing (Ashvamedha).

But this is the OIT thread, where unfortunately the level of discourse has been dragged down to finding history in the Veda. Then, sadly indeed, the question is of the Veda and whether it supports *history*. There, all that matters is not beauty, inspiration, and other wonderful things. The critical question is: are the meanings consistent ? It is a very practical and rational question.

If the meanings are not consistent, one cannot reliably derive history. That's all.

You are reaching that conclusion only after you have employed Sanskrit on it in the first place and then saying some parts aren’t making sense. How do you explain away the part that is indeed making sense and based on which centuries of efforts undertaken? Are we to wash away the relevancy of those efforts as well?

Please read above. As for your question, you should be asking those AIT and OIT champions who barely use 500 sounds of the RV to concoct history. Would you please ask them how they explain the other 400,000 sounds, which, as I have been telling them again and again, do not support their pet interpretations?

I do not know *who or what* gave anyone the impression here that I think the Veda is "meaningless" or "incomprehensible".

I am saying one and one thing only: the derivation of meanings in the Veda is so inconsistent that it is not historically reliable.

I am now starting to believe that my position is leading to motivated attacks from the "missionary posters" who are worried that I will derail their pet project with honest and reasoned analysis. Then the Moderator (J E Menon) tells me most people are agreeing with me and need my help. Now I do not know what to believe.

KL

[ShauryaT]

Believe JE Menon.

[KLP Dubey]

My statement obviously implies that there is no source document I have come across that validates your precise claims on Samhita word-meanings. So what exactly do you want me to produce?

You cannot come across things you haven't looked for. You should then have the good sense to start by saying "I have not read any Mimamsa text, and hence .....". Make no mistake, people are reading and watching. "I have not come across" isn't the same thing as "I have no idea".

Don't lie. One lie leads to another and you will be publicly shamed.

It is upto you to refute my statement by producing a Mimamsa document that backsup your assertion regarding Samhita word meanings.

I do not have to "produce" a document. It is already well known. I can REFER you to the sources, which I hope you are planning to read carefully.

My references on the nature of the Samhita:

Jaimini mimamsa sutra (and the condensed commentary of Shabara + Kumarila + Prabhakara)

Adhyaya 1, pada 2, adhikarana 4, sutras 31-53. 'Regarding the Use of Mantras." (pages 41-54 in Ganganath Jha's version).

Tantravartika: detailed discussion in pages 78-103.

My references on the nature of Sphota:

Slokavartika: Section 12: "On Sphota". pages 261-281.

All these publications are available from multiple sources.

Look them up and tell me what you do not understand.

KL

[Vayutuvan]

Sire, one needs to separate apaurusheya and ahistorical. The former is not believable if taken literally. On the other hand, it could be a monogram that lays down a completely new theory or a philosophical point of view without precedent and hence there is no bibliography. IOW, it is ahistorical as there are no date-able markers in the text.

As for trying to lay roads down or building power plants without "Samskara", look around and tell me it is not possible without "smaskara". Also, please make an effort to define what it is.

You also misread my reference to "village idiots". I am one of those "village idiots" who did grow up in a Kanthapura like village. Supper time for us everyday was the end of the Manthrapushpam at one of the near by temples.

[KLP Dubey]

Sire, one needs to separate apaurusheya and ahistorical. The former is not believable if taken literally.

Thanks for telling me! For the purpose of this thread I want you to believe the Veda is ahistorical, not apaurusheya.

OK ?

Same advice to Nilesh Oak earlier:

Already, I have told you and others it is not necessary to accept any "eternal Veda" principle for this discussion.

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.

KL

[Vayutuvan]

KLPD ji, thanks for clearing it up. I can believe ahistoricity or the origins from music.

[shiv]

Please read above. As for your question, you should be asking those AIT and OIT champions who barely use 500 sounds of the RV to concoct history. Would you please ask them how they explain the other 400,000 sounds, which, as I have been telling them again and again, do not support their pet interpretations?

Dubeyji the following is a serious question and I am not nipping at your heels though I ask that you frame your response taking into account possible ignorance on the part of the person who reads the response. I ask because this is the second time you have said this. I dismissed your first reference to this as rhetoric.

I would be willing to ask this question, but a bluff of an answer could put me off because I don't have the background information to judge whether the answer is right or wrong.

Could you explain what you mean by 400,000 "sounds"? I believe you need to frame your answer taking into account my Macaulayite science filled brain which is not hearing what you say at the same frequency.

For me a sound is something a normal human might hear. Those sounds must be between the frequencies of approximately 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. So by 400,000 sounds do you mean:

• 1. 400,000 different frequencies like 20 Hz, 30 Hz 4,750 Hz etc?
  • or
  2. 400,000 combinations of different phonemes ("alphabet sounds") that sound like words in the Veda (IOW 400,000 unique words that the Vedas are composed of)?
  • or
  3. Something else?

[KLP Dubey]

3. Something else?

400,000 accented syllables ("sounds").

Why do you think I am bluffing in my answers ?



KL

[Murugan]

Kishenlal-ji

ShauryaT + 1

***

A humble request:

Kindly provide a small guideline:

1) There are guys who have been exposed to vedas/upanishads, prasthantrayee at a very young age and they continued to do so.

2) There are are people who have have been somewhat exposed to these but left it in between because 'vedas' did not get them 'job'. But now they are very well to do and want to reconnect as they do not find solace in ahistorical teachings and does not connect them with anything else but vedas/upanishad/sanskrit language when they think about Bharat. But not fully exposed they do not Know where to re-start.

3) There are enthusiastic beginners.

Could you please provide some indicators, direction or material for re-starters and for beginners.

Somewhat like self-study course material or not-so-self study material. Exposure to which will be more beneficial for understanding this discourse and vedas in general.

Thanking you.

[shiv]

Thanks for telling me! For the purpose of this thread I want you to believe the Veda is ahistorical, not apaurusheya.

Let me ask you your view on another question that is pertinent

It is claimed that the Parsi Zend Avesta "uses language that is similar" to the Rig Veda and contains chants that are similar in "meter" to vedic chants. There are no Parsis now to make claims about the Zend Avesta being ahistorical or being composed of sounds that are only meant for interpretation as a historical record. The few Parsis left today are happy to accept what the western linguists say. And those linguists judge that the Zend Avesta is a historical document.

Now here is my question to you:

You have stated that If the Vedas were misinterpreted and taken as a historical document one would reach all sorts of mistaken conclusions. Do you have any view about the possible origins of the Zend Avesta. Specifically
1. Could it have incorporated Vedic sounds which are now being misinterpreted as history?
2. Would a scholar competent in the Vedic chants be able to comment on the sounds of Zoroastian Gathas?
3. Would you rather believe that the Zend Avesta was merely a poor copy of the Vedas by people who did not have a clue?

If you have no knowledge of this please say so, because I believe I need to find out more about how Parsi Gathas relate to the Vedas. It at all.

[Arjun]

I am now starting to believe that my position is leading to motivated attacks from the "missionary posters" who are worried that I will derail their pet project with honest and reasoned analysis. Then the Moderator (J E Menon) tells me most people are agreeing with me and need my help. Now I do not know what to believe.

Dubey ji, Let me make my position perfectly clear.

1) There is no 'motivation' on my part to go after you for any reason whatsoever. My stance on each individual argument is based on the strength of the argument as I perceive it, and is independent of who is behind it. You would have noted that I have been skeptical about the 'inconsistency in word meanings' argument right from the first time you raised it.

On the other hand, you made an argument relating to the Pratishakyas a while back - and even if you've forgotten, let me remind you that I was the first person to publicly agree with it, even though that particular episode occurred right after Round 1 of the same argument we are having now on ahistoricity of Vedas.

2) The above is just a scholastic dispute - and I carry no ill-feelings due to this particular disagreement. I had referred to your argument on word meanings as an 'innovation' to standard Mimamsa Theory in my last post. That has no negative connotation whatsoever - 'innovation' only carries a positive connotation for me. You are definitely not obliged to agree in toto with a 2000 -year old Theory. However, I see it as important to be transparent on this issue and if your position differs somewhat with the traditional Mimamsa position it is important to know this - but need not necessarily detract from the argument in any way.

3) The question of implications of the statement that 'word meanings in the Samhita are not consistent' is personally quite interesting to me - so I will be examining it from all angles. If word meanings in Samhita are not consistent, then can we truly say that the same word meanings in Brahmanas are consistent? While you are attempting to restrict the implications to history alone - can one really not derive implications for Vedic scholars ? (this is exactly the same issue you have raised of Talageri & Witzel - the implications of their deriving history on traditional scholars' faith in the Vedas).

I will be looking at the Ganganath Jha publication and others (are they available online ?) - but let me say again this quest is nothing personal and nothing to do with you. It is just something with deep implications I would like to get to the bottom of.

4) Lastly, there is one issue where I do take offence. And that is your continued denigration of Talageri and other Anti-AIT ers. You also chose to read my last post as a personal potshot at you and responded using words such as 'dull' and 'nonsense' which seem to be par for the course for you. We will determine soon enough what is 'nonsense' and what is not so premature declarations would seem to be uncalled for.

5) If at the end of the day, the argument of 'no consistent word meanings in Samhitas' carries the day - I would be the first person to welcome it. At the current juncture, we really have not seen a full-fledged case made for it. (We had talked a couple of times earlier of a case forthcoming from your side on non-Proper Noun Vedic philology). Maybe over the course of the argumentation - all points would indeed be addressed and case made - we'll have to wait and see.

[shiv]

400,000 accented syllables ("sounds").

Thanks for the answer. That makes it clearer.

As a person generally ignorant of Sanskrit, would you say that an "accented syllable" can be described by the following example:

In the Gayatri mantra the word "varenyam" I think is pronounced as "vare-enyam". It that what you mean by "accented"?
Here is the same thing linked to the appropriate point on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1CE ... 7AIY#t=54s

"Bhargo-o" again immediately after that seems to be accented if my understanding of accented is right.

This is a serious question and I am not trying to trap you but there is a rebuke from me below.

Why do you think I am bluffing in my answers ?



KL

Other than a possible sense of paranoia or a sense that you are being hounded I do not for the life of me understand how you think that i think you are bluffing. You attribute certain thoughts to me and you are asking me to answer a question based on what you think I must be thinking.

Dubeyji - come off this. As a person I am usually very sure of where I stand, so if I think you are bluffing I will not ask you trick questions - I will tell you straight on your face and tell you to cock up if you repeat the bluff. So if I think you are bluffing you can rest assured that I will give it to you straight.

I have no argument for or against what you have said. If I did, and I thought it was relevant i would ask.

[RajeshA]

Sire, one needs to separate apaurusheya and ahistorical. The former is not believable if taken literally.

Thanks for telling me! For the purpose of this thread I want you to believe the Veda is ahistorical, not apaurusheya.

KLP Dubey ji,

this is what Arjun ji said earlier

Inter-OIT disputes / disparagement have been specifically defined as OT for this thread - based on the scope of the thread enunciated earlier.

I would agree with him.

Earlier on we had peter ji here making the case that Nilesh Oak ji's date for Mahabharata War, as per his book, was wrong and he was adamant about discussing the details of the dating in this thread only. He was told to look for another thread, because that is an internal OIT-debate, whether it was 3138 BCE or 5561 BCE. Any date is good one for the purpose of this thread, and should be mentioned here. But which one is the right date, is clearly Off Topic.

The two positions being discussed here are

1. Whether Indo-European languages and cultures came from outside the Indian Subcontinent into the Indian Subcontinent (AIT), or
2. Whether Indo-European languages and cultures had their origin in the Indian Subcontinent and traveled out (OIT).

This thread discusses both sides of the issue, but espouses the second view. Any argument that the first view brings forth is taken up and analysed and seen if there is any evidence or logic to it. In order to refute the first view, we bring up a variety of counter-evidence. The counter-logic and counter-evidence would then naturally be tailored to refute the logic and evidence as put forth by the AIT view.

If the logic presented by the AIT-proponents is archaeological, then we will go into archaeology. If it is linguistic, then we discuss the linguistics. If it is philological, then we also take up the philology.

When the AIT-proponents use some suktas from the Rigveda to make some claim, then the weakness of their claim needs to be exposed using Rigveda itself, to show that their logic is wrong.

Some critical of this approach, say that we are playing on their turf. That criticism is duly noted but the opinion is that this thankless job needs to be done nevertheless and in this way only.

You are endowed with a substantial amount of knowledge in Sanskrit, and as such you can help refute the AIT case better. JE Menon saar also requested you to help in this regard as far as you can and your time allows.

The nature of the Vedas, whether it is ahistorical or not, whether it denotes any geography or not, is an interesting perspective and it was useful to mention here for the benefit of all readers, but basically it does not really help the agenda of refuting AIT claims, nor does it represent an AIT claim, which has to be addressed. As such it is a fringe issue for this thread.

This issue has been discussed in more detail here on this thread than it should have. Much of what you wished to tell the people on this issue, you have been able to. You yourself have said, that you feel like you are repeating your message again and again.

Many are still interested to discuss the issue. I would urge you to continue your discussion in some other thread - perhaps the "Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas" thread may entice you. You can of course also open a new thread and educate us on BRF through your insights into Vedic knowledge.

So, please, let's give this issue a rest here on this thread! It is Off Topic!

[KLP Dubey]

3) The question of implications of the statement that 'word meanings in the Samhita are not consistent' is personally quite interesting to me - so I will be examining it from all angles.

Very good, very good. Now if you want to address the issue of "word meanings not being consistent", the only "reliable" way (in case you do not want to believe Mimamsakas or some other guys) is to listen to/read the original Rgveda and see for yourself how the meanings from the Nirukta and any classical Sanskrit dictionary will fare. That is the challenging part.

If word meanings in Samhita are not consistent, then can we truly say that the same word meanings in Brahmanas are consistent?

Because it turns out that way after analysis! Not because of pre-conceived notions or arbitrary claims. That is one of the great achievements of Mimamsa, though on a more limited scale than the task of finding a consistent interpretation of the RV.

The Mimamsakas are going after the injunctive sentences in the Brahmanas.

They first divide the Brahmanas into different types of sentences. They discuss the non-injunctive sentences (i.e., which have no "action value"). Then they proceed to their main interest - i.e., interpreting the injunctions so that they can conduct the Yajnas correctly. The main objective of Mimamsa is to achieve a fully consistent interpretation of the injunctions. And this objective is indeed achieved.

But please note, these are not historical questions ("who did what in the past ?").

They are ethical questions ("what should we do ?").

Please do not ponder the Mimamsa through the lens of OIT and AIT.

While you are attempting to restrict the implications to history alone - can one really not derive implications for Vedic scholars ? (this is exactly the same issue you have raised of Talageri & Witzel - the implications of their deriving history can have implications on traditional scholars' faith in the Vedas).

Look, I have no "faith" in the Veda. It is purely a rational conviction based upon investigations, not pre-conceived notions or biases.

\but let me say again this quest is nothing personal and nothing to do with you. It is just something that deep implications I would like to get to the bottom of.

Now that is the right way to do it!

5) If at the end of the day, the argument of 'no consistent word meanings in Samhitas' carries the day - I would be the first person to welcome it. At the current juncture, we really have not seen a full-fledged case made for it. (We had talked a couple of times earlier of a case forthcoming from your side on non-Proper Noun Vedic philology). Maybe over the course of the argumentation - all points would indeed be addressed and case made - we'll have to wait and see.

Very good. This is a pleasant attitude indeed.

KL

[Satya_anveshi]

I do not know *who or what* gave anyone the impression here that I think the Veda is "meaningless" or "incomprehensible".

I am saying one and one thing only: the derivation of meanings in the Veda is so inconsistent that it is not historically reliable.

I am now starting to believe that my position is leading to motivated attacks from the "missionary posters" who are worried that I will derail their pet project with honest and reasoned analysis. Then the Moderator (J E Menon) tells me most people are agreeing with me and need my help. Now I do not know what to believe.
KL

Kishen Lal ji,

I understood the nuance you used around the historical relevency of RigVeda and hence that was not the point of my post. My post was in response to the "RigVeda is not in sanskrit" as I mentioned in my post. I didn't think or take it within the context of historical relevency argument. It left a knot in my stomach which I wanted to put across and thanks for your clarification. I take it that it also has a qualifier and within the above context.

BTW: What part of my post was perceived as motivated attacks on you? if none, can you pl do away with these type of statements? Thanks!

[KLP Dubey]

The two positions being discussed here are

1. Whether Indo-European languages and cultures came from outside the Indian Subcontinent into the Indian Subcontinent (AIT), or
2. Whether Indo-European languages and cultures had their origin in the Indian Subcontinent and traveled out (OIT).

I am discussing exactly the same thing, but I do not have the same approach as you do. OIT is not the property of one group or another. I have said clearly that my approach is based upon:

1) Showing the lack of reliability of any historical interpretation of the Veda. That negates any claims of tribal movements, geography, historical persons, etc. The only history associated with the Veda should be: "it is certainly older than X BCE" purely based on reference to historical works which are familiar with it, not from its contents.

2) The pratishakhya-supported historical model of sound changes from India to other places, using only reliable and attested evidence and not conjectures and cooked-up languages.

3) The above two will help clear out a vast amount of garbage. Then there will be a much clearer picture, which, along with other new findings (genetics, etc) will help establish the OIT.

Now you do not have to worry about whether my approach will work or fail. Just ignore it if you prefer.

Many are still interested to discuss the issue. I would urge you to continue your discussion in some other thread - perhaps the "Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas" thread may entice you. You can of course also open a new thread and educate us on BRF through your insights into Vedic knowledge.

Please do not take this the wrong way. I have nothing to do with Epics and Kathas. Honestly - and this is not a sarcasm - the work of Talageri should be discussed there, because essentially he is treating it as a Purana or an "Epic of the ancient tribals of India". I am only concerned with rational and unbiased arguments which will eventually establish OIT as correct.

The only way AIT will die quickly is if a sufficient number of its stalwarts physically die of old age. As I mentioned in an earlier post, that is the most likely mode of death of AIT in the near future. Otherwise, it is a long haul.

KL

[KLP Dubey]

BTW: What part of my post was perceived as motivated attacks on you? if none, can you pl do away with these type of statements? Thanks!

Not YOUR post. The posts of others.

KL

[KLP Dubey]

In the Gayatri mantra the word "varenyam" I think is pronounced as "vare-enyam". It that what you mean by "accented"?
Here is the same thing linked to the appropriate point on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1CE ... 7AIY#t=54s

"Bhargo-o" again immediately after that seems to be accented if my understanding of accented is right.

Perfectly correct. The Vedic accent has three different pitches: udatta, anudatta, and svarita. Those are used in all Vedic words.

Other than a possible sense of paranoia or a sense that you are being hounded I do not for the life of me understand how you think that i think you are bluffing.

No paranoia, but yes, I definitely got a sense that specific people are deliberately "seeing through" my responses and asking the same questions again. After 3-4 times I found it quite natural to wonder if it is deliberate.

KL

[JE Menon]

Gents, we are seemingly back on track...

One more request - can all posters pull back from comments or insinuations or innuendo directed at each other? Even if you disagree, or think some tack of argumentation is ridiculous, or uninformed - kindly use language that is moderate and impersonal. That will reduce a significant amount of the static on the thread.

KLP Dubey - I reaffirm. Help is needed. You are armed in ways most aren't, and usefully so. If possible, do not stand by while this battle is engaged.