Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 30 Aug 2013 21:41

AntuBarwa wrote:
Agnimitra wrote:Just like the concept of "past-to-present" time-binding property of Veda, I think this meaning-neutral property is also being misunderstood. Like the time-binding property, this meaning-neutrality also happens to be a fundamental concept in modern theories of semantics and epistemology.

Meaning neutrality signifies "silence on the objective levels" on the part of the hearer. This means that no intensional or extensional memory contents are impinging on the present-moment's contextual understanding of the words. This means that there is a "non-verbal awareness" that is also important, since it is well known that the greater part of communication that happens even between two people is non-verbal.


Went way above my head. May be an illustration of 'meaning neutral' might shed some light.

It means Veda is not information about something, it is information about information itself, and therefore pure knowingness. Depending on degrees of ability, maturity and personal intention, different information can be gleaned from the data-stream of Veda. Read that other post I had linked for an analogy: viewtopic.php?p=1344606#p1344606

AntuBarwa wrote:
So again, the pseudo-scientific AIT'ers need to be shown that a Vedic self-descriptor is found as a fundamental aspect of the most modern theories of semantics and epistemology, while they are busy with their puerile sand-castles in their pseudo-archaeological-linguistic sandbox.


Agnimitra,

I completely agree with this. Isn't that what likes of Shiv ji are attempting to do? or likes of Shrikant Talegeri have attempted?

But if I understand correctly- the contention of KLPD ji, he is against such attempts and I fail to understand his logic, assuming there is one.

Talegeri, etc. are attempting to play the same game as the Witzels and other AIT/AIM'ers, except in opposition. Maybe, just maybe, that has some utility in showing how it is all a very tendentious science. What KLPD ji is saying is that this game can become very dangerous if the fundamental position of the real nature of Veda is lost in all this "historicity" one-upmanship. Therefore, it is important to repeatedly emphasize at every turn the real nature of Veda and the ancient and time-tested rules of its interpretation - and then one can engage in debate with the AIT'ers on the disclaimer that their mode of investigation is itself rather narrow and upside down.
Last edited by Agnimitra on 31 Aug 2013 02:26, edited 1 time in total.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby KLP Dubey » 31 Aug 2013 02:11

AntuBarwa wrote:AIT predictions (even though the goofy theory is not) are testable (Sanskrit, horses, etc. only after 1500 BC) and therefore are falsified. Since one can not prove anything per say, we will not able to 'PROVE' OIT, but will able to show lot of evidence for its support.

Your knowledge of science seems to be on a loose footing and I would be happy to educate.


No thanks. I am not interested, since we have had this discussion already in this thread, and it is futile.

So you are saying likes of Lokamany Tilak, Subhash Kak, Vinoba Bhave, Shrikanth Talegeri, Nilesh Oak etc, who see history in Veda are fools. Ok, fine. I would prefer to be in company of fools.


What you decide to do is none of my concern.

None of the above individuals has demonstrated any knowledge of the Veda, and very likely have never read it. For all this talk about a "scientific approach", it turns out that very few (if any) of the OIT and AIT proponents on this thread have ever heard, articulated, or examined the Veda. It is useless to argue with such people. Talageri, as is well known, has zero command of the Veda and is basing his speculations upon a 'translated' text.

But please tell me who are these Indian scholars who think (besides you) that Veda has nothing to do with humarn race or any historical event per se.


My dear chap, all this information has been clearly provided previously in this thread. Refresh your memory. Such Indian scholars include all the major commentators of Mimamsa over 3 millennia. The required references were provided in detail, and one year later you are asking the same old questions. I am pretty sure you have not bothered to read or pondered any of these outstanding works, instead you are still running after jokers like Talageri, Kak, Elst, etc.

Good luck now.

KL
Last edited by KLP Dubey on 31 Aug 2013 02:16, edited 1 time in total.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby KLP Dubey » 31 Aug 2013 02:14

AntuBarwa wrote:Would you then agree that all past researchers who have made an attempt to decipher 'meaning' ouf to Rigveda are brave and to be praised for their efforts?

And do you have any ideas how one should go about deciphering the meaning but also any idea on golden standard (calibration gauge) to figure out if the decipherment is plausible?

If your answer is 'Big NO', then we are doomed, it seems.


Maharaj, please do check back to the discussion in the thread one year ago. I exchanged posts with Brihaspati and others. In short, Vedic 'meanings' are unlikely to be 'deciphered' by lone amateurs in their spare time sitting at home with a translated text, pieces of paper, and an overactive imagination.

KL

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby KLP Dubey » 31 Aug 2013 02:24

Virendra wrote:Minor absorption of Huns in one or two, of the dozens of Rajput clans? May be. When Huns and sycthians stayed for a long time in our periphery, it cannot be entirely ruled out.
But Huns or Sycthians being the origin of Rajput clans? No, not possible.


I agree with you. No chance of Hun and Scythian origin of Rajputs.

KL

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Dipanker » 31 Aug 2013 08:35

KLP Dubey wrote:
None of the above individuals has demonstrated any knowledge of the Veda, and very likely have never read it. For all this talk about a "scientific approach", it turns out that very few (if any) of the OIT and AIT proponents on this thread have ever heard, articulated, or examined the Veda. It is useless to argue with such people. Talageri, as is well known, has zero command of the Veda and is basing his speculations upon a 'translated' text.

KL


KLPDji,

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If as per you the meaning of veda (RigVeda) is not known, then how can one ( and I am including you in that category too) demonstrate one's knowledge about about something whose meaning is not known?

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Dipanker » 31 Aug 2013 08:35

KLP Dubey wrote:
None of the above individuals has demonstrated any knowledge of the Veda, and very likely have never read it. For all this talk about a "scientific approach", it turns out that very few (if any) of the OIT and AIT proponents on this thread have ever heard, articulated, or examined the Veda. It is useless to argue with such people. Talageri, as is well known, has zero command of the Veda and is basing his speculations upon a 'translated' text.

KL


KLPDji,

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If as per you the meaning of veda (RigVeda) is not known, then how can one ( and I am including you in that category too) demonstrate one's knowledge about something whose meaning is not known?

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 31 Aug 2013 17:27

AgniMitra ji,
No saar, I wasn't kidding. I am enthusiatic, if anything. But I started looking to opensource software, I am sure you know better, but why not try tesseract-ocr? the README page says:

Tesseract has been trained for many languages, check for your language on the Downloads page. It can also be trained to support other languages and scripts; for more details see TrainingTesseract3.
Development

Tesseract can also be used in your own project, under the terms of the Apache License 2.0. It has a fully featured API, and can be compiled for a variety of targets including Android and the iPhone. See the 3rdParty page for a sample of what has been done with it.


I wasn't sure if any existing open source can be used for unknown scripts, hence I thought of Medial-axis to recognize the character and then map it to interpret, this ofcourse needs to be implemented. I didn't look into the source yet, but will look into it. If tesseract can be tweaked with a 'dictionary' may be it can help?

member_23700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_23700 » 02 Sep 2013 02:05

AgniMitra Ji

Thank you for your links. I understand that analogy. In fact it can be also viewed similar to a random data point..which is capable of holding lot of information, depending on the context in which it was collected and additional data available by splitting it as (statistically speaking and only as an analogy) into average, between groups, within groups type of info, it is capable of providing.

In any case that is very different from whatever argument KLPD ji is proposing. In any case, I commented (and also asked questions) to him when I saw his post (recent post) dismissing attempts. All he has done so far is dismiss attempts of others. He has not shown anything in original yet. At one time, he gave a impression that he was onto something (e.g. he was going to provide criticism of Talageri in detail .. why river names claimed by Talageri are not rivers and so on) but in the end came out with nothing. Of course, one can always use the excuse of 'not having enough time' or 'not worth his time'. Fine, but then why criticize. To me that is dry speculation.
-----------
To your MP3 analogy though, one should able to employ the concept of 'minimization of entropy' (or reduction of Gibbs Free Energy) to interpretation of either Mr. Talageri or that of someone else. And while one would never know when (and if) we have truly reached the true meaning of Veda, we can still talk of better approximation to meaning of Veda (in your analogy of MB3, binary symbols, written words of the songs, the song itself, the deep meaning of the song which is even beyond MP3 and so on) between various attempts. And that by itself is of much value that dry blabbering of Mimasakas! Why expect more than -better approximation- from us mortals? Now this is scientific.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 03 Sep 2013 02:56

AntuBarwa ji,
I can provisionally agree with most of your points, they do possess validity to different extents. But I don't understand your dismissal of "mimasa" as "dry blabbering". I think in the end that means we're going down opposite slopes. I was never advocating pure "contextual relativism". Rather, although there are many relativistic contexts for interpretation at different levels, they all are of different degrees of ordinality of meaning. Moreover, the pure physical duplication of Veda and its instructions for yajna has a sort of 'absolute' significance totally indpendant of "meanings" and "interpretation". It is like peripheral hearing - walking in the park and hearing the rustling of leaves, smelling the dewy grass, hearing the twittering of birds or water flowing, the slight perspiration of walking briskly and of kinsthetic motion, etc., these sensate expressions are not "thought about" and "interpreted" by the brain. They go via a different circuit that bypasses all that "thinking".

Therefore, the Mimamsaka position is based on bringing all the "thinking" and "speculation" of even the most "profound" Vedanta full circle (what to speak of the speculations of linguists or archaeologists). In fact, Vedanta itself will not have a sound footing without at least accepting the validity of Mimamsa. Therefore, the Mimamsaka position is Purva Mimamsa, whereas Vedanta is Uttara Mimamsa. JMT.

member_23700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_23700 » 03 Sep 2013 04:45

Agnimitra ji,

My apologies. I meant to comment of KLPD ji claim that 'Mimasakas have explained everything and if one does not get it , it is that person's problem". My unintentional dismissal (rather slant and criticism) was not unlike.. me commenting on gourmet eaters or gluttonous eaters, and in the process unintentionally criticizing 'Big Belly' of Lord Ganesha.

I did not mean to dismiss 'Mimasaka'. I have studied only to a limited extent...but have had discussions with Gurujans on various implications of their work. KLPD ji also made some crisp arguments in initial stages of discussion that were impressive. I also learnt a lot from that discussion. I only felt that bold claims were made but not much came out in the end.

Reciting praise of Gods (not just from Rigveda, but from Purana and other vedas) in Sanskrit (or whatever is the language/graphic representation employed in Rigveda :D ) .. or even reciting of Liturgy in original Greek (or Latin) has a value ....similar to what (only as comparison/analogy) you have described in your response.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby KLP Dubey » 03 Sep 2013 07:48

AntuBarwa wrote:I did not mean to dismiss 'Mimasaka'. I have studied only to a limited extent...but have had discussions with Gurujans on various implications of their work. KLPD ji also made some crisp arguments in initial stages of discussion that were impressive. I also learnt a lot from that discussion. I only felt that bold claims were made but not much came out in the end.


AntuBarwa:

It is usually unclear what you mean or what you are trying to achieve.

Your modus operandi is as follows:

1) On one hand you admit that you have NO first-hand knowledge of the contents of the Veda, nor that of the huge literature of Mimamsa and other very rigorous inquiries and conclusions made by the Indians over the last 3K+ years.

2) On the other hand you deny the validity of their conclusions and findings, and decide that in fact we can just go ahead and start a completely new 'inquiry' that claims the Rgveda is an account of Indian tribal history (the supposedly 'wonderful' difference between your claim and that of AITers is that in your version the tribals were indigenous whereas in AIT they arrived on horses from Central Asia). This is stupid and outrageous.

3) When you are cautioned about the invalidity of your approach, and given the right guidance and basic references to start conducting a proper examination of the Veda, you demand that those who are helping you get started on this subject should in fact provide "evidence" that addresses your silly and half-a$$ed claims. That's outrageous! Why would anyone indulge your claims by writing detailed posts, when your claims are pure nonsense ? Beyond giving you the basic references and hoping that you study the subject thoroughly, what on earth are you expecting me to do for you ??

4) I have never seen or heard of a similar methodology to be tolerated in any scientific subject. The Indian inquiry has a 3000 year lead over any OIT or AIT attempts. It is up to the latecomers to examine the previous literature, provide cogent refutations of its main findings, and then challenge the proponents of Indian inquiry. You are not capable of doing anything of the sort. You have shown the greatest disrespect to the Indian inquiry, which is made worse by your pretense of supposedly vanquishing the AIT and giving Indians their 'correct' history.

It is obvious that your intent is NOT to get at the real import of the Veda, but to use it to peddle your ridiculous fantasies of Indian history that supposedly comes out of the Veda. This is the same problem with so-called champions of OIT like Talageri, Elst, Kak, Frawley and a bunch of similar jokers in the AIT camp.

Indian inquiry of the Veda over the ages has been honest and NOT tainted by the need to 'prove' historical points or address 'my-ancestors-were-more-advanced-than-yours' squabbles. They were only interested in its true character, which is conclusively shown to be eternal, impersonal, and having no connection to human history.

Namaskar

KL

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2468
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Prem Kumar » 03 Sep 2013 08:12

KLP Dubey ji:

They were only interested in its true character, which is conclusively shown to be eternal, impersonal, and having no connection to human history


This is the part that I struggle with. Your posts repeatedly mention that the phrases of RigVeda do not have a human historical meaning. Then, what in your opinion, do they talk about?

What has been conclusively shown & how has it been shown?

My question is serious and is not an attempt to poke fun or be derisive. I have an open mind on this and would like to know what is known about the Vedas, especially the Rig Veda. If you can summarize your answers, many on this forum will much appreciate it.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Prem » 03 Sep 2013 08:33

2012: The Coming of the Kalki Maitreya Avatar,
He is saying New Manu is /was appointed in 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vq0l1Jx9MY

member_23700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_23700 » 03 Sep 2013 08:36

Read an interesting blog article. While incomplete in details, conveys my position.. to an extent..
-------------

Arguments vs. theories

By Prof. S N Balagangadhara (Ghent University)

I have discovered that there is a fundamental difference between arguments and theory-building. As a philosopher, I have come to think that one could argue almost any position, within reasonable limits. Mostly, they consist of putting across plausible, or even logically possible considerations in order to show that either some point is plausible or that it could be true. Up to a point, arguments have a function: they force you to reason, check for inconsistencies, train your thinking process, etc. However, you must remember that ultimately all you have done is make a sentence or a set of sentences sound plausible or shown it to be logically consistent and possible. More often than not, it has a psychological purpose as well: that of shooting down some person, demonstrate intelligence, exhibit stupidity and so on. However exhilarating it might be at times, this is a very unproductive occupation, if carried on too far: one does not advance knowledge a great deal.


The second too involves reasoning, logic, etc but it tries to build some kind of a theory. Such an activity advances hypotheses, rejects or reformulates them, tries to solve problems and so on. Even where proved wrong, a fruitful hypothesis tells us something about the world. I find this an entirely different kettle of fish: it is far more difficult; it is subject to many more constraints than the first one; but it is even more exhilarating than the first one.

member_23700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_23700 » 03 Sep 2013 08:45

Jhujar wrote:2012: The Coming of the Kalki Maitreya Avatar,
He is saying New Manu is /was appointed in 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vq0l1Jx9MY

Jhujar ji,

We will never have dearth of 'Nuts'. Then why India or the world is facing mal-nutrition?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Anand K » 03 Sep 2013 08:52

The first few chapters of Secret of the Vedas does offer a view similar to that of KLP Dubey and Agnimitra.
Clicky for Download.

Seers hearing the "music of stars", vibration from the infinite ityadi which cannot be put down in words is actually a common trope.....

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2013 02:17

Venug, AM and Nilesh done.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 04 Sep 2013 05:38

Prem Kumar wrote:KLP Dubey ji:

They were only interested in its true character, which is conclusively shown to be eternal, impersonal, and having no connection to human history


This is the part that I struggle with. Your posts repeatedly mention that the phrases of RigVeda do not have a human historical meaning. Then, what in your opinion, do they talk about?

What has been conclusively shown & how has it been shown?

My question is serious and is not an attempt to poke fun or be derisive. I have an open mind on this and would like to know what is known about the Vedas, especially the Rig Veda. If you can summarize your answers, many on this forum will much appreciate it.

PKji perhaps Dwivedi ji does not know the answer himself?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 04 Sep 2013 05:44

KLP Dubey wrote:.......

It is obvious that your intent is NOT to get at the real import of the Veda, but to use it to peddle your ridiculous fantasies of Indian history that supposedly comes out of the Veda. This is the same problem with so-called champions of OIT like Talageri, Elst, Kak, Frawley and a bunch of similar jokers in the AIT camp.

Indian inquiry of the Veda over the ages has been honest and NOT tainted by the need to 'prove' historical points or address 'my-ancestors-were-more-advanced-than-yours' squabbles. They were only interested in its true character, which is conclusively shown to be eternal, impersonal, and having no connection to human history.

Namaskar

KL

Dwivedi ji,
If everyone else in the world is a gadha and we are the only smart ones then maybe something wrong with the logic?

You keep saying Vedic words cannot be understood. Nadi Sukta hymn has been posed to you multiple times. You have never answered.

Your point that the same word is used in different contexts to mean different things is not an issue. Synonyms abound in languages. Saraswati is a goddess and a river in different contexts. Where is the contradiction that you keep alluding to?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 04 Sep 2013 05:52

Virendra wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote:Actually, on this matter I believe there is some evidence. I do not remember the details, but about 10 years ago I studied the work "The Hunas in India" by Prof. Upendra Thakur (Magadh University). He enumerated various clans that absorbed the Hunas (including some minor Rajput subcastes if I remember correctly).

Minor absorption of Huns in one or two, of the dozens of Rajput clans? May be. When Huns and sycthians stayed for a long time in our periphery, it cannot be entirely ruled out.

Dwivedi: Do you think rules of endogamy were different in the time of Huns? Do we have evidence for changes in the rules of endogamy?

Virendra: Arguably Rajputs were under more stress during the time of Akbar and Mughals then the Hunnic invasions. When endogamy was not compromised in the mughal time how could it be any different during Hunnic time? Daughters were given to Mughals by rajput kings but they did not take daughters or absorb some mughals clans into their fold did they?

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Anand K » 04 Sep 2013 07:45

Regarding the sound thingie, it is interesting that PIE is constructed to be free-tonal pitch accent language - and Vedic Sanskrit is shown as reflecting best :D the original PIE accent. There's a debate on the phonology aspects of PIE due to the leaps of faith taken and the gaps in evidence presented.

Which comes to the theory of correct pronunciation becoming all important, to invoke the Gods and all that - my pooch is, isn't this (more) applicable for fully tonal languages? Vedic Sanskrit is not classified as a fully tonal language.... Or is the degree of tonality in Vedic Sanskrit under-estimated? Was the actual svara/uccharana fundae not preserved?
:-?

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 04 Sep 2013 10:52

peter wrote:Dwivedi: Do you think rules of endogamy were different in the time of Huns? Do we have evidence for changes in the rules of endogamy?

Virendra: Arguably Rajputs were under more stress during the time of Akbar and Mughals then the Hunnic invasions. When endogamy was not compromised in the mughal time how could it be any different during Hunnic time? Daughters were given to Mughals by rajput kings but they did not take daughters or absorb some mughals clans into their fold did they?

I don't know with surity whether Rajputs really absorbed anyone, just said that it cannot be ruled out. I don't know much about Huns culture and how the early Rajputs perceived them, in the hindsight of the subject of absorption.
But I know this, till as late as 1st century A.D. the Indian society was marrying across castes or whatever classes were prevalant then, as a recent Harvard study claims.
"The fact that every population in India evolved from randomly mixed populations suggests that social classifications like the caste system are not likely to have existed in the same way before the mixture," co-senior author Lalji Singh, currently of Banaras Hindu University, and formerly of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology said in the HMS statement. "Thus, the present-day structure of the caste system came into being only relatively recently in Indian history."

A secondary point that I wanted to mention here is that even before this study came out, it was known that the present day caste system is not a direct derivative of the vedic varna system. This has been accepted by varying schools of thoughts and scholars, including the czarina of lefties - Romilla Thapar.

When I can see examples of intercaste marriages as late as 10th century, Huns seem much closer to the endogamy's onset in Indian society, as compared to Mughals.
Also, one has to compare Huns with Mughals to find out.
a) Huns were ruling parts of NW India for a few decades at best, far from troubling the entire north India.
b) Huns did not have a religio-cultural imperialist doctrine as intense as the muslim powers that followed them. Huns were not indulging in any conversions that the Indian society would repel in the way they did towards the muslim dynasties.
But muslim dynasties? least said the better. To put it in a line - They were incapable of being absorbed.
c) In the larger picture who absorbs whom is the question.
It was Indians who absorbed the Huns (if at all that happened). Further, by the time Huns were hypothetically absorbed here, they would've gone weaker so as to not pose any serious threats later on. That is, the abosorption would've happened late in the Hunnic timeline and Indians would be dominating them already.
But in muslims case, they were sitting on our heads. They would invariably try to play the absorber's role. That is, even if their members entered a society from outside, they would always try to impose themselves in such a way that results of such abosorption would be never be good.
Perhaps our ancestors were sensible enough in repelling, or else the incompatible food would have eaten the stomach from inside.
After losing on political space, if we had given them space in society as well. Nothing would be left.

Regards,
Virendra

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby KLP Dubey » 05 Sep 2013 06:38

Dipanker wrote:Aren't you contradicting yourself? If as per you the meaning of veda (RigVeda) is not known, then how can one ( and I am including you in that category too) demonstrate one's knowledge about about something whose meaning is not known?


I'm not contradicting myself. "Knowledge" of the Veda does not mean that one has 'deciphered its meaning'. It means a correct knowledge of its sounds (shiksha), their arrangement (chandas), accent and grammatical aspects (vyakarana). These disciplines have been highly successful and created a great deal of useful knowledge which the Indians have disseminated to the rest of humanity.

It also means a knowledge of the various meanings that humans have assigned to its sounds (nirukta). Note, nirukta is not a study of reliable meanings of the Veda or its interpretation. It is basically a catalog of previously suggested meanings. This discipline has had no clear success.

The other two vedangas are concerned with trying to interpret its sounds - which contain universally valid information - in terms of their effects on the human condition (kalpa and jyotish). The 'success' of these disciplines is dependent on your epistemological viewpoint.

There is no successful discipline concerned with "decphering the meaning" of the Veda (i.e. the Rgveda Samhita) in terms of history, geography, and human civilization. All previous and current attempts have failed and give absurd results. Moreover, the successful darshanas (mimansa and vedanta) have shown that the sounds of the Veda cannot be assumed to be anything but eternal and impersonal.

As also mentioned previously, the ancient Indians were no fools. There is a clear division between Veda, Purana, and Itihasa. The latter two deal with human history and myth. The Veda is separate from these and this has been common knowledge from time immemorial. It is only after the western colonization of India that the politically motivated urge to find history and geography in the Veda has begun (AIT, AMT, OIT, etc).

KL

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby KLP Dubey » 05 Sep 2013 06:42

Agnimitra wrote:AntuBarwa ji.... But I don't understand your dismissal of "mimasa" as "dry blabbering". I think in the end that means we're going down opposite slopes.


The main problem is that he has never read it. Yet he decides to start his own 'inquiry' while being unwilling to read prior work (hardly a 'scientific' trait). Mimamsa creates a problem for him, since it disrupts his politically motivated agenda of finding history in the Veda to support his OIT viewpoint.

KL

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10542
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Vayutuvan » 05 Sep 2013 07:40

Anand K wrote:Seers hearing the "music of stars", vibration from the infinite ityadi which cannot be put down in words is actually a common trope.....

AnandK saar, what "common trope shope"? These are before the words "trope" and "common" were even common. Cummon, moi mon. What are you saying? Make some sense, saar.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_20317 » 05 Sep 2013 15:46

AntuBarwa wrote:Read an interesting blog article. While incomplete in details, conveys my position.. to an extent..
-------------

Arguments vs. theories

By Prof. S N Balagangadhara (Ghent University)

I have discovered that there is a fundamental difference between arguments and theory-building. As a philosopher, I have come to think that one could argue almost any position, within reasonable limits. Mostly, they consist of putting across plausible, or even logically possible considerations in order to show that either some point is plausible or that it could be true. Up to a point, arguments have a function: they force you to reason, check for inconsistencies, train your thinking process, etc. However, you must remember that ultimately all you have done is make a sentence or a set of sentences sound plausible or shown it to be logically consistent and possible. More often than not, it has a psychological purpose as well: that of shooting down some person, demonstrate intelligence, exhibit stupidity and so on. However exhilarating it might be at times, this is a very unproductive occupation, if carried on too far: one does not advance knowledge a great deal.


The second too involves reasoning, logic, etc but it tries to build some kind of a theory. Such an activity advances hypotheses, rejects or reformulates them, tries to solve problems and so on. Even where proved wrong, a fruitful hypothesis tells us something about the world. I find this an entirely different kettle of fish: it is far more difficult; it is subject to many more constraints than the first one; but it is even more exhilarating than the first one.




AntuBarwa ji,

These are arguments and counter arguments
_._
._.


These are theories and counter theories
_.__.__.__.__.__._
._. ._. ._. ._. ._. ._.


Now it could be that this is the truth:

............................................

and Vedas could have been intended to allow the practitioner to open up to the truth.

Now somebody who sees the following, he will still not be able to claim the truth. But he could at least point out why the theory is merely a disjoint extension of the argument:

........ .................. ............

The facilities available today enable a lot of expression that was not possible earlier. So the people in earlier times had to resort to improvisations and hence the strange trope like nature of their phraseology. Things like the ‘unstruck clap’ etc.

To cut to the chase try to better the best known knowledge in your own field and then try to better yourself. You will realize that the distinction in Arguments and Theories is merely what people wish for. Wish of a people who have had some success with the theory. But the success with the theory does not release them from wishes. And truth is certainly not a wish. Wishes close you to the truth. Truth closes you to the wishes. If theories were about approximation then people would have worried about establishing the truth, not about establishing the theory.

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Anand K » 05 Sep 2013 20:51

matrimc wrote:AnandK saar, what "common trope shope"? These are before the words "trope" and "common" were even common. Cummon, moi mon. What are you saying? Make some sense, saar.


Primordial sound funda is a common concept in many parts of the world. Mystic Jewish and Kabbalistic esoteric traditions, which relate the shapes, sounds, and spiritual meaning of the sounds. Even speaking the name of Jehovah (which would be the wrong anyway and hence dangerous/insulting) was punishable by death.The pre-Islamic Arabs had concept of (a once highly tonalized) Zikr, which was later appropriated in a mutated form into Islamic Dua. At the root of the Christian concept of "Logos" is also the primordial sound. There's the creating word of Thoth in Egyptian mythology which created everything from the void. The Popol Vuh recounts the primordial sound of creation and it's vibrations.There's the Oran Mor of Celtic Mythology and it's unending vibrationwhich Tolkien down to Mike Mignola and bethesda labs used as a basis for their high fantasies.
In all these cases, only a gifted few.... Priests and Druids and Sibylls and Listeners-high-on-'shrooms could perceive these sounds and arrive at the ultimate truth, which was disseminated to the masses.

Common Trope. QED. :roll:

member_23700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_23700 » 05 Sep 2013 21:37

ravi_g wrote:

To cut to the chase try to better the best known knowledge in your own field and then try to better yourself. You will realize that the distinction in Arguments and Theories is merely what people wish for. Wish of a people who have had some success with the theory. But the success with the theory does not release them from wishes. And truth is certainly not a wish. Wishes close you to the truth. Truth closes you to the wishes. If theories were about approximation then people would have worried about establishing the truth, not about establishing the theory.


:rotfl: :rotfl:

Muchisimas Gracias.

If I have learned anything, people rarely change, unless they have, what HR folks call 'SEE" - Significant emotional event.

Now I will focus on truth.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby KLP Dubey » 06 Sep 2013 04:01

Anand K wrote:Primordial sound funda is a common concept in many parts of the world. Mystic Jewish and Kabbalistic esoteric traditions, which relate the shapes, sounds, and spiritual meaning of the sounds. Even speaking the name of Jehovah (which would be the wrong anyway and hence dangerous/insulting) was punishable by death.The pre-Islamic Arabs had concept of (a once highly tonalized) Zikr, which was later appropriated in a mutated form into Islamic Dua. At the root of the Christian concept of "Logos" is also the primordial sound. There's the creating word of Thoth in Egyptian mythology which created everything from the void. The Popol Vuh recounts the primordial sound of creation and it's vibrations.There's the Oran Mor of Celtic Mythology and it's unending vibrationwhich Tolkien down to Mike Mignola and bethesda labs used as a basis for their high fantasies.
In all these cases, only a gifted few.... Priests and Druids and Sibylls and Listeners-high-on-'shrooms could perceive these sounds and arrive at the ultimate truth, which was disseminated to the masses.


This is a misleading comparison. First of all, the Arabs, Jews, and Christians do not consider the "Word" as eternal. They consider it the "word of god", and these words were authored by humans under some sort of "divine influence".

There is no place in religion for Eternal Word, which is reserved only for the Veda.

It is true that many world cultures have common literary traditions: creation myths, flood myths, etc. These are equivalent to the Indian Puranas, not to the Veda. The Veda contains no such information.

Most importantly, the Veda does not involve any form of mysticism or reception by a "gifted few". The transmission of the Veda is a matter of precision and routine. Nobody who reproduces the Vedic sounds claims to have arrived at any kind of "ultimate truth".

KL

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 06 Sep 2013 05:05

KLP Dubey wrote:This is a misleading comparison. First of all, the Arabs, Jews, and Christians do not consider the "Word" as eternal. They consider it the "word of god"

KL ji, to be fair, in the New Testament, we have: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1.1

Also, in Islam, there was violent disagreement and schism between the Mutazilites and the Asharites about whether the Qur'an was the created word of god or whether it was co-eternal with god.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby johneeG » 06 Sep 2013 07:33

devesh wrote:
Agnimitra wrote:RajeshA ji you've been missed here.


I second that.


Satyam, Satyam, Punah Satyam. RajeshA saar, come back, no! :(( Atleast, in this thread. Similarly, Shiv saar, at least for this thread.

KLP Dubey wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Aren't you contradicting yourself? If as per you the meaning of veda (RigVeda) is not known, then how can one ( and I am including you in that category too) demonstrate one's knowledge about about something whose meaning is not known?


I'm not contradicting myself. "Knowledge" of the Veda does not mean that one has 'deciphered its meaning'. It means a correct knowledge of its sounds (shiksha), their arrangement (chandas), accent and grammatical aspects (vyakarana). These disciplines have been highly successful and created a great deal of useful knowledge which the Indians have disseminated to the rest of humanity.


Dubey ji,

how can you claim that the words of Veda are not Sanskrit when Vyakarna(Grammer) is a Veda-anga? How can you say that Vedic words are meaningless when Vyakarna(Grammer) is a Veda-anga?

KLP Dubey wrote:It also means a knowledge of the various meanings that humans have assigned to its sounds (nirukta). Note, nirukta is not a study of reliable meanings of the Veda or its interpretation. It is basically a catalog of previously suggested meanings. This discipline has had no clear success.


Saar,
I think this is a disingenuous position. On one hand you are saying that people should not ignore what Hindhus have been saying for more than 5000 years, on the other hand you are yourself trying to undermine Niruktha just because its presence undermines your position?

KLP Dubey wrote:The other two vedangas are concerned with trying to interpret its sounds - which contain universally valid information - in terms of their effects on the human condition (kalpa and jyotish). The 'success' of these disciplines is dependent on your epistemological viewpoint.


But, the basic point is that Vedhas do contain a lot of knowledge(and they are not some meaningless mumble jumble). And to decode(or to understand) this knowledge, knowledge of Vedha-angas are required. One of the Vedha-angas being Kalpa(which deals with rituals, creation of altars, ...etc), it is obvious that Vedhas contain knowledge related to rituals or atleast, knowledge about rituals is required to understand the wisdom of Vedhas.

And since, Jyothishya is also a Vedha-anga, knowledge of Jyothishya is required to understand Vaidik wisdom.

And there are also Upa-Vedhas:

Medicine (Āyurvedha), associated with the Rigvedha
Archery (Dhanurvedha), associated with the Yajurvedha
Music and sacred dance (Gāndharva-vedha), associated with the Saamavedha
Military science (Shastrashastra), associated with the Atharvavedha

Upa-Vedha could mean knowledge branches derived from the Vedhas or it could also mean applied(i.e. practical) knowledge derived from the Vedhas. It is also clearly given which branch was derived from which Vedha.

This is also traditionally being studied by the Hindhus for more than 5000 years.

BTW, I wonder where the colonial EJ 'indologists' got 5000 year mark from? Just the good old creation day mentioned in THE BOOK?

KLP Dubey wrote:There is no successful discipline concerned with "decphering the meaning" of the Veda (i.e. the Rgveda Samhita) in terms of history, geography, and human civilization. All previous and current attempts have failed and give absurd results. Moreover, the successful darshanas (mimansa and vedanta) have shown that the sounds of the Veda cannot be assumed to be anything but eternal and impersonal.


They are eternal and impersonal, alright.

KLP Dubey wrote:As also mentioned previously, the ancient Indians were no fools. There is a clear division between Veda, Purana, and Itihasa. The latter two deal with human history and myth. The Veda is separate from these and this has been common knowledge from time immemorial. It is only after the western colonization of India that the politically motivated urge to find history and geography in the Veda has begun (AIT, AMT, OIT, etc).

KL


I think this is a much better position. Vedhas have always been considered a storehouse of knowledge. The word 'Vedha' itself means 'knowledge'. The dhatu 'Vidh' denotes 'knowledge'. This is found in another word 'Vidh-van' which means 'scholar'. In sanskrit, 'vidh' is used even as a verb, correct me if I am wrong.

But, it has never been claimed(either in Vedhas Itself or by Vedha-angas or by Puranas or by Ithihaasas or by other Darshanas) that Vedha is a historical record.

It was the colonial EJ 'indologists' who came up with this new and revolutionary idea that Vedha is a historical record. I don't know whether Buddhists ever made this claim about Vedhas.

But, how can anyone just make an absurd claim without any reason when the traditions associated with the Vedhas nor Vedhas themselves support this claim(that Vedhas area historical record)? In fact, it has been explicitly said that Vedhas contain a lot of knowledge that is eternal(basically saying that Vedhas are not related to any one single location, time, circumstance or personality). This itself is an emphatic claim that Vedhas are not a historical record.

There are six-darshanas that accept the Vaidhik authority(which means that they derive their branch from the Vedhas.):

Nyaya: By Gauthama. It is based on logic(Tharka).
Vaisheshika: By Kanadha. It proposes atomic(kanam) structure of the elements.
Sankhya: By Kapila. It suggests the negation of all the things(Prakruthi) to arrive at the remainder(Purusha) which is eternal and impersonal.
Yoga: By Pathanjali. It deals with Physical and Mental exercises to control the mind(Chittha vritthi nirodha)
Mimamsa: By Vyasa->Jaimini->Kumarilla. It proposes the prominence of rituals.
Vedanta (or Uttara "later" Mimamsa): By Vyasa->Shankara. It talks about Moksha(liberation).

None of the above darshanas even suggest that Vedhas could be historical or geographical records.

Some events maybe mentioned in Vedhas while conveying a point. The point that the Vedha is trying to convey is the important thing, the event is a side-note. That event need not be historical at all because no one claims it to be history. It could be fiction/prediction/imagination/history/history mixed with imagination/prediction based upon past/...etc. It could be anything. The vital point is what Vedha is conveying. By ignoring the main point and concentrating on the side-note based on the presumption that it is a historical record leads to the strange narratives. Such narratives can be spun dime a dozen by anyone with some imagination, after all there is no need to base it on anything. One can come up with whatever one want to.

Hindhus have their historical records: Puraanas and Ithihaasas.
Ithihaasas, as the name clarifies, are precise historical records.
Puraanas, as the name suggests, are very old historical records which may have many omissions and commissions in the story telling due to the fact that they are very very old. MB, for example, is primarily a Ithihaasa. But it contains several Puraanas within it. So, it means the primary story of Paandavas and Kauravas is a Ithihaasa while the various other stories told within MB like Nala-Dhamayanthi, birth of Garooda-Naga, ...etc are Puraanas.

What the colonials have done is that they have completely reversed this.
Those records that Hindhus claim as their histories are dismissed as myths by the colonial EJs.
Those records that Hindhus claim as eternal knowledge(i.e. not historical) are claimed by the colonial EJs as historical records.

Its upside down. Its like, if I say, "X is my bro and Y is my grandfather and I pray to Z. Z is my Goddess."
Then the colonials say, "no you are lying. X cannot be your bro. Y must be your bro and Z must be your grandmother." And these colonials have no reason to make these claims except their own prejudice.

------
Agnimitra wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote:This is a misleading comparison. First of all, the Arabs, Jews, and Christians do not consider the "Word" as eternal. They consider it the "word of god"

KL ji, to be fair, in the New Testament, we have: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1.1

Also, in Islam, there was violent disagreement and schism between the Mutazilites and the Asharites about whether the Qur'an was the created word of god or whether it was co-eternal with god.


They are uncannily similar to Hindhu ones. Some have even shown the exact Hindhu ones that they imitate.

That is proof that these newer cults were derived from older Vaidhik branches with lots of corruption happening.

---------
Dubey ji,
I had a doubt. How does one differentiate between adjective and noun in Sanskruth? And how to know whether a word is a common noun or proper noun?

For example, if it is said that Krushnah Sundharah.
How does one know whether Krushnah(black male) and Sundharah(beautiful male) is a common noun or adjective or proper noun?

I think that explanation would be on topic on this thread and also useful. Thanks in Advance.

-----
Virendra wrote:Is a ch to d possible from Sanskrit to other IE languages?
Just struck me that their Dermatologist (skin doc) is the same as our Charma rog (skin disease).


Plausible.

Latin for bone is 'ossis'.
German for bone is 'os'
French for bone is 'os'
Arabic for bone is 'azm'
Urdu for bone is 'haddi'(which means Farsi word for bone must also be 'haddi')
Hindi for bone is 'asthi'

All these words are derived from the sanskruth word for bone: 'ashti'

But, there is one more thing
English for bone is 'bone'
Thelugu for bone is 'bokka'

Note the similarities. Basically, all languages share similarities with each other. This whole 'Indo-European' classification is based on AIT itself. It would be better if these classifications are ignored, at least, by Indians(particularly on this thread).

What is European about Indian languages?
When all languages have similarities with each other, then what are these classifications based on?

These classifications like 'indo-european' 'proto-dravidian' 'indo-aryan' 'indo-iranian'...etc are bogus non-sense, IMHO.
-----
Murugan wrote:Reading Dante
about seven deadly sins

Septema Peccata Mortalia
Sapta Pataka(!!) (maha)

How much latin is influenced by samskrit


Latin is very much influenced by Sanskruth. Take the good old months' names:

September, October, November, December.

September -> Saptham-vara (7th turn)
October -> Ashtam-vara (8th turn)
November -> Navam-vara (9th turn)
December -> Dasham-vara (10th turn)

'varam' means 'again'. It denotes a repetition. In India, one finds the word 'varam' is used for the days of the week as in Shani-vara(i.e. Saturnday or Saturday) because days of the week also get repeated.

'vara' becomes 'ber' in the latin version. Actually, there is a suthra in Sanskruth grammer called 'ba-va-yor abedhah'. It means 'ba' and 'va' are indistinct and can be used to replace each other.

Originally, September, October, November and December were 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months respectively. Later, newer months were added. For example, August and July.

Original Roman calendar:
Calendar of Romulus

Roman writers attributed the original Roman calendar to Romulus, the founder of Rome around 753 BC. The Romulus calendar had ten months with the spring equinox in the first month:

Calendar of Romulus
Martius (31 days)
Aprilis (30 days)
Maius (31 days)
Iunius (30 days)
Quintilis [2] (31 days)
Sextilis (30 days)
September[3] (30 days)
October (31 days)
November (30 days)
December (30 days)

wiki

Note that sextilis -> shat(6th)
Also note that the Calendar starts from Spring Equinox. This is also based on Hindhuism.

In India, Hindhu new year starts on Yuga-adhi(near spring equinox). In Thelugu and Kannada, Ugadhi is celebrated at the time. In Marathi, it is called Gudi Padwa. At almost the same time, Vikram Samvath new year also comes.

P.N. Oak in one of his books(I think 'Some Missing Chapters of World History') says that the word X-mas to denote Christmas is also based on the above.

He says that December was the 10th month of Roman Calender. And it is derived from Dasham(10th) in Sanskruth. In Roman notation, '10' is represented by 'X'.

Dasham-vara->December-> 10th month -> X-mas.

He says that the word 'mas' taken directly from the sanskruth word 'masa'(sanskruth for month). In sanskruth, 'masa' means 'month'.

So, X-mas, he says meant a 10th month which was celebrated as a festival.

Later, the church usurped it and gave it christian coloring. Thats why the church narrative is incoherent. It was not the only hijacking by the church.

johneeG wrote:There is something interesting to ponder on:

There are 4 festivals: Valentine's Day, April Fool's Day, Halloween, Christmas.

I think all these 4 festivals are Pagan festivals originally which were later given christian coloring by church.

These festivals have corresponding Hindu festivals.

Valentine's day == Vasant(Basant) Utsav (Spring Festival) & Holi.
April Fool's day (original New Year of Roman Calendar) == Ugadi or Gudi Padva (Hindu New Year).
Halloween == Pitru Amavasya.
Christmas == Makara Sankranti.

Pumpkins play a special role in Halloween. Why? According to the Hindu literature, Pumpkins(Kushmanda) are the favourite food of pitris(deceased ancestors). Pitri Amavasya is day, just a few days before Dusherra, which is marked for performing Shraaddha of the pitris. Halloween falls very close to this.

The differences in the exact dates may be explained due to the changes in the calendar. Most of the Indian festivals(except Makara Sankranti) follow Lunar Calendar. So, the dates can vary.

Holi and Basant Utsav are the days when young girls and boys enjoy themselves. Romans used to follow similar festival(most probably they inherited it from the earlier cultures). This was given a christian makeover by the church.

Similarly, Makara Sankranti was made it into the birthday of Jesus, while Sunday was made into the holyday.

The connections are obvious. There is a definite Hindu connection. So, the theory is that once upon a time all the humanity followed a single religion(Hinduism) with some local variations. The newer ideologies sprang from Hinduism(or some derivative of Hinduism). These newer ideologies altered/erased the local customs. But, there are still certain points that could not be altered/erased which reveal the common Hindu past of the entire world.



Link to original post

So, the Roman culture was closely associated with Hindhu(or Indian) one. Later changes were made to the Roman one. In fact, the Romans may have inherited there culture from Greeks who may have inherited it from earlier ones. Since Rome was an empire, it may have been in contact with the Hindhus(indians) and hence less prone to the corruption and therefore more easily detectable similarities. And when the connection broke(or reduced) the corruptions became more pronounced in Roman(or Latin).

One of the reasons for the dark ages in Europe may have been the lack of contact with India. And when the contact was re-established in the colonial age, Europe came out of dark ages. But, in the process, India was looted. And Europeans came up with weird racial theories to satisfy their egos.
------
RajeshA wrote:The Handshake

Continuing from "Sanskrit Subhashitani, Sanskrit Nukkad" Thread

Agnimitra wrote:Custom of the Handshake in ancient India - not just a western practice.

Verse from Ramayana Kishkinda Kanda Sarga 5 Sloka 12 Sugriva speaks to Rama.

रोचते यदि वा सख्यं बाहुरेष प्रसरितः ।
गृह्यतां पाणिना पाणि: मर्यादा बध्यतां ध्रुवा ॥

If you like my friendship I am extending this arm.
Hold my hand with your hand and let us enter into a firm agreement.


Agnimitra ji,

the handshake seems to be a development as part of the Mitra cult. There are multiple bas reliefs from Persia which attest to this.

Image

Figure: Marduk-zakir-shumi of Babylon 703BC (right) and Shalmaneser III (left) enact a peace pact by shaking their right hands.

A blog post on Mithras

I am sure that Suppiluliuma and Shattiwaza, or Satya-jâta, concluded the Hittite-Mittani Treaty ca. 1380 BC, also with a solid handshake!

Quoting Wikipedia on the Vedic deity Mitrá

The Indo-Iranian word *mitra-m means "covenant, contract, oath, or treaty", and only later on, "friend" (retaining the original neuter gender, mitram). The second sense tends to be emphasized in later sources, the first sense in the Veda and in Iranian. The word is derived from a root mi- "to fix, to bind" (Indo-European *Hmei), with the "tool suffix" -tra- (compare man-tra-), a contract is thus described as a "means of binding."


The handshake is simply a symbolic means of binding: the symbol of Mitrá.

Of course, Western anthropologists say

The handshake is thought by some to have originated as a gesture of peace by demonstrating that the hand holds no weapon.


Some other anthropologist who wanted to negate this theory then had to invent the handshake electric buzzer

Image

The latest instance of this Vedic Mitrá ritual was on the evening of 5th April 2063, when Zefram Cochrane greeted the first Vulcan to land on earth in Bozeman, Montana with a handshake. :wink:

Image

So how many times is this Vedic Mitrá ritual carried out every day in the world? :)

Link to original post

Nilesh Oak wrote:RajeshA,

Mitra= Surya, Rama was Suryavamshi (solar dynasty). When he makes a pact with Sugriva, he uses the handshake. So the custom is as old (and in fact older) than timing of Ramayana.


ramana wrote:RajeshA, The above quotes on handshake are from Valmiki Ramayana?

So when and why did 'namaste' take over?

Also if Mitra=Surya then the Mittani, pre-Christian Romans etc were all unknowing Hindus.


Ramana garu,
there is no take-over nothing.

Namaste and handshake are both part and parcel of Hindhu etiquette. They are used in different circumstances.

'Namas-te' means 'namas' to you. The word 'namas' can have different meanings. 'Namas-te' is generally used for people who are equals or elders. It denotes respect.

To show more respect, people touch the feet of the elders(or those whom respect is to be shown). To show more respect, the feet of the person are washed. We find that this motif is found in NT also but with lot of remixing. In NT, Jesus character(originally, Yashas, disciple of Buddha), washes the feet of his disciples. This point foxes the EJ 'scholars' of NT. It foxes them because it is an absurd remixing. And is taken from the Buddha's stories which in turn are inspired from Hindhu literature.

When introducing oneself, Hindhus say the name of oneself and one's father. This is found in western literature also.

Finally, the handshake is used to denote close friendship or a lasting commitment(or bond). Generally, it is done in the holy presence of a respected figure(s). What can be more holy than fire(agni)? It is called Agni-sakshi. You find this ritual enacted in hindhu weddings also. In Hindhu weddings, groom and bride shake hands in the presence of fire it is called paani-grahana. It denotes a lasting wedding(commitment or affectionate bond) between friends(or spouse). The same thing is seen in Valmiki Ramayana between Sugriva and Shri Rama.

The same thing seems to have become the modern handshakes. The Egyptians must have replaced 'agni'(fire) with 'surya'(sun). Of course, even in Hindhuism Sun is the real and eternal fire. The Persians(i.e. Paarsis) followed Zorastrianism which is based on 'fire-worship'

-----
EDIT:
Note the similarity in the sounding of the words:
'namas' & 'namaaz'(islamic prayer)

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10542
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Vayutuvan » 06 Sep 2013 21:39

Anand K wrote:Common Trope. QED. :roll:


I think you should put all the those common tropes on a timeline and see if you find any tropes common or otherwise before vedas. :roll: :roll:

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 07 Sep 2013 05:16

johneeG wrote:Latin for bone is 'ossis'.
German for bone is 'os'
French for bone is 'os'
Arabic for bone is 'azm'
Urdu for bone is 'haddi'(which means Farsi word for bone must also be 'haddi')
Hindi for bone is 'asthi'

johneeG ji, "haddi" is just regular khari boli (Hindi), which is adopted by Urdu. "asthi" is used in Sanskritized Hindi.
Persian for bone is "ostokhaan", similar to the Latin you posted above.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 12 Sep 2013 02:59

AntuBarwa wrote:
ravi_g wrote:
To cut to the chase try to better the best known knowledge in your own field and then try to better yourself. You will realize that the distinction in Arguments and Theories is merely what people wish for. Wish of a people who have had some success with the theory. But the success with the theory does not release them from wishes. And truth is certainly not a wish. Wishes close you to the truth. Truth closes you to the wishes. If theories were about approximation then people would have worried about establishing the truth, not about establishing the theory.


:rotfl: :rotfl:

Muchisimas Gracias.

If I have learned anything, people rarely change, unless they have, what HR folks call 'SEE" - Significant emotional event.

Now I will focus on truth.

AntuBarwa ji, Anand K ji, Dipanker ji -

Its better to draw close to the original (Veda) before one wastes time with the academic pseudo-interpretations and theories of linguists, archaeologists and other Western academics who have no identification with the Veda, and instead have an attitude of envy, usurpation and malice towards Vedic civilization in India. IOW, if they haven't paid their dues at the altar of the Veda and Vedanga, duplicating its practice as per the clear specifications of its own native tradition, then their theories and critiques are worth nothing - or more harmful than useful.

From GDF Sanskrit nukkad -
viewtopic.php?p=1509667#p1509667

Dilwale dulhaniya le jayenge - RigVeda 10.71.4

Today's Sudharma edition has an editorial that quotes a portion of this mantra from the RigVeda's Saraswati Suktam:

उत त्वः पश्यन् न ददर्श वाचं , उत त्वः श्रृण्वन् न श्रृणोत्येनम् ।
उतो त्वस्मै तन्वं विसस्रे जायेव पत्य उषति सुवासाः ॥ ऋग्वेदः १०.७१.४


"One man looks at the Word, yet he does not see Her; One listens but does not hear Her.
But to another has She shown Her beauty, like a fond well-dressed bride does to her husband."
- RigVeda 10.71.4


Here is the nice write-up by Sudharma editor (which is applicable to shruti and smriti as it is to any poetry):

कविसहृदयाख्यं तत्त्वम् । The reality of what is called 'Poet' (kavi) and of 'Possessor of a sincere, learned heart' (sa-hridaya - "dilwaala").

"The reality of Saraswati is won by the poet and the possessor of a heart", said Abhinavagupta. "Those who, by constant practice and devotion to the poetry acquire the ability to identify and become part of (something) in the clear, illustrative imagination of the heart's mirror, they become participants in the relationships of the heart and are possessors of the heart," said he. In hands lie the ability for creation, in the possessor of the heart lies the ability for bliss. But its not as if all who read poetry or all who watch theater are knowers of the poet's heart. Only some have that ability. Thus it is heard:

"One man looks at the Word, yet he does not see Her;
One listens but does not hear Her."

In the world, as poets are rare, so also are possessors of hearts. Just like poetic talent, the ability for critique and reflection is also obtained only by the Grace of God. By the ability for critique and reflection, the possessor of a heart knows the inner state of the poet, and discovers new meanings, too. What the sun doesn't see, that the poet sees; and what even the poet doesn't see, that the reflective critic sees! But some critics turn into academic commentators. They only seek the faults in the poet. Where the meaning is complex, there they say it is obvious and literal and cast it away. Where the meaning is clear they re-describe it in complex ways. They increase the readers' perplexity. In this way, many an interpreter has perverted reality. They aren't possessors of hearts. Only he is a possessor of a heart who sets aside envy and emulation and reads poetry for the joy of poetry. The reality of Saraswati is in, both, the poet and the possessor of a heart. If there were no possessors of hearts, then the poet's work is wasted. If there was no poet, then the possessors of hearts would have no bliss. May both increase!

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby KLP Dubey » 12 Sep 2013 05:07

Agnimitra wrote:Its better to draw close to the original (Veda) before one wastes time with the academic pseudo-interpretations and theories of linguists, archaeologists and other Western academics who have no identification with the Veda, and instead have an attitude of envy, usurpation and malice towards Vedic civilization in India. IOW, if they haven't paid their dues at the altar of the Veda and Vedanga, duplicating its practice as per the clear specifications of its own native tradition, then their theories and critiques are worth nothing - or more harmful than useful.


Perfectly correct. I simply do not understand this obsession with finding history and geography in the Veda. It seems perverse in the extreme, and seems to be a recently developed illness.

It was common knowledge that Veda had no historical record in it. Historical records and myths are in the Puranas and Itihasas. In a few decades upon colonization of India, Vedic 'study' became (and has unfortunately remained) a freakshow of all manner of weird buffoons and mendicants finding truly hilarious interpretations of the Vedic words. In order to keep this up, the absurdity and audacity of the interpretations must obviously increase with time since people poke holes that need to be patched up.

Unfortunately a lot of Indians have joined this parade since the 1990s, since some extra-nationals like Frawley, Elst, Feuerstein, Kazanas etc have told them that doing so will "defeat the AIT" and be a victory for the Indians in "reclaiming their history". It is the same old story of the Indians being made fools of by the white man, one way or the other.

In vyakarana and nirukta it is seen that recurring sounds in the Veda have been assigned to certain roots, and people have hypothesized/assigned certain qualities associated with that root - from which a very wide variety of secondary meanings can arise, and indeed have been assigned in history during development of various languages that borrowed the Vedic sounds.

In Vedic these "meanings" are also modified by the accent. A few months ago there was an example from some OIT guy who claimed that the Veda refers to two "princes" named Ishtashva and Ishtarashmi, and these fellows are referred to among adversaries in Iranian texts, thereby allowing for historical and geographic deductions. As it turned out, the accent on the words makes it clear that they are not personal names, and nobody in their right senses has actually translated them as personal names in the Veda.

Those who have never studied the Vedic sounds do not often grasp such simple facts, and are convinced (to the point that rationality will not work on them) that the Vedic sounds must indeed be referring to rivers, names of people, etc. This infantile approach is being thought of by some as a great scholarship - and it just shows how intellectually bankrupt India is today.

But perhaps it is not intellectual honesty or excellence that these people desire; it seems all politically motivated and puppeteered by various Westerners - who, by the way, all claim to be "Indophiles" regardless of whether they are in AIT or OIT! It is amazing (or perhaps not) that the Indians have fallen for this.

Namaste etc,

KL

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 12 Sep 2013 23:00

KLP Dubey wrote:
Perfectly correct. I simply do not understand this obsession with finding history and geography in the Veda. It seems perverse in the extreme, and seems to be a recently developed illness.

It was common knowledge that Veda had no historical record in it. ...


Dwivedi,
You are factually incorrect. 3500 years ago a kingdom now known as mitanni signed some peace treaties with adjoining nations. This nation of mitanni used Vedic Gods in their treaties and the reason why these gods were used is clear from reading Rg Veda.

Have you come across this before?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 12 Sep 2013 23:05

Virendra wrote:But I know this, till as late as 1st century A.D. the Indian society was marrying across castes or whatever classes were prevalant then, as a recent Harvard study claims.
"The fact that every population in India evolved from randomly mixed populations suggests that social classifications like the caste system are not likely to have existed in the same way before the mixture," co-senior author Lalji Singh, currently of Banaras Hindu University, and formerly of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology said in the HMS statement. "Thus, the present-day structure of the caste system came into being only relatively recently in Indian history."

This I agree with.

Virendra wrote:A secondary point that I wanted to mention here is that even before this study came out, it was known that the present day caste system is not a direct derivative of the vedic varna system. This has been accepted by varying schools of thoughts and scholars, including the czarina of lefties - Romilla Thapar.

What evidence exists for the claim that "the present day caste system is not a direct derivative of the vedic varna system"? Thapar is not an authority and hence not worth much.

Virendra wrote:When I can see examples of intercaste marriages as late as 10th century, Huns seem much closer to the endogamy's onset in Indian society, as compared to Mughals.

Huns were beef eaters. That was the biggest reason why mughal daughters/women were not taken as brides. Infact the religious pollution due to beef eating was the main reason why rajput daughters who were given to mughals were never admitted back into their rajput families. Forget the crap in jodha akbar.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 13 Sep 2013 01:08

peter wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote:
Perfectly correct. I simply do not understand this obsession with finding history and geography in the Veda. It seems perverse in the extreme, and seems to be a recently developed illness.

It was common knowledge that Veda had no historical record in it. ...


Dwivedi,
You are factually incorrect. 3500 years ago a kingdom now known as mitanni signed some peace treaties with adjoining nations. This nation of mitanni used Vedic Gods in their treaties and the reason why these gods were used is clear from reading Rg Veda.

Have you come across this before?


Peter ji, but how does it mean that Vedic names were historical in nature and had existed just because Mittanis referred to them in their treaties? we get inspired by comic characters for example, I might name myself Clark Kent, it doesn't mean Super man exists or had existed, nor does it mean Clark Kent was a historical figure, 10000 years from now.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 13 Sep 2013 10:46

peter wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote:
Perfectly correct. I simply do not understand this obsession with finding history and geography in the Veda. It seems perverse in the extreme, and seems to be a recently developed illness.

It was common knowledge that Veda had no historical record in it. ...


Dwivedi,
You are factually incorrect. 3500 years ago a kingdom now known as mitanni signed some peace treaties with adjoining nations. This nation of mitanni used Vedic Gods in their treaties and the reason why these gods were used is clear from reading Rg Veda.

Have you come across this before?

venug wrote:Peter ji, but how does it mean that Vedic names were historical in nature and had existed just because Mittanis referred to them in their treaties? we get inspired by comic characters for example, I might name myself Clark Kent, it doesn't mean Super man exists or had existed, nor does it mean Clark Kent was a historical figure, 10000 years from now.

Frivolous comparison may I say. Before I answer your question:

i) do you know what is written in mittanni treaties?
ii) Do you know why mitanni wrote what they wrote in their treaties?
iii) Do you know of the linkages between RigVed and what the mitanni wrote in their treaties?

Once you clarify all three points i) ii) and iii) we can look into more details.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 13 Sep 2013 11:44

peter wrote:Before I answer your question:

i) do you know what is written in mittanni treaties?
ii) Do you know why mitanni wrote what they wrote in their treaties?
iii) Do you know of the linkages between RigVed and what the mitanni wrote in their treaties?

Once you clarify all three points i) ii) and iii) we can look into more details.

Dear peter, please do explain your point without keeping us in suspended animation.

As per my little reading:
i) The Mitanni treaties invoke Mitra, Varuna, Indra and the Ashwins. (They also use Sanskrit words for a number of their elite functions of government, military-related technology and training, and religion.
ii) They wrote what they wrote probably because they had an Indic superstrate over a non-Indic substrate, and were civilized by an export of Indic culture -- sort of like how Iran today has an Arabic superstrate over a non-Arabic substrate.
iii) Linkages - those gods are referred to as, both, Asuras and Devas in the RigVeda, and are invoked for sealing a bond, creating a new order, etc. (Varuna is absent from the Iranic, and some of the others are despised as demons in the Iranic, therefore it is clear that it was a definite Indic superstrate.)

That's my very superficial understanding. I still don't understand how that means the RigVeda has information related to history or geography. Mitra (in neuter) is linked with the sense of covenants, contracts, treaties, etc. In masculine, it refers to the sun. Varuna is lord of the cosmic Rta, etc. Could you help me understand how this has anything to do with history of geography? Thanks in advance.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests