Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jul 2017 19:20

Thangaraj and Chaubey, geneticists whose papers were discussed on here now have a rebuttal of Tony Joseph article in the Leftu newspaper

Too Early to settle the Aryan Migration Debate?

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Jul 2017 19:55

shiv wrote:Thangaraj and Chaubey, geneticists whose papers were discussed on here now have a rebuttal of Tony Joseph article in the Leftu newspaper

Too Early to settle the Aryan Migration Debate?

They write...

The split with the European is around 6,000 years and thereafter the Asian branch (Z93) gave rise to the South Asian L657, which is a brother branch of lineages present in West Asia, Europe and Central Asia. Such kind of expansion, universally associated with most of the Y chromosome lineages of the world, as shown in 2015 by Monika Karmin et al., was most likely due to dramatic decline in genetic diversity in male lineages four to eight thousand years ago (Genome Research, 2015; 4:459-66). Moreover, there is evidence which is consistent with the early presence of several R1a branches in India (our unpublished data).

[emphasis mine]

Any guesses for 'dramatic decline in genetic diversity in male lineages 4 to 8 thousand years ago'?

I have one conjecture with pinpointed accuracy - Year 5561 BCE

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jul 2017 21:03

Nilesh Oak wrote:Any guesses for 'dramatic decline in genetic diversity in male lineages 4 to 8 thousand years ago'?

I have one conjecture with pinpointed accuracy - Year 5561 BCE

Excellent point.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 13 Jul 2017 23:07

1. [Fact] Indian civilization has spent a tremendous effort over a long period of time to preserve the Vedas pronunciation-perfect.
2. [Fact] The sound of the Vedas has been preserved with much greater fidelity than its meanings.
3. [Fact] Just like other civilizations can say "India didn't keep history", India can rightly say about other civilizations "They didn't keep a grammar".
4. [Speculation] I've been inclined to think that the Panini grammar and the standardization of Sanskrit was the culmination of an effort driven by the need to preserve the Vedas.
5. [Speculation] However, Panini barely addresses the Vedic dialect. One might think that this is because by the time work had progressed that far, the Vedic dialect was dying out.
6. [Speculation] However, there is another possible driver for standardization of Sanskrit. The Saraswati-Sindhu civilization had a penchant for standards - the standard weights and measures are found over a huge area. Maybe the civilization had a goal to standardize language as well, so that its far flung parts could always be in communication.
7. [Speculation] This would put the time of Panini squarely in the urban phase of the civilization, e.g., say around 3000 years before present.
8. [Speculation] This would make the Vedas much much older; what then needs to be explained is certain anachronisms in them - how these came to be.
9. [Speculation] After all, everyone is throwing around dates with abandon; why not me too? As long as I mark speculation as such.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 13 Jul 2017 23:32

JE Menon wrote: Even now the buggers are wandering about on yaks in yurts and crushing a form of yogurt to survive, as UlanBatori will proudly testify;

Aren't these Ulan Batorians located roughly >2000 miles east of Ukrainian/Russian steppe where the TFTA Yamnayans lived? AFAICT not related.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 14 Jul 2017 00:20

Yes, but can you tell the difference from the Mongoliandu steppe and the Kazakh one? Friend of mine who spends a lot of time roaming the stans right up to and in to the Ferghana Valley says not really...

Actually he's been pleading with me for years to go along with him... May take him up on the offer.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 14 Jul 2017 01:39

Nilesh Oak wrote:
RoyG wrote:Shiv, I remember we had discussed Suzanne Sulivan's work. Have you seen the docs in the link below? I really think she may have cracked it mainly using brahmi script.

Had no idea brahmi was this old.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... zVZc2JyRDA
She did not crack it mainly using 'Brahmi', although Brahmi was certainly part of it. She looked at few other languages -Elamite and also current Indian languages (scripts) and also words (e.g. Meena for fish and such)

Yes I know she did use elamite and some other indian languages.

What is the status of her research now? RM should do a talk with her.

How does it hold up against Rao's supposed breakthrough in 1992? He also claims to have cracked it.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Jul 2017 03:59

RoyG wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote: She did not crack it mainly using 'Brahmi', although Brahmi was certainly part of it. She looked at few other languages -Elamite and also current Indian languages (scripts) and also words (e.g. Meena for fish and such)
Yes I know she did use elamite and some other indian languages.

What is the status of her research now? RM should do a talk with her.

How does it hold up against Rao's supposed breakthrough in 1992? He also claims to have cracked it.

She has moved on to deciphering Rongo Rongo. What she did with IVS is good, but still a long way to go.

I am working to bring in few subject matter experts from varied fields (still in the context of the theme of RM's SI-3. I did have her in mind, too, but not sure if it is feasible. I remain in touch with her along with others such as Wim (Reverse engineering of western alphabets + OIT via oceanic route) and Uschi (Polynesian origins of Sanskrit) and few others..

Will see what transpires... Thanks.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Jul 2017 15:45

RoyG wrote:How does it hold up against Rao's supposed breakthrough in 1992? He also claims to have cracked it.

I am not an expert, however with little what I know, most of the efforts (including Rao or Kalyanaraman or many others) are such that only they (original thinkers) see what they see in those seals and whatever they infer is not transferable to the next seal or the next one.

Now you decide what kind of breakthrough is that!

What likes of Rajesh Rao (along with TIFR folks) were doing had merit (and still may have merit). He gave a TED talk. Unfortunately, it appears they have gone the route of impressing 'academically' rather than having a zeal to truly decode IV script.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 14 Jul 2017 21:23

apart from linguistics, archeological and geological evidences., how about cultural things like circumcision. Oldest evidence of circumcision is found with Ancient Egypt., where pharoahs and upper class people did this in a temple ritual of 200+ teenage boys (probably once a year) done by a priest with a knife made of a stone.

There is no evidence of this practice anywhere in India and it was brought in by Islamic invasion (who themselves copy it from Jews., and Jews lived with Egyptians as slaves).

and this link claims of ancient link between Hebrew and Sanskrit

http://www.viewzone.com/matlock.html

ViewZone welcomes this highly researched work by scholar, Gene D. Matlock, which is part of his complete manuscript showing the global influence of ancient India's culture and language. We welcome your comments and thoughts.

Had you been a cartographer and geographer working for the British East India company in the 17th and 18th centuries, you would have found all over India thousands of Hebrew-like place names with similar meanings in both languages as well. The map excerpt on this page shows a small section of ancient Seuna-Desa (Zion Land) in what is now Maharashtra (to right). At the bottom right of the excerpt is the city of Paithan, on the banks of the river Godivari. The Indo-Hebrews named the part of the river passing through Paithan's territory Paithan (Pison, Phison), according to their traditions. In the upper left-hand corner is the city of Satana. According to the legends of the Yadavas (Indo-Hebrews), Satana would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorah envious. The Seunas and the Satanas decided to resolve their moral and religious differences on the battlefield. The forces of "Satan" lost, but their defeat didn't dishearten them. Eventually, we came to think of "Satan" as a being who lost the battle but not the war. The bible tells us that such a peace treaty hasn't yet been signed between these two ancient enemies.

In that part of India, the holiest of holies for the Indians, the names of many towns end in the appendage gaon. In Hebrew, gaon means "genius; great rabbinical scholar." Also in this region is an area that was once the favorite of Yadava royalty: Nashik, the exact Hebrew name for "Royal Prince." Satan is near the district called Khandesh (Land of Cain). There is also a Kodesh. Kod and Khad are Sanskrit terms for "First," "The Beginning," or "God." In Hebrew, Khadesh = "The first day of a Jewish calendar month." Notice that all these names have similar meanings and religious connotations in both languages. I invite my readers to investigate this anomaly for themselves.

The similarity of these Indian and Hebrew names certainly traumatized European colonists. Unwilling to admit that the Jews had never sprouted spontaneously in the Arabian desert, or were from outer space as I read recently, but were from the East as the bible itself tells us, they merely erased these matters from their minds or convinced themselves that they were "coincidences," even though the "coincidences" numbered in the thousands and were peppered over every region in India.

A 19th Century British Scholar Explains Why the Western World Never Learned About the Indian Origins of the Jews.

Though not generally known in this day and age, Godfrey Higgins (1772-1833), archeologist, politician, humanitarian, social reformer, and author, was one of the most enlightened and educated men of early 19th century England. He was a well-known iconoclast, rationalist, and admirer of the Jews, who vehemently opposed any kind of persecution of this ancient religious group. He wrote two oversized volumes, totaling around 1600 pages of fine print, about the Jews' Indian origins. These two volumes, entitled Anacalypsis, are extremely rare. The last printing was done in 1965 by University Books, NY. It's a difficult book to read because the author painstakingly proved the minutest of details in his dissertation. Even good readers need several weeks to finish it.

The first printing consisted of only 200 copies, twenty of which he had to give away. Only a few of the remaining 180 copies were sold. For nearly thirty years, the religious communities of England and Europe quietly suppressed the book. It has since been reprinted three times, but including the first printing, the total copies printed never totaled over a thousand. Only occasionally can it be found in a library. Even so, many authors have quoted and plagiarized it. Not a few spiritual charlatans, such as fraudulent mystics, psychics, and the Presbyterian preacher who wrote the novel on which The Book of Mormon is based, used Anacalypsis to produce their respective heresies and agendas. The famous 19th century mystic and founder of Theosophy, Madam Blavatsky, took advantage of the world's nearly total ignorance of this magnificent document, using much of Higgin's information, to convince the gullible that she had acquired her "mystical knowledge" from "otherworldly" sources called "Akashic records."

Godfrey Higgins gave an opinion that I have always espoused, which explains in part why the similarities of peoples, languages, philosophies, and place names between India and the Middle East became lost to the memory of mankind after Christianity and Islam took over the West.

"The outlines of the history of the extended empires, which I have here exhibited, would have been more conspicuous had our makers of maps and histories recorded the names of the places as they must have appeared to them. But from their native religious prejudices and necessary ignorance of the nature of the history, it seemed to them absurd to believe, that there should be places or persons in the East having exactly the same names as places and persons in the West; and to avoid the feared ridicule of their contemporaries, which in fact in opposition to the plainest evidence, and which they themselves could not entirely resist, that they thought well-founded, they have, as much as possible disguised the names. Thus, that which otherwise they would have called David-pouri, they called Daud-poutr, Solomon, Soleiman; Johnguior, Jahanguior, etc., etc. In the same way, without any wrong intention, they have been induced to secrete the truth, in many cases, from themselves, by hastily adopting the idea that the old Jewish names of places have been given by the modern Saracens or Turks, the erroneousness of which a moment's unprejudiced consideration would have shewn...I shall here merely add, that...I have observed...a great similarity in the countries where the tribes of Judah were settled in the East and in the West. The Western country seems, as much as possible, to have been accommodated by the Eastern..." (Vol. I, pp. 437-438.)

"When Mahmud of Gazna, the first Mohammedan conqueror, attacked Lahore, he found it defended by a native Hindoo prince called Daood or David. This single fact is enough to settle the question of the places not being named by Mohamedans." (Vol. I; p. 432.)

"I beg my reader to look at the ruins of the ancient cities of India: Agra, Delhi, Oude, Mundore, etc., which have many of them been much larger than London, the last for instance, 37 miles in circumference, built in the oldest style of architecture in the world, the Cyclopean, and I think he must at once see the absurdity of the little Jewish mountain tribe (the "Lost Tribes") being the founders of such a mass of cities. We must also consider that we have almost all the places of India in Western Syria...I think no one can help seeing that these circumstances are to be accounted for in no other way than by the supposition that there was in very ancient times one universal superstition, which was carried all over the world by emigrating tribes, and that they were originally from Upper India." (Vol. I; p. 432.)

"...the natives of Cashmere as well as those of Afghanistan, pretending to be descended from the Jews, give pedigrees of their kings reigning in their present country up to the sun and the moon, and along with this, they shew you the Temples still standing, built by Solomon, statues of Noah, and other Jewish Patriarchs...the traditions of the Afghans tell them, that they are descended from the tribe of Ioudi or Yuda, and in this they are right, for it is the tribe of Joudi noticed by Eusebius to have existed before the Son of Jacob in Western Syria was born, the Joudi of Oude, and from which tribe the Western Jews with the Brahmin (Abraham) descended and migrated. (Vol. I; p. 740.)

"In the valley of Cashmere, on a hill close to the lake, are the ruins of a temple of Solomon. The history states that Solomon, finding the valley all covered with water except this hill, which was an island, opened the passage in the mountains and let most of it out, thus giving to Cashmere its beautiful plains. The temple which is built on the hill is called Tucht Suliman. Afterwards Forster says, 'Previously to the Mahometan conquest of India, Kashmere was celebrated for the learning of the Brahmins and the magnificent construction of its temple.' Now what am I to make of this? Were these Brahmans Jews, or the Jews Brahmins? The inadvertent way in which Forster states the fact precludes all idea of deceit...

"The Tuct Soliman of Cashmere in the time of Bernier, was described by him to be in ruins, and to have been a temple of the idolaters and not of the Mohamedans. The Mohamedans reported that it was built by Solomon, in very ancient times. All this at once does away with the pretence that it was a building of the modern Mohamedans; and is a strong confirmation of the Jewish nature of the other names of the towns - Yuda-poor, Iod-pore, etc., etc. Bernier goes on to say...that the name of Mousa or Moses is common among the natives, that Moses died at Cashmere, and that they yet show the ruins of his tomb near the town. This is curious when connected with the fact, that the Jews of Western Syria say, no one ever knew where he was buried." (Vol. I; p. 771.)

An article in the April, 1997 issue of the Jewish magazine Moment discusses the possibility that a heavy Jewish presence once dominated India.

"A tribe of Sunni Moslems called the Pathans, now living in parts of Pakistan, number at least 15 million. The Pathan language bears traces of biblical Hebrew, and the Pathans themselves claim lineage from King Saul. They are said to follow, in varying degrees of observance, some 21 'Jewish' customs, including lighting candles on Friday night, wearing a four-cornered prayer garment, and performing circumcision on the eighth day.

Then there are the Kashmiris from Northern India, who number about five million; although they too are predominantly Sunni Moslems, many bear biblical-sounding names like Cleb (Caleb), Israel, Hahana, and Lavni..." (Searching for the Lost Tribes, by Winston Pickett, p. 51.)

Aramaic, a language as similar to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese, originated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan were once part of India. Afghanistan seceded from Indian in the 1700s. Pakistan was cut out of India when the two nations were partitioned after World War II. Aramaic also is the source of modern Hebrew's square alphabet, used in Israel today. The Hebrew square alphabet and the truth that Hebrew is just an Aramaic dialect confirm the Indian origin of the Jews.

Those Christian and Jewish authorities who don't want it to be true that ten to thirty million Jews once lived in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Northwestern India say that it is just a "coincidence" that so many tribes and places there have biblical names. Others insist that the Moslems christened all those tribes and places. As Godfrey Higgins tells us, many of those tribes and places had already received their so-called "biblical names" millenniums before Islam was a gleam in Mohammed's eyes and many centuries before those same names started showing up in the Middle East. Some of Israel's tribal and place names also started appearing in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Northwestern India when Sargon II and Nebuchadnezzar exiled most of the Jews to that part of the world. The confusion about the origin of those tribal and place names will always exist as long as we stubbornly refuse to give the Indo-Hebrews their rightful place in history. The Aryans and Indo-Hebrews began to overrun parts of India and the Middle East around 2000 BC, perhaps more than a thousand years previously if there is any truth to the story about the progeny of Noah.

Somehow, our brainwashed minds blank out the face that the Ancient Egyptian and Akkadian names for Hebrew, Habiru and Apiru were derived from Indo-Hebrew dialects and meant "Sons of Ophir." The truth about the origins of the Hebrews has been screaming in our faces for thousands of years, but our benumbed minds have chosen not to hear it.

What Inferences Can You Draw From the Following List?
.
Well-Known Names in the
Western World Equivalent Names in
Indian Languages
Minoa (Ancient Greek nation). Meena (Indian ancestors of the Minoans)
Turbazu (Palestinian clan) Turvazu (Indo-Hebrew tribe)
Kopt; Guptas (Ancient Egyptian dynasty) Gupta (Ancient Indian ruling dynasty)
Saracens (Ancient Turks) Sauresena (Territory and people of Ancient India)
Arabea (Arabs) Arabi(Original inhabitants of Indo-Hebrew Makran, now part of Pakistan)
Islam (Mohammedan religion) Ishalayam (Temple of God)
Khurus or Khouros (Powerful Arab tribe to which Mohammed belonged) Kurus (Ancient Indo-Hebrew tribe)
Mecca (Islam's most sacred city.) Makka (Capital of Arabi Makran)
Riyadh (Saudi Arabian capital) Ray (Wisdom) + Yuddha (Warrior)
Mohamed (Father of Islam) Maha-Atma (Great Soul)
Jidda (Saudi Arabian city) Juddha, Yuddha (Warrior)
Cabul (Town in Israel) Kabul (Capital of Afghanistan)
Bashan (Region of Jordan) Bazana; Vashana (Ancient capital of Gujarat)
Manesseh (Territory and tribe of Israel) Manasa (Himalayan lake, near Mount Meru; also the name of a snake deity)
Laish (City of Canaan) Laish (Town in Afghanistan)
Cutha (Fort and city in ancient Southern Mesopotamia) Kuth; Cathia; Cutch (Part of Gujarat)
Hellenes (Ancient people and territory in Greece) Hellenes; Alinas (People and territory of Ancient India).
Javan (Father of Greeks; mentioned in Genesis). Yavana (Ancient Indo-Hebrew tribe)
Iberia (Spain) Abhira (Indo-Hebrew nation)
Brit (Great Britain) Bharat (True name of India)
Angles (Ancient people of England) Anguli (Ancient people of India)
Jutes, Jutis (Eastern tribe that invaded and settled in Europe) Yuddhi (Ancient Indian warriors)
Goths (Eastern tribe that invaded and settled in Europe) Guti; Gauda (Ancient Indian tribe that migrated to the Middle East)
Yemen (Arab country) Yamuna (River of India)
Yehudi (Jewish People) Yutiya; Yah-Khuda (Sanskrit name of the Indo-Hebraic Yadus)
Roma (Rome, Italy) Roma; Romaka (People and territory of Northern India)
Dubai (Nation of Arab Emirate) Dwab (Territory of ancient Afghanistan)
Sheba (Ancient Ethiopian kingdom) Siva; Sibi (Territory of ancient Yaudheyapura, India)
Syria (Middle Eastern home of the ancient Jews) Suriya (Mythical Indian territory)
Succoth (Place near Jordan and in Egypt) Sukhothai (Ancient Indian and Thai kingdom)
Talmud (Written Jewish teachings) Tal-Mudra (Sacred Indian teachings written on palm leaves)
Tallit (Jewish prayer shawl) Tal-Ata (Palmyra leaves worn on the shoulders as a raincoat)
Kippot (Skullcap worn by Orthodox Jews) Kaparda (Hair top-knot once worn by the first ancestors of the Indo-Hebrews)
Shalmanezer (Assyrian king who deported the "Lost Tribes" to India) Shalmanev (Tall, impressive person)
Baal (Golden calf first worshiped by the Jews) Balesar (Holy bull worshiped in India)

Linguistic Similarities Between Hebrew and Kashmiri

Holger Kersten wrote in Jesus Lived in India,

"The relation between ancient Israel and Kashmiri can most clearly be demonstrated linguistically. Kashmirian is different from all the other Indian languages, the origins of which are Sanskrit. The development of the language of Kashmir has been greatly influenced by the Hebrew. Abdul Ahad Azad writes, 'The language of Kashmir derives from Hebrew.' According to tradition, in ancient times Jewish peoples settled here, whose language changed into the Kashmirian of today. There are many Hebrew words that are quite obviously connected with the language of Kashmir." (pp. 68-69.)

I have inferred from Kersten's comments that he believes Kashmiri did not spring from Sanskrit. I disagree. When I was culling out Hebrew words from Grierson's Dictionary of the Kashmiri Language, I discovered that there are many more Sanskrit words in Kashmiri than Hebrew terms. However, I do agree that the Hebrews made more than a notable contribution to this little-known tongue.

"Since the Jews i.e. the Yedu tribes of Lord Krishna left the Dwarka region, the original Sanskrit that they spoke during Lord Krishna's time has undergone considerable change of pronunciation and admixture of words, so what was Sanskrit 5,742 years ago is now Hebrew." (World Vedic Heritage; by P. N. Oak; p. 530.)

In the Spanish edition of the German author Siegfried Obermeir's book on Jesus' life in Kashmir, ?Murio Jesus en Cachemira? (Did Jesus die in Kashmir?), the author acknowledges the Sanskrit origins of the language.

"One could perhaps ask whether the language called 'Kashmiri' could in some way be a close relative of Hebrew and Aramaic...The reply is a resounding 'no.' Kashmiri descends from Sanskrit. There exists only one explanation. The Jews who emigrated (to Kashmir) introduced their language there." (p.150.)

Professor Fida Hassnain, a Kashmiri authority on the life of Jesus Christ in his country, wrote in A Search for the Historical Jesus, "Today the Kashmiri language contains 30% Persian, 25% Arabic and 45% words from Sanskrit and other languages, including 9% from Hebrew." (p. 10.) Professor Hassnain mentioned in his book an Aramaic inscription beside the ruins of Gondaphorus' castle in Taxila, which actually confirms that St. Thomas was there: "A highly regarded foreign carpenter, who is a pious devotee of the Son of God, built this palace of cedar and ivory for the great king." The phrase "Son of God" confirms that Jesus actually existed. A stone relief of Thomas stands near this inscription. Indian archeologists have confirmed this fact.

Since the ancient Jews never forced their language on the peoples in their ambience, just their religion, I concur with authors Obermeir and Hassnain on this point.

In old times, Kashmiri didn't exist as a distinct language as it does today. The Kashmiri historical treatises state that the Brahmans and Kashatriya castes spoke Sanskrit; the Vaishyas and the Sudras spoke a language called Ap-Abram-Sha, which was supposed to be a degraded form of Tamil. Was this the original Asura language, or, perhaps, prototypical Hebrew? Some Hindu scholars think so. Abraham was the father of several different peoples, religions, and Semitic dialects. Abraham's influence formed at least part of the foundations of Judaism, Greek and Roman religious practices, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and others. When the "Lost Tribes" were taken to Northern India, they found a people with a similar religion, language, and cultural traits. It took no great effort for the "Lost Tribes" to assimilate completely. Later on, Hebrew, Dardic, Apabramsha, Sanskrit, Arabic, and other languages merged to form what we now call Kashmiri. Some scholars say that the Moslem invaders forbade the speaking of Apabramsha and Hebrew in Kashmir.

The Buddhists say that the Abhiraans spoke "Abhira." The Yadavas, the actual proto-typical Hebrews still living in India, also claim to have spoken a language called Abhiri. "The Natyasastra of Bharata described the language...as Abhiri or Sabari. It is well known that Abhiri was the language of the Abhiras." (Yadavas Through the Ages, by Yadav Singh; Vol. II, p. 4.) Yadav Singh's opinion on this matter may prove to be correct. Even today, Israeli Jews whose roots sink deep into Israeli soil are called "Sabaras."

I have taken from my Kashmiri dictionary a long list of words that are similar in pronunciation and meaning to Hebrew. I could have easily provided a list containing hundreds more, many of which I shall mention in later chapters. However, I hope that the following list will convince you that the Kashmiri language, one of the most little-known languages in the world, deserves more attention and study.

Judaism and Shaivite Hinduism Share the Same Names for God.

Judaism Shaivism
Ish; Yish; Is; Isa; Issa; El; Al; etc.
(Suffixes and prefixes for "God") The same in Shaivism
Yahve; Jahve; Tseeva (God) Shiva; Shaiva; Siva (God)
Elohim; Elokhim (God intellectualized) Lakhimi (Goddess of Prosperity); Lokhi; Lukh (Shiva)
El Shaddai (The Almighty) Saday; Sada (Shiva)
Ha-Kadosh (The Holy One) Hakh-e-Kheda (God's Duty)
El Elyon (Possessor of Heaven and Earth) Il Layun (Absorption in God)
Yesoda (Dual Sexual Nature of Life) Yeshoda (Shiva's Dual Sexual Nature)

Similar sacred symbolism and iconography are associated with both the Hebrew Yah-Veh and the Kashmiri Shaiva: The Holy Trinity; the flame; the cherub; the guardian angel; the snake; the bull; blowing of bull's horn, etc.

Hebrew and Kashmiri Cabalistic Terminology Is About the Same.

Hebrew Kashmiri
Ani (he spark of life) Agni (Vedic god of fire)
Avoda (work; labor) Vud; Wud (skilled labor)
Ayeen (void; non-being) Ayen (eternity)
Cabala (acceptance) Cabul (acceptance)
Guevara (force) Gav'r (surrounding and attacking)
Keter (crown) Kash'r (crown of the head)
Kijum (destiny) Ko-Yimi (path to death)
Klim (nothing) Kholi (nothing)
Malkuth (kingdom) Mulakh (kingdom)
Nefesh (soul) Naph's (soul; spirit self)
Sephiroth (spiritual energy centers) Sipath (spiritual energy centers)
Yesu; Yesh; Yeh; Yahu; Yakhu; Yah; Yao; Ie
(The Material Universe) The same as in Judaism
Yesh me Ayeen (The Goal of Creation) Yech me ayen (Creation Fused to the Void)
Zohar (brilliance) Swar; Svar (Heaven; light; brilliance)

More Linguistic Proof of the Linkage Between India and the Middle East

My investigations into the Indian origins of the Jews and Holy Land place names are not the first to have been made. In the mid-part of the 19th century, the Identification Society of London, an organization dedicated to searching for the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, published the following list to prove that the Afghans, Tibetans, Kashmiris, and other Northwest Indian tribes are either descended from the Israelites or vice-versa. Not all the tribes, castes, and subcastes on their list have preserved their Jewishness. However, nearly all of them acknowledge their Jewish roots. As you read this list of names, remember that they exist in the area that Josephus said was peopled by the descendants of Shem. "These inhabited from Cophen, an Indian river (the Kabul river) and in part of Asia adjoining it. (Josephus...; Chapter VII-4.)

Many scholars believe that the Dravidians could have been the ancestors of the prototypical Jews, the Meluhhans, who came from the Tibetan plateau or from the Turanian homeland of Central Asia - the area originally peopled by the progeny of Shem.

As Kauleshwar Rai wrote in Ancient India,

"...there was a time when the Dravidians inhabited the whole of India including Sind, Baluchistan and the Punjab. Gradually, they migrated to Mesopotamia also." (p. 19.)

In the following list, all references to Indian tribes, castes, subcastes, and places will be listed at the left. Biblical and Hebrew names will be listed after each Indian word, accompanied by their biblical references. You will note that the comparative words are either identical or nearly identical. The differences are trivial. Even a non-linguist can notice that all these words sprang from the same source. The similarities are too abundant to be coincidental. Wanting to remain as conservative as possible, I present only a partial list. However, as conservative and brief as this list is, I believe I have presented enough examples to convince anyone that India did, indeed, at one time dominate in Bible Land.

Tribes, Castes, and Subcastes

Abri- Ibri (1 Chr. 24-27)
Amal - Amal (1 Chr. 7:35).
Asaul - Asahel (2 Chr. 17:18)
Asheriya - Asher (Gen. 30:13)
Azri - Azriel (! Chr. 5:24)
Bal. - Baal (1 Chr. 5:5)
Bala; Balah - Bala (Josh. 19:3)
Bakru - Bokheru (1 Chr. 7:6)
Baktu - Baca (1 Chr. 8:38)
Banniya - Baana (1 Chr. 11:30)
Bellu - Bela (Gen. 14:9)
Bera; Baru - Beerah (1 (Chr. 5:6)
Basaya - Basseiah (1 Chr. 6:40)
Beroth - Beeroth (2 Sam. 4:2)
Bilgai - Bilgah (Neh. 12:5)
Buhana - Bohan (Josh. 15:6)
Buir - Beor (Ps. 23:4)
Butt - Bath (1 Ki. 7:26)
Caleb; Kleb - Caleb (1 Chr. 2:18)
Dar; Dhar; Darku - Dor (1 Ki. 4:11)
Dara - Dara (1 Chr. 2:6)
Dum - Dumah (1 Chr. 1:30)
Gabba - Geba (Josh. 18:24)
Gaddar - Gedor (1 Chr. 4:4)
Gadha - Gad (1 Chr. 2:2)
Gaddi - Gaddi (Nu. 13:11)v Gani; Gani - Guni (1 Chr. 1:40)
Gareb - Gareb (1 Chr. 7:13)
Gomer - Gomer (Gen. 10:2)
Hahput - Hatipha (Neh. 7:56)v Iqqash - Ikkesh (1 Chr. 11:28)
Ishai - Ishui (1 Sam. 14:49)
Israel - Israel (Gen. 32:28)
Kahan Masu - Kahana; Kan, Kanah (Josh. 19:28)
Kalkul - Calcol (1 Chr. 2:6)
Kanaz - Kenaz (Ju. 3:9)
Kar - Careah (2 Ki. 25:23)
Karrah - Korah (Nu. 26:9)
Kaul - Caul (Isa. 3:18)
Kadu; Kaddua; Khadu - Cauda (Act. 27:16)
Kotru - Keturah (Gen. 25:4)
Laddu - Lud (1 Chr. 1:17)
Lavi; Laveh - Levi (1Chr. 2:1)
Magar - Magor (Jer. 22:3)
Mahlu - Mahali (Ex. 6:19)
Maikri - Machir (Josh. 17:1)
Malla; Maula - Maaleh (Josh. 15:3)
Mallak - Mallouck (1 Chr. 6:44)
Matri - Matri (1 Sam. 10:21)
Meresh - Meres (Esther 1:14)
Mir - Mearah (Josh. 13:4)
Mahsa; Mahsi - Massah (Ex. 17:7)
Moza - Moza (1 Chr. 7:36)
Musa - Moses
Nehru - Nahor (1 Chr. 1:26)
Opal; Upal - Ophel (2 Chr. 28:3)
Pareh - Paruah (1 Ki. 4:17)
Phalu; Pau - Phallu; Puah; Pua (Nu. 26:23)
Poot; Put - Phut; Put (a Chr. 1:8)
Raina - Rinnah (1 Chr. 4:20)
Raphu - Raphu (1 Ki. 11:23)
Reshu; Resh; Reshi - Rhesa (Luke 3:27)
Reu; Reu-wal - Reu (Gen. 12:18)
Reual - Reuel (Nu. 2:14)
Sachu - Sechu (1 Sam. 19:22)
Sam - Shem (Gen. 5:32)
Sapru; Sapra - Saphir (Mic. 1:11)
Seh - Siah (Neh. 7:47)
Shahmiri - Shamir (1 Chr. 24:24)
Shaul - Shaul (1 Chr. 4:24)
Shavi - Shaveh (Gen. 14:17)
Shora - Sherah (1 Chr. 7:2)
Shuah - Shuah (1 Chr. 4:11)

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 16 Jul 2017 04:24

What happened? No replies ? Should i delete my last post?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2017 07:30

Bajwaji there is nothing to respond or reply to in that post. It serves as a reference point of information for those who want it and as education for those who don't know. If someone is really serious he or she will read every detail in that post and there is a lot of detail to be read, absorbed and compared with other information.

I doubt if you can delete the post now - but serious posts attract only serious readers and that takes time. One of the problems that I can see is that list of castes and subcastes. I have not heard most of those names and have no way of relating to that info, So either I keep quiet and find out more or start arguing without any information.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Jul 2017 08:07

Wiki list of 645 scheduled tribes in India:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... s_in_India

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 16 Jul 2017 08:45

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 267666.ece

Interesting.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 16 Jul 2017 16:53

^

The statement made by Silva et al. that 17.5% of Indians carry R1a haplogroup actually means that 17.5% of the samples analysed by them (those who live in U.K. and U.S.) carry R1a, not that 17.5% of Indians carry R1a!

If true, it is outright research fraud (analyzing mostly ppl living in UK/US. If it is false, it destroys the rest of the above article.
Either way, excellent stuff to publish in The HUNDI. Fits their standards.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Jul 2017 19:41

https://swarajyamag.com/culture/indian- ... ep-bagchee
The preface to the interview published above is very good. In particular, if people understand this, it will be wonderful:

The idea of history as a space where the salvation of individuals as members of a “nation,” a “race,” or a “faith” manifests is alien to Indian thought.

In 1888, Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, the father of Indian Orientalism, penned an article on the “scientific” study of Indian texts titled “The Critical, Comparative, and Historical Method of Inquiry.” In it, he addressed the colonized people of India thus:

Let us … sitting at the feet of the English, French, and German Ṛṣis, imbibe the knowledge that they have to give, and at least keep pace with them, if not go beyond them. Let us learn, let us reform. If we do not do so, fifteen centuries hence, the antiquarian of the period will, unlike Weber, say, “the English placed before the Indian Aryas the highest civilization which Europe had reached by the end of the nineteenth century; but in the hot plains of India, the Indian Aryas had grown so degenerate, that it produced no influence whatever on them, and their degeneracy deepening, they eventually became hewers of wood and drawers of water, or were swept off the face of the earth by the inexorable law of the survival of the fittest.”
R. G. Bhandarkar gives us a view of Indian history that has become pervasive. Over the past two centuries, it has percolated down into our history textbooks. It is a view found in Indian thinkers and leaders from Ram Mohan Roy to Nehru.

According to this view –India’s history is essentially a history of degeneration. India and Indians remain trapped in the past; their traditions, however glorious they may once have been, now act to prevent them from joining the ranks of the “civilized” nations. In fact, the more they insist on the glory of their past, the harder it becomes for them to undertake the reforms necessary to enable social, economic, and scientific progress.

J. S. Mill famously began the section titled “On the Hindus” of his History of British India thus:

Rude nations seem to derive a peculiar gratification from pretensions to remote antiquity. As a boastful and turgid vanity distinguishes remarkably the oriental nations, they have in most instances carried their claims extravagantly high.
This history fundamentally shapes Indians’ perceptions of themselves. Most political discussion and certainly all cultural debates in India revolve around the question of what our proper relationship to our past ought to be.

On the left, many advocate a revolution that will finally overthrow the power of a reactionary “Brahmanism” and usher in the promised utopia of a secular, materialist society. Many in the right likewise hold out the promise of a fulfillment of history— after the travails of conquest and colonization, the idea of national progress requires all Indians to work towards realizing a vision of the ideal society drawn from the past.

Doesn't this fixation on history force us into a discourse of identities, replacing essential questions of dharma? Can history provide us with guidelines for living today? Is history sufficient to explain the humanity of Indians without remainder? When did an unthinking historicism replace ethical, philosophical, and pragmatic considerations?

The idea of history as a space where the salvation of individuals as members of a “nation,” a “race,” or a “faith” manifests is alien to Indian thought.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Jul 2017 19:45

Authors: The historical-critical method is an innovation within Protestant theology. In the eighteenth century, neo-Protestant theologians like Johann Salomo Semler found they could no longer defend the Bible as revelation in the face of the Enlightenment. Their solution was to concede that parts of it were historical; but nonetheless hold on to the idea of the kerygma (the apostolic proclamation of salvation through Christ). Unsurprisingly, the parts they rejected were the Jewish histories and stories of the Old Testament. This same method was later applied to the New Testament. The method’s most striking feature is that what is essentially a theological and, above all, an apologetic argument is not recognized as such because it is framed as a textual strategy. The method pretends it is merely interested in the texts’ form rather than their content, even though under the guise of “form criticism” (Formkritik) it often removes and thus invalidates specific doctrines. German Indologists similarly used this method to undercut the Indian canon. They denied or, rather, shattered the literary unity of works like the Mahābhārata and the Bhagavad Gītā. They privileged historical questions—above all, questions of authenticity, of the historically correct meaning, and of whether narrated events actually, that is to say, historically occurred—thus interrupting the texts’ ability to speak to their readers. Like Luther, they rejected the texts’ gnoseological, philosophical, and theological dimensions, which they, again like Luther, ascribed to the priestly desire for power. Ironically, while they intoned antisemitic narratives of “priestly” corruption, the Indologists themselves became an entrenched elite: high priests of academia, who inserted themselves between the texts and their readers, developed ritualistic and fetishistic methods, and drew high salaries. They betrayed the spirit of Luther’s Reformation. That is why, in this Lutherjahr, the five-hundredth anniversary of Luther’s nailing of his Ninety-Five Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, we repeated his seminal gesture by posting the “Theses on Indology” to Academia.edu.

Being deliberately provocative -- virtually all the text-related stuff posted on the BRF Out-of-India thread has been in the historical-critical vein.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Jul 2017 19:54

Important passage:

SU: The “historiography epidemic” has hit India too. Hindus have started historicizing the Itihāsas in reaction to the Western characterization of them as “myths.” S. N. Balagangadhara says, “Instead of asking questions about the nature of ‘historical truth’; instead of studying the religious culture where such questions originate from; instead [...] of understanding the relationship between stories about the past and human communities ... attempts to establish the historicity of the epics destroy the epics and Indian culture,” (“What Do Indians Need, a History or the Past? A Challenge or Two to Indian Historians,” ICHR, November 2014). It appears that no one has gone further in grasping this philosophically than you when you say: “Itihāsa provides us with a new way of thinking about what to expect from history, how to theorize history, what history’s proper place is, and what kinds of narratives should guide history.” What is the nature of Indian Itihāsas that supposedly lack “historical consciousness”?

Authors: We need to thematize what historical information is and what it is good for. History is ultimately a narrative. It is not even the narrative of me as this singular being, but only of me insofar as I take on, or, rather, subsume myself under a social, political, national, or racial identity. Moreover, if my aim is to know myself as this physical, embodied being, the natural sciences suffice. The humanities have a different purpose. Kant thought all philosophy culminated in three questions: “1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?” Somehow after Kant, European thought turns away from Enlightenment universalism and takes a historical turn. The consequence, as we all know, was nationalism and racial ideologies which tore Europe apart. Rather than thoughtlessly repeat this experiment, we need to think about history anew. Here we found the Mahābhārata to offer an alternative with its concept of an itihāsa purāṇa. Look at its innovations: the story is not told from the political center of Hāstinapura but from the margins—in the Naimiṣa Forest. Hermann Oldenberg, writing about the Mahābhārata, lamented that India neither developed “monumental” histories nor “historiography in a scientific sense.” But what monumental history does he want? The one Leni Riefenstahl told from Nuremberg? Here we have a history that is deliberately recounted from the margins, after a great holocaust. Does this not answer perfectly to Adorno’s question about whether poetry is possible after Auschwitz? Neither does the Mahābhārata fall into the trap of “scientific” historiography. It knows history is always perspectival. That is why it has so many narrators tell the story: each introduces a modulation. Think of Kurosawa’s Rashomon to understand what we mean. Meanwhile, Indologists want to excise its frames and narrations and arrive at the “truth,” the “real” history of a racial conflict between white Aryans and black aboriginals that the antisemite Christian Lassen first posited! The Mahābhārata is too clever for them. It knows every telling is motivated. The “history” the Indologists tell also serves their desire for power and profit. Itihāsa is thus not simply “history.” It is a special narrative that neither negates the empirical validity of perception (or documentation) nor affirms it absolutely and uncritically. Rather, itihāsa represents the empirical world aesthetically to problematize both being-in-the-world and the relationship of ontology, text, and the world. In other words, itihāsa is history that has overcome historicism: history that has become critical and self-consciousness.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Jul 2017 19:56

If we remove this cyclical structure, all of the Mahābhārata’s theological and soteriological concepts—dharma, avataraṇa, bhārāvataraṇa, and so on—become incomprehensible. Thus the desire to evaluate the Mahābhārata within a linear temporal perspective is not an innocent choice. As the article “Hindu Studies in a Christian, Secular Academy” showed, even an AAR award-winning book like Emily Hudson’s Disorienting Dharma fell into the trap of evaluating the Mahābhārata by a Christian yardstick: do the saved attain heaven and the damned attain hell? If not, the only conclusion is antinomianism (the law is powerless to save) and “existentialism.” We are not against historical investigations but we need to raise three questions: (1) Is the historical framework sufficient to understand the Mahābhārata?; (2) Is it not a prejudicial choice, which prevents the epic from unfolding its effects?; and (3) If we really wish to be historical, should we not also subject our decision to examine the Mahābhārata purely from a historical perspective to an examination? Whence this concept of history? Whose concept of history is it? Whom does it serve? Whom does it “other”?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2017 20:59

A_Gupta wrote:Important passage:
SU: The “historiography epidemic” has hit India too. Hindus have started historicizing the Itihāsas in reaction to the Western characterization of them as “myths.” S. N. Balagangadhara says, “Instead of asking questions about the nature of ‘historical truth’; instead of studying the religious culture where such questions originate from; instead [...] of understanding the relationship between stories about the past and human communities ... attempts to establish the historicity of the epics destroy the epics and Indian culture,” (“What Do Indians Need, a History or the Past? A Challenge or Two to Indian Historians,” ICHR, November 2014). It appears that no one has gone further in grasping this philosophically than you when you say: “Itihāsa provides us with a new way of thinking about what to expect from history, how to theorize history, what history’s proper place is, and what kinds of n

Beautiful. It has been drilled into our minds that our past has to be written or recalled in a_particular_format, and that format is called history. And that which does conform to this is false.

People can no longer distinguish between "the past" and history. History is not needed as long as you retain your past. History is recorded in ways that are not necessarily accurate or complete - but the past is a part of one's identity.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2017 21:01

A_Gupta wrote:
Authors: The historical-critical method is an innovation within Protestant theology. In the eighteenth century, neo-Protestant theologians like Johann Salomo Semler found they could no longer defend the Bible as revelation in the face of the Enlightenment. Their solution was to concede that parts of it were historical; but nonetheless hold on to the idea of the kerygma (the apostolic proclamation of salvation through Christ). Unsurprisingly, the parts they rejected were the Jewish histories and stories of the Old Testament. This same method was later applied to the New Testament. The method’s most striking feature is that what is essentially a theological and, above all, an apologetic argument is not recognized as such because it is framed as a textual strategy. The method pretends it is merely interested in the texts’ form rather than their content, even though under the guise of “form criticism” (Formkritik) it often removes and thus invalidates specific doctrines. German Indologists similarly used this method to undercut the Indian canon. They denied or, rather, shattered the literary unity of works like the Mahābhārata and the Bhagavad Gītā. They privileged historical questions—above all, questions of authenticity, of the historically correct meaning, and of whether narrated events actually, that is to say, historically occurred—thus interrupting the texts’ ability to speak to their readers. Like Luther, they rejected the texts’ gnoseological, philosophical, and theological dimensions, which they, again like Luther, ascribed to the priestly desire for power. Ironically, while they intoned antisemitic narratives of “priestly” corruption, the Indologists themselves became an entrenched elite: high priests of academia, who inserted themselves between the texts and their readers, developed ritualistic and fetishistic methods, and drew high salaries. They betrayed the spirit of Luther’s Reformation. That is why, in this Lutherjahr, the five-hundredth anniversary of Luther’s nailing of his Ninety-Five Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, we repeated his seminal gesture by posting the “Theses on Indology” to Academia.edu.
Being deliberately provocative -- virtually all the text-related stuff posted on the BRF Out-of-India thread has been in the historical-critical vein.

This is the reason why I decided to try and not reference "new research" but stick to and critique existing western tomes as far as possible

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 16 Jul 2017 23:04

The following is a very telling quote from the Hindu article by Thangaraj & Chaubey

Moreover, there is evidence which is consistent with the early presence of several R1a branches in India (our unpublished data).

Thangaraj & Co are analyzing the ancient-DNA samples from Rakhigiri. So, its likely that they found some ancient R1a branches in it!

You can also see the tone that scientists like Thangaraj & Chaubey employ (understated & presenting alternate viewpoints) compared to the bombast of a halfwit like Tony Joseph

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Jul 2017 00:01

Adluri & Bagchee: Theses on Indology
(might need to register on the site to get the download)
https://www.academia.edu/30584186/Theses_on_Indology

Historical criticism is not the modern form of a pre-existing technique: it is an innovation within Neo-Protestant theology that since its inception was used to separate Judaic elements from the true kerygma . As we showed in The Nay Science, its application to Indian texts was justified only on the basis of the equation of Brahmans with Jews. We presented evidence that German Indologists from Rudolf von Roth to Hermann Oldenberg made this equation, regarding the Brahmans as legalists, ceremonialists, and corrupters of texts. Seeking to buttress their authority at the latter’s expense, German Indologists like Richard von Garbe and Albrecht Weber authored polemics against the Brahmans

kerygma: "Among Bible scholars, the term has come to mean the core of the early church's oral tradition about Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerygma

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Jul 2017 00:43

^^^ an important passage:

Before we speak of hypotheticals, we should first address the following problems:

1. We must establish an objective difficulty in the text;

2. We must establish that this difficulty cannot be resolved by other means; and

3. We must establish that the text cannot be interpreted as a coherent whole.

Only then can we consider composite historical origins a possible reason for textual dissonance. But even then we would need objective historical evidence of composite origins. They cannot be deduced in an a priori manner from the texts’ seeming heterogeneity, or rather, from the texts’ resistance to simplistic quasi-historical interpretive schemes. The question of the Gītā ’s composite origins only arose after Christian Lassen and Adolf Holtzmann Sr. invented the thesis of a Brahmanic revision of the Mahā bhārata. Thus, the obstacles to the Gītā ’s interpretation arose from a twofold failure: German scholars were not interested in its philosophy, and they ignored the commentarial tradition, which provided a guide to its interpretation.

We do not deny that every reader must navigate between a multiplicity of interpretations. But this is no truer for the Bhagavadgītā than it is of Kant’s first Critique or Hegel’s Phenomenology. The history of interpretations is an invitation to engage with the meanings readers have seen in the text, and arrive at one’s own understanding of it. The fact that several interpretations are possible does not mean we should abandon the interpretive task because—allegedly—we can never attain the truth. An argument could be made that Indology’s current institutional difficultes (see http://www.kleinefaecher.de/indologie/, and: http://www.kleinefaecher.de/entwicklung ... -faechern/ [both accessed August 31, 2016]) stem directly from its failure to acknowledge the hermeneutic task.

Franco might argue that the traditional reception of the Bhagavadgītā only means that the Indians are ignorant of its early history. There is precedent for this argument. Oldenberg, for example, argues that the Aryan “immigration already lay in the distant past in the period, to which the oldest monuments which we have of religious poetry belong. The Indians had as completely lost the recollection of this past as the corresponding events were forgotten by the Greeks and Etruscans” (Oldenberg 1881, 9). He explains this loss of memory by the fact that “the Indian people, in their deep introversion, had long since become an oddity among the peoples, ruled by forms of life and habits of thought that were incommensurable with the non- Indian world. Without a past, whose memory could have continued in the present, without a present, which one was determined to appropriate in love and hate, without a future, for which one could hope and work, they dreamed pale, proud dreams of that which transcends all time, and of their own kingship in these eternal realms ” (Ibid., 2–3, italics added).

But note that the evidence for the “loss of memory” is precisely the memory that he wishes to implant on the Indian people. The Indians are censured for not “remembering” what the German Indologist asserts as their past, based on their present “truth” as seen from the his perspective—that is, as a downfallen de-Aryanized nation fit for colonization. How are we to sever this knot?

We cannot because the Indologists’ assertion is based on their institutional authority rather than argument or evidence. Franco knows that no evidence exists for this history. That is why he turns to a political justification: the need to guard against “caste distinction, Hindu nationalism, Brahmin supremacy, Right-wing militarism and fascism.” A fictional past justifies intervention in the present, intervention in the present is presented as evidence for the Indians’ immaturity, and their immaturity as evidence that they cannot authentically appropriate their past. Premise and conclusion feed off of each other in a vicious circle, or, from the German Indologists’ perspective, a virtuous one, since they derived power and profit from this oversight function. Little wonder that the past has become a contested site for right-wing Indians: they have grasped that it is the site where their enduring immaturity and hence colonization are enforced.

(emphasis added).

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Jul 2017 00:57

As explained in the preceding footnote, the Critical Edition does not use the German scholars’ “method” (note the ambiguous use of “method” without a qualifier). Indeed, one reason Sukthankar undertook the Critical Edition was to subject the German scholars’ theories of an original, heroic, Aryan oral epic to a critical analysis. The Mahābhā rata Critical Edition gave him the confidence to reject their views of the Mahābhārata (see Sukthankar 1957 and see also Hiltebeitel 2001, 106–7). We dedicated The Nay Science to the BORI editors in full awareness of Sukthankar’s historic achievement (see the Acknowledgments). We also defended the edition at NS, 75n2: “With the completion of the Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata in 1966, the scope for oral epic theory was further reduced. Completed on the basis of the rigorous principles of textual criticism, the Critical Edition offered conclusive evidence that all extant Mahābhārata manuscripts were descendants of a single written exemplar, and that this archetype contained elements such as the narration of the epic at a sacrifice, the entire Bhagavadgītā, the Śāntiparvan including the highly theological Mokshadharmaparvan—precisely the elements considered by the defendants of oral epic theory to be ‘late’ and ‘Brahmanic.’ The Critical Edition thus blew a hole not only in their theory of the epic’s genesis, but also in their theory of its transfer in authority from Kshatriya warriors to Brahman priests. Since then, their efforts have shifted to highly complex theories dedicated to explaining how the archetype might have existed and still need not rule out the existence of an older oral epic tradition such as Andreas Bigger’s nonsensical ‘normative redaction’ hypothesis.” Rather than dismiss the Critical Edition, we are fully aware of its value. Thus, we noted: “A critical edition, when carried out correctly, can have considerable value. It can help clarify the transmission of the text or help attain the oldest state of the text, the so-called archetype. But as we have seen, in the case of German Mahābhārata and Bhagavadgītā scholarship, the Indologists’ editions were not critical editions in the technical sense of the term where it refers to an edition based on systematic recensio and genealogical analysis. On the contrary, they elevated prejudices about the tradition to first principles and proceeded to reconstruct the texts on the basis of these subjective impressions. In general, the principles of critical editing are badly understood and the expression itself irresponsibly applied by the majority of German Indological authors, as we discuss in our forthcoming book, Philology and Criticism: A Guide to Mahābhārata Textual Criticism” (NS, 415n193)

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 17 Jul 2017 03:48

My favorite, from the Adluri/Bagchee interview...

Itihāsa is thus not simply “history.” It is a special narrative that neither negates the empirical validity of perception (or documentation) nor affirms it absolutely and uncritically. Rather, itihāsa represents the empirical world aesthetically to problematize both being-in-the-world and the relationship of ontology, text, and the world. In other words, itihāsa is history that has overcome historicism: history that has become critical and self-consciousness.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 17 Jul 2017 04:47

..or it could be what someone wrote down when totally drunk. See the rantings of Goonetileke the famous itti-haas.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 17 Jul 2017 05:16

Take my ramble for what's worth -

"All things begin and end as stories" Only "Dreams have no beginining but always have an ending in another reality."

Itihasa for me a way to relive stories with others... most of you have never been to a harikatha of yester years... you have not heard the humorous villainy committed on Nehru, Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, etc. during such events in the midst of a story from the Mahabharata.
My Gods dance, sing, revel, feast, cry, copulate, die and be a part of me and mine. There is life renewed and reaffirmed.

The Pagan-Christian synthesis was long and reciprocal in Europe - while it is both a good study and an arduous if not ambitious task to unwind some of the methods developed, there should be no mistake that the methods used by Christian and post-Christian frameworks to systematically dismember, garnish and digest the Pagan is a well oiled fine tuned instrument.

The decline of Christianity in Europe should not bring succor to those who come from alternate frameworks, the methods will remain for a lot longer and if ever these fall back into the hands of those following a more virulent version of monotheism - think realistic Islamists - there is a grave danger to the last remanents of alternate frameworks. Sanathana Dharma does not fit into any of these frameworks, not even Pagan, albeit one could call it so...
The traditionalists have and will continue to protest the use of the Rig Veda to discover and associate them with geography, history or even specific meaning. The danger is in committing self-goals by well meaning scholars who are out to get the antiquity and history of OIT via Rig Veda and other such Shruthi. Ther danger is in winning the battle, but losing the war. The Rig Veda is svatah pramana (self-evident) - Apaurusheya (not of human agency), Anadi (timeless or eternal) and that they are made of Shabda (words) which are composed of phonemes - The phonemes being eternal the Vedas are as well. This means irrespective of subjective human claims of revelation, a fairly tight epistemological battle can be waged on those who claim to have religions revealed to them - as it will always happen at a given time (historic), a given place/person and a language - all of which are subjective and subject to corruption. Where as the Veda (Shruthi) really remain untouched by such claims to time/space/human agency and vagaries and errors of retransmission.

Why is this important? Our current generation is perhaps on a journey of rediscovery, but our schools do not teach such things, our parents and grandparents have forgotten such things, so not sure who and how such things will remain in the civilization that has given so much to humanity!

Consider the following example - I had a Christian friend ask me genuinely why we have so many Gods and temples. He apologized apriory if it was an offensive question to me given my Religion. My answer to him was as follows - epistemologically there is no way to defend a singular (one God) versus various forms of a singular God - therefore every form is as significant or insignificant as the other. As long as one just sees the object as a representative of the formless, nameless and infinite how can we disagree with one vs. the other. I am sure he was either confused or not convinced - but my point is I've seen others ramble on about the head of Ganesha or get into the form of the Linga, etc. How do we teach a more deeper understanding of the essence of our civilization's experience?

If you look at so many of the social sciences - there is blatant plagiarism - we have created Indo-European modern grammar based on Sanskrit grammar. We have the International Phonetic Alphabet but it is based on having understood how to use the structure of the mouth and pronounciations that come from it - who created it first - Sanskrit grammar. The list goes on and on and the trouble is no one from the Indian side is interested in taking on smaller battles to create an alternate version of education for the generations to come. Look at how long it took to challenge Arabic Numerals - even now!!!

I leave you with this on Shiksha - there is a reason why every Indian child should be taught Sanskrit - there is a beauty, a mathematics, a way of life:

ॐ शीक्षां व्याख्यास्यामः ।
वर्णः स्वरः । मात्रा बलम् ।
साम सन्तानः । इत्युक्तः शीक्षाध्यायः ॥ १ ॥

Om! We will explain the Shiksha.
Sounds and accentuation, Quantity (of vowels) and the expression (of consonants),
Balancing (Saman) and connection (of sounds), So much about the study of Shiksha. || 1 ||

— Taittiriya Upanishad 1.2, Shikshavalli, Translated by Paul Deussen

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Jul 2017 08:36

This paper by Adluri on the Mahabharata is worth reading:
(PDF) http://www.presocratics.org/wp-content/ ... ishwa1.pdf

Let me conclude with one final statement on the Mahābhārata’s double beginning. Why does the epic feel the need to place its own hermeneutic tools within the text, in the curious space opened up between the two beginnings?

The answer to this question must, once again, be sought in the epic itself. As Mahābhārata 1.56.33 and 18.5.38 demonstrate, the
Mahābhārata takes its claim to being an all-encompassing text quite seriously. Hiltebeitel has already argued that the statement “‘Whatever is here may be found elsewhere; what is not here does not exist anywhere’ (MBh 1,56.33; 18,5.38) is not an encyclopedic slogan but an ontological claim about what counts as real, as the heterodoxies do not” (Hiltebeitel 2011a: 11). One consequence of this self-understanding, however, is
that the text must contain everything within itself necessary for understanding it: the text is the sole “remainder” that is transmitted across time and space and hence must contain its own hermeneutic apparatus within itself. Ultimately, the double beginning is a consequence of this immense task: to create a kind of non-narrative space that allows for the transmission of a hermeneutic apparatus along with the text. I have further shown that such an interpretation takes the text’s own self-understanding seriously as the śeṣa which textually lives yugāntare. There is nothing outside the text, not even instructions on how to read the text.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 17 Jul 2017 10:45

SriJoy wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote: They write...

[emphasis mine]

Any guesses for 'dramatic decline in genetic diversity in male lineages 4 to 8 thousand years ago'?

I have one conjecture with pinpointed accuracy - Year 5561 BCE
What supposedly happened in 5561 BCE ?!

Just the great war.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 17 Jul 2017 10:59

SriJoy wrote: I prefer a date closer to 2000 BC as the likely date for the great war.

Why prefer when you can science

Can you explain your facts + assumptions for such a date?

syam · Post by **syam** » 17 Jul 2017 12:22

SriJoy, I found this image in old archives.

40000 years old cave painting found in UP. That animal suspiciously looking like horse.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2017 12:33

Looks like war scene to me and that is Bheeshma on the ground. Also people on stretchers behind the row of people at Bheeshmas side

syam · Post by **syam** » 17 Jul 2017 12:48

@shiv ji, that image is from old archives. You guys had some discussion way back in 2002.

Agasthi · Post by **Agasthi** » 17 Jul 2017 13:03

Very fascinating posts! I think we are beginning to rediscover our roots (I certainly am) and its meanings and pulling down eurocentric narratives of us have acquired some momentum. My parents or grandparents did not explain any of these and probably did not know.

OT alert - All this obsession with single point of origin, it must extend to other spheres as well, right? Like the Big Bang theory, which was proposed by a German Catholic priest and the astronomers looking for evidence to justify this theory. Even supposedly scientific theories rooted in an abrahamic thought process! There must be lot of pseudo-science out there in a scientific garb with western credentials which the rest of the world takes seriously.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2017 14:43

syam wrote:@shiv ji, that image is from old archives. You guys had some discussion way back in 2002.

Bhimbetka cave

syam · Post by **syam** » 17 Jul 2017 15:12

SriJoy wrote: Sure. I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Euros jump on the horse theory because of a simple fact : vast regions of India has been KO-ed for a significant portion of the last 2000+ years, where we had a significant disadvantage in horses. the reasons for this are in a series of geo-strategic and technological barriers relating to horses,warfare tech,etc., but not well understood. Primarily to do with medieval importation of horses from CA. If India had good quality horses in large numbers, the turks and mughals would not have bothered to import horses from CA that they've left historical evidence of.

First of all, we have no evidence that tells about lack of horse culture in India. Most of the arguments intentionally ignore many evidences. Lets not go into same discussion again and again.
As long as people ignore spiritual aspects of it, they will never learn what Indian history is.

Idiot studies veda for years, but no use. Where is the spiritual enlightenment of British? It's like Monkey gets smart phone and chews on it and throws it away. Complete moronic behaviour.

------
Thanks shiv ji. I was browsing internet and found it accidentally. Surprisingly google indexed old thread and it is there in search results.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 17 Jul 2017 16:25

Agasthi wrote:OT alert - All this obsession with single point of origin, it must extend to other spheres as well, right? Like the Big Bang theory, which was proposed by a German Catholic priest and the astronomers looking for evidence to justify this theory. Even supposedly scientific theories rooted in an abrahamic thought process! There must be lot of pseudo-science out there in a scientific garb with western credentials which the rest of the world takes seriously.

Yes, Big Bang, but also many other -- human origins (single point out of Africa), mathematics,

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2017 17:33

On the idea that the Vedas are some kind of "historical document" one must take the stance that either they are or they aren't

One must not selectively call some parts (eg horses) as history and other parts as not history. Those people (such as Indologists) who claim some parts of the Vedas as history fall flat on their faces if they deny other parts as being of equal significance as a historic narrative. But ultimately the Vedas are not a narrative at all. The problem according to many is Sayana's translation itself, which Max Muller used - his interpretation has been faulted. Sayana lived around 1400 AD and it appears that by that time the Vedas had all but died as a force in Indian culture.

All Vedic scholars agree that the Vedas are not a document that relate history. I have alluded to two separate authors who have stated this earlier (one of them being Aurobindo)

But by coincidence I found today, an article on Twitter which I will link below with quotes.
The Terminology of the Vedas and European Scholars – A Book Review by Vinita Arya
The original book is here https://archive.org/details/terminologyofved00vidy

For Pandit ji the subject of the correct interpretation of Sanskrit and the Vedas is of vital importance because it involves “issues of (such) great value”, and to ignore it would be to succumb in a cowardly fashion to the increasing hegemonic global dominance of Western powers and to the frighteningly “imperfect, defective and incomplete” scholarship of their Western intellectuals. Here Pandit ji alludes to European scholars such as Professor Max Muller and Professor Monier Williams whose intellectual prowess even the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer thought was “no better than the higher class of school boys “.

The reason for the failure of his fellow- Indian brethren to heed his desperate advice can be accredited he maintains to them having received the highest English education and being “entirely ignorant of Sanskrit”. Their ignorance is such that they too hold like their European Professors and masters “that the Vedas are books that teach idol-worship or element worship” and that “they contain no philosophical, moral or scientific truths of any great consequence, unless they be the commonest truisms of the kitchen”.

It comes down to his knowledge of the works of Sayana, the great grammarian from which European scholars draw their knowledge when misinterpreting the Vedas. Pandit ji regards Sayana’s interpretations as being so diseased and unworthy of emulation that “whatsoever the value of the efforts of modern (European) scholars, their comparative philology, and their new interpretations … their so-called marvelous achievements cannot but be diseased.”

Once you accept Veda as a document of history and not a philosophical treatise as the Veda masters say it is, you cannot wish away astronomical references were untrue and inaccurate while other aspects are accurate. Sauce for the Goose etc

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Jul 2017 18:00

Shiv ji: Another person who has some inspiring interpretations of the vedas is David Frwaley - aka Vamdev Shastri. There are others too, but many are in Indian languages and being a colonized Hindu cannot read most of them. Another one that i would be reading down the road is the take of Bibek Debroy's translations. Hopefully it wall allow me to form my own interpretations from a fairly straight forward translation of the verses.