Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2115
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 19 Aug 2017 16:31

shiv wrote:
gandharva wrote: In his fnal three volumes, Comte then deals with the social sciences, self-consciously laying the grounds for a new science. This work presupposes the “Law of the Three Stages of Humanity,” which can be summarized as follows: humanity develops via three successive stages, namely, the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive. In the first, the human mind seeks to understand phenomena in terms of supernatural causes or reasons; in the second, it moves on to seeking abstract causes or reasons. Comte emphasizes that the metaphysical stage is but a transition in the development of science from a theological to a positivist inquiry. Thus, only in the third, properly scientifc phase does the mind turn away from seeking first causes or origins and toward identifying the law underlying phenomena. Paralleling this theory of the genesis of the natural sciences, Comte also ofers an account of the material development of society: frst militaristic, then legalistic, and fnally culminating in industrialism.

[b]This law, as can be plainly seen when stated bluntly, is hardly a law in the scientifc sense.

I see the conflict between science and religion (both in the USA and as Islamism) as a result of the implicit (and rather arrogant) assumption of the "truth" of this "law" by people of science.

Hindus have tried to argue that their acceptance of science should somehow make their explanations of metaphysics equally acceptable to science. But science has linked itself to time - unidirectional, having rejected human psychology, sociology and metaphysics as useless vestiges. This is where science begins to fail. It was failing ever since Vedanta and other texts were dismissed by Philologist-Indologists, but no one gave a rats ass because it was some alien culture of a colonized race that was being dismissed.


its always easy to dismiss something as unreal especially if its not quantifiable by a known measure :mrgreen: .. but let time be the teacher. All in time it will come !

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 20 Aug 2017 19:10

Major Initiative

In the last couple of years, I have been reading books and articles of Shri Vedveer Arya with a very keen interest. If anybody has come close to fixing India's chronology, it is he. He is a man with a deep understanding of traditional astronomy, calendars, Sanskrit and the vast treasure trove of India's history-relevant literature and epigraphic data. He is one man who can chew all "eminent and colonial historians". Shri Vedveer Arya is an independent reasearcher, though he works at the Ministry of Defence, India.

If anybody feels doubtful of what I am claiming about Shri Vedveer Arya, all one needs to do is to read his books and articles, and convince oneself. His work is freely available.

Shri Vedveer Arya has now started an initiative at MyGov.in called "Re-establishing the True Chronological History of India".

If you desire that Chronology of India's History be fixed and not remain enslaved by the vice-like grip of the West on India's history, Please support his initiative.

For the initiative to be taken up, it requires 5000 votes. Please vote for the initiative and if you can, get your friends and family too to vote for the initiative.

Thank you!

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9790
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 20 Aug 2017 23:15

Please go ahead and vote. However, sometimes Shri Vedveer Arya gets a duck:
https://www.academia.edu/30377331/The_M ... ld_History
Prophet Mohammad was born in the 40th regnal year of Nusherwan i.e. 101 BC. Tabaqat-i-Nasiri mentions that Khusru Parwez was the greatest king of Persia and ruled for 38 years. Mohammad began to propagate his religion in the 20th year of his reign i.e. 60 BC and in the 30th
year, Mohammad fled Makkah to Madinah which is the epoch of Hijrah i.e. 50 BC. Mohammad died in 39 BC during the reign of Turan Dukht, the daughter of Sasanian king Khusru Parwez.


Shri Vedveer Arya says that ancient world history is missing 660 years; so that Alexander the Great, contemporary of Sandrokottus works out properly per the Puranic timeline. But if that rearrangement means Islam sat quietly for seven hundred years before Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sind, well, that is a bit much.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 21 Aug 2017 01:32

A_Gupta ji, I've already fought with him over this issue and  he is very much aware about the incredulity of his claims. But regardless of whatever subjective view one may have on his claims, one would have a very tough time arguing against his data and his logic. I wasn't successful, if you can refute him, than cudos to you, even on a point as universally accepted as the date of Muhammad.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9790
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 21 Aug 2017 03:13

Well, is the Islamic calendar wrong, and what happened in the 7th century for them to start the Muslim era then?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 21 Aug 2017 16:06

A_Gupta wrote:Well, is the Islamic calendar wrong, and what happened in the 7th century for them to start the Muslim era then?


A_Gupta ji,

Earlier the Persian Magi Solar Calendar, including by Mughals was in use, followed later by the Hijra Lunar Calendar.

As said before, I am not completely convinced about this aspect of Vedveer Arya ji's conclusions, so perhaps I am not the right person to convince you of the same either. It is also the most controversial of his theories. Much of all this is also based on the work of non-Indian sources.

If you wish, you can check up on the following articles of his (somewhat outdated since he has since refined some assumptions):


I see Vedveer Arya's main contribution however in making Greater India's (India, Afghanistan, Nepal, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Myanmar) long chronology very clear. His calendar dates and tons of recorded history are completely in harmony. Before venturing into the controversial parts, it is important to know where the man is coming from and why he is willing to put his integrity on the line as scholar by making such counter-universally acknowledged claims.

The book to start would be:

The Chronology of Ancient India : Victim of Concoctions and Distortions by Vedveer Arya

If you wish you can follow up with:

  1. The Date of Buddha Nirvana

  2. The Chronological History of Buddhism

  3. The epoch of the Mahavira-nirvana era and the chronological history of Jainism

  4. The Date of Ādi Śankarāchārya

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2017 00:11

Shiv, et al take a look at this link:

https://twitter.com/JoeAgneya/status/899697428017934338

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 22 Aug 2017 17:14

RajeshA wrote:Major Initiative

In the last couple of years, I have been reading books and articles of Shri Vedveer Arya with a very keen interest. If anybody has come close to fixing India's chronology, it is he. He is a man with a deep understanding of traditional astronomy, calendars, Sanskrit and the vast treasure trove of India's history-relevant literature and epigraphic data. He is one man who can chew all "eminent and colonial historians".

I went ahead and voted for the initiative.

The hard work and knowledge of Shri Vedveer Arya ji, especially his tenacity to go through epigraphic evidence/history relevant literature, has certainly produced alternative narrative for last 4000 years of history (post Buddha - as correctly pointed out by you).

In the absence of evidence from other disciplines of science, epigraphic and narrative evidence is all we may have to go by and thus his efforts are to be admired. I have read his works and while I enjoy his inferences, I could never assess how strong the background evidence is upon which he bases his conclusions. I am in no position to challenge them since rarely he talks of evidence that might contradict his position. Those who disagree with him (e.g. Raja Ram Mohan roy - modern one that is!) write in equally esoteric interpretive language that challenges my inferential abilities.
--
On the other hand I do know little about the epic evidence and I can say with confidence that while writing about chronology of Mahabharata he breaks all the rules of scientific investigation. I will indeed write a rebuttal of that article but for now I have decided to give him a pass.

He feels that chronology anchor of about 3102 BCE is required to meaningfully understand all the event of last 4000 years. I am not in a position to state if this is indeed true, but if this is what helps, I do not want to divert his energies on events pre-2000 BCE.

I only hope that his approach for events post 2000 BCE (last 4000 years) is not as inductive (and logically circular) as his work on either Mahabharata or Ramayana.
--
I requested him to write for SI-3, he kindly obliged and thus I hope that he presents his latest (or could be ongoing work for a while) work on Tamilnad history. I refer to his work in virtually all of my talks/interviews, again, in the context of events post Buddha.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 22 Aug 2017 21:53

Nilesh Oak ji,

thanks for supporting the initiative.

Yes, I understand you two very much differ on the timing of Mahabharata War. You say, 16th October, 5561 BCE while he says 25th October, 3162 BCE. That is a 2400 year difference. One could say a Yuga difference. :-)

However the cornerstone of his chronology is the Saka Era (19th February 583 BCE) and based partly on this he has been able to derive the epochs of other calendars. Dates of Buddha Nirvana (5th April 1864 BCE) and Mahavira Nirvana (22nd October 1189 BCE) are some remarkable achievements by him.

I do think this is our chance of correcting Indian chronology of the last 4000 years at least.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 23 Aug 2017 01:33

These are the proposals of Shri Vedveer Arya

Image
Image

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 23 Aug 2017 02:17

RajeshA ji

My point being Shri Vedveer Arya ji may stick to 3102 BCE as the beginning of Kaliyuga and 3138 BCE as the year of MBH war, per traditional assumed dates in deriving remaining dates.

I could not see his motivation for 3162 BCE as the year of MBH war. And irrespective of his motivations, how he arrived at 3162 BCE by employing few internal references of Mahabharata text (arbitrary and selective for sure), is decisively falsifiable.
--
I have encouraged him and continue to encourage him to state his conclusions (for various chronology markers) in the table above in such a fashion so that lay individuals such as myself (and others) can compare his claims vs. those of others (e.g. Raja Ram Mohan roy). I tried to comprehend writings of both, but could not comprehend enough to state why one is better than the other. Overall, my gut feel is that Vedveer Arya ji is on a right track..but that remains a gut feel.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 24 Aug 2017 13:40

Nilesh Oak wrote:RajeshA ji

I could not see his motivation for 3162 BCE as the year of MBH war. And irrespective of his motivations, how he arrived at 3162 BCE by employing few internal references of Mahabharata text (arbitrary and selective for sure), is decisively falsifiable.


There may be some reasons given elsewhere but here

Vedveer Arya wrote:The Aihole inscription dated Śaka 556 (27 BCE) gives the date of Mahābhārata war. It mentions that total 3142 (30+3000+7+100+5) years elapsed from the epoch of Mahābhārata war in the year 556 elapsed (27 BCE) in the Śaka era (583 BCE). If we add 27 years, it leads to the year 3169 BCE. According to Āryabhaṭa, three quarters of a Yuga have been ended just before Mahābhārata war (Bhāratāt pūrvam) which unambiguously indicates that the third quarter of a Yuga (Dvāpara Yuga) ended before Mahābhārata war. It is well known that ancient Indians followed the cycle of the Saptarṣi Yuga (a cycle of 2700 years). Vṛddhāryabhaṭa Siddhānta and Pārāśara Siddhānta were established in the beginning of Kaliyuga as recorded in the text of Mahāryabhaṭa Siddhānta (Īṣadyāte Kalau yuge). Vṛddhāryabhaṭa (Mahārya Siddhānta) has proposed a correction and stated that there are 1599998 cycles of Saptarṣi in a Kalpa and reduced 2 cycles. Evidently, ancient Siddhāntas propounded 1600000 cycles in a Kalpa. Therefore, every ancient Yuga (Kṛta,Treta, Dvāpara or Kali) must start from the 76th year of Julian calendar BC. If we consider the duration of Yugas as 1200 years, Kṛta Yuga was around 6776-5576 BC, Treta Yuga was around 5576-4376 BC and Dvāpara Yuga was around 4376-3176 BC. Exactly, Āryabhaṭa indicates that the third quarter of a Yuga (Dvāpara Yuga) ended in 3176 BC before Mahābhārata war in 3169 BCE. Thus, the date given in the Aihole Inscription is the most ancient and uncorrupted recorded date of Mahābhārata war. Therefore, the epoch of Mahabharata war and Yudhiṣṭhira era originally commenced in 3169 BC.


I think to some extent the dating of the Mahābhārata War is dependent on various dates expressed in Yudhiṣṭhira era, unless one is bold enough to state that Yudhiṣṭhira era refers to some other Yudhiṣṭhira or those dates expressed in Yudhiṣṭhira era even though they refer to Yudhiṣṭhira of the Mahābhārata fame, the dates themselves are to placed 2400 years further into the past, a claim which may eventually exert pulls on the epochs of other calendars.

Two relevant papers on the matter by Vedveer Arya are:

  1. The Date of Aryabhata

  2. The Traditional Epoch of Yudhishthira Era and Mahabharata War

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 24 Aug 2017 21:06

RajeshA wrote:There may be some reasons given elsewhere but here

I am convinced that what Shri Vedveer Arya ji is doing is much needed. It will have huge impact on chronology of Indic traditions and history and at a minimum, it will rouse sleepy researchers from their sleep + provide with alternate claims for likes of me to critique, in an objective fashion.

I would encourage readers of his writing to demand that he provides original references when he makes his claims. I would personally ask him to do the same. I have analyzed many of his claims, limited to my area of expertise (internal evidence of Mahabharata and Ramayana) and every time I have been disappointed by how he has mis-interpreted them.

I randomly pulled a paragraph from the link you (RajeshA ji) provided above..

Ancient Indian s followed a calendar of Mārgaśīrṣādi in early Vedic period. Rigveda refers to Mārgaśīrṣā as “Āgrahāyaṇa” (beginning of New Year).
In fact, the New Year in Vedic Calendar used to commence from Winter Solstice or Udagayana. Winter Solstice generally occurs in the
month of Margashirsha. Therefore, Vedic Rishis named Margashirsha as “Agrahayana”. Thus, Margashirsha was the first month of the earliest Vedic calendar.

If I have to analyze this one paragraph and falsify it (and falsified it can be and ought to be), it will take a thesis..... But let me illustrate it briefly how manipulative the effect would be (effect of above quoted paragraph) on the ordinary reader, while the truth is not that simple. I write the statements of this paragraph as numbered below...

(1) Ancient Indians followed a calendar of Mārgaśīrṣādi in early Vedic period.

How does he define 'Early' vedic period? Does he agree with relative chronology of Shri Talageri (I do). If he does, that would mean Mandalas 6, 3, 7. Do we have reference to this Margashirsha based calendar among Manadalas 6, 3, 7 (hence the need to provide original referenes when claims such generic claims are made)

(2) Rigveda refers to Mārgaśīrṣā as “Āgrahāyaṇa” (beginning of New Year).

Fair. Where does this occur in Rigveda (Where it occurs in Rigveda + what specific context it is referred to is very critical)

(3) In fact, the New Year in Vedic Calendar used to commence from Winter Solstice or Udagayana.

I would love to see this reference (Winter Solstice or Udagayana). This will not only solve many confusions related to Rigveda + it will immensely benefit determining chronology of specific mandalas of Rigveda.

(4) Winter Solstice generally occurs in the month of Margashirsha.

What does that suppose to mean? Winter solstice does occur during the month of Margashirsha in our times and it will continue to do do so for say another 2000 years! I hope the Rigveda/Veda were not written in our times (last 1000 years or 'back to futur' style during next 2000 years).

of course, we can go back through a complete cycle of 'precession of equinoxes" to about 26000 years (~24K BCE) when similar situation prevailed.

Even then, depending on where specific references occur in Rigveda, we would have to decide during which Mandala composition winter solstice occurred durign month of Margashirsha (24K BCE would be the timing of those Mandalas, and not entire Rigveda, per this claim)


(5) Therefore, Vedic Rishis named Margashirsha as “Agrahayana”.

'Therefore'? Again, extremely careless statement. If all prior premises are wrong or based on loose footing, the conclusion does not hold any water...

(6) Thus, Margashirsha was the first month of the earliest Vedic calendar.

ditto as in (5).
--
On the other hand, Mahabharata text has references to month of Margashirsha that are spread over from Bhishma Parva through Anushasan parva that can lead any researcher to the conclusion why Margashirsha was the first month during 5561 BCE, background logic and rationale.
Last edited by Nilesh Oak on 25 Aug 2017 01:11, edited 1 time in total.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4492
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 24 Aug 2017 21:50


Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 25 Aug 2017 01:08

RajeshA wrote:I think to some extent the dating of the Mahābhārata War is dependent on various dates expressed in Yudhiṣṭhira era, unless one is bold enough to state that Yudhiṣṭhira era refers to some other Yudhiṣṭhira or those dates expressed in Yudhiṣṭhira era even though they refer to Yudhiṣṭhira of the Mahābhārata fame, the dates themselves are to placed 2400 years further into the past, a claim which may eventually exert pulls on the epochs of other calendars.


Notice you have stated your claim with words 'I think' and 'to some extent'. :)

One does not need to be bold enough and have to state that "Yudhiṣṭhira era refers to some other Yudhiṣṭhira". One may simply state 'Hypothesis non Fingo!"

The onus is on one claiming reference of Yudhishhir era (and corresponding references) as 'lynchpin' to define one's claim for the chronology of Mahabharata... to show that how this is consistent with internal references of Mahabharata text + evidence from other branches of science.. Archaeology, astronomy, hydrology, genealogy, ocenography, seismology,....long list.
--
I preseume you are referring to 2400 years because of gap between two claims - 5561 - 3162 = 2398 ~ 2400 years. If so, that is indeed the difference between two claims (Oak vs. Vedveer Arya)

I did not understand the significance of your statement.. "a claim which may eventually exert pulls on the epochs of other calendars."

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 25 Aug 2017 14:01

SriJoy wrote:
RajeshA wrote:These are the proposals of Shri Vedveer Arya

Image
Image


On what basis are we to consider such opinion, which flies in face of any and all epigraphical evidence ? i will say one more time: anyone who thinks Ashokan era is not 270s-240s BC, is a hack and completely ignorant in the process of dating him. Dating Ashoka is one of the most accurate dating in the entire field of history.


You will be hard put to find even a single piece of epigraphic evidence which contradicts the above! All archaeoastronomical, textual and epigraphic evidence point to the above table. Most of the archaeological evidence is often form-fitted to the given historical narrative, with outlier data simply ignored or explained away as corrupted or belonging to an underlying but unattached layer.

Chances are high that whatever "evidence" you may be considering as supporting the colonial chronology, it's conclusions are taken apart by Vedveer Arya in his book:
The Chronology of Ancient India : Victim of Concoctions and Distortions.

Enjoy your reading!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 25 Aug 2017 15:21

SriJoy ji,

Where have you been given your historical information? Did you painstakingly try to recreate it from primary sources or did you just digest what was served to you in school, through books and through "eminent" historians? If you did not recreate it from primary sources, then it is simply a question of you, and all others believing in those who are relaying this information.

I, like many others have already drunk the cool-aid dished to us over the years, history which you hold as unshakable. Question is, have you read the counter-view?

Do read it. If you feel that your issues are not satisfactorily answered, we can discuss them. Most of the points you have mentioned are discussed in the book, and later on in further articles by him.

Books and Articles by Vedveer Arya @ Academia

Vedveer Arya's Blog: Itihasa Bharati

Facebook Group: ITIHASA

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 25 Aug 2017 16:19

SriJoy wrote:I will say one thing- upon cursory glance to one of his articles, i noticed his 'Guru parampara of Srirengi mattha'. Well, most of my parents generation are actually educated in Ramkrishna Missions - and we know Mattha well. Srirengi is not the only one, yet it is the only one that is completely out of whack with all our other matthas themselves.this, i can easily prove.So there goes this guy's credibility in my books.


SriJoy ji,

don't be too quick to write him off. Of course what he is writing is revisionist. There is nothing wrong with revisionism, if he has good reasons to back his claims.

He says that there were two Shankracharyas:

  1. Adi Śankara (592 - 560 BCE "short life")

  2. Vidya Śankara (68 BCE - 22 CE "long life") - established Sringeri, Puri, Dwarka and Jyotimath.

  3. Sarvajnamuni, disciple of Vidya Śankara most probably established Kanchi pitham.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 26 Aug 2017 05:28

SriJoy wrote:...
How will you match 13 observations if you were the author 1000 years after the war and you had to backfit the plausible sequence ?

I can do it quiete easily, using math: Using various equations determining the orbital motion of various planetary and interstellar bodies, in relation to earth, pluging them in a matrix and calculating matches.
To put it simply- anyone with multivariable and quadratic analysis skills, can determine a conjunction posed by seperate but overlapping equations in any context: astronomical, for eg. Basically, one can calculate any particular set of conjunctions of any stellar object, using math that was known in India by 600s AD. Sure, a computer makes such math childsplay, but one can do it by hand, if one is willing to dedicate months for such calculation.
If Vedic world was heliocentric (This if, is a figure of speech, not casting doubt on the notion itself), then such calculations are easily possible 1400-1600 years ago India.

Srijoy ji,
Since you have said using math and equations you can tell us the time when these observations from mahabharata might have happened can you please help us with dates?
The list of observations from mahabharata:
0 Departure of Krishna to Hastinapur on peace mission on Revathi.
1 Purnima in a few days on the following Kartika nakshatra (three days from 0).
2 Lunar eclipse on Kartika Purnima.
3 Amawasya on Jyestha which is also the solar eclipse.
4 A lunar eclipse 13 days later following the Jyestha amawas.
5 Departure of Balram on Pushya after Jyestha Amawas.
6 Start of the war on Shukla Ekadasi of Mrigasira
7 On the 14 th day of the war late moon rise.
8 On the 14th day of the war moon rose in the east.
9 Last day of the war on Shravan nakshatra and Balram returns.
10 Balram is gone for 42 days.
11 Bhishma Asthami in Magha Shukplapaksh.
12 Thirty six years later Krishna sees a similar sequence
of eclipses as given in 2,3 and 4, above. These are three separate
observations at the time of Vrishni destruction viz a lunar
eclipse followed by a solar eclipse followed by a 13 day apravani
lunar eclipse.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 26 Aug 2017 06:34

Deleted

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 26 Aug 2017 11:52

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote:Srijoy ji,
Since you have said using math and equations you can tell us the time when these observations from mahabharata might have happened can you please help us with dates?
The list of observations from mahabharata:
0 Departure of Krishna to Hastinapur on peace mission on Revathi.
1 Purnima in a few days on the following Kartika nakshatra (three days from 0).
2 Lunar eclipse on Kartika Purnima.
3 Amawasya on Jyestha which is also the solar eclipse.
4 A lunar eclipse 13 days later following the Jyestha amawas.
5 Departure of Balram on Pushya after Jyestha Amawas.
6 Start of the war on Shukla Ekadasi of Mrigasira
7 On the 14 th day of the war late moon rise.
8 On the 14th day of the war moon rose in the east.
9 Last day of the war on Shravan nakshatra and Balram returns.
10 Balram is gone for 42 days.
11 Bhishma Asthami in Magha Shukplapaksh.
12 Thirty six years later Krishna sees a similar sequence
of eclipses as given in 2,3 and 4, above. These are three separate
observations at the time of Vrishni destruction viz a lunar
eclipse followed by a solar eclipse followed by a 13 day apravani
lunar eclipse.

Err, why ? What is calculating random mention of planetary conjunctions going to do, about proving its authenticity to the tale ?

You have made it clear that you have not read Mahabharata. That is fine. Just FYI above observations are a sequence that start from the date of arrival of Krishna at Hastinapur to Bhishma's death. These observations represent stellar phenomenon separated by many months.

Have you considered "what if the above sequence yields a single date only"?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 26 Aug 2017 20:47

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote:You have made it clear that you have not read Mahabharata. That is fine. Just FYI above observations are a sequence that start from the date of arrival of Krishna at Hastinapur to Bhishma's death. These observations represent stellar phenomenon separated by many months.

Have you considered "what if the above [b]sequence
yields a single date only"?[/b]


then it yields a single date only. So what ? How does that 'date' mean anything, ....

Since you know math can you tell us what would be the probability of 13 observations matching a single date?

If it was random guesses by Mahabharat writers, 2000 years later, one would imagine *all* the observations given above would not line up in a tight span of a few months in one particular year *only*.

Have you heard of Occam's razor?

Keeping phases of moon, aligned with nakshatras , is a very tough problem and I do not think you are fully grasping it. Give it some thought. Work out on how many possible days would observation 0 and 1 would be true. Then add observation 2 and then 3 and so on and see how the number of possible dates shrink.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 27 Aug 2017 02:48

SriJoy wrote:As for being too quick- explain to me,why should I not write him off, based on my reasoning regarding Shri Harshavardhana. None of what i said is falsehood or 'evil western doctrine'. Infact, i can present Xuanzeng's writings if you like.
Explain to me, what good reasons he has for backdating Harshavardhana or Ashoka, in face of evidence I've presented.

A person who wholesale backdates each and every aspect of Indian history by using spurious 'archaeoastronomy', while completely ignoring actual epigraphic analysis or that of first hand sources, has a very clear-cut agenda, one would be forced to conclude.

I have already demonstrated how this author is 100% false regarding two instances: Ashoka and Harshavardhana. If you wish, over the coming weeks/months, i can de-construct almost every single one of his assessment of dates.


If you write him off, it is your loss, not his.

Vedveer Arya gives the date of Xuanzang as 58 BCE-4 CE. He did visit India during the time of Pulakeśin II, the Chalukya Emperor, but his contemporary was Harsha Vikramaditya of Ujjain of the Chaitrādi Vikrama Samvat of 57 BC and Navaratana fame, and not Śrī Harsha of Puṣpabhūti dynasty who started the Śrī Harsha era of 457 BCE. Banabhatta speaks of Śrī Harsha in his Harshacharita. According to Vedveer Arya, Xuanzang sojourned in India around 30-15 BCE. He referred to a King Baladitya. Most probably, Baladitya was the king of Kashmir around 137-99 BCE.

If you are looking for backup of his dating, e.g. of Pulakeśin II, he has plenty of evidence in his favor, especially the Kurtaketi and the Hyderabad inscriptions relating to him.

As far as Ashoka, the Great is concerned, he is Kalaśoka (1765-1737 BC) of the Haryanka dynasty and not Asoka Maurya (1547-1511 BC). Kalaśoka was also the king of Kashmir as mentioned in Rajatarangini. He was the author of all rock and pillar edicts written in Brahmi & Kharoshthi scripts. The Yavana kings mentioned in the inscriptions of Aśoka were Yavanas of 18th century BCE, and not 3rd century BCE.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 27 Aug 2017 08:42

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote:Since you know math can you tell us what would be the probability of 13 observations matching a single date?

If it was random guesses by Mahabharat writers, 2000 years later, one would imagine *all* the observations given above would not line up in a tight span of a few months in one particular year *only*.

Have you heard of Occam's razor?

Keeping phases of moon, aligned with nakshatras , is a very tough problem and I do not think you are fully grasping it. Give it some thought. Work out on how many possible days would observation 0 and 1 would be true. Then add observation 2 and then 3 and so on and see how the number of possible dates shrink.


My point is simple- how does one prove the said observation is original to the text ?

Had you tried to figure out the date of these 13 observations this question might have answered itself for you. But since you can't , it seems, or won't I will answer it.

Mahabharata has other references about Kaliyuga and the change from previous yuga.
The dates of these observations line up in a precise way with the date of Kaliyuga.

The date of Kaliyuga and why it was an important date can be the next topic of discussion after we resolve the date of these 13 observations which is a sequence of dates and not a singular date.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 27 Aug 2017 10:01

peter wrote:Had you tried to figure out the date of these 13 observations this question might have answered itself for you. But since you can't , it seems, or won't I will answer it.

Mahabharata has other references about Kaliyuga and the change from previous yuga.
The dates of these observations line up in a precise way with the date of Kaliyuga.

The date of Kaliyuga and why it was an important date can be the next topic of discussion after we resolve the date of these 13 observations which is a sequence of dates and not a singular date.

SriJoy wrote:Again, it is largely a moot point, because as i have already said, you are simply picking and choosing which nakshatras to analyze, to fit a pre-determined conclusion.

Are you even serious? This sequence is from sequential chapters of Mahabharata war. No picking and choosing as time of the observations is flowing in a single direction: forward.

What pre-determined conclusion are we fitting? We have given you a chance to tell us on what set of dates do these 13 observations agree on (we have also given you the freedom to add more nakshatras to the mix : see below).
SriJoy wrote:Otherwise, go ahead and resolve every single nakshatra in the mabahbarata. Nobody has been able to do so and you are ignoring the question of why that is the case.

Why don't you tell us what other nakshatras would you like to include from Mahabharata which span the time period from Krishna's arrival till Bhishma's death?
And which of them contradict the date of these 13 observations?
SriJoy wrote:As for lining up 'precisely' with the date of Kaliyuga,thats ironic, since there is no precise date on the Kaliyuga in the first place,with multiple dates being proposed by various extrapolators.

Have you heard of something known as "Hindu Calendar"? Do you know what is its start date? Why does it have a start date? Do all calendars have a start date? What is the significance of Hindu calendar's start date?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 27 Aug 2017 11:15

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote:Are you even serious? This sequence is from sequential chapters of Mahabharata war. No picking and choosing as time of the observations is flowing in a single direction: forward.


Yes,yes. One sequence of Nakshatras. What about reconciling ALL the Nakshatras ? Why are you ignoring that point.
Not ignoring. Onus is on you to provide the list.

peter wrote:Why don't you tell us what other nakshatras would you like to include from Mahabharata which span the time period from Krishna's arrival till Bhishma's death?

SriJoy wrote:How about reconcile the dates of ALL nakshatras mentioned in the entire book ? Why has no one been able to do that ?

Can you learn to walk before you want to run? You made a claim you know math and equations. I asked you to tell us what set of dates would fit the 13 observations. You will not use maths or equations to date the observations pertaining to the many month long period of war preparation , war and aftermath of war.

If you had provided a date for these observations then the next question is worth exploring that do other observations also match or not. Clearly you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

This further tells me that you know little math related to astronomy.

Have you heard of something known as "Hindu Calendar"? Do you know what is its start date? Why does it have a start date? Do all calendars have a start date? What is the significance of Hindu calendar's start date?

SriJoy wrote:Nope. there is no such thing as a Hindu calendar. there is no consensus amongst Hindu sources on the start date of Kali Yuga. Nice try to evade my question of how you can tell if the Nakshatra citings are original or later insertions.

This is balderdash. Panchangs have a starting date of the kaliyuga. Do you even know what a panchang is? Have you seen one?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 27 Aug 2017 13:13

SriJoy wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
If you write him off, it is your loss, not his.

Vedveer Arya gives the date of Xuanzang as 58 BCE-4 CE. He did visit India during the time of Pulakeśin II, the Chalukya Emperor, but his contemporary was Harsha Vikramaditya of Ujjain of the Chaitrādi Vikrama Samvat of 57 BC and Navaratana fame, and not Śrī Harsha of Puṣpabhūti dynasty who started the Śrī Harsha era of 457 BCE. Banabhatta speaks of Śrī Harsha in his Harshacharita. According to Vedveer Arya, Xuanzang sojourned in India around 30-15 BCE. He referred to a King Baladitya. Most probably, Baladitya was the king of Kashmir around 137-99 BCE.

If you are looking for backup of his dating, e.g. of Pulakeśin II, he has plenty of evidence in his favor, especially the Kurtaketi and the Hyderabad inscriptions relating to him.

As far as Ashoka, the Great is concerned, he is Kalaśoka (1765-1737 BC) of the Haryanka dynasty and not Asoka Maurya (1547-1511 BC). Kalaśoka was also the king of Kashmir as mentioned in Rajatarangini. He was the author of all rock and pillar edicts written in Brahmi & Kharoshthi scripts. The Yavana kings mentioned in the inscriptions of Aśoka were Yavanas of 18th century BCE, and not 3rd century BCE.


Except Vedveer Arya is wrong, as Xuanzang's date is recorded in Chinese records precisely during emperor taizong's reign. How can Vedveer Arya invent such dates, when Xuanzong's date is fixed in Chinese records themselves ? So then the implication is, Chinese forgot 500 years of their own history and covered it up, not by inventing history but deleting the gap ?!
that is a ridiculous conclusion one would say.
Also, as i said, Xuanzong mentions Pulakeshi II and Sashanka. Banabhatta mentions Shashanka and Pulakeshi II. this alone completely overrides Vedveer Arya's re-invention of dates.

Why should i trash a Chinese record, about a Chinese man, living/dying in 600s AD, because of unsupported nonsense from a modern revisionist ? the Chinese civilization is the oldest practitioner of bureaucracy as an institution. Suffice to say, their record keeping from Han Dynasty onwards (220s BC) is stellar and precise. Furthermore, they have zero reasons to lie about sending an envoy to Harsha in 600s AD. As i said, Xuanzong was not an ordinary, random Chinese dude, he was a Chinese beurocrat. meaning, he passed civil service test, was appointed governor, etc. He resumed his post when he returned and then eventually passed away. Which is recorded in the Chinese records- as they record the appointment, transfer and death of every official in their beurocratic system.
Xuangzong, who we know of from Chinese sources, because he was a Chinese official, who died in 650s AD, as recorded in their records. the guy who met Harsha, was contemporary of Shashanka and Pulakeshi II, left behind accounts and he died in 650 AD. this is pretty open and shut case about when Xuangzong died.


SriJoy ji,

Xuanzang's date is indeed during the reign of Taizong of the Tang dynasty, only that Tang dynasty reigned over China from 42 BCE - 246 CE.

Chinese chronology has been screwed by Western historians who brought down the chronology of Yuan dynasty from about 700 years and adjusted the reign of 47 Yuan rulers in the chronology of 90 years. Most probably Yuan dynasty reigned in China from 619 CE to 1368 CE.

Thousands of astronomers have been providing the chronology of historical events through the use of solar eclipses, conjunction of planets, moon phases, and what not and western historians and their puppets have an extremely shoddy record of being able to properly interpret this data.

Have these historians properly pinpointed the solar eclipses mentioned in the Chinese annals, the 37 eclipses mentioned by Confusius, or from the time of Zhou dynasty, of King Yi and King Zhao?

Western historians are simply 3rd rate idiots either incapable or misguided or malafide and their authority in all things history should be considered right down at crap level.

You seem to taking everything provided by Western historians as a given and authoritative. Rethink!

SriJoy wrote:As for Rajatarangini- it is a massively flawed book and it openly confuses between Nanda dynasty and Shunga dynasty- again would be apparent to those who've read it and it is out of whack with all other Buddhist/Puranic literature due to it- understandable, since Rajatarangini is composed in 1100s-1200s AD and well over a thousand years after the events.

Further, Kalasoka Kakavarna is older than Ashoka Maurya. Every Puranic and Buddhist record also confirms this.
there are no Yavana kings recorded anywhere in the world in 1800 BC. Yet, heliodorus Pillar makes it clear that Yavanas = Indo-Greeks by naming Antialcidas as the ruler paying obiscience to Vishnu. We also have numismatic evidence that clearly shows Indo-Greek presence (Yavana) in the 200s BC-100s AD period. Yet we have ZERO evidence of anything relating to yavanas in 1800 BC.
these numbers being thrown out by Vedveer Arya are just random numbers with zero justification.

And did i not mention, that Kalinga rock inscription SPECIFICALLY mentions Ashok Maurya as Devanampriya Priyadassi ? that ends all speculation about Ashokan inscriptions.

We also have the kings mentioned in Ashokan pillar being independently confirmed by Greek sources to've existed around 270-240 BC. Another key evidence ignored by Vedveer Arya.

A guy who makes nonsense and false comments about epigraphy, without pointing out that rock inscriptions can be dated by physics as to when the etchings were made, is simply spreading misinformation.



Yavanas are spoken of even in the times of Mahabharata, e.g. Kalayavana, etc. Why shouldn't they be there during 1800 BCE? Though yes, the Yavana kings after 1900 BCE were those whose ancestors had already been to Anatolia/Southeast-Europe and had returned to the region.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 27 Aug 2017 13:21

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote:Not ignoring. Onus is on you to provide the list.


So you are claiming ignorance of all the nakshatras in the texts ? If so, then your case for Nakshatras weakens even further.


No. I am claiming I have looked at the other astronomical references and these 13 observations is the minimum set. Rest of the observations also show the same date as these 13. But I do invite you to find a list which contradicts the date provided by these 13 observations.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 27 Aug 2017 23:28

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote:
No. I am claiming I have looked at the other astronomical references and these 13 observations is the minimum set. Rest of the observations also show the same date as these 13. But I do invite you to find a list which contradicts the date provided by these 13 observations.


there is no minimum or maximum set. there is only one set- all nakshatra info provided in the book. Since you or I were not there when the mahabharata was composed, we have no basis to claim which set of nakshatra citings are original or which are dubious.

There is a minimum set. I think you are having some parsing issues. These 13 observations are from chapters pertaining to peace mission, battle preparations, actual battle, and Bhishmas' death.

If you used observations 0 and 1 they would not give you the date of the war unambigously. The number of dates where observations 0 and 1 are true could be many. If you add observation 2 then the pool of date shrinks. So on so forth.
This is how these 13 are the minimum set.
SriJoy wrote:....
As for contradiction- we have dates from 3000 BC to 9,000 BC being proposed for Mahabharata war, in this thread itself. Shows how spurious that methodology is.

You claim to be a person of math and equations why not test these 13 observations ? I am willing to wager you won't be able to do it.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 27 Aug 2017 23:41

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote:There is a minimum set. I think you are having some parsing issues. These 13 observations are from chapters pertaining to peace mission, battle preparations, actual battle, and Bhishmas' death.

If you used observations 0 and 1 they would not give you the date of the war unambigously. The number of dates where observations 0 and 1 are true could be many. If you add observation 2 then the pool of date shrinks. So on so forth.
This is how these 13 are the minimum set.


and if we look at the dates of the Adi parva nakshatras or the nakshatras of Janamejaya's recordings of these events, we get an entirely different set of dates.
....

Talk is cheap please prove the assertion in bold.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 28 Aug 2017 00:10

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote:Talk is cheap please prove the assertion in bold.


they are already provided for in this thread. Which is why you have the likes of Mr. Oak arguing for a 9000 BC timeframe for the Mahabharata and few pages before that, the Aryabhatta's 3000 BC date.

...
I am afraid you are misrepreseting Oak. You need to provide dates for and I quote you here:

"Adi parva nakshatras or the nakshatras of Janamejaya's recordings of these events".

If you can't provide dates for the above then your assertion "we get an entirely different set of dates" is meaningless.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 00:18

SriJoy wrote:Can you stop running away from my question as to how do you prove the nakshatras are original to the text and not cut-paste from some other texts over time ?


You cannot prove any such thing. If you want to prove this first, before going on to the dating, then you don't know how science works. Whether or not the nakshatra observations are original to the text - that is your starting point, or axiom. If your axiom is that the nakshatras are not original to the text, then fine, there's no arguing with that. The axiom of people who actually set out to date the texts based on nakshatra observations, is that these nakshatra observations are in the original text. Any further scientific work proceeds on the basis of this unproven and essentially unprovable axiom.

No scientific theory in existence today explains all observations of the universe. This is why people are still studying physics. In that sense, every scientific theory we have today, is "wrong." There's no getting past this. So if you're going to wait till all the nakshatra observations in the MB or Ramayana are perfectly explained by some hypothesis, then you have a long wait coming. Likewise, the same holds for any other field of study or dating attempt from any field, be it genetics or archaeology or geology - none of the hypotheses coming from any of those fields have accounted for all aspects of the problem of dating the epics. So they're all equally "wrong."

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 00:41

SriJoy wrote:
sudarshan wrote:
You cannot prove any such thing. If you want to prove this first, before going on to the dating, then you don't know how science works. Whether or not the nakshatra observations are original to the text - that is your starting point, or axiom. If your axiom is that the nakshatras are not original to the text, then fine, there's no arguing with that. The axiom of people who actually set out to date the texts based on nakshatra observations, is that these nakshatra observations are in the original text. Any further scientific work proceeds on the basis of this unproven and essentially unprovable axiom.


thank you, thank you, thank you. this is what i was looking for.
Now, if we cannot prove this axiom (originality of Nakshatras to the original story), what conclusion are we to derive from the Mahabharata itself, which itself states its original text had 20,000 odd verses, which were expanded to over 100,000 in time, re: likely scenario of originality of said Nakshatras ?



Oh you're most welcome. Is this what your entire argument was about all along? I think the problem is with your notion of "scientific accuracy and exactitude." If only you'd read Nilesh's book(s), you'd have seen all his disclaimers about how his work is based on the axiom that the nakshatras are native to the story, and how anybody with a different axiom is welcome to work with that axiom to determine a new theory, and if that new theory had a better "truthlikeness" score than his (Nilesh's) theory, then Nilesh ji would happily accept that other theory as the better theory, and move on. Nilesh ji further states that he started off with an open mind, and if his research led to the conclusion that the entirety of the MB was simply a work of imagination, then that would also be fine. Only, during the process of dating the MB based on astronomical observations, Nilesh ji became more and more convinced that this was not the case, that the consistency of the observations led to his being convinced that there really was something more than pure fiction at work. The dating started with one or two observations, which led to an initial bound or starting date for the epic. Further observations served to confirm the bound. This is the consistency that is being talked about. If the first two observations had led to one date, and the remaining ones, as and when they were added, kept pushing this date around by thousands of years, that would be inconsistency and arbitrariness, but that was not the case.

If somebody else undertakes the dating work and becomes convinced that it is all nonsense, that is also fine, provided the truthlikeness score of that attempt exceeds that of previous attempts. In that case, that theory will be accepted as a better theory, and Nilesh ji himself has stated that he would be fine with that, and that his attempt is by no means the last word on the subject of dating the epics.

So please drop this notion that what is being claimed, is that the date of the MB has been settled beyond debate by archaeo-astronomy. That kind of scientific exactitude is not the case here, and will probably never be the case.

Now, can we please move on?

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 01:08

About the subject of "forgery" - the periodicity of astronomical observations that you keep quoting to say "anybody can forge these observations" - well, this periodicity will actually work against forgery in many cases. In a simple case, if one planet has exactly twice the orbital period as another around the sun, then you can't arbitrarily make up observations saying "this planet was in X nakshatra, while the other was in Y nakshatra," because that exact integer multiplier on the planetary periods only permits certain fixed nakshatra locations for each planet at any time. Now granted, the actual planetary periods of revolution around the sun are not integer multiples of each other. But - the astronomical observations in the epics are not confined to simple statements of "this planet being in this nakshatra, and that planet being in another." The observations consist also of descriptions of the sky (stars, not planets) at specific times of the day (like late evening or early morning), seasonal observations, comet observations, descriptions of planets being in retrograde motion (or not), and (the biggie) one specific non-periodic observation, which has not been seen to happen before or since, according to the best database we have to date, which is the NASA JPL database.

If you set out to forge all of this, and actually come up with 200+ random observations based on your own imagination (or - as you claim - based on the imagination of more than one person), the most likely scenario by far, will be that there will be no such date when all these 200+ observations line up. The periodicity you talk about will actually work against you.

So I would say that you have a misguided notion of how astronomy or astronomical dating works, and this paragraph you wrote below only confirms that:

SriJoy wrote:But on the other hand, what is the expected result of spuriously adding Nakshatras willy nilly to a tale ? What is the end product, of saying 'i like this nakshatra...lets associate it with when Krishna went to ask donation of Kavach from Karna' or 'No, i like this one better. Lets call it the nakshatra of vastraharan date' ?
the answer is simple - we will end up with a wide spread of Nakshatras, with ambiguous terminologies for some (trying to hide the forgery), hence we will end up with a wide band of interpretations.
Looky-loo, we have exactly that - a wide spread of Nakshatras, where one chap can claim 9000 BC, another chap 3,000 BC and nobody can reconcile every single observation of the Nakshatras.

If this is not implicit proof of forgery of Nakshatra system and its debasement over the centuries, I don't know what proof would suffice to the ridiculousness of this line of persuit.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 28 Aug 2017 01:09

SriJoy ji,

Vedveer Arya is saying there is a 662 year hole in the history of several cultures. So basically the relative history more or less remains the same. Some things in Indian history are however a lot more ancient, e.g. Buddha Nirvana is 1864 BCE. So relative history arguments which you are using are more or less moot.

The only thing that really matters are the dates given with respect to calendars and astronomical phenomenon. That is how various cultures date their events, even now. So historians today are welcome to call stuff spurious they can't explain, but then they are really no better than the uneducated and all they are expressing are their opinions.

You say, you know precisely when Xuanzang died! The issue is how do you express that Chinese "WHEN" in today's BCE/CE or BP? Who thought up the sheet anchors of history of various cultures?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of inconsistencies in Western historiography that Vedveer Arya has pointed out and shown! You are welcome to go through his writings and try to resolve those inconsistencies.

So called inconsistencies being pointed out by you are either of the type of intellectual inertia which comes with the inability of a complete shift of history 662 years to the past, or these are inconsistencies arising out of shoddy assumptions made by Western "historians", e.g. when Hunas are supposed to have come into Indian reckoning!

Now Vedveer Arya too may have certainly made wrong assumptions, but I'm afraid the inconsistencies being pointed by you are simply run-of-the-mill arguments. In order to criticize the person, you need to know the theory of the scholar in full and then start criticizing his logic and assumptions. The way you are going about it is more like one would argue with some devout Muslim who can argue only within the confines of what the Qu'ran says and can never leave that framework! Leave your framework, read up his theories and then look for weaknesses in his logic and data!

I'll be the first to acknowledge your intellect if you can find inconsistencies in his theories from within his framework!

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 02:22

Just to address this common misconception that people seem to have about archaeo-astronomical dating. If you have 200+ observations, not just planets being within specific nakshatras, but also descriptions saying "two bright stars in the western sky a little beyond sunset, with three planets lined up to attack them," and another observation saying ten days later, "one of those planets went retrograde," and then a month later, add a couple of comet observations on top of that, also add seasonal descriptions all along, saying "people were preparing for winter" or "the rains were in progress and all the ponds were full," or saying "ten months later, the trees started to flower" and so on and so on. How would you address the task of "dating" based on these?

Would you throw all the observations into one huge pot and try to find a time which matched all of those? If you did that, then SriJoy's arguments would have some merit (though they are still not fully valid).

The better way to make sure you aren't on the wrong track is as follows. Use a limited subset of the observations, the ones with the highest periodicity, preferably, to get an initial date, or at least to narrow down the range. This subset might just be 5% of the total observations. So, 10 out of 200.

Then you take the remaining 95% of the observations, one at a time. Does the eleventh observation corroborate the date range you got initially? If so, does it narrow it down?

If the eleventh observation did not break the initial guess - how about the 12th? How about the 13th, 14th, ... 20th, ... 100th, 101st, ... 200th?

If at any step, you find that any observation throws the previously determined date off by a few thousand years, you stop. There is not much sense in proceeding, because you could just be chasing a random pattern, a mirage.

But if you find that each observation, taken one at a time, all the way from the 11th to the 200th and beyond, are in good agreement with the date you got from the initial 5% of your observations, then please tell me, what are the odds that these observations were randomly made up and inserted, not just by one person, but by multitudes of revisers?

This is not much different from training a neural network with (say) 20% of your data, and using the remaining 80% to validate it.

SriJoy assumes that researchers like Nilesh Oak simply throw 200+ observations into some kind of giant pot and cook them to get one date out of them. That is not how it works, and researchers are smarter than that, they do have a sense of how to check the internal consistency of the entire dataset by the "neural network training/validation" approach.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 02:43

SriJoy wrote:If some of the Nakshatras were not added on later, we would not be facing this expected problem reconciling ALL the Nakshatras.
And since we have this problem and we don't have the original work (the 20,000 odd line version), we have no way to tell WHICH Nakshatras are original to the tale and which are cut-paste from another story, down the ages.


Where are you getting this assumption from that you keep parroting at regular intervals? "Problem reconciling ALL the Nakshatras?" Could you please quantify how big this problem is, i.e., out of all the observations in the MB, how many were "reconciled" and how many were "not" by various researchers? How about for the Ramayana?

Actually, I'll save you the effort. Vartak, and later, Nilesh Oak, have already tabulated the above - it's termed the "truthlikeness" score. Feel free to read up on it. Vartak and Oak have also shown that the researchers with lower truthlikeness scores were guilty of "selective amnesia." Vartak and Oak both have pretty high truthlikeness scores, and their dates match almost to a T. Your objections would hold for some of the earlier researchers, but you're just using that same brush to tar all the researchers, because of your in-built prejudice. If you're looking for a 100% truthlikeness score, good luck finding it in any field.

Do you get that it's not just "nakshatras?" That there are many other "non-nakshatra" observations, which also match very well with the "nakshatra" observations?

I really don't know what "problem reconciling ALL nakshatras" you're talking about, this is just one of your canned arguments which makes no sense.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 02:56

SriJoy wrote:the bolded part is simply rewarding rigour. I can be the court astrolger of some Vatsya king from 800 BC, who decided to edit in the nakshatra genealogy of my monarch's ancestors as cut-paste to the Mahabharata story.


In that case, your cut-paste would not match the rest of the observations.

the researchers are picking dates that they think have some validity and then working off of those as the baseline, thus throwing away dates that don't conform to their baseline. Hence you have Mr Oak proposing 9000 BC for Mahabharata, Aryabhatta proposing 3000 BC and every tom,dick and harry has his own set.


Mr. Oak's proposal is 5565 BC for the MB.

but what determines which observations are original/not original ? Nothing, except faith/assumption.


This is where the "truthlikeness score" comes in, so it's not just faith/assumption.

We were not there to see the Mahabharata edited. We do not know what the core text, Jaya, was. We simply know there was a core text,which got expanded over time.
Ergo, we have no idea what Nakshatra is original, what is later addition.


That's why you use the truth score and the training/testing approach. If you do that, you will still have no idea which observation (which you insist on trivializing as "nakshatra") is original, and which is not. But you will have an idea of the internal consistency.

I can go by Aryabhatta's reading and throw out any reading that does not confirm to 3000 BC date. Or i can use BB Lal's genealogical dating and throw out any Nakshatra that doesn't align with Mahabharata = 800 BC story timeframe. Neither of these assumptions are superior to another, they are all the same unsubstantiated assumption.


You should not be "throwing out" any observation (again trivialized as "nakshatra" by you). You should be using the largest possible subset. If you throw out observations (feel free to trivialize as "nakshatra" again), then your dating is suspect. This was the basis for picking Vartak's/Oak's results over the others, because they did not "throw out" inconvenient observations, and by not throwing these out, they both arrived at the same date.

Vartak has also talked about Aryabhatta's date, and why that was a misinterpretation. So you aren't adding anything new here.

My last on this.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 28 Aug 2017 04:24

SriJoy wrote:By using largest possible subset and not the entire set, one is throwing out/trivializing the data that doesn't match. And yes, Nilesh as well as Vartak have not accounted for ALL stellar observations in the story. it has already been pointed out, by someone else, in this very thread, that Mr. Oak's dating of 5000 BC falls apart for Nakshatras stating Janamejaya's reign, which is generation 7 of storyline ( Shantanu-->Bhisma-->Pandu/Dhritarashtra-->Yudhishtir/Duryodhana--->Abimanyu-->Parikshit-->Janamejaya are the generations of the story).


You don't even have a point here. It's okay for a theory to not match ALL observations. You pick the theory which matches the maximum number of observations. If you want a theory that matches ALL observations, then relativity or quantum theory are not for you either. Yes, I did say that you should not throw out any data. You try to fit it all, and if you can't fit it all, you honestly admit it. This is what Nilesh did in his book - he has a list of observations which he was unable to account for. Feel free to gloat over them and say "but you didn't fit EVERYTHING, so you are wrong!"

If you can come up with a better theory which explains all the observations, go ahead. But that would mean that you go do some actual ground work, instead of yakking away endlessly on a forum.

Give me the Mahabharata, pick a date- you want Shantanu to've met Ganga on April 4th, 50434 BC ? fine, i will plug it in NASA's database and come up with All the Nakshatras required for such to be the case. then I will edit all the Nakshatras to match this. the only difference between me, a chap in 2017 doing it and a guy doing it in 200 BC, is I can do it over a weekend (yay computers!) and that guy 2200 years ago would require few years to compute all this.
there you go- perfectly consistent (i.e., precise) dating that is perfectly inaccurate.

Explain to me, why this obvious logical flaw to 'stellar phenomena dating' is not addressed by a single merchant of this nonsense, for a book that is self-admitted (no evil foreign conspiracy here!) to be edited multiple times.


So your basis for rejecting a theory is because of all the things which *could have* happened thousands of years ago? This is just idle speculation on your part. You work with the information you have. Endless speculation on - "but this could have happened!" is silly. If we find out that something of the sort did happen, then the theory can be rejected. But you want people to sit on their hands and not even attempt the dating, because - "you haven't considered that this falsification could have happened!"

Nilesh's theory is based on the assumption that no such falsification happened. If you reject that assumption to begin with, that's fine, but then the argument is not on the theory or how many observations are explained, it is in the fundamental assumption itself. If you can build a better theory on your assumption of falsified data, go for it.

And no, it's not just a question of time for a guy 2200 years ago. Astronomical observations are kind of periodic, but not that periodic. If you extrapolate planetary orbits back a few thousand (or even a few hundred) years, your extrapolation will be significantly off, because of gravitational perturbations. Periodicity is not exact in astronomy, which is basically a gravitational-N-body problem. You don't seem to know even that much.

Anyway, this is getting out of hand, and you obviously have tons of time to post reams of stuff here (though apparently no time to go do some actual reading), so - have a nice time posting away.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8601
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 28 Aug 2017 04:35

AoA!

I wonder if I could intrude into these deliberations to inject an Action Item:
WAVES 2018 conference Call 4 Abstracts: Deadline Sep. 1.
Conference of the World Association for Vedic Studies. 13th Biennial etc. Dallas TX August 3-6, 2018.
But abstracts are due Sep. 1.
The website of the organization is here: http://wavesinternational.net/
Conferences usually feature good food.

If some kind person would Pin this it would be much appreciated. I am 400% of the opinion that the organizers will relax the deadline slightly/ interpret it liberally in a good cause. I hear that this year they have hired some US-based goon to enforce Abstract & paper quality and generally be a pain.

At least one mullah from here is likely to present, but I think many more SHOULD. Allo shiv, rudradev, ramana (for starters)...

One aspect that I have never seen at these conferences is a paper on Mimamsa. Strange, being a Vedic conference and all, but I have seen none in the Proceedings all the way from 1996 to Dec. 2016.

A good explanation of the DNA scam would be good.

So would a summary of OIT.

But be warned that recently (Dartmouth Conf, Aug. 2017) a senior Mgt Prof/Admin. bibi from Dilli started her presentation with an emotional listing of how Macaulay recited in Parliament that 33% of NASA employees are yindoos (or something along those lines) and generally got slapped around something awful by solid 400% yindoo nationalists, and was told not to undermine "our" efforts by peddling such garbage. My 6th coujin thrice removed was sitting there, and dived under a chair, it was so horrible.

So expect pretty tough peer review, and an audience tough as a Batura.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 33 guests