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.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7186
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 15 Dec 2017 12:58

Dipanker wrote:Can you provide a link to the exact post where you gave the method for calculating Alcor/Mizar positions w.r.t time past or future? You did post the link to math. thread earlier but I could not locate the right post as the thread was interspersed with many unrelated problems/solutions. I would be curious to do the computation.

See this <link> and posts after that for some people's solutions. My comments and solution is at here .. (It is NOT specific to Alcol/Mizar/Mahabharata.. but a method how such problems can be done. As mentioned in that link, the math is not really that hard, if one just thinks logically... look at original thread in math dhaga. (of course, any good text book can help)

My assumption that axis of rotation, whether it passes through Vega, or Thuban, or Polaris, does not make any difference on the "front/back" relationship or which one culminates first, is based on on the fact that direction of revolution remains the same in all cases i.e. anti-clockwise. But agree with that the best way to show that would be math.!

Your assumption is wrong. (See A Gupta's very nice explanation). To add "revolution" is a vector and it changes if the direction changes. If you change direction (of axis of revolution) by 180 degree an anti-clockwise may become clockwise! (Even if the NS direction does not change that drastically math will show that it can make difference in "front/back" relationship depending on location of the stars. --( NOT necessary for *all* the pair of stars .Result depends on particular positions of the pair)

We seem to be repeating the same part again so I think it may help if you read my (and others) post again, and checkup some basic math. Hope this is helpful.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Dec 2017 14:42

dsreedhar wrote:
shiv wrote:What do you mean "darker Indians are linked to Africans" and brought "their" culture along? Are you suggesting that "fairer Indians" are not linked to Africans and did not bring "their" (African) culture? You seem to have some old European racist biases in your head. You are speaking the language of racist Indologists AND their current day descendants the Christian evangelists who seek to widen an artificial Aryan-Dravidian divide by creating new fake theories.


Shiv saar... I consider myself a SDRE from south on the side of debunking the Aryan theory.

The primary target is to prove that vedic culture, sanskrit originated from India. The African link if has any truth maybe a secondary target to explain any Dravidian sub-cultures. Maybe??? Just a thought, not to derail your track. It is the commies language to refer to darker Indians as local/natives.
I am eagerly waiting for the session on this topic in Chennai.



The bias that made me see red in your query was the suggestion that African link could explain Dravidian and by inference non Dravidian is non African. You mention "Dravidian sub culture" What the hell does that mean? There are huge problems with viewing Indians in this way. Let me explain

1. The population of India according to current data came from 2 migrations, both out of Africa. One was 65,000 years ago and went via the coast, peninsula, Andamans - Australia. The second came overland from north west 45,000 years ago. Both these populations are thoroughly mixed up in India so that there is virtually no genetic difference between Paki and South Indian language speaking Indian tribal. Yes there is some genetic difference in proportions of ancestral genes but all this is more than 12,500 years old. If you can postulate some culture older than 12,500 years that specifically came from Africa and link it genetically then it is a different issue. Otherwise the genes are the same. Culture and language are different and seem to have no connection with Africa or Europe that can be dated back for >12,500 years ago. Elements of Sanskrit related languages occur in Europe and South Indian related languages occur in western India, Pakistan and possibly in parts of Europe.

2. The idea that some proportion of Indian ancestry and culture can be shown to be "African" was first a racist theory where the slave descendants of Noah's son Ham - or Hamites formed the cooked up race "Dravidian" and were inferior to the cooked up race Aryan. This theory has inserted itself so deep into Indians that we seem to believe it instinctively. That delusion is being used by evangelists to tell Southern Indians esp in Tamil Nadu that they are a different "race" from North Indians and that they should follow Christ and get away from North Indian Aryan religion. There is no Aryan or Dravidian race.

3. Europeans used colour difference and language differences and the fact that south Indians were not Christians to dub them an inferior "Dravidian race". There is no such race. Remember that for Europeans, language meant nation. Different language, different nation. They later used that explanation to explain why North Indians are also dark complexioned - because they mixed with these blacks. Anyone who keeps his eyes open in India will realize that the vast majority of North Indians across a belt from Gujarat, to UP to Bihar, Bengal and further east are dark complexioned in general - maybe less so than deep south but hardly "white" and many like to imagine. Most Indians are less fair complexioned than the average North African or Chinese. Do dark complexioned Indian have a different culture of African origin? Do South Indians have a different culture of some ancient African origin? Not at all unless you are an evangelist trying to tell people that they are a different race who must Christianize.

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 16 Dec 2017 18:27

A_Gupta wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
My assumption is that as long as the direction of rotation remains same, the axis of rotation whether passing through Polaris or Thuban or Vega should not affect order in which Alcor/Mizar culminate. This should be provable by using math. and back calculating their positions.


That is a bad assumption, and we don't need much math to see it.

Imagine a pair of stars that are on the same meridian with today's north (celestial) pole, i.e., they are identical in their east-west positions, they are only differ in north-south (i.e., they differ in declination, but have the same right ascension, see diagram below). They reach the highest point in the sky, their zenith, at the same time.

Now move the north pole to anywhere else. Now the pair of stars are not on the same meridian, and one has to be east of the other.

Image

We have thus shown that keeping the same direction of rotation, the change of axis of rotation, i.e., north pole, can cause a pair of stars to change between rising at the same time and one rising earlier than the other. I.e., they do not have the same right ascension with respect to some other north pole.


Valid point, but here is what I am thinking, as long as the difference of the changed RA's does not change sign the culmination order will not change. I am trying to dig up the equations which computes RA and DEC of a star w.r.t time. I can then run a simulation for a period of 26,000 years ( just a few line FOR loop in any programming language ) and test for condition of change of sign of the difference in RA's, which will prove/disprove my hypothesis that precession of the rotational axis does not change the order (direction revolution around the axis being same).
As soon as I get hold of the equations, I will have the answer!

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

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

Postby Dipanker » 16 Dec 2017 20:58

Amber G. wrote:See this <link> and posts after that for some people's solutions. My comments and solution is at here .. (It is NOT specific to Alcol/Mizar/Mahabharata.. but a method how such problems can be done. As mentioned in that link, the math is not really that hard, if one just thinks logically... look at original thread in math dhaga. (of course, any good text book can help)


Thanks for links, but I am looking for the equations of following form so I can compute the RA's and DEC.

RA(t) = f(RA(t0), earth_rotation_factor, earth_revolution_factor, precession_of_rational_axis_factor,
star_real_motion, and_all_other_factor_I_am_probably_missing_here!)

DEC(t) = f(DEC(t0), earth_rotation_factor, earth_revolution_factor,precession_of_rational_axis_factor,
star_real_motion, and_all_other_factor_I_am__probably_missing_here!)

Your assumption is wrong. (See A Gupta's very nice explanation). To add "revolution" is a vector and it changes if the direction changes. If you change direction (of axis of revolution) by 180 degree an anti-clockwise may become clockwise! (Even if the NS direction does not change that drastically math will show that it can make difference in "front/back" relationship depending on location of the stars. --( NOT necessary for *all* the pair of stars .Result depends on particular positions of the pair)

We seem to be repeating the same part again so I think it may help if you read my (and others) post again, and checkup some basic math. Hope this is helpful.


My assumption is wrong or not can be proved/disproved once I have the the equations to compute the RA's and DEC w.r.t time and then I can run a simulation for a period of 26,000 years. I did think about the boundary conditions in the change of direction of rotational axis in my assumption/hypothesis.

Anyway as soon as I get hold of the equations, I will have the answer and I will post the results here!

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2499
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 16 Dec 2017 21:01

Dipanker wrote:My assumption is wrong or not can be proved/disproved once I have the the equations to compute the RA's and DEC w.r.t time and then I can run a simulation for a period of 26,000 years. I did think about the boundary conditions in the change of direction of rotational axis in my assumption/hypothesis.

Anyway as soon as I get hold of the equations, I will have the answer and I will post the results here! So far I am leaning towards my hypothesis being right.


It's commendable that you want to check this yourself (and I'm not being sarcastic here). But just to make you aware - all of us who went through this verification (myself included - you might not see my solution in the math dhaga, but Amber G posted the problem in multiple threads, and I posted my solution in one of them - I don't remember which thread that was) - well, we're all reinventing the wheel. The Voyager software that Nilesh used for his work clearly showed the phenomenon of A "walking ahead" of V for the above time period, and this accounts for the proper motion part of the problem as well. That the software shows the phenomenon, is also a point of validation. This is not to say that you shouldn't check it out yourself, but if you see something different from what the software shows, and from what so many of us on BRF showed about two or three years ago, then it could also be in your math. So if you see something different, please post your math here, and we'll work to figure out the source of the difference.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 16 Dec 2017 22:41

In other words "Why is Modi silent?". Until he says something Nilesh Oak is wrong

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 16 Dec 2017 23:16

Off-topic:
Guys, can you tell me more about slavery in West during earlier period.

Islam is more about conversions and Harems than into slavery(?). I don't know how much Persians and Greeks practiced slavery. Romans I don't know but European have rich history of slavery. I really want to know more about this.

Seperate question,

how come Indian kings did business with these guys when they have questionable moral standards?

East roman empire did trade with India using sea routes. Indian kings had even ambassadors to these empires. How come they were not aware of Islam and other things when all it happened before their own eyes? Surely communication was not that bad considering they were doing trade for centuries.

So many things are not adding up. Especially the role of slavery.

If you guys already discussed this topic, please share the link to old discussions.
Last edited by syam on 17 Dec 2017 00:20, edited 5 times in total.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 16 Dec 2017 23:33

syam wrote:Islam is more about conversions and Harems than into slavery. I don't know how much Persians and Greeks practiced slavery. Romans I don't know but European have rich history of slavery.


Wrong assumption on bolded parts. Islam is all about slavery.

When your premise is based on wrong assumptions, in corollary your questions and your presumptions itself are wrong.

And what is this w/ moralizing holier-than-thou mentality?

My question is, how come Indian kings did business with these guys when they have questionable moral standards?

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 16 Dec 2017 23:44

disha wrote:
Wrong assumption on bolded parts. Islam is all about slavery.

When your premise is based on wrong assumptions, in corollary your questions and your presumptions itself are wrong.

I didn't give them any certificate there. I am speaking in relative terms. Not in indian context. Seriously, Christianity and slavery existed side by side. I am just curious about the situation. Don't go full red on me. I am only asking what you guys think about it.

Some movies show big scale slavery. Then this spirituality. Christ and other saviors. Don't you think it is not exactly making sense.
And what is this w/ moralizing holier-than-thou mentality?

My question is, how come Indian kings did business with these guys when they have questionable moral standards?

Well Indians are morally sound. You can't become spiritually strong unless you have solid character. Nothing wrong with my statement.

P.s. edited original post. Don't know this subject is taboo here.
.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2499
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 17 Dec 2017 00:05

syam wrote:Off-topic:
Guys, can you tell me more about slavery in West during earlier period.

Islam is more about conversions and Harems than into slavery(?). I don't know how much Persians and Greeks practiced slavery. Romans I don't know but European have rich history of slavery.


how come Indian kings did business with these guys when they have questionable moral standards?

East roman empire did trade with India using sea routes. Indian kings had even ambassadors to these empires. How come they were not aware of Islam and other things when all it happened before their own eyes? Surely communication was not that bad considering they were doing trade for centuries.

So many things are not adding up. Especially the role of slavery.

If you guys already discussed this topic, please share the link to old discussions.


Where are you headed with all this? Is this somehow related to Out of India, or is it entirely off-topic like you marked in your post?

Greeks and Romans both were very much into slavery. "Romans I don't know - " are you kidding? Romans enslaved every single race whom they conquered in war, including the Greeks :-? . Arabs looked down their nose at all dark-skinned races, and were very much involved with slave-running from Africa. It even shows up in one episode of the "Tintin" comics (don't remember which).

But seriously, what's your point? Indian kings should have known about this "morally bad" practice of Hellenes or Muslims and not traded with the Arabs or Romans? Would you also want India to break off all trade with any "morally questionable" nation today, such as China or the USA or Russia, and sit in grand isolation? How about Iran or Saudi Arabia? No oil or natural gas from them either?

And then you say "don't know this subject is taboo here." It's not taboo, it's pointless and silly, at least until you fully explain where you're going with it.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 17 Dec 2017 00:10

sudarshan wrote:And then you say "don't know this subject is taboo here." It's not taboo, it's pointless and silly, at least until you fully explain where you're going with it.

I want to know how much impact India had on them through out the time. What they were and such. I am trying to organise my own theories and thoughts based on that.

Let's say, one big Buddhist empire existed in Greece before 1000BC, how will that translate into later history?

I mixed two questions. Sorry for that. Now formatted.

We have two types of slaves.
One is war spoils. These are fiercely loyal to the defeated king and winner doesn't know what to do with them. So the labour camps and forced servitude.

Another is pillage of nearby villages and taking people there quite forcefully. These are not unwilling enemy state citizens. These are innocents. I find this type of slavery in European history.

I am trying to find which category earlier Greek and other kingdoms come under.

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

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

Postby peter » 17 Dec 2017 02:43

syam wrote:
peter wrote:You have to do more research but I had mentioned that the name is used for land also.

Though if you study Indian communities they have names such as Saraswat Brahmin, or Goud Saraswat Brahmin.

The word Saraswat in these names stands for a memory that they migrated from a region where saraswati flowed.

So a river can give name to a region.

You are wrong. There is no mention of any river with a name like Harahvaiti. Please show me where it is mentioned as river. Harah is actually mountain.

Iranians acquired a sound change where Indic "S" turned into an "H".
So the Harahvaiti of their language needs two substitutions for both H letters.

(H->S)ara(h->S)vaiti => Sarasvaiti.

Personally to me this word appears identical to the Indian Sarasvati.
This equation (Saravati == Harahvaiti) is accepted by many scholars including Indian.

We should also not forget that Zoroastrians who came to India did not come in the best of circumstances. Most of their written records were lost/burnt. So the old adage absence of evidence is *not* the evidence of absence.

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

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

Postby peter » 17 Dec 2017 02:45

syam wrote:
peter wrote:These two words are almost identical: Sarasvati and Harahvaiti. They can't represent two different things.

They represent different things. Repeating same thing again and again can't make it true.

If you want to respond to me by one liner again, forget about the discussion. I don't have time for staying on same topic forever. Please provide your sources for your claims. I don't think it takes that much time to reproduce the material you had read before.

World is full of mysterious. People don't have time to entertain your beliefs. I know you place so much faith in your preferred historians. At least be open to what other people trying to say. It's all academic.

There are many academics from all over the world who accept the equation Sarasvati == Harahavaiti.

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

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

Postby peter » 17 Dec 2017 02:48

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:These two words are almost identical: Sarasvati and Harahvaiti. They can't represent two different things.

Sir please don't keep posting utter bullshit. Even a 5th standard student will tell you that Sarasvati and Harahvaiti are different. Are you insane or do you think we are stupid?

As I posted earlier Sanskrit S is Iranian H. So do the required substitution for H in Harahvaiti and see what you get. As far as naming a region from the river name that is quite Indian also as Saraswats ( a big group of Brahmins) are from the land of Saraswati.
And can you please keep the adhominems out?

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

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

Postby peter » 17 Dec 2017 02:54

Dipanker wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:
That is a bad assumption, and we don't need much math to see it.

Imagine a pair of stars that are on the same meridian with today's north (celestial) pole, i.e., they are identical in their east-west positions, they are only differ in north-south (i.e., they differ in declination, but have the same right ascension, see diagram below). They reach the highest point in the sky, their zenith, at the same time.

Now move the north pole to anywhere else. Now the pair of stars are not on the same meridian, and one has to be east of the other.

Image

We have thus shown that keeping the same direction of rotation, the change of axis of rotation, i.e., north pole, can cause a pair of stars to change between rising at the same time and one rising earlier than the other. I.e., they do not have the same right ascension with respect to some other north pole.


Valid point, but here is what I am thinking, as long as the difference of the changed RA's does not change sign the culmination order will not change. I am trying to dig up the equations which computes RA and DEC of a star w.r.t time. I can then run a simulation for a period of 26,000 years ( just a few line FOR loop in any programming language ) and test for condition of change of sign of the difference in RA's, which will prove/disprove my hypothesis that precession of the rotational axis does not change the order (direction revolution around the axis being same).
As soon as I get hold of the equations, I will have the answer!

The bigger issue is that in Nilesh's system the entire pre war and during war chronology does not match. I have posted the list before.
For argument's sake even if you accept his premise on arundhati it is hard to accept his date because none of items in the list match for his date. The entire sequence has to match.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 17 Dec 2017 04:36

syam wrote:
I didn't give them any certificate there. I am speaking in relative terms. Not in indian context. Seriously, Christianity and slavery existed side by side. I am just curious about the situation. Don't go full red on me. I am only asking what you guys think about it.
.

Maybe you have not heard of the slave dynasty. Or maybe you did not hear about the Delhi Sultanate of which there is debate "was it a slave society or society with slaves?" (eg. http://www.academia.edu/3198988/The_Delhi_Sultanate_A_Slave_Society_or_A_Society_with_Slaves) or you do not want to know anything about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade which is still practiced in 21st century. Just look at this http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7007%26eng%3Dy.html

Or maybe you do live in timbuktu that the latest news http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/23/africa/libya-reaction-slave-trade/index.html has not reached you there.

Well Indians are morally sound. You can't become spiritually strong unless you have solid character. Nothing wrong with my statement.


I want you to be morally strong, so that some solid character is built up. Please do some google or bing search on "slaves in islam" or "slaves in middle-east" etc.

Till then please do not worry about the awareness of the Indic Kings or Queeens. They did not have a google back then.

And no, it is not about taboo topics, but it is about your intention. Making holier than thou statements like "morally sound ... spiritually strong ... solid character" while asking questions does indicate that you have already formed a preconceived notion and are looking at a debate where those preconceived notions are given basis.

PS: Please do not assume that 1000 years back or 3000 years back they had google or news papers with foreign correspondents or embassies who would give daily dispatches in encrypted format back to to the home ministry of external affairs!
Last edited by disha on 17 Dec 2017 05:01, edited 1 time in total.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 17 Dec 2017 04:53

peter wrote:As I posted earlier Sanskrit S is Iranian H. So do the required substitution for H in Harahvaiti and see what you get. As far as naming a region from the river name that is quite Indian also as Saraswats ( a big group of Brahmins) are from the land of Saraswati.
And can you please keep the adhominems out?


Somebody who ends up drinking a hot tea or very hot toddy will also substitute "Sanskrit S with Iranian H". Please try that.

First of all, the sounds represented by symbols "S" and "H" are neither "Sanskrit S" and "Iranian H". And to claim that just because a river is named Harahvaiti somewhere which is cognate of Sarasvaiti somewhere else meant a population shift occurred from harahvaiti area to saraswati area is proto-proto-IE "e-o~bolokocs" (or "bollocks" in IE language).

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

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

Postby krisna » 17 Dec 2017 05:02

syam wrote:Off-topic:
Guys, can you tell me more about slavery in West during earlier period.

Islam is more about conversions and Harems than into slavery(?). I don't know how much Persians and Greeks practiced slavery. Romans I don't know but European have rich history of slavery. I really want to know more about this.

Seperate question,

how come Indian kings did business with these guys when they have questionable moral standards?

East roman empire did trade with India using sea routes. Indian kings had even ambassadors to these empires. How come they were not aware of Islam and other things when all it happened before their own eyes? Surely communication was not that bad considering they were doing trade for centuries.

So many things are not adding up. Especially the role of slavery.

If you guys already discussed this topic, please share the link to old discussions.


Off topic--
will attempt to say a few on the above.

probably first recorded instance of racism is the book of genesis-- about curse-noah sons- ham shem jhapeth.
ham- give rise to hamites now called as caucasians
shem give rise to semtism- jews-- anti jew is antismetism
rest are jhapeth- blacks brown etc- forever to be seen as slaves till 18th century.

This took a big turn under christianity with popes and saints and many bishops etc doing the same.
Thomas aquilla and Saville bishop and many others made it big in their works. This took a decisive turn when pope later issued a papacy regarding Christian doctrine - exploring new lands to propagate Christianity -- all heatrhens/non christians fit to be slaves, will go to hell- can be punished- women children conversions rapes etc. This led to giving rights first to spain and portugal in late 1400s to colonise and slave people (non Christians unless converted- even then are inferior to whites).

fast forward to today-- recall the effects of colonisation and slavery al over the world. Germany was excluded initially because their king defied the church. he was stripped of the throne. he was forced to abdicate the rule, made to become a common slave etc.
The Christian world went into spasm of violence with millions killed- protestants born which divided into many more. British came into fore- used pirates to destroy others ( recall pakis using non state actors).England become powerful- captured upto 90% of then world in its heyday. (hence the term sun never sets on british empire.)

-----------------------------------
Islam was found around 7th century - lot of stuff incorporated from christinaity with diffreneces. slavery was also included with changes. All non believers can be made into slaves if submitted to their god. women and children are property etc. rapes molestation etc are common. No believer should be celibate as commanded by its founder. hence virtually no believer is celibate(unique related to other religions).

------------------------------------------------------
slavery common is both the Abrahamic religions as mentioned in their scriptures. But today it is not so as people have improved in their outlook but keeps raising its ugly head every often. The more one becomes fundamentalist -- more narrow their outlook- hence take ISIS and slavery. some christ fundoos etc. They literally follow the scriptures making it ugly.
famous example is Hilter- followed protestant form- made jews enemies. he was not an atheist as mentioned. pope supported him. had church influence.

-----------------------------------------------
wrt India-- slavery has been a part of India's landscape since centuries.

During ancient greeks romans- some women were exported to India as they were unable to pay the money for the goods exported by India. their gold and other items were in short supply. This was like barter trade. Not raped or molested due to being different religion etc. ( per talk by Sanjeev Sanyal)


with the advent of Islamic invasions- women and children rapes molestation reached high levels. This was basically due to religion. concept of no celibacy, can marry any number etc with no sins attached to killing raping non believers made them do it. basically the scriptures made them do it. Also land around turkey was known for this brutality even before islam was founded. probably tribal identity incorporated into islam.
Romas likely slave Hindus taken to west from India ended in Europe thru middle east.

--------------------------------------------
British also did its part in slavery in India-- waves of Indians transported to various parts of british empire. called as coolies. Now Indians are in over 135+ countries of the world- basically british held territories-- their ancestors were transported as slaves. Now thriving--- Unique among all slaves that they have built their lives and are thriving well despite decades of subjugation and slavery and conversion attempts. curious is they don't caste as prominent as it is in India which is very important to understand India story of caste. worsened due to JLN agreeing to follow british caste census etc.

Recall the names of Indians descent from overseas-- different spellings compared Indian counterparts. Also some differences with Hindu festival celebrations.

--------------------------------------------------
India did not have slavery related to religion or skin colour per se. There were other forms like manual labourer- not paying money- unscrupulous money lenders- corrupt folks etc. Nothing related to religion or in scriptures.
------------------------------------
India only country in the world to accept refuges from Christianity, islamics, jews and blacks from Africa without raping their women or children or forcing conversions etc.

India only country to allow blacks to rule some parts of land as chieftans/palegars etc in South India. No here in the world is this present. Blacks freely intermigled with loclas and also married and produced children.Sadly this part of story never known to many Indians themselves.


IMO-- feels to disagree and or add to my post.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

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

Postby krisna » 17 Dec 2017 05:18

syam wrote:Off-topic:
<snip>.

Seperate question,

how come Indian kings did business with these guys when they have questionable moral standards?

East roman empire did trade with India using sea routes. Indian kings had even ambassadors to these empires. How come they were not aware of Islam and other things when all it happened before their own eyes? Surely communication was not that bad considering they were doing trade for centuries.

So many things are not adding up. Especially the role of slavery.

If you guys already discussed this topic, please share the link to old discussions.


Good question-- tough to answer them.
Hindusim or whatever you call don't have strict dogmas as a community to come together. Allows difference of opinions and versions to do what you want. No strict religious dogma if any is present.
No principle of exclusivity as seen in Abrahamic religions- like Others have to killed or converted.

Hence indifferent to abrahmics and have paid the penalty by losing population and lands continuously over centuries.

we still don't answer to these exclusivity inherent in abrahmics.

Forget about past centures old-- recall the recent events in India-- how many have protested , faced law and order with technology available-- ex- Kashmir Hindus forced out of their homes. Bengal Kerala
and many other places. What have Hindus for their own. Zilch except writing posts as I am doing, or articles etc etc.
If same for abrahamics there is world wide grouping in various forms for abrahamics.

Apply this to centuries old problems to Hindu kings.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Hindus are the only pre Christian religion to survive this onslaught so far with contiually losing lands and population. Still it is fighting as individual self not as a large body of members as in Abrahamics world wide.
Question is how far will Hindus survive into future(few more centuries at the most) or some mutation will occur in abrahamics making it lose.

-------------------------------------------
Just a sample of the totalitarian religions of abrahamics-- see this video on interfaith marriageswhich I have posted in internal security dhaaga.

Look at what can Hindus do in this simple aspect. The same has occurred for centuries what have Hindus done as defence. Only Rana Pratap forbade his fellow beings not to send their daughters to Akbar harem. But no religious sanctions or poison pills etc etc.


The fault lies in the structure of Hindu as a religion vs abrahamics which have their ground well covered in form of scriptures.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Dec 2017 07:02

disha wrote: And to claim that just because a river is named Harahvaiti somewhere which is cognate of Sarasvaiti somewhere else meant a population shift occurred from harahvaiti area to saraswati area is proto-proto-IE "e-o~bolokocs" (or "bollocks" in IE language).


As far as I know, the only evidence is that there only a region called Harahvaiti, it is surmised that the region was named after a river.
It is like saying there is a region called Saraswati in India.

dsreedhar
BRFite
Posts: 278
Joined: 10 Jan 2011 06:57

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

Postby dsreedhar » 17 Dec 2017 08:49

I was looking into Yazidis couple of days back. A youtube video of their holy shrine at Lalish showed an interesting painting on wall. It seems a typical south Indian lady in Saree lighting a lamp. The painting (colors) does not seem a 1000+ yr old. Curious if this is true and whats the history (who, when) behind the painting. There were some videos showing connection to Tamil.
At 1:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb7LMAiOHXM

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 17 Dec 2017 09:16

peter wrote:
shiv wrote:Sir please don't keep posting utter bullshit. Even a 5th standard student will tell you that Sarasvati and Harahvaiti are different. Are you insane or do you think we are stupid?

As I posted earlier Sanskrit S is Iranian H. So do the required substitution for H in Harahvaiti and see what you get. As far as naming a region from the river name that is quite Indian also as Saraswats ( a big group of Brahmins) are from the land of Saraswati.
And can you please keep the adhominems out?

Lets face facts. No sane person will confuse "Saraswati" and "Haraxvaiti" so stop repeating utter nonsense. Nothing ad hominem here. You are simply repeating ad nauseam the same bit of nonsense.

If you change the spelling and pronunciation of a word it is not the "same word". It is completely unreasonable to demand that I accept such a brainless proposition as something sensible or intelligent. Please stop playing victim. When you change a word you get a new word. And with the new word you can create a new meaning. You are basically playing what I can only call a mischievous game in front of educated adults who know that you are repeatedly trying to push the ridiculous point that "Saraswati" and "Haraxwati" are the same word. They are not. I demand that you stop playing this game.

Let me be perfectly frank with you. The letters "ti" in hundreds of words like "naTIon", "cauTIon" etc are pronounced as "sh". If you then change my name from shiv to "tiiv" and say it is the same I will definitely ask you to go stick your head in a place where the sun don't shine. This sort of nonsense is OK for juvenile games - and juvenile games being played on here is trolling. You are trolling this thread by repeatedly insisting that Saraswati and Haraxvaiti are the same. Please stop this insufferable idiocy.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 17 Dec 2017 09:21

syam wrote:
Let's say, one big Buddhist empire existed in Greece before 1000BC, how will that translate into later history?

There is an entire book devoted to this. Please read and see what information you get. It is called "India in Greece'.
https://archive.org/details/indiaingreeceort00poco

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 17 Dec 2017 09:38

peter wrote:Personally to me this word appears identical to the Indian Sarasvati.
This equation (Saravati == Harahvaiti) is accepted by many scholars including Indian.

We should also not forget that Zoroastrians who came to India did not come in the best of circumstances. Most of their written records were lost/burnt. So the old adage absence of evidence is *not* the evidence of absence.

The only evidence of old Zoroastrian texts comes from
1. What Parsi priests remember - and was recorded by Anquetil Du Perron
2. A translation of the gathas from "middle Persian" to Sanskrit by an Indian scholar Neryosangh
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital ... 07_001.pdf

However the gatha and the atharva veda are from the same source. But all the "gods" in the gathas are mentioned in the veda but not vice versa. The gathas mention the vedas,but not vice versa. The vedas are older then the gathas and not contemporary despite the linguistic fudging that has gone on

I have already posted quotes from Darmeister and Boyce about this. These are things that linguists ignore just to push their ridiculous sound change and language spread theories, as is being done on here again.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 17 Dec 2017 10:27

There is actually a simple way to resolve this. Is there anything in Zorastrian or Judaism or Xtianity or, ****m or Buddhism to compare with the sheer depth and simplicity of
Ekam Sat

or
Tat tvam asi

Note that I do know quite well the basic prayers of Islam and Xtianity and Buddhism, maybe not Zoroastrianism or Judaism or Jainism. There's a difference between saying Tat tvam Asi and appropriating it to Oneself exclusively.
The above settles once and for all, which came first and is more basic and refined. Even tvivji cannot argue with this. I am unanimous on that.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 17 Dec 2017 11:19

disha wrote:Maybe you have not heard of the slave dynasty. Or maybe you did not hear about the Delhi Sultanate of which there is debate "was it a slave society or society with slaves?" (eg. http://www.academia.edu/3198988/The_Delhi_Sultanate_A_Slave_Society_or_A_Society_with_Slaves) or you do not want to know anything about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade which is still practiced in 21st century. Just look at this http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7007%26eng%3Dy.html

Or maybe you do live in timbuktu that the latest news http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/23/africa/libya-reaction-slave-trade/index.html has not reached you there.

Thanks for the links. I am not blind to slavery in Islam. I am trying to find the link between slavery in Arabia and Europe. Where it started and how it changed over the years. I am not saying Islam has no slavery. It's more like trying to assess the behaviour of Ancient West w.r.t different parts of same world.
I want you to be morally strong, so that some solid character is built up. Please do some google or bing search on "slaves in islam" or "slaves in middle-east" etc.
PS: Please do not assume that 1000 years back or 3000 years back they had google or news papers with foreign correspondents or embassies who would give daily dispatches in encrypted format back to to the home ministry of external affairs!

You are not giving Indians any credit. They had big empires before any of the so called civilisations were our of crib. I have this holier than thou attitude because I am holier than any middle east or European dude. That's fact. You are under misconception that west and Indian are equal in every aspect. After going through every source, it's becoming more clear. Indians are unique in academic sense.

Ok. . All our discussion is lost somewhere in this transition. I am under impression that we are studying alternative history, not the mainstream one.
Here is something I found on internet,
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/archaeology/1.713849

It's not exactly clear what happened in west. If our history was distorted, what about other histories? I am not saying Middle-East is innocent of slavery. I am trying to compare the slavery in different parts of the same world.
Last edited by syam on 17 Dec 2017 11:41, edited 1 time in total.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 17 Dec 2017 11:35

krisna wrote:~~

IMO-- feels to disagree and or add to my post.

Thanks for replying with such long post. We frame the whole transition based on what we read from mainstream history sources. I am not saying slavery is not there in Islam or some other Western lifestyle. I noticed two types slavery here. I explained it in my previous post. I am trying to trace each type of slavery here. The second type of slavery is more like bandit style. They come and loot, take everything from that place. Most of European history is full of this. IMHO Islam is product of earlier Byzantine Empire(or Roman), not related to earlier Egypt and Persian. They might have learned bandit style slavery from Europe through Romans. Again I am not trying to prove Arabs are innocent. So many threads mixed up.

I shouldn't have involved Indian part when I framed my question. Guess I need to be clear when I post something. I got emotional after reading some trade reports from ancient times. I don't want to derail this anymore. I will post more about slavery in Greece and such later.

Your second post is good. I want to reply to that but we might go off-topic. Maybe another place and another time.
Last edited by syam on 17 Dec 2017 12:12, edited 2 times in total.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 17 Dec 2017 11:39

shiv wrote:There is an entire book devoted to this. Please read and see what information you get. It is called "India in Greece'.
https://archive.org/details/indiaingreeceort00poco

Thanks for the link, shivji. I am trying to find the life style in Greece before all things gone drain.
Please check this one,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manika,_Greece

Some creepily sanskrit name.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 17 Dec 2017 11:58

peter wrote:Personally to me this word appears identical to the Indian Sarasvati.
This equation (Saravati == Harahvaiti) is accepted by many scholars including Indian.

That's the problem with our discussion. It may appear similar but meaning is entirely different. You are still not producing any credible sources here. Forget about it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 17 Dec 2017 15:09

syam wrote:
shiv wrote:There is an entire book devoted to this. Please read and see what information you get. It is called "India in Greece'.
https://archive.org/details/indiaingreeceort00poco

Thanks for the link, shivji. I am trying to find the life style in Greece before all things gone drain.
Please check this one,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manika,_Greece

Some creepily sanskrit name.

Try and get a brief overview of Greek philosophy and philosophers and you will find that many have expressed worldviews similar to Vedanta. But I think Greek exposure to Vedanta is very "recent" -that is in the 1000 bc to 500 bc era. That is too recent. Vedas date back several milleniums bc and Vedanta was probably pretty much done before 1000 bc

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 17 Dec 2017 19:10

It is only because European linguists wanted a European origin for Sanskrit or rather a mother language that they invented languages like "Iranian" - which they gave the fake name "Avestan".

There is no language called "Avestan". Avestan is a completely "reconstructed" language done by linguists to suit their convenience, from bits and pieces of Gathas and from Sanskrit. This fake language was necessary to make it into a "sister language" of Sanskrit while Aryans were coming from Europe towards India. they bumped into Iran and some stayed there. This is bullshit of the highest order. The Gathas take their origin from the Vedas. As such the language is a "daughter language" of Sanskrit just like Hindi, bengali and Gujarati are all daughter languages of Sanskrit. The "Iranian language" spread west from north west India into what later became Iran. The Zoroastrians created a nation that their history refers to an Ariyana Vaeja. The Eastern extent of that nation was "Hapta Hindu".

The funny fact is that this sound change of Sa to Ha is there in Western Gujarat to this day. And it extended via Iran all the way to Greece. That is why in Greek Sapta (seven) is "hepta". Sarpa (snake) is "Herpes"/herpetologist. But I digress. There was no Iran, hence no Iranian language. It was the language of the Zoroastrians that became "old Persian". Old Persian can be seen in the Behistun inscription and sounds like corrupted Sanskrit. "Creepily like Sanskrit". Most of us will recognize similar words

Modern Persian itself is a descendant of old Persian plus Arabic.

The Greek Plutarch wrote this about the Zoroastrians and mentions Ahura Mazda, Angra Mainyu (Angirasa - the rishi who was the "opponent") and Soma
“The great majority and the wisest of men hold this opinion: they believe that there are two gods, rivals as it were, the one the Artificer of good and the other of evil. There are also those who call the better one a god and the other a daemon, eas, for example, Zoroaster the sage, who, they record, lived five thousand years before the time of the Trojan War. He called the one Oromazes and the other Areimanius and he further declared that among all the things perceptible to the senses, Oromazes may best be compared to light, and Areimanius, conversely, to darkness and ignorance, and midway between the two is Mithras: for this reason the Persians give to Mithras the name of "Mediator." Zoroaster has also taught that men should make votive offerings and thank-offerings to Oromazes, and averting and mourning offerings to Areimanius. They pound up in a mortar a certain plant called omomi at the same time invoking Hades and Darkness...”

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

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

Postby peter » 17 Dec 2017 19:14

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:As I posted earlier Sanskrit S is Iranian H. So do the required substitution for H in Harahvaiti and see what you get. As far as naming a region from the river name that is quite Indian also as Saraswats ( a big group of Brahmins) are from the land of Saraswati.
And can you please keep the adhominems out?

Lets face facts. No sane person will confuse "Saraswati" and "Haraxvaiti" so stop repeating utter nonsense. Nothing ad hominem here. You are simply repeating ad nauseam the same bit of nonsense.

If you change the spelling and pronunciation of a word it is not the "same word". It is completely unreasonable to demand that I accept such a brainless proposition as something sensible or intelligent. Please stop playing victim. When you change a word you get a new word. And with the new word you can create a new meaning. You are basically playing what I can only call a mischievous game in front of educated adults who know that you are repeatedly trying to push the ridiculous point that "Saraswati" and "Haraxwati" are the same word. They are not. I demand that you stop playing this game.

Let me be perfectly frank with you. The letters "ti" in hundreds of words like "naTIon", "cauTIon" etc are pronounced as "sh". If you then change my name from shiv to "tiiv" and say it is the same I will definitely ask you to go stick your head in a place where the sun don't shine. This sort of nonsense is OK for juvenile games - and juvenile games being played on here is trolling. You are trolling this thread by repeatedly insisting that Saraswati and Haraxvaiti are the same. Please stop this insufferable idiocy.

Since you have quoted Boyce earlier, this is from her book:
"It is fed unfailingly by the mythical river *Harahvaiti, which is as large as all the other streams together which flow upon the earth.45 This huge river pours down from the Peak of Hara into Vourukasa. "All the edges in the sea Vourukasa are troubled, all the centre is disturbed, when Aradvi Sura Anahita flows forth upon them, when she pours forth upon them" (Yt. 5.4). From the sea there flow out two great rivers, which form the eastern and western boundary ...." From : A History of Zoroastrianism the early period.

She is not the only scholar who has discussed the equation of Harahvaiti and Sarasvati. Many dozens scholars have done so.

And please stop using words like idiocy , non sense etc. These reduce the quality of discussions. If you use them again I will have to report them.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 17 Dec 2017 19:15

UlanBatori wrote:There is actually a simple way to resolve this. Is there anything in Zorastrian or Judaism or Xtianity or, ****m or Buddhism to compare with the sheer depth and simplicity of
Ekam Sat

or
Tat tvam asi

Note that I do know quite well the basic prayers of Islam and Xtianity and Buddhism, maybe not Zoroastrianism or Judaism or Jainism. There's a difference between saying Tat tvam Asi and appropriating it to Oneself exclusively.
The above settles once and for all, which came first and is more basic and refined. Even tvivji cannot argue with this. I am unanimous on that.


The Iranian name for Allah is Khuda which is a derivative of "khud" - "self" as in aham Brahmasmi. But then again Iranians continued to resent the Arab invasions and resisted in so many ways.

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

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

Postby peter » 17 Dec 2017 19:17

syam wrote:
peter wrote:Personally to me this word appears identical to the Indian Sarasvati.
This equation (Saravati == Harahvaiti) is accepted by many scholars including Indian.

That's the problem with our discussion. It may appear similar but meaning is entirely different. You are still not producing any credible sources here. Forget about it.


See the post above . I am surprised you are not able to find sources that discuss the equation Sarasvati and Harahvaiti.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 17 Dec 2017 19:24

peter wrote:Since you have quoted Boyce earlier, this is from her book:
"It is fed unfailingly by the mythical river *Harahvaiti, which is as large as all the other streams together which flow upon the earth.45 This huge river pours down from the Peak of Hara into Vourukasa. "All the edges in the sea Vourukasa are troubled, all the centre is disturbed, when Aradvi Sura Anahita flows forth upon them, when she pours forth upon them" (Yt. 5.4). From the sea there flow out two great rivers, which form the eastern and western boundary ...." From : A History of Zoroastrianism the early period.

She is not the only scholar who has discussed the equation of Harahvaiti and Sarasvati. Many dozens scholars have done so.

Mythical river. Comprendez?

Mythical river. Different name. Different place . Not to be confused with Saraswati which dried up in the Rajasthan and Paki Punjab desert forming the western boundary of Aryavarta with Himalayas in the North and Vindhyas in the South, and Prayag to the east.

Similar name does not mean same river. Mekong is Ma Ganga - not our Ganga. Do not confuse and claim that Ganga's son originated in Vietnam and used to speak Munda language.

Anyone who claims that Haraxvaiti and Saraswati "almost identical" is bluffing. Here is what YOU wrote. Please tell me why this should not be termed nonsense. It makes no sense to me. Do you want me to bluff, tell lies and agree with this outrageous statement?
peter wrote:These two words are almost identical: Sarasvati and Harahvaiti. They can't represent two different things.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Dec 2017 20:25

This article may be of interest:
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/ ... w=embedded

The name of Croatia derives from Medieval Latin Croātia, itself a derivation of the native ethnonym, earlier Xъrvat(in)ъ and modern-day Croatian: Hrvat. The first attestation of the term is in the charter of duke Trpimir from 852 AD, whose original has been lost but a copy has been preserved from 1568 (Lujo Margetić has proposed in 2002 that the document is in fact of legislative character, dating to AD 840


The exact origin and meaning of the ethnonym Hrvat (Proto-Slavic *Xъrvat(in)ъ[3]) is not known and varied over history.

The word is not of native Slavic lexical stock, but a borrowing. One of the popular theories in the 20th century is that of the Iranian origin, connection being an Old Iranian toponym Harahvait-, the native name of Arachosia,[3] it passed from an Iranian to a Slavic linguistic and cultural sphere. "Arachosia" is the Latinized form of Ancient Greek Ἀραχωσία - Arachosíā. In Old Persian inscriptions, the region is referred to as Harahuvatiš (harauvatiiša.[4] The derivation of Proto-Slavic *xъrvatъ /xŭrva:tŭ/ from the Old Persian /xaraxwat-/ is argued to be substantiated by a 3rd-century Scythian form /Χοροάθ-/ attested in the Tanais Tablets, an inscription from Tanais.


Lot of words like Harahvaiti - could even mean pasturage. Harahvaiti could have been a goats and sheep district in Afghanistan, nothing to do with the Saraswati. See below:

The 20th century gave rise to many new, more or less convincing interpretations of the origin of the name of the Croats. A. I. Sobolevski derived it from the Iranian words hu- (good), ravah- (space, freedom) and sufiks -at-. G. A. Ilyinsky derived it from kher- (cut), as seen in the Greek word kárkharos (sharp), kharah (tough, sharp), and xorbrъ (brave). H. Hirt saw a connection with the name of a Germanic tribe Harudes (Χαροῦδες). A. Bruckner linked it with Slovak charbati se (to oppose), while skъrv-/xъrv- linked with Lithuanian šárvas (armor). K. Oštir considered valid the connection with an unspecified Thraco-Illyrian word xъrvata- (hill). M. Vasmer first considered it as a loanword from Old-Iranian haurvatā (shepherd) (Avestan haurvaiti means pasturage), then later from Old-Iranian hu-urvatha- (friend) (accepted also by N. Zupanič). M. Budimir saw in the name Indo-European *skwos (gray, grayish), which in Lithuanian gave širvas. S. Sakač linked it with the Avestan name Harahvaiti, which once signified the southwestern part of modern Afghanistan. V. Miller saw in the Croatian name the Iranian hvar- (Sun) and va- (bed), while P. Tedesco had a similar interpretation from Iranian huravant (Sunny).

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 17 Dec 2017 21:10

peter wrote:See the post above . I am surprised you are not able to find sources that discuss the equation Sarasvati and Harahvaiti.

I checked your source. If you had observed it little bit closer, you would have seen (*) symbol before that word.

The author tells us something in starting note.
In passages translated from Avestan or Pahlavi an asterisk before a word indicates uncertainty
about either its reading or its rendering. With single words an asterisk simply
marks a postulated form.

A postulated form?? That's the word I have to believe now? Dude, please check your sources. You are just repeating same thing. These guys follow similar method what our pidi journalists follow here.

Write something fake. And use it as reference for other works. And create a chain of works by mixing something true. At the end of the line, the reader can't see what is true or false. If he tries to find the truth himself, he has to literally swim through all these chain of works and debunk the origin. It's not easy. He generally gives up after few days.

We, on other hand, are not your regular readers. Try other credible source. For a second, I thought you're going to produce some real source.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 17 Dec 2017 22:30

shiv wrote:Try and get a brief overview of Greek philosophy and philosophers and you will find that many have expressed worldviews similar to Vedanta. But I think Greek exposure to Vedanta is very "recent" -that is in the 1000 bc to 500 bc era. That is too recent. Vedas date back several milleniums bc and Vedanta was probably pretty much done before 1000 bc

That book trying to link earlier Pelasgians to Indians. Some words are convincing. But I am not going to use these reference yet.

For example, author says Abantes tribe was from Avanti kingdom from India. This might be true. But he keep refering Rajputs in every page. Most of the tribes were linked to Rajputs. I am going to note down every word that sounds interesting. Once finished, may be I can prepare some story line.

Another problem with the author is, he kept saying about buddhist persecution in old times. According to him, Buddhists who felt persecuted, left India and settled in west. I don't agree with him. That's not migration. Our Buddhist monks left India on their own and spread knowledge all over the world. May be our kings gave them protection and some entourage to keep them alive in foreign lands. Book is not easy to read. He dumps all names page by page. It's not easy to keep up with them.
Babylon was babulon which translates into Bopalan. Some of his explanations are not exactly normal.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 18 Dec 2017 01:37

A_Gupta wrote:This article may be of interest:
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/ ... w=embedded


The word is not of native Slavic lexical stock, but a borrowing. One of the popular theories in the 20th century is that of the Iranian origin, connection being an Old Iranian toponym Harahvait-, the native name of Arachosia,[3] it passed from an Iranian to a Slavic linguistic and cultural sphere. "Arachosia" is the Latinized form of Ancient Greek Ἀραχωσία - Arachosíā. In Old Persian inscriptions, the region is referred to as Harahuvatiš (harauvatiiša.[4] The derivation of Proto-Slavic *xъrvatъ /xŭrva:tŭ/ from the Old Persian /xaraxwat-/ is argued to be substantiated by a 3rd-century Scythian form /Χοροάθ-/ attested in the Tanais Tablets, an inscription from Tanais.


Lot of words like Harahvaiti - could even mean pasturage. Harahvaiti could have been a goats and sheep district in Afghanistan, nothing to do with the Saraswati.


This is an important post... will respond in a couple of posts on the topic of the Slavs:

1. Harahvaiti (should be considered like the concept of Eden) ~ A pasturage that could support plentiful in the bosom of the one of many lakes... The memory of the river and bountiful meadows along her many lakes is exactly what this lines up to be... and from Iran migrated westward to the region of the Slavs.

2. Some research (new) has to happen on "The Book of the Velves" - while a modern reproduction of the book has been deemed a hoax, I have several Croatian (Croath - as in Harvath- who carry these stories word of mouth from one generation to the next) friends/old-timers who keep this memory alive that they migrated from the land of the seven rivers beyond the sea (will post more on this separately).

3. My Polish friends often talk of the Kiev Pantheon - Perun, Dazbog, Veles, Horz, Svarog, etc... There has been no serious work I have come across tracing their relationship to Indra and the Hindu Panteon.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 18 Dec 2017 01:43

shiv wrote:Anyone who claims that Haraxvaiti and Saraswati "almost identical" is bluffing. Here is what YOU wrote. Please tell me why this should not be termed nonsense. It makes no sense to me. Do you want me to bluff, tell lies and agree with this outrageous statement?
peter wrote:These two words are almost identical: Sarasvati and Harahvaiti. They can't represent two different things.


This is important as well - there was only one great river and her name was Saraswathi. Now if the Iranians called another river or the meadows along another bountiful area Harahvaiti, it is perhaps possible... but Peter has not explained what Harahvaiti means in any language after having asked for this repeatedly. All I stipulate is he makes no use of Sanskrit or any invented PIE in defining Harahvaiti.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests