JE Menon wrote:If that's what it said, it must have been Anal Tradition... petrifiedI just found a stone in my backyard that came up when I was digging a ditch. It said:
[]Moxxxxxd was here. 4500 BCE.

JE Menon wrote:If that's what it said, it must have been Anal Tradition... petrifiedI just found a stone in my backyard that came up when I was digging a ditch. It said:
[]Moxxxxxd was here. 4500 BCE.
is spelled almost exactly likeO Great and Handsome Hero of The Forest and the Rivers, Husband of the Beautiful Ayesha, Welcome To Our Humble Home!
You Fish-breath Horse's Ass, U'r Full of Bull and Yore Fat Momma dresses U Ugly!
Suzanne Redalia, aka Susan, is a friend of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, of whom he has often spoken of.shiv wrote:To think that admins cruelly and mercilessly locked my 400% serious therad about deciphement of Indua Valley Script made on April 1st.
Now read this!
Cracking The Indus Script: A Potential Breakthrough
Very interesting development Shiv.shiv wrote:To think that admins cruelly and mercilessly locked my 400% serious therad about deciphement of Indua Valley Script made on April 1st.
Now read this!
Cracking The Indus Script: A Potential Breakthrough
Arastoo Miyan Named his copycat Maya Gyan as The Theory Of Imitation to claim the same that man limited by limited material perception and need to tear the veil ( Parda Phaash) to see reality.shiv wrote:I read most of Plato's "Republic" in translation. Let me simply quote something that Plato said, which should ring a bell (lifted from the internet)vayu tuvan wrote:shiv ji: you might have some interest in this story I found at wikipedia GymnosophistsOne of Plato's main assertions is the Theory of the Forms, that people see shadows of the ideal forms of things and that those ideal forms exist above and beyond people's experience. What people can see, Socrates and Plato, is a copy or a version of the ideal form of something; and only by practicing reason and intense contemplation can people come close to experiencing that ideal.This sounds like a fairly close approximation of the relationship between the maya we sense and the reality of Brahman
Thanks for your consideration.JE Menon wrote:OK RajeshA, I know you will keep the spirit of the thread in mind.
What I don't want (and I'm fairly certain others agree) is a derailment into a fountain of misleading speculation which is much better dealt with in a personal blog to which links can be provided if people want to read it.
Could well be unless conversations between Harappans went like thisUlanBatori wrote:Seriously, shiv, the recent stream of emails from said source of Indus Seals has been advancing a fast-moving model based on Metal Workers - I have been saving all those (must be a few hundred by now and getting more prolific) to read sometime when I have time and attention. But the gist I saw in passing, was that all the Seals were basically stamps put on by metal workers.
RajeshA wrote:This is the single most important book on Indian history. Why? Because it fixes the eras, the calendars, based on which most of the events in Indian history after 22nd October, 1189 BCE (Mahāvīra-Nirvāṇa) are dated, thus fixing the chronology!
The chronology of ancient India / victim of concoctions and distortions
Author: Vedveer Arya
Publisher: Aryabhata Publications
First Print: July 2015
In effect, the book shoves a stake into the AIT-Vetāla, without even talking about it.
This book has major flaws. It has been written with vedic brush to prove existence of Sanskrit and Brahminic culture.
Nothing more than a scam. Written by a person who is not a historian, just a scholar of Sanskrit. Such books are ample in India who are trying to destroy real history of aborginals of India who were not vedic. Many such attempts have been made to prove that Indus valley civilization was also vedic in nature. Unfortunately most Indian historians try to re-write history which is Sanskrit Centric. This book is big scam, because it doesn't have any archaeological evidence of any of facts. It has just redefined mythological claims which are given in Hindu story books like Vedas, or Puranas, Mostly imaginary and fictitious . Real Archaeological facts proves that India had no Vedic regligion before 3000 years.
I am going apeshit in the feedback posts - especially about AIT and cunning linguists
I too found it unnecessary.JE Menon wrote:If I have a problem with that book, it is the sub-title "Victim of Concoctions and Distortions"... Completely unnecessary. Just state it confidently, "Chronology of Ancient India" and leave it at that. This "victim" bleat is never edifying and immediately renders a political sheen to it, which is unnecessary. It will come by itself.
Which Shaka king gave the name to the shaka era?RajeshA wrote:I too found it unnecessary.JE Menon wrote:If I have a problem with that book, it is the sub-title "Victim of Concoctions and Distortions"... Completely unnecessary. Just state it confidently, "Chronology of Ancient India" and leave it at that. This "victim" bleat is never edifying and immediately renders a political sheen to it, which is unnecessary. It will come by itself.
Four years ago, when we started the first "Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth" thread, and may be a few years before that, let's say 2010, the whole notion that Indians had been made a fool and that our history had been tempered in a major way, started becoming "mainstream" among the "anglophone" nationalists in India.
Four years hence, I too agree that the sub-title is unnecessary. But let's admit that still the vast majority of the "educated" class in India is still tuned to Chacha Nehru-certified history.
The book is written for exactly that Indian audience. In fact, it is available only in India through amazon.in.
The fact that our history has been concocted and distorted is something that has not sunk in our population. There is still a long way to go. Vedveer Arya, despite being an excellent historian, has unlike most of the sickular eminent historians who hide their political affiliations, has let himself be tempted to make a political statement. Even in the book, there are places, where his "political thinking" becomes all too clear.
All historians have political tendencies and do politics through history, but manage to hide it. Vedveer Arya, not being a "professional" historian, like a professional politician, has failed to hide.
However his research is still impeccable.
No, I wasn't implying that you questioned. I simply elaborated on it for the benefit of other readers.JE Menon wrote:Not questioning Vedveer Arya's book at all boss, or his credentials. In fact, I haven't even started reading it. I understand fully well the situation in India far as general public is concerned. Nonetheless, the "complaining", "victim" narrative is not worthy of the book, going by your strongly positive assessment of it.
JE Menon wrote:On the other hand:
>>The book is written for exactly that Indian audience. In fact, it is available only in India through amazon.in.
Actually, it is available for free download on his facebook page. More kudos to him for that. Shows where his heart lies.
He tentatively suggests Chastana is the king who was coronated at the epoch of Śaka Era on 19th February 583 BCE.peter wrote:Which Shaka king gave the name to the shaka era?
My problem is this ( and who am i to have a problem anyway ?) no one has heard of Chastana . Why would Indians/Hindus name an era named after a king who is unheard of?RajeshA wrote:He tentatively suggests Chastana is the king who was coronated at the epoch of Śaka Era on 19th February 583 BCE.peter wrote:Which Shaka king gave the name to the shaka era?
peter wrote:He tentatively suggests Chastana is the king who was coronated at the epoch of Śaka Era on 19th February 583 BCE.peter wrote:Which Shaka king gave the name to the shaka era?
Buddha's age is much earlier.RajeshA wrote: My problem is this ( and who am i to have a problem anyway ?) no one has heard of Chastana . Why would Indians/Hindus name an era named after a king who is unheard of?
We know Yuddhistra era. Saptarishi era. Vikrama era. All kings/names are household names. We have Harsha era too.
What do we do?
Let us not forget that Siddharta was called Shakya muni. Why was this the case do you know? Could this illustrious Indian Shakya started the era in 583 BC?
Many Hindus all over the world are still using Saka era:RajeshA wrote:..
With time, in fact, Śaka Era was done away with, and possibly because it reminded people of foreign rule.
But as long as the Śakas were there, this calendar continued to be widely used, and sometime later also as not every dynasty was considered fit to initiate their own calendar.
peter wrote:Many Hindus all over the world are still using Saka era:RajeshA wrote:..
With time, in fact, Śaka Era was done away with, and possibly because it reminded people of foreign rule.
But as long as the Śakas were there, this calendar continued to be widely used, and sometime later also as not every dynasty was considered fit to initiate their own calendar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_national_calendar
I think Fish refer to politicians who are fishy, and the horse's asses refer to Corporate Execs. The rest are cuss-words, I am too genteel to post those here. This should be quite obvious. I mean the symbols for politicians and managers.I DO NOT agree with the decipherment method, Suzanne Redalia.
On most seals, the space is filled with pictorial motifs. Don't they mean something to the recipient of the message and the sender of the message?
In my view, the pictorials (including signs as pictographs) are words, NOT syllables. They signify metalwork. Context, dawn of Bronze Age revolution which necessitated a messaging system.
Amitragata, to which Amitrochades refers to, is nowhere mentioned in Indian texts, especially as an epithet for Bindusara Maurya.A_Gupta wrote:We do not hear much of Allitrochades or Amitrochades, the son of Sandrokottos. Deimachos was the Greek ambassador to Allitrochades.
Wonder why? I thought lots of hits is good as long as there is no blasphemyRoyG wrote:Shiv,
Swarajya removed the link.
Exactly. Because, Allitrochades or Amitrochades does not sound like Bindusara from any angle. Indian texts mention no title for Bindusara which is similar to those words. That mismatch means William Jones' Sheet Anchor Theory is wrong. That means western constructed chronology of Indian history is wrong. Because western historians used William jones' sheet anchor as the starting point and main anchor. In the process, they chopped and changed the Puranic chronology to make it fit with their wrong anchors.A_Gupta wrote:We do not hear much of Allitrochades or Amitrochades, the son of Sandrokottos. Deimachos was the Greek ambassador to Allitrochades.
Susan Sullivan has said that if using her deciphering, any Indus inscriptions start producing unintelligible gibberish, then her deciphering could be flawed.johneeG wrote:But, what I would like to know is,"how do they differentiate between 'correct' & 'wrong' deciphering of an undeciphered script? What is the critical test to know if its correct or wrong deciphering?"
If there are 2/3 different methods which produce 2/3 different statements. How does one know which method is the right one?RajeshA wrote:Susan Sullivan has said that if using her deciphering, any Indus inscriptions start producing unintelligible gibberish, then her deciphering could be flawed.johneeG wrote:But, what I would like to know is,"how do they differentiate between 'correct' & 'wrong' deciphering of an undeciphered script? What is the critical test to know if its correct or wrong deciphering?"
Well there is this requirement, that the decipher algorithm has to produce intelligible translation EVERY TIME. That is quite a strong requirement.johneeG wrote:johneeG wrote:But, what I would like to know is,"how do they differentiate between 'correct' & 'wrong' deciphering of an undeciphered script? What is the critical test to know if its correct or wrong deciphering?"If there are 2/3 different methods which produce 2/3 different statements. How does one know which method is the right one?RajeshA wrote:
Susan Sullivan has said that if using her deciphering, any Indus inscriptions start producing unintelligible gibberish, then her deciphering could be flawed.
Also, there seems to be considerable adhoc guessing in these decoding.