Bharat Rakshak

JE Menon wrote:

I just found a stone in my backyard that came up when I was digging a ditch. It said:
[]Moxxxxxd was here. 4500 BCE.

If that's what it said, it must have been Anal Tradition... petrified

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

Most of the words seem to show a horse's/bull's backside - or fish. No wonder they became extinct - the misunderstandings must have caused daily duels that make Syria look pastoral in comparison.

O Great and Handsome Hero of The Forest and the Rivers, Husband of the Beautiful Ayesha, Welcome To Our Humble Home!

is spelled almost exactly like

You Fish-breath Horse's Ass, U'r Full of Bull and Yore Fat Momma dresses U Ugly!

JEM, what u cited is a very important diagnostic in Ant-ThrowUp Ology. Entire departments of Anthropology devoted to the study of prehistoric petrified pakistan (P^3).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

JEM saar,
thanks for checking and pointing the mistakes. MB is a long work and different works have different numerals. I made mistake in converting Roman numerals. Anyway, I am posting corrections:


Noah's flood story is similar to the story of universal flood from Mahabharatha, Vana Parva, Section 186.

Genesis talks about Tower of Babel story that jews and others migrated from east(somewhere in Iran) to west(Palastine). The story of Noah's sons is similar to the story of Yayathi's sons in Mahabharatha, Adi Parva, Section 84.

If there are still any mistakes, please point them. I'll correct them.

About creation:
Yea, I agree that passage is not good enough. I remember seeing a more similar one. I thought this was that passage. I'll post that one if I find it.

About Moses and Krushna:
There are many similarities in memes.
- Both are younger brothers.
- Both are separated from parents in infancy. The exact separation method of Moses is similar to Karna.
- both stories contain cruel ruler who orders murder of all infants in their realm.
- both heroes show magic.
- both heroes do an exodus to their original homes once they grow up.
- both heroes establish a kingdom of their people.
- both stories contain magical crossing of river/sea.

----
Shiv,
it seems you dont know about the issues. Sayana is an Advaitist, not Dvaitist.

shiv wrote:

vayu tuvan wrote:shiv ji: you might have some interest in this story I found at wikipedia Gymnosophists

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)

One 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

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.

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.

Thanks for your consideration.

Exactly! I don't think "speculation" and individual's theories and discussions about Indian history belong here.

What I mentioned above are well-documented theories in books by people of caliber, like Kota Venkatachelam and Vedveer Arya, which attest to the high antiquity of Indian history. If somebody disagrees with them, of course, one can discuss them in "Towards a New History of India" thread, but the juice of all such research, which are solid theories on Indian chronology, can and I think should be mentioned here, so as to underline the hollowness of AIT/AIM.

Nilesh Nilkanth Oak explaining Indian Astronomy and Dating of Ramayana in an easy way

What's with the Indus Seal Code Decipherment? Apparently it has the approval of the best.

UlanBatori 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.

Could well be unless conversations between Harappans went like this

Harappa: grzmp
Harappi: frl?
Harappa: nb
Harappi: tcv hgre rds!
Harappa: OK

Cross post on indus script.

http://swarajyamag.com/culture/how-i-de ... ley-script

Out of India

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.

The below comment must be and can be easily proven false. Western scholars do not have much information on Indian history and only can speak in colonial version.

This person says Indian text is story book but why do the west rely on them to use the words such as Aryan and language called sanskrit. The argument is foolish.

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.

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.

Yagnasri wrote:Cross post on indus script.

http://swarajyamag.com/culture/how-i-de ... ley-script

I am going apeshit in the feedback posts - especially about AIT and cunning linguists

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.

I too found it unnecessary.

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.

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. 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.

RajeshA wrote:

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.

I too found it unnecessary.

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.

Which Shaka king gave the name to the shaka era?

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.

No, I wasn't implying that you questioned. I simply elaborated on it for the benefit of other readers.

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.

Wow! Really, Vedveer Arya is really giving away his possibly years of painstaking work for free! Kudos to him!

Here is the download link!

peter wrote:Which Shaka king gave the name to the shaka era?

He tentatively suggests Chastana is the king who was coronated at the epoch of Śaka Era on 19th February 583 BCE.

RajeshA wrote:

peter wrote:Which Shaka king gave the name to the shaka era?

He tentatively suggests Chastana is the king who was coronated at the epoch of Śaka Era on 19th February 583 BCE.

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?

peter wrote:

peter wrote:Which Shaka king gave the name to the shaka era?

He tentatively suggests Chastana is the king who was coronated at the epoch of Śaka Era on 19th February 583 BCE.

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?

Buddha's age is much earlier.

Also the qualifier used with Śaka Era is "coronation", i.e. the "Era of coronation of Śaka king". Buddha has nothing to do with either any coronation or this era.

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.

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.

Many Hindus all over the world are still using Saka era:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_national_calendar

peter wrote:

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.

Many Hindus all over the world are still using Saka era:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_national_calendar

Śaka Era of February 19th, 583 BCE is the era of coronation of Śaka king.

Śālivāhana Era of 78 CE is the era of killing of Śaka king, i.e. "Saka-nripa-Kalatita". This is the calendar that is now used as our national calendar. In some cases, when the context was forgotten, some abbreviated "Saka-nripa-Kalatita" to simply Śaka, which caused confusion.

A post-script to my deep-cover investigations of the Indus Script Decipherment.

@% &)^ %% $# *@) *&&%$ @# (*

That means, Fish-left / horse with ass facing east / ass with horse-face turned west / fish-right.

Which exhausts my Harappan vocabulary. But the message I brought is from those spending a lifetime on this, and not on Facebook or Witzel's Blog either:

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.

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.

Why do you think, even today, company top greedies are denoted as "Corporate Exc(reta)"? Corporate means "bodily". Q.E.D.

Anyone getting excited about bheshtern archaeological/anthropological decipherments should first take the pre-requisite course, viz, read Motel Of The Mysteries andsee this picture of the Ceremonial NeckWear of the Ancient Americans While Worshipping In their Temples

We do not hear much of Allitrochades or Amitrochades, the son of Sandrokottos. Deimachos was the Greek ambassador to Allitrochades.

A_Gupta wrote:We do not hear much of Allitrochades or Amitrochades, the son of Sandrokottos. Deimachos was the Greek ambassador to Allitrochades.

Amitragata, to which Amitrochades refers to, is nowhere mentioned in Indian texts, especially as an epithet for Bindusara Maurya.

If at all, Chandragupta-Vikramāditya, i.e. Chandragupta II of the Imperial Guptas, would be called Amitragata, or slayer of enemies, as he personally went and slayed Rudrasimha III, the Śaka king.

Anyway,

If there are questions on Vedveer Arya's book, let's discuss them in the "Towards a new History of india" thread

Shiv,

Swarajya removed the link.

Susan Sullivan had a few interesting proper nouns translations in that Swarajya article.

- Rangapura
- Hasdrubaal
- Bhimanath
- Prince Rabindranath

as well as other names corresponding to Indian deities, which could also be names of other personalities like monarchs, merchants, etc.
....

Those 'translations' suggest that both MB and Ramayana were long in the past when Mohenjodaro and Harappa ppl named their munnas. Of course I agree with that, but.... something is too fishy, pun intended, about that whole decoding.

RoyG wrote:Shiv,

Swarajya removed the link.

Wonder why? I thought lots of hits is good as long as there is no blasphemy

A_Gupta wrote:We do not hear much of Allitrochades or Amitrochades, the son of Sandrokottos. Deimachos was the Greek ambassador to Allitrochades.

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.

Batori saar,
That Indus script decoding surely sounds fishy to put it mildly. I mean they see a fish sign and conclude that it refers to syllable 'ma' and then say that its the starting of name 'mani'. Fish to mani is a huge jump.

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?"

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?"

Susan Sullivan has said that if using her deciphering, any Indus inscriptions start producing unintelligible gibberish, then her deciphering could be flawed.

RajeshA 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?"

Susan Sullivan has said that if using her deciphering, any Indus inscriptions start producing unintelligible gibberish, then her deciphering could be flawed.

If there are 2/3 different methods which produce 2/3 different statements. How does one know which method is the right one?

Also, there seems to be considerable adhoc guessing in these decoding.

>>thanks for checking and pointing the mistakes. MB is a long work and different works have different numerals. I made mistake in converting Roman numerals. Anyway, I am posting corrections: Noah's flood story is similar to the story of universal flood from Mahabharatha, Vana Parva, Section 186.

Noah's flood story is no different from other flood myths, so that is the extent of the similarity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

>>Genesis talks about Tower of Babel story that jews and others migrated from east(somewhere in Iran) to west(Palastine).

What's the connection? I'm missing it. What are you comparing it with in the Mahabharatha.

>>The story of Noah's sons is similar to the story of Yayathi's sons in Mahabharatha, Adi Parva, Section 84.

No it is emphatically not. No more than any father upset with his children. Yayathi curses his sons (except Puru), for refusing to "take his weakness and decrepitude". http://www.vrindavana.net/academy/mahab ... -parva-20/

Noah, on the other hand, was drunk and passed out in his tent. His son Ham walked in and "saw his nakedness" (some interpretations suggest this may mean either castrated or sodomised him), and told his brothers two brothers who then walked in backwards in order not to "see his nakedness" and laid a cloth on the old man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

Kindly explain the similarity. One, from the Old Testament book of Genesis involves possible homosexual incest and/or rage, while the other (from the Adi Parva part known as Sambhava Parva) involves a decrepit father asking his sons to accept his decrepitude on themselves, and those who do not are cursed with worldly lack of material things.

I urge BRFites to read up those links and draw your own conclusions.

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?"

RajeshA wrote:
Susan Sullivan has said that if using her deciphering, any Indus inscriptions start producing unintelligible gibberish, then her deciphering could be flawed.

If there are 2/3 different methods which produce 2/3 different statements. How does one know which method is the right one?

Also, there seems to be considerable adhoc guessing in these decoding.

Well there is this requirement, that the decipher algorithm has to produce intelligible translation EVERY TIME. That is quite a strong requirement.

Yes, it is however possible that there can be more than one translation depending on the decipher algorithm. And that is where it all becomes fishy if the proposal comes from somebody whose neither neutrality nor Indian patriotism has been examined beyond any shadow of doubt.

Considering the difficulty that Susan Sullivan may be facing in making her theories popular through the mainstream channels, could give credence to the view that she is above board, but then who knows.