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

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 21 Dec 2014 21:25

Or one can claim that the Western world has historic religion as legal framework.

Hindus have Vedic traditions as part of "history" ALSO, so our history has a Vedic component. It is Hindus who have kept Vedic traditions alive. Just because some other country is one flight away, at this point of time, does not automatically imply that there is any lack of continuity in an ancient diverse Vedic civilization traditions.

For example, Sanskrit language itself that has Vedic component. Itihaas clearly states that Shri Rama, an Avataar of Shri Vishnu, studied Veda. Veda has been studied by Hanumaana, too. Lack of history in Veda does not imply inverse w.r.t. Hinduism and only Hinduism and history of the Indian subcontinent as a whole.

By the way, as far as Out of India is concerned, we do not need to elaborate on Veda to the West. Historic standards of invasions using linguistic components, seals from the Saraswati Civilization, Aryan horseplay - etc would do. We just need to find a few skulls and skeletons in THE WEST; and pronto we have a readymade Aryan Invasion Theory available - by the standards of Airyan Invasion Theory. It all fits automatic only, we just have to check all the boxes, guys.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 21 Dec 2014 22:03

RajeshA wrote:
What perhaps need to be emphasized here is that

Westerners called our Dharmic Panths as Religions, just as they called Christianity as Religion, even though they are not. When it came to History, they took the other line. They claimed to have History, but they denied us of having any!

So perhaps one should not throw Religion, Law and History all in one pot and say they all need to be treated equally, that we should reject these words, as they are understood only in the "Western sense".

Let's say I use the word Ithiya to describe all accounts of the Indian past. This is not Ithihasa per say, but is an account of non-purana, etc. accounts of our past. Let's say this Ithiya includes Pravaras (traditional historical account of ancestors starting from the first seven sages). I know people in my family who still know the Pravaras for several Royal lineages and merchant families in South India. Gotras are another unexplored territory. We have the ability to create a new way to look at our own past. Itihasa then still makes this past relevant to society to inculcate Dharma and actions based on it, but Ithiya could give us a way to tell a story more tuned to political motivations. Just some thoughts still trying to experiment with ideas.

PS: in the Social Sciences(?) India has a much stronger backbone. Imitating the West and playing their game is just annoying - it's like a woman searching for love all over, with a doting husband at home!

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Dec 2014 02:56

peter wrote: Arguments about he said she said are irrelevant. Discuss specific examples. I have put forth a rk in an earlier post about Indian rivers. Do you have a point which contradicts what I am saying?

You can decide: I am only posting some excerpts from the Secret of the Vedas, you will have to read it yourself to get a full sense of the arguments and his interpretation of the various verses.

But this line may, so far as the mere grammatical form of
it goes, be quite otherwise translated; we may take maho arn. as
in apposition to Saraswati and render the verse “Saraswati, the
great river, awakens us to knowledge by the perception and
shines in all our thoughts.” If we understand by this expression,
“the great river”, as Sayana seems to understand, the physical
river in the Punjab, we get an incoherence of thought and expression
which is impossible except in a nightmare or a lunatic
asylum.

But it is possible to suppose that it means the great
flood of inspiration and that there is no reference to the great
ocean of the Truth-Consciousness. Elsewhere, however, there is
repeated reference to the gods working by the vast power of
the great flood (mahn¯a mahato arn. avasya) where there is no
reference to Saraswati and it is improbable that she should be
meant. It is true that in the Vedic writings Saraswati is spoken
of as the secret self of Indra,—an expression, we may observe,
that is void of sense if Saraswati is only a northern river and
Indra the god of the sky, but has a very profound and striking
significance if Indra be the illumined Mind and Saraswati the
inspiration that proceeds from the hidden plane of the supramental Truth.

But it is impossible to give Saraswati so important
a place with regard to the other gods as would be implied by
interpreting the phrase mahn¯a mahato arn. avasya in the sense
“by the greatness of Saraswati”. The gods act, it is continually
stated, by the power of the Truth, r.
tena, but Saraswati is only
one of the deities of the Truth and not even the most important
or universal of them. The sense I have given is, therefore, the
only rendering consistent with the general thought of the Veda
and with the use of the phrase in other passages.

It is, no doubt, easy to point to passages or hymns in which
on the surface there seems to be no need of any such interpretation
and the su¯kta can be understood as a prayer or praise for
the giving of rain or an account of a battle on the rivers of the
Punjab. But the Veda cannot be interpreted by separate passages
or hymns. If it is to have any coherent or consistent meaning,
we must interpret it as a whole. We may escape our difficulties
by assigning to svar or g¯ah. entirely different senses in different
passages—just as Sayana sometimes finds in g¯ah. the sense of
cows, sometimes rays and sometimes, with an admirable lightheartedness,
compels it to mean waters.1 But such a system of
interpretation is not rational merely because it leads to a “rationalistic”
or “common-sense” result. It rather flouts both reason
and common sense. We can indeed arrive by it at any result we
please, but no reasonable and unbiassedmind can feel convinced
that that result was the original sense of the Vedic hymns.

Such then, profound, coherent, luminous behind the veil
of figures is the sense of the Vedic symbol of the seven rivers,
of the Waters, of the five worlds, of the birth and ascent of
Agni which is also the upward journey of man and the Gods
whose image man forms in himself from level to level of the
great hill of being (s ¯anoh. s ¯anum). Once we apply it and seize
the true sense of the symbol of the Cow and the symbol of the
Soma with a just conception of the psychological functions of
the Gods, all the apparent incoherences and obscurities and farfetched
chaotic confusion of these ancient hymns disappears in a moment. Simply, easily, without straining there disengages itself
the profound and luminous doctrine of the ancient Mystics, the
secret of the Veda.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 23 Dec 2014 05:18

KLP Dubey wrote:....One crucial point is that the sounds of the Veda are *literally* eternal, impersonal, universal, and have no specific connection to any events, people, or cultures that may have existed on this planet.

So what is relationship of Sanskrit the language and Vedas ? Apparently no relation at all?

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 23 Dec 2014 05:37

^^^ I am utterly and completely ignorant about this, but I am curious too.

Was Sanskrit/Prakrit derived from the Vedas? If so how was the grammar and the meanings of objects/subject/verbs/qualifiers etc defined?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Dec 2014 08:01

Dipanker wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote:....One crucial point is that the sounds of the Veda are *literally* eternal, impersonal, universal, and have no specific connection to any events, people, or cultures that may have existed on this planet.

So what is relationship of Sanskrit the language and Vedas ? Apparently no relation at all?

No. I do recommend for the 20th time that people download (for free!!!) and read at least the first 2-3 chapters of Aurobindo's "Secrets of the Vedas"
http://www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashra ... .php?id=30

Unfortunately Aurobindo's English is excellent but verbose in the style of writers of that era.

Some quotes relevant to this question:

We have in the Rig Veda, <snip> a body of sacrificial hymns
couched in a very ancient language which presents a number
of almost insoluble difficulties. It is full of ancient forms and
words which do not appear in later speech and have often
to be fixed in some doubtful sense by intelligent conjecture;
a mass even of the words that it has in common with classical
Sanskrit seem to bear or at least to admit another significance
than in the later literary tongue; and a multitude of its voca-
bles, especially the most common, those which are most vital to
the sense, are capable of a surprising number of unconnected
significances which may give, according to our preference in
selection, quite different complexions to whole passages, whole
hymns and even to the whole thought of the Veda. In the course
of several thousands of years there have been at least three con-
siderable attempts, entirely differing from each other in their
methods and results, to fix the sense of these ancient litanies.
One of these is prehistoric in time and exists only by fragments
in the Brahmanas and Upanishads; but we possess in its entirety
the traditional interpretation of the Indian scholar Sayana and
we have in our own day the interpretation constructed after
an immense labour of comparison and conjecture by modern
European scholarship.

When in English we use the word
“wolf” or “cow”, we mean by it simply the animal designated;
we are not conscious of any reason why we should use that
particular sound for the idea except the immemorial custom of
the language; and we cannot use it for any other sense or purpose
except by an artificial device of style. But for the Vedic Rishi
“vrika” meant the tearer and therefore, among other applica-
tions of the sense, a wolf; “dhenu” meant the fosterer, nourisher,
and therefore a cow. But the original and general sense predom-
inates, the derived and particular is secondary. Therefore, it was
possible for the fashioner of the hymn to use these common
words with a great pliability, sometimes putting forward the
image of the wolf or the cow, sometimes using it to colour the
more general sense, sometimes keeping it merely as a conven-
tional figure for the psychological conception on which his mind
was dwelling, sometimes losing sight of the image altogether. It
is in the light of this psychology of the old language that we
have to understand the peculiar figures of Vedic symbolism as
handled by the Rishis, even to the most apparently common and
concrete.

one remarkable feature of language in its inception
is the enormous number of different meanings of which a single
word was capable and also the enormous number of words
which could be used to represent a single idea. Afterwards <snip> it
became less and less tolerable to be burdened with a superfluous
number of words for the same idea, a redundant variety of
ideas for the same word.<snip>But the
Sanskrit tongue never quite reached the final stages of this devel-
opment; it dissolved too early into the Prakrit dialects. Even in
its latest and most literary form it is lavish of varieties of mean-
ings for the same word; it overflows with a redundant wealth
of synonyms. Hence its extraordinary capacity for rhetorical
devices

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 23 Dec 2014 11:34

LokeshC wrote:^^^ I am utterly and completely ignorant about this, but I am curious too.

Was Sanskrit/Prakrit derived from the Vedas? If so how was the grammar and the meanings of objects/subject/verbs/qualifiers etc defined?

Look at nirukta of yAska and before that of shAkaTAyana and contrast with pANini's vyAkaraNa. The latter is of the opinion that words do not stand for anything, i.e. there is no semantic meaning in the word as such but the meaning is onl yin the context of sentence. The former two or of different opinion (as I understand it). Take it with a grain - nay a cup - of salt as I am no linguist.

Here is an extract from Wikipedia on vyAkaraNa (with my highlights)

Vyākaraṇa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Vyakarana)

The Sanskrit grammatical tradition of vyākaraṇa (Sanskrit: व्याकरण, IPA: [ʋjɑːkərəɳə]) is one of the six Vedanga disciplines. It has its roots in late Vedic India, and includes the famous work, Aṣṭādhyāyī, of Pāṇini (c. 4th century BCE).

The impetus for linguistic analysis and grammar in India originates in the need to be able to obtain a strict interpretation of the Vedic texts.[citation needed]

The work of the very early Indian grammarians has been lost; for example, the work of Sakatayana (roughly 8th century BCE) is known only from cryptic references by Yaska (c. 6th or 5th century BCE) and Pāṇini. One of the views of Sakatayana that was to prove controversial in coming centuries was that most nouns can be derived etymologically from verbs.

In his monumental work on etymology, Nirukta, Yaska supported this claim based on the large number of nouns that were derived from verbs through a derivation process that became known as krit-pratyaya; this relates to the nature of the root morphemes.

Yaska also provided the seeds for another debate, whether textual meaning is inherent in the word (Yaska's view) or in the sentence (see Pāṇini, and later grammarians such as Prabhakara or Bhartrihari). This debate continued into the 14th and 15th centuries CE, and has echoes in the present day in current debates about semantic compositionality.

Contents

1 Pre-Pāṇinian schools
2 Pāṇini's school
3 Medieval Accounts
4 Mughal period
5 Modern Sanskrit grammarians
5.1 Beginning of Western scholarship
5.2 19th century
5.3 20th century to present
6 References
7 See also

Pre-Pāṇinian schools

Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, which is said to have eclipsed all other contemporary schools of grammar, mentions the names of nine grammarians.[1][2] A number of predecessors are referred to by Yāska, who is thought to have flourished a couple of centuries before Panini (c. 800 BCE[3]). Many of these individual names actually reflect the opinion of different schools of thought. Some of these pre-Paninian names of individuals / schools are:

Agrayana[1]
Aindra
Āpiśali (Pan. 6.1.92)
Aupamanyava[1]
Aurnabhava (Nir. 6.13, also[1]
Cakravarmaṇa (Pan. 6.1.130)
Gālava (Nir. 4.3
Gārgya
Kāśyapa (Pan. 8.4.67)
Kāṣakṛtsna
Katthakya[1]
Kautsa
Krauṣṭuki (Nir. 8.2)
Kuṇaravāḍava (Pan. 3.2.14; 7.3.1)
Śākalya (Pan. 8.4.51)
Śākaṭāyana (Pan. 8.4.50)(c. 800 BCE)
Senaka (Pan. 5.4.112)
Shakapuni
Sphoṭāyana (Pan. 6.1.123)

The works of most these authors are lost but we find reference of their ideas in the commentaries and rebuttals by later authors. Yāska's Nirukta is one of the earlier surviving texts, and he mentions Śākaṭāyana, Krauṣṭuki, Gārgya, etc. In Yāska's time, nirukta "etymology" was in fact a school which gave information of formation of words. The etymological derivation of words. According to the nairuktas or "etymologists", all nouns are derived from s verbal root. Yāska defends this view and attributes it to Śākaṭāyana. While others believed that there are some words which are "Rudhi Words". 'Rudhi" means custom. Meaning they are a part of language due to custom, and a correspondence between the word and the thing if it be a noun or correspondence between an act and the word if it be a verbroot. Such word can not be derived from verbal roots. Yāska also reports the view of Gārgya, who opposed Śākaṭāyana who held that certain nominal stems were 'atomic' and not to be derived from verbal roots[4]

Of the remaining schools, Śākalya is held to be the author of the padapatha of the Rigveda (a word-by-word pronunciation scheme, aiding memory, for ritual texts).

Pāṇini's school

Pāṇini's extensive analysis of the processes of phonology, morphology and syntax, the Aṣṭadhyāyī, laid down the basis for centuries of commentaries and expositions by subsequent Sanskrit grammarians. Pāṇini's approach was amazingly formal; his production rules for deriving complex structures and sentences represent modern finite state machines.

Pāṇini's grammar consists of four parts:

Śivasūtra: phonology (notations for phonemes specified in 14 lines)
Aṣṭadhyāyī: morphology (construction rules for complexes)
Dhātupāṭha: list of roots (classes of verbal roots)
Gaṇapāṭha: lists classes of primitive nominal stems

Commentators on Pāṇini and some of their views:

Kātyāyana (linguist and mathematician, 3rd century BCE): that the word-meaning relation is siddha, i.e. given and non-decomposable, an idea that the Sanskriticist Ferdinand de Saussure called arbitrary. Word meanings refer to universals that are inherent in the word itself (close to a nominalist position).
Patanjali (linguist and yoga sutras, 2nd century BCE) – author of Mahabhashya. The notion of shabdapramânah – that the evidentiary value of words is inherent in them, and not derived externally. Not to be confused with the founder of the Yoga system.
The Nyaya school, close to the realist position (as in Plato). Considers the word-meaning relation as created through human convention. Sentence meaning is principally determined by the main noun. uddyotkara, Vachaspati (sound-universals or phonemes)
The Mimamsa school. E.g. sentence meaning relies mostly on the verb (corresponds to the modern notion of linguistic head). Kumarila Bhatta (7th century), prabhakara (7th century CE).
Bhartṛhari (c. 6th century CE) that meaning is determined by larger contextual units than the word alone (holism).

I tend to give most weightage to Bhartṛhari's POV AKA school or more correctly darshana.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 23 Dec 2014 16:38

That Sanskrit grammar (vyakarana) is one of a vedanga discipline shows that Veda is part of Hindu Civilization, which is what matters here, and has been so, too. That grammar of NEW GERMAN was written by Sanskrit scholars (or that grammar of other European languages was written by German language experts) is secondary to it, and has no connection to religious colonialism worldwide. Out of India theory has nothing to offer to, or has any justifications to hear any demands of, secondary or disconnected discussions. Anyways, Indians will not find it any pleasant to sell arbitrary invasion theories in the fashion of Airyan horse invasion theories that were peddled as historic, and therefore as a justification of barbarism of invaders.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Dec 2014 02:37

Shiva (Judaism) Or (Shokk)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_%28Judaism%29

All Seems So Similar to Snatani Suputtras

The word Shiva comes from the Hebrew word shiv'ah, which literally means "seven". The tradition was developed in response to the story in Genesis 50:1-14 in which Joseph mourns the death of his father Jacob (Israel) for seven day.Shiva customs.Traditionally, the first meal after the funeral, the seudat havra'ah (Hebrew: סעודת הבראה ; "meal of comforting"), is supplied by neighbors and friends.[2] The mourners do not bathe or shower for pleasure,[3] they do not wear leather shoes or jewelry, men do not shave, and in many communities household mirrors are covered. The prohibition of bathing includes bathing or showering the whole body, or using hot water.[3] It is permitted to wash separately various parts of the body in cool water.[3] Marital relations[4] and Torah study[5] are not permitted. (It is permitted to study the laws of mourning, as well as that material which may be studied on Tisha B'Av, including Job, Lamentations, portions of Jeremiah and the third chapter of Talmud tractate Moed Katan.[6]) No public[7] mourning may occur on Shabbat, nor may the burial take place on Shabbat; "private" mourning restrictions continue during the Shabbat. It is customary for the mourners to sit on low stools, or even the floor, symbolic of the emotional reality of being "brought low" by the grief. Typically, mourners do not return to work until the end of the week of mourning.Many communities have an arrangement where members of the chevra kadisha (local Jewish burial society) organise the meals ( Langar) for the mourners, and serve refreshments for visitors. If prayer services are organized in the house of mourning, it is customary for an adult mourner to lead the prayers
Keriah Or Kirya
The torn garment, usually a shirt, jacket or vest that "covers the heart," is worn throughout the shiva period (a practice known as "keriah"; alternative spellings "keriyah", "kria"), except on Shabbat. Conservative and Reform Jews will usually wear a torn piece of black ribbon instead of a torn garment. The torn garment symbolizes/expresses the grief of the mourner.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 Dec 2014 09:02

Or Shokk - wonder what that means in Hebrew

don't forget that "shok" means sorrow in Sanskrit..., as in Ashok, without sorrow

Sorrow is clearly an apt word to describe a time of mourning

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2014 09:34

Jhujar wrote:Shiva (Judaism) Or (Shokk)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_%28Judaism%29

All Seems So Similar to Snatani Suputtras

The word Shiva comes from the Hebrew word shiv'ah, which literally means "seven". The tradition was developed in response to the story in Genesis 50:1-14 in which Joseph mourns the death of his father Jacob (Israel) for seven day.Shiva customs.Traditionally, the first meal after the funeral, the seudat havra'ah (Hebrew: סעודת הבראה ; "meal of comforting"), is supplied by neighbors and friends.[2] The mourners do not bathe or shower for pleasure,[3] they do not wear leather shoes or jewelry, men do not shave, and in many communities household mirrors are covered. The prohibition of bathing includes bathing or showering the whole body, or using hot water.[3] It is permitted to wash separately various parts of the body in cool water.[3] Marital relations[4] and Torah study[5] are not permitted. (It is permitted to study the laws of mourning, as well as that material which may be studied on Tisha B'Av, including Job, Lamentations, portions of Jeremiah and the third chapter of Talmud tractate Moed Katan.[6]) No public[7] mourning may occur on Shabbat, nor may the burial take place on Shabbat; "private" mourning restrictions continue during the Shabbat. It is customary for the mourners to sit on low stools, or even the floor, symbolic of the emotional reality of being "brought low" by the grief. Typically, mourners do not return to work until the end of the week of mourning.Many communities have an arrangement where members of the chevra kadisha (local Jewish burial society) organise the meals ( Langar) for the mourners, and serve refreshments for visitors. If prayer services are organized in the house of mourning, it is customary for an adult mourner to lead the prayers
Keriah Or Kirya
The torn garment, usually a shirt, jacket or vest that "covers the heart," is worn throughout the shiva period (a practice known as "keriah"; alternative spellings "keriyah", "kria"), except on Shabbat. Conservative and Reform Jews will usually wear a torn piece of black ribbon instead of a torn garment. The torn garment symbolizes/expresses the grief of the mourner.

The huge difference here is in bathing.

A long looong time ago Hindus discovered that a lot of people died of diseases which could spread by contact (usually infections like plague, smallpox). Hence bathing is essential after seeing a dead body for all Hindus. Also the clothes are cremated with the body. The same holds true for Zoroastrian tradition as well except for teh crmeation bit - but they do discard anything that came into contact with the dead.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 24 Dec 2014 09:56

Hard to get water in the desert - Sinai and Negev. Bathing is extremely important during the 11 day karma kAnda.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 24 Dec 2014 11:24

Thanks for the previous explanation matrimc ji. My goal is to be able to at least read the Vedas and Upanishads before I pass on from this world. I know "reading the Vedas" is meaningless but thats the least I can do.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Dec 2014 16:55

Jhujar wrote:Shiva (Judaism) Or (Shokk)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_%28Judaism%29

All Seems So Similar to Snatani Suputtras

The word Shiva comes from the Hebrew word shiv'ah, which literally means "seven". The tradition was developed in response to the story in Genesis 50:1-14 in which Joseph mourns the death of his father Jacob (Israel) for seven day.Shiva customs.Traditionally, the first meal after the funeral, the seudat havra'ah (Hebrew: סעודת הבראה ; "meal of comforting"), is supplied by neighbors and friends.[2] The mourners do not bathe or shower for pleasure,[3] they do not wear leather shoes or jewelry, men do not shave, and in many communities household mirrors are covered. The prohibition of bathing includes bathing or showering the whole body, or using hot water.[3] It is permitted to wash separately various parts of the body in cool water.[3] Marital relations[4] and Torah study[5] are not permitted. (It is permitted to study the laws of mourning, as well as that material which may be studied on Tisha B'Av, including Job, Lamentations, portions of Jeremiah and the third chapter of Talmud tractate Moed Katan.[6]) No public[7] mourning may occur on Shabbat, nor may the burial take place on Shabbat; "private" mourning restrictions continue during the Shabbat. It is customary for the mourners to sit on low stools, or even the floor, symbolic of the emotional reality of being "brought low" by the grief. Typically, mourners do not return to work until the end of the week of mourning.Many communities have an arrangement where members of the chevra kadisha (local Jewish burial society) organise the meals ( Langar) for the mourners, and serve refreshments for visitors. If prayer services are organized in the house of mourning, it is customary for an adult mourner to lead the prayers
Keriah Or Kirya
The torn garment, usually a shirt, jacket or vest that "covers the heart," is worn throughout the shiva period (a practice known as "keriah"; alternative spellings "keriyah", "kria"), except on Shabbat. Conservative and Reform Jews will usually wear a torn piece of black ribbon instead of a torn garment. The torn garment symbolizes/expresses the grief of the mourner.

Jhujar ji,

very interesting.

Actually 'Shiva' in this regard can simply refer to Śava (शव) - 'corpse'. It could have meant something like Corpse Ritual, (शव संस्कार) Śava Saṃskāraṃ, and the last word was simply done away, leaving only Śava or Shiva.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 24 Dec 2014 17:37

Dipanker wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote:....One crucial point is that the sounds of the Veda are *literally* eternal, impersonal, universal, and have no specific connection to any events, people, or cultures that may have existed on this planet.

So what is relationship of Sanskrit the language and Vedas ? Apparently no relation at all?

The Vedic language is slightly different from the Panini grammar fixed Sanskrit of later period as per my understanding. Vedas are Shuthi that is heard. So sound is important for Vedas. Learning to sing Vedas done by word of mouth only and not reading. The meaning of the words are also is deep.

For example " agni neeme purohitham." the first three words of Vedas In this who is agni? Is it fire or energy? Who is purohitha? Is it Poorva plus Hitha? or it it Porohitha a mere transmitter of prayers etc to gods? At every turn we have to spend lot of time to find out what these words mean.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 24 Dec 2014 23:11

Yagnyasri: that is correct. In fact there was no notation for grammar as such. So panini's work is in that sense is seminal in that it mathematicized the study of samskrutam. He discovered the patterns that existed in human communication of that time and made it into systematic study by developing the metalinguistic theory. This theory itself had to be in samskrutam itself. His work was similar to What Linnaeus did in biology, imho. It is at the other end of the abstraction spectrum though.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 26 Dec 2014 07:34

matrimc wrote:Yagnyasri: that is correct. In fact there was no notation for grammar as such. So panini's work is in that sense is seminal in that it mathematicized the study of samskrutam. He discovered the patterns that existed in human communication of that time and made it into systematic study by developing the metalinguistic theory. This theory itself had to be in samskrutam itself. His work was similar to What Linnaeus did in biology, imho. It is at the other end of the abstraction spectrum though.

Very interesting. I can not claim I am understanding everything.

Matrimc, ji,

Your write up above.. for some reason reminded me of a chapter (or could be few chapters) of 'The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond, where he talks to existence of language like patterns among other animals...

peter · Post by **peter** » 26 Dec 2014 18:45

ShauryaT wrote:
peter wrote: Arguments about he said she said are irrelevant. Discuss specific examples. I have put forth a rk in an earlier post about Indian rivers. Do you have a point which contradicts what I am saying?
You can decide: I am only posting some excerpts from the Secret of the Vedas, you will have to read it yourself to get a full sense of the arguments and his interpretation of the various verses.

But this line may, so far as the mere grammatical form of
it goes, be quite otherwise translated; ....

Thanks. Now I let you decide on some other verses from Rg Ved:

एकाचेतत्सरस्वती नदीनां शुचिर्यती गिरिभ्य आ समुद्रात्।RV 7.95.2
Pure in her course from the mountains to the oceans,

अम्बितमे नदीतमे देवितमे सरस्वति।
अप्रशस्ता इव स्मसि प्रशस्तिमम्ब नस्कृधि || - RV 2.41.16
Best of mothers, best of rivers, best of goddesses Sarsawati,
we are untrained and ignorant. Give us knowledge and wisdom.

इयं शुष्मेभिर्बिसखा इवारुजत्सानु गिरीणां तविषेभिरूर्मिभिः।
पारावतघ्नीमवसे सुवृक्तिभिः सरस्वतीमा विवासेम धीतिभिः॥ - RV 6.61.2
O Saraswati, your mighty currents break the mountains as easily as lotus stems. Let us invite with holy hymns and songs.

यस्या अनन्तो अह्रुतस्त्वेषश्चरिष्णुरर्णवः।अमश्चरति रोरुवत्॥ - RV 6.61.8

Whose limitless, unbroken flow, swift moving with rapid rush comes forward with a roar.

peter · Post by **peter** » 26 Dec 2014 18:53

Pulikeshi wrote:
peter wrote: Great! Mahabharata has no history and neither anything Indians wrote!

Wow no difference between your stance and those of JNU/AMU and western historians
There is a specific traditional claim made by Hindus (read those that follow Sanathana Dharma) on the Vedas -
That they are eternal with no author with no origin or an end. You are either in this tent pissing out or otherwise...

Mahabharata and the other puranas are Itihasa, so no history there either, but they are Itihasa to be listened to and learnt from...
If you cannot tell the difference between Itihasa and History - there is plenty of material in this and the WU thread.

Here is a homework for you since you do not understand basic things from Mahabharata. Read up papers from Woodshole Institute on Saraswati river and then compare them to description of Saraswati in Mahabharat. If after doing this you still have the gall to say "so no history there either," we will be "very shocked"!

Pulikeshi wrote: I will make it simple for you -

No. I have made it very simple for you in the above lines. Do it and then come back and let us know what history have you found in Mahabharata.

Pulikeshi wrote: History is to prove a certain belief (Christian), Itihasa is to teach Dharmic action.

I have been hearing this "Dharmic action" for many days now. Please enlighten us all and define Dharm.
And also tell us what happens to those who do not follow Dharm.

Pulikeshi wrote: History is a story to fit the Christian belief into this world.
I suggest you look at your own assumptions and urgency to prove something.

Funny. You do not know what Mahabharat contains and how modern science is "proving" facts mentioned in Mahabharat and yet I need to look at my assumptions? Now imagine you were arguing with AIT wallahs you would have been hit for a six many times over.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2014 19:26

^^^ http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/104/01/0042.pdf would suggest those Woods Hole papers did not come to acceptable conclusions about the Saraswati.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2014 19:35

A POV: http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standp ... st-2023285

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2014 19:49

More historical info:
http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/othe ... 643060.cms

The scepticism that animates the work of such scientists was in evidence when Mumbai Mirror asked one of the country's foremost experts on aviation, former Director of National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) and recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, Prof Roddam Narasimha, to discuss Captain Bodas's source text. "There is no credible account of aviation in ancient India," he said. "[And] there is no authentic account of achievement in the field of aviation in ancient India. The book Vaimanika Prakaranam or Vimanika Shastra has been studied in great detail and the accepted view in the scientific community is that the descriptions given in it are not scientifically correct."

According to a study by five professors - H S Mukunda, S M Deshpande, H RNagendra, A Prabhu, and S P Govindaraju - of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, published in the journal Scientific Opinion, the Vimanika Shastra was not an ancient text as claimed by its votaries, but "cannot be dated earlier than 1904" and that the planes described in it are "poor concoctions" and "unimaginably horrendous from the point of view of flying".

The decision to include the lecture in the schedule does have its supporters; Dr S D Sharma, Prof of Aerospace Engineering at IIT-B, being one among them. "I would not dismiss the topic out of hand," he said. "A purely mythological lecture comparing aeroplanes in Sanskrit texts to contemporary ones could be very interesting. However, there should not be any kind of story telling that is not backed by evidence."

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2014 19:57

Also see: http://vedicilluminations.com/downloads ... hastra.pdf

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 26 Dec 2014 20:27

This thread gives couple of U tube links, interesting for layperons like me!

http://indiandefence.com/threads/ancien ... ion.51445/

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Dec 2014 05:09

As noted by M. J. Vermaseren noted in The Excavations in the Mithraeum of the Church of Santa Pricsa in Rome

"One should bear in mind that the Mithraic New Year began on Natalis Invicti, the birthday of their invincible god, i.e. December 25th, when the new light ...... appears from the vault of heaven."

So December 25, besides being the Day of Good Governance, one can also say it is "Mitra Navami" according to the Pashchim Parampara, which the Christians then appropriated for their own purpose as Christmas Day, marking the birth of Christ. It is supposed to be the "Birthday of the Sun" and not the "Birthday of the Son"!

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 27 Dec 2014 07:40

RajeshA wrote:As noted by M. J. Vermaseren noted in The Excavations in the Mithraeum of the Church of Santa Pricsa in Rome

"One should bear in mind that the Mithraic New Year began on Natalis Invicti, the birthday of their invincible god, i.e. December 25th, when the new light ...... appears from the vault of heaven."

So December 25, besides being the Day of Good Governance, one can also say it is "Mitra Navami" according to the Pashchim Parampara, which the Christians then appropriated for their own purpose as Christmas Day, marking the birth of Christ. It is supposed to be the "Birthday of the Sun" and not the "Birthday of the Son"!

RajeshA saar,
it seems to be a solistice day i.e. Makara Sankranthi. It was celebrated as birth of Sun because Dhakshina-ayana would end and Utthara-ayana would start.

At that time, the roman calendar did not have some months. And the year started in March/April i.e. Ugadhi(now, they call it April fool's day).

johneeG wrote:Latin is very much influenced by Sanskruth. Take the good old months' names:

September, October, November, December.

September -> Saptham-vara (7th turn)
October -> Ashtam-vara (8th turn)
November -> Navam-vara (9th turn)
December -> Dasham-vara (10th turn)

'varam' means 'again'. It denotes a repetition. In India, one finds the word 'varam' is used for the days of the week as in Shani-vara(i.e. Saturnday or Saturday) because days of the week also get repeated.

'vara' becomes 'ber' in the latin version. Actually, there is a suthra in Sanskruth grammer called 'ba-va-yor abedhah'. It means 'ba' and 'va' are indistinct and can be used to replace each other.

Originally, September, October, November and December were 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months respectively. Later, newer months were added. For example, August and July.

Original Roman calendar:
Quote:
Calendar of Romulus

Roman writers attributed the original Roman calendar to Romulus, the founder of Rome around 753 BC. The Romulus calendar had ten months with the spring equinox in the first month:

Calendar of Romulus
Martius (31 days)
Aprilis (30 days)
Maius (31 days)
Iunius (30 days)
Quintilis [2] (31 days)
Sextilis (30 days)
September[3] (30 days)
October (31 days)
November (30 days)
December (30 days)
wiki

Note that sextilis -> shat(6th)
Also note that the Calendar starts from Spring Equinox. This is also based on Hindhuism.

In India, Hindhu new year starts on Yuga-adhi(near spring equinox). In Thelugu and Kannada, Ugadhi is celebrated at the time. In Marathi, it is called Gudi Padwa. At almost the same time, Vikram Samvath new year also comes.

P.N. Oak in one of his books(I think 'Some Missing Chapters of World History') says that the word X-mas to denote Christmas is also based on the above.

He says that December was the 10th month of Roman Calender. And it is derived from Dasham(10th) in Sanskruth. In Roman notation, '10' is represented by 'X'.

Dasham-vara->December-> 10th month -> X-mas.

He says that the word 'mas' taken directly from the sanskruth word 'masa'(sanskruth for month). In sanskruth, 'masa' means 'month'.

So, X-mas, he says meant a 10th month which was celebrated as a festival.

Later, the church usurped it and gave it christian coloring. Thats why the church narrative is incoherent. It was not the only hijacking by the church.

johneeG wrote:In Hindhi also, 'vaaram' of Sanskruth becomes 'baar'. So, in Hindhi, it would be
Saathvi-baar -> 7th time ->
Aaatvi-baar -> 8th time
Navi-baar -> 9th time
Dasvi-baar -> 10th time

Shashti means 6th in Sanskruth. In Hindhi, Chatti means 6th.

See, how close they are phonetically:
Sanskruth -> Hindhi -> Latin
Shasti -> Chatti -> Sextilis
Saptham-vaaram -> Saathvi-baar -> Septem-ber
Ashtam-vaaram -> Aaatvi-baar -> Octo-ber
Navam-vaaram -> Navi-baar -> Novem-ber
Dasham-vaaram -> Dasvi-baar -> Decem-ber

Link

johneeG wrote:There is something interesting to ponder on:

There are 4 festivals: Valentine's Day, April Fool's Day, Halloween, Christmas.

I think all these 4 festivals are Pagan festivals originally which were later given christian coloring by church.

These festivals have corresponding Hindu festivals.

Valentine's day == Vasant(Basant) Utsav (Spring Festival) & Holi.
April Fool's day (original New Year) == Ugadi or Gudi Padva (Hindu New Year).
Halloween == Pitru Amavasya.
Christmas == Makara Sankranti.

Pumpkins play a special role in Halloween. Why? According to the Hindu literature, Pumpkins(Kushmanda) are the favourite food of pitris(deceased ancestors). Pitri Amavasya is day, just a few days before Dusherra, which is marked for performing Shraaddha of the pitris. Halloween falls very close to this.

The differences in the exact dates may be explained due to the changes in the calendar. Most of the Indian festivals(except Makara Sankranti) follow Lunar Calendar. So, the dates can vary.

Holi and Basant Utsav are the days when young girls and boys enjoy themselves. Romans used to follow similar festival(most probably they inherited it from the earlier cultures). This was given a christian makeover by the church.

Similarly, Makara Sankranti was made it into the birthday of Jesus, while Sunday was made into the holyday.

The connections are obvious. There is a definite Hindu connection. So, the theory is that once upon a time all the humanity followed a single religion(Hinduism) with some local variations. The newer ideologies sprang from Hinduism(or some derivative of Hinduism). These newer ideologies altered/erased the local customs. But, there are still certain points that could not be altered/erased which reveal the common Hindu past of the entire world.

Link to post

So, at that time, December used to be around the time of Makara Sankranthi and it was celebrated as birth of Sun. The word X-mas also has Sanskruth origins. 'Maasa' means 'month' in Sanskruth. X represents 10 in Roman numerals. December is also of Sanskruth origin.
December -> Dasam-baar-> Dhasam-vaar i.e. 10th time.

So, it was the 10th month in Roman calendar.

What is interesting is christmas tree?
I was wondering what are the origins of this custom...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Dec 2014 05:39

Ziusudra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziusudra
Ziu or Su-Kumar/Bhadra/.....Ra
Utnapishtim
or
Uttambh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_of_Shuruppak
Instructions of Shuruppak
or Shrupnakha/ Surrupak (Su)

Atrahasis=Atrisamahita

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 28 Dec 2014 06:52

Jhujar: incredible, sire. Hats off. Sumerian, really? that is 35000 BCE. (Sorry for that inadvertent extra zero).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2014 07:16

Gyan wrote:This thread gives couple of U tube links, interesting for layperons like me!

http://indiandefence.com/threads/ancien ... ion.51445/

Sorry but those links seem to be crap. There is a move mainly by US church based evangelist groups to prove that there is a separate "Tamil civilization" with no links to others. This is bullshit. Tamil civilization is linked up with the civilization of other south Indian language speaking states. Kannada, Telugu and Tamil come fom a common ancxertor. So how come only Tamil civilization was separate and no one else claims that?

I recommend reading ajiv Malhotra's "breaking India"

That sunken continent "Kumara Kandam" and Lemuria are rubbish.

The entire "identity" that says "I am a dravidian" was cooked up by th British and given to Indians who have swallowed it wholesale. The "Dravdian" poltical parties are an offshoot of this mental colonization.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2014 07:32

Jhujar wrote:Ziusudra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziusudra

I would be very wary about this.

As noted in the Nationalism thread "History" is defined by the Euopean as "that which is written". There has been a continuous move towards bringing all that is written into the fold of European/Christian history.

If you recall, the history of Hindu kings in the puranas was criticized by historians because they were said to have lived for hundreds of years. So Hindu history is fake. But from the above link we have a clever excuse where 64,800 years becomes 18 years. Note that the above link is to try and make a "written history" link to the flood of the Old Testament with "rational and believable words" that can be called "historic fact"

Xisuthros was listed as a king, the son of one Ardates, and to have reigned 18 sari. The word for 3600 was sari (shar in Akkadian) and hence 18 sari was mistranslated as 64,800 years. This resulted from confusing the archaic U4 sign meaning year and the shar sign (3600) which both have a 4-sided diamond shape.[15] Xisuthros reigned 18 years. The reigns of other kings were also mistranslated in the surviving king list of Berossus.

We need to be very careful before we connect up this crap with our past. The 19th and eaarly 20th century European "historians" were stung by the fact that Sumerian and Assyrian archaeology was older than Biblical stories. The grabbed on to "Indo-European" because they anted an oolder history than that of the hated Jews. (I have references for this). Now there is a move to take Middle eastern tablets and fit them on to Biblical history. Handle with care and use at your own risk.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 28 Dec 2014 09:43

Jews believe that Jericho is the oldest city going back to 7000 BCE - older than Babylonian cities.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 28 Dec 2014 12:09

>>Ziu or Su-Kumar/Bhadra/.....Ra
Utnapishtim
or
Uttambh

What is the claim/suggestion? That Ziusudra came from a combination of Sukumar and Bhadra?

How did you arrive at Uttambh?

peter · Post by **peter** » 28 Dec 2014 19:33

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/104/01/0042.pdf would suggest those Woods Hole papers did not come to acceptable conclusions about the Saraswati.

Modern research papers on Saraswati validate what is written in Mahabharat and other Sanskrit works. Namely the break up of Saraswati into lakes which eventually dried up. Is'nt this fascinating how wonderfully true the record of Saraswati in Mbh and other sanskrit works?

The paper that you linked contains a rebuttal on a point where saraswati's glacial origin is being challenged. There is a lot going on here and the science has not reached a conclusion. Eventually it will be proven that Saraswati did originate in glaciers.

peter · Post by **peter** » 28 Dec 2014 19:35

RajeshA wrote:.... It is supposed to be the "Birthday of the Sun" and not the "Birthday of the Son"!

Does it matter whether it is son or Sun?

After all belief does not obey logic.

BTW you have not supplied a definition of Dharm yet

!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Dec 2014 20:08

peter wrote:BTW you have not supplied a definition of Dharm yet !

It is has been a continuous topic in the "Bharatiya" Thread. You may find this useful.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2014 08:42

From:
http://viswakarmasuvarnakar.jimdo.com/g ... swakarmas/

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2014 08:44

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 29 Dec 2014 21:41

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... -dna-study

The findings suggest that the arrival of modern humans into Europe more than 40,000 years ago was followed by an influx of farmers some 8,000 years ago, with a third wave of migrants coming from north Eurasia perhaps 5,000 years ago. Others from the same population of north Eurasians took off towards the Americas and gave rise to Native Americans.

Genetically speaking, there seems to be no trace of any genetically significant movement of Indo-European people into Europe either (unless it is the farmers, but linguists think that 8000 years ago is too far back. The last population-genetically significant influx of people into India was 12,000 years ago or earlier.) On the other hand, the vocabulary of a language like Greek is estimated to be more than 30% non-Indo-European (e.g., compared to less than 4% of the 10,000 word vocabulary of the Rg Veda), so a elite dominance language replacement theory might work for Greece, where it can't work for the language of the Rg Veda. The only way it might work is if an Indo-European language was superposed on a previous Indo-European language.

PS: the original paper:
http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/fileadm ... s-2013.pdf

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 30 Dec 2014 05:13

A_Gupta wrote:
Genetically speaking, there seems to be no trace of any genetically significant movement of Indo-European people into Europe either (unless it is the farmers, but linguists think that 8000 years ago is too far back. The last population-genetically significant influx of people into India was 12,000 years ago or earlier.) /ufg_paleogenetik/publications/2013/Lazaridis-2013.pdf

A Gupta ji,

What genetic evidence (studies, etc.) lead to the evidence of significant influx of people into India around 12000 years ago (~ 10,000 BCE) or earlier?

TIA

Nilesh

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 30 Dec 2014 05:39

Nilesh: I acquired a book from some old book sale which I thought might be of interest to you.

Archaeological Atlas of the World by David and Ruth Whitehouse

If you are interested, please say so - I will mail it to you. If you do not want it, then I will send it to anybody else on BRF who is interested (in the US only please) and willing to give me their US postal address (home or PO Box).