Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 18:31

RajeshA wrote:
Murugan wrote:Arundhati darshan seems to be quite old tradition in vedic marraiges

One reason is for the bride to remain firm like Arundhati, symbolic importance.
It is believed that if once stops seeing/spotting Arundhati star == old age approaching
That is actually a solid reason, why somebody would bring this up at the time of Mahabharata. [..]

No. If you follow Vedic text Ekâgni-kânda of Kr.s.n.a-yajurveda school it recommends observation of Dhruva the fixed Pole Star during marriages. Arundhati stuff is from much later.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 18:34

RajeshA wrote:[..]
Considering the significance of Arundhati in Vedic customs and mythology, it is obvious why a change in her relative position to Vashishta in the sky would cause something akin to a Dharma-Sankat, and hence would mentioned in Mahabharata!
[..]

Sorry. Sighting Dhruva is what is mentioned in Vedic texts. If you have evidence for Arundhati please provide it. Most likely Arundhati story is form much later Puranas.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 18:35

shiv wrote:
peter wrote: Not really. The last word is yet to be written on farming. If you read this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16655972/Earl ... anga-basin you will see that rice was domesticated in mid ninth millenium before prsent (BP) in Uttar Pradesh.
Very nice paper Peterji. So where is the worry about people who came from the West? If farming was established in Mehrgarh in 7500 BC and in UP in 9000 BC anyone who came from the west could have come only for a meal of agricultural produce no. We can safely stop worrying that there is some "opening" for AIT to occur in 8000 BC unless the paper you have linked is trashed. No?

No. Good joke though!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 24 Sep 2012 18:44

peter wrote: No. If you follow Vedic text Ekâgni-kânda of Kr.s.n.a-yajurveda school it recommends observation of Dhruva the fixed Pole Star during marriages. Arundhati stuff is from much later.

We can not comment on 'what is later stuff' unless we know the timing of stuff#1 and Stuff#2.

In addition, if the tradition is to observe Dhruva (somthing that does not move too fast)....

in the absence of prominent 'Dhruva' star, logical proxy would be another steady (dhruva) star or combination such as AV.

------------------------------------------------------------
Although Bhishma 3.17 (and 3:18) has nothing to do with 'Pole star' (it has everything to do with word 'Dhrva' though, i.e. Dhruva in the sense of steady/Sthira/fixed/in one place/... Dhruvam prajwalitam ghoram upasavya pravartate, Chitra-Swatyantare chaiva Dhisthit parush graha, vakra-anuvakram kritvam cha Shrvane Pavaka prabha, Brahmarashi Samavrutta Lohitanga vyavasthith. (What a joy to recite MBH verses in the morning!))

And translation for the benefit of seekers

Bhishma 3:17
Becoming steady while glowing brightly with scary appearance, (it) began moving in the 'upasavya' (non-normal, unusual, somthing other than its ordinary direction) direction, by posititiong itself between Chitra and Swati.

Bhishma 3:18
(and) after going through (multiple) vakri and anuvakri motions (note Mars going through vakri near Magha, then retrograde in the region of Chitra Swati and then again vakri near Jyestha/Anuradha) Mars (Lohitanga) came to the region of bright Shravana and settled along Abhijit (Brahmarashi).

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 18:50

Nilesh Oak wrote:Prem Kumar ji asked Peter ji
I am following your point. Do you have the exact translation of the AV reference in the MBH?
Peter ji responded...
Yes. Here it is: "She, O king, who is celebrated over the three worlds and is applauded by the righteous, even that (constellation) Arundhati keepeth (her lord) Vasistha on her back." (From Ganguli: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06002.htm).

Don't understand what you mean. But here is the actual "tone":

या चैषा विश्रुता राजंस्त्रैलोक्ये साधुसंमता। 6-2-31a
अरुन्धती तयाप्येष वसिष्ठः पृष्ठतः कृतः ।। 6-2-31b

रोहिणीं पीडयन्नेष स्थितो राजञ्शनैश्चरः । 6-2-32a
व्यावृत्तं लक्ष्म सोमस्य भविष्यति महद्भयम् ।।6-2-32b

[..]

You won't decide on what Mbh reference discussion takes place. You will not decide whether I quote Achar, Iyengar or whomever I choose to quote.

What you should worry about is that some of these scholars are rubbishing your claims w.r.t to Bhishma Parva 3.17. They correctly translate that in Bhishma Parva 3.17 it is Dhruva the pole star in stark opposition to your claim that it is Shani. We know why you are saying Dhruva is Shani because on your chosen date there is no Dhruv visible.

You should be gracious enough to accept your mistake.

You can choose to run. Choice is yours.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 18:55

Nilesh Oak wrote:
peter wrote: No. If you follow Vedic text Ekâgni-kânda of Kr.s.n.a-yajurveda school it recommends observation of Dhruva the fixed Pole Star during marriages. Arundhati stuff is from much later.
We can not comment on 'what is later stuff' unless we know the timing of stuff#1 and Stuff#2.

Well if you know the textual reference to Arundhati being sighted in marriage rituals which is older then the Vedic reference I gave please provide it. In absence of any such reference from you "stuff 1" from Ekâgni-kânda of Kr.s.n.a-yajurveda is older.

Nilesh Oak wrote: In addition, if the tradition is to observe Dhruva (somthing that does not move too fast)....

in the absence of prominent 'Dhruva' star, logical proxy would be another steady (dhruva) star or combination such as AV.

Speculation. Please cite a source which is older then Mahabharat. Else we have to discard it because Thuban is a very visible pole star during Mahabharata.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 24 Sep 2012 18:58

peter wrote: What you should worry about is that some of these scholars are rubbishing your claims w.r.t to Bhishma Parva 3.17. They correctly translate that in Bhishma Parva 3.17 it is Dhruva the pole star in stark opposition to your claim that it is Shani. We know why you are saying Dhruva is Shani because on your chosen date there is no Dhruv visible.

I am worried.

Why are people (e..g Peterji) reading 'Shani' where I wrote' Mangal - Mars' in my book. It is true that Saturn can be easily confused with Mars during visual obseration of sky (so is Venus with Jupiter),

But in writing? is Shani cognate of Mars?

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 24 Sep 2012 19:17

peter wrote: What you should worry about is that some of these scholars are rubbishing your claims w.r.t to Bhishma Parva 3.17. They correctly translate that in Bhishma Parva 3.17 it is Dhruva the pole star in stark opposition to your claim that it is Shani. We know why you are saying Dhruva is Shani because on your chosen date there is no Dhruv visible.

Let's ignore your confusion with Shani for a minute. It is really trivial considering bigger mess we are in.

Question for you Peter ji.....(only if you feel like answering.. no pressure whatsoever)

What does Achar have to say about Bhishma 3:17?

What exactly Iyengar says about Bhishma 3:17?

(For seekers and able readers, I discuss work of Iyengar and also Bhishma 3:17 on pages 56-57, 69, 80-82, 88-92, in my book)

Now I do want to run. I see

, where is 'run'?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Sep 2012 19:18

peter wrote:No. If you follow Vedic text Ekâgni-kânda of Kr.s.n.a-yajurveda school it recommends observation of Dhruva the fixed Pole Star during marriages. Arundhati stuff is from much later.

The mention is in Âsvalâyana-Grihya-Sûtra
Adhyaya 1, Khanda 7, Verse 22

22. When she sees the polar-star, the star Arundhatî, and the seven Rishis (ursa major), let her break the silence (and say), 'May my husband live and I get offspring.'

This is a translation by Hermann Oldenberg from 1892. I could not find the verse in Sanskrit!

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 24 Sep 2012 19:20

peter wrote:Well first you tell us the 80 / 20 divide data. Where did you read it and when was this published. I just find it very odd.

The fact of Pontic-Steppe & Anatolia being the fancied ones in western academic circles is well-known and attested. Also between these two the former is very much the leading contender in established linguist camps. There are loads of blogs out there on the net that provide a sense of the politics in this space - & the 80:20 was my estimate based on several that I follow.

Whether the figure between these two is 60:40 or 80:20 is immaterial to the larger point that it is the Pontic-Steppe hypothesis and its motifs of horse, wheel & chariot that form the core of AIT. So the easier and surer way to take on AIT is to work out an OIT model that explains the supposed archeological' contradictions derived from the Pontic Steppe model of horse-driving Aryans descending on Indian plains. As a matter of fact there is such a model in place - written up by Koerad Elst.... That's the anti-AIT technique that needs to be pursued further.

If there is a larger point to your spate of one-liners that have filled up the last few pages, do try and articulate it.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 24 Sep 2012 19:28

peter wrote: Speculation. Please cite a source which is older then Mahabharat. Else we have to discard it because Thuban is a very visible pole star during Mahabharata.

Speculation indeed. I come from an accomplished tradition of speculators....

Rigveda-Nasadiya sukta, Yajnavalkya, Vasistha, Thales, Anaximender, Tilak, Vartak, Dixit, Vinoba, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Rutherford, Feyman, Heisenberg, Bohr, Plank, Einstein.. many others.. including ravi_g with his excel spreadsheet!

Good point. I will begin my research for dating of Ashwalayan Grihya Sutra to check if it was before 5561 BC.

Thuban was indeed a pole Pole star in ~3000 BC, but also many times in the past, during every 26000 year round of NCP.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Sep 2012 19:31

peter wrote:
peter wrote:No. If you follow Vedic text Ekâgni-kânda of Kr.s.n.a-yajurveda school it recommends observation of Dhruva the fixed Pole Star during marriages. Arundhati stuff is from much later.
Nilesh Oak wrote: We can not comment on 'what is later stuff' unless we know the timing of stuff#1 and Stuff#2.
Well if you know the textual reference to Arundhati being sighted in marriage rituals which is older then the Vedic reference I gave please provide it. In absence of any such reference from you "stuff 1" from Ekâgni-kânda of Kr.s.n.a-yajurveda is older.

The comparison is useless, because

1) The Arundhati sighting during a marriage ceremony could have been a custom from a time before Arundhati overtook Vashishta, i.e. before 11091 BCE (Start of Epoch of Arundhati). The custom may not be mentioned in Ekâgni-kânda of Kṛṣṇa-Yajurveda, but that does not mean it is from a time not before 11091 BCE.

2) Arundhati has several other reasons for being revered. Marriage Ceremony is just one example. In fact from all the wives of the seven Rishis, as I read, she is the only one which is revered.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 19:35

Nilesh Oak wrote:
peter wrote: What you should worry about is that some of these scholars are rubbishing your claims w.r.t to Bhishma Parva 3.17. They correctly translate that in Bhishma Parva 3.17 it is Dhruva the pole star in stark opposition to your claim that it is Shani. We know why you are saying Dhruva is Shani because on your chosen date there is no Dhruv visible.
Let's ignore your confusion with Shani for a minute. It is really trivial considering bigger mess we are in.

Sorry. It was my typo.

What exactly Iyengar says about Bhishma 3:17?

Don't you read posts carefully? I have already written what Iyengar wrote .

(For seekers and able readers, I discuss work of Iyengar and also Bhishma 3:17 on pages 56-57, 69, 80-82, 88-92, in my book)

Obviously you did not understand what Iyengar wrote since he mentions 3.17 is pole star. So how you discussed Iyengar is plain wrong.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 24 Sep 2012 19:48

Peter ji,

While others take their time to understand interpreation of Iyengar and my comments (they are all willing to read and reading takes time.. comprehending takes even longer. Testing my speculation took me over 15 years)., why don't you tells us what does Prof. Achar has to say about Bhishma 3:17. Afterall, he must have corroborated it for his proposal of 3067 BC, no?

Let me repeat my question, that you missed answering..

What does Achar have to say about Bhishma 3:17?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 24 Sep 2012 19:48

Arjun wrote: ie Ram written in Devnagari ( pronounced as Ram or Rama?)

I think the closest way to represent the Devnagri word/sound in Latin is "Raama"

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Sep 2012 19:54

peter ji,
tell me something! Why do you have trouble starting a new thread in GDF on this! You can post your conclusions here! But all this discussion is really off-topic! Also this thread is not really for one-liners and quips. If you have anything substantial to offer in response to somebody else, please do! Otherwise desist!

Nilesh Oak ji and others (including me),
please don't respond here to any more astronomy related stuff from peter ji related to Nilesh Oak ji's work.

Added Later:
I have created a new Thread Archaeo-Astronomy and Dating of Indian Texts in GDF.

Please continue there!

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 20:06

Nilesh Oak wrote:Peter ji,

While others take their time to understand interpreation of Iyengar and my comments (they are all willing to read and reading takes time.. comprehending takes even longer. Testing my speculation took me over 15 years)., why don't you tells us what does Prof. Achar has to say about Bhishma 3:17. Afterall, he must have corroborated it for his proposal of 3067 BC, no?

Let me repeat my question, that you missed answering..

What does Achar have to say about Bhishma 3:17?

Answer the questions that we have asked you and then expect more answers. You cannot demand answers till you provide some to our questions.

You are handwaving about Iyengar now. Did you not find what we wrote about 3.17.

Let us settle one issue first before we move to the next.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 20:07

RajeshA wrote:
peter wrote:No. If you follow Vedic text Ekâgni-kânda of Kr.s.n.a-yajurveda school it recommends observation of Dhruva the fixed Pole Star during marriages. Arundhati stuff is from much later.
The mention is in Âsvalâyana-Grihya-Sûtra
Adhyaya 1, Khanda 7, Verse 22

22. When she sees the polar-star, the star Arundhatî, and the seven Rishis (ursa major), let her break the silence (and say), 'May my husband live and I get offspring.'

This is a translation by Hermann Oldenberg from 1892. I could not find the verse in Sanskrit!

Alright now please tell us the date of this text.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 20:12

Arjun wrote:
peter wrote:Well first you tell us the 80 / 20 divide data. Where did you read it and when was this published. I just find it very odd.
The fact of Pontic-Steppe & Anatolia being the fancied ones in western academic circles is well-known and attested. Also between these two the former is very much the leading contender in established linguist camps. There are loads of blogs out there on the net that provide a sense of the politics in this space - & the 80:20 was my estimate based on several that I follow.
[..]

It will take many many paragraphs to summarize what various linguists believe in. AIT camp is not and I repeat is not standing on archaeology. It is purely a linguistic argument. The pontic steppe argument was negated a long time back, linguistically, when it was figured out that Uralic languages have loans from Sanskrit and not Iranian.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 20:16

RajeshA wrote:peter ji,
tell me something! Why do you have trouble starting a new thread in GDF on this! You can post your conclusions here! But all this discussion is really off-topic! Also this thread is not really for one-liners and quips. If you have anything substantial to offer in response to somebody else, please do! Otherwise desist!

This is apecrap. You and bunch of others are banding together with Nilesh and not letting him see his obvious mistake. I have no intention in correcting him or you or others.

Nobody takes Nilesh's work seriously including both Achar and Iyengar.

If you guys donot see anything wrong with this picture then by all means continue to live in your fancy world that Indians knew Sanskrit in 11000 BC and Arundhati was used for marriage rituals from 11000 BC and before.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2012 20:23

peter wrote: It will take many many paragraphs to summarize what various linguists believe in. AIT camp is not and I repeat is not standing on archaeology. It is purely a linguistic argument. The pontic steppe argument was negated a long time back, linguistically, when it was figured out that Uralic languages have loans from Sanskrit and not Iranian.

Peterji. You are wrong. I have already written many many paragraphs on this thread that show how you are wrong. You are behind times here. I think you have simply joined this thread without being informed about the various links and sources already read and discussed and forget about typing many para - it will take you several weeks of reading to catch up with what some of us have been doing.

Let us not hide behind this many many para excuse. If you can say how it is only a linguistic argument with no archaeology, please spit it out. Or else read. Even linguists accept that their arguments are nothing without archaeology. It is interesting how they tie archaeology with linguistic "evidence". Knowing this only requires reading of many many pages, let alone paragraphs. Not typing.

You are better at making many many arguments than typing many many paragraphs of facts to support your views.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2012 20:25

peter wrote: If you guys donot see anything wrong with this picture then by all means continue to live in your fancy world that Indians knew Sanskrit in 11000 BC and Arundhati was used for marriage rituals from 11000 BC and before.

If others think this why should it worry you sir? You are sane. Others may be mad no? Why take it upon yourself to correct their insanity.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 24 Sep 2012 20:27

peter wrote:It will take many many paragraphs to summarize what various linguists believe in. AIT camp is not and I repeat is not standing on archaeology. It is purely a linguistic argument. The pontic steppe argument was negated a long time back, linguistically, when it was figured out that Uralic languages have loans from Sanskrit and not Iranian.

Obviously our thoughts on the matter are completely divergent. Lets leave it at that....no point in continuing the discussion.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Sep 2012 21:00

peter wrote:
RajeshA wrote:peter ji,
tell me something! Why do you have trouble starting a new thread in GDF on this! You can post your conclusions here! But all this discussion is really off-topic! Also this thread is not really for one-liners and quips. If you have anything substantial to offer in response to somebody else, please do! Otherwise desist!
This is apecrap. You and bunch of others are banding together with Nilesh and not letting him see his obvious mistake. I have no intention in correcting him or you or others.

Nobody takes Nilesh's work seriously including both Achar and Iyengar.

If you guys donot see anything wrong with this picture then by all means continue to live in your fancy world that Indians knew Sanskrit in 11000 BC and Arundhati was used for marriage rituals from 11000 BC and before.

I see that you have made your position perfectly clear! Perhaps one will not be needing the other thread for now. May be some other time!

It is good that you know about everybody's mistakes! Allow us to please live in our jihaliat! Perhaps your demeanor and your rhetoric on this thread prevented us from seeing your truth! Who knows!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Sep 2012 21:04

peter wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote:Peter ji,

While others take their time to understand interpreation of Iyengar and my comments (they are all willing to read and reading takes time.. comprehending takes even longer. Testing my speculation took me over 15 years)., why don't you tells us what does Prof. Achar has to say about Bhishma 3:17. Afterall, he must have corroborated it for his proposal of 3067 BC, no?

Let me repeat my question, that you missed answering..

What does Achar have to say about Bhishma 3:17?
Answer the questions that we have asked you and then expect more answers. You cannot demand answers till you provide some to our questions.

Who is "we" and which are "our" questions! Sir please speak for yourself! And if you do feel like speaking, please use the other thread as well!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 24 Sep 2012 21:09

Rajesh ji
Thanks for setting up another thread. And you may be right, it may not be needed at all. I did post the question there and I have no intention of posting more until that one is resolved.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 24 Sep 2012 21:12

peter wrote: Nobody .. including both Achar and Iyengar.

Show proof for your claims that Achar Iyengar and this so called nobody or anybody has authorized you in person with clear understanding to give value judgements on others' behalf.

In fact you seem to feign ignorance in the very thread where people discuss quite seriously. I am not sure if you have read this thread at all, because I have and I find this very much informative.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 24 Sep 2012 21:14

What I can't make head or tail of is this guy is incensed that Nilesh-ji provides a 5000 BC odd date as opposed to ~3000 BC for Achar. At the same time - he claims AIT case is dependent only on linguistics. If per his argument, the anti-AIT case is not changed in any way by dating of the epics- what then is the reason for his Rage Boy-antics on MBH date? Quite strange....

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Sep 2012 21:23

peter ji,
onus is not anyone. You dismissed completely that Indians could manage to track an astronomical phenomenon over very long periods of time. Your own example requires 500 years of anticipatory observation. Someone has to carry on observing and have a means of passing it on to be compared 500 years later. It seems that for you, 500 years is okay but 5000 or 8000 is not okay. If there is a potential indication that it might have been actually maintained - we should not rule it out simply because you have any hidden bias against believing Indians being capable of devising such transmission mechanisms [even orally].

I would still suggest looking up monsoon pattern changes, sea-level rise and related climatic indicators for the subcontinent at the date-points I mentioned. Everyone here is doing their own bit of research and reading. Why don't you do so too? It would take many paragraphs to cover all that here.

As for Modi - he is completely irrelevant for this discussion. The main marine archeological research wing is under ASI, and even regional or state level archeological survey units are formally under ASI. Do not slyly entangle political angles here. Petitioning Modi is a political slant that was not necessary - if such a knowledgeable person as you are doing it, knowing fully that the marine zone concerned is both under ASI as well as naval jurisdiction.

As for Rhine - well ancient channels of Rhine are used a lot to claim about ancient settlement of Europe. I merely asked you whether they have followed your required procedure of digging up all "courses" and "beds" [ancient hydro-channels] to fix the paths. By the way, yes there is a dispute about where it flowed and where it stopped and yes ancient-channels of Rhine are important for archeological inferences.

Re: TIFR scientists - your quote only states that some corrections have been incorporated. I will try to get the paper to look at where the author has referred to benchmarking processes to test the software against other software. "Corrections" are constantly incorporated in most such software and are pretty much standard as a process. People can track the open source versions and see the process.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 21:25

shiv wrote:
peter wrote: It will take many many paragraphs to summarize what various linguists believe in. AIT camp is not and I repeat is not standing on archaeology. It is purely a linguistic argument. The pontic steppe argument was negated a long time back, linguistically, when it was figured out that Uralic languages have loans from Sanskrit and not Iranian.
Peterji. You are wrong. I have already written many many paragraphs on this thread that show how you are wrong.

Hmmm. Not sure what you are talking about.

shiv wrote: [..]

Let us not hide behind this many many para excuse. If you can say how it is only a linguistic argument with no archaeology, please spit it out. [..]

I will do two things :
a) Logically show you that archaeology does not get into the picture w.r.t AIT debate.
b) Show that pontic steppe argument was defeated a while ago with a purely linguistic argument.

a) Suppose you have two linguists L1 and L2.
Both believe PIE is true.
L1 believes PIE is true and it arose in area x.
L2 believes PIE is true and it arose in area y.
Further constraint is x = !y : this means x and y cannot be true at the same time.

Now let us form a function f(PIE,x,y) = PIE . x + PIE . y
This is same as PIE.x + PIE.(!x)
This is same as PIE.

b) If you follow the work of Satya Mishra he pointed out (in 1970's or 80's) that Finno Uralic languages have a lot of loan words from Sanskrit. These loan words have the form of Old Indo Aryan. e.g.

In addition there exist no loan words in Vedic or Classical Sanskrit from Finno Ugric languages.

The claim that aryans at pontic steppe were in an interaction zone with finno ugric speakers to the north gets falsified because aryan tongue has no loans from finno ugric.

Since it is further known that FU speakers never lived near India then it just means that FU speakers acquired the loans from a group a emigrating aryans out of India.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 21:27

shiv wrote:
peter wrote: If you guys donot see anything wrong with this picture then by all means continue to live in your fancy world that Indians knew Sanskrit in 11000 BC and Arundhati was used for marriage rituals from 11000 BC and before.
If others think this why should it worry you sir? You are sane. Others may be mad no? Why take it upon yourself to correct their insanity.

Is there a problem in me airing my views?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Sep 2012 21:28

As per our resident AIT-proponent, ManishH ji, AIT - that is the socio-historical aspect of population movements as inferred from transmission of languages can only show chronological ordering - but the direction of flow has to be proved by archeology. That is why horses and chariots are sooooo important, because they were found where they were desired to be and dug for. So don't see why peter ji claims AIT is purely linguistic based!

It is another thing that the chronological ordering of AIT linguistics is also based on archeological interpretations - and assumed time frames for languages. I showed that the main argument for dating RV, byt its soc-alled internal "consistencies" is actually based on assumption that Sanskrit came latest - and this "latest" claim is in turn based on aswa/ratha interpretations, which are in turn linked to digging proposed steppenwolf sites.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2012 21:29

Arjun wrote:What I can't make head or tail of is this guy is incensed that Nilesh-ji provides a 5000 BC odd date as opposed to ~3000 BC for Achar. At the same time - he claims AIT case is dependent only on linguistics. If per his argument, the anti-AIT case is not changed in any way by dating of the epics- what then is the reason for his Rage Boy-antics on MBH date? Quite strange....

He has already made up his mind and does not want any data or arguments that clash with his views. But then the same thing is true for the AIT crowd. They too have made up their minds and will not countenance anything that clashes with their views. Madre caninum. Excuse my Latin. I mean dog-ma

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2012 21:32

peter wrote: Is there a problem in me airing my views?

Yes. I think you are wrong. That is a problem. But not my problem, its yours.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 21:36

peter wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote:Peter ji,

While others take their time to understand interpreation of Iyengar and my comments (they are all willing to read and reading takes time.. comprehending takes even longer. Testing my speculation took me over 15 years)., why don't you tells us what does Prof. Achar has to say about Bhishma 3:17. Afterall, he must have corroborated it for his proposal of 3067 BC, no?

Let me repeat my question, that you missed answering..

What does Achar have to say about Bhishma 3:17?
Answer the questions that we have asked you and then expect more answers. You cannot demand answers till you provide some to our questions.

RajeshA wrote:Who is "we" and which are "our" questions! Sir please speak for yourself! And if you do feel like speaking, please use the other thread as well!

This is turning into a circus. It feels like I am talking to the brain washed crowd . How may times have I asked Nilesh about Dhruva reference? He keeps saying it is Mars. Sanskrit Scholars like KM Ganguli, scientists like RN Iyengar say that it is Dhruva and not Mars. You want to believe Nilesh be my guest. But I will rather believe Ganguli and Iyengar and not Nilesh.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 21:37

shiv wrote:
peter wrote: Is there a problem in me airing my views?
Yes. I think you are wrong. That is a problem. But not my problem, its yours.

Opinion or you have some proof?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Sep 2012 21:37

When I visited the Chechen Itza pyramid in Cancun, Mexico, I learned that the pyramid architecture takes into account the astronomical records of the transit of Venus going back to 3000BC. The pyramid is sited to account for the equinox over the millenia. The astronomical records were found in Mayan script in another building close to the pyramid. So if the Mayan can keep track of visual astromincal records, why would Hindus be unable to gather such data especially when they were deeply interested in teh stars and sky?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 24 Sep 2012 21:39

peter wrote:
a) Suppose you have two linguists L1 and L2.
Both believe PIE is true.
L1 believes PIE is true and it arose in area x.
L2 believes PIE is true and it arose in area y.
Further constraint is x = !y : this means x and y cannot be true at the same time.

Now let us form a function f(PIE,x,y) = PIE . x + PIE . y
This is same as PIE.x + PIE.(!x)
This is same as PIE.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but if f(PIE,x) and f(PIE,y) may not be exhaustive set of linguists, for reasons such as incorrect to assume that PIE itself exists, and then that x and y are exhaustive meaning that
PIE does not exist
AND/OR
x is not the same as !y
AND/OR
for many variables x,y,z some function f(x), f(y) and f(z) may mean something different.
And so on.

As such these mathematical steps are hardly accurate to have scientific weight. As such, Mathematics is used to demonstrate something mathematically with numbers which adds to clarity, but this looks hardly devoid of many assumptions such as existence of PIE to begin with.

peter · Post by **peter** » 24 Sep 2012 21:43

Arjun wrote:What I can't make head or tail of is this guy is incensed that Nilesh-ji provides a 5000 BC odd date as opposed to ~3000 BC for Achar. At the same time - he claims AIT case is dependent only on linguistics.

If per his argument, the anti-AIT case is not changed in any way by dating of the epics- what then is the reason for his Rage Boy-antics on MBH date? Quite strange....

You are missing the point. The current Western AIT theory is purely a linguistic construct. It does not / can not depend on any archaeology because there is no archaeology associated with PIE speakers. Everyone knows this.

Reason why I believe dating of Mbh is related to defeating AIT is because the more weapons we have the deeper we can bury AIT.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 24 Sep 2012 21:45

Shiv ji, you wrote, in responding to Arjun ji's confusion...

He has already made up his mind and does not want any data or arguments that clash with his views. But then the same thing is true for the AIT crowd. They too have made up their minds and will not countenance anything that clashes with their views. Madre caninum. Excuse my Latin. I mean dog-ma

I meet so many dogmatic minds, we all do. Thus I wrote... 17 Sept... on this thread (page~ 130)

And while field of lingustics deserves gold medal, disciplines of genetics,geology, archelology, archeo-astronomy and other are not to be given clean chit either.. as will become clear .. as Peter ji and my discussion progresses.