Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[RajeshA]

But what about the composer of M3_62 who might be a Bhrigu? Bhrigu Rishis descendants also helped develop Mandal 2

peter ji,

actually I don't really have the slightest clue, where you wish to take this discussion, plucking here and there! You start your questions with "what about xyz"! How can the other figure, what you wish to indicate or what you wish to ask or where you wish to take the discussion? The only thing one can say is, "so what about it?"

Mandala III, Sukta 62 is a joint Sukta by ViSvAmitras and Jamadagni BhRgus, as is clear from your graph also. So what about it? Jamadagni was the nephew of ViSvAmitra, hence both the paramparas collaborated. Why is that so astonishing? Why would that destroy Talageri's thesis? On this issue, Talageri has written in Chapter 5.

4. The BhRgus and Agastyas are relatively neutral families in the Rigveda, both being basically aloof from the Vedic mainstream:

The BhRgus were, in fact, the priests of the people (the Anus) who lived to the northwest of the Vedic Aryans, and therefore generally on hostile terms with the Vedic Aryans and their RSis. However, one branch of the BhRgus, consisting of Jamadagni and his descendants, became close to the Vedic RSis; and these are the BhRgus of the Rigveda.

The Agastyas are traditionally a family of RSis whose earliest and most prominent members migrated to the South, away from the area of the Vedic Aryans, at an early point of time in their history.

Both these families owe their presence in the Rigveda to two factors:

1. Agastya and Jamadagni, the founders of these two families, were closely related to, and associated with, two other prominent eponymous RSis: Agastya was VasiSTha’s brother, and Jamadagni was ViSvAmitra’s nephew.
2. The two families were not affiliated to, or even associated with, the Bharatas, but nor were they affiliated to, or associated with, any other tribe or people.

Both the families, nevertheless, gained a late entry into the corpus of the Rigveda: even the oldest hymns of the BhRgus are found in the late MaNDalas; while the hymns of the Agastyas are, anyway, late hymns by RSis belonging to a later branch of the family.

Bhrigu Rishis descendants also helped develop Mandal 2

Yes they did.
The GRtsamadas are a later family, and the BhRgus also became associated later on. Mandala II is thus considered a later family Mandala.



Talageri writes in Chapter 5

Two families originated in the Middle Period of the Rigveda, when the heyday of the Bharatas was waning, but the Rigveda was still a Bharata book: the KaSyapas and GRtsamadas.

3. The KaSyapas and GRtsamadas are two families which are associated with the Bharatas, but not militancy affiliated to them.

Their association is based on the fact that the provenance of these two families was in the Middle Period of the Rigveda, which was still the (albeit late) period of the Bharatas.

The two families were more concerned with religious subjects (nature-myths and rituals), and hardly at all with politics or militancy.

As for GRtsamadas, in chapter 3 Talageri says

2. MaNDala II does not refer to any composer from any other MaNDala, earlier or later. And, for that matter, no other composer from any other MaNDala refers to the GRtsamadas of MaNDala II.

What is the implication of this? Sorry I did not follow.

Well the implication is simply that the GRtsamadas role in composing/maintaining Mandala II, does not stop Mandala VI from being the oldest.

If there is a AIT-Nazi position on this, we can discuss it here, but a general discussion of Talageri's book is beyond the parameters of this thread. Perhaps one would have to discuss it elsewhere.

[RajeshA]

Manuscripts from Bajaur



Publication Date: 1st Edition 2007
The Bajaur collection: A new collection of Kharoṣṭhī manuscripts. A preliminary catalogue and survey
Author: Dr. Ingo Strauch

The late nineties of the 20th century witnessed a remarkable series of discoveries of Kharoṣṭhī manuscripts. Its beginning was marked by the British Library (BL) collection, which was first described in 1997 by Richard Salomon. It is a quite large collection comprising altogether 29 birch-bark scrolls with ca. 23 Buddhist texts of different genres and styles, but obviously all belonging to a Śrāvakayāna/Hīnayāna school, most probably the Dharmaguptakas.

After the discovery of the BL collection a considerable number of additional new manuscripts appeared, among them another large collection, called after its owner the Senior collection. It bears a quite different character, containing mainly manuscripts written by one and the same scribe and forming a coherent collection of canonical texts, mainly from the Saṃyuktāgama (Salomon 2003, Glass 2006: 2-3)¹.

More than 100 years only a single Buddhist text in Kharoṣṭhī, the Dharmapada from Khotan, had been witness of a much richer and broader Buddhist tradition written in the language of the Indian North-West which seemed to be lost forever. Although it had been suggestend since long that such a tradition existed we are only now in the position to get immediate access to it. That also means that we can now study manuscripts from a very early and crucial period of the Buddhist tradition, from a region which is not only largely responsible for the spread of Buddhism into Central and East Asia, but is also supposed to play a major role in the changes Buddhism faced at that time.²

In 2006 a new collection of Kharoṣṭhī manuscripts was introduced in an article by M. Nasim Khan & Sohail Khan (2004 (2006)). This new collection, now named after its probable origin the Bajaur collection, in many regards continues this remarkable series. According to its character it can be best compared to the BL collection. Like the latter one it is a quite heterogenous compilation of birch-bark manuscripts. Almost every scroll is written by a different hand and its texts reach from canonical sūtras to philosophical treatises. Also regarding its extent it is comparable to the BL collection covering nearly 60 % of it.

But in other regards the Bajaur collection differs considerably from any of the known Kharoṣṭhī manuscript collections. First of all it contains absolutely important examples of otherwise scarcely known genres of Gāndhārī literature. Thus its largest text represents a quite elaborate version of a Gāndhārī Mahāyāna sūtra. It is written in more than 600 lines on both sides of a large composite birch-bark scroll which is more than 220 cm long. Another text contains the first example for a nearly completely preserved Arapacana syllabary in Kharoṣṭhī script. In both cases the collection fulfills expectations which were uttered long ago on the basis of previous research. What could hardly be expected, however, is also present: a Nīti/Arthaśāstra type text in Kharoṣṭhī script and the oldest Vinaya texts discovered so far. The Bajaur collection has got another pecularity, which is especially important for the evaluation of its historical context. Most of the known Gāndhārī manuscripts came to the attention of scholars only at a time, when they had already been shifted to Europe, North America or Japan. Thus with regard to the original provenance we have in most cases to rely on the information given by the sellers of these manuscripts.

It is more than a guess that lots of the new material are the result of illegal diggings along the mostly tribal belt on both sides of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. In many cases the dealers and their middlemen try to hide the true origin of their objects. Thus they are mostly said to hail from a region which is known for similar discoveries in the past and large enough to avoid further investigation.³

The Bajaur manuscripts are not a complete exception but the information we have about their discovery is by far more reliable than in the cases of the other collections. According to the original statement of the owner, the collection was found in the ruins of a Buddhist monastery known today under the name Mahal and situated according to Nasim Khan’s description „in the Bajaur area in the entrance of a narrow valley opposite to Mian Kili village (District Dir) on the right side of Bajaur river known as Rud“ (Nasim Khan & Sohail Khan (2006):10). The Mian Kili mentioned here can be identified with the place situated at 34° 49‘ 24“ North, 71° 40‘ 17“ East on the left side of the river.

¹ A catalogue of this collection is being prepared by Mark Allon. A good survey of the newly discovered material is given by Glass 2004 and Allon 2007.
² The majority of these newly discovered Kharoṣṭhī manuscripts is being studied by the Early Buddhist Manuscript Project of the University of Washington, Seattle under the guidance of Richard Salomon. See the project’s informative homepage http://www.ebmp.org.
³ E.g. the provenance of the British Library collection from Haḍḍa is far from sure (cf. Nasim Khan & Sohail
Khan 2004(2006)).

Basically these Manuscripts shed more light on Akṣobhya Buddha in Mahayana Buddhism. The reason I am bringing this up is that these scriptures could perhaps throw more light on the question of the two Buddhas - Lord Buddha (9th Avatar of Vishnu), and Sakyamuni Gautama Buddha.

[peter]

[..]
Well the implication is simply that the GRtsamadas role in composing/maintaining Mandala II, does not stop Mandala VI from being the oldest.

If there is a AIT-Nazi position on this, we can discuss it here, but a general discussion of Talageri's book is beyond the parameters of this thread. Perhaps one would have to discuss it elsewhere.

My point is this: If you look at the family of Angiras he has four sons clearly defined namely: Savya, Kutsa, Ghora and Hiranyastupa. Savya created M1_51_57, Kutsa created M1_94_98 and M1_101_115, Ghora created M3_36 and Hiranyastupa created M1_31_35. Angiras himself created M5_35_36.

Now if you look at Mandal 6, the oldest Mandal according to Talageri, it is the creation of Brahspati's children, grandchildren and great grand children. It is not clear, at least to me, that Brahspati is the son of Angiras or not. He could just be a descendant of Angiras. Note Brahspati has no hymn in Mandal 6.

How on earth can anyone claim that Mandal 6 is the oldest when Angiras' immediate sons created verses in Mandal 1 and Mandal 3, and Angiras himself created hymn in Mandal 5 while Mandal 6 has no hymn from Angiras' immediate sons or Angiras himself?

[shiv]

^^
My response to Peter's query is here

[peter]

^^
My response to Peter's query is here

And my response to you is here

[RajeshA]

Following up an old post

Rigveda and 26000 BC

Keeping aside for a min if Rigveda reference (Rigveda 1:161:13) alludes to Summer solstice near Canis Major/Canis Minor or not,

Here is how the situation would have appeared in ~26000 BC

(1) Canis Minor (Procyon) would have had +11 degree (Declination- Latitute) in Equatorial coordinate system (Not Ecliptic coordiante system that ManishH Ji was referrign to). Equatorial is modern system and mimics better how any astral body would appear (be seen) in the sky against the ecliptic and with respect to NCP.

Ecliptic system (mentioned by ManishH ji does not take into account (correct me if this is not the case) change in the position of the North celestial Pole, easy to use especially when softwares/simulations were not available, but less accurate).

(2) Canis Major (Sirius) would have had -10 degress (declination-latitude) in Equatorial coodrinate system.
In addition, it is critical to know that Canis Major (Sirius) has very high magnitude for proper motion (in comparison to many other stars). Thus position of Sirius was farther to the North than it is today against the rest of background Star field.

(3) Summer solstice was near these Stars during ~26000 BC

(4) I may also mention that the declination (latitude) attained by Sirius (-10 degree) is the closest that Sirius had been to ecliptic during last ~30000 years.

(5) If one goes through another complete cycle of the precession of equinoxes, back in the past, i.e. around 50,000 BC, Summer solstice would be near Sirius , with Sirius attaining declination of +1 Degree. But for now (1) through (4) will do.

Nilesh Oak ji,

there is a topic that I have been following for some time (since July 08, 2012).

According to the data provided by the Binary Research Institute, Sirius star shows practically no Precession at all.

I am reproducing some content here:

Karl-Heinz Homann (April 29, 1933 – April 23, 2008):



Karl-Heinz was born in Oer-Erkenschwick near Recklinghausen, Germany. He had a background as a mechanic and machinist, and had a Master's Degree as an Electronic Technician. Most of his life he was self-employed, both in Germany and in Canada. He and his family emigrated to Canada in 1980. He spent his remaining years on a small farm near Peers, Alberta.

Every job was his hobby. He loved flying his airplane, enjoyed travel, hiking, reading and organic gardening, but his passion was mathematics and astronomy. He studied the knowledge and mysteries surrounding ancient cultures, especially of Ancient Egypt and the Great Pyramid which held an incredible fascination for him. In his avid reading, he came across Robert Temple’s book The Sirius Mystery and later during his own research, Karl-Heinz was intrigued by the work of R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz.

De Lubicz says an interesting thing while talking about the Egyptians use of Sirius to time their yearly calendar events. He said:

For it is remarkable that owing to the precession of the equinoxes, on the one hand, and the movement of Sirius on the other, the position of the sun with respect to Sirius is displaced in the same direction, almost exactly to the same extent. [R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, Sacred Science, Inner Traditions (1982)]

It was this short statement that launched Karl on his decision to find out if this was true. His detailed observations over a 20 year period show definitively that Sirius does not precess. This may have been why the Egyptians were so interested in Sirius and why it’s heliacal rising (first annual appearance of the star just before sun rise) became the calibration point for their calendar system. The beauty of their use of Sirius is that they did not have to worry about leap years at all and yet this system will maintain accuracy better than the Gregorian calendar. What Pope Gregory’s experts didn’t know was this crucial piece of information: Sirius does not precess.

The fact that Sirius seems to maintain its position relative to the position of the sun was a surprise to most scientists (aware of precession), when it was first noticed by the French scientific community following the Egyptian discoveries of Napoleon (and the Dendera Zodiac) in the early 1800’s. Perhaps to save the lunisolar theory of precession, or at least to make sense of physics as then taught, physicist, astronomer, mathematician Jean-Baptiste Biot (21 April 1774 – 3 February 1862) proclaimed that this phenomenon was an oddity of the latitude and horizon around Dendera, meaning it just seemed as if Sirius was immune to the effects of precession. And to this day this is the assumption of many astronomers and astrophysicists. Physicist Jed Z. Buchwald, professor of history and science and technology (Caltech and MIT) commented on this topic in his article Egyptian Stars Under Paris Skies, when he noted:

The rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the heavens and important to Egyptians as the signal for the annual flooding of the Nile, was assumed by the French physicists to move with relation to the sun as do the constellations of the zodiac. It does not, however, as we see here.

I think Murugan ji had also commented on the Sirius Mystery earlier in another thread, but in a different context.

Then there is the discussion on Trishanku, where Alpha Centauri is 4.3 million light years away and Sirius is 8.6 million light years away right now, which could mean that the Centaurus system (Alpha Centauri AB and Proxima Centauri) are also part of this system made up of (Surya, Trishanku and Lubdhaka).

Interesting is also that light would need a whole Maha-Yuga, i.e. 4.3 million years to travel between Prithvi and Trishanku and 2 Maha-Yugas (8.6 million years) to travel to Lubdhaka (Sirius).
Added Later: No million! Sorry!

The theory says that the Solar System revolves around some dark binary, such as a brown dwarf, or both revolve around a common point.

What this does is that it allows us to see the precession of equinoxes from a different angle. It allows us to consider the celestial sphere differently. At the moment this is how we see it



but we could also understand the precession of equinoxes in the following way, as two stars revolving around each other.



To see the simulation of the precession of the equinox in this reference frame, check here and here.

For discussion, please go to GDF Thread.

[Abhijit]

RajeshA ji, a minor (!) nitpick.

Alpha Centauri is 4.3 million light years away

I think it is 4.3 light years - not 4.3 million light years.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA ji, a minor (!) nitpick.

Alpha Centauri is 4.3 million light years away

I think it is 4.3 light years - not 4.3 million light years.

Abhijit ,

thanks for the correction!

[Murugan]

Proper motion and precession of Sirius. (Geo'synchronised' ?!?)

Kinematics
In 1718, Edmond Halley discovered the proper motion of the hitherto presumed "fixed" stars[34] after comparing contemporary astrometric measurements with those given in Ptolemy's Almagest. The bright stars Aldebaran, Arcturus and Sirius were noted to have moved significantly, the last of which having progressed 30 arc minutes (about the diameter of the moon) southwards in 1,800 years.[35]

In 1868, Sirius became the first star to have its velocity measured. Sir William Huggins examined the spectrum of this star and observed a noticeable red shift. He concluded that Sirius was receding from the Solar System at about 40 km/s.[36][37] Compared to the modern value of −7.6 km/s,[2] this both was an overestimate and had the wrong sign; the minus means it is approaching the Sun. However, it is notable for introducing the study of celestial radial velocities.

Due to its declination of roughly −17°,[2] Sirius is a circumpolar star from latitudes south of 73° S. From the Southern Hemisphere in early July, Sirius can be seen in both the evening where it sets after the Sun, and in the morning where it rises before the Sun.[68] Due to precession (and slightly proper motion), Sirius will move further south. From AD 9000 Sirius won't be visible anymore from northern and central Europe and in AD 14000 (when Vega is close to the North Pole) its declination will be -67º and thus will be circumpolar throughout South Africa and in most parts of Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius

[Murugan]

RajeshA ji, a minor (!) nitpick.

Alpha Centauri is 4.3 million light years away

I think it is 4.3 light years - not 4.3 million light years.

To be precise, it is Proxima Centauri and not alpha centauri that is nearest star to us. Alpha Centauri is a triple star group. Alpha Centauri A, B, and C. Its precise designation is Alpha Centauri C. alpha cen C is Proxima Centauri which is the nearest.

Proxima Centauri (Latin proxima, meaning "next to" or "nearest to")[12] is a red dwarf star about 4.24 light-years distant inside the G-cloud in the constellation of Centaurus.[13][14] It was discovered in 1915 by Robert Innes, the Director of the Union Observatory in South Africa, and is the nearest known star to the Sun,[11] although it is too faint to be seen with the naked eye. Its distance to the second- and third-nearest stars, which form the bright binary Alpha Centauri, is 0.237 ± 0.011 ly (15,000 ± 700 AU).[15] Proxima Centauri may be part of a triple star system with Alpha Centauri A and B.

[RajeshA]

Precession of Equinoxes and the Binary Star Theory of Sun

I am posting some more info on Sirius here, because the Binary Star Theory for our Sun gives an alternate explanation for the Precession of the Equinoxes, which to me sounds a lot more logical than the wobble of the Earth.

And the Precession of the Equinoxes is used and will be used for Archaeo-Astronomy and for dating of many of our scriptures, and thus establishing our history.

So even though discussion on this subject can and should take place in the "Archaeo-Astronomy and Dating of Indian Texts" Thread, here this is just posted as relevant info.

Actually the theory was first propounded by Sri Yukteswar.

From Wikipedia:

The name "Sirius" is derived from the Ancient Greek: Σείριος Seirios ("glowing" or "scorcher").

Sounds a lot like Surya! BTW, did Surya ever pertain to Sirius?

______________________________________________


A Sirius Revolution: The Sun's Astral Companion: A Model for the Sun-Sirius System
By William Brown

Who is our Sun's twin?

Is there a candidate for binary revolution among the visible stars? Logically we could begin with the closest star to our own, which is Alpha Centauri. At a distance of 4.37 light years, it is the third brightest star and, as is common, it is itself a binary system.

Another star that shows evidence of being gravitationally bound within the system and is called Alpha Proxima. Alpha Proxima is 0.2 light years from Alpha Centauri AB, about 400 times the distance of Neptune's orbit from the Sun. This shows that a dual or poly star system does not have to necessarily be in close orbital interaction. However Alpha Centauri lies at a declination of -60°, which is well out of the plane of the Solar System, and as such, has a near circumpolar motion in the sky.

A more suitable candidate would be a star closer to the plane of the Solar System, or celestial equator. Sirius meets this criteria, at a declination of -17°. It is also the brightest star in the night sky, three times brighter than Alpha Centauri and twice as bright as the next brightest star Canopus. Sirius is also the 5th closest system of stars to our own. More significant is the fact that The Sirius Research Group has been recording the position of Sirius for approximately 20 years now and has not recorded any measurable alteration in its location relative to the precession.

Imagine that you are holding hands with a friend, face to face. If you both began to spin around in a circle, your friend would appear to be stationary, while everything around them would appear to be spinning very rapidly. Your joined hands would be the focal point of the revolving motion. While the surrounding environment would not be spinning around, it would appear to be from you perspective.

This illustrates how the perception of both you and your friend can be very illusionary -- you see yourselves as relatively stationary while the background whirls around you. This is very similar to our situation with respect to observations of celestial motion between the Sun and its solar companions. Our observation of this phenomenon is more complex in that we must also factor in the orbital motion of the Earth and planets around the Sun.

Celestial bodies in our Solar System show harmonic resonance with the Sirius system. Pluto and Sedna are at an incline to the plane of the solar system of roughly 17°, the same as Sirius. Both have orbital periods of 250 years and 12,000 years, which are at 1:5 and 1:2 resonances with Sirius, respectively (12,000 years is roughly one half of the orbit of the Sun around Sirius, hence a 1:2 resonance).

Resonance is a criterion stipulated for any system of orbiting bodies, which is why planets and moons are often times tidally locked with their parent body, and is another reason why the hypothesis of a putative wobble is very unappealing. A wobble is indicative of dynamic instability, not harmonic resonance (think of a spinning top before it falls, it begins to wobble).



Sirius is a binary system. Sirius A is the highly visible star, but there is a companion known as Sirius B, first described in modern times by the Dogon tribe of Mali (Africa) and subsequently verified by the observational science of astronomers. The Dogon also described a third celestial body with characteristics of a neutron star. While a neutron wouldn't be visible in the same manner as Sirius B, the combined gravitational attraction of a neutron star, a white giant star and a white dwarf would certainly provide the gravitational force needed to keep the Sun bound at a distance of 8.6 light years. In fact, the presence of a neutron star is by no means necessary for the gravitational interaction of the Sun with Sirius.

<snip>

The new Sun-Sirius system model satisfies the observational behavior of Sirius and the constellations of the zodiac as they regress throughout the great cycle of 26,000 years. There is no need to introduce a "wobble" in the Earth's axis, induced by the action of 9 other celestial bodies -- a theory which is just a relic from a time when the motion of the Solar System was not yet conceived.

It would be sagacious not to place Sirius at the center of the Solar System, for in a fractal system there is no true center. The fractal nature of the Universe engenders its self-arrangement, or more apropos, the Universe is a holofractal graphic system. Therefore there are many nested orbital interactions, going out as far as the local cluster of galaxies, which themselves have a focal point.

This is nothing new. Previous civilizations understood celestial mechanics at an advanced level, and the mathematical precision of their astronomical observations is a testament to this. The reason why the Egyptians and many other civilizations of that era used Sirius as their marker for the passage of time is because they picked the most stable object as their reference point.

We choose the Sun as our reference point, and this is obviously highly inaccurate. Every 4 years a day has to be added to keep accurate time. But even Sirius was not accurate enough for the "Keeper's of Time", the Mayans. With their remarkably advanced astronomy they quickly detected the inaccuracies in using Sirius as a marker for the passage of time, and switched to an even more accurate cycle involving the Pleiades. There is however an even more stable reference point than the Pleiades and that is the Galactic center, which from the perspective of our galaxy is the ultimate center of rotation.

And indeed the Mayan's chose the Galactic Center as a reference point to mark the passage of time, which is evident as the Mayan Long Count ends with the galactic alignment of the Solar System on December 21st 2012. Therefore, the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that the Sun orbits Sirius, or that Sirius orbits Alcyone and that Alcyone orbits the Galactic Nucleus, is not revolutionary -- it's just a rediscovery of lost knowledge.


For discussion, please go to GDF Thread.

[RajeshA]

For light to travel between Surya and Sirius, it needs one millionth of the time of 2 Daivya-Mahayugas. For Surya and Sirius to make one whole revolution of each other, one needs the time of 2 Manaviya-Mahayugas.

2 Daivya Mahayugas = 8.64 million years.
2 Manaviya Mahayugas = 24000 years.

Surya-Sirius Distance = 8.6 light years.
Proposed Surya-Sirius Revolution = 24,000 years.
Proposed Actual Duration of Precession of Equinoxes = 24,000 years.

I think we should try to popularize the Surya-Sirius Binary System as a term! It sounds coooool!

[Arjun]

Was Yukteshwar the first person to mention the possibility of Sun being part of a Binary system? That would indeed be revolutionary....looks like modern science is only now getting around to researching this possibility.

[Murugan]

Our rishis/scientists/astronomers were the first to mention so many things.

For example, Jyeshtha (alpha scorpii, Antares) was named because it is real jyeshta, eldest, oldest, and one of the biggests, a supergiant, 883 times the dia of our sun, 10,000 times brighter than sun.

[RajeshA]

Was Yukteshwar the first person to mention the possibility of Sun being part of a Binary system? That would indeed be revolutionary....looks like modern science is only now getting around to researching this possibility.

He called the central point of the two stars, the Vishnu Nabhi!

[RajeshA]

Books for the Library



Publication Date: Jan 11, 1994

The Presence of Siva [Google] [Amazon]
Author: Stella Kramrisch [Obituary]

Stella Kramisch is a Padmabhushan awardee.

The Book is on Mythology. Lots of stuff relevant for Astronomy.

[Lalmohan]

IIRC the dogong people of southern sudan also have a particular reverence for sirius
wonder what the roots of it are...?

[Prem]

[He called the central point of the two stars, the Vishnu Nabhi!

You mean Black hole or gravitational pull and effecty ?
Brahma as a black hole spins and create the galaxies by churning Or Kala Hole as Sheh Nag serving as (n)resting place for Vushnu Tatva.

[RajeshA]

Sirius is know in Indian texts

• as Mrigavyadha (The Deer-Slayer),
• as Lubdhaka (The Hunter) and
• as Sarama (The She-Dog of the Gods) in the Vedas.

For discussion, please go to GDF Thread.

[RajeshA]

[He called the central point of the two stars, the Vishnu Nabhi!

You mean Black hole or gravitational pull and effecty ?
Brahma as a black hole spins and create the galaxies by churning Or Kala Hole as Sheh Nag serving as (n)resting place for Vushnu Tatva.

He may be wrong on nomenclature. May Vishnu-Nabhi means something else.

By central point, I do not necessarily mean 'a black hole'. I mean the central point around which two bodies revolve, due to the pull of the two bodies towards each other. But no discounting anything, including a black hole.

[Virendra]

http://www.aryamahasammelan.com/
International Arya Conference 2012 - Oct 25th to Oct 28th in New Delhi
There's Program schedule given at the site, includes some events on Vedas too

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from "Non-Western Worldview" Thread

An ancient Greek account of the Indian Ocean region in 1 century BC. Trade and peoples. Note the plethora of Sanskrit words migrating to Greek.

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea

Useful to know how the Greeks used to see us - commercially speaking.

[Lalmohan]

a reference to the sudanese sirius knowledge base - seems to have some similarities to others above

The Sirius Mystery

[shiv]

Not sure is Rajesh the locator of all literature of this genre has found and linked this one before. It's an 1852 book called "India in Greece" by one Pococke. What Pockocke does is to map all ancient Greeks names and places as having origins in Sanskrit and Indian tradition or mythology. He maps names frm the Mahabharata to places and people named in ancient Greek, The book itself is written in a slightly archaic verbose style making it a little tedious, but is a free download.

I wonder if Dubeyji might want to have a look although I can myself detect what seem to be wild connections (eg between latter day Rajputs and ancient Greeks)

The book itself is here
"India in Greece or truth in Mythology" by E.Pococke
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74279360/Indi ... -E-Pococke

Meanwhile - for those who do not want to plough through the book but want some timepass reading of a man who thinks like Pococke and quotes him - here is a link.

http://viewzone.com/phoenician.html

Personally I would not reject everything that these seemingly wild connections suggest. I think a little corner of one's mind needs to be kept open for the unusual. There is a huge gap in our knowledge of human history from 20.000 BC to 1000 BC if we source our knowledge entirely from currently accepted sources

[ramana]

Pococke wrote in 1852 before Maxmueller was commissioned to do his AIT bomb.

[RajeshA]

Not sure is Rajesh the locator of all literature of this genre has found and linked this one before. It's an 1852 book called "India in Greece" by one Pococke. What Pockocke does is to map all ancient Greeks names and places as having origins in Sanskrit and Indian tradition or mythology. He maps names frm the Mahabharata to places and people named in ancient Greek, The book itself is written in a slightly archaic verbose style making it a little tedious, but is a free download.

I wonder if Dubeyji might want to have a look although I can myself detect what seem to be wild connections (eg between latter day Rajputs and ancient Greeks)

The book itself is here
"India in Greece or truth in Mythology" by E.Pococke
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74279360/Indi ... -E-Pococke

Meanwhile - for those who do not want to plough through the book but want some timepass reading of a man who thinks like Pococke and quotes him - here is a link.

http://viewzone.com/phoenician.html

Personally I would not reject everything that these seemingly wild connections suggest. I think a little corner of one's mind needs to be kept open for the unusual. There is a huge gap in our knowledge of human history from 20.000 BC to 1000 BC if we source our knowledge entirely from currently accepted sources

There is also a link here.

[peter]

[..]
Meanwhile - for those who do not want to plough through the book but want some timepass reading of a man who thinks like Pococke and quotes him - here is a link.

http://viewzone.com/phoenician.html

Personally I would not reject everything that these seemingly wild connections suggest. I think a little corner of one's mind needs to be kept open for the unusual. There is a huge gap in our knowledge of human history from 20.000 BC to 1000 BC if we source our knowledge entirely from currently accepted sources

Couple of question for you and Rajesh on Jew genetics.

If we do assign the Vedic Panis identity to Jews/Phoenecians how do we verify the claim that these were really Indic people?

Is there something in the genetics of Jews and Lebanese (Lebanon was the stronghold of phoencians) which makes them kin of Indians?

Second question is regarding the kundal (ear ornament) that the excavated figure seems to be wearing.

Is there some knowledge which talks about what populations of the earth used to wear kundal?

[shiv]

One more kick in the butt of AIT in favor of OIT.

Peacock signifying Mitanni connection with India rather than Andronovo or Syria
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3JNY4 ... lQ0dTA1REU

[ShauryaT]

I wonder if Dubeyji might want to have a look although I can myself detect what seem to be wild connections (eg between latter day Rajputs and ancient Greeks)

Shiv ji: Ram Swarup again touches upon this work and others in the same book, I told you about.

Here is an excerpt.

Greeks

Hindu thought also exerted a great influence on ancient Greek thought as M.E. Pococke shows in his India in Greece. It is believed that Pythagoras visited Indian and learnt the doctrine of transmigration and many ascetic practices from here. One meets many parallel ideas in the Upanishads and Plato. These similarities are not fortuitous but they emanated from a common deeper vision and life-philosophy. Apollonius the "wise man of Tyana", perhaps the greatest saint of the Hellenistic world, a contemporary of Jesus, visited the wise men of India and was highly satisfied. Later on, he also visited Ethiopia to meet her naked ascetics, who, he believed, had borrowed their spirituality from India. But, as he already suspected, he did not find them worthy pupils of India.

Pythagoras and Orphic mysteries stand very high in Greek religion and they have family likeness with Hinduism. Lecky in his History of European Morals quotes an old tradition in Greece that Pythagoras had himself come to India and learnt philosophy from the gymnosophists. It seems he believed in an "all-pervading soul" which is at least one important attribute of Hindu âtman. He believed in rebirth or transmigration; he taught and practised harmlessness or non-injury; chastity was the leading virtue of his school of thought; he taught silence; he taught that the end of man is to "become like God". Orphic mysteries taught release (lysis) from all material entanglements, which is close to moksha of the Hindus.

Pythagoras taught the doctrine of the witness, drashTâ of the Hindus. He said that life is like a gathering at the Olympic Games, where some come to buy and sell, others to play, but the best of them come to look on. This is just like the Upanishads' two birds on a tree, one eating its fruits and the other just looks on. It has reference to the witness self of the Upanishads, the kûTastha of the Gita. In higher Greek religion the doctrine of the life of a spectator holds a high place.

When we come to the period of recorded history, we find that India had intimate contacts with Greece which at this time was more a part of Asia than of Europe. Greek religion, philosophy and literature show lively Indian influences. India even at this time was known for its wisdom and many Greek philosophers like Democritus, Anaxarchus and Pyrrho visited India and according to Lucianus, the Goddess of philosophy first descended upon "the Indians, the mightiest nation upon the earth".


Apolionius

Apollonius of Tyna (born c. 4 AD), the great saint of the Greek world, was a Pythogorian teacher, a great ascetic, a celebate, a vegetarian; he was against every form of cruelty to animals; he protested against gladiatorial shows. He was a great name throughout the Pagan world. Dio Casius tells us that that Caracalla (211-216) erected a chapel to his memory. Apuleius ranked him with Moses and Zoroaster. Lampridius tells us that Alexander Severus included Apollonius with Abraham, and Orpheus amongst his household Gods. For this very fact, he became a hated name among the Christians. In their struggle against Christianity, Pagan philosophers often invoked his name. Hierocles, proconsul of Bithynia under Diocletian (c. 305) cited Apollonius' miracles to show that miracles were not the peculiar property of Christianity. Eusebius and later on Lactantius (c. 315) attacked Hierocles for this. But orthodox Christians could not believe that there could be such a great ethical and divine character outside the Christian fold. Augustine did not speak ill of him but rebuked those who regarded him as equal of Jesus. Among the early Christians he acquired the name of Antichrist, and he continued to be berated by the Church. Even in the fifteenth century, he was denounced as a detestable magician.


Âtma-vâda and Advaita

He visited India to meet its wise men. He met one Iarchus and was deeply satisfied. The latter asked him: "What knowledge do you think we have that you lack?" Apollonious replied: "It is my opinion that your ways are wiser and much more godly. But if I were to find among you nothing that I do not know, I would also have learned that there is nothing further for me to learn." Iarchus told him: "You, our visitor, have (already) a share of this wisdom, but yet not all of it." Then the teaching began but what it was and about its nature nothing is said. The biographer, however, relates many anecdotes and throws interesting sidelights. He tells us that in their very first meeting, Iarchus told Apollonius everything about him, his ancestry on his father's and mother's side, his journey and the people he met and talks he had with them. Apollonius was amazed. Iarchus also told him about Apollonius' nature and said: "We discern every kind of soul, and have countless clues to discover them." "Ask me whatever you like, since you have come among men who know everything," said the chief of the Indian wise men to his distinguished visitor. He in turn asked the Indians if they knew themselves, expecting them to be like the Greeks in thinking it is difficult to know oneself. But to his surprise, Iarchus replied: "We know everything because we begin by knowing ourselves. None of us would approach our kind of philosophy without knowing himself first." Apollonius had no difficulty in accepting this statement for it was also his own belief. He asked Iarchus what they thought they were, and the latter replied: "Gods." And why? "Because we are good men," Iarchus said (p. 80). Later on in his life when he used this doctrine before the Emperor of Rome when he was being tried for instigating treason, he also told him that Iarchus and Phraotes, the two Indians, "are the only humans whom I consider Gods and worthy of being called so".

Apollonius discussed the Greek heroes with Iarchus, and he well knew them. Iarchus said: "Troy was destroyed by the Achaeans that sailed there then, and you Greeks have been destroyed by the tales about it. You think the only heroes are those that attacked Troy, and so you neglect a larger number of more godlike men produced by your own country, by Egypt, and by India." Discussing Achilles, the hero of the Trojan war, he remarked that Homer makes Achilles come to Troy for Helen, and says that on his way he had captured twelve cities by sea and eleven by land. Then he compares him with an old Indian hero - in fact, he himself in an old incarnation - who founded sixty cities, most esteemed in the country. And who could believe that "sacking cities is more glorious than building them?" he asks. He further observes that "to prove your courage defending the liberty of your own land is far better than bringing slavery on a city, especially when it is because of a woman who probably did not mind being carried off".

Earlier when he had met an Indian king at Taxila, the descendent of Porus, the meeting with him was as memorable. The king lived simply and wisely. Asked about his diet, the king replied: "Of wine I drink as much as I sacrifice to the sun. What I catch in the hunt others eat: the exercise is enough for me. My food is vegetables, the centre of date-palms and their fruit and everything that grows beside the river. I also eat many things that grow on trees: they are harvested by these hands of mine."

Not that the king neglected kingly duties and military arts. He practised javelin and discus even while he went out to bathe. Learning shooting and archery went on while the king's party ate. "Shooting through a sling, using a hair as a target, and drawing an outline of one's own son in arrows while he stands against a board are others of their convivial pursuits." These continued even while they dined and drank.

The Greek saint was highly satisfied with his Indian visit. When he left the Indian philosophers, he wrote to them that they had shown him "a path through heaven," and that "I will continue to enjoy your conversation as if still with you, if I have not drunk of the cup of Tantalus in vain". He said that "he would recall all this to the Greeks, and enjoy your conversations as if you were present". He often spoke of these wise men to his audience later on in his life. To the Egyptians, he said: "I saw the Indian Brahmans living on the earth and not on it, walled without walls, and with no possessions except the whole world."

Apollonius believed that Egypt and Ethiopia derived their wisdom from India, and that the Naked Philosophers of Ethiopia were emigrants from India. He also believed that Pythagoras (about 500 BC) and his sect derived their philosophy from India.

Apollonius's idea of a spiritual life was the same as that of the Hindus. He believed that spirituality belongs to purified buddhi and it was native to man and he distrusted those who hawked revealed truths. He advised a Roman emperor, Euphrates, to "approve and pursue the kind that is in accordance with nature. But avoid the kind that claims to be inspired: people like that about tell lies about Gods, and urge us to do many foolish things" (p. 130).

Once when asked why he studied philosophy, he said that it was "to know the Gods and to understand men, since knowing oneself was less difficult than knowing another" (p. 106).

He visited all the shrines and he could see his God in all the Gods. He said that "none of the Gods refuse me, but they let me share their roof". We are told by his biographer that Apollonius lived in different sanctuaries, moving and changing from one to another. When criticized for this, he said, "Even the Gods do not live in heaven all the time. They travel to Ethiopia, to Olympia and to Athos. I think it illogical that the Gods travel around every country of mankind, while men do not visit all the Gods" (p. 103).

It seemed that while he was outside the Greek and Roman world visiting barbarian countries which included India, all shrines were open to him.

It seems that it was not the custom even in Rome, so hospitable to all the Gods, for Telesinus, a Roman consul commented: "The barbarians have anticipated the Romans in a very praise-worthy deed."

He spoke of two Zeuses: one the statue of Zeus made by Phidias at Olympia; it was seated since that was the decision of the artist. But there was also another Zeus, Homer's Zeus "whom the poet describes in many shapes, and who is a more marvellous creation than the Zeus of ivory; for this Zeus was visible on earth, while the other was supposed to be in everything in the universe"1 (p. 90-91).

Apolonious was not only open to various Gods, he was open to worshipping them with different rites. Not to him one rite or creed. When he met the wise men of India, he wanted to participate in all their religious worships. "I would certainly be doing a wrong to the Caucasus and the Indus, which I passed coming here to see you, if I did not steep myself in all your rites," he told the chief of the wisemen of India.

He practised non-injury to living beings. On one occasion he refused even when invited even by a kinge to participate in the chase. He believed in non-injury to living beings. He made no blood sacrifice. Apollonious said that "men make virtuous requests when their sacrifices are pure"; he said that "he believed that the Gods shared these opinion about sacrifice". He was accused of being a magician, of being able to foresee. To this he answered that his food was different from other men; that it was light which "keeps my senses in a kind of mysterious clarity, and prevents cloudiness from affecting them; and causes me to discern everything that is and will be, as if it were reflected in a mirror... Gods are aware of things before they happen, men when they happen, and wise men when they are about to happen" (p. 218-9).

Apollonius explains why he and Pythagoras stayed away from meat and used linen in their dress: He said that Earth grows everything for mankind and those who are willing to live at peace with the animals need nothing. But some "disobey the earth and sharpen knives against the animals to gain clothing and food. The Indian Brahmans disapproved of this personally and taught the Naked Philosophers of Egypt to disapprove of it too. From there Pythagoras, who was the first Greek to associate with Egyptians, borrowed the principle. He let the earth keep living creatures, but held that what the earth grows is pure, and so lived off that because it was sufficient to feed body and soul. Clothing made from dead creatures, which most people wear, he considered impure; he dressed in linen and, for the same reason, made his shoes of plaited bark. He derived many advantages from this purity, above all that of perceiving his own soul" (p. 212).

He believed in rebirth. Pythogoras had many births. In one birth, he also fought at Troy, and then "passed into several bodies according to the law of Adrasteia, whereby souls migrte. (according to tradition, a name of Namesis derived from an altar erected to her by Adrastus. But could it be Hindu adrishTa in the ultimate analysis?). Finally, he returned to human form and was born the son. of Mensarchides of Samos, so that he became a wise man who had been a barbarian, an Ionian who had been a Trojan, and a man so immortal that he did not even forget he had been Euphorbus" (p. 212). Apollonius also knew his past and future births though as he himself says, "I did not announce before the Greeks what my soul had changed into or changed from in the past, or what it will in future, even though I know" (p. 215). Apollonius believed in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul but discoursed his pupils from meddling too much in such questions:

"The soul's an immortal thing, not yours to own
But Providence's. When the body wastes,
Like a swift horse that breaks its bonds, the soul
Leaps nimbly out, and mingles with light air,
Shunning its hatred, dreary servitude.
But what is this to you, who when you've gone
Will know it well? And why among the living
Bother yourself with thinking on such things?"

[shiv]

Thanks for the interesting info Shaurya. I have Ram Swarup's book but have not started reading it yet. But looks like you have an e book?

[RajeshA]

Online Books




Publication Date: October 2000

On Hinduism: Reviews and Reflections [BOOKadda] [Amazon]
Author: Ram Swarup

Relevance
Chapter 4: Indo-European Encounter: An Indian Perspective

[ShauryaT]

Thanks for the interesting info Shaurya. I have Ram Swarup's book but have not started reading it yet. But looks like you have an e book?

I bought the hard cover about 6-7 years back and since then ebook is available and have downloaded it. After the BG and my experiments of MKG, this is the third book to create a lasting impression on me (especially chapter 1). I have read this work multiple times and now use it to teach some high school kids in Massa land on SD. Arun Shourie considered him a guru/friend and that is good for me.

It is my view that future generations will venerate the works and insights of this man.

[shiv]

Whatever the real truth modern comparative linguistics has arisen from a desire to make sure that Sanskrit is NOT the original PIE. With this starting point any theory that placed PIE anywhere ner India faces resistance - no matter what evidence is found in genetics or archaeology. Linguistics itself needs zero evidence to reach conclusions - like placing PIE in Pontic steppe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method

Schleicher’s explanation of why he offered reconstructed forms:[3]

In the present work an attempt is made to set forth the inferred Indo-European original language side by side with its really existent derived languages.<snip> there is, I think, another of no less importance gained by it, namely that it shows the baselessness of the assumption that the non-Indian Indo-European languages were derived from Old-Indian (Sanskrit).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable
Schleicher's fable

Schleicher (1868)

Avis akvāsas ka

Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam. Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti. Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat.

Hirt (1939)

Owis ek’wōses-kʷe

Owis, jesmin wьlənā ne ēst, dedork’e ek’wons, tom, woghom gʷьrum weghontm̥, tom, bhorom megam, tom, gh’ьmonm̥ ōk’u bherontm̥. Owis ek’womos ewьwekʷet: k’ērd aghnutai moi widontei gh’ьmonm̥ ek’wons ag’ontm̥. Ek’wōses ewьwekʷont: kl’udhi, owei!, k’ērd aghnutai vidontmos: gh’ьmo, potis, wьlənām owjôm kʷr̥neuti sebhoi ghʷermom westrom; owimos-kʷe wьlənā ne esti. Tod k’ek’ruwos owis ag’rom ebhuget.

Lehmann and Zgusta (1979)

Owis eḱwōskʷe

Gʷərēi owis, kʷesjo wl̥hnā ne ēst, eḱwōns espeḱet, oinom ghe gʷr̥um woǵhom weǵhontm̥, oinomkʷe meǵam bhorom, oinomkʷe ǵhm̥enm̥ ōḱu bherontm̥. Owis nu eḱwobh(j)os (eḱwomos) ewewkʷet: "Ḱēr aghnutoi moi eḱwōns aǵontm̥ nerm̥ widn̥tei". Eḱwōs tu ewewkʷont: "Ḱludhi, owei, ḱēr ghe aghnutoi n̥smei widn̥tbh(j)os (widn̥tmos): nēr, potis, owiōm r̥ wl̥hnām sebhi gʷhermom westrom kʷrn̥euti. Neǵhi owiōm wl̥hnā esti". Tod ḱeḱluwōs owis aǵrom ebhuget.

Adams (1997)

H2óu̯is h1ék̂u̯ōs-kʷe

[Gʷr̥hxḗi] h2óu̯is, kʷési̯o u̯lh2néh4 ne (h1é) est, h1ék̂u̯ons spék̂et, h1oinom ghe gʷr̥hxúm u̯óĝhom u̯éĝhontm̥ h1oinom-kʷe ĝ méĝham bhórom, h1oinom-kʷe ĝhménm̥ hxṓk̂u bhérontm̥. h2óu̯is tu h1ek̂u̯oibh(i̯)os u̯eukʷét: 'k̂ḗr haeghnutór moi h1ék̂u̯ons haéĝontm̥ hanérm̥ u̯idn̥téi. h1ék̂u̯ōs tu u̯eukʷónt: 'k̂ludhí, h2óu̯ei, k̂ḗr ghe haeghnutór n̥sméi u̯idn̥tbh(i̯)ós. hanḗr, pótis, h2éu̯i̯om r̥ u̯l̥h2néham sebhi kʷr̥néuti nu gʷhérmom u̯éstrom néĝhi h2éu̯i̯om u̯l̥h2néha h1ésti.' Tód k̂ek̂luu̯ṓs h2óu̯is haéĝrom bhugét.

Kortlandt (2007)

ʕʷeuis ʔkeuskʷe

ʕʷeuis iosmi ʕuelʔn neʔst ʔekuns ʔe 'dērkt, tom 'gʷrʕeum uogom ugentm, tom m'geʕm borom, tom dgmenm ʔoʔku brentm. ʔe uēukʷt ʕʷeuis ʔkumus: kʷntske ʔmoi kērt ʕnerm ui'denti ʔekuns ʕ'gentm. ʔe ueukʷnt ʔkeus: kludi ʕʷuei, kʷntske nsmi kērt ui'dntsu: ʕnēr potis ʕʷuiom ʕulʔenm subi gʷormom uestrom kʷrneuti, ʕʷuimus kʷe ʕuelʔn neʔsti. To'd kekluus ʕʷeuis ʕe'grom ʔe bēu'gd.

Lühr (2008)

h2ówis h1ék’wōskwe

h2ówis, (H)jésmin h2wlh2néh2 ne éh1est, dedork’e (h1)ék’wons, tóm, wóg’hom gwérh2um wég’hontm, tóm, bhórom még’oh2m, tóm, dhg’hémonm h2oHk’ú bhérontm. h2ówis (h1)ék’wobhos ewewkwe(t): k’ḗrd h2ghnutoj moj widntéj dhg’hmónm (h1)ék’wons h2ég’ontm. (h1)ék’wōs ewewkw: k’ludhí, h2ówi! k’ḗrd h2ghnutoj widntbhós: dhg’hémō(n), pótis, h2wlnéh2m h2ówjom kwnewti sébhoj gwhérmom wéstrom; h2éwibhoskwe h2wlh2néh2 né h1esti. Tód k’ek’luwṓs h2ówis h2ég’rom ebhuge(t).

English translation

English translation

The Sheep and the Horses

[On a hill,] a sheep that had no wool saw horses, one of them pulling a heavy wagon, one carrying a big load, and one carrying a man quickly. The sheep said to the horses: "My heart pains me, seeing a man driving horses." The horses said: "Listen, sheep, our hearts pain us when we see this: a man, the master, makes the wool of the sheep into a warm garment for himself. And the sheep has no wool." Having heard this, the sheep fled into the plain.

[RajeshA]

Whatever the real truth modern comparative linguistics has arisen from a desire to make sure that Sanskrit is NOT the original PIE. With this starting point any theory that placed PIE anywhere ner India faces resistance - no matter what evidence is found in genetics or archaeology. Linguistics itself needs zero evidence to reach conclusions - like placing PIE in Pontic steppe.


Schleicher's (1868) fable

Avis akvāsas ka

Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam. Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti. Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat.

English translation

The Sheep and the Horses

[On a hill,] a sheep that had no wool saw horses, one of them pulling a heavy wagon, one carrying a big load, and one carrying a man quickly. The sheep said to the horses: "My heart pains me, seeing a man driving horses." The horses said: "Listen, sheep, our hearts pain us when we see this: a man, the master, makes the wool of the sheep into a warm garment for himself. And the sheep has no wool." Having heard this, the sheep fled into the plain.

The West has been pushing this little piece of fabricated lies using some serious money like in the case of the movie Prometheus, which I had reviewed earlier. They made the movie for $130 million, and have made a little profit as well.

In Prometheus, this little fable was also used.

[RajeshA]

Here is a little sketch of how IMHO we can propose a counter theory of Indo-European linguistics, which takes Sanskrit as the Mother Indo-European (MIE) ['mai' means mother in Old Indic ].

1) We propose certain groups of Bharatiyas in residing certain region of India in remote antiquity from where there were Out-of-India migrations, and these groups spoke some language derived from Sanskrit or similar to Sanskrit or Sanskrit itself. Let's call these languages Para-Sanskrits.

2) We build a model of the various groups of Bharatiyas, who migrated Out-of-India, giving time period, direction and size level. This can be based on genetic evidence. Something on the lines of the migrations proposed here.

3) We build a model of linguistics based on an admixing of languages with Para-Sanskritᵢ superstratum and with some local language spoken in some area of Eurasia to where the Bharatiyasᵢ migrated, Langₓ substratum. We can try to rebuild a model of phonetics of the local language Langₓ based on the languages currently spoken in the region.

4) Then we use the sound change laws of Pratisakhyas, as proposed by KLP Dubey ji, to show how certain phonetic peculiarities of the Langₓ substratum affected the Para-Sanskritᵢ superstratum.

5) We could try to propose a vocabulary of the union of Para-Sanskritᵢ superstratum and Langₓ substratum. The delta to known languages can be derived using the adstratum influence from other neighboring languages and various constraints of used scripts. A further delta can be derived from the sound laws already proposed by the linguistic 'community' based on the urge to ease the pronunciation of words for the vocal box of humans.

6) Then we can align the migration of the various language speaking groups we arrive at with the known migrations of European people.

7) The end result should be a model of migrations and language change, so that we can propose a clear path from Sanskrit speakers to speakers of various languages known today in Europe and Eurasia.

[shiv]

7) The end result should be a model of migrations and language change, so that we can propose a clear path from Sanskrit speakers to speakers of various languages known today in Europe and Eurasia.

Rajesh - the path is already there. Not just Pococke, but SS Misra, Bryant and others. We just need to collectively push the works of those who have already pointed out this over and above the loudmouths like the WitMer community because it has gone far beyond linguistics. There is genetics and some archaeology as well, apart from copious archaeoastronomic refernces. I want to do a write up - but I have a lot more reading to do to get my facts right and expressed properly.

[RajeshA]

shiv saar,

I feel that the sound change laws of Pratisakhyas should be included in this endeavor. It gives the Indian narrative a solid linguistic-scientific continuity.

[shiv]

shiv saar,

I feel that the sound change laws of Pratisakhyas should be included in this endeavor. It gives the Indian narrative a solid linguistic-scientific continuity.

true.

[peter]

shiv saar,

I feel that the sound change laws of Pratisakhyas should be included in this endeavor. It gives the Indian narrative a solid linguistic-scientific continuity.

But the panga is that there are many pratisakhyas. Each Vedic school of yore had its own pratisakhya and knowing Brahmins they can never agree on a pronounciation !

[shiv]

Rajesh a question for you. (or anyone else who joined that discussion) You read the Reich paper and other related genetic papers. Would you be able to point to a ref that gives a ballpark figure for the date of mix of ASI/ANI? Was it there n the Reich paper. I recall that there have been many papers that suggest no imports into India in the last 7-10 thousand years. So mixture if any was around that time? Any pointers?

Maybe I need to re read Reich