RE: Is Traditional dating only a antiquity frenzy?

[Guest guest]

Dear Kishore-ji,

 

Just a single comment ....

 

You wrote

 

" The present accepted dating of Indian History mostly flows from

identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya "

 

Please note that there are alternative theories as well which

identifies Sandrocottus with Chandragupta of Gupta Dynasty,

and thereby dates are shifted back.

 

I am referring to an old discussion ...

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/28160-dating-chandr

agupta-maurya.html

<http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/28160-dating-chand

ragupta-maurya.html>

 

You will obviously find many other references there too.

 

The result will be.... many dates will shift by almost 12 centuries.

 

regards

 

chakraborty

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=17588172/grpspId=1705082686/msgI

d=14585/stime=1223227311/nc1=5286668/nc2=5349274/nc3=5349281>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chakrabortyji,

 

Thanks for the mail.

 

I have written about the main stream thinkers and the consequent confusions.

 

 

For one, I have argued vehemently in favor of Sandrocottus being

Chandragupta of Gupta Dynasty.

 

In fact, I have worked out the exact chronology, which proves that

Xandremes of Greek literature is Chandrasri of Andhra Bhrityu dynasty.

 

You can search in this group or my group

Groups.for my views.

 

regards,

 

Kishore patnaik

 

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2wrote:

 

> Dear Kishore-ji,

>

> Just a single comment ....

>

> You wrote

>

> " The present accepted dating of Indian History mostly flows from

> identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya "

>

> Please note that there are alternative theories as well which

> identifies Sandrocottus with Chandragupta of Gupta Dynasty,

> and thereby dates are shifted back.

>

> I am referring to an old discussion ...

>

>

> http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/28160-dating-chandr

> agupta-maurya.html

> <

> http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/28160-dating-chand

> ragupta-maurya.html>

>

> You will obviously find many other references there too.

>

> The result will be.... many dates will shift by almost 12 centuries.

>

> regards

>

> chakraborty

>

> <

> http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=17588172/grpspId=1705082686/msgI

> d=14585/stime=1223227311/nc1=5286668/nc2=5349274/nc3=5349281>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

IndiaArchaeology , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

<jyotirved wrote:

 

Dear Ravindra Jaju-ji,

Namaskar!

You have stated certain facts which are very unpleasant! But then

that is the way the facts usually are!

 

<The problem with the 'mainstream' line of thought - which consists of

mostly non-natives as the primary thought-leaders - is that they fail

to understand the intricacies and nuances of the various information

sources they choose to look at.>

 

Here the actual problem is that while " non-natives " would like to go

to one extreme---like dating the Rigveda as late as 900 BC---quite a

few " natives " would like to go to yet another extreme, on the other

hand---like claiming the Rigveda to be a divine work and as such

present from the very dawn of creation! Whereas you can present hard

facts to the " non-natives " and may even be able to convince them, the

" natives " are not prepared to listen to anything contrary to what

their " jagadugurs " etc. etc. (millions and millions of them!)have told

them!

Wonder of wonders, 99 per cent of Hindus (natives!) call (even

believe!) predictive gimmicks as Vedic jyotish since all the

jagadgurus and yogis and tantriks (again millions and millions of

them!) are saying so! After all, how can those jagadgurus and yogis

and tantriks be wrong! They just shudder even to think about the

unpleasant fact that Mesha, Vrisha etc. rashis are direct imports of

Greek constellations Aries, Taurus, Gemini etc. etc. One

Ayanamsha-wala even says that as per (some) nighantu, Tavuri is the

synonym of Taurus and so on and therefore when Varahamihira gave the

Greek nomenclature without even changing an iota, he (the special

ayanamshawala!) claims that the Greeks had imported those names from

Bharata-varsha!

 

Then we have quite a few Indian scholars---Hindu scholars---who are

hell bent to prove that as there was a connection between Babylonia

and India in third milennium BCE, as such Mesha, Vrisha etc. rashis

had gone to Babylonia from India and it was not the other way round!

In the end, such " scholars " do not forget to thank their mentors---who

are, of course " Vedic astrologers " for " proper criticism " .

 

One His Holines of the art of something has even put his " stamp of

approval " on Bhagwan Ram having incarnated on January 14, 5114 BCE on

the basis of " astronomical data (sic!) " in the Valmiki Ramayana!

After all, if some Income Tax Commissioner has said so how could he be

wrong! (I wonder whether the ITC had scrutinized the date of birth of

Bhagwan Ram while he was checking His Income-Tax-Return!) But it

appears that his holiness of the art of something as well as the ITC

have not read the Valmiki Ramayana at all---which has said that

Bhagwan Ram ruled for eleven thousand years! And if that shloka is an

interpolation, what is the guarantee that the shlokas giving the

planetary positions of Bhagwan Ram's birth etc. are not

interpolations!

Yet another problem arises that quite a few scholars get funds for

their works from such bodies as do not want to annoy either the

powerful lobby of Vedic jyotishis or jagadgurus and yogis and tantriks

etc. As such, they have to " prove " that our Vedic seers had no other

job to perform except to erect the Mesha, Vrisha rashi based

horoscopes of every Tom, Dick and Harry and make predictions! Akhir

paapi pet ka saval jo hai!

 

They are least bothered about the fact that because of such fatal

infatuation with " Vedic astrology " , Hindu culture is becoming a

laughing stock since we are celebrating Uttarayana on January 15 and

Dakshinayana on July 15 and Sharadiya Navratras in the fag end of

Sharat Ritu and so on! They are actually blind with greed but claim

to have the knowledge of all the shastras, which maybe they do have,

but which is being harnessed only to prove certain untruths instead of

facts!

 

Similarly, if we take the case of " Vikrami Era " , fantastic arguments

are provided that it was back-calculated by Hindu astronomers(sic!) of

Chandragpta-II in 4th century CE, since the VE had receded from Taurus

to Aries! They are not prepared to listen to anything like that there

was no such malady in India of the VE receding into Greek

constellations, as was the case with Greek/Western astrologers!

 

If anyone has the hardihood of pointing out such anachronisms, he is

termed as some convert who is bent on destroying the Hindu culture! He

is banned from such forums and threatened with dire consequences! The

argument they advance is " He is bent on denigrating his ancestors by

saying that predictive astrology---especially the rashi based one---is

a direct import from Greece! "

 

What is all the more surprising is that quite a few real scholars also

are just silent on such a ne-science, in spite of their knowing and

realizing the truth! Nay they even celebrate Pitra-Amavsya on the day

of actual Dipavali and so on as per the " commandments " of " Vedic

astrologers " .

 

Well, I must repeat what I have repeated literally hudnreds of

times--- " Hindus do not need enemies to ruin their cultural fabric if

they have 'friendly Vedic astrologers' around---billions and billions

of them! Our neighbouring country---the only Hindu Kingdom of not so

distant past, where the king was Vishnu Incarnate----is a " living (or

is it 'dead' now?)example " .

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

 

IndiaArchaeology , " Ravindra Jaju "

<ravindra.jaju@> wrote:

>

> A building on a weak foundation can go only so high.

>

> The problem with the 'mainstream' line of thought - which is

consists of

> mostly non-natives as the primary thought-leaders - is that they

fail to

> understand the intricacies and nuances of the various information

sources

> they choose to look at. Not to mention that they have merely

scratched the

> surface, if at all! A PhD here and another there isn't good enough.

>

> This is not to say that they are (or might be) wrong - but that they

are too

> adamant, and can stoop to very low levels to vilify whoever

disagrees.

> That's downright dishonesty - since they _claim_ to be scientific

but their

> behaviour betrays some hidden agenda.

>

> But _at the same time_ - it does not help when people oppose them

not on a

> case-by-case, logical basis, but only for the sake of opposing since

their

> _beliefs_ are something else. Any kind of science can not work

solely on

> beliefs (we need to start with some axioms though) - every inference

needs

> to be justifiable and falsifiable. Unfortunately, for exactly this

reason,

> history can not be completely brought under the purview of science.

Science

> can certainly help, though. Archaeology (and historical records),

genetics

> and language studies need to agree to increase our level of

confidence in a

> hypothesis (as put by a friend, quoting a well-respected academician

I can

> not remember the name of...)

>

> In my limited exposure to 'scholarly' debates - I do see many open

questions

> being discussed - unfortunately, not in very academic tones. Citing

of weak

> academic (or otherwise) works in support of one's arguments means

that those

> discussions are bound to fail and go haywire!

>

> My 2 paise.

>

> regards,

> Ravindra

>

> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:34 PM, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@

> > wrote:

>

> > Dear all,

> >

> > Recently, one western Scholar, who fancies dating Rgveda as late

as

> > possible, said the traditional dating a la Sethna is " antiquity

frenzy "

> >

> > The present accepted dating of Indian History mostly flows from

> > identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya. But,

independent of

> > this, the Rg Veda and other scriptures are dated very late, if

possible be,

> > to 900 bce and Brahmanas to somewhere just before the accepted

date of

> > Buddha.

> >

> > Inspite of hectic activity and onset of most modern technology,

you have

> > not seen too much of radical texts being written in the last 200

years,

> > inspite of the rise of new sciences such as Nuclear Physics,

Electronics,

> > Bio Technology and so on in sciences and Linguistics, sociology

and

> > Psychology in Socios. I am not talking of the volumes but the

content.

> >

> > If this be the case, I can not see how it is possible that not

only a huge

> > corpus of Texts were authored, spread all over Ancient India and

beyond ,

> > recesioned(spell check) and finally arranged in merely 500 years.

> >

> > Rgveda itself is a layered document. It has grown over hundreds of

years,

> > if not thousands of years. Then it is followed by several other

scirptures,

> > most of them not available to us today.

> >

> > Even the texts such as those of Buddhists, Jains, Secular Nyaya

Sastras

> > must have taken centuries to grow, especially since we know

scores of

> > authors, distanced by hundreds of kilometers across the country,

referring

> > to the earlier authors and writing volumes of follow up texts or

> > commentaries. All these are naturally to be placed later to the

Indian

> > Scriptures and obviously, it must have taken several centuries to

write

> > these texts.

> >

> > Coming to historical age of Ancient India, there are more

confusions than

> > are answered. Not a single king is correctly identified without

arriving at

> > a contradiction.

> >

> > For eg., I can go on and on about the dating of Satavahanas - they

being

> > mentioned in several places without being dates. So little said

about them.

> > So long as you try to connect them to the Puranic lists, you are

always

> > confused, leading you to say the puranic lists are contrived and

" muddled'

> > But the truth is you are trying to fix Mahatma Gandhi into the

dates of

> > Rahul Gandhi, just because the names look similiar.

> >

> > If the future historians work out just as we are doing today, I

won;'t be

> > surprized if they identify Rahul Gandhi with Rajiv Gandhi , just

as they did

> > Sandrokryptos with Sandrocottus!!!!!

> >

> > The mainstream thinkers can not write a single line against the

traditional

> > chronology, issue based. Sweepstake statements such as this is

trash or

> > antiquity frenzy or unsubstantiaed all remain what they are -

genralized,

> > biased and yes, unsubstantiated!

> >

> > best regards,

> >

> >

> > Kishore patnaik

> >

> >

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

dear kaul ji

 

u said

Here the actual problem is that while "non-natives" would like to goto one extreme---like dating the Rigveda as late as 900 BC---quite afew "natives" would like to go to yet another extreme, on the otherhand---like claiming the Rigveda to be a divine work and as suchpresent from the very dawn of creation!

 

this is wat i said ,u r not worried abt hindus /vedas or their into astrology ,u simply want to destroy a system ,it is prooved by this statements of u that vedas r not devine .if it isnot devine then what is ur problem with astrology ?? it is in vedas or not and hindu shud blv vedas than astrology ??Is it not a systematic way for destroying things ,because after so many 100 yrs they cud not succeed only in india where as they done in almost first decade in all other places of their occupation .And they find it is because comman mass 's blf in astro ,so it shud b destroyed first .right ??

 

u r not going to succed in ur mission s

 

can u explain me why vedas r not devine u pen pusher of some mission who is pumping money to hindustan to convert and destroy hindus and their culture .

 

regrds vijayaraghavan .

, "Avtar Krishen Kaul" <jyotirved wrote:>> IndiaArchaeology , "Avtar Krishen Kaul" > jyotirved@ wrote:> > Dear Ravindra Jaju-ji,> Namaskar!> You have stated certain facts which are very unpleasant! But then> that is the way the facts usually are!> > <The problem with the 'mainstream' line of thought - which consists of> mostly non-natives as the primary thought-leaders - is that they fail> to understand the intricacies and nuances of the various information> sources they choose to look at.>> > Here the actual problem is that while "non-natives" would like to go> to one extreme---like dating the Rigveda as late as 900 BC---quite a> few "natives" would like to go to yet another extreme, on the other> hand---like claiming the Rigveda to be a divine work and as such> present from the very dawn of creation! Whereas you can present hard> facts to the "non-natives" and may even be able to convince them, the> "natives" are not prepared to listen to anything contrary to what> their "jagadugurs" etc. etc. (millions and millions of them!)have told> them! > Wonder of wonders, 99 per cent of Hindus (natives!) call (even> believe!) predictive gimmicks as Vedic jyotish since all the> jagadgurus and yogis and tantriks (again millions and millions of> them!) are saying so! After all, how can those jagadgurus and yogis> and tantriks be wrong! They just shudder even to think about the> unpleasant fact that Mesha, Vrisha etc. rashis are direct imports of> Greek constellations Aries, Taurus, Gemini etc. etc. One> Ayanamsha-wala even says that as per (some) nighantu, Tavuri is the> synonym of Taurus and so on and therefore when Varahamihira gave the> Greek nomenclature without even changing an iota, he (the special> ayanamshawala!) claims that the Greeks had imported those names from> Bharata-varsha!> > Then we have quite a few Indian scholars---Hindu scholars---who are> hell bent to prove that as there was a connection between Babylonia> and India in third milennium BCE, as such Mesha, Vrisha etc. rashis> had gone to Babylonia from India and it was not the other way round! > In the end, such "scholars" do not forget to thank their mentors---who> are, of course "Vedic astrologers" for "proper criticism".> > One His Holines of the art of something has even put his "stamp of> approval" on Bhagwan Ram having incarnated on January 14, 5114 BCE on> the basis of "astronomical data (sic!)" in the Valmiki Ramayana! > After all, if some Income Tax Commissioner has said so how could he be> wrong! (I wonder whether the ITC had scrutinized the date of birth of> Bhagwan Ram while he was checking His Income-Tax-Return!) But it> appears that his holiness of the art of something as well as the ITC > have not read the Valmiki Ramayana at all---which has said that> Bhagwan Ram ruled for eleven thousand years! And if that shloka is an> interpolation, what is the guarantee that the shlokas giving the> planetary positions of Bhagwan Ram's birth etc. are not > interpolations!> Yet another problem arises that quite a few scholars get funds for> their works from such bodies as do not want to annoy either the> powerful lobby of Vedic jyotishis or jagadgurus and yogis and tantriks> etc. As such, they have to "prove" that our Vedic seers had no other> job to perform except to erect the Mesha, Vrisha rashi based> horoscopes of every Tom, Dick and Harry and make predictions! Akhir> paapi pet ka saval jo hai!> > They are least bothered about the fact that because of such fatal> infatuation with "Vedic astrology", Hindu culture is becoming a> laughing stock since we are celebrating Uttarayana on January 15 and> Dakshinayana on July 15 and Sharadiya Navratras in the fag end of> Sharat Ritu and so on! They are actually blind with greed but claim> to have the knowledge of all the shastras, which maybe they do have,> but which is being harnessed only to prove certain untruths instead of> facts!> > Similarly, if we take the case of "Vikrami Era", fantastic arguments> are provided that it was back-calculated by Hindu astronomers(sic!) of> Chandragpta-II in 4th century CE, since the VE had receded from Taurus> to Aries! They are not prepared to listen to anything like that there> was no such malady in India of the VE receding into Greek> constellations, as was the case with Greek/Western astrologers!> > If anyone has the hardihood of pointing out such anachronisms, he is> termed as some convert who is bent on destroying the Hindu culture! He> is banned from such forums and threatened with dire consequences! The> argument they advance is "He is bent on denigrating his ancestors by> saying that predictive astrology---especially the rashi based one---is> a direct import from Greece!"> > What is all the more surprising is that quite a few real scholars also> are just silent on such a ne-science, in spite of their knowing and> realizing the truth! Nay they even celebrate Pitra-Amavsya on the day> of actual Dipavali and so on as per the "commandments" of "Vedic> astrologers".> > Well, I must repeat what I have repeated literally hudnreds of> times---"Hindus do not need enemies to ruin their cultural fabric if> they have 'friendly Vedic astrologers' around---billions and billions> of them! Our neighbouring country---the only Hindu Kingdom of not so> distant past, where the king was Vishnu Incarnate----is a "living (or> is it 'dead' now?)example".> With regards,> A K Kaul > > > IndiaArchaeology , "Ravindra Jaju"> <ravindra.jaju@> wrote:> >> > A building on a weak foundation can go only so high.> > > > The problem with the 'mainstream' line of thought - which is > consists of> > mostly non-natives as the primary thought-leaders - is that they > fail to> > understand the intricacies and nuances of the various information> sources> > they choose to look at. Not to mention that they have merely> scratched the> > surface, if at all! A PhD here and another there isn't good enough.> > > > This is not to say that they are (or might be) wrong - but that they> are too> > adamant, and can stoop to very low levels to vilify whoever > disagrees.> > That's downright dishonesty - since they _claim_ to be scientific> but their> > behaviour betrays some hidden agenda.> > > > But _at the same time_ - it does not help when people oppose them> not on a> > case-by-case, logical basis, but only for the sake of opposing since> their> > _beliefs_ are something else. Any kind of science can not work > solely on> > beliefs (we need to start with some axioms though) - every inference> needs> > to be justifiable and falsifiable. Unfortunately, for exactly this> reason,> > history can not be completely brought under the purview of science.> Science> > can certainly help, though. Archaeology (and historical records),> genetics> > and language studies need to agree to increase our level of> confidence in a> > hypothesis (as put by a friend, quoting a well-respected academician> I can> > not remember the name of...)> > > > In my limited exposure to 'scholarly' debates - I do see many open> questions> > being discussed - unfortunately, not in very academic tones. Citing> of weak> > academic (or otherwise) works in support of one's arguments means> that those> > discussions are bound to fail and go haywire!> > > > My 2 paise.> > > > regards,> > Ravindra> > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:34 PM, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@> > > wrote:> > > > > Dear all,> > >> > > Recently, one western Scholar, who fancies dating Rgveda as late > as> > > possible, said the traditional dating a la Sethna is "antiquity> frenzy"> > >> > > The present accepted dating of Indian History mostly flows from> > > identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya. But,> independent of> > > this, the Rg Veda and other scriptures are dated very late, if> possible be,> > > to 900 bce and Brahmanas to somewhere just before the accepted > date of> > > Buddha.> > >> > > Inspite of hectic activity and onset of most modern technology,> you have> > > not seen too much of radical texts being written in the last 200> years,> > > inspite of the rise of new sciences such as Nuclear Physics,> Electronics,> > > Bio Technology and so on in sciences and Linguistics, sociology > and> > > Psychology in Socios. I am not talking of the volumes but the > content.> > >> > > If this be the case, I can not see how it is possible that not> only a huge> > > corpus of Texts were authored, spread all over Ancient India and> beyond ,> > > recesioned(spell check) and finally arranged in merely 500 years.> > >> > > Rgveda itself is a layered document. It has grown over hundreds of> years,> > > if not thousands of years. Then it is followed by several other> scirptures,> > > most of them not available to us today.> > >> > > Even the texts such as those of Buddhists, Jains, Secular Nyaya> Sastras> > > must have taken centuries to grow, especially since we know > scores of> > > authors, distanced by hundreds of kilometers across the country,> referring> > > to the earlier authors and writing volumes of follow up texts or> > > commentaries. All these are naturally to be placed later to the > Indian> > > Scriptures and obviously, it must have taken several centuries to> write> > > these texts.> > >> > > Coming to historical age of Ancient India, there are more> confusions than> > > are answered. Not a single king is correctly identified without> arriving at> > > a contradiction.> > >> > > For eg., I can go on and on about the dating of Satavahanas - they> being> > > mentioned in several places without being dates. So little said> about them.> > > So long as you try to connect them to the Puranic lists, you are> always> > > confused, leading you to say the puranic lists are contrived and> "muddled'> > > But the truth is you are trying to fix Mahatma Gandhi into the> dates of> > > Rahul Gandhi, just because the names look similiar.> > >> > > If the future historians work out just as we are doing today, I> won;'t be> > > surprized if they identify Rahul Gandhi with Rajiv Gandhi , just> as they did> > > Sandrokryptos with Sandrocottus!!!!!> > >> > > The mainstream thinkers can not write a single line against the> traditional> > > chronology, issue based. Sweepstake statements such as this is> trash or> > > antiquity frenzy or unsubstantiaed all remain what they are -> genralized,> > > biased and yes, unsubstantiated!> > >> > > best regards,> > >> > >> > > Kishore patnaik> > > > > >> >> > --- End forwarded message --->

[Guest guest]

Shri Vijay Raghavanji,

Namaskar!

I am not at all suprised at your baseless insinuations and

maligning! If you had not done that, I would have doubted that you

are a real " Vedic astrologer " , in spite of your denying to be one!

 

In the very next post you deny being a " Vedic astrologer " since you

were asked to tell the forum as to which Vedas and Vedangas etc. you

had read! But you are defending " Vedic astrology " to the hilt

without beign a Vedic astrologer yourelf or without having any

knowledge of the Vedas or even the jyotisha shastras as per your

own " confesions " ---that is the only " qualification " a " Vedic

astrologer " must have---defend it without knowing anything about it!

 

It is, as such, no use arguing with a person on a subject about which

he himself claims to have absolutely no knowledge!

Pl. therefore, study the Vedas and other shastras yuorself first.

You are most welcome to have a " shastra-artha " then.

 

<u r not going to succed in ur mission s>

 

I have just one mission---to streamline the Hindu calendar, so that

we celebrate our festivals and muhurtas on correct days in accordance

with the canons of the Vedas and the Vedanga Jyotisha and the

Puranas, instead of the dictum of " Lahiri jyotishis " ---who call

thesemlves " Vedic astrologers " , even though though they do not know

ABC of the Vedas.

It is immaterial whether I succeed in my mission of streamlining the

calendar or not, since even if I do not succeed, I am not the loser---

" karmanyeva adhikaraste, ma phaleshu kadachana " . I would be a loser

only if I stop my " dharma-yudha " out of the fear of treading on too

many toes because it hurts the financial interests of the people for

whom creating fear psychosis and exploiting the same is the main

source of livelihood.

Regards,

A K Kaul

 

 

 

 

, " lion_draco1983 "

<lion_draco1983 wrote:

>

> dear kaul ji

>

>

>

> u said

>

> Here the actual problem is that while " non-natives " would like to go

> to one extreme---like dating the Rigveda as late as 900 BC---quite a

> few " natives " would like to go to yet another extreme, on the other

> hand---like claiming the Rigveda to be a divine work and as such

> present from the very dawn of creation!

>

>

>

> this is wat i said ,u r not worried abt hindus /vedas or their into

> astrology ,u simply want to destroy a system ,it is prooved by this

> statements of u that vedas r not devine .if it isnot devine then

what is

> ur problem with astrology ?? it is in vedas or not and hindu shud

blv

> vedas than astrology ??Is it not a systematic way for destroying

things

> ,because after so many 100 yrs they cud not succeed only in india

where

> as they done in almost first decade in all other places of their

> occupation .And they find it is because comman mass 's blf in

astro ,so

> it shud b destroyed first .right ??

>

>

>

> u r not going to succed in ur mission s

>

>

>

> can u explain me why vedas r not devine u pen pusher of some

mission

> who is pumping money to hindustan to convert and destroy hindus and

> their culture .

>

>

>

> regrds vijayaraghavan .

>

>

>

>

> , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

> <jyotirved@> wrote:

> >

> > IndiaArchaeology , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

> > jyotirved@ wrote:

> >

> > Dear Ravindra Jaju-ji,

> > Namaskar!

> > You have stated certain facts which are very unpleasant! But then

> > that is the way the facts usually are!

> >

> > <The problem with the 'mainstream' line of thought - which

consists of

> > mostly non-natives as the primary thought-leaders - is that they

fail

> > to understand the intricacies and nuances of the various

information

> > sources they choose to look at.>

> >

> > Here the actual problem is that while " non-natives " would like to

go

> > to one extreme---like dating the Rigveda as late as 900 BC---

quite a

> > few " natives " would like to go to yet another extreme, on the

other

> > hand---like claiming the Rigveda to be a divine work and as such

> > present from the very dawn of creation! Whereas you can present

hard

> > facts to the " non-natives " and may even be able to convince them,

the

> > " natives " are not prepared to listen to anything contrary to what

> > their " jagadugurs " etc. etc. (millions and millions of them!)have

told

> > them!

> > Wonder of wonders, 99 per cent of Hindus (natives!) call (even

> > believe!) predictive gimmicks as Vedic jyotish since all the

> > jagadgurus and yogis and tantriks (again millions and millions of

> > them!) are saying so! After all, how can those jagadgurus and

yogis

> > and tantriks be wrong! They just shudder even to think about the

> > unpleasant fact that Mesha, Vrisha etc. rashis are direct imports

of

> > Greek constellations Aries, Taurus, Gemini etc. etc. One

> > Ayanamsha-wala even says that as per (some) nighantu, Tavuri is

the

> > synonym of Taurus and so on and therefore when Varahamihira gave

the

> > Greek nomenclature without even changing an iota, he (the special

> > ayanamshawala!) claims that the Greeks had imported those names

from

> > Bharata-varsha!

> >

> > Then we have quite a few Indian scholars---Hindu scholars---who

are

> > hell bent to prove that as there was a connection between

Babylonia

> > and India in third milennium BCE, as such Mesha, Vrisha etc.

rashis

> > had gone to Babylonia from India and it was not the other way

round!

> > In the end, such " scholars " do not forget to thank their mentors--

-who

> > are, of course " Vedic astrologers " for " proper criticism " .

> >

> > One His Holines of the art of something has even put his " stamp of

> > approval " on Bhagwan Ram having incarnated on January 14, 5114

BCE on

> > the basis of " astronomical data (sic!) " in the Valmiki Ramayana!

> > After all, if some Income Tax Commissioner has said so how could

he be

> > wrong! (I wonder whether the ITC had scrutinized the date of

birth of

> > Bhagwan Ram while he was checking His Income-Tax-Return!) But it

> > appears that his holiness of the art of something as well as the

ITC

> > have not read the Valmiki Ramayana at all---which has said that

> > Bhagwan Ram ruled for eleven thousand years! And if that shloka

is an

> > interpolation, what is the guarantee that the shlokas giving the

> > planetary positions of Bhagwan Ram's birth etc. are not

> > interpolations!

> > Yet another problem arises that quite a few scholars get funds for

> > their works from such bodies as do not want to annoy either the

> > powerful lobby of Vedic jyotishis or jagadgurus and yogis and

tantriks

> > etc. As such, they have to " prove " that our Vedic seers had no

other

> > job to perform except to erect the Mesha, Vrisha rashi based

> > horoscopes of every Tom, Dick and Harry and make predictions!

Akhir

> > paapi pet ka saval jo hai!

> >

> > They are least bothered about the fact that because of such fatal

> > infatuation with " Vedic astrology " , Hindu culture is becoming a

> > laughing stock since we are celebrating Uttarayana on January 15

and

> > Dakshinayana on July 15 and Sharadiya Navratras in the fag end of

> > Sharat Ritu and so on! They are actually blind with greed but

claim

> > to have the knowledge of all the shastras, which maybe they do

have,

> > but which is being harnessed only to prove certain untruths

instead of

> > facts!

> >

> > Similarly, if we take the case of " Vikrami Era " , fantastic

arguments

> > are provided that it was back-calculated by Hindu astronomers

(sic!) of

> > Chandragpta-II in 4th century CE, since the VE had receded from

Taurus

> > to Aries! They are not prepared to listen to anything like that

there

> > was no such malady in India of the VE receding into Greek

> > constellations, as was the case with Greek/Western astrologers!

> >

> > If anyone has the hardihood of pointing out such anachronisms, he

is

> > termed as some convert who is bent on destroying the Hindu

culture! He

> > is banned from such forums and threatened with dire consequences!

The

> > argument they advance is " He is bent on denigrating his ancestors

by

> > saying that predictive astrology---especially the rashi based one-

--is

> > a direct import from Greece! "

> >

> > What is all the more surprising is that quite a few real scholars

also

> > are just silent on such a ne-science, in spite of their knowing

and

> > realizing the truth! Nay they even celebrate Pitra-Amavsya on the

day

> > of actual Dipavali and so on as per the " commandments " of " Vedic

> > astrologers " .

> >

> > Well, I must repeat what I have repeated literally hudnreds of

> > times--- " Hindus do not need enemies to ruin their cultural fabric

if

> > they have 'friendly Vedic astrologers' around---billions and

billions

> > of them! Our neighbouring country---the only Hindu Kingdom of not

so

> > distant past, where the king was Vishnu Incarnate----is a " living

(or

> > is it 'dead' now?)example " .

> > With regards,

> > A K Kaul

> >

> >

> > IndiaArchaeology , " Ravindra Jaju "

> > <ravindra.jaju@> wrote:

> > >

> > > A building on a weak foundation can go only so high.

> > >

> > > The problem with the 'mainstream' line of thought - which is

> > consists of

> > > mostly non-natives as the primary thought-leaders - is that they

> > fail to

> > > understand the intricacies and nuances of the various

information

> > sources

> > > they choose to look at. Not to mention that they have merely

> > scratched the

> > > surface, if at all! A PhD here and another there isn't good

enough.

> > >

> > > This is not to say that they are (or might be) wrong - but that

they

> > are too

> > > adamant, and can stoop to very low levels to vilify whoever

> > disagrees.

> > > That's downright dishonesty - since they _claim_ to be

scientific

> > but their

> > > behaviour betrays some hidden agenda.

> > >

> > > But _at the same time_ - it does not help when people oppose

them

> > not on a

> > > case-by-case, logical basis, but only for the sake of opposing

since

> > their

> > > _beliefs_ are something else. Any kind of science can not work

> > solely on

> > > beliefs (we need to start with some axioms though) - every

inference

> > needs

> > > to be justifiable and falsifiable. Unfortunately, for exactly

this

> > reason,

> > > history can not be completely brought under the purview of

science.

> > Science

> > > can certainly help, though. Archaeology (and historical

records),

> > genetics

> > > and language studies need to agree to increase our level of

> > confidence in a

> > > hypothesis (as put by a friend, quoting a well-respected

academician

> > I can

> > > not remember the name of...)

> > >

> > > In my limited exposure to 'scholarly' debates - I do see many

open

> > questions

> > > being discussed - unfortunately, not in very academic tones.

Citing

> > of weak

> > > academic (or otherwise) works in support of one's arguments

means

> > that those

> > > discussions are bound to fail and go haywire!

> > >

> > > My 2 paise.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Ravindra

> > >

> > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:34 PM, kishore patnaik

<kishorepatnaik09@

> > > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear all,

> > > >

> > > > Recently, one western Scholar, who fancies dating Rgveda as

late

> > as

> > > > possible, said the traditional dating a la Sethna

is " antiquity

> > frenzy "

> > > >

> > > > The present accepted dating of Indian History mostly flows

from

> > > > identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya. But,

> > independent of

> > > > this, the Rg Veda and other scriptures are dated very late, if

> > possible be,

> > > > to 900 bce and Brahmanas to somewhere just before the accepted

> > date of

> > > > Buddha.

> > > >

> > > > Inspite of hectic activity and onset of most modern

technology,

> > you have

> > > > not seen too much of radical texts being written in the last

200

> > years,

> > > > inspite of the rise of new sciences such as Nuclear Physics,

> > Electronics,

> > > > Bio Technology and so on in sciences and Linguistics,

sociology

> > and

> > > > Psychology in Socios. I am not talking of the volumes but the

> > content.

> > > >

> > > > If this be the case, I can not see how it is possible that not

> > only a huge

> > > > corpus of Texts were authored, spread all over Ancient India

and

> > beyond ,

> > > > recesioned(spell check) and finally arranged in merely 500

years.

> > > >

> > > > Rgveda itself is a layered document. It has grown over

hundreds of

> > years,

> > > > if not thousands of years. Then it is followed by several

other

> > scirptures,

> > > > most of them not available to us today.

> > > >

> > > > Even the texts such as those of Buddhists, Jains, Secular

Nyaya

> > Sastras

> > > > must have taken centuries to grow, especially since we know

> > scores of

> > > > authors, distanced by hundreds of kilometers across the

country,

> > referring

> > > > to the earlier authors and writing volumes of follow up texts

or

> > > > commentaries. All these are naturally to be placed later to

the

> > Indian

> > > > Scriptures and obviously, it must have taken several

centuries to

> > write

> > > > these texts.

> > > >

> > > > Coming to historical age of Ancient India, there are more

> > confusions than

> > > > are answered. Not a single king is correctly identified

without

> > arriving at

> > > > a contradiction.

> > > >

> > > > For eg., I can go on and on about the dating of Satavahanas -

they

> > being

> > > > mentioned in several places without being dates. So little

said

> > about them.

> > > > So long as you try to connect them to the Puranic lists, you

are

> > always

> > > > confused, leading you to say the puranic lists are contrived

and

> > " muddled'

> > > > But the truth is you are trying to fix Mahatma Gandhi into the

> > dates of

> > > > Rahul Gandhi, just because the names look similiar.

> > > >

> > > > If the future historians work out just as we are doing today,

I

> > won;'t be

> > > > surprized if they identify Rahul Gandhi with Rajiv Gandhi ,

just

> > as they did

> > > > Sandrokryptos with Sandrocottus!!!!!

> > > >

> > > > The mainstream thinkers can not write a single line against

the

> > traditional

> > > > chronology, issue based. Sweepstake statements such as this is

> > trash or

> > > > antiquity frenzy or unsubstantiaed all remain what they are -

> > genralized,

> > > > biased and yes, unsubstantiated!

> > > >

> > > > best regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Kishore patnaik

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> > --- End forwarded message ---

> >

>