Fwd: [Ind-Arch] Is Traditional dating only a antiquity frenzy?

[Guest guest]

IndiaArchaeology , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

<jyotirved wrote:

 

Dear Shri VenkataKrishnan,

Namaskar!

Thanks for the respone.

 

< Astrology is a science but astrologers are frauds.Vedic astrology

cannot beblammed for the faults if astrologers.>

I am posting separately an article that has already appeared in a

souvenir. It will give you a complete picutre as to how " Vedic "

and " scientific " the so called Vedic astrology is!

 

<I not only a historian and archaeologist but also a Vedic Scholar

and Mathematician apart from Businessman by profession.>

 

It is a real pleasure for me to know that you are a Vedic scholar and

Mathematician also. Hindus really need scholars like you to make

them realize that we/they are celebrating all the fetivals and

muhurtas on wrong days, all in the name of Vedic astrology!

 

After having some response from you to the article, I shall post

further details as to how we are being compelled to celebrate all our

festivals on wrong days by our so called scholars and dharmacharyas

etc.

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

IndiaArchaeology , venkata krishnan

<bcvk71@> wrote:

>

> Dear Mr.Avatar Krishen Kaul,

> Astrology is a science but

astrologers are frauds.Vedic astrology cannot beblammed for the

faults if astrologers. It does not matter whether the Indians

borrowed the Raasis from the Greeks or vise versa.For the ancient

Greek civilization was an offshoot of Vedic civilization.And there

are lots of evidence for the presence of Vedic civilization world

over in the past.Persia (i.e.) modern Iran is part of

BHARATAVARSHA.which is different from India and Hindustan.I not only

a historian and archaeologist but also a Vedic Scholar and

Mathematician apart from B usinessman by profession.So cool down.I

agree with you.The pitty is majority of the people not only Indians

but mor of foreigners are blindly believing the astrologers and pour

their goodmoney behind badmoney.This is kaliyuga.We are now in 5108th

year afterthe birth of kaliyuga.Recently, sites under the Gulf of

Cambay

> has been discovered of the coast of Gujarat in the mouth of river

Saraswati w3hich dates back to the 7,500 B.C.I am planning to visit

that site personally to to have the first hand information for my

research.Untill now my research about that site is based on internet

papers and books which releal that it mostprobably a Vedic

civilization and is related to Bet Dwaraka.I will send you my

findings after visiting the site if you are interested.

> B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN.

> website: www.vedascience.com

>

> --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved@> wrote:

>

> Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved@>

> [ind-Arch] Re: Is Traditional dating only a " antiquity

frenzy " ?

> IndiaArchaeology

> Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 2:27 PM

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 ---