Fwd: Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} "There is no scientific basis for the Aryan Invasion Theory"

[Shrisha Rao]

Dear scholars,

Prof. Prasanna, the author of the paper I had forwarded previously
(http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/103/02/0216.pdf) has made the
following response to Dr. Narayanan's comments posted to BVP. I would
like to suggest that he be kept in the loop in case of any further
discussion of the paper.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Prasanna TRS <pras...@iitb.ac.in>
Date: Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} "There is no scientific basis
for the Aryan Invasion Theory"

My response follows. It is more in the nature of a clarification of
the motivation and scope of my
work.


The main motivation of the paper was to discuss the evidences any physical
scientist should consider in order to form an professional opinion on AIT.
In my opinion these would be from astronomy, mathematics and metallurgy.
It is important not to lose sight of this motivation. My response is
inserted at appropriate places in the comments.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} "There is no scientific basis for the
Aryan Invasion Theory"
> To: "shrish...@gmail.com" <shrish...@gmail.com>,
> "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
>
>
> Thanks Professor Rao, for sending the article.
>
> It is an interesting one to go through. I would like to share a few
words on this article.
> One method of historical recordings could be the mentioning of the
appearance of certain particular constellations when the practices like
Agnicayana are performed. Mathematical and metallurgical
> evidences certainly boost the proof of evidence. It is quite clear that
no citi is possible without any Samhitā from which the mantras are
inherited or any Brāhmaṇa which guides the appropriate practices in order,
as both work collaboratively. There would have been certain pretexts from
the people like Witzel, as we read the quote: ‘‘there was no Agnicayana
yet at the time of RV’’ (p. 70). Such statements could be pre-planned with
a view to attempting for creating an
> invasion theory. It is clear that the concept of
> ‘‘mantrabrāhmaṇayorvedaḥ’’ is not been taken into consideration. It is
to learn from the paper that the westerners do not want to suggest the
Vedic ritual practices beyond the pre-Old-Babylonian (i.e. pre-1700 BC).
The pretext is clear from Witzel (p. 67) as he states: ‘‘For, the first
appearance of iron, the “black metal” (kṛṣṇa/śyāma ayas) in S. Asia, well
known to the Brāhmaṇa style texts, is only at c. 1200 BCE. But, iron is
already found in texts much earlier than the Brāhmaṇas (i.e. AV, and in
the YV Saṃhitās: MS, KS, TS; however, not yet in the RV)... To date
Brāhmaṇa texts at 1900 BCE is simply impossible.’’ But we see that the
archaeological discoveries in different times are not consistent.

My response is unnecessary.

> The author of the paper does not quote adequate mantras
> from the Samhitās and the Brāhmaṇas to establish the usage of
kṛṣṇa/śyāma ayas, which could have given an emphatic clarification in
refuting the invasion claims. The term ‘‘kṛṣṇa’’ in neuter gender itself
represent ‘‘loha’’ or iron according to the lexicon of Jaṭādhara, which is
derived from the root ‘‘kṛṣ’’ meaning ‘‘varṇa’’ i.e. colour, and with a
suffix ‘‘nak’’, which changes into ‘‘ṇa’’.


First of all, this would be well beyond my expertise. Secondly, even if I
had given the above mentioned interpretation, I do not see how it would
convince other scientists of my professional competence in this matter.
Indeed, this issue lies in the professional realm of Sanskrit scholars and
it is their view that is important. In this regard, I have mentioned in
the article that, as seen from Vedic Index, even 19th century western
Sanskrit scholars were tentative in the interpretation of krsna/syama
ayas. I then give evidence that even now Sanskrit scholars are not in
agreement on its interpretation.


> Regarding the smelting: It is a form of extractive metallurgy; its main
use is to produce a metal from its ore. This includes production of
silver, iron, copper and other base metals from their ores.
> Smelting uses heat and a chemical reducing agent to decompose the ore,
driving off other elements as gasses or slag and leaving just the metal
behind. When the small gold bricks are available for the
> Sāvitracayana, then smelting process should have known at least to the
contemporary period of different cities.


The other related issue is to the archaeological evidences of Iron, in
which I have cited the views of archaeologists. It is clear that
archaeologists no longer consider the equating of krsna/syama ayas with
Iron Age seriously.

My own independent view on the issue of krsna/syama ayas is limited to
pointing out that there are no verses that are amenable to scientific
(metallurgical) analysis. Anything more on my part on this issue, I
believe, would not carry professional credibility.

It is of utmost importance to read the IJHS paper (ref.14), where I have
discussed astronomical references in detail. In this paper, I briefly
mention them and frequently refer to the IJHS paper. Unfortunately, the
comments on astronomical issues suggest the detailed IJHS paper may not
have been consulted.

> The picture of the śyenavedi, the eagle shaped altar directed to east where the constellations of
> Kṛttikā expected is not well explanatory.


In this context, not only in the text, but even in the figure caption I
refer to the IJHS paper. Page 588-589 of the IJHS paper clearly explains
this issue.


>The exact degrees or the
> sun-diameters of “Heaven’’ expected also should have explained to tackle
the later theory of bringing further near 800 B.C.


I felt that it would be too detailed in the context of the purpose of the
article. This can be obtained from standard formulas available e.g. in
Indian Astronomy, An Introduction, by S. Balachandra Rao.


>And that
> could have more justified the author's statement: “Even if accepted, it
shifts dates of astronomical references from 3000 BC to 2300 BC and not to
800 BC.’’ Or it could be beyond my capacity to read in between the lines
of the author.


Unfortunately, two separate issues have been mixed up. This issue is
concerned with Pingree’s suggestion, made without any scientific
justification, of a 10-day error in the determination of winter solstice.
I have clearly mentioned in the article that in the IJHS paper it is shown
to be incorrect. KB 19.3 and SB 11.1.1.7 together lead to 3000 BC. Hence
the comment that even if Pingree’s error estimates were accepted it would
only lead to 2300 BC for KB 19.3 and not to 800 BC. It is not related to
Krittika deviating from true east or to Agnicayana at all.

>Thank you very much.
>
> Regards,
> Narayanan


More generally, I would like to take this opportunity to again stress that
point that Krittika on true east is not the most important astronomical
reference. As stated briefly in the text and discussed in detail in the
IJHS paper, verses on ekastaka, KB 19.3 and Mahasivaratri all point to
amanta Magha new-moon at winter solstice. It leads to 3000 BC. This is the
most important and robust astronomical reference. This is especially the
case since there is complete agreement in the interpretation of ekastaka
among ancient Sutra commentators (p-580 ff of IJHS paper), western
Sanskrit scholars and scientists.

One must emphasise areas where all scholars are in complete agreement over
areas where there are differing views. Thus, Krittika being on true east
(which was first suggested by Dikshit in 1895 and to which I have given
independent confirmation (IJHS paper)) must be seen in the background of
ekastaka, KB 19.3 plus SB 11.1.1.7 and Mahasivaratri all of which lead to
3000 BC.

There is no need to convince Sanskrit scholars who may interpret Krittika
on true east to 800 BC on dubious grounds even as they interpret ekastaka
and KB 19.3 to 3000 BC. Rather it is they who need to explain why they
interpret ekastaka, KB 19.3 and Mahasivaratri to 3000 BC (all of which
they consider contemporary to the Vedic texts) if they subscribe to AIT.
Indeed, every scholar or layman interested in ancient Indian history must
know that western Sanskrit scholars have dated ekastaka to 3000 BC for the
last 80 years and there is no possibility of reinterpreting it to 800 BC.
This essential fact must be addressed before forming an opinion in favour
of AIT. From a scientific perspective, this and other astronomical
references imply that AIT stands disproved.


Thanks and best regards
T.R.S. Prasanna

[Navaratna Rajaram]

 

    This is nothing new. In fact it is like beating a dead horse.

 

    David Frawley and I have been highlighting the unscientific nature of AIT for 20 years. I (Rajaram) in my book Search for the Historical krishna highlighted the evidence of winter solstice and the Mahashivaratri. I supported it further with data from Ashwalayana and his teacher Kaushitaki.

 

    Later, in Supplement 3 of our book Vedic Aryans Frawley and I discussed genetic evidence demolishing the AIT. This is now considered so definitive that even die hard AIT-wallahs like Thapar and Witzel have adopted subterfuges saying they don't believe in AIT but AMT.

 

    Let us move on to something new instead of keep beating a dead horse.

 

N.S. Rajaram

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

[Shrisha Rao]

El jul 28, 2012, a las 7:27 p.m., Navaratna Rajaram escribió:

> This is nothing new. In fact it is like beating a dead horse.
>
> David Frawley and I have been highlighting the unscientific nature of AIT for 20 years. I (Rajaram) in my book Search for the Historical krishna highlighted the evidence of winter solstice and the Mahashivaratri. I supported it further with data from Ashwalayana and his teacher Kaushitaki.
>
> Later, in Supplement 3 of our book Vedic Aryans Frawley and I discussed genetic evidence demolishing the AIT. This is now considered so definitive that even die hard AIT-wallahs like Thapar and Witzel have adopted subterfuges saying they don't believe in AIT but AMT.
>
> Let us move on to something new instead of keep beating a dead horse.

It is a matter of perspective. The AIT unfortunately lives on in textbooks (including those of the NCERT, which is more seized of decades-old political cartoons and such needless controversies, rather than accuracy of content) and other places, so it can hardly be described as dead. Even the AMT is a sort of प्रच्छन्न-AIT, for aficionados who wish to retain the AIT's conclusions whilst not having to answer for its weaknesses.

Even if criticisms of the AIT have been presented before, it is important that it be refuted by mainstream scientists writing in mainstream journals, for wider acceptance. It is hardly likely that a book like "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" would include the AIT among the theories criticized (if the late Martin Gardner were to rewrite it today), without these. Though all must agree that truth should not be determined solely by social standing, there is a saying in Kannada, ಶಂಖದಿಂದ ಬಂದಿದ್ದು ತೀಥರ್ -- "[water] coming from a शङ्ख is तीर्थ [and not any other water]," which unfortunately is very true in academic circles. So I suppose one could say लोकसङ्ग्रहमेवापि सम्पश्यन् कर्तुमर्हसि or perhaps ऋतं च स्वाध्याय प्रवचने च, in respect of such writings.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[Navaratna Rajaram]

 

    Progress is being made both within and outside India. But requires credible scholars with academic standing to go and confront AIT propagandists in scholarly garb. Unfortunately 'nationalist' organizations have failed to produce credible thinkers, speakers and writers. So the burden has fallen on a few of us with academic standing but for whom this cannot be the highest priority.

 

    We must destroy Indology. It is a colonial construct that has outlived its usefulness. It has contributed nothing to our understanding of the past but remains an obstruction. Its main function now is to provide a livelihood (and academic respectability) for Western 'scholars' who covertly (like Edwin Bryant) or overtly (like Steve Farmer and Witzel) want to control the agenda and decide when a result is valid.

 

    To take an example, Bryant has claimed to the effect that only the decipherment and reading of the Harappan writing and language will determine the future course of research. To quote:

 

    "..it will only be the decipherment of thescript that will prove decisive in this whole issue to the satisfaction of most scholars,since the recent discovery suggests that the script could go back to 3500 BCE (providing, of course, that it encapsulates the same language throughout). If it turns out to be a language other than Indo-Aryan, then obviously the Indigenist position need no longer detain the consideration of Indologists or serious scholarsof ancient history. In my opinion, this eventuality will be the only development that will convince a large number of scholars that the Aryans were, indeed, immigrants into India." .... blah,blah, blah and more blah.

 

    Who will have the decisive vote on this? Bryant and his fellow Western Indologists of course. Will they accept a result that is adverse to their position not to say to their careers? Never. So they will keep the 'debate' going expecting people like us to participate but under the rules set by them and they having the final say on conclusions.

 

    As Shankaracharya said long ago-- udaranimittam bahukruta vesham.

 

    I have been in this game longer than most and fought them also longer than most. Don't waste time understanding and/or refuting them, that only gives them visibility and makes them seem relevant. Nobody but us reads all this anyway.

 

    So ignore and demolish them by any means-- make the irrelevant.

 

N.S. Rajaram

  

 

2012/7/29 S.S <snmp...@gmail.com>

 

कश्चन प्रश्न: उदेति - किमर्थं अद्यतना: संस्कृतज्ञा: लैकिक-ज्ञान-क्षेत्रम् त्यक्त्वा पलायनम् कृतवन्त: इति ? 

 

एतादृशेषु विषयेषु - (इतिहासे, समाजशास्त्रे , मनॊविज्ञाने इत्यादि) - संस्कृतज्ञानाम् ध्वनि: एव न श्रूयते ।

पूर्वम् , संस्कृतज्ञ: विद्यारण्य: धर्मरक्षणार्थम् विजयनगरस्य संस्थापनम् कारितवान् ।

 

अद्यतना: बहव: पण्डिता: उन्नत-स्थान-युक्ता: संस्कृतार्थम् किमपि वक्तुम्, प्रकटयितुम् न उद्युक्ता: - किमर्थम् इति न जाने ।

एतस्मात् कारणात् पाश्चात्याणाम् सिद्धान्ता: , अपि च, तेषाम् भारतीय-गतानुगतिका: सेवका:, इदानीम् विश्वविद्यालयेषु राजन्ते ।

 

षष्ठिवर्षेभ्य: संस्कृतक्षेत्रे किम् नूतनम् ?  संस्कृत-भारत्या: संभाषण-पाठ्यक्रमम् विहाय ,

संस्कृत-क्षेत्रे नूतनम् किम् इति कोऽपि जानाति वा  ?

 

सुब्रह्मण्य:

 

 

 

On Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:04:02 AM UTC-5, Shrisha Rao wrote:

>  
>     Later, in Supplement 3 of our book Vedic Aryans Frawley and I discussed genetic evidence demolishing the AIT. This is now considered so definitive that even die hard AIT-wallahs like Thapar and Witzel have adopted subterfuges saying they don't believe in AIT but AMT.
>  
>     Let us move on to something new instead of keep beating a dead horse.

It is a matter of perspective.  The AIT unfortunately lives on in textbooks (including those of the NCERT, which is more seized of decades-old political cartoons and such needless controversies, rather than accuracy of content) and other places, so it can hardly be described as dead.  Even the AMT is a sort of प्रच्छन्न-AIT, for aficionados who wish to retain the AIT's conclusions whilst not having to answer for its weaknesses.

Even if criticisms of the AIT have been presented before, it is important that it be refuted by mainstream scientists writing in mainstream journals, for wider acceptance.  It is hardly likely that a book like "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" would include the AIT among the theories criticized (if the late Martin Gardner were to rewrite it today), without these.  Though all must agree that truth should not be determined solely by social standing, there is a saying in Kannada, ಶಂಖದಿಂದ ಬಂದಿದ್ದು ತೀಥರ್ -- "[water] coming from a शङ्ख is तीर्थ [and not any other water]," which unfortunately is very true in academic circles.  So I suppose one could say लोकसङ्ग्रहमेवापि सम्पश्यन् कर्तुमर्हसि or perhaps ऋतं च स्वाध्याय प्रवचने च, in respect of such writings.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao
 

--