P. N. Oak (1917-2007): the lone fighter, etymologist, and historian
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
By tilakshri
I landed in Mumbai in the night of Tuesday, Dec 4. When I
opened the papers on Wednesday morning (Dec 5) there were
reports of P. N. Oak's death on Tuesday at the age of 91. I
was looking forward to meet with him to discuss a write-up
I had prepared about him (see below). I had known Oak for
many decades and had last met him in February 2007 at his
residence to present him with my latest book Understanding
karma in light of Paul Ricoeur's philosophical anthropology
and hermeneutics. He then looked as he always did: tall,
slim, and ramrod straight. He was sharp, alert, and moved
his 90 year old frame gracefully with the agility of a
leopard. As usual, he alternated between etymologies of
proper names and place names from all over the world and
their Sanskrit equivalents and the history of India. After
an hour or so I got up to say adieu and told him I would be
back in December. The grand-daughter of my sister had
accompanied me. She requested Oak to pose with me for a
picture which he did gladly.
P. N. Oak: the lone fighter, etymologist, and historian
There are no final answers to our questions about
humanity's past. In world history, all "conclusions" must
be tentative. Yet, accounts of the past construed by
Western historians usually come neatly packed in western
cultural and sociological paradigms. But the nagging
question diligent seekers of truth about the past ask
remains, "Is world history written from a Christian or
Islamic perspective alone credible?" The fact is, world's
distant past is pre-Christian and pre-Islamic. Though it
remains unknowable, scattered evidence of an older world
(that is periodically reported in world media) tends to
arouse the speculative impulse of a historian like India's
P. N. Oak who believed that our world's origins go back to
its Vedic heritage.
Oak, the lone fighter
Born in 1917 in Indore (Madhya Pradesh, India), Purushottam
Nagesh Oak was educated in Pune (Fergusson and Law College)
and trained as a lawyer. When World War II began Oak
enlisted in the Indian army. But when the legendary Subhas
Chandra Bose gave a call to rise against the British raj,
Oak threw himself (body and soul) into the Azad Hind Sena
(Indian National Army = INA) started by Bose. For some time
he acted as a private assistant (PA) to Bose and was later
stationed in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh Ville), where he
worked on the Azad Hind Radio as a broadcaster. When Japan
lost the war and Bose himself was killed in a plane crash,
the stranded INA soldiers were left to their own devices
all across South-East Asia. Oak decided to walk back to
India alone across the hostile and inaccessible mountainous
terrain between Burma (Myanmar) and India.
My first memories of meeting Oak go back fifty years to May
1957. I had just graduated from a high school in Pune and
had gone to Delhi with my three sisters to spend the summer
with our father who worked in the Railway Board. Our mother
had passed away in 1946 and we therefore attended a
boarding school for boys and girls in Pune. A lonely
widower, my father took to studying astrology as a hobby
when he met Oak who used to supplement his income by
writing astrology columns for a variety of magazines and
newspapers. Since he had no secure government job and a
large family to feed, Oak was forced to try his hand at a
variety of jobs including a reporter for the Statesman and
the Hindustan Times. For many years he was employed as
information officer with the United States Information
Service (USIS) at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. During the
1960s Oak often used to come to meet our father to discuss
issues in astrology over a morning cup of tea. We used to
take that opportunity to pump him about the legendary Bose
and the exploits of the INA.
But the lone fighter in Oak was now pre-occupied with
something else. Having done his part in the struggle for
India's political independence, he became a one-man brigade
of an independent historian who had taken upon himself the
thankless task of rescuing India's history which, he
insisted, was hijacked by invaders from medieval times on.
Oak began his historical odyssey with the hypothesis that
(1) India's history has been thoroughly distorted by
invaders to such an extent that Indians today suffer from
cultural amnesia; (2) Indians have forgotten their own
glorious tradition preserved in the epics and puranas which
are as good a source of history as modern historical
documents; (3) In post-independence India secular and
Marxist historians have drained Indian history of its Aryan
and Vedic content and context; (4) The emphasis in today's
historiography is on secularism and on appeasement of
minorities of all sorts: cultural, linguistic, regional or
religious; (5) In producing "idealized versions" of the
past, India's Vedic heritage has been distorted beyond
recognition; and (6) In fabricating history to serve
contemporary goals of a secular society, historians of
modern India have robbed India of its authentic past.
In 1964 Oak established the "Institute for Rewriting Indian
History" in Delhi to provide corrections to what he
insisted were the biased versions of India's history
written by its invaders, colonizers, and modern secular
historians. The institute made no pretence at writing
history in the sense implied in the works of western or
westernized historians in India. The academic historian and
the professional scholar are bound by firm rules of
evidence. Assertions must be supported by verifiable facts.
Speculation can go only so far. Though historical writing
may be a part of literature, its professional practitioners
avoid anything that might be exposed as mere fiction. Oak
rather relied on a historiography that is more akin to the
traditional Indian ways of recording history where the line
between "myth" and "history" is not clearly drawn.
Oak, the etymologist
Oak claimed that the mother civilization, from which all
world civilizations grew, was centred in India. Humanity
came to be divided into two major groups: devas (progeny of
Aditi, wife of Kasyapa) and danavas/daityas (progeny of
Diti, another wife of Kasyapa). While Indians trace their
origin to Aditi and devas, populations of Europe and Egypt
are the descendants of Diti and therefore are called
daityas. The Greeks accordingly were known as Danao in
Latin. Denmark, Danube, and Don are clearly derivatives of
danava.
The Iranians and Mesopotamians are daityas too. Russia is
derived from rsiya (Rushiya = land of the rsis--sages). The
Mayas of Central and South America are the followers of
demon Maya who escaped to Patala (the land beneath India)
by the western seas. The Caspian Sea takes its name from
the sage Kasyapa and the Samarkanda region from the sage
sri Markandeya. Palestine is derived from Pulastin, another
Vedic sage. Cyprus is a mal pronunciation of the Sanskrit
term sivaprastha signifying a centre of saiva worship.
Oak argued that the so-called Indo-European groups of
languages are local variations and/or mal pronunciations of
Sanskrit. In support of the claim he advanced, Oak made
liberal use of the discipline of etymology, which goes back
to Nighantu. A key concern in the Vedic texts (including
the Upanisads) is to uncover the hidden correspondences
that obtain among the sacrificial ritual (yajna), the
cosmos, the social world, and the microcosm of the human
body. These correspondences (also known as counterparts =
bandhu; equivalences = sampad; and secret connections =
upanisads) have cognitive value: they reveal knowledge
which is not directly evident. A striking example of the
knowledge that one can recover through meditation is to be
found in the bandhus stated directly in propositional form
in the five great statements (mahavakyas) in the Upanisads:
I am brahman (bandhu between I and brahman); that thou are
(bandhu between that and thou) etc.
The science of etymology is also based, in large part, on
the phonetic similarities or resemblance (bandhu) between
words and the things they designate. Resemblances between
words are evidence of a direct connection between the
'word' and the 'world.' Sanskritist Patrick Olivelle
cautions us in this context that Yaska, Sayana, and others
in that long line should not be dismissed as 'folk'
etymologists too unsophisticated to know the true
etymologies of the words they explain. Rather, they proceed
on the assumption that the surface forms of language
provide clues to the 'deeper and hidden connections' (see
The Early Upanishads, New York: OUP, 1998: 25).
With Johannes Bronkhorst, another Sanskritist, one may
accept that such etymologies may not be historical or truly
etymological. But they nevertheless express and enrich
meaning (see “Etymology and magic: Yaska's Nirukta, Plato's
Cratylus, and the Riddle of Semantic Etymologies,” Numen 48
(2001): 147-203). Like poetry, fictitious etymologies are
designed to substitute for the absence of a natural or
empirical connection between language and reality. Poetry
is not necessarily expressive of reality but rhetoric. It
builds on appearances of similarities or resemblances
between words.
Victor Turner's discussion of fictitious etymologies used
by Ndembu to explain their rituals as an important part of
the 'inside view' or 'emic explanation' would also relevant
in trying to understand Oak's reliance on etymology. Turner
counsels us to pause and reflect before using etic
arguments to dismiss such devices deployed emically.
Fictitious etymology, like homonymy, is a device whereby
the semantic wealth of a word or symbol is augmented (see
Revelation and Divination in Dnembu Riual. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press 1975).
Even though most of the etymologies suggested by Oak will
not stand academic scrutiny, each must examined carefully
before rejecting it. His effort should not be summarily
dismissed as mere Oakisms.
Oak, the historian
The objective of Oak's Institute for Rewriting Indian
History was subsequently expanded and extended to inform
the world that Vedic culture and Sanskrit language have
been humanity's divine heritage until monotheistic
religions came to dominate the world and control its
written history. Oak's magnum opus is World Vedic Heritage,
a huge tome (1375 pages, 150 pictures and illustrations;
price Rs 400) wherein he cogently documents principal
arguments and evidence gathered by Oak and other members of
the institute. The institute also publishes an annual
research journal.
In writing World Vedic Heritage Oak was concerned with
recreating, what he strongly believed, the vanished history
of the world which began with the Aryans: their successes,
failures, and ultimate fate. It is a spellbinding history
of the world narrated by a master storyteller. Though
general Indian reader will be enchanted by it, most
professional historians will be greatly annoyed. True,
physical evidence of Aryan origins in India and their
migration beyond India is scarce but relevant
archaeological finds uncovered in different parts of the
world baffle historians and archaeologists. In the course
of more than fifty years of research and on-site
inspections Oak connected them to existing structures and
constructions usually associated with the Indus Valley
Civilization.
World Vedic Heritage relies on this germ of ancient history
that most academics and scholars will not touch with a ten
foot pole because they dread being laughed at by their
peers. Oak could not prove his thesis with a body of solid
evidence, but he did tell his fascinating tale
persuasively. He cleverly made logical use of the scraps of
evidence that do exist, such that the reader begins to feel
that something like what Oak describes could have happened.
In this, Oak drew on a living tradition of speculative and
imaginative historiography going back to Vyasa and Valmiki
where myth, fact, and fiction imperceptibly flow together.
Yet he was graceful enough to acknowledge that some of his
conclusions or accounts were founded on conjecture and
analogy. Like Vyasa and other purana writers he often
deviated from the conditional into the indicative mood when
hard evidence was lacking.
Oak surmised that Vedic culture and Sanskrit (its medium of
expression) were spread over vast areas of the ancient
world--particularly Europe and Asia. Vedic culture only
insisted that every person be a good, peaceful, and helpful
member of society. It did not interfere in the personal
belief system of individuals whether theist or atheist. A
theist was free to choose whatever mode and form of
worship. Religions of Egypt, Israel, and Iran, therefore,
have several points of resemblance to the rites, beliefs,
and mythology of the Vedic people (i.e. Aryans). European
archaeologists and historians begin their theories with an
untested and childlike hypothesis (based principally on
Biblical accounts of genesis) that human habitation began
only a few thousands years ago. Modern archaeological finds
are forcing them to push back their estimates of the
antiquity of human habitation by millions of years.
With this founding presupposition Oak built what he
believed an alternative and more credible account of
genesis of the ancient world. In an article published in
his institute's Annual Research Journal (1997: 25) he
referred to the Scandinavian scholar Sten Konow who had
argued (citing the famous French Indologist Sylvain Levi)
that in the remote past there existed a widespread
civilization comprising India and other continents and
islands bordering on the seas around India's coasts. This
may explain the existence of parallels in Europe to the
Durga Puja, which "takes us back to the times when Indian
and European tribes were one people with a common language
and common religious conceptions" (Oak 1997: 25).
Yayati was one of the mightiest kings of ancient India
whose progeny eventually peopled many western regions.
Pharaohs of Egypt, for instance, are the Pauravas, i.e.
descendants of Puru, the youngest son of Yayati. Jews are
Yudus, the progeny of Yadu who was Yayati's eldest son.
Modern Druids are descendants of Yayati's third son--
Druhyu. Yayati's two other sons--Anu and Turvasu,
respectively settled Anatolia and the area north of the
Black Sea.
Pending solid corroborating evidence, Oak's thesis and
books based on it must be construed as "fiction," but it is
fiction with a ring of truth. There is, for instance,
evidence to suggest that ancient Indians were excellent
seafarers and travelled far more widely than European and
Muslim historians of India had led us to believe.
Two international conferences held in Vilnius (capital of
Lithuania) on June 22-23, 1998 broadly supported Oak's
basic thesis that in the ancient world Sanskrit was an
important link language. World Pagan Conference and World
Congress of Ethnic Religions were held simultaneously in
Vilnius and coincided with the annual summer solstice
festival locally known as Rasa. The dominant themes of
these conferences (one universal religion underlying a
variety of religious expressions and tolerance of religious
plurality) have been, as Oak ceaselessly points out, the
hallmark of the Vedic culture.
India has had close linguistic and cultural ties with
Lithuanian (and perhaps European) language, history, and
tradition. These two conferences are testimony to growing
awareness in the world that (1) India is the homeland of
one universal and eternal religion (sanatana dharma) and
(2) Sanskrit and sanskrti, through which sanatana dharma is
expressed, have served (can do so now) a bridge to world
cultures and religions.
Formerly a Baltic republic of the Soviet Union, Lithuania
today is an independent country. The people of Lithuania
speak the oldest surviving Indo-European language, which
closely resembles ancient Sanskrit. It continues to have,
for instance, seven declensions (vibhaktis). The words for
god, day, and son in Lithuanian are dieva, diena, sunus
(deva, dina, sunu in Sanskrit). Lithuanian language has
preserved until the present day the complex phonetic system
of the Indo-European speech (Encyclopedia Britannica 1980
edition; curiously though, the 1992 edition has dropped any
reference to this similarity of Lithuanian with Sanskrit).
Scholars now recognize that Sanskrit can be employed as a
tool of research in the comparative study of the past
history and mythology of Europe and Asia. It can also
contribute significantly to the cross-cultural study of
world religions and cultures. Not surprisingly, the
University of Vilnius has a large Department of Sanskrit.
Lithuania was the last stronghold in Europe of nature
religion and a syncretistic, tolerant cultural tradition
before being Christianized in the fourteenth century.
Subsequently, as indeed elsewhere, Lithuanians were divided
into Christians (saved ones) and Pagans (doomed ones). Over
the centuries vigorous efforts were made to obliterate all
pre-Christian religious traditions in Europe and elsewhere
where Christianity came to prevail.
The fact nevertheless remains that Pagan religions did
foster harmony between the natural and human. Paganism
discounted the artificial division of our world into
"believers" of this or that organized religion and those
others who are pejoratively dismissed as non-believers
("pagans," "kafirs," "mleccha" etc). Pagan worldview
rejects those military and political authorities who, in
the name of organized religions, subjugate and enslave
those who profess natural spiritual practices.
Such an outlook shares much in common with modern liberal
trends sweeping across the world. It is therefore not
surprising that there is a renewed interest in and revival
of Pagan religion in the world today. Particularly in
Europe people are eager to rediscover their lost cultures
and traditions. They are thirsty and hungry for the
spiritual lore that disappeared with the advent of
monotheistic religions. In Modern Lithuania it has given
rise to the "Romuva Movement."
This mood of optimism and perspective was also evident at
the World Congress of Ethnic Religions held in London in
1998. Representatives of different ethnic religions (non-
missionary religions that have no ambition to reduce local
religions to one dominant world religion) endorsed the
pagan worldviews that there is not just the absolute one
God and the absolutely profane plural world, as in
monotheism. There is both sacredness and profaneness within
the world, as there is both oneness and plurality within
the divine. Like Paganism, ethnic religions see themselves
as a culture of truth, an exploration, and an experience,
not as a belief in a fixed set of dogmas or creed.
Delegates expressed opposition to the worship of a "jealous
and wrathful god" who exhorts his followers to force or
induce non believers to give up their ways of worship. God
cannot be partisan or jealous because such a depiction sows
discord and violence amongst different groups and factions.
Truth is, god and nature are not jealous. Is the sun
jealous? Does the moon betray jealousy? The rivers, stars,
forests, fields, lakes, oceans are all manifestations of
god who showers beneficence upon all. God/Goddess is
absolutely free of jealousy or favour.
Thus interpreted, "pagan" worldview shares much in common
with Vedic culture in general and with sanatana dharma in
particular. In his various writings Oak speculated that
"pagan" was a corrupt form of bhagavan. This claim received
some support in the papers read by Rajinder Singh, Surinder
Paul Attri, and Arwind Ghosh who represented India at
Vilnius explaining the Hindu perspective on the central
theme of the conference "unity in diversity." They shared
the thoughts and points of views of the religions of India
on the means of restoring in the modern world sacredness of
all life and divinity of nature.
Oak's work is comparable in many respects to Canadian
writer Farley Mowat who has put forth a theory (developed
in his latest book The Farfarers) that Albans (ancient
inhabitants of northern British Isles) explored and even
settled North America fifteen centuries ago. Formidable
seafarers and traders in walrus tusks and hides, Albans
reached, according to Mowat, western Newfoundland in search
of their hunt centuries ago. Some of them settled there and
were eventually absorbed by the indigenous people of North
America.
Like Mowat, Oak made good and sensible use of the odd clues
and the evidence that fifty years of personal investigation
and study gave him.The two volumes of his World Vedic
Heritage will no doubt provoke controversy, as Oak's works
always do, but academic historians must not simply ignore
him. They must take up his challenge and engage him [his
writings now] in a scholarly debate.
Oak [and Godbole] on the Taj Mahal
Back in 1965 Oak put forward a theory that the Taj Mahal
was not a mausoleum built by Shahjahan but a Rajput Palace.
In 1968 he found supporting evidence to that effect in
Shahjahan's official chronicle Badshahnama and in 1974 he
came across a letter by Aurangzeb written in 1652 (the year
when Taj Mahal is supposed to have been just completed)
complaining that the Taj Mahal was leaking all over.
In 1978 Oak's book The Taj Mahal is a Temple Palace came
out which V. S. Godbole (an engineer working for the London
Underground in UK and also a researcher in Indian history
and in the thought of V.D. Savarkar) read and found thought
provoking . Over the next two years Godbole went through
the relevant references provided by Oak and was convinced
of Oak's assertion. In 1981 Godbole's research went deeper
and he began to ask "Were the British scholars just a
neutral third party who were either (1) misled by the
prolonged misuse of Hindu buildings as Mosques and Tombs or
(2) were not cunning enough to see through chauvinistic
Muslim claims? Or (3) did they know the truth about Taj
Mahal and other monuments all along but had, for political
reasons, hid the truth?"
By the end of 1981 Godbole had prepared an eighty page
dossier on the subject and placed his findings in a
chronological order. He was surprised at the findings.
There was indeed a British conspiracy of suppression of
truth about Taj Mahal and other monuments over the last two
hundred years. The main personalities involved either knew
each other and/or referred to works of each other. With
time new information came to light which confirmed
Godbole's findings. In his painstakingly done research now
published as a book "Taj Mahal: The Great British
Conspiracy," Godbole makes the following points (admirably
summarized in B. Shantanu's Blog Hindu Dharma News Letter #
5):
(1) Architect: On the question of who planned the Taj
Mahal, there is very little agreement amongst various
writers and travelers. Even the origin of the person
(whether he was Farsi, Indian, Italian) is disputed. The
name that comes up most frequently though is that of Ustad
Isa: For Godbole, it is certainly a fabrication because
there is no mention of him prior to the 19th century.
(2) Time Taken and People Involved: Almost all the accounts
quote Tavernier who says that the building took 20,000
people and was twenty-two years in the making. This account
differs considerably from Manrique's (a Portuguese
preacher) who was in India during the same time. He only
noticed one thousand people working there. Although
Manrique's testimony is not completely reliable either, the
difference in numbers is too stark to ignore. One way of
resolving the contradiction would be to say that twenty-two
years were taken and 20,000 people were employed to build
the original Taj Mahal; not by Shahjahan but by Raja
Mansingh or someone else. Manrique saw one thousand people
engaged in the "embellishment" and other suitable changes
that were ordered by Shahjahan to (i) formally complete the
acquisition of the property and (ii) to change the
character of the building by including Islamic motifs and
style (inscribing verses from the Qu'ran on it).
(3) Badshahnama: There are scant references to this
official chronicle of Shah Jahan's reign in most accounts
by historians or Indologists. It makes no mention of any
grand building newly constructed by Shahjahan during his
reign. One important passage in Badshahnama is ignored by
the mainstram scholars and historians presumably because
they are unable to verify the authenticity of the actual
document itself. The passage in question clearly states
that Shahjahan acquired Raja Mansingh's "manzil" (not
"zamin" i.e. plot or tract of land as quoted by some
scholars). (4) Architecture: The architecture of the
building, when examined in detail and without bias, clearly
reveals a number of features that are unmistakably "Hindu."
(5) Unexplained structures and underground chambers: Other
than long corridors and rooms at several levels (actually,
there are seven of them!), the Taj complex includes
moorings for pleasure boats (what purpose could they
conceivably have in a mausoleum?). Several photographs,
drawings and reports about the Taj are either still
classified or are untraceable. No one quite knows when was
the last time (or indeed at all that the monument was
"surveyed" by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) (In
February 2007 I attended a lecture on Taj Mahal by Godbole
in Pune where he emphatically asserted that to date the Taj
Mahal has not been properly surveyed).
(6) Missing evidence: No extant blueprints or scale models
of the building have been found to date. There is no
mention about these at all except for a "legend" of a
wooden model that was supposedly built.
(7) Missing credits: The only signature on the tomb is that
of the calligrapher. Was he the only person of note or the
only important contributor to the structure? How is it that
there is no mention of the designer or the architect or
indeed even of Shahjahan? Is that realistic if a building
of such grandeur was constructed from the scratch?
Continued silence by the ASI and the Government of India
does not inspire confidence.
Many historians and academics are fearful of a backlash if
the building that has been proudly trumpeted as
representing the best of Islamic art may turn out to be
Hindu. The challenge before us is how to balance historical
truth and academic integrity with public peace and
"communal harmony."
Oak on secularism
Oak documents one instance of a twisted logic behind a
secularist interpretation of history by an agency of a
state ruled by a Marxist government. In 1970, an issue of a
magazine published by the Directorate of Information and
Publicity of the West Bengal government carried a photo of
a 'mosque' in Murshidabad showing on its verandah badly
mutilated images of Ganesh. The caption underneath the
photo explains that the Muslim Sultan who commissioned the
'mosque' was so secular that to satisfy Hindu sentiments he
had the 'mosque' decorated with the the images of Ganesh.
At the same time, to respect the dicta of Islam, he had
them badly mutilated! (see P. N. Oak World Vedic Heritage (2
vols). Delhi: Hindi Sahitya Sadan, 2003 1: 1163.
I have always found the mainstream Indologists' verdict on
Purushottam Nagesh Oak as a lunatic and his writings
worthless (without seriously examining his arguments) very
troubling because it is uncivil, unacademic, and
counterproductive to Indology.
Tags: P. N. Oak Indian history the Taj Mahal Vedic heritage
End of forwarded message from tilakshri
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Dušan Vukotic
[...Oak argued that the so-called Indo-European groups of
languages are local variations and/or mal pronunciations of
Sanskrit... ]
Sanskrit is Indo-Europen language only thanks to the great number of
borrowings obtained from the European conquerors. Internal logic of
Sanskrit is inconsistent and the predictions of the key semantic
connections and values are very limited.
DV
phog...@abo.fi
> [...Oak argued that the so-called Indo-European groups of
> languages are local variations and/or mal pronunciations of
> Sanskrit... ]
>
> Sanskrit is Indo-Europen language only thanks to the great number of
> borrowings obtained from the European conquerors.
Are you serious, or just trying to irritate the in-house Hindutva
fanatics of this newsgroup?
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Wanderer
on Thursday to see if an astrologer who forecast his own death would
indeed die as predicted.
But the 75-year-old man survived the day.
Kunjilal Malviya, who lives south of the Madhya Pradesh state capital
Bhopal, had been meditating in his house after announcing he would die
on Thursday between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m (0930-1130 GMT).
A police official confirmed the astrologer was fine and quoted his
family members as saying the prediction failed because many of those
gathered had prayed for him to live.
.......................
Malviya's prediction is not the first of its type by an Indian
astrologer. But in the past, crowds have beaten up astrologers when
their predicted demise failed to occur.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20051020-0621-odd-india-prediction.html
Jay's famous "predictions" that never stood a snowball's chance in hell:
"Based on one of mankind's most time-tested sciences, Jyotish,
(no experimentation here!) the India-Pakistan reunification
should occur on our about July 26, 2000 (the date of the final
signing of the pact.)
"By December, 1996 most of the formalities for the merger would
have been agreed-to in principle."
April 18, 1993
"I am of the opinion
(concluding from Jyotish studies about the country) that radical
changes in south Asia will complete by about the year 2007, but
the transition, a dawn, is beginning now. "
October 23, 1997
[Note that Jay makes no acknowledgment of his earlier "prediction"
that the date for the "final signing of the pact" would be July 26, 2000]
"The Jyotish-based prediction[of the merger of Pakistan and India]
emerged as a consensus among a group of astrologers during
the 1960s although several astrologers came up with it soon
after August 15, 1947. As the decades have passed since
then, a rationalization for the reunification, on the other
hand, has eluded the minds of the greatest political experts.
It is only since the early 1990s that they have even begun
to examine the issue publicly: we kept insisting upon their
participation in discussions about south Asian unity. I
continue to designate 2000-2010 as the time-frame for a
Bharat-Pakistan reunification for all practical purposes. A
few eminent Jyotishis have announced the precise year for
signing ceremonies and such but the work of yours truly on
this issue will not be complete until late 1998 or early 1999."
May 10, 1998
"Predictions published by several Jyotishis, and by me, over the decades
point to a Bharat-Pakistan reunification in the _early part of the next
Gregorian century_."
May 27, 1999
[Again, Jay ignores his own July 26, 2000 "final signing" claim]
"As I and several other Jyotishis have predicted in
the past, the reunification of Bharat and Pakistan
has been completed on most levels. Vital documents
have been signed, various agreements have been reached."
April 19, 2006
[Of course, 2006 is not July 26, 2000, and signing "vital documents" and
"various agreements" are not "the final signing of the pact" but don't
try to tell Jay that.]
And now that we are drawing to the close of 2007, we may expect Jay to
carry on with his fabrications of "substantially completed" or invent a
new date, say, 2010.
Does anyone know why Jay keeps all to his lonely self, and avoids
crowds? Besides being ugly, that is. Because he doesn't want to be
beaten up for his reams of failed "predictions".
rickt...@yahoo.com
after him and call it TRASH MAHAL. He was a bigoted, liar and a Shiv
Sena activist, blinded in his own belief. He tried to sow the seeds of
hatred in modern India. Kudos to the Indian Supreme Court for taking
impartial decision and justice by throwing out his petition. This ass
brain did not know limitations of carbon dating. If the Taj Mahal
marble tests 1 million years old does it prove that Taj was built 1
million years ago (yes you can test the age of marble: ask any
geologist.) When has anyone used a freshly cut tree to make a door
that too of the Taj mahal on which the emperor spent millions of
Indian currency at that time (worth billions today?). Even a lay
person knows that you use cured (aged) wood for doors or frames, this
is because of warping problems if freshly cut timber were used. So
all that carbon dating claims are false in that respect.
This mongrel stooped to the lowest levels of bigotry, hate mongering
and muslim bashing to prove his ultra dubious points. First he said
that the Taj Mahal was a palace. Then being a Shiv Sena activist,
changing his mind,he said it was a Shiv mandir, but he cannot produce
any record from Hindu history that a mandir of such beauty and caliber
ever existed there. And he goes on to say that the Taj was leaking at
the time it was reportedly built (hence it was much older.). Now any
civil engineer knows that even using RCC (steel and cement)
construction a new building roof can leak if it rains and it needs
further correction of minor leaks and cracks due to cement setting.
Even here in the USA a new home buyer will get a walk thru in the
attic to test for leaks when buying a new home. Then again the issue
of locked rooms with ordinary brick walls is brought into question.
Taj was built by digging a foundation at least a few stories deep.
This is to support the upper heavy marble structure (remember no steel
support pillars, beams or columns are used .) Secondly most of the
workers on the Taj lived on site (it took 22 years) so all quarters
were in the lower levels (yes you lived on-site, because of no mass
transportation) and once the upper main structure was over the simple
living quarters were just sealed off using ordinary brick walls (Now
mischief mongers can sneak in an idol into the basement or throw an
idol into the well and claim it was there since eternity). It would be
of tremendous waste to line a basement workshop with expensive marble
hence no marble is found there. Then he mentions a well. The well was
there to supply drinking water to the thousands of workers, artisans,
etc. although you have Taj Mahal on river bank the river can be
polluted, hence lot of Indian villages have wells on the river banks
where the earth purifies the water and makes it potable. And on and
on......Even if Shiva were to manifest at the Taj..., He is just there
to enjoy its beauty, for He would not live there. His abode is more
exalted than this human construction.
I can challenge all OAK'S false propaganda and also of another bigot
called Knapp (another caught napping shit hole) and similar others,
thru a distinct scientific forum and any of his blinded supporters can
be there. Until then, let this sorry POISON OAK soul rest in his TRASH
MAHAL and oops if it is garbage day today, please take your trash out
to dump on his samadhi. Me, I will not even spit on his Trash Mahal.
And there is more, he even has Vedic claims on Vatican, British Throne
and Holy Kaaba, Mecca (I am not lying.) For if you are just reading
these groups his other claims are not even mentioned to save stupid
embarrassment (see the ...ass in embarass..)
Sorry folks I am a bit rude here but I don't want bigots/zealots
storming onto the Taj Mahal and bringing it down like they did at
Babri Masjid....for even if you put all the resources and money of
current world we can never build another Taj during the life of this
Mother Earth....for the Taj Mahal has happened only once...for the
purpose of our eternal enjoyment. When this millenium belongs to
India, we want to present our joint heritage to the world to come and
share our past super achievements. Thanks for reading. Now go do the
right thing. Save the beautiful Taj...