A summary of Aryan invasion theory based on genetic evidence.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

Since the AIT, OIT etc.. are of concern to hindu history, here is a summary of one formulation ( https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/a-note-on-the-early-expansions-of-the-indo-europeans/ ) of AIT based on genetic evidence - https://atlas.mindmup.com/2015/12/3ad6d9908a930133bcfa17117fe97817/ait_mt_2015_v2/index.html . General flow is: Top to bottom, left to right.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

This is a much discussed topic. There are specialized mailing lists for AIT. Please see the views expressed there. This is nothing new Please see discussions in the Euro Asia list

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 9:24 AM, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Since the AIT, OIT etc.. are of concern to hindu history, here is a summary of one formulation ( https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/a-note-on-the-early-expansions-of-the-indo-europeans/ ) of AIT based on genetic evidence - https://atlas.mindmup.com/2015/12/3ad6d9908a930133bcfa17117fe97817/ait_mt_2015_v2/index.html . General flow is: Top to bottom, left to right.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 1 January 2016 09:24:27 UTC+5:30, विश्वासो वासुकेयः wrote:

Since the AIT, OIT etc.. are of concern to hindu history, here is a summary of one formulation ( https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/a-note-on-the-early-expansions-of-the-indo-europeans/ ) of AIT based on genetic evidence - https://atlas.mindmup.com/2015/12/3ad6d9908a930133bcfa17117fe97817/ait_mt_2015_v2/index.html . General flow is: Top to bottom, left to right.

Dear Vishvas,

The problem with the source you cite is that it is, after all, a blog. It is not a peer-reviewed publication. There are a bunch of articles cited at the end, but no inline citations. The author of the blog writes anonymously (he may be known to some people though). Unless his/her findings are put to the litmus test of peer review by experts in the field of genetics, the article does not deserve to be taken seriously. I am not a geneticist, so I will not pass a judgement on the article. But if Nature publishes his article, I will read it. One must also remember that the author is an expert at personal attacks and name calling (his laundry list where he labels those he strongly disagrees with as ‘mlechCha subversionists’ and describes them in unflattering terms is on full display here: https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2005/11/29/the-mlechcha-subversionists/)

Given this, please tell me which academic publication (or forum) of repute would accept this blog as a credible/reliable source?

Thanks, Nityanand

 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Thanks Nityanandji. AIT can be discussed on BVP but should be restricted to experts and discussions should  focus on peer-reviewed publications ideally it should be started by the authors themselves. The thread initiators should actively take part and close such discussion as I or the moderation team of BVP list are not AIT experts. Having said this the moderation team do read with great interests books articles and view on different aspects of AIT.

Its best not to bring Blogs to the notice of BVP list unless the blog has peer-reviewed research on AIT

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

 

--

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Ajitji and Nityanandaji,

There are random collections as presented in the different blogs at different times and  there have also been sporadic works of fundamental nature including such works based on archaeological and astronomical evidences,  in the AIT  & pro-AIT  debate. All these will settle only when the important milestones in the ancient Indian history are settled. The so- called genetic evidences have not been able to present any umambiguous testimony in this debate. Till a comprehensive textbook addressing the ancient Indian Chronology from a scientific viewpoint becomes available for the students of the new generation, this to & fro tussle between the pro-AIT camp and the anti-AIT camp will go on. Let us hope that sooner than later, the Apex body on Historical Research in India will organize an official debate, where the scholars of both the camp can come together to sort out the issue.

Regards,

Sunil KB

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com

[N.R.Joshi]

Jan 4, 2016

 

Discussion on AIT and OIT

 

If aryans reached Indian subcontinent in prehistoric time, they have to come by land route that covers the land of ancient Persia (Now called Iran) and Afghanistan. I do not see much effort on the part of the interested scholars to look into the ancient history of the land now called Afghanistan. I cannot understand this reluctance to retrace the path of Aryans from Afghanistan to Europe. It will produce wealth of new information if efforts are undertaken with open mind by the scholars interested to know the truth behind AIT. I am not in favor of AIT or OIT. I am in favor or the ancient Mahabharata empire. Thanks . N.R.Joshi

---------- Original Message ----------
From: विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com>
To: bhAratIya vidvat pariShad भारतीयविद्वत्परिषद् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} A summary of Aryan invasion theory based on genetic evidence.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:54:07 -0800

Since the AIT, OIT etc.. are of concern to hindu history, here is a summary of one formulation ( https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/a-note-on-the-early-expansions-of-the-indo-europeans/ ) of AIT based on genetic evidence - https://atlas.mindmup.com/2015/12/3ad6d9908a930133bcfa17117fe97817/ait_mt_2015_v2/index.html . General flow is: Top to bottom, left to right.

 

 

 

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

____________________________________________________________
4 Common Foods 'Destroying' Your Digestive Health ...
Hattaka K et al, "Effect of long term consumption of probiotic milk on ...
http://probioticamerica.com/inc/analytics.php?net=grav&v=8

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2016-01-04 2:24 GMT-08:00 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>:

One must also remember that the author is an expert at personal attacks and name calling (his laundry list where he labels those he strongly disagrees with as ‘mlechCha subversionists’ and describes them in unflattering terms is on full display here: https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2005/11/29/the-mlechcha-subversionists/)

​किञ्च, १॰ नात्र स लेखको भाषते, २॰ न चोपर्युक्तलेखनमत्र चर्चाविषयः। सत्येवम् अस्माभिर् "युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं बालादपि शुकादपि। युक्तिहीनं वचस् त्याज्यं वृद्धादपि शुकादपि॥" इति नीतिरनुसरणीया।

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2016-01-04 2:24 GMT-08:00 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>:

Given this, please tell me which academic publication (or forum) of repute would accept this blog as a credible/reliable source?

​मित्र नित्यानन्द, प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपाण्डितानाम् अभिप्रायान् नाकतिदूरमपेतमिदमित्य् अन्ते सूचितानां लेखनानां दर्शनेनावगम्यते। लेखकश्च न नेचर-सायन्स-पत्रिकासु सम्बद्धविषयेषु प्रकाशने ऽदत्तहस्तः। इदं खलु लेखनं आर्याक्रमण​विषये पामरेभ्यो ऽस्मादृशेभ्यो लिखितम्, न तु प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपाण्डितानाम् कृते, तेन मया ऽजयविद्वत्परिषदि चर्चा युक्तेति पुरा मतम्। 

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Vishvas,

I have some trouble understanding your post.

1) What do you mean by प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपाण्डित? The term जनसञ्चार is used for mass communication. What do you mean by पाण्डित (पण्डितस्यायं पाण्डितः?)? प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपाण्डित=Old mass communication scholar-related? I do not get the context for mass communication.

2) What is नाकतिदूरम् (or is it नातिदूरम्)? 

3) Lastly, what is अजयविद्वत्परिषत्? Do you mean Ajit Ji by अजय? This is not Ajit Ji's forum, he is only moderating it on behest of the owners. 

लेखनं आर्याक्रमण​विषये should be लेखनम् आर्याक्रमण​विषये (मकारस्य पदान्तस्य अनुस्वारः आदेशो भवति हलि परतः, अत्र त्वचि परे न स्यात्).

If the blog article was on poetics, music, or literature, I would have had this problem. But don't you agree that genetics is a field of natural science? Do you think a piece of scientific writing which is anonymously authored, which is without inline citations, and which is not peer reviewed is reliable or credible? Irrespective of whether the reader is old school (प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपाण्डित?) or not (पामरेभ्योऽस्मादृशेभ्यो?), should not the reader be concerned about acceptable standards in scientific writing? Even Wikipedia, citations from which are not accepted by universities, does not accept blogs as reliable sources and recommends inline citations for articles. 

You say the author is not inexperienced (is that what you mean by न अदत्तहस्तः?) in publishing in magazines [like] Nature and Science. If that is the case, can you please identify the author and list his/her publications? Also, it beats me why the author is writing anonymously on things like genetics and AIT if he/she is capable of publishing in journals like Nature and Science.

Here are some tips on evaluating a source from OWL (Purdue University's Online Writing Lab). 

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/

I would apply each of these to the manasataramgini blog article. Especially the third last last point:

“How credible is the author? If the document is anonymous, what do you know about the organization?”

I know nothing about the author or organization (if there is one) behind the blog. Hence, I would rather not rely on the article. 

Thanks, Nityanand

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 09:21:56 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

If the blog article was on poetics, music, or literature, I would have had this problem.

Correction: That should read

If the blog article was on poetics, music, or literature, I would not have had this problem. 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2016-01-04 19:51 GMT-08:00 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>:

वन्दे ​मित्र नित्यानन्द।​

I have some trouble understanding your post.

1) What do you mean by प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपाण्डित? The term जनसञ्चार is used for mass communication. What do you mean by पाण्डित (पण्डितस्यायं पाण्डितः?)?

​​

प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपाण्डित=Old mass communication scholar-related? I do not get the context for mass communication.

​

​

प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपाण्डित: = प्राचीनानां जनानां सञ्चारः प्राचीनजनसञ्चारः​। तस्य पण्डितः = प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपण्डितः। Scholar of ancient population movements (part of Population genetics).

 

2) What is नाकतिदूरम् (or is it नातिदूरम्)? 

ध्रुवम्। टङ्कनत्रुटिः क्षम्यताम्।

 

3) Lastly, what is अजयविद्वत्परिषत्? Do you mean Ajit Ji by अजय? This is not Ajit Ji's forum, he is only moderating it on behest of the owners. 

​आम्। :-) रामस्य राज्यम् रामराज्यम्। अजितस्य विद्वत्परिषत् = अजितविद्ववत्परिषत्। ममाभिप्राये इदम् एवास्यास् सभाया उचितं नाम। यतो हि राजेव (:-)) सभां पालयत्यसौ यदृच्छया, नास्त्यस्य प्रष्टा कश्चिदिव भाति। यथा http://i.imgur.com/UcYOQR7.png, http://i.imgur.com/joYqqCy.png इति सन्देशौ तेन तिरस्कृतौ - नात्र हेतुं पश्याम्य् अपराधरूपकम्। उचिताभिधानदानेन ममाऽप्य् अत्र पत्रप्रेषणाद् अपेक्षा न्यूना भवति, तेनैतादृशनिर्णयेभ्यः खेदो वार्यतेतराम्।

 

लेखनं आर्याक्रमण​विषये should be लेखनम् आर्याक्रमण​विषये (मकारस्य पदान्तस्य अनुस्वारः आदेशो भवति हलि परतः, अत्र त्वचि परे न स्यात्).

सत्यम्। टङ्कनत्रुटिः क्षम्यताम्।​

 

If the blog article was on poetics, music, or literature, I would have had this problem. But don't you agree that genetics is a field of natural science? Do you think a piece of scientific writing which is anonymously authored, which is without inline citations, and which is not peer reviewed is reliable or credible? Irrespective of whether the reader is old school (प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपाण्डित?) or not (पामरेभ्योऽस्मादृशेभ्यो?), should not the reader be concerned about acceptable standards in scientific writing?

​नैवम् मित्र। पञ्चतन्त्रे हितोपदेशे वा दृश्यन्ते "पङ्क्तौ पङ्क्तौ मूलनिर्देशाः"? न सर्वत्रैतादृश्यपेक्षा युज्यते। बालोपदेशस्येतादृशम् एव विधानम्। तत्रोदाहरणम् - http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0508/excerpt1.html - नात्राऽपि "पङ्क्तौ पङ्क्तौ मूलनिर्देशाः"। ​यदि नामैवापेक्षितम्, किं बहुना? ​भार्गवोऽसौ मानसतरङ्गिणीकार इति निर्देशेनालम्। यथा "दण्डी"।

तथा सत्यपि प्रमाणानां साक्षात् परीक्षा शक्यैवासक्तेन जनेन - अन्ते सीचिर् दत्तैव।

You say the author is not inexperienced (is that what you mean by न अदत्तहस्तः?) in publishing in magazines [like] Nature and Science. If that is the case, can you please identify the author and list his/her publications? Also, it beats me why the author is writing anonymously on things like genetics and AIT if he/she is capable of publishing in journals like Nature and Science.

​नाहमत्राधिकृतः। सुप्रतिष्ठितविज्ञानिरेवासाविति यावद् वदामि तात। भवान् स्वयं प्रष्टुमर्हति जनममुम् - https://twitter.com/blog_supplement ।

Here are some tips on evaluating a source from OWL (Purdue University's Online Writing Lab). 

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/

I would apply each of these to the manasataramgini blog article. Especially the third last last point:

“How credible is the author? If the document is anonymous, what do you know about the organization?”

​अत्र पुनरपि "युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं …" इत्येव ब्रवीमि। 

 

I know nothing about the author or organization (if there is one) behind the blog. Hence, I would rather not rely on the article. 

​तत् तथाऽस्तु। अन्येषां भिन्नस् स्यादभिप्रायः।  अङ्गीकाराभावेऽपि परीक्षा चर्चा वा न बाध्यते ननु? 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2016-01-04 20:52 GMT-08:00 विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com>:

सुप्रतिष्ठितविज्ञानिरेवासाविति

​विज्ञान्येवासाविति शोधनम्।​

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Even the so-called established academic historians have to be questioned.  In her paper entitled "Puranic Lineages and Archaeological Cultures",Prof. Romila Thapar has written as follows ;

Many attempts have been made to work out the chronology and perhaps the most detailed is that of S.N.pradhan, Chronology of Ancient India (Calcutta, 1927)

Any conscientious scholar would certainly wonder as to how could an established academician like Prof. Romila Thapar  endorse the book of Sita Nath Pradhan, which, to my knowledge, tells us that the Mahabharata war foght around 1150 BCE.

Regards,

Sunil KB

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

This article on academia.edu was mentioned by its author on Indology list during a discussion:

 

https://www.academia.edu/7893126/Genetic_Evidence_of_Early_Human_Migrations_in_the_Indian_Ocean_Region_Disproves_Aryan_Migration_Invasion_Theories

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 11:50:23 UTC+5:30, विश्वासो वासुकेयः wrote:

2016-01-04 19:51 GMT-08:00 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>:

 

3) Lastly, what is अजयविद्वत्परिषत्? Do you mean Ajit Ji by अजय? This is not Ajit Ji's forum, he is only moderating it on behest of the owners. 

​आम्। :-) रामस्य राज्यम् रामराज्यम्। अजितस्य विद्वत्परिषत् = अजितविद्ववत्परिषत्। ममाभिप्राये इदम् एवास्यास् सभाया उचितं नाम। यतो हि राजेव (:-)) सभां पालयत्यसौ यदृच्छया, नास्त्यस्य प्रष्टा कश्चिदिव भाति। यथा http://i.imgur.com/UcYOQR7.png, http://i.imgur.com/joYqqCy.png इति सन्देशौ तेन तिरस्कृतौ - नात्र हेतुं पश्याम्य् अपराधरूपकम्। उचिताभिधानदानेन ममाऽप्य् अत्र पत्रप्रेषणाद् अपेक्षा न्यूना भवति, तेनैतादृशनिर्णयेभ्यः खेदो वार्यतेतराम्।

Dear Vishvas

Let's abide by the decisions of the moderator and trust Veeranarayana Pandurangi Ji's choice. I personally believe its best to raise moderation issues privately with the list owner (Veeranarayana Pandurangi Ji) and moderators (Shrinivasa Varakhedi Ji and Ajit Gargeshwari Ji).

 

 

If the blog article was on poetics, music, or literature, I would have had this problem. But don't you agree that genetics is a field of natural science? Do you think a piece of scientific writing which is anonymously authored, which is without inline citations, and which is not peer reviewed is reliable or credible? Irrespective of whether the reader is old school (प्राचीनजनसञ्चारपाण्डित?) or not (पामरेभ्योऽस्मादृशेभ्यो?), should not the reader be concerned about acceptable standards in scientific writing?

​नैवम् मित्र। पञ्चतन्त्रे हितोपदेशे वा दृश्यन्ते "पङ्क्तौ पङ्क्तौ मूलनिर्देशाः"? न सर्वत्रैतादृश्यपेक्षा युज्यते। बालोपदेशस्येतादृशम् एव विधानम्। तत्रोदाहरणम् - http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0508/excerpt1.html - नात्राऽपि "पङ्क्तौ पङ्क्तौ मूलनिर्देशाः"। ​यदि नामैवापेक्षितम्, किं बहुना? ​भार्गवोऽसौ मानसतरङ्गिणीकार इति निर्देशेनालम्। यथा "दण्डी"।

To reiterate, I asked (rhetorically) if 

A) a piece of scientific writing which is

B) anonymously authored, AND

C) without inline citations, AND 

D) not peer reviewed

is reliable or credible. 

Your counter-examples are based on clause C alone, you probably interpreted my ANDs as ORs. Nevertheless, I would like to say

1) On Pañcatantra and Hitopadeśa: these are fables, they are not scientific writing (does not meet clause A). 

2) The Adventure article: It is not anonymously written (does not meet clause B). It may or may not have been peer reviewed, but it was certainly edited and reviewed by the magazine staff. The Adventure magazine had as many as 13 editors (see here http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/writers-photographers.html) with John Rasmus being the Editor in Chief. To add, National Geographic is one of the foremost scientific organizations in the world. A publication from such an organization simply cannot have the same reliability as a post by an anonymous blogger.

 

तथा सत्यपि प्रमाणानां साक्षात् परीक्षा शक्यैवासक्तेन जनेन - अन्ते सीचिर् दत्तैव।

It is difficult to cross-verify. No page numbers cited for books. The bibliography has 6 books and 14 articles and there are no inline citations. Do you know which statement in the article is from which book/article.

 

You say the author is not inexperienced (is that what you mean by न अदत्तहस्तः?) in publishing in magazines [like] Nature and Science. If that is the case, can you please identify the author and list his/her publications? Also, it beats me why the author is writing anonymously on things like genetics and AIT if he/she is capable of publishing in journals like Nature and Science.

​नाहमत्राधिकृतः। सुप्रतिष्ठितविज्ञानिरेवासाविति यावद् वदामि तात। भवान् स्वयं प्रष्टुमर्हति जनममुम् - https://twitter.com/blog_supplement ।

I do not think I should be asking the blogger. You cited the article on this forum, hence IMHO you owe an answer to the question about the identity of the blogger. You seem to know him. If he is a सुप्रतिष्ठित scientist, why can you not name him? Who gives the अधिकार of naming the blogger? 

I am sorry I cannot (and no rational individual can) accept it blindly that the author is a सुप्रतिष्ठित scientist: a name and list of publications is needed.

​अत्र पुनरपि "युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं …" इत्येव ब्रवीमि। 

Do you have enough training in genetics to conclude that the content of the article is युक्तियुक्त? Or is it your faith in the author that makes you believe so? I am not a geneticist. I cannot evaluate whether what the author says is युक्तियुक्त or not. If the article was peer-reviewed or edited then there would be a good chance of the arguments being युक्तियुक्त. We need some yardsticks, and OWL tips only help us assess if the publication meets those yardsticks. 

We need some standards in scientific publishing, else even Bubba Free John can be cited on genetics and AIT.

Last post on this thread.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Sunil ji,

Your dates on Indian chronology is well known on this list lets leave chronology. If

​ ​

you have anything against ​Prof. Romila Thapar

​please take it up with her on the appropriate forum. ​than a one line rejoinder here. Date of Mahabharata war is always a conjecture and no absolute proof can be given. Lets us focus on AIT on this thread else lets close this thread.

Dear Vishvas ji

This note is for Vishvas; May be Visvas has nothing else to think right now except make remarks on those who say that his views are not acceptable this is one of the main problems of AIT we have too many unverified claims and blogs.We have engineers and doctors who randomly write on AIT.  Many good articles have been written by both the proponents and those who are against AIT in Academic journal and books. I request Visvaji to display his credentials in genetic, Comparative philology mythology linguistics, Philology Indo european linguists and related inter disciplinary areas before he starts objecting to anything I have to say on AIT. I have already said I am not an expert on AIT that doesn't mean I will accept whatever any blog or Visvasji says on AIT.

अजितस्य विद्वत्परिषत् = अजितविद्ववत्परिषत्। ममाभिप्राये इदम् एवास्यास् सभाया उचितं नाम। यतो हि राजेव (:-)) सभां पालयत्यसौ यदृच्छया, नास्त्यस्य प्रष्टा कश्चिदिव भाति।

Writing is prolix Sanskrit does not make one a better scholar this my opinion

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:54 AM, sunil bhattacharjya <

​​

skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear friends,

I have not read the blog that is referred, but I have enjoyed previous posts by Sri Visvas.  AIT is a questionable concept

but has been championed by people through unscientific work.  The literature has grown, but such literature on wrong

assertions is common in the history of science.  New genetic work done here at Harvard and in India appears to

contradict any foreign incursion at least for the last forty thousand years.  This work is open literature.
  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/nature08365.html

I hosted Dr Reich's talk in 2009 when the results were first published.  The idea is the population in India did possibly arise

through two streams one inhabiting the south and other inhabiting the north. The exact migratory path is still debated.

But it has little to do with some people to sneak in through the Khyber pass!

I don't approve of the anonymous ":hit and run" blogs.  I do request Mr Visvas not to encourage such wasteful work.

Happy New Year.

Bijoy Misra

[Soma Basu]

Please  read Nicholas Kazanas on this issue.
Soma Basu

--

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

+ Dr Reich himself, if he could be so kind as to share his thoughts on the matter below.


​Dear Bijoy Misra,​

2016-01-05 4:08 GMT-08:00 Bijoy Misra <misra...@gmail.com>:

AIT is a questionable concept

but has been championed by people through unscientific work. 

​This is false, as can be seen from a cursory look through the many references cited in the ​blog article ( https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/a-note-on-the-early-expansions-of-the-indo-europeans/ ) I pointed to initially.

 

​

New genetic work done here​

​​A word of caution sir - you're making the common mistake of a novice to the field. Population genetics is a fast moving field right now, thanks to more and more ancient DNA becoming available from graves. 2009 is quite old by those standards. Here is a Nature 2015 paper ( http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151116/ncomms9912/full/ncomms9912.html ) says:
http://i.imgur.com/KYHVL41.png . Please read and digest that.

​​

New genetic work done here at Harvard and in India appears to

contradict any foreign incursion at least for the last forty thousand years.  

This work is open literature.
  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/nature08365.html

I hosted Dr Reich's talk in 2009 when the results were first published. 

​​This too is false.​ Here is what the 2009 paper actually says: http://i.imgur.com/SGhYgWk.png . It DOES NOT contradict much later ANI/ ASI admixture.
Furthermore, it actually confirms ( http://i.imgur.com/wuokOHE.png, corresponding image by the writer of MT - http://i.imgur.com/vkRNihH.jpg to help you ) much of what was claimed by AIT people. To avoid the eventuality of people taking it personally, let me draw just a relevant excerpt from the mAnasataramgiNI-writer's post on the matter:

========
The study covers 25 Indian populations with 2-9 individuals sampled per population. These include varNa populations such as kashmirian brAhmaNa-s, vaishya-s of northern and southern India, shUdra-s of southern India such as kamma-s and velama-s (could be fallen kShatriya-s), north Indian kAyastha-s, several avarNa-s of northern and southern India such as madiga, mala, lodi etc and niShAda-s and kirAta-s (tribals) such as che~nchus, bhilla-s, santhAl-s, Ao Naga, the Andamanese and even African settlers such as siddi-s. This is the weak part of the study – the sampled populations are very spotty, their number relatively small and the number of sampled individuals in population are small. The paper further makes errors in classifying the castes according to non-existent schemes that are alien to the Hindu concepts of jAti-s and varNa-s. The study however sampled 560,123 autosomal SNPs, which makes it larger than any other such study on Hindus, and is the main strong point of this work. The work presents a picture of Indian ancestry that largely confirms conclusions from various previous studies but provides the weight of a genome-wide survey of variation.

When presented in a principle component analysis ( http://i.imgur.com/vkRNihH.jpg ) with Chinese and Europeans the Indians, the first and second eigenvectors separates the 3 populations. But most Indians show an interesting “^” distribution of relationships to the other two populations falling along two lines pointing towards Chinese and Europeans respectively. Along the line pointing towards the Europeans are distributed the all varNa, most avarNa and some niShAda populations. There is some correlation between caste rank and north Indian location and the closeness to the Europeans. Thus the kashmIrian brAhmaNa-s are closest to the Europeans in this sample, followed, northern vaishya-s, kAyastha-s and south Indian shUdra-s. Towards the other end of this line are south Indian avarNa-s, northern and southern tribals such a bhilla and che~nchu-s. Some exception features are seen in the halakki tribal farmers of the karnATa lands. About half the individuals are relatively close to Europeans (roughly to the extant of southern shUdra-s), while the other half are only as close as other tribals such as bhilla-s and che~nchu-s are to Europeans. Further, the southern vaishya is farther from the Europeans than southern shUdra-s such as kamma-s or velama-s. On the other line, very close to the Chinese are the Tibeto-Burman speaking Ao Naga and Nyshi tribes. Closer to the main Indian populations, but on the “Chinese line” are the Austro-Asiatic speaking santhAl and khAria. At the point of intersection of the two lines are the kuruMba tribes. However, there are others who are in the angle in between these two lines — these are the tribes such as the sahAriya and tharu and the satnAmI people. When the lATa sample from HapMap was added to the results of this work it was found that a subset of them was located on the line pointing to the Europeans, overlapping with north Indian vaishya and kashmIrian brAhmaNa-s. However, another subset of lATa-s showed a peculiar descent and could be the gurjara.

========

Furthermore, I don't think you're entirely to blame for misunderstanding the paper - continuing from MT author's post:
Now let us look at some political aspects in the form of the reactions to the paper. The most remarkable reaction was the set of interviews given by the Indian authors of the paper. One of them remarked: “There was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.”; “…genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society”. Another remarked: “When you look at the origin of the Indian population, the Onges in the Andaman Islands are dated to about 65,000 years ago, and the European population is dated to 40,000 years ago. So the question of Europeans coming to India does not arise. The ancestral North Indians must have given rise to the European population.” Now one wonders how they are saying something exactly opposite to what they say in the paper.

========

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2016-01-05 2:44 GMT-08:00 Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>:

 

अजितस्य विद्वत्परिषत् = अजितविद्ववत्परिषत्। ममाभिप्राये इदम् एवास्यास् सभाया उचितं नाम। यतो हि राजेव (:-)) सभां पालयत्यसौ यदृच्छया, नास्त्यस्य प्रष्टा कश्चिदिव भाति।

Writing is prolix Sanskrit does not make one a better scholar this my opinion

​सादरमङ्गीक्रियते।​ आङ्ग्ललेखनस्य सभाध्यक्षतादण्डालोडनस्याप्य् एवमेव मन्तव्यम्।

​

This note is for Vishvas; May be Visvas has nothing else to think right now except make remarks on those who say that his views are not acceptable this is one of the main problems of AIT we have too many unverified claims and blogs.

कार्यान्तराणि सन्त्येव श्रीमन्, तत्र व्यापृतश्चाहम्। ​ "his views are not acceptable" इति कारणं नास्ति भवद्विषये वक्तुम्, अपि तु सभापालननीतिः (यथा http://i.imgur.com/UcYOQR7.png इति पत्रस्य तिरस्कारः)।  वैचारिकभेदास् सन्तु नाम। नित्यानन्दोऽपि मित्रं भिन्नाभिप्रायवान्। न तद्विषये किमप्युक्तम्।

 

We have engineers and doctors who randomly write on AIT.  Many good articles have been written by both the proponents and those who are against AIT in Academic journal and books. I request Visvaji to display his credentials in genetic, Comparative philology mythology linguistics, Philology Indo european linguists and related inter disciplinary areas before he starts objecting to anything I have to say on AIT.

श्रीमन्, भवताऽस्मिन् सूत्र AIT विषये किमपि नोक्तम्। "अहम् अपण्डितो ऽस्मिन् विषये" इत्येवोक्तम्।​

​​

I have already said I am not an expert on AIT that doesn't mean I will accept whatever any blog or Visvasji says on AIT.​

​​न मयोक्तमङ्गीक्रियतामिति। परीक्षायै, चर्चायै, सरसपठनाय वाप्यलमित्युक्तम्।​

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

​​

2016-01-04 23:52 GMT-08:00 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>:

Nevertheless, I would like to say

1) On Pañcatantra and Hitopadeśa: these are fables, they are not scientific writing (does not meet clause A). 

​एतौ न केवलं कथाग्रन्थौ! नीतिशास्त्रबोधकाविमौ, बालोपदेशाय ग्रथितौ।​ तेनैतदपि "A) a piece of scientific writing which is" (= शास्त्रियलेखनम्) इति मन्तव्यम्।

 

A publication from such an organization simply cannot have the same reliability as a post by an anonymous blogger.

​आम् धीमन्, अङ्गीक्रियते। वेदवाक्यमिव परीक्षां विनाग्राह्यमिति न मयोक्तम्। परीक्षितुं चर्चितुं वालमित्येव। 

तथा सत्यपि, मम युष्मभ्यमियमाह्वा - https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com इत्यत्र प्रकाशितेष्व् एकस्मिन् वा *वैज्ञानिक*लेखने दोषम् अपाण्डित्योद्भवं दर्शयन्तु नाम। तेन मानेन यथा "national geographic" इति नाम प्रत्ययोत्पादकम्, तथैव "mAnasataramgiNI" इत्यस्य जनस्याभिप्रायः।

 

​नाहमत्राधिकृतः। सुप्रतिष्ठितविज्ञानिरेवासाविति यावद् वदामि तात। भवान् स्वयं प्रष्टुमर्हति जनममुम् - https://twitter.com/blog_supplement ।

I do not think I should be asking the blogger. You cited the article on this forum, hence IMHO you owe an answer to the question about the identity of the blogger. You seem to know him. If he is a सुप्रतिष्ठित scientist, why can you not name him?  

Who gives the अधिकार of naming the blogger? 

​श्रीमन्, सरलविचार एषस् सौजन्यस्य। यदि स ​स्वनाम सार्वजनिकं कर्तुमैच्छत्, कुतो वा स्वनाम न प्राकाशयिष्यत्। "a clever enemy is better than an idiot friend" इत्याङ्ग्लोक्त्याः मूर्खमित्रं नाहं बुभूषामि। 

I am sorry I cannot (and no rational individual can) accept it blindly that the author is a सुप्रतिष्ठित scientist: a name and list of publications is needed.

​नाङ्गीकुर्वन्तु नाम।​ केषाञ्चिद्वा मम वाक्यमत्र पर्याप्तं स्यात् परीक्षायै लेखनस्य।

 

​अत्र पुनरपि "युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं …" इत्येव ब्रवीमि। 

Do you have enough training in genetics to conclude that the content of the article is युक्तियुक्त? Or is it your faith in the author that makes you believe so? I am not a geneticist.

मम साधारणज्ञानमस्ति विषयेस्मिन् स्वाध्यायात्। ​प्रख्यातलोकप्रियपत्रिकासु यदुक्तम्, तस्मादपेतं न किमपि पश्याम्यत्र। यावदयुक्तिर् नोत्तिष्ठति, युक्तियुक्तत्वमेव ग्राह्यम्।​ 

 

I cannot evaluate whether what the author says is युक्तियुक्त or not. If the article was peer-reviewed or edited then there would be a good chance of the arguments being युक्तियुक्त. We need some yardsticks, and OWL tips only help us assess if the publication meets those yardsticks. 

​भवद्विषये एवमस्तु। केषञ्चित् तु यत्र कुत्राऽपि सरलभाषया कठिनविषयस्य सारविवरणं लभ्यते तद् उपादेयं भवति। 

 

We need some standards in

​​

scientific publishing, else even Bubba Free John can be cited on genetics and AIT.

​​एवमस्तु। एतत् "

​

scientific publishing" इति न। "IAT for dummies" इव।

​​

Let's abide by the decisions of the moderator and trust Veeranarayana Pandurangi Ji's choice.

​अन्यथा कर्तुं कस्यास्ति बलम् :-)।​

I personally believe its best to raise moderation issues privately with the list owner (Veeranarayana Pandurangi Ji) and moderators (Shrinivasa Varakhedi Ji and Ajit Gargeshwari Ji).

​तत्तु बहु वर्षेभ्यः पूर्वमेव प्रयत्य त्यक्तम्।

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Quote

Now one wonders how they are saying something exactly opposite to what they say in the paper.

Unquote

Have you talked back to the people concerned as to what appeared to you to be  discrepancies between their writing and talking? If you have done so please do not hesitate to share tthe reply you received.

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 05:06:37 UTC+5:30, विश्वासो वासुकेयः wrote:

​​

तथा सत्यपि, मम युष्मभ्यमियमाह्वा - https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com इत्यत्र प्रकाशितेष्व् एकस्मिन् वा *वैज्ञानिक*लेखने दोषम् अपाण्डित्योद्भवं दर्शयन्तु नाम। तेन मानेन यथा "national geographic" इति नाम प्रत्ययोत्पादकम्, तथैव "mAnasataramgiNI" इत्यस्य जनस्याभिप्रायः।

 

I am sorry to post on this thread despite saying in my previous post that it was my last. But as Vishvas Vasuki askd asked me to show a flaw in any single scientific piece of writing on the manasataramgini blog, let me satisfy his challenge by scratching the surface (I am sure more flaws can be discovered if the articles are peer reviewed). 

Article link: https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/a-note-on-some-recent-work-on-india-genetics/

In a statistical context (where we have PCA, eigenvectors, distances being discussed), the author says:

Quote

"There is some correlation between caste rank and north Indian location and the closeness to the Europeans. Thus the kashmIrian brAhmaNa-s are closest to the Europeans in this sample, followed, northern vaishya-s, kAyastha-s and south Indian shUdra-s."

Unquote

There is a flaw here. Either the author has an incorrect understanding of what ‘correlation’ is and where it should be used, or he is misusing a mathematical term in a statistical context. Caste is categorical variable. Caste rank is an ordinal variable. Closeness or distance is a real valued variable. A correlation between a numerical (real) variable and a categorical/ordinal variable (group or rank) makes no sense at all. Further, what makes the author say ‘some correlation’? Correlation has tests for significance and is either significant or insignificant at a certain significance level. If the author did not use the term in the mathematical sense in a statistical context, then what is the meaning of ‘some correlation.’ Some is a word used to express an unspecified number or amount. So it can be used only with a countable set or measurable quantity. Which does not make sense here.

There is another minor flaw. The second statement starts with the word ‘thus’. It should not as it does not follow from the first.

In the article from Nature (which the author calls English scientific tabloid) under http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/, I did not find a single statistical term being used loosely used or a single statistical technique being misapplied. 

This is the difference between an established source like Nature magazine where every sentence is proofread, reviewed and edited, and a quasi-scientific blog. 

It is surprising (or is it shocking?) that Vishvas Vasuki who appears to be a rational individual is unable to see through this and puts the MT blog articles on the same level as articles published in Nature. 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 05:06:37 UTC+5:30, विश्वासो वासुकेयः wrote:

+ Dr Reich himself, if he could be so kind as to share his thoughts on the matter below.

Dear Vishvas

You have pasted snapshots (where you searched for a term: ANI) and copy-pasted portions from a blog. I have not seen any original contribution from you on the thread, hence I am not sure of your experience in genetics. In other words, so far, your posts have not exhibited a deep understanding of the subject. 

Nevertheless, it appears you have read [portions of] some papers on genetics and AIT. I am sure there is more than two papers and what the MT blog says that has been published recently on genetics of India population. 

May I request you to please compile a bibliography of recent books and papers on this topic that you have read and briefly summarize (in your own words) the works and offer your views (agreement or disagreement, again in your own words). That will be helpful to everybody on the list and will save my time too.

Thanks, Nityanand

 

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Vishvas

On Jan 7, 2016 6:12 AM, "विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)" <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ​shrI nityAnanda is missing the rather elementary trick of discretization of a real variable - you ca​n bucket a number into different bins. One then has on problem considering correlation with an ordinal variable.
>

It is misleading (mathematical dishonesty) to discretize a variable and use rank correlation and then report that as "some correlation" between the continuous variable and an ordinal variable.

Anyway, how can you be sure that author discretized the distance and used rank correlation or are you guessing? The author may have also assigned numerical values to ranks and used raw correlation. Are you guessing? If you are, please say so. If you are not guessing and know it then please let me know what measure of distance was used? What numbers were assigned to caste ranks? Which rank correlation measure was used (Spearman's rho or Kendall rank correlation coefficient) for ordinal data.

At least be precise and clear when you talk mathematics.

> ​In any case, my opinion is that the author is not speaking in a strict mathematical sense - rather he uses the term casually.​ Even so, as hinted above, one can express it mathematically and formally in one feels the itch. One need not expect the author to spoon feed readers.
>
>  

Sorry Vishvas, this is not lack of spoonfeeding. This is hiding mathematical approach, statistic and level of significance used.

>
>>
>> So it can be used only with a countable set or measurable quantity. Which does not make sense here.
>

> Shown to be measurable above.
>
>  

You showed rank correlation to be measurable after a variable transformation. Not the same thing Sir, we need to be precise and unambiguous in math. Journals like Nature are. The blog with its careless use of mathematical terms is not.

In defending careless use of mathematical terms and guessing transformations or citing natural language in defence in place of questioning the author what he exactly meant by that unclear statement, your arguments are more emotional and less rational.

I am at a loss to understand the tendency to disrgeard peer review and scientific publishing standards and take quasi scientific blogs to be authoritative.

Nityanand

[Nityanand Misra]

On Jan 7, 2016 6:23 AM, "विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)" <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Addressing the more general point raised (in this and another thread) by shrI nityAnanda about whether a blog article is worth discussing:
>
> The answer is patently yes, IMO. This thread, and the blog author's statements have helped clear several misconceptions (such as the one about the 2009 Nature paper). It has presented a clear plausible view, based on genetic and other evidence about how AI may have happened. More to the point, it presents a clear opinion which one can discuss - and in this case, it is about as good as the opinions we send each other by email (it is not like shrI nityAnanda puts inline references in his emails).
>

Sir, my mails are not meant to be cited or taken as authority anywhere, more so in scientific matters like genetics, statistics, or history.

If somebody did that, I would opose that too.

We need to respect scientific rigour. Which the blog artickes do not exhibit and which Nature articles do. Do you think the whole scientific community is mad to discount anonymous faceless blogs like MT? If you do, you are living in a parallel universe.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2016-01-06 16:20 GMT-08:00 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>:

It is surprising (or is it shocking?) that Vishvas Vasuki who appears to be a rational individual is unable to see through this and puts the MT blog articles on the same level as articles published in Nature. 

Addressing the more general point raised (in this and another thread) by shrI nityAnanda about whether a blog article is worth discussing:

The answer is patently yes, IMO. This thread, and the blog author's statements have helped clear several misconceptions (such as the one about the 2009 Nature paper). It has presented a clear plausible view, based on genetic and other evidence about how AI may have happened. More to the point, it presents a clear opinion which one can discuss - and in this case, it is about as good as the opinions we send each other by email (it is not like shrI nityAnanda puts inline references in his emails).

​Ultimately, irrespective of what shrI nityananda or myself think, I am certain that scholars are able to judge by themselves whether reading a blog post (anonymous or otherwise) or an email based upon it is worth their time.​ After all, as the great poet said: सन्तः परीक्ष्यान्यतरद्भजन्ते मूढः परप्रत्ययनेयबुद्धिः॥ . If some people are not interested (as often happens with any large population), they can just skip and go to the next thread.

[Bijoy Misra]

The individuals in this thread are wasting time and posting acrimony!

Can you please stop!  It is neither science, nor scholarship.

No anonymous posting please!

 

--

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

I think it is time to stop.
If we have authoritative evidence, we can accept. Otherwise it is waste of time.

[Bijoy Misra]

You both are good people.

I strongly urge you to rescue us from this unpleasant public exchanges.

Do it privately if you are serious in gaining points.

I would also request all to refrain from "cut and paste scholarship".

I think I have expressed enough. This is my last mail on this topic.

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:42 AM, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

+ shrI-nityAnanda himself, since even this email (many others in this thread) was censored by the great moderator, after the usual delay of several hours. Given this, I suggest quoting the email in full so that others on ajitavidvatpariShad know the entirety of the email you respond to.

2016-01-06 19:40 GMT-08:00 विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com>:

​mAnya nityAnanda,​

2016-01-06 18:54 GMT-08:00 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>:

You have pasted snapshots (where you searched for a term: ANI) and copy-pasted portions from a blog. I have not seen any original contribution from you on the thread, hence I am not sure of your experience in genetics. In other words, so far, your posts have not exhibited a deep understanding of the subject. 

​Thanks for your assessment of ​my contributions to this thread (I don't particularly care that they are "unoriginal", for I am far more interested in truth than this "honest original academic" vanity.).

​Let me offer back my own assessment of your contribution to this discussion - It has been voluminous, but could as well have been done with in the following few sentences:

"I don't like this blog and its style. We don't know who the author of this blog is or what his qualifications in genetics are!  It does not have inline references! Oh - Actually I think I know who that author is - hmm - he seems to be a competent scientist who has published in the British rags! Oh but now there is a problem with 'intellectual honesty'! People don't always like what he says, and he uses swear words! Caveat Emptor!"​

​All this I acknowledge to be a useful warning ( except I wish it were less persistent and more concise), even to scholars who I presume are intelligent, responsible adults. .​

 

May I request you to please compile a bibliography of recent books and papers on this topic that you have read and briefly summarize (in your own words) the works and offer your views (agreement or disagreement, again in your own words). That will be helpful to everybody on the list and will save my time too.

​I may do that .. but don't wait with bated breath :-)​

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

As Indicated by Prof. Pandurangi This tiff ends here and if there is nothing else to discuss lets close this thread

I always say more than one or two posts per thread should be done of the list. I hope all members do follow this and save readers for having to read what two quarreling scholars have to say on a topic.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 7 January 2016 19:11:34 UTC+5:30, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:

As Indicated by Prof. Pandurangi This tiff ends here and if there is nothing else to discuss lets close this thread

I always say more than one or two posts per thread should be done of the list. I hope all members do follow this and save readers for having to read what two quarreling scholars have to say on a topic.

Dear list members

The list owner, moderator, and Dr. Bijoy Misra are justified in saying that the thread has not added much value on AIT or genetics. Vishvas has said that he may share a bibliography of recent papers and books on this topic and their summaries. I welcome this. That would bring something useful to me and the list. I also welcome the criticism of my posts by Dr. Bijoy Misra and the scholar who emailed the moderator, and hope it will help improve my contributions to the list. 

I do think there are some aspects other than AIT and genetics which came up in the course of the exchanges. I will start another thread on the same.

Thanks, Nityanand 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Please start a new thread discussion on the Genetic Aspects of AIT is welcome

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--