Discussion:
Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Add Reply
Dingbat
2017-11-28 12:56:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5649

I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders

Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
David Kleinecke
2017-11-28 17:04:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors of
most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
Mack A. Damia
2017-11-28 17:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:04:00 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors of
most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
Birdie Num Num....


Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-28 22:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors of
most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years old,
maybe a lot more. It is most marvellous - really it is impossible to think
that humans were involved in the intellect, the emotions, the language, the
purpose, the style... It is to the lasting glory of the Brahmins of India that
they have managed to keep the texts intact and lasting to this day.

Vedic culture was once present in various forms all over the world, but
mixed with the local cultures to varying extents.

The popularity of atheisms, Christianity and Islam has worked against the Vedic
culture, but still it survives in a flickering state in India and among
emigres outside India.

People have always come to India, and also gone out of India. The last 1000
years or so have not been good for people following the Vedic ways.

More recently, those by name and tradition Vedic elites, who are supposed to
know and continue it, have been lured out of India and know that unless they
are anti-Vedic their chances for recognition and advancement by the anti-Vedic
world do not exist.

On the other hand, those Vedics who could not get out of India find they
can get more political unity through supporting Vedic culture by voting in the
less anti-Vedic sorts, so the BJP is in power in India now and likely to
remain so.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Dingbat
2017-11-28 22:36:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors of
most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated.
It is at least 12000 years old,
Since you give a figure, you have dated it, although you don't say how.
Your figure of 10,000 BC is smack in the Mesolithic Age, aka Middle Stone
Age.This verse, however, looks like it is from an age of metals and
domesticated horses:

Strong, with fair chains of gold and jaws of iron, ye have a splendid car
and well fed horses. Ye Sons of Strength, ye progeny of Indra, to you the
best is offered to delight you. - Rig Veda 4.37.4
https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/11678/description-of-metals-in-vedas-and-itihasas
Post by Arindam Banerjee
maybe a lot more. It is most marvellous - really it is impossible to
think that humans were involved in the intellect, the emotions, the
language, the purpose, the style.
Er, sentences in any language, not just the Vedic language, are invariably
composed by humans. This looks like an instruction from humans to humans:

Prepare the cow-stall, for there drink your heroes: stitch ye the coats
of armour, wide and many. Make iron forts, secure from all assailants.
- Rig Veda 10.101.8
Post by Arindam Banerjee
.. It is to the lasting glory of the Brahmins of India that
they have managed to keep the texts intact and lasting to this day.
I gathered once that if the Druids had been allowed to continue their work,
their texts too would be substantially intact. Be that as it may, your
claim can hold only for an era where texts were transmitted (solely)
orally. Now that the texts are in written form, the texts would survive
even if the Brahmins were to disappear, not necessarily by being killed
off but perhaps by ceasing to be Brahmins.
Richard Heathfield
2017-11-28 22:55:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
I gathered once that if the Druids had been allowed to continue their work,
their texts too would be substantially intact.
Yes. The Salisbury Plain Druids are a case in point. True, they'd only
got as far as writing the letter 'O', but (most of) it STILL STANDS TODAY!
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Sam Plusnet
2017-11-29 00:08:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Dingbat
I gathered once that if the Druids had been allowed to continue their work,
  their texts too would be substantially intact.
Yes. The Salisbury Plain Druids are a case in point. True, they'd only
got as far as writing the letter 'O', but (most of) it STILL STANDS TODAY!
Can we be sure? It may be a zero.

'Tis a shame they never moved beyond the dot-matrix method of printing.
--
Sam Plusnet
J. J. Lodder
2017-11-29 11:08:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Dingbat
I gathered once that if the Druids had been allowed to continue their work,
their texts too would be substantially intact.
Yes. The Salisbury Plain Druids are a case in point. True, they'd only
got as far as writing the letter 'O', but (most of) it STILL STANDS TODAY!
Can we be sure? It may be a zero.
'Tis a shame they never moved beyond the dot-matrix method of printing.
Of course not.
The 'King of Stonehenge' was from Switzerland
The Swiss don't write strings of just zeros,

Jan
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-29 01:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors of
most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated.
It is at least 12000 years old,
Since you give a figure, you have dated it, although you don't say how.
Your figure of 10,000 BC is smack in the Mesolithic Age, aka Middle Stone
Age.This verse, however, looks like it is from an age of metals and
Archaeological evidence shows that great lost cities due to floods caused
by the end of the last ice age. That ice age period is around 12000 years ago.
The cities were very well developed 12000 years ago, so it is not unlikely
that they were there 30000 years ago, about the time homo sapiens emerged.
Had they not been submerged and thus remained untouched by human hand for so
long there would have been no direct proof of human civilisation that long ago.

At least this is what is being shown in many youtube videos. How correct they
are I am in no position to say. All we can say is that as per the west Indian
history started with Buddha at around 500BC. Anything not Buddist in ancient
India, according to the West, is myth and superstition. This is what my
daughters learnt at school. To ignore and demean Hinduism in every possible way,
has been and is their strategy since Vasco da Gama.

We have absolutely no idea about what life was like 12000 - 30000 years ago,
in the historic sense. From the Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata we certainly
know what they were like, what their manners were, their deep thoughts and
actions - all that are very much a part of Hindu day to day existence. Carried
on by rituals, festivals, fairs, gurus, pilgrimages, some sectarianism, etc.

The cave paintings etc. could have been done say 100 years ago by such
stone age people like the aborigines of Australia. So to hold there was no
civilisation 30000 years ago, just by cave paintings etc. is wrong. As Hindus
burn their dead, there would be no skeletons. Yes in IVC there are alternative
burials, in large pots. But IVC is only 5000 years old.

Going by the work done recently by an US person (who posted in sci) that the
IVC seal information makes sense and reads well when held to be
phonetic, it is now certain that Sanskritic languages were there in IVC just
as they are now. Indeed IVC is not different from Hindu villages and small
towns. Same thoughts, same sort of people. Not much change, except from
monotheistic/atheistic inputs - but then, Egyptian and Sumerian influences
were there, just like the West influences India today.

So the submerged cities breathed Sanskrit once, very likely, given the
geographic contiguity between IVC and Dwarka etc. As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods, so some 10000 to 30000
years ago aliens from other stars probably came and mixed with the human race.
The Vedas, Sanskrit etc are their gifts to the Neandarthals etc. who turned
human some say 30000 years ago. Erich von Daniken made lotsa capital out of this
theory and looks like he was right after all.
Post by Dingbat
Strong, with fair chains of gold and jaws of iron, ye have a splendid car
and well fed horses. Ye Sons of Strength, ye progeny of Indra, to you the
best is offered to delight you. - Rig Veda 4.37.4
https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/11678/description-of-metals-in-vedas-and-itihasas
30000 years ago the aliens must have had all that. Must have got fed up after
the way they treated Draupadi, and so they left humans to their own evil
devices, led by the likes of GB1&2, Obama, Modi, Xi, etc.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
maybe a lot more. It is most marvellous - really it is impossible to
think that humans were involved in the intellect, the emotions, the
language, the purpose, the style.
Er, sentences in any language, not just the Vedic language, are invariably
Humans who are inspired cease to be human - thus, no true poet is human - the
divine has to be in the poet, whether as a god or a demon. Same goes for any
artist, who is original in his scope. Such an artist has to interact with
domains beyond his narrow confines, at another plane he only can ascend.

Certainly 10000 to 30000 years ago the humans were far far better than what they
are now, going by the ancient Indian lore. Definitely there had to be alien
influence to turn apes from neanderthals to us. Some advanced genetics, most
likely.

Cynical atheistic arseholes, are what the modern human celebrities are, blister
their insides (as PGW would put it). What chance of a e=mc=hv creepy cretin of
the Hawking sort to create Sanskrit! No human ever known could have invented
Sanskrit. They have at best the wits to make bad copies.

Bad translations are not likely to impress me, one who has spent years trying
to understand the very first line of the Rg Veda. Because, the translators are
thugs (suave swindlers) who want to demean Hinduism and mistranslating the
Vedas is a strategy.

Thus the Gods and Goddesses of the Hindus are the Gods and Goddesses of the
aliens who made us, the human race.
Post by Dingbat
Prepare the cow-stall, for there drink your heroes: stitch ye the coats
of armour, wide and many. Make iron forts, secure from all assailants.
- Rig Veda 10.101.8
Post by Arindam Banerjee
.. It is to the lasting glory of the Brahmins of India that
they have managed to keep the texts intact and lasting to this day.
I gathered once that if the Druids had been allowed to continue their work,
their texts too would be substantially intact. Be that as it may, your
claim can hold only for an era where texts were transmitted (solely)
orally. Now that the texts are in written form, the texts would survive
even if the Brahmins were to disappear, not necessarily by being killed
off but perhaps by ceasing to be Brahmins.
Such is the goal of the anti-Vedic people, to destroy Brahmins in every way
and then corrupt the literature. So far they have not succeeded entirely, but
certainly have come close with the corrupted elites. There are still many
Sanskritic priests and scholars left in India, and what with the BJP (not so
anti-Sanskrit) things won't go too bad. Also, Sanskrit has made inroads outside
India. Sooner or later they should learn to speak Sanskrit properly, in order
to better please the Gods and Goddesses Who will then confer blessings.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Dingbat
2017-11-29 01:58:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-29 04:28:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Common knowledge. The same source that told Shri Rakhal Das Banerjee to go
dig in the mound known as Mohenjo-Daro. The locals knew there had been a great
city there once. There was no writing behind this knowledge. Word of mouth
works for the most important matters.
Dingbat
2017-11-29 11:12:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Common knowledge.
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s). I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.

The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.

To humor you, however, let's suppose Sanskrit came from the gods.
How did humans learn Sanskrit?
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The same source that told Shri Rakhal Das Banerjee to go
dig in the mound known as Mohenjo-Daro. The locals knew there had been a
great city there once. There was no writing behind this knowledge. Word
of mouth works for the most important matters.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-29 12:13:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Common knowledge.
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s).
I am talking about the Rhig Veda. They come from the Gods and Goddesses as
per Sanatan Dharmic tradition. This is a matter of belief which has enormous
implications in physics, if the Vedic Gods and Goddesses are the divinity of
aliens from other solar systems. Which suits my theories, that is, e=mcc=hv is
bunkum physics and my discovery of e=0.5mVVN(N-k) is dinkum physics.

About other scriptures:
Sikhs and Buddhists do not make such claims as far as I know. For the Sikhs
their Gurus are there, and for the Buddhists Buddhas is there. They do not
claim scriptural divinity as Hindus do.

About the Bible etc. it is a number of books
written by humans, under divine inspiration it is claimed. That they come
directly from a single or multiple divine source is not what I understand.
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
All other religions followed the Vedic religion on the time scale, again as
per the belief of my coterie as you once put it. The original scriptures were
in Sanskrit. The following scriptures in different lands could be in any
other language - Greek, Latin, Phoenician, English, French, Russian, whatever.
Post by Dingbat
To humor you, however, let's suppose Sanskrit came from the gods.
How did humans learn Sanskrit?
They learnt it the way they learn anything - from teachers. Can't you ask a
less silly question?
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The same source that told Shri Rakhal Das Banerjee to go
dig in the mound known as Mohenjo-Daro. The locals knew there had been a
great city there once. There was no writing behind this knowledge. Word
of mouth works for the most important matters.
Dingbat
2017-11-29 12:59:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Common knowledge.
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s).
I am talking about the Rhig Veda. They come from the Gods and Goddesses
as per Sanatan Dharmic tradition. This is a matter of belief which has
enormous implications in physics, if the Vedic Gods and Goddesses are
the divinity of aliens from other solar systems. Which suits my theories,
that is, e=mcc=hv is bunkum physics and my discovery of e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
is dinkum physics.
Sikhs and Buddhists do not make such claims as far as I know. For the
Sikhs their Gurus are there, and for the Buddhists Buddhas is there.
They do not claim scriptural divinity as Hindus do.
About the Bible etc. it is a number of books
written by humans, under divine inspiration it is claimed. That they come
directly from a single or multiple divine source is not what I understand.
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
All other religions followed the Vedic religion on the time scale, again
as per the belief of my coterie as you once put it. The original
scriptures were in Sanskrit. The following scriptures in different lands
could be in any other language - Greek, Latin, Phoenician, English,
French, Russian, whatever.
Post by Dingbat
To humor you, however, let's suppose Sanskrit came from the gods.
How did humans learn Sanskrit?
They learnt it the way they learn anything - from teachers.
Given that no humans knew the language, who were the teachers?
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Can't you ask a less silly question?
I prefer this question: Are these teachers still available, such that
people may learn Sanskrit from them?
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The same source that told Shri Rakhal Das Banerjee to go
dig in the mound known as Mohenjo-Daro. The locals knew there had been
a great city there once. There was no writing behind this knowledge.
Word of mouth works for the most important matters.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-29 21:23:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Common knowledge.
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s).
I am talking about the Rhig Veda. They come from the Gods and Goddesses
as per Sanatan Dharmic tradition. This is a matter of belief which has
enormous implications in physics, if the Vedic Gods and Goddesses are
the divinity of aliens from other solar systems. Which suits my theories,
that is, e=mcc=hv is bunkum physics and my discovery of e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
is dinkum physics.
Sikhs and Buddhists do not make such claims as far as I know. For the
Sikhs their Gurus are there, and for the Buddhists Buddhas is there.
They do not claim scriptural divinity as Hindus do.
About the Bible etc. it is a number of books
written by humans, under divine inspiration it is claimed. That they come
directly from a single or multiple divine source is not what I understand.
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
All other religions followed the Vedic religion on the time scale, again
as per the belief of my coterie as you once put it. The original
scriptures were in Sanskrit. The following scriptures in different lands
could be in any other language - Greek, Latin, Phoenician, English,
French, Russian, whatever.
Post by Dingbat
To humor you, however, let's suppose Sanskrit came from the gods.
How did humans learn Sanskrit?
They learnt it the way they learn anything - from teachers.
Given that no humans knew the language, who were the teachers?
Aliens - wise, kindly and benevolent.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Can't you ask a less silly question?
I prefer this question: Are these teachers still available, such that
people may learn Sanskrit from them?
Those aliens are not available these days. One learns Sanskrit from the teachers
of Sanskrit, and from Sanskritic upbringing.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The same source that told Shri Rakhal Das Banerjee to go
dig in the mound known as Mohenjo-Daro. The locals knew there had been
a great city there once. There was no writing behind this knowledge.
Word of mouth works for the most important matters.
Dingbat
2017-11-30 01:52:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Common knowledge.
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s).
I am talking about the Rhig Veda. They come from the Gods and Goddesses
as per Sanatan Dharmic tradition. This is a matter of belief which has
enormous implications in physics, if the Vedic Gods and Goddesses are
the divinity of aliens from other solar systems. Which suits my theories,
that is, e=mcc=hv is bunkum physics and my discovery of e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
is dinkum physics.
Sikhs and Buddhists do not make such claims as far as I know. For the
Sikhs their Gurus are there, and for the Buddhists Buddhas is there.
They do not claim scriptural divinity as Hindus do.
About the Bible etc. it is a number of books
written by humans, under divine inspiration it is claimed. That they come
directly from a single or multiple divine source is not what I understand.
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
All other religions followed the Vedic religion on the time scale, again
as per the belief of my coterie as you once put it. The original
scriptures were in Sanskrit. The following scriptures in different lands
could be in any other language - Greek, Latin, Phoenician, English,
French, Russian, whatever.
Post by Dingbat
To humor you, however, let's suppose Sanskrit came from the gods.
How did humans learn Sanskrit?
They learnt it the way they learn anything - from teachers.
Given that no humans knew the language, who were the teachers?
Aliens - wise, kindly and benevolent.
Ah, people learned Sanskrit from green men who arrived in flying saucers!
And for some reason, they taught Sanskrit only in (what is now) Pakistan
and parts of North India? Why didn't they teach it in every habited
continent?
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Can't you ask a less silly question?
I prefer this question: Are these teachers still available, such that
people may learn Sanskrit from them?
Those aliens are not available these days. One learns Sanskrit from the
teachers of Sanskrit, and from Sanskritic upbringing.
English teachers are not necessarily of English upbringing. Likewise,
Sanskrit teachers are not necessarily of 'Sanskritic' upbringing.
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-30 02:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Common knowledge.
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s).
I am talking about the Rhig Veda. They come from the Gods and Goddesses
as per Sanatan Dharmic tradition. This is a matter of belief which has
enormous implications in physics, if the Vedic Gods and Goddesses are
the divinity of aliens from other solar systems. Which suits my theories,
that is, e=mcc=hv is bunkum physics and my discovery of e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
is dinkum physics.
Sikhs and Buddhists do not make such claims as far as I know. For the
Sikhs their Gurus are there, and for the Buddhists Buddhas is there.
They do not claim scriptural divinity as Hindus do.
About the Bible etc. it is a number of books
written by humans, under divine inspiration it is claimed. That they come
directly from a single or multiple divine source is not what I understand.
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
All other religions followed the Vedic religion on the time scale, again
as per the belief of my coterie as you once put it. The original
scriptures were in Sanskrit. The following scriptures in different lands
could be in any other language - Greek, Latin, Phoenician, English,
French, Russian, whatever.
Post by Dingbat
To humor you, however, let's suppose Sanskrit came from the gods.
How did humans learn Sanskrit?
They learnt it the way they learn anything - from teachers.
Given that no humans knew the language, who were the teachers?
Aliens - wise, kindly and benevolent.
Ah, people learned Sanskrit from green men who arrived in flying saucers!
They could have had many colours, green being one of them.
They probably made humans in their own image so we look like them.
When they realised their huge mistake they left with their flying saucers (vimans) as per polytheistic thinking.
Or created floods, etc. from where only the Noah-class good people could escape
as per monotheistic texts.
Post by Dingbat
And for some reason, they taught Sanskrit only in (what is now) Pakistan
and parts of North India? Why didn't they teach it in every habited
continent?
I think they rather liked the Himalayas, the great rivers and jungles of India.
More than other places, so they settled or focussed around these parts.
They made humans, out of their vast knowledge, and the humans scattered all
over.
Those humans dear to them, were so as they loved and learnt their language,
Sanskrit.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Can't you ask a less silly question?
I prefer this question: Are these teachers still available, such that
people may learn Sanskrit from them?
Those aliens are not available these days. One learns Sanskrit from the
teachers of Sanskrit, and from Sanskritic upbringing.
English teachers are not necessarily of English upbringing. Likewise,
Sanskrit teachers are not necessarily of 'Sanskritic' upbringing.
True. I was taught Hindi and Sanskrit by an adivasi Christian convert in the
higher classes.
In the lower classes I was taught by a Bihari Brahmin.
I learnt the power of Sanskrit vocals when as a child I heard a scholar
speaking some Sanskrit lines at a meeting in Kolkata.
Despite the best efforts of the anti-Hindus, Sanskrit is far from dead in
India, though a few generations have missed out thanks to secular ideas.
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.

Giving ole Max, Freud, Einstein, Marx, etc. the good ole heave-ho is what the
good doctor should prescribe for those who care for the good of India and
Indians.

Not that the westernised Indian is much better than these fakes, so to know
what is what I get the most authentic originals, a good dictionary, a book
on grammar then find out what's what with the Goddess as guide.

It is Her language. And I am thoroughly blessed when I discover what it all
really means.

She is the Divine Entity prayed to by the aliens, and know through the alien
literature which is about the doings of the Divine Entities prayed to by the
aliens, our creators and ancestors too.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-30 04:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.
WEll, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.

Whitney had some of his training in Germany, then took up a professorship at
Yale and didn't try to "promote theisms" anywhere.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-30 05:25:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.
WEll, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.
Who taught him Sanskrit? If it was not a Brahmin who was it?
Max was good at badmouthing Brahmins.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Whitney had some of his training in Germany, then took up a professorship at
Yale and didn't try to "promote theisms" anywhere.
He personally did not have to.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-30 12:31:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.
Well, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.
Who taught him Sanskrit? If it was not a Brahmin who was it?
I don't know. Maybe someone who had returned from India to England. Was it taught in Germany in the 1840s?
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Max was good at badmouthing Brahmins.
Whitney had some of his training in Germany, then took up a professorship at
Yale and didn't try to "promote theisms" anywhere.
He personally did not have to.
Yet you falsely claimed that he did.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-30 13:26:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.
Well, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.
Who taught him Sanskrit? If it was not a Brahmin who was it?
I don't know. Maybe someone who had returned from India to England. Was it taught in Germany in the 1840s?
Who taught the chap who taught him in Germany?
Could Max speak one word of Sanskrit properly?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Max was good at badmouthing Brahmins.
Whitney had some of his training in Germany, then took up a professorship at
Yale and didn't try to "promote theisms" anywhere.
He personally did not have to.
Yet you falsely claimed that he did.
Idiot.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-30 13:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.
Well, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.
Who taught him Sanskrit? If it was not a Brahmin who was it?
I don't know. Maybe someone who had returned from India to England. Was it taught in Germany in the 1840s?
Who taught the chap who taught him in Germany?
Do you have reason to believe that he was taught in Germany? The people who brought Indic studies
to England had indeed learned directly from pandits: Jones, Colebrooke, Wilson, Prinsep, ...
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Could Max speak one word of Sanskrit properly?
Highly unlikely. The greatest-ever scholar of Oriental languages and literature, Theodor
Noeldeke, spoke none of the many languages of which he wrote grammars and analyzed texts. The
notion of speaking a dead language is rather silly.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Max was good at badmouthing Brahmins.
Whitney had some of his training in Germany, then took up a professorship at
Yale and didn't try to "promote theisms" anywhere.
He personally did not have to.
Yet you falsely claimed that he did.
Idiot.
It's not nice to praise yourself.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-30 20:28:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.
Well, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.
Who taught him Sanskrit? If it was not a Brahmin who was it?
I don't know. Maybe someone who had returned from India to England. Was it taught in Germany in the 1840s?
Who taught the chap who taught him in Germany?
Do you have reason to believe that he was taught in Germany? The people who brought Indic studies
to England had indeed learned directly from pandits: Jones, Colebrooke, Wilson, Prinsep, ...
Yes, and then their students like Max who were Christian fundies first and
foremost bad mouthed the pandits and whatever they stood for. One generation
of scholars, and subsequent generations of "teachers" who knew far better
than the masters of their masters!
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Could Max speak one word of Sanskrit properly?
Highly unlikely. The greatest-ever scholar of Oriental languages and literature, Theodor
Noeldeke, spoke none of the many languages of which he wrote grammars and analyzed texts. The
notion of speaking a dead language is rather silly.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Max was good at badmouthing Brahmins.
Whitney had some of his training in Germany, then took up a professorship at
Yale and didn't try to "promote theisms" anywhere.
He personally did not have to.
Yet you falsely claimed that he did.
Idiot.
It's not nice to praise yourself.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-30 20:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.
Well, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.
Who taught him Sanskrit? If it was not a Brahmin who was it?
I don't know. Maybe someone who had returned from India to England. Was it taught in Germany in the 1840s?
Who taught the chap who taught him in Germany?
Do you have reason to believe that he was taught in Germany? The people who brought Indic studies
to England had indeed learned directly from pandits: Jones, Colebrooke, Wilson, Prinsep, ...
Yes, and then their students like Max who were Christian fundies
??? Where did you get THAT from? Clearly you know nothing about 19th-century
English/British [though Scotland's intellectual eminence had largely passed]
philology or sociology of religion.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
first and
foremost bad mouthed the pandits and whatever they stood for. One generation
of scholars, and subsequent generations of "teachers" who knew far better
than the masters of their masters!
Which works of Max Muller have you read?

Certainly he "badmouthed" the pandits, but he and his ilk were equal opportunity
badmouthers. They did not single out Indians for particular scorn. They didn't
care for Persians, Turks, Chinese, or anyone else their philological investigations
might have brought them into contact with.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Could Max speak one word of Sanskrit properly?
Highly unlikely. The greatest-ever scholar of Oriental languages and literature, Theodor
Noeldeke, spoke none of the many languages of which he wrote grammars and analyzed texts. The
notion of speaking a dead language is rather silly.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Max was good at badmouthing Brahmins.
Whitney had some of his training in Germany, then took up a professorship at
Yale and didn't try to "promote theisms" anywhere.
He personally did not have to.
Yet you falsely claimed that he did.
Idiot.
It's not nice to praise yourself.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-30 21:12:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.
Well, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.
Who taught him Sanskrit? If it was not a Brahmin who was it?
I don't know. Maybe someone who had returned from India to England. Was it taught in Germany in the 1840s?
Who taught the chap who taught him in Germany?
Do you have reason to believe that he was taught in Germany? The people who brought Indic studies
to England had indeed learned directly from pandits: Jones, Colebrooke, Wilson, Prinsep, ...
Yes, and then their students like Max who were Christian fundies
??? Where did you get THAT from? Clearly you know nothing about 19th-century
English/British [though Scotland's intellectual eminence had largely passed]
philology or sociology of religion.
Of course he was a Christian fundie. They all were, and most still are.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
first and
foremost bad mouthed the pandits and whatever they stood for. One generation
of scholars, and subsequent generations of "teachers" who knew far better
than the masters of their masters!
Which works of Max Muller have you read?
Certainly he "badmouthed" the pandits, but he and his ilk were equal opportunity
badmouthers. They did not single out Indians for particular scorn. They didn't
care for Persians, Turks, Chinese, or anyone else their philological investigations
might have brought them into contact with.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Could Max speak one word of Sanskrit properly?
Highly unlikely. The greatest-ever scholar of Oriental languages and literature, Theodor
Noeldeke, spoke none of the many languages of which he wrote grammars and analyzed texts. The
notion of speaking a dead language is rather silly.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Max was good at badmouthing Brahmins.
Whitney had some of his training in Germany, then took up a professorship at
Yale and didn't try to "promote theisms" anywhere.
He personally did not have to.
Yet you falsely claimed that he did.
Idiot.
It's not nice to praise yourself.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-30 21:35:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.
Well, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.
Who taught him Sanskrit? If it was not a Brahmin who was it?
I don't know. Maybe someone who had returned from India to England. Was it taught in Germany in the 1840s?
Who taught the chap who taught him in Germany?
Do you have reason to believe that he was taught in Germany? The people who brought Indic studies
to England had indeed learned directly from pandits: Jones, Colebrooke, Wilson, Prinsep, ...
Yes, and then their students like Max who were Christian fundies
??? Where did you get THAT from? Clearly you know nothing about 19th-century
English/British [though Scotland's intellectual eminence had largely passed]
philology or sociology of religion.
Of course he was a Christian fundie. They all were, and most still are.
No doubt you can provide a shred of evidence to back this up?
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
first and
foremost bad mouthed the pandits and whatever they stood for. One generation
of scholars, and subsequent generations of "teachers" who knew far better
than the masters of their masters!
Which works of Max Muller have you read?
Well?
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-30 22:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious methods, in order to promote their own
theisms, or materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the business
end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got their man as PM.
Well, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.
Who taught him Sanskrit? If it was not a Brahmin who was it?
I don't know. Maybe someone who had returned from India to England. Was it taught in Germany in the 1840s?
Who taught the chap who taught him in Germany?
Do you have reason to believe that he was taught in Germany? The people who brought Indic studies
to England had indeed learned directly from pandits: Jones, Colebrooke, Wilson, Prinsep, ...
Yes, and then their students like Max who were Christian fundies
??? Where did you get THAT from? Clearly you know nothing about 19th-century
English/British [though Scotland's intellectual eminence had largely passed]
philology or sociology of religion.
Of course he was a Christian fundie. They all were, and most still are.
No doubt you can provide a shred of evidence to back this up?
It is not necessary for me or my coterie as dingbat put it.
What evidence can be given to worms about the existence of the Sun?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
first and
foremost bad mouthed the pandits and whatever they stood for. One generation
of scholars, and subsequent generations of "teachers" who knew far better
than the masters of their masters!
Which works of Max Muller have you read?
Well?
Kerr-Mudd,John
2017-12-01 12:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:35:13 AM UTC+11, Peter T. Daniels
[]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No doubt you can provide a shred of evidence to back this up?
It is not necessary for me or my coterie as dingbat put it.
What evidence can be given to worms about the existence of the Sun?
Clearly evidence-based "science" is to be derided as out-dated in our
modern fast-paced media world of Fake News.
David Kleinecke
2017-12-01 18:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:35:13 AM UTC+11, Peter T. Daniels
[]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No doubt you can provide a shred of evidence to back this up?
It is not necessary for me or my coterie as dingbat put it.
What evidence can be given to worms about the existence of the Sun?
Clearly evidence-based "science" is to be derided as out-dated in our
modern fast-paced media world of Fake News.
I think that does not reflect the Hindutva POV. To a pious
Hindutva every thing since the Mahabharata is a pernicious
innovation.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-12-02 04:26:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:35:13 AM UTC+11, Peter T. Daniels
[]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No doubt you can provide a shred of evidence to back this up?
It is not necessary for me or my coterie as dingbat put it.
What evidence can be given to worms about the existence of the Sun?
Clearly evidence-based "science" is to be derided as out-dated in our
modern fast-paced media world of Fake News.
I think that does not reflect the Hindutva POV. To a pious
Hindutva every thing since the Mahabharata is a pernicious
innovation.
From a normal Hindu point of view, life is taken as it comes. People like
Max Mueller, Mother Teresa, Nivedita, etc. are respected to various degrees.
When I was being brought up I heard admiring references to Max - how
wonderful that he knew so much of Sanskrit even without coming ever to India!
I thought that odd, even then. I had been brought up among Russians so
lacked their grovelling qualities to those of white skin. I mean, I still see
myself as a Russian, as I was brought up among them in my childhood. That
may make me odd to both Indians and Westerners, wow, does the sense of
identity matter! Communism may have failed miserably everywhere, but they
did care much for the kids, and so here I am, what. I read that Putin spent
his childhood killing rats, not much else to do. I was sorry for him; and I
think there was some imbalance somewhere in the USSR. My Russian friends were
all very well brought up kids.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
2017-12-02 11:55:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:35:13 AM UTC+11, Peter T. Daniels
[]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No doubt you can provide a shred of evidence to back this up?
It is not necessary for me or my coterie as dingbat put it.
What evidence can be given to worms about the existence of the Sun?
Clearly evidence-based "science" is to be derided as out-dated in our
modern fast-paced media world of Fake News.
I think that does not reflect the Hindutva POV. To a pious
Hindutva every thing since the Mahabharata is a pernicious
innovation.
Not often does one see such a clean anti-Hindu bias. One corollary is that
Hindus cannot be scientists, cannot do anything original, as they are not
white. This is a severe problem for scientific development. When some Hindu
does well, that is swiftly stolen. The following article shows how they
tried to crush India's greatest scientist, Jagadish Chandra Bose. Fortunately
he had the support of a most wonderful Irish-Scottish lady, Margaret Noble.

https://thewire.in/173096/scientist-nun-sister-nivedita-made-sure-j-c-bose-never-gave/?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=standard
David Kleinecke
2017-12-02 17:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Clearly evidence-based "science" is to be derided as out-dated in our
modern fast-paced media world of Fake News.
I think that does not reflect the Hindutva POV. To a pious
Hindutva every thing since the Mahabharata is a pernicious
innovation.
Not often does one see such a clean anti-Hindu bias. One corollary is that
Hindus cannot be scientists, cannot do anything original, as they are not
white.
Silly boy! Most Hindus are not pious Hindutvas.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-12-02 20:09:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Point is, what to expect with what chance from whom.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2017-12-03 14:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Point is, what to expect with what chance from whom.
You make an interesting point.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-12-03 21:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Point is, what to expect with what chance from whom.
You make an interesting point.
Sums up Sun Tzu.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-12-04 00:21:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Clearly evidence-based "science" is to be derided as out-dated in our
modern fast-paced media world of Fake News.
I think that does not reflect the Hindutva POV. To a pious
Hindutva every thing since the Mahabharata is a pernicious
innovation.
Not often does one see such a clean anti-Hindu bias. One corollary is that
Hindus cannot be scientists, cannot do anything original, as they are not
white.
Silly boy! Most Hindus are not pious Hindutvas.
Any Hindu can be made out to be a Hindutva in order to associate him with
whatever irrationality is required as means and excuse to ignore his
scientific work - with a view to its later misappropriation by the anti-Hindu.

Such has been and is the cunning strategy of the anti-Hindu. it has worked
well so far, mainly by giving Hindus a very low self-esteem. Leads to his
desire to get out of India with the greatest possible speed, and de-Hinduising
himself at the same rate.

The notion tha ancient Hindu wisdom can work for his good, when same is
properly understood; and not thus muddied by either Hindutva or Max Mueller
type's characterisations, is simply not there for the lazy or deluded
Hindu elites.

Fortunately for me, Sanskrit was a compulsory subject for us from Stds 4-8,
so the five years of Sanskrit learning paid off - not for direct money-making;
much better than that! It made for a stable and happy family life, provided
by the serenity of supreme wisdom. In money terms that matters a lot - not
getting divorced, not bringing up kids with bad habits, is worth many many
millions. Now, this "many many millions" talk is something the anti-Hindus
may understand...

Throwing out Sanskrit out of the school curriculum on the grounds of its
non-money-making no doubt helps the anti-Hindus. It also helps the parasites
allsorts who profit from human misery - those who peddle drugs and those who
claim to fight drugs. I mean the expanded notion of drugs - including
power, money, sensual gratifications, ego, etc.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Arindam Banerjee
2017-12-02 04:18:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:35:13 AM UTC+11, Peter T. Daniels
[]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No doubt you can provide a shred of evidence to back this up?
It is not necessary for me or my coterie as dingbat put it.
What evidence can be given to worms about the existence of the Sun?
Clearly evidence-based "science" is to be derided as out-dated in our
modern fast-paced media world of Fake News.
Pre-empting evidence based science, now that is the strategy of the e=mcc=hv pseudoscientists.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
2017-11-30 22:46:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which works of Max Muller have you read?
Max who?

See the habitual name-mangler:
Loading Image...
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Quinn C
2017-11-30 17:32:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Max Mueller and Whitney were not from 'Sanskritic' upbringing but
were capable of teaching Sanskrit.
According to my coterie, they should be totally shunned as
their intention was to destroy Hinduism by insidious
methods, in order to promote their own theisms, or
materialisms. The bunny-ahs sensed competition, about the
business end, so they clung to Hinduism and finally they got
their man as PM.
Well, your coterie doesn't know what it's talking about. Max Mueller spent
decades editing the 50 volumes of "Sacred Books of the East," translations into
English of everything he could find.
Who taught him Sanskrit? If it was not a Brahmin who was it?
I don't know. Maybe someone who had returned from India to
England. Was it taught in Germany in the 1840s?
Yes - for one, Franz Bopp, the founder of Indo-European studies,
taught it at the time. Bopp himself seems to have had no Indian
teachers. The only one of his teachers with an extensive Indian
experience seems to have been Alexander Hamilton (cousin of the
politician.)

But Müller spent most of his academic career in England, so it's
likely he got most of his training in Sanskrit there. Müller was
controversial in Europe because his teachings were seen as
anti-Christian. I guess just being respectful to more than one
religion makes you enemies on all sides.

As to the reception of Indian thought in the West in general,
reading "Philosophy and Religion of India" by Heinrich Zimmer as a
teenager instilled great respect to India in me, and contributed
to my interest in Asia that has persisted throughout my life.
--
Democracy means government by the uneducated,
while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.
-- G. K. Chesterton
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-30 01:19:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Common knowledge.
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s).
I am talking about the Rhig Veda. They come from the Gods and Goddesses as
per Sanatan Dharmic tradition. This is a matter of belief which has enormous
implications in physics, if the Vedic Gods and Goddesses are the divinity of
aliens from other solar systems. Which suits my theories, that is, e=mcc=hv is
bunkum physics and my discovery of e=0.5mVVN(N-k) is dinkum physics.
Also, there are consequences such as infinite universe, no beginning nor end
of time, cold core of Earth and Sun, much faster motors for air and space\
travel, unending energy from renewables as long as the Sun and Earth exist, etc.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Sikhs and Buddhists do not make such claims as far as I know. For the Sikhs
their Gurus are there, and for the Buddhists Buddhas is there. They do not
claim scriptural divinity as Hindus do.
About the Bible etc. it is a number of books
written by humans, under divine inspiration it is claimed. That they come
directly from a single or multiple divine source is not what I understand.
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
All other religions followed the Vedic religion on the time scale, again as
per the belief of my coterie as you once put it. The original scriptures were
in Sanskrit. The following scriptures in different lands could be in any
other language - Greek, Latin, Phoenician, English, French, Russian, whatever.
Post by Dingbat
To humor you, however, let's suppose Sanskrit came from the gods.
How did humans learn Sanskrit?
They learnt it the way they learn anything - from teachers. Can't you ask a
less silly question?
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The same source that told Shri Rakhal Das Banerjee to go
dig in the mound known as Mohenjo-Daro. The locals knew there had been a
great city there once. There was no writing behind this knowledge. Word
of mouth works for the most important matters.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-11-29 12:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 03:12:51 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Common knowledge.
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s). I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
Monotheistic religions have only one god. A single god has no other god
to communicate with, therefore does not need a language.
Perhaps such a God puts ideas into the brains of humans in a non-verbal
form. The humans then convert those ideas into their one languages.
Post by Dingbat
To humor you, however, let's suppose Sanskrit came from the gods.
How did humans learn Sanskrit?
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The same source that told Shri Rakhal Das Banerjee to go
dig in the mound known as Mohenjo-Daro. The locals knew there had been a
great city there once. There was no writing behind this knowledge. Word
of mouth works for the most important matters.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Katy Jennison
2017-11-29 15:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 03:12:51 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s). I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
Monotheistic religions have only one god. A single god has no other god
to communicate with, therefore does not need a language.
Perhaps such a God puts ideas into the brains of humans in a non-verbal
form. The humans then convert those ideas into their one languages.
You don't think that deities create people in order to have someone to
talk to?
--
Katy Jennison
J. J. Lodder
2017-11-29 15:28:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 03:12:51 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s). I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
Monotheistic religions have only one god. A single god has no other god
to communicate with, therefore does not need a language.
Perhaps such a God puts ideas into the brains of humans in a non-verbal
form. The humans then convert those ideas into their one languages.
You don't think that deities create people in order to have someone to
talk to?
Yes, and then they drown the lot for the crime of making too much noise,

Jan
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-29 22:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 03:12:51 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s). I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
Monotheistic religions have only one god. A single god has no other god
to communicate with, therefore does not need a language.
Perhaps such a God puts ideas into the brains of humans in a non-verbal
form. The humans then convert those ideas into their one languages.
You don't think that deities create people in order to have someone to
talk to?
Yes, and then they drown the lot for the crime of making too much noise,
Jan
How understandable, given the horrid ways of His creations.
Sam Plusnet
2017-11-29 22:21:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 03:12:51 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s). I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
Monotheistic religions have only one god. A single god has no other god
to communicate with, therefore does not need a language.
Perhaps such a God puts ideas into the brains of humans in a non-verbal
form. The humans then convert those ideas into their one languages.
You don't think that deities create people in order to have someone to
talk to?
Godsplaining?
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Moylan
2017-11-29 22:30:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 03:12:51 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s). I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
Monotheistic religions have only one god. A single god has no other god
to communicate with, therefore does not need a language.
Perhaps such a God puts ideas into the brains of humans in a non-verbal
form. The humans then convert those ideas into their one languages.
Doesn't that imply that language reached us through the gods of a
polytheistic religion?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-29 12:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dingbat
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As traditionally known,
the Vedas with their Sanskrit comes from the Gods
How did this come to be traditionally known? What is the oldest writing
that says Sanskrit comes from the Gods?
Common knowledge.
Scriptures are commonly believed to come from god(s). I don't know about
the language(s) they are composed in though.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not in Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures
are not in Egyptian. The common explanation for this is likely to be
that god(s) give scripture(s) to people in a language they already
speak. At any rate, I haven't found any commoner saying that God gives
scripture in a strange language and then gives people lessons in the
language so that they can understand what the scripture says.
That was _exactly_ Joseph Smith's story. (Though only one person -- himself -- got the lessons for
interpreting the writing on the Golden Plates that he turned into the Book of Mormon.)
Post by Dingbat
To humor you, however, let's suppose Sanskrit came from the gods.
How did humans learn Sanskrit?
Peter Moylan
2017-11-29 22:26:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
To humor you, however, let's suppose Sanskrit came from the gods. How
did humans learn Sanskrit?
Wasn't it once shown that a child brought up without language will speak
Phrygian? Yes, here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_deprivation_experiments
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Kerr-Mudd,John
2017-11-29 12:29:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Arindam Banerjee <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:153b7ecc-23b4-48e8-be3d-***@googlegroups.com:
[]
Post by Arindam Banerjee
At least this is what is being shown in many youtube videos. How
correct they are I am in no position to say. All we can say is that as
[]

And some people are skeptical about cites to wikipedia articles!
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-29 21:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[]
Post by Arindam Banerjee
At least this is what is being shown in many youtube videos. How
correct they are I am in no position to say. All we can say is that as
[]
And some people are skeptical about cites to wikipedia articles!
I have met those who say what the hell is a building like the Taj Mahal doing
in India!
There is never any shortage of ignoramuses with peculiar complexes.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2017-11-29 21:53:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[]
Post by Arindam Banerjee
At least this is what is being shown in many youtube videos. How
correct they are I am in no position to say. All we can say is that as
[]
And some people are skeptical about cites to wikipedia articles!
I have met those who say what the hell is a building like the Taj
Mahal doing in India!
There is never any shortage of ignoramuses with peculiar complexes.
It is? I thought it was a Muslim mausoleum. Anyway I was told they came as
a pair, one white, one black.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-29 22:00:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[]
Post by Arindam Banerjee
At least this is what is being shown in many youtube videos. How
correct they are I am in no position to say. All we can say is that as
[]
And some people are skeptical about cites to wikipedia articles!
I have met those who say what the hell is a building like the Taj
Mahal doing in India!
There is never any shortage of ignoramuses with peculiar complexes.
It is? I thought it was a Muslim mausoleum. Anyway I was told they came as
a pair, one white, one black.
There is a site for the black one, but that is all there is. I was there in
Jan 2015, took some photos. Some initial work was done. Now it is a garden,
on the othere side of the Jamuna which once rose to the level of the Taj.
David Kleinecke
2017-11-28 23:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years old,
maybe a lot more.
If we start with Panini writing about 500 BCE and observe the
changes from the Rg Vedic then by well-known glottochronolgical
principles the Rg Veda was collected about 1000 BC.

The only possible rebuttal to that argument is that Sanskrit
is unchangeable. But is unchangeability justified by the
evidence. No, it is not. (1) Sanskrit changed between the
Rg Veda and Panini and (2) it is relatively easy to internal
reconstruct older forms of Sanskrit. This kind of internal
reconstruction was done long ago and, with a little help
from Greek, resulted in 19-th century PIE. The most famous
reconstruction was de Saussure's discovery of what he called
laryngeals.


It is most marvellous - really it is impossible to think
Post by Arindam Banerjee
that humans were involved in the intellect, the emotions, the language, the
purpose, the style... It is to the lasting glory of the Brahmins of India that
they have managed to keep the texts intact and lasting to this day.
Dingbat
2017-11-28 23:27:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years old,
maybe a lot more.
If we start with Panini writing about 500 BCE and observe the
changes from the Rg Vedic then by well-known glottochronolgical
principles the Rg Veda was collected about 1000 BC.
FWIW, Panini doesn't make such observations. He observes variety but
doesn't say that differences between Chandas (chanted language) and
Bhasha (spoken language) are due to Bhasha being newer than Chandas.
Post by David Kleinecke
The only possible rebuttal to that argument is that Sanskrit
is unchangeable. But is unchangeability justified by the
evidence. No, it is not. (1) Sanskrit changed between the
Rg Veda and Panini and (2) it is relatively easy to internal
reconstruct older forms of Sanskrit. This kind of internal
reconstruction was done long ago and, with a little help
from Greek, resulted in 19-th century PIE. The most famous
reconstruction was de Saussure's discovery of what he called
laryngeals.
Saussure deduced that there must have been laryngeals; he called them
phonetic coefficients. It was someone else who discovered laryngeals
in Anatolian. This proved Saussure's deduction accurate.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-29 04:15:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years old,
maybe a lot more.
If we start with Panini writing about 500 BCE and observe the
changes from the Rg Vedic then by well-known glottochronolgical
principles the Rg Veda was collected about 1000 BC.
FWIW, Panini doesn't make such observations. He observes variety but
doesn't say that differences between Chandas (chanted language) and
Bhasha (spoken language) are due to Bhasha being newer than Chandas.
Post by David Kleinecke
The only possible rebuttal to that argument is that Sanskrit
is unchangeable. But is unchangeability justified by the
evidence. No, it is not. (1) Sanskrit changed between the
Rg Veda and Panini and (2) it is relatively easy to internal
reconstruct older forms of Sanskrit. This kind of internal
reconstruction was done long ago and, with a little help
from Greek, resulted in 19-th century PIE. The most famous
reconstruction was de Saussure's discovery of what he called
laryngeals.
Saussure deduced that there must have been laryngeals; he called them
phonetic coefficients. It was someone else who discovered laryngeals
in Anatolian. This proved Saussure's deduction accurate.
No, that was Kurylowicz in 1927; Moeller had invented the label at least a
generation earlier. As late as the late 1950s, a conference had to be held
on the theme "Evidence for Laryngeals," which was published in 1959 under
the editorship of Werner Winter. It had contributions on each of the major
ancient languages by those who were the "Young Turks" of the era, including
Winter himself, Henry Hoenigswald, Eric Hamp, maybe W. P. Lehmann, etc. --
the older generation was never fully convinced.
David Kleinecke
2017-11-29 04:32:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years old,
maybe a lot more.
If we start with Panini writing about 500 BCE and observe the
changes from the Rg Vedic then by well-known glottochronolgical
principles the Rg Veda was collected about 1000 BC.
FWIW, Panini doesn't make such observations. He observes variety but
doesn't say that differences between Chandas (chanted language) and
Bhasha (spoken language) are due to Bhasha being newer than Chandas.
The Rg Veda language is the language of the Veda - not
what Panini says. I learned what I know about Sanskrit from
Whitney's grammar. Whitney is full of descriptions of the
differences between Vedic and later Sanskrit.
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
The only possible rebuttal to that argument is that Sanskrit
is unchangeable. But is unchangeability justified by the
evidence. No, it is not. (1) Sanskrit changed between the
Rg Veda and Panini and (2) it is relatively easy to internal
reconstruct older forms of Sanskrit. This kind of internal
reconstruction was done long ago and, with a little help
from Greek, resulted in 19-th century PIE. The most famous
reconstruction was de Saussure's discovery of what he called
laryngeals.
Saussure deduced that there must have been laryngeals; he called them
phonetic coefficients. It was someone else who discovered laryngeals
in Anatolian. This proved Saussure's deduction accurate.
I think his original term was "resonant sonants". This may be
distorted by translation into English.

As I understand it - only one of the three (or four) laryngeals
survived into Hittite.
Dingbat
2017-11-29 11:00:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000
years old, maybe a lot more.
If we start with Panini writing about 500 BCE and observe the
changes from the Rg Vedic then by well-known glottochronolgical
principles the Rg Veda was collected about 1000 BC.
FWIW, Panini doesn't make such observations. He observes variety but
doesn't say that differences between Chandas (chanted language) and
Bhasha (spoken language) are due to Bhasha being newer than Chandas.
The Rg Veda language is the language of the Veda - not
what Panini says. I learned what I know about Sanskrit from
Whitney's grammar. Whitney is full of descriptions of the
differences between Vedic and later Sanskrit.
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
The only possible rebuttal to that argument is that Sanskrit
is unchangeable. But is unchangeability justified by the
evidence. No, it is not. (1) Sanskrit changed between the
Rg Veda and Panini and (2) it is relatively easy to internal
reconstruct older forms of Sanskrit. This kind of internal
reconstruction was done long ago and, with a little help
from Greek, resulted in 19-th century PIE. The most famous
reconstruction was de Saussure's discovery of what he called
laryngeals.
Saussure deduced that there must have been laryngeals; he called them
phonetic coefficients. It was someone else who discovered laryngeals
in Anatolian. This proved Saussure's deduction accurate.
I think his original term was "resonant sonants". This may be
distorted by translation into English.
From PTD's correction, it looks like the correct translation to English
would be "sonant coefficients."
Post by David Kleinecke
As I understand it - only one of the three (or four) laryngeals
survived into Hittite.
Who predicted 3 or 4 laryngeals?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-29 12:37:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000
years old, maybe a lot more.
If we start with Panini writing about 500 BCE and observe the
changes from the Rg Vedic then by well-known glottochronolgical
principles the Rg Veda was collected about 1000 BC.
FWIW, Panini doesn't make such observations. He observes variety but
doesn't say that differences between Chandas (chanted language) and
Bhasha (spoken language) are due to Bhasha being newer than Chandas.
The Rg Veda language is the language of the Veda - not
what Panini says. I learned what I know about Sanskrit from
Whitney's grammar. Whitney is full of descriptions of the
differences between Vedic and later Sanskrit.
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
The only possible rebuttal to that argument is that Sanskrit
is unchangeable. But is unchangeability justified by the
evidence. No, it is not. (1) Sanskrit changed between the
Rg Veda and Panini and (2) it is relatively easy to internal
reconstruct older forms of Sanskrit. This kind of internal
reconstruction was done long ago and, with a little help
from Greek, resulted in 19-th century PIE. The most famous
reconstruction was de Saussure's discovery of what he called
laryngeals.
Saussure deduced that there must have been laryngeals; he called them
phonetic coefficients. It was someone else who discovered laryngeals
in Anatolian. This proved Saussure's deduction accurate.
I think his original term was "resonant sonants". This may be
distorted by translation into English.
From PTD's correction, it looks like the correct translation to English
would be "sonant coefficients."
"Sonantique" can sometimes be rendered as 'vocalic'.
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
As I understand it - only one of the three (or four) laryngeals
survived into Hittite.
Who predicted 3 or 4 laryngeals?
By Kurylowicz's time, the theory had grown quite elaborate. See, as recommended before,
W. P. Lehmann, *The Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics* (1993). He was one of the few
to attempt to put a phonetic interpretation on the "laryngeals," and he makes them quite
ordinary sounds -- including velar fricatives, for instance.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-29 04:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years old,
maybe a lot more.
If we start with Panini writing about 500 BCE and observe the
Panini's date isn't that certain. He only must have lived before the Indians
could write, i.e. mid 3rd c. BCE.
Post by David Kleinecke
changes from the Rg Vedic then by well-known glottochronolgical
principles the Rg Veda was collected about 1000 BC.
The only possible rebuttal to that argument is that Sanskrit
is unchangeable. But is unchangeability justified by the
evidence. No, it is not. (1) Sanskrit changed between the
Rg Veda and Panini and (2) it is relatively easy to internal
reconstruct older forms of Sanskrit. This kind of internal
reconstruction was done long ago and, with a little help
from Greek, resulted in 19-th century PIE. The most famous
reconstruction was de Saussure's discovery of what he called
laryngeals.
No, he called them "coéfficients sonantiques." The label "laryngeals" was the
only contribution of one Herr Moeller's attempt to compare Indo-European and
Semitic.
J. J. Lodder
2017-11-29 11:08:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors of
most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years
old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.

No surprise here,

Jan
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-29 11:59:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors of
most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years
old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
I am not talking history here. I am talking about my cultural heritage, as
told to me by the people I respect. That modern archaelogy relating to
submerged ancient cities proves the worth of Indian tradition, is heartening to
me. The implications are very great. Over time, they will become apparent.

Abusive shits are tiresome, but they are there and have to be endured.
Post by J. J. Lodder
No surprise here,
Nor for me either. I am used to the racism and bigotry of the mean and
narrow-minded who see only what they want to see and ignore what does not
suit them.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan
Dingbat
2017-11-29 13:21:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors of
most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years
old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
No surprise here,
Perhaps these will surprise you:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.org/communities/do_you_know.htm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJPs97JxMJ
Kerr-Mudd,John
2017-11-29 13:34:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 4:04:13 AM UTC+11, David
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?item
id=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors
of most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000
years old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
No surprise here,
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.org
/communities/do_you_know.htm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJPs97
JxMJ
<quote>
Hindu religion was first revealed 111.52 trillion years ago
</quote>


that's going back quite a way (and yet so precise)!
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-11-29 14:02:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:34:09 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?item
id=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors
of most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000
years old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
No surprise here,
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.org
/communities/do_you_know.htm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJPs97
JxMJ
<quote>
Hindu religion was first revealed 111.52 trillion years ago
</quote>
that's going back quite a way (and yet so precise)!
It is also impossible according to certain Christians.
http://www.icr.org/biblical-age/

Biblical Age of the Earth

Scripture presents enough chronological information to estimate the
number of years between Adam, whom God created on Day 6 of the
creation week, and Christ, who was the last Adam.

From Adam to the Flood was about 1,656 years, and Abraham lived a
few hundred years after the Flood. Other time markers in Scripture
include the number of years Jacob’s descendants spent in Egypt, the
total number of years Israel was ruled by judges, then kings, and
how long Israel was held captive by Assyrians and Babylonians until
God re-established them under Ezra and Nehemiah.

Adding these and other pieces, most of which even find confirmation
from secular archaeological sources, brackets an age for the world
of around 6,000 years.

I don't know what the Jewish views are on those interpretations of
Jewish Scriptures.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-29 14:38:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:34:09 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
<quote>
Hindu religion was first revealed 111.52 trillion years ago
</quote>
that's going back quite a way (and yet so precise)!
It is also impossible according to certain Christians.
http://www.icr.org/biblical-age/
Biblical Age of the Earth
Scripture presents enough chronological information to estimate the
number of years between Adam, whom God created on Day 6 of the
creation week, and Christ, who was the last Adam.
From Adam to the Flood was about 1,656 years, and Abraham lived a
few hundred years after the Flood. Other time markers in Scripture
include the number of years Jacob’s descendants spent in Egypt, the
total number of years Israel was ruled by judges, then kings, and
how long Israel was held captive by Assyrians and Babylonians until
God re-established them under Ezra and Nehemiah.
Adding these and other pieces, most of which even find confirmation
from secular archaeological sources, brackets an age for the world
of around 6,000 years.
I don't know what the Jewish views are on those interpretations of
Jewish Scriptures.
The Jewish Era doesn't much differ from Archbishop Usher's calculations.
5778 started in September, and 5778 - 2017 = 3761, not all that far from 4004.
Jerry Friedman
2017-11-29 14:46:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:34:09 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?item
id=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors
of most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000
years old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
No surprise here,
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.org
/communities/do_you_know.htm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJPs97
JxMJ
<quote>
Hindu religion was first revealed 111.52 trillion years ago
</quote>
that's going back quite a way (and yet so precise)!
It is also impossible according to certain Christians.
http://www.icr.org/biblical-age/
Biblical Age of the Earth
Scripture presents enough chronological information to estimate the
number of years between Adam, whom God created on Day 6 of the
creation week, and Christ, who was the last Adam.
From Adam to the Flood was about 1,656 years, and Abraham lived a
few hundred years after the Flood. Other time markers in Scripture
include the number of years Jacob’s descendants spent in Egypt, the
total number of years Israel was ruled by judges, then kings, and
how long Israel was held captive by Assyrians and Babylonians until
God re-established them under Ezra and Nehemiah.
Adding these and other pieces, most of which even find confirmation
from secular archaeological sources, brackets an age for the world
of around 6,000 years.
I don't know what the Jewish views are on those interpretations of
Jewish Scriptures.
In the Jewish calendar, this is the year 5778. That's based on a
Biblical dating of the creation of the universe like what's described in
your excerpt, and obviously it agrees pretty well. There are Jews who
actually believe the universe was created on the evening that began the
25th day of Elul, 3761 B.C.(E.), but I think they're a small minority.

(I have just learned that Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, is
supposed to be the anniversary of the sixth day of creation, not the
first, at least according to the Lubavitchers.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2017-11-29 20:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:34:09 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000
years old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
No surprise here,
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.org
/communities/do_you_know.htm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJPs97
JxMJ
<quote>
Hindu religion was first revealed 111.52 trillion years ago
</quote>
that's going back quite a way (and yet so precise)!
It is also impossible according to certain Christians.
http://www.icr.org/biblical-age/
The Indians are the Texans of Asia. Everything is bigger there.
Even the universe is older in India than it is elsewhere.
--
Novels and romances ... when habitually indulged in, exert a
disastrous influence on the nervous system, sufficient to explain
that frequency of hysteria and nervous disease which we find
among the highest classes. -- E.J. Tilt
Dingbat
2017-11-29 15:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?item
id=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors
of most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000
years old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
No surprise here,
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.org
/communities/do_you_know.htm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJPs97
JxMJ
<quote>
Hindu religion was first revealed 111.52 trillion years ago
</quote>
that's going back quite a way (and yet so precise)!
Hindu units of time are precisely defined, although this author seems not
to know how to use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manvantara#Duration_of_a_Manvantara
Kerr-Mudd,John
2017-11-29 17:37:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?i
tem id=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the
article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the
ancestors of most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan.
Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000
years old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
No surprise here,
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.
org /communities/do_you_know.htm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJP
s97 JxMJ
<quote>
Hindu religion was first revealed 111.52 trillion years ago
</quote>
that's going back quite a way (and yet so precise)!
Hindu units of time are precisely defined, although this author seems not
to know how to use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manvantara#Duration_of_a_Manvantara
Good lord. Time must really drag for the gods. Why did they leave it so
late to get humans going? Ah, I see we (they) are only on day 2.


Modern scientific astronomy estimates the Age of the Universe as around
13 Billion years (13 * 109 years). Conversion of 1 day of Brahma into
human years yields 8.58816 * 109 years
Harrison Hill
2017-11-29 18:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Dingbat
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 4:04:13 AM UTC+11, David
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?i
tem id=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not
invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the
article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the
ancestors of most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan.
Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000
years old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
No surprise here,
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.
org /communities/do_you_know.htm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJP
s97 JxMJ
<quote>
Hindu religion was first revealed 111.52 trillion years ago
</quote>
that's going back quite a way (and yet so precise)!
Hindu units of time are precisely defined, although this author seems not
to know how to use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manvantara#Duration_of_a_Manvantara
Good lord. Time must really drag for the gods. Why did they leave it so
late to get humans going? Ah, I see we (they) are only on day 2.
We were lucky to get going so late. At the time of the catastrophic
meteor strike - which wiped out the dinosaurs - we were tiny creatures,
able to survive on carrion, able to live in the trees or underground.

All of us reading this, have a family history that can be summarised as
"born very lucky" :)
Peter Moylan
2017-11-29 22:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Dingbat
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.org
/communities/do_you_know.htm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJPs97
JxMJ
<quote>
Hindu religion was first revealed 111.52 trillion years ago
</quote>
that's going back quite a way (and yet so precise)!
That suggests an interesting possibility. Perhaps E=mc^2 became valid
only recently, at the time of the Big Bang.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
J. J. Lodder
2017-11-29 15:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=564
9
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors of
most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years
old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
No surprise here,
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.org/commun
ities/do_you_know.htm
Post by Dingbat
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJPs97JxMJ
No suprise here.
Some of those hindu fundies are completely crazy.
As it happened, I met another nutcase of the same kind
in another newsgroup.

They are even denser than jehovas,

Jan
Dingbat
2017-11-29 15:35:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=564
9
Post by Dingbat
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article
above?
The various people mentioned in the Rg Veda were doubtless
indigenous. But a few generations earlier most of the ancestors of
most of them were immigrants from Afghanistan. Probably.
The Rhig Veda is timeless, cannot be dated. It is at least 12000 years
old, maybe a lot more.
So you are a crackpot in history too.
No surprise here,
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.org/commun
ities/do_you_know.htm
Post by Dingbat
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/OQ9nLySJ7y4/CuGJPs97JxMJ
No suprise here.
Some of those hindu fundies are completely crazy.
As it happened, I met another nutcase of the same kind
in another newsgroup.
They are even denser than jehovas,
... but check this out:

Hinduism is the only ancient religious tradition on the
Earth which talks about the right time-scale. In the
West, people have the sense that what is natural is for
the universe to be a few thousand years old, and that
billions are numbers no one can understand. The Hindu
concept is very clear. Here is a great world culture
which has always talked about billions of years.
- Carl Sagan
http://www.rediff.com/news/jan/29sagan.htm
g***@gmail.com
2017-11-28 22:03:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
The Rig Vedic People Were Indigenous to India, Not Invaders
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5649
I say: Indian English speakers are indigenous to India, not invaders
Is this observation a fair comparison to the title of the article above?
A workmate here in North America was born in Calcutta into a traditional Hindu family, and spoke and wrote English from birth. By birth she is an indigenous Indian, and by education is a Fulbright scholar with a PhD.
Loading...