PDA

View Full Version : Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?



dhyandev
19 February 2013, 08:30 AM
Saying that India is an ancient country is like saying Europe is an ancient country. The British for their administrative reasons united the princely states and created what is Modern India, other than that India was never a united country. So it is the British who actually created a united India. Without British there could never have been a united India, isnít it?

Can anyone provide proofs & their views against this fact?
Sanskrit quotes will be preferred

shiv.somashekhar
19 February 2013, 08:41 AM
Can anyone provide proofs & their views against this fact?
Sanskrit quotes will be preferred

It would be far more easier to provide proof in support of this statement. Also, it is not clear why you would be seeking proof against a "fact"?

There was no India (as a country) until the time of the British and no Pakistan until 1948. Before the time of the British, we had various kingdoms in the sub-continent which was collectively called India (Greeks) or Hindustan - almost always by people who lived outside the sub-continent.

At times, some kings (Chandragupta Maurya is the first such king in known history, followed by his grandson Ashoka and then later the Guptas, Mughals, etc.) managed to acquire control over large areas and held emperor status, but there was no time when a single king ruled over all of India as one country - the British being the first.

We have mythology where mythical kings like Bharata, etc. ruled large areas (or the entire world!), but this is not history.

truth_seeker
19 February 2013, 12:09 PM
It would be far more easier to provide proof in support of this statement. Also, it is not clear why you would be seeking proof against a "fact"?

There was no India (as a country) until the time of the British and no Pakistan until 1948. Before the time of the British, we had various kingdoms in the sub-continent which was collectively called India (Greeks) or Hindustan - almost always by people who lived outside the sub-continent.

At times, some kings (Chandragupta Maurya is the first such king in known history, followed by his grandson Ashoka and then later the Guptas, Mughals, etc.) managed to acquire control over large areas and held emperor status, but there was no time when a single king ruled over all of India as one country - the British being the first.

We have mythology where mythical kings like Bharata, etc. ruled large areas (or the entire world!), but this is not history.

You've nailed it in succinct yet utterly apt fashion, and I'll merely add my full agreement to what you wrote.

Equinox
19 February 2013, 07:28 PM
Vannakkam

The name Bharat was used for the northern areas of India, as well as countries in the north of the present-day Indian subcontinent, including Afghanistan. I don't think there were any names to include Southern India. Instead, the southern areas had their own names, e.g: Dravida Nadu, Tamilakam, etc. This is the reason as to why both areas still maintain a distinct set of cultures.

Both North and South India had their own kingdoms with yet smaller kingdoms within, each with their own set of rival clans and warring dynasties of all imaginable levels, and yes, were never quite unified until the British came visiting. Ironically, some parts were also separated and became completely different countries due to them. These were Punjab and Bengal, part of which became the countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh(formerly East Pakistan) which we know of today.

Strangely enough, the Malay word for "west" is Barat, which could only have its origins in the Bharat of ancient India, no doubt. :)


Aum Namah Shivaya

dhyandev
21 February 2013, 07:08 AM
रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् |
To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.




We have such shlokas which always have seen a complete India from Himalayas to Oceans

shiv.somashekhar
21 February 2013, 12:23 PM
रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् |
To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.




We have such shlokas which always have seen a complete India from Himalayas to Oceans

Isn't that line written by Bankim Chandra Chatopadhyay? He lived just a century ago - well after the formation of British India.

I recommend you look up Aryavarta, Dravida, the Mauryan empire, etc.

Ganeshprasad
21 February 2013, 01:44 PM
Pranam




We have mythology where mythical kings like Bharata, etc. ruled large areas (or the entire world!), but this is not history.

I wonder what constitute history, we have, still even after occupation whose sole aim was to destroy us, yet our way of life remains intact, preserving the Vedas and reciting the stories from Mahabharata and Ramayan and Puranas. I don't need any outsider to tell me what our history is. I guess what I am saying is our way of life is proof enough not to doubt the shastra.

I don't mean you an outsider as I don't know you.

Jai Shree Krishna

Anirudh
22 February 2013, 09:08 AM
Namaste Ganeshprasadji and Dhyandevji,

I never had the opportunity to read Vaalmiki Raamayan in Sanskrit. I think Vaalmiki should have described the boundaries of Raam Raajya.
EVR gang from the south never accept Ramayana, otherwise Karunanithi wouldn't had the guts to question the existence of Raam and Raamsethu.

We should also look for the territory covered by the horse that was used Ashwamedha Yagna.

These two will tell us whether Sree Raam ruled entire subcontinent or not.

shiv.somashekhar
22 February 2013, 09:57 AM
Pranam
I wonder what constitute history, we have, still even after occupation whose sole aim was to destroy us, yet our way of life remains intact, preserving the Vedas and reciting the stories from Mahabharata and Ramayan and Puranas. I don't need any outsider to tell me what our history is. I guess what I am saying is our way of life is proof enough not to doubt the shastra.
I don't mean you an outsider as I don't know you.
Jai Shree Krishna

Here we go again with the outsider vs. insider accusations. Anyone who does not align with our own views has got to be an outsider with an ulterior motive.

No one tells us what our history is. On one side, we have archaeology, philology and above all, common sense. On the other hand, we have religious texts with talking moneys, human presence going back billions of years, people with lifespans as high as 20000 years - none of which can be corroborated by any other means. You make your choice.

People should be clear the the Mbh and Ramayana, in their present form are not about history, but about religion and more specifically - Vaishnavism. It is possible that they started out as history works a long time ago, but have changed form drastically since then and can no longer be relied on for historical material. This should be evident to anyone who has some time reading them, even if just the abridged forms.

Hindu33
22 February 2013, 11:30 AM
The socio-political scene before the mughal invasion was not that different from what has been described in mahabharatha. There were many kings and kingdoms, many languages, many family customs etc just like today. But the uniting factor was the religion, just like today. It is interesting to note that, before Zoroastrianism, the big chunk of land that is today's Iran and Syria and parts of eastern Europe were following the hindu religion, ie the varna system. They were called the Daiva worshipers. There are some similarities with the names of gods too like mitra. But soon, Zoroastrianism took over the whole of Iran, which interestingly proposed the supremacy of single god over other non significant gods. Although hinduism seemed to exist in these countries in some form or the other which is referred to as indo-iranian vedic religion, India was restricted from kanyakumari in the south to kashmir in the north, bengal in the east to the hindukush mountains in the west which is in present day afghanistan.

jignyAsu
22 February 2013, 12:02 PM
On one side, we have archaeology, philology and above all, common sense. On the other hand, we have religious texts with talking moneys, human presence going back billions of years, people with lifespans as high as 20000 years - none of which can be corroborated by any other means. You make your choice.


Many of us have made our choice because we don't see any contradiction but only pending scientific research. Those things seem ridiculous to one only if he thinks that the world has ever been like what he is seeing now.

Regarding history, it just depends on what Pramana(proof) one has chosen. Atleast in HDF its not unreasonable to find somebody like GaneshPrasad ji to choose Mahabharata as a pramana. After all our history wasn't started by Chandragupta Maurya..its just that the west is not able see past it.

We find it unreasonable when somebody tells us not to start reading our Bhagavad Gita, till somebody has actually dug up Dwaraka! Nor do we want to believe that prayers are futile or that life can come from matter because a bunch of self-proclaimed authorities insist. How can a primtive religion find out that the world is more than just a few thousand years old anyway.



People should be clear the the Mbh and Ramayana, in their present form are not about history, but about religion and more specifically - Vaishnavism.

It is possible that they started out as history works a long time ago, but have changed form drastically since then and can no longer be relied on for historical material. This should be evident to anyone who has some time reading them, even if just the abridged forms.


All these are unproven speculations not acceptable to many. These do not explain how an Acharya can walk all the way from kerala to Kashmir to Bengal to Rajastan debating on the same texts, anyway.

Apparently it is not evident to quite a few members you see even in this forum that have spent years researching the Vedas. What one sees is that anyone who starts Vedic research sincerely gains more faith only.

Ganeshprasad
22 February 2013, 04:56 PM
Pranam Shiv. S



Here we go again with the outsider vs. insider accusations. Anyone who does not align with our own views has got to be an outsider with an ulterior motive.

No one tells us what our history is. On one side, we have archaeology, philology and above all, common sense. On the other hand, we have religious texts with talking moneys, human presence going back billions of years, people with lifespans as high as 20000 years - none of which can be corroborated by any other means. You make your choice.

People should be clear the the Mbh and Ramayana, in their present form are not about history, but about religion and more specifically - Vaishnavism. It is possible that they started out as history works a long time ago, but have changed form drastically since then and can no longer be relied on for historical material. This should be evident to anyone who has some time reading them, even if just the abridged forms.

I am sorry I had come across the way I did, I had no such intentions.

Thing is, just as jignyAsu (thank you) points out here we are on HDF, a Hindu forum least we can expect is reverence for its scriptures. So when I hear the the word 'myth' it get to me, it should not though.

Faith is not blind but then I do not look for science or its approval to build my faith, be it religion or history, the history that has been distorted and written by the west, never in the interest of the subjugated.

World still does not give credit where credit is due, look at 0 look at pi, it is not general knowledge, just the two example. Why I am saying this, well I come to it. Ramayan speaks of Viman, speaks of Ravan communicating with Ahiravan continent apart or Sanjay relaying to Dhitrastra live event. These same practice today nobody blinks an eye lid.
I just do not believe those highly intelligent people, of our not so recent past would have carried on the way of life that had been passed down or survived on following myth.

Jai Shree Krishna

shiv.somashekhar
22 February 2013, 06:33 PM
Many of us have made our choice because we don't see any contradiction but only pending scientific research.

What is still "pending" at this point? It is 2013 and we have uncovered enough information to know our history to quite a reliable degree. Humans moved out of Africa only 50,000 years ago, the iron age started only in 1300 BC and cities did not emerge in India until around 500 BC (not counting IVC).

Your stance also raises another question. If this pending research turns out to be in line with the current academic position, will you accept the outcome or will you reject it as incomplete asking for more research? If it is the latter, then you probably have assumed the Purana/Itihasa version as absolute and nothing will change your mind, as you are not basing your view on facts, but on faith.


Those things seem ridiculous to one only if he thinks that the world has ever been like what he is seeing now.

No. Those claims are ridiculous due to lack of evidence and for no other reason. If we ignore all the work of the scientific community in this area in favor of accepting unsubstantiated, religious poetry as history, then we are insulting human intelligence as a whole.


Regarding history, it just depends on what Pramana(proof) one has chosen. Atleast in HDF its not unreasonable to find somebody like GaneshPrasad ji to choose Mahabharata as a pramana. After all our history wasn't started by Chandragupta Maurya..its just that the west is not able see past it.

It has nothing to do with the West. We cannot find historically reliable information before the time of the Buddha because our ancestors who were responsible for record keeping failed to separate fact from fiction. Without dates, authorship and by heavily glossing over reality (unpalatable?) with colorful mythology, their records - from a historical perspective - are useless.


We find it unreasonable when somebody tells us not to start reading our Bhagavad Gita, till somebody has actually dug up Dwaraka!

No one has to dig out Dwaraka. It has been around for a long time and you can visit it anytime you wish (Jamnagar district, Guajarat).

This is the problem I was talking about earlier. People are confusing history with religion and vice-versa. The Gita has nothing to do with Dwaraka or any other place. It is not a historical record, nor does its value rise or fall on the the historical accuracy of the Mahabharata. Once again, the Mbh (i its present form) is a religious text and not a historical text. Many people seem to think that the divine/religious value of Rama and Krishna depends on accepting the Itihasa/Purana version of history, as is. There also appears to be an obsession with pushing their dates (and the date of the Veda) as far back as possible. The idea appears to be, the older they are, the better.

shiv.somashekhar
22 February 2013, 06:59 PM
Pranam Shiv. S




I am sorry I had come across the way I did, I had no such intentions.

Thing is, just as jignyAsu (thank you) points out here we are on HDF, a Hindu forum least we can expect is reverence for its scriptures. So when I hear the the word 'myth' it get to me, it should not though.

Faith is not blind but then I do not look for science or its approval to build my faith, be it religion or history, the history that has been distorted and written by the west, never in the interest of the subjugated.

World still does not give credit where credit is due, look at 0 look at pi, it is not general knowledge, just the two example. Why I am saying this, well I come to it. Ramayan speaks of Viman, speaks of Ravan communicating with Ahiravan continent apart or Sanjay relaying to Dhitrastra live event. These same practice today nobody blinks an eye lid.
I just do not believe those highly intelligent people, of our not so recent past would have carried on the way of life that had been passed down or survived on following myth.

Jai Shree Krishna

I'll keep it simple. Do not confuse religion and history. The two do not have to go hand in hand.

When we say king Bharata is not historical, this does not necessarily mean there was no Bharata. It simple means we have no way of knowing for sure that he existed or when he existed and what his circumstances were. If he was real, then the people responsible for recording his life and/or preserving these records, failed to to do a good job.

Throughout history, we know that religious books are highly embellished and their intention is not to convey historical facts, but to inspire people towards religious ideals. To that end, they will introduce colorful stories, miracles, prayers and other instruments that help them put the message across. If we choose to interpret these stories as literal facts, then we are missing the purpose of these texts.

The religious value of the Rig-veda is the same regardless of it being 4000 or 40,000 years old, if it was composed by home grown indigenous Indians or by an Aryan tribe that migrated from the Eurasian Steppe. The divinity of Rama cannot be dependent on the existence of talking monkeys and floating stones.

And once you separate history from religion, what is the need to challenge academic research and scientific findings or to support conspiracy theories?

kallol
23 February 2013, 10:10 AM
Even during Rama's period and Mahabharata's period the whole of this region was divided into different kingdoms. The proofs are there in the epics. So there is no doubt that for substantial time this region was divided.

However the fact remains that the whole region and beyond were bound by the sanatana dharma whether as enemy or as friend.

Even Ravana tutored Rama on good governance when he was on his death bed.

Today's India is mostly due to the British rule.

Hindu33
24 February 2013, 07:09 AM
I'll keep it simple. Do not confuse religion and history. The two do not have to go hand in hand.

When we say king Bharata is not historical, this does not necessarily mean there was no Bharata. It simple means we have no way of knowing for sure that he existed or when he existed and what his circumstances were. If he was real, then the people responsible for recording his life and/or preserving these records, failed to to do a good job.

Throughout history, we know that religious books are highly embellished and their intention is not to convey historical facts, but to inspire people towards religious ideals. To that end, they will introduce colorful stories, miracles, prayers and other instruments that help them put the message across. If we choose to interpret these stories as literal facts, then we are missing the purpose of these texts.

The religious value of the Rig-veda is the same regardless of it being 4000 or 40,000 years old, if it was composed by home grown indigenous Indians or by an Aryan tribe that migrated from the Eurasian Steppe. The divinity of Rama cannot be dependent on the existence of talking monkeys and floating stones.

And once you separate history from religion, what is the need to challenge academic research and scientific findings or to support conspiracy theories?

Hello shiv,

Religion, to a layman, is just following the path of ancestors. Whatever we have today is solely because of our ancestors, is it not? If we deviate from that path, we utterly lose our identity. As far as i understand from my little knowledge, the books that I have read does not stress upon god too much, rather it is for the benefit of the reader. I think you are confusing belief with religion. Religion is not belief, religion is a path, which my father followed because his father followed and so on. In that respect, one can interpret any source of information without doubt.

jignyAsu
24 February 2013, 08:09 AM
What is still "pending" at this point? It is 2013 and we have uncovered enough information to know our history to quite a reliable degree.
I am surprised you quote it with such certainty that everything has been found.




Humans moved out of Africa only 50,000 years ago, the iron age started only in 1300 BC and cities did not emerge in India until around 500 BC (not counting IVC).


And what do we have left? A sudden transformation with an unexplainable giant leap to a unique philosophy, culture, language, living, beliefs - all mysteriously happened only in India only in the past 2000 years or so and was accepted immediately in all corners of India- the likes of which has not happened anywhere else. They forgot completely their past as well..unlike the Muslims who still remember Mecca. In support of this we have no proof of gradual transformation.

What is amazing is that the certainty with which all these are talked as if a video recording of this exists!




Your stance also raises another question. If this pending research turns out to be in line with the current academic position, will you accept the outcome or will you reject it as incomplete asking for more research? If it is the latter, then you probably have assumed the Purana/Itihasa version as absolute and nothing will change your mind, as you are not basing your view on facts, but on faith.

Not only me but everyone is bound to accept established scientific facts but not lame theories, opinions and speculations.




No. Those claims are ridiculous due to lack of evidence and for no other reason. If we ignore all the work of the scientific community in this area in favor of accepting unsubstantiated, religious poetry as history, then we are insulting human intelligence as a whole.

Again, only theories are being ignored. Might I point out that the Dwaraka was searched out because someone chose to believe in this "ridiculous" account: Bharata as a PramAna?



No one has to dig out Dwaraka. It has been around for a long time and you can visit it anytime you wish (Jamnagar district, Guajarat).

Not a long time but just a few decades ago. My question is how has that affected your theories? Dwaraka-so what? Saraswathi river-so what? A world spanning billions of years? so what..lucky guess and tampering. So, noting this repeated indifference to anything in favor and ready acceptance to anything against no matter how huge the gaps are, have the members here repeatedly stated: "prejudice"...not because you don't believe this.




When we say king Bharata is not historical, this does not necessarily mean there was no Bharata. It simple means we have no way of knowing for sure that he existed or when he existed and what his circumstances were.

Much better statement! So which means, our faith in the Pramana has not been contradicted. One can choose to trust only what one sees....but to force on others trust only his vision and opinions is unwarranted.




If he was real, then the people responsible for recording his life and/or preserving these records, failed to to do a good job.

No He has done what was intended. The person did not want awards or patents or money...but just to spread spiritual truths. How will fossils help in this regard anyway?



The divinity of Rama cannot be dependent on the existence of talking monkeys and floating stones.


No one said His divinity is dependent on monkeys. However, if One is divine, then it is impossible to guess His intentions and qualities...that's why the need of pramaNa. That PramAnA again is a matter of rational faith, which you admit has not been contradicted, above.

Ganeshprasad
24 February 2013, 08:25 AM
Pranam


I'll keep it simple. Do not confuse religion and history. The two do not have to go hand in hand.

Yes I like it simple, Hinduism is a way of life based on scriptures, need I say anymore?



When we say king Bharata is not historical, this does not necessarily mean there was no Bharata. It simple means we have no way of knowing for sure that he existed or when he existed and what his circumstances were. If he was real, then the people responsible for recording his life and/or preserving these records, failed to to do a good job.

What a pity they did not have modern recording system, but what we have is an oral system of preserving our way of life, it worked perfectly until we were invaded, they tried very hard to change us yet we didn't, proof enough for me to know we have a gem here worth preserving, that is what they did, it's a matter of opinion weather they did a good job of it or not.



Throughout history, we know that religious books are highly embellished and their intention is not to convey historical facts, but to inspire people towards religious ideals. To that end, they will introduce colorful stories, miracles, prayers and other instruments that help them put the message across. If we choose to interpret these stories as literal facts, then we are missing the purpose of these texts.


How do you know this for fact? It is your choice how you base your faith, purpose of text is a matter of opinion in every field.



The religious value of the Rig-veda is the same regardless of it being 4000 or 40,000 years old, if it was composed by home grown indigenous Indians or by an Aryan tribe that migrated from the Eurasian Steppe. The divinity of Rama cannot be dependent on the existence of talking monkeys and floating stones.

And once you separate history from religion, what is the need to challenge academic research and scientific findings or to support conspiracy theories?

The value of Vedas can only be understood if we listen to what it saying, no belief, no sentiment but the content as it is.

But if you want to put a time limit or Aryan tribe, I am afraid that is where we part company. The myth that was a fabricated, the lie that was spread it is easy to see, now you can understand where a lot of us are coming from. I have no faith in history that is full of lies and fabrications, always viewed from western colourful glass.

Who ever said anything about monkey speaking to establish the divinity of
Ram?

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
24 February 2013, 08:34 AM
Pranam


--.

Today's India is mostly due to the British rule.

Yes as a result we have Pakistan but worst of all the legacy of corruption that the successive government has carried forward.

As to what we had before can be gauged by what Ahoka's empire spread into.

Jai Shree Krishna

kallol
24 February 2013, 11:09 PM
Pranam



Yes as a result we have Pakistan but worst of all the legacy of corruption that the successive government has carried forward.

As to what we had before can be gauged by what Ahoka's empire spread into.

Jai Shree Krishna

Dear GP,

The political boundaries have been dynamic throughout. This is a common phenomenon across the world and India is no different.

However the Sanatana Dharma has been the binding force for this region in all respect. And that is what we should be proud of and not the political boundary.

shiv.somashekhar
25 February 2013, 11:59 AM
I am surprised you quote it with such certainty that everything has been found.

That was a question - because I am surprised that you would completely reject *all* the findings till date (which are quite extensive) in favor of awaiting pending discoveries which will corroborate Puranic stories. This means, you have already determined (without evidence) that these stories must be true and therefore, research is either incomplete or false until these stories are proven. If future research findings continues to prove that these stories are false, you will continue to reject them, because of your faith in the Puranas.


And what do we have left? A sudden transformation with an unexplainable giant leap to a unique philosophy, culture, language, living, beliefs - all mysteriously happened only in India only in the past 2000 years or so and was accepted immediately in all corners of India- the likes of which has not happened anywhere else.

This statement makes me wonder if you have spent the time to read history. The Vedic civilization started in the NW corner of India at least over 4000 years ago, spread to Eastern India and did not go South until much later. During this time, we had indigenous, non-vedic cultures all around India and there was a long process of assimilation. None of this happened overnight.


Not only me but everyone is bound to accept established scientific facts but not lame theories, opinions and speculations.

You are contradicting yourself as you have rejected *all* scientific findings till date and your earlier statements proves that you believe in the Puranic version of history out of faith (the reason why you would reject all research till date).


Not a long time but just a few decades ago.

Again, you appear to be disconnected. Dwaraka has always been in existence as can be proven easily enough. The Dwarakadeesh temple was built during the 16th century. One of the four Advaita Mathas - the Dwaraka Peetham - exists in Dwaraka and legend has it that it was opened by Shankara himself (1200 years ago). Even if this is not true, the Matha (and therefore, Dwaraka) has been around for much longer than just a few decades.

jignyAsu
25 February 2013, 01:30 PM
That was a question - because I am surprised that you would completely reject *all* the findings till date (which are quite extensive) in favor of awaiting pending discoveries which will corroborate Puranic stories. This means, you have already determined (without evidence) that these stories must be true and therefore, research is either incomplete or false until these stories are proven. If future research findings continues to prove that these stories are false, you will continue to reject them, because of your faith in the Puranas.


Again, I reject only baseless theories and speculations.



This statement makes me wonder if you have spent the time to read history. The Vedic civilization started in the NW corner of India at least over 4000 years ago, spread to Eastern India and did not go South until much later. During this time, we had indigenous, non-vedic cultures all around India and there was a long process of assimilation. None of this happened overnight.


Few hundred years is overnight only, when you take into consideration thousands of years of history. Back then, the soil was filled with people well versed in sanskrit and Vedas. They grow up reading and memorizing all the scriptures. Apparently they all have been mysteriously united in turning a blind eye towards only certain scriptures.

In all the refutations and debates OP or not, it occurred to no one, pre British to reject a whole scripture as being cooked up and passed all across India.

Such speculations appeal only to the dull minded who have no clue as to what it takens for a work to shine in all corners of India.



You are contradicting yourself as you have rejected *all* scientific findings till date and your earlier statements proves that you believe in the Puranic version of history out of faith (the reason why you would reject all research till date).


My having rejected *all* scientific findings is purely your opinion. Ofcourse I am propelled by my faith in Puranas but I don't see why I should reject it based on any Tom, Dick and Harry's musings.




Again, you appear to be disconnected. Dwaraka has always been in existence as can be proven easily enough. The Dwarakadeesh temple was built during the 16th century. One of the four Advaita Mathas - the Dwaraka Peetham - exists in Dwaraka and legend has it that it was opened by Shankara himself (1200 years ago). Even if this is not true, the Matha (and therefore, Dwaraka) has been around for much longer than just a few decades.


I have no clue about what you are talking about here. I am talking about the excavations of the underwater city in the 80s. And that was a scientific finding only.


Tommorow if someone in HDF has a question on the soul, you would say: "It has been established clearly that life comes from matter only." as if labs out there have created life. Then you will accuse us of having rejected scientific evidences. But we repeat, only baseless theories are being challenged.

shiv.somashekhar
25 February 2013, 07:44 PM
Again, I reject only baseless theories and speculations.

How do you determine what is baseless? What are your qualifications that make you accept or reject discoveries of qualified historians who are formally trained and are devoted to the subject fulltime?

Which part (if any) of academic history do you accept?


My having rejected *all* scientific findings is purely your opinion. Ofcourse I am propelled by my faith in Puranas but I don't see why I should reject it based on any Tom, Dick and Harry's musings.

This is exactly what I have been saying. You have chosen to reject science in favor of your faith in Puranic stories. The Tom, Dick and Harry you talk about are qualified historians, philologists and archaeologists who have worked hard to reconstruct our lost history. You just confirmed my statement that you will not accept any scientific findings that will not corroborate Puranic stories because in your mind these stories are true and therefore science has to be false for not agreeing.


I have no clue about what you are talking about here. I am talking about the excavations of the underwater city in the 80s. And that was a scientific finding only.

As I have already explained twice, Dwaraka is a real place in India and has been that way for a long time. It was not discovered a couple of decades ago, as you mistakenly believe. Please spend a few minutes looking it up on Wikipedia.

jignyAsu
26 February 2013, 09:12 AM
As I have already explained twice, Dwaraka is a real place in India and has been that way for a long time. It was not discovered a couple of decades ago, as you mistakenly believe. Please spend a few minutes looking it up on Wikipedia.

Why don't you look up for one Dr. S. R. Rao in Wiki yourself? Its amazing how you have never ever heard (conveniently) of an underwater excavations at all! And you don't think they have worked hard?

You, sir, have only worked hard to construct your speculations and opinions.

satay
26 February 2013, 01:39 PM
Admin Note

namaste,
Seeing that the OP hasn't commented on any of the posts on this thread after making a couple of posts, I am closing this thread.