Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

by Seva Lamberdar Mon May 30, 2016 12:58 pm

http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/history/koreas-royal-connection-ayodhya/

by goodcitizn Mon May 30, 2016 1:30 pm

If you torture history long enough it will surrender.

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 30, 2016 2:49 pm

goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.

sevaji and douchemun are true torturers. both are excellent contortionists as well. but douchemun is a step above by being triple threat as a liar, torturer and logical contortionist. I would say a heroworshipping latent homo but that's more of a disposition than talent.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon May 30, 2016 2:57 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.

sevaji and douchemun are true torturers. both are excellent contortionists as well. but douchemun is a step above by being triple threat as a liar, torturer and logical contortionist. I would say a heroworshipping latent homo but that's more of a disposition than talent.

Are you suggesting that Aurangajeb didn't worship kafir lingams?

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 30, 2016 3:00 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.

sevaji and douchemun are true torturers. both are excellent contortionists as well. but douchemun is a step above by being triple threat as a liar, torturer and logical contortionist. I would say a heroworshipping latent homo but that's more of a disposition than talent.
Are you suggesting that Aurangajeb didn't worship kafir lingams?

he might have "worshipped" several lingams, in the biblical sense, seeing how mughals and their worshippers were/are homos

by rawemotions Tue May 31, 2016 9:03 pm

goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that if you dig up history we can produce connections even if they don't really exist ?

by goodcitizn Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:55 am

rawemotions wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that if you dig up history we can produce connections even if they don't really exist ?

Yes.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:23 am

goodcitizn wrote:
rawemotions wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that if you dig up history we can produce connections even if they don't really exist ?
Yes.

Wrong. The only way to reach truth about history is by digging, digging deep and deeper. Do you think the archaeological excavations are unnecessary as they, according to you, might be torturing history and producing wrong connections historically?

by Guest Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:29 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
rawemotions wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that if you dig up history we can produce connections even if they don't really exist ?
Yes.
Wrong. The only way to reach truth about history is by digging, digging deep and deeper. Do you think the archaeological excavations are unnecessary as they, according to you, might be torturing history and producing wrong connections historically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_hoax

by goodcitizn Wed Jun 01, 2016 9:10 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
rawemotions wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that if you dig up history we can produce connections even if they don't really exist ?
Yes.
Wrong. The only way to reach truth about history is by digging, digging deep and deeper. Do you think the archaeological excavations are unnecessary as they, according to you, might be torturing history and producing wrong connections historically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_hoax

Interesting read, Rashmun.

by goodcitizn Wed Jun 01, 2016 9:13 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
rawemotions wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that if you dig up history we can produce connections even if they don't really exist ?
Yes.
Wrong. The only way to reach truth about history is by digging, digging deep and deeper. Do you think the archaeological excavations are unnecessary as they, according to you, might be torturing history and producing wrong connections historically?

How do you know to what extent reported history is accurate? After all, history is recorded by the victors, not the vanquished.

by garam_kuta Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:42 am

goodcitizn wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
rawemotions wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that if you dig up history we can produce connections even if they don't really exist ?
Yes.
Wrong. The only way to reach truth about history is by digging, digging deep and deeper. Do you think the archaeological excavations are unnecessary as they, according to you, might be torturing history and producing wrong connections historically?
How do you know to what extent reported history is accurate? After all, history is recorded by the victors, not the vanquished.

no more - from the 21st century onward. instant communication across the globe has made it extremely difficult and questionable.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:53 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
rawemotions wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:If you torture history long enough it will surrender.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that if you dig up history we can produce connections even if they don't really exist ?
Yes.
Wrong. The only way to reach truth about history is by digging, digging deep and deeper. Do you think the archaeological excavations are unnecessary as they, according to you, might be torturing history and producing wrong connections historically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_hoax

do you treat that as an exception or the rule?

by Guest Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:18 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
rawemotions wrote:
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that if you dig up history we can produce connections even if they don't really exist ?
Yes.
Wrong. The only way to reach truth about history is by digging, digging deep and deeper. Do you think the archaeological excavations are unnecessary as they, according to you, might be torturing history and producing wrong connections historically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_hoax
do you treat that as an exception or the rule?

The rule when archaeological excavations are carried out by Hindutvas. Since the Hindutva agenda is to twist historical facts to conform to their ideological outlook.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:52 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Yes.
Wrong. The only way to reach truth about history is by digging, digging deep and deeper. Do you think the archaeological excavations are unnecessary as they, according to you, might be torturing history and producing wrong connections historically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_hoax
do you treat that as an exception or the rule?

The rule when archaeological excavations are carried out by Hindutvas. Since the Hindutva agenda is to twist historical facts to conform to their ideological outlook.

Questions / doubts about ancient sites and findings can arise about anybody or any place, and not just with respect to Hindutvas or Islamists (since you are neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim) ---
http://creative.sulekha.com/questions-and-comments-on-the-study-of-ancient-sites-and-cultures_597851_blog

by Guest Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:03 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Wrong. The only way to reach truth about history is by digging, digging deep and deeper. Do you think the archaeological excavations are unnecessary as they, according to you, might be torturing history and producing wrong connections historically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_hoax
do you treat that as an exception or the rule?

The rule when archaeological excavations are carried out by Hindutvas. Since the Hindutva agenda is to twist historical facts to conform to their ideological outlook.
Questions / doubts about ancient sites and findings can arise about anybody or any place, and not just with respect to Hindutvas or Islamists (since you are neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim) ---
http://creative.sulekha.com/questions-and-comments-on-the-study-of-ancient-sites-and-cultures_597851_blog

1. how can you say i am not a hindu? i consider myself to be a hindu. it is in poor taste on your part to question my religion. it is like the Pope questioning whether Trump is really a Christian or not just because Trump wants to build a wall on the US-Mexican border.

2. You are completely right: the twisting of facts to suit ideological agenda is not confined to Hindutvas or Islamists. It extents to Japanese and Chinese ultra-nationalists and indeed ultra-nationalists all over the world. One of the problem with these people is that often they are not adequately trained for the work they are attempting to do.

----
Here is some relevant information about the Hindutvas attempting to rewrite Indian history with the help of political patronage:

Shrikant Talageri, as near as I have been able to find out, is or was a bank clerk. N.S. Rajaram is a vitriolic Hindu nationalist who claims to have worked for Lockheed in the United States before returning to India, apparently to devote himself full-time to writing Hindu nationalist works.
(Rajaram was recently the subject of embarassing revelations in the magazines Frontline and Outlook -- A Bushy Tail: The Piltdown Horse -- when Michael Witzel, a Harvard professor, and Steve Farmer, a comparative historian, demonstrated that a recent book of Rajaram's had deliberately falsified evidence to bolster his arguments.)
What Rajaram, Talageri, Sethna (and friends and co-authors of theirs -- people like David Frawley, a New Age herbal healer; Subhash Kak, an electrical engineer; and Georg Feuerstein, author of "Yoga for Dummies" -- share in common, is a vitriolic hatred of majority opinions about ancient Indian history in the scholarly community, and a desire to replace it with a completely different view.
The motivation is transparent. They wish to erase the scholarly opinion that the north Indian languages (of which the oldest is the language of the Vedas) came to India as a transplant from the north-west. By doing so, they can then denounce Muslims and Christians as followers of a foreign religion, without having the same charge justifiably levelled back at them.
This is all politically understandable, but none the less reprehensible. For a political party to support one side of an academic controversy -- and that the one without academic support -- recalls again the bizarre times of the Nazi or Soviet regimes, when the Theory of Relativity was dismissed as an excess of "Jewish science", and a generation of Russian geneticists were destroyed by the bizarre ascendancy of the neo-Lamarckian T.D. Lysenko.
Imagine for one moment that the Republican Party were distributing pamphlets attacking the theory that the ancestors of native Americans first crossed the land bridge over what are now the Bering Straits during the Pleistocene era. Or that the Labour Party in the UK were selling books vilifying historians for suggesting that the Beaker folk did not build the Long Barrows back in 2500 B.C.
This is just as strange. It points to a lack of maturity in the way Indian society views academia. A useful mirror to understand this is, I suggest, the evolution-creation debate which had its last great flare-up in United States in the Scopes Trial of 1925.
Since well before the Wilberforce-Huxley debates of 1860, opinion in the West had been swinging away from the Biblical literalist view that the world was created on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning. While scientists accepted the theory of evolution relatively quickly -- because they understood it -- society as a whole took much longer to do so because they had yet to transfer their trust from religion, as the arbiter of their philosophy and cosmology, to science.
Nowadays, for the most part completely, the tribal totem poles have been taken away from the West's priests and mystics, and handed to the scientists and other academic professionals. This may not be ideal from the complex perspectives of social organisation, but it does recognise the principle that for any sufficiently complex subject, professionals who have spent their careers understanding the subject's minutiae and complexities are, as a group, more to be trusted to understand it than any other group who have not done that.
In India, perhaps because academia has never really had the funding (we are after all a poor country) that could enable it to develop the level of professionalism and public respect academia has in the West, the idea that all academic scholars of ancient India -- both Indians and Westerners -- are either deluded or deliberately falsifying history -- and that this can be set right by the government applying funding and pressure judiciously in the right areas, appears credible.
This is crazy, lunatic, and wonky, but that's the way things are. The remedy may not be purely within an Indian context. Fortunately for the study of Indian history, the BJP government's campaign to team up with amateur cranks and vilify academic historians only really works inside India, where the government has vast powers to manipulate funding, appointments and publications.
But outside India, in the universities of the West, where scholars prove their academic credentials in the court of peer review are relatively free of such intereference, the banias lack such powers.
While the vilification campaign that operates at full throttle in India against historians like Romila Thapar has also gone into operation against Michael Witzel of Harvard after he exposed Rajaram's chicanery, it has no effect against a scholar whose publications over the years in various aspects of Sanskrit and the study of ancient India are well read and respected among his peers. The same can be said (to take only a few examples) of other scholars like Deshpande at Michigan, Hock at Chicago, Insler at Yale, and Rocher and Cardona at the University of Pennsylvania.
Long after the politicians have stopped shouting about ancient history and found something else to get exercised about, it will be these scholars, and people like them, who will contribute and shape the world's understanding of ancient Indian history. Not Murli Manohar Joshi, not Sushma Swaraj, not Navaratna Rajaram, and not any other puffed-up self-important pygmy that thinks their ethno-nationalist and political views can trump the sober process of scholarship within the tradition of the academy.

http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/welcome-to-the-bjp-bharatiya-janata-pustakalaya/211728

by Guest Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:31 pm

in the above post: extends, not extents.

by goodcitizn Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:25 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Wrong. The only way to reach truth about history is by digging, digging deep and deeper. Do you think the archaeological excavations are unnecessary as they, according to you, might be torturing history and producing wrong connections historically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_hoax
do you treat that as an exception or the rule?

The rule when archaeological excavations are carried out by Hindutvas. Since the Hindutva agenda is to twist historical facts to conform to their ideological outlook.
Questions / doubts about ancient sites and findings can arise about anybody or any place, and not just with respect to Hindutvas or Islamists (since you are neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim) ---
http://creative.sulekha.com/questions-and-comments-on-the-study-of-ancient-sites-and-cultures

Seva, your link only solidifies my comment that you can torture history to unearth what you want. I have seen research papers where the supporting bibliography turned out to be fibliography.

by Seva Lamberdar Thu Jun 02, 2016 8:42 am

goodcitizn wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_hoax
do you treat that as an exception or the rule?

The rule when archaeological excavations are carried out by Hindutvas. Since the Hindutva agenda is to twist historical facts to conform to their ideological outlook.
Questions / doubts about ancient sites and findings can arise about anybody or any place, and not just with respect to Hindutvas or Islamists (since you are neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim) ---
http://creative.sulekha.com/questions-and-comments-on-the-study-of-ancient-sites-and-cultures
Seva, your link only solidifies my comment that you can torture history to unearth what you want. I have seen research papers where the supporting bibliography turned out to be fibliography.

GC, not quite. My link (http://creative.sulekha.com/questions-and-comments-on-the-study-of-ancient-sites-and-cultures_597851_blog) points to the misinterpretation (deliberately or otherwise) of findings (stone structures / buildings in Gobekli Tepe), where wrong age (several thousand years even before the metal age) is assigned according to radiocarbon dating even though such structures couldn't have been built / carved using stones and without the help of metallic tools.

Incidentally, here is another example (like the above) on deliberately trying to get desired results (on linguistic origins), in Appendix A in
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog

by goodcitizn Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:39 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
do you treat that as an exception or the rule?

The rule when archaeological excavations are carried out by Hindutvas. Since the Hindutva agenda is to twist historical facts to conform to their ideological outlook.
Questions / doubts about ancient sites and findings can arise about anybody or any place, and not just with respect to Hindutvas or Islamists (since you are neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim) ---
http://creative.sulekha.com/questions-and-comments-on-the-study-of-ancient-sites-and-cultures
Seva, your link only solidifies my comment that you can torture history to unearth what you want. I have seen research papers where the supporting bibliography turned out to be fibliography.
GC, not quite. My link (http://creative.sulekha.com/questions-and-comments-on-the-study-of-ancient-sites-and-cultures_597851_blog) points to the misinterpretation (deliberately or otherwise) of findings (stone structures / buildings in Gobekli Tepe), where wrong age (several thousand years even before the metal age) is assigned according to radiocarbon dating even though such structures couldn't have been built / carved using stones and without the help of metallic tools.

Incidentally, here is another example (like the above) on deliberately trying to get desired results (on linguistic origins), in Appendix A in
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog

Seva, you are preaching to the choir.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:49 am

goodcitizn wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_hoax
do you treat that as an exception or the rule?

The rule when archaeological excavations are carried out by Hindutvas. Since the Hindutva agenda is to twist historical facts to conform to their ideological outlook.
Questions / doubts about ancient sites and findings can arise about anybody or any place, and not just with respect to Hindutvas or Islamists (since you are neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim) ---
http://creative.sulekha.com/questions-and-comments-on-the-study-of-ancient-sites-and-cultures
Seva, your link only solidifies my comment that you can torture history to unearth what you want. I have seen research papers where the supporting bibliography turned out to be fibliography.

Ha ha ha!

by Sponsored content

Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya

Re: Korea's royal connection to Ayodhya