India, Iran cradles of great civilizations: Iranian envoy

[iMohammed]

This is all neither here nor there. What I want to know is what does ancient India mean, and what specific boundaries does it have?

Once you realise you cannot apply the idea of nation state to 5000 year old history Indians talk about pan Indian identity, which is something I don't put much stock in, just because people 1000 years ago lived in a comparable way means nothing, clutching at straws, IMO.


We can split up the sub continent any way you want, according to people's, languages and regions.

THE USE OF THE WORD INDIAN IS ARBITRARY AND INTERCHANGABLE.

Nothing arbitrary about it


Now do you get it ? Holism

 

[r3alist]

A Cave drawing?

I don't get your point?

 

[alphamale]

A Cave drawing?

I don't get your point?

i don't know why are u so confused. ancient india is described as a vast mass of land i.e Indian subcontinent. everything between Hindukush mountains, Himalayas, bayof bengal, arabian sea & Indian ocean is termed as ancient india by indians.

 

[iMohammed]

A Cave drawing?

I don't get your point?

You asked me about boundaries.
I gave you boundaries and the ' 16 states' that existed then. All of them called themselves as part of Bharatavarsha, meaning they stem from the same tribe of Bharatha. It's well documented in the history.

 

[r3alist]

You asked me about boundaries.
I gave you boundaries and the ' 16 states' that existed then. All of them called themselves as part of Bharatavarsha, meaning they stem from the same tribe of Bharatha. It's well documented in the history.

You gave me a map - that does not mean anything to me.

The rest is your mythology, unless you have something more serious to say other than stories?

You can cut it up any way you want, just a loose connection, close to meaningless, no one knew what bharatvarsha, until thousands of years later youare telling the dead what they were.lol

 

[iMohammed]

You gave me a map - that does not mean anything to me.

The rest is your mythology, unless you have something more serious to say other than stories?

Do you know how history is reconstructed? I mean the process of historical study?
We study the literature and interpolate things like conditions of the society, polity, geography, status of different social groups within the society.

Indology as a subject is very well developed.

Objective historians dealt the subject rather rigorously. you don't have to agree with me. do your own research.
probably Europeans and Indians had different ideas about identities after all.

 

[r3alist]

Do you know how history is reconstructed? I mean the process of historical study?
We study the literature and interpolate things like conditions of the society, polity, geography, status of different social groups within the society.

Indology is as subject is very well developed.

Objective historians dealt the subject rather rigorously. you don't have to agree with. do your own research.
probably Europeans and Indians had different ideas about identities after all.

Firstly show me this scholarship, and secondly make sure it directly relates to your point, I am not immovable on this, just sceptical.


And I don't think you are interpolating, when you mention bharatvarsha you are extrapolating, very generously!!!

See my edit on previous response.

 

[iMohammed]

Firstly show me this scholarship, and secondly make sure it directly relates to your point, I am not immovable on this, just sceptical.


And I don't think you are interpolating, when you mention bharatvarsha you are extrapolating, very generously!!!

See my edit on previous response.

What do you want me to tell you?

Indians are despotic from the times immemorial and British conquered them and united them into one giant entity and when they were leaving the place divided it into two based on religions which are mutually antagonistic. Is that what you wanted your history to be?

I ll just say what you want me to say , but i can't teach you a course on Indic studies on a forum.

 

[r3alist]

What do you want me to tell you?

Indians are despotic from the times immemorial and British conquered them and united them into one giant entity and when they were leaving the place divided it into two based on religions which are mutually antagonistic. Is that what you wanted your history to be?

I ll just say what you want me to say , but i can't teach you a course on Indic studies on a forum.

You have consistently given the impression that the meat of your beliefs are based around some facts and serious studies, now you tell me it's a burden and pain to reproduce it.

You then turn it onto me and tell me my problem is I don't believe you.

Well you just validated my scepticism.


I don't believe want to believe what you said at all( the joke about the British)

I certainly don't think the story you are telling me is nowhere neat and closed as you claim, and because of that I think it's a mythology.

 

[iMohammed]

You have consistently given the impression that the meat of your beliefs are based around some facts and serious studies, now you tell me it's a burden and pain to reproduce it.

You then turn it onto me and tell me my problem is I don't believe you.

Well you just validated my scepticism.


I don't believe want to believe what you said at all( the joke about the British)

I certainly don't think the story you are telling me is nowhere neat and closed as you claim, and because of that I think it's a mythology.

No Problem.

Just curious, Are you also as skeptical about other things like God, scientific facts like theory of evolution?

It's good to be skeptical and question things.

we both agree on this, don't we?

On that note, I say, meet you later on some other discussion.

 

[r3alist]

No Problem.

Just curious, Are you also as skeptical about other things like God, scientific facts like theory of evolution?

It's good to be skeptical and question things.

we both agree on this, don't we?

On that note, I say, meet you later on some other discussion.

I take that response as an admission of having nothing further substantive to say, thank you and goodbye:

 

[oFFbEAT]

A Cave drawing?

I don't get your point?

When we gave you real facts and logics...you ran away (you didn't reply to my post #303)

Now,You want proofs??

When I gave you real facts and explained it logically....then you said "Typical mythology, a little fact and plenty of masala."(post #268)
So, you accept that I stated real facts(even though "little" according to you) in my post.

Now, let me tell you.... historians base their theories on these "little" facts (that they get from these cave drawings,excavations etc.) and use normal logic to derive a conclusion.

How can they go back in time and witness firsthand....what the Civilization actually looked like??

We can understand, why you don't consider "cave drawings" as real historical facts......instead believe in the myth of ADAM and EVE.

 

[r3alist]

Red font and bolded texted isn't fact or logic.

As it stands you are giving me your version of mythology, based on your extrapolations you can extend ancient India to cavemen, it's really that loose.

 

[alphamale]

Red font and bolded texted isn't fact or logic.

As it stands you are giving me your version of mythology, based on your extrapolations you can extend ancient India to cavemen, it's really that loose.

stop hammering ur brain here. all those things are well documented in our scriptures. it is ur problem that u don't want to see things. the maps are drawn based on inf from ancient scriptures. u are one of those ppl who blindly believe their religious believes & their religion's mythology but do not want to believe others even if there is some proof. many members have given u ample proofs but it seems like u want something extraordinary maybe U.S or U.K's state library's documents

 

[oFFbEAT]

Red font and bolded texted isn't fact or logic.

As it stands you are giving me your version of mythology, based on your extrapolations you can extend ancient India to cavemen, it's really that loose.

This is the kind of reply, people give when they have nothing more to say logically.

If you think, whatever I have stated is a myth....then you could have busted them line by line by your own historical facts and logics.(like I did, in your case)
Instead you just say, they are myths and start commenting on my use of font colour.

You didn't even understand the purpose of using red colour and bold fonts.
How will you understand my logic??

I used bold fonts to highlight the contradictions in your logic.....understood?