FischerTal Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Sir' date=' it's like saying just because one haven't been to America, America doesn't exist. You keep asking questions for questions when you have answered none.[/quote'] only whatever he gets off Wiki is acceptable :secret: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 only whatever he gets off Wiki is acceptable :secret: :poink: he himself is a living wiki on BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asterix Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Please drop the non-essential passive aggressive sarcasm littered with red herrings in each and every thread you post on and may be you will see a change in response tone. You just posted the link from Swapan Dasgupta's blog and you said "ignore the facts" which was obviously sarcasm. I am asking you what the "facts" are according to you and your interpretation of the blog post wrt current discussion. I hope I don't need to lodge a case in SC for that. Are you saying the "excerpts" are not "facts"? Are you indicating in anyway that those excerpts were false reporting which hoodwinked the HC? For example if I post the last para, you'll then drag me to argument to prove whether it's fact or not...You are finding it difficult to accept the HC ruling.. And now you want members here to argue with you to change your thinking... The Hon'ble High Court, in order to get sufficient archaeological evidence on the issue involved "whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site "as stated on page 1 and further on p.5 of their order dated 5 march 2003, had given directions to the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate at the disputed site where the GPR Survey has suggested evidence of anomalies which could be structure, pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring etc. which could be confirmed by excavation. Now, viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards upto the construction of the disputed structure alongwith the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty pillar bases in association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India." http://www.swapan55.com/2010/10/summary-of-asi-report-on-ayodhya.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 :poink: he himself is a living wiki on BS. something on which you and I agree. :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 something on which you and I agree. :two_thumbs_up: :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Are you saying the "excerpts" are not "facts"? Are you indicating in anyway that those excerpts were false reporting which hoodwinked the HC? For example if I post the last para, you'll then drag me to argument to prove whether it's fact or not...You are finding it difficult to accept the HC ruling.. And now you want members here to argue with you to change your thinking... The problem is you make too many assumptions. I just wanted to know your interpretation of Dasgupta's blog post. Thanks for posting the last paragraph - the ASI report from what I understand says that "the structure features were similar to a Hindu temple" and NOT "the structure as a Hindu temple". There are many structures which are similar to a Hindu temple without being a temple. Btw, I thought you didn't believe the judicial process - so obviously Allahabad HC ruling is meh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asterix Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 The problem is you make too many assumptions. I just wanted to know your interpretation of Dasgupta's blog post. Thanks for posting the last paragraph - the ASI report from what I understand says that "the structure features were similar to a Hindu temple" and NOT "the structure as a Hindu temple". There are many structures which are similar to a Hindu temple without being a temple. Btw, I thought you didn't believe the judicial process - so obviously Allahabad HC ruling is meh! They problem is you too make too many assumptions... When have I disputed AHC's rulings? As I said, don't shoot the messenger. Forget about me believing in judicial process or not, do you accept the AHC ruling that there was a temple under the disputed structure or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 They didnt prove it' date=' they claimed it. I am yet to see how ASI concluded that it was a temple. We have no writing, no murtis, no evidence that this was a temple. If so, provide us- the Ram janmabhoomi bhakts should be able to find evidence that proves it to be a temple and not a *****er.[/quote'] Babumoshai, nothing needs to proved here. If you and I have dispute on certain facts in civilized society, we go to the courts and all the evidence and facts are presented there, leaving it up to the judiciary to pass the verdict. I don't need Higgs Boson experiment to solve human dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 They problem is you too make too many assumptions... When have I disputed AHC's rulings? As I said, don't shoot the messenger. Forget about me believing in judicial process or not, do you accept the AHC ruling that there was a temple under the disputed structure or not? Yea - that "assumption" is visible in the other thread. Anyways, I will let that be for now. I am not shooting any messenger. The ASI report does not say there was a Hindu temple but it rather says there is a "Hindu Temple Like Structure". Of course, I have to accept the AHC ruling - I do not have a choice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Babumoshai' date=' nothing needs to proved here. If you and I have dispute on certain facts in civilized society, we go to the courts and all the evidence and facts are presented there, leaving it up to the judiciary to pass the verdict. I don't need Higgs Boson experiment to solve human dispute.[/quote'] Oreybaba, i am not disagreeing with you. That said, not all court verdicts are correct or well supported, this is a perfect case. The Judge claims that ASI proved the site to be a large hindu religious complex. That is not proven by ASI and ASI never made that claim in the first place. ASI noted in the actual text that the original structure had some features common to Hindu temples. As i noted, that is not direct evidence of it being a temple- there are plenty of temple feature you find in non-temple construction, not just in India but same goes for churches & western society or mosques and islamic societies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Are you saying the "excerpts" are not "facts"? Are you indicating in anyway that those excerpts were false reporting which hoodwinked the HC? For example if I post the last para, you'll then drag me to argument to prove whether it's fact or not...You are finding it difficult to accept the HC ruling.. And now you want members here to argue with you to change your thinking... I am finding it difficult to accept that ruling because every single archaeological evidence is shared by non temple construction as well. 'Divine couples' or various motifs are also seen in palaces. So how is it 'proven' to be a temple ? There isnt a single piece of archaeological evidence that can be only from a temple so how do we know its a temple ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 They problem is you too make too many assumptions... When have I disputed AHC's rulings? As I said, don't shoot the messenger. Forget about me believing in judicial process or not, do you accept the AHC ruling that there was a temple under the disputed structure or not? No. For it to be proven to be a temple, we need to find decisive evidence of it being a temple. Motifs are irrelevant, we have palaces that share motifs with temples. We need stuff like inscriptions for example to conclude what the purpose of the building was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 How does it even matter if there was a temple there or not? Even if there was one, and was demolished by Babur those were different times and the current laws and constitution of India cannot be applied retrospectively. The demolition of Babri Masjid happened under the current laws and constitution of India and was clearly illegal. What next, it will be okay to roam around naked under the law, because cavemen used to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 How does it even matter if there was a temple there or not? Even if there was one, and was demolished by Babur those were different times and the current laws and constitution of India cannot be applied retrospectively. The demolition of Babri Masjid happened under the current laws and constitution of India and was clearly illegal. What next, it will be okay to roam around naked under the law, because cavemen used to? I just saw some cavemen vandalizing a statue of The Buddha. Lucknow- Is that your home town? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I just saw some cavemen vandalizing a statue of The Buddha. Lucknow- Is that your home town? I don't quite get the relevance and analogy in your post. Can you elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I don't quite get the relevance and analogy in your post. Can you elaborate? I guess he was referring to this: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2521763&postcount=39 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I guess he was referring to this: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2521763&postcount=39 Yeah, I know what he was referring to but fail to see the relevance. It might have been relevant if I had said that those culprits should not been punished and what they did was anything short of a barbaric act. EDIT: Aaah, I see. He has made a post in that thread about the absence of certain posters. Well I just logged on and is my habit I first go through threads in which I've made prior posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 There is no cognitive dissonance. Hypothetical language is a red herring, the issue is of origination of nomenclature and root words that are either invented by a language or loanwords. Clearly, you know zilch about linguistics. In anycase, its one thing to say that your idea (of Indian origination of Sanskrit and its ancestor) does not jibe with the botannical evidence that firmly links IE languages to Central Asia, its completely another to dismiss a claim of a judge prima facie. Any selfrespecting STEM graduate laughs at the level of rigor displayed by Historical Linguists. Those people deserve no more respect than your garden variety astrologers and homeopathy hacks. he makes a claim about ASI but provides no evidence of it. Not enough. Google. I'm not going to hold your hand. Nobody peddled the Anatolian origination theory here either. It wasn't just about Anatolia. Of course, you couldn't be bothered to watch the video. I don't blame you. Shattering paradigms can be an extremely unpleasant affair. The only person being a chewtiya here is you, who is essentially saying that the entire field of linguistics, archaeology and history is wrong, the Japanese researchers, finnish reserches, everyone is against us and its only the Hinduvta nutters who are correct. BB Lal is a "hindutva nutter"? Thanks *******. So says the blind man to the one eyed king. As usual, you hinduvta lot will say not a single cogent thought, you will only peddle your BS chewtiyagiri that runs counter to all academic standards and empirical evidence. Come back to me when you can find a single historical peer reviewed article that will claim Sanskrit's ancestor was indegent to India. You wont find one. Till then, you have no case, just half-baked ideas of Hinduvta nonsense stemming from a deep insecurity complex that defines the foundation of Hinduvta- Golwalkar and his posse. :reddy: Deep insecurities are a hallmark of Commies and Gungadeens like yourself not Hindutva. You people hold the goras in such high regard that you can't stand to see their faults being exposed. So you just look the other way. This is one of the several traits you share with Muslims (in relation to Arabs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Here is "THE" ASI Report : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/hondvsj-ann-3.pdf the relevant tidbit (page 34-35) from the 350 page report : ----- The Hon'ble High Court, in order to get sufficient archaeological evidence on the issue involved “whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site†as stated on page 1 and further on P. 5 of their order dated 5th March, 2003, had given directions to the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate at the disputed site where the GPR Survey has suggested evidence of anomalies which could be structure, pillars, Foundation walls, slab flooring etc. which could be confirmed by excavation. Now, viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty pillar bases in association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India --- Checkmate. :nice: Those features are associated with north Indian temples but not exclusively with North Indian temples. Again, i will note: Hawa mahal satisfies all the criterias found at the site, yet it is not a temple but a palace. There is no specific evidence that it was a temple. it had features common with temples but so do other constructions as noted (Hawa mahal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Any selfrespecting STEM graduate laughs at the level of rigor displayed by Historical Linguists. Those people deserve no more respect than your garden variety astrologers and homeopathy hacks. I disagree. Linguistics are not a hard science, but it has credibility. it should be noted that linguistics had already predicted the morphology of Phygrian language before a single inscription was found, which later validated the linguistic claims. Google. I'm not going to hold your hand. Cop out. There is nothing on google that proves it to a temple. Besides, you fail to understand my point. he made a claim about ASI without supplying the evidence himself, which is mark of poor scholarship. I am critiquing the so-called justice so-n-so's stuff for failing to meet standards. It wasn't just about Anatolia. Of course, you couldn't be bothered to watch the video. I don't blame you. Shattering paradigms can be an extremely unpleasant affair. Touche and likewise. As i said, any self-respecting schoalr will grant that AMT has far better credibility than OOI. BB Lal is a "hindutva nutter"? Thanks *******. As i said, find me one self respecting scholar out of India who agrees with your OOI hinduvta nonsense. You wont find one. Farthest you will go is Koenraad Elst, who is not even a historian or archaeologist or a linguist. He is a nobody. But no, we must believe hinduvta hacks like you who think that every single non-Indian scholar is involved in a global conspiracy. But the few select Indian 'scholars' who back the pro-Hinduvta India-ego massage position couldnt possibly be hinduvtas themselves. Laughable, as usual. :reddy: Deep insecurities are a hallmark of Commies and Gungadeens like yourself not Hindutva. You people hold the goras in such high regard that you can't stand to see their faults being exposed. So you just look the other way. This is one of the several traits you share with Muslims (in relation to Arabs). Err false. Insecurity means trying to hide your flaws and being insecure about it. The only insecure ones here are the hinduvtas, who are insecure in their heritage (mostly because of ignorance and usurpation of Buddhist & Jain heritages as hindu) and thus make outlandish aggrandized hinduvta positions like Indo-European languages originating in INdia. The trait you share with muslims is religious-like fervor to history instead of archaeological, literary and linguistic evidence. Its insecure BS peddlers like hinduvta idiots who come up with nonsense such as 'Aryan langauge is indegenous to India', which they cannot find a single non-Indian scholar to agree with, who call the objective scholars gungadeens and commies, because you *KNOW* that hindu history is a drop in the bucket compared to western history and you are jealous of it. Well, i accept that Indian history is inferior to western history- not because we were 'unlucky' with invasions (Europe suffered the Huns, Mongols & Islamic imperialism too) but because the western world treasures its history, has treasured it so for the last 2000 years plus and we have more literary & archaeological evidence of the 200 year period following Augustus Caesar to the entire body of Indian history put together till AD 1000s. You the insecure hinduvta simply cannot accept this ground reality. Instead, you project your BS on to us and specialize in name-calling instead of presenting any evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts