From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 12:37:19 MST
[Hermit 1] /me points out to the Mermaid that this is called a non-sequitur
- just as the alleged claim in the Surya Siddhanta is a non-sequitur. It
does not follow. There is no "therefore" despite it being asserted (in
Yash's claim) and implied (in yours).
[Mermaid 1] You found the claim dubious. I provided a book which by its very
existence proves the existence of the work called Surya-Siddhanta.
[Hermit 2] Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are your blonde roots
showing? I did not and don't argue that the fucking Surya-Siddhanta exists -
any more than I would argue that any other of the vast volume of claptrap
that came out of India exists - and I would almost take bets on it being
available in a library in this town. All I am arguing is that it almost
certainly does not say what is asserted by Yash - unless perhaps if seen
through the spectacles of faith. What I am saying is that I am not prepared
to work through a pile of crap looking for something that is quite likely
not present, but relies on some "special" translation. So either there is a
reference, or there isn't. If there is, bring it to the table. It is your
(pos. pl.) assertion. Now justify it.
[Hermit 2] In any case, the non-sequitur was my requesting a proof - a valid
citation and you replying "Anyone who wishes to do research on *any* subject
can do it if they have the time and inclination." And fuck you very much.
[Mermaid 1] These are not 'dubious' or obscure claims made by Yash.
[Hermit 2] They are. As you very well know, seeing as you had to go through
an entire sequence of refutations to get to the one claim I could not
instantly refute from personal knowledge - but on the face of it, stinks as
badly as the rest. In addition, the claim is just that. An assertion that
something exists. It was Yash's - and now your assertion too it seems - you
fucking prove it. A verse reference will be sufficient. Sheesh, is this kind
of a weird hybrid of his stupidity and your obnoxiousness?
[Mermaid 1] In fact, Varahamihira, Bhaskara, Brahmagupta, Aryabhatta et al
are all pretty well known for their astronomical<forgive the double
entendre> claims.
[Hermit 2] Say astrological and be done. So what if they made "claims" (and
I <em>know</em> that some Indian astronomical work (in the interests of
astrology) were very impressive - but they are now footnotes in history).
Any claims that these people may or may not have made has about as much to
do with what Yash claimed as your insignificant other's claim for lost
baggage (Perhaps I should email him/her/it and say that he can find it lying
on the CoV [pun intended]).
[Mermaid 1] Bhaskaracharya and his works attracted a lot of interest and
were widely read when in the early 90s an Indian dancer called Chandralekha
performed a dance-drama ... Lilavati, a mathematical treatise written by
Bhaskara for his daughter of the same name.
Chandralekha performed all over the world and Lilavati was a beautiful
presentation of mathematics and art. Unfortunately, it is a live dance
performance. I doubt if there are any recordings of it.
[Hermit 2] I'm sure. Now what the fuck does this have to do with
<em>substantiating</em> Yash's latest brainwave?
[Hermit 1] However Yash made the assertion that this is a quotation -
presumably a quotation of a translation - as it does not appear to me to be
written in Sanskrit. For it to be valid, Yash needs to provide at least the
page number, book title, author, publisher and year of publication cited
(although for the purpose the source chapter and line or verse would also be
useful), in order to support his quotation. I may check the translation once
I have the location - I have not the time, nor the inclination, nor the
resources to check <em>all</em> inflated claims, misrepresentations or
spurious bullshit cited by kooks on a mission from the gods or to inflate
the importance of their or somebody else's culture - or to read every book
published by some house of exotica (http://www.kessinger-publishing.com/ -
not exactly OUP) that either Yash or Mermaid asserts is relevant.
[Mermaid 1]I know you dont have the time to check claims presented because
you are spending it all trashing anyone who doesnt toe your line. Thats why
I gave you one end of the thread if you choose to follow it up.
[Hermit 2] No Doll. I am getting other things done. I don't need to spend
more than 5% of my brain on these unsubstantiated assertions. While you may
spend a lot of time writing worthless crap nobody sympathizes. Your tone is
too hostile to attract it. And if your brain were not on a psychic trip to
seek spiritual solace, you would know that what you and Yash have offered so
far is short of anything more tangible than assertions about assertion.
[Mermaid 1] Btw...OUP also publishes Bibles...:) *shrug*
[Hermit] I know. I have a collection of them. I also have some of their
translations of other religious works. Because they have scholars working on
them who understand that accuracy is more important than belief.
Nevertheless, what the fuck does this have to do with answering the
challenge? A citation, a reference that can be checked. Once I know what -
to the page I'll do the necessary.
[Hermit 1] Particularly not while "Hindus believe that the Surya Siddhanta
was produced by devine [sic] revelation and came from Surya the Sun God."
[http://users.hartwick.edu/~hartleyc/hindu/suryahistory.html accessed
2002-01-11]
[Mermaid 1] Well, they do. But we know that the Sun God doesnt exist. We
know that the book does exist. Hmm..can you think of any other astronomer on
the other side of the Arabian Sea who made significant discoveries in his
field and was also a theist..hmmmm...
[Hermit 2] This has nothing to do with whether the latest farfetched claim
that, <<The law of gravity was known to the ancient Indian astronomer
Bhaskaracharya. In his Surya Siddhanta he notes "Objects fall on the earth
due to a force of attraction by the Earth. Therefore the Earth, Planets,
Constellations, Moon and the Sun are held in orbit by attraction. In was not
until the late 17th century (1687), 1200 years later that Sir Isaac Newton
rediscovered the law of gravity.">> is true or not.
[Hermit 1] I am challenging this claim simply because I find it unlikely in
the extreme that a work which is as referenced and cited by "Indian
astronomers" as this one, which has been used by as many charlatans
(Jyotishi) as this one, where the members of both groups have probably heard
of gravity, where members of both groups would give their balls to find a
piece of information of any modern significance, where a purportedly good
annotated translation exists, and where members of both groups would
undoubtedly assume the purported quotation held vast significance, yet have
not realized this and shouted the news from the roof-tops as a "validation"
of their assertions of significance.
[Mermaid 2]I understand. You are absolutely right to doubt and challenge.
Thats why I provided the amazon link where you can purchase the book and
clarify any doubts you may have...if you care to be thorough and accurate,
that is. No pressure.
[Hermit 2] Jeez, you are a real piece of work. This is still not a
reference, it is shit. And once, when you had a working brain, instead of
mewling and pewking like this, you would have known it. PsychoBitch isn't
strong enough. Wake up. What drugz are you on? They are fucking up whatever
is left of your brain.
[Hermit 1] So I am suggesting that the most likely answer (given that Yash
(and Mermaid) are proven to (at best) engage in distortion) and particularly
as it seems that there is no prior art leading up to it, and no art
dependent upon it, by anyone, that this assertion is, like the other
assertions made by Yash and Mermaid which I could trivially show to be false
or incomplete and misleading, simply untrue.
[Mermaid 1]Please do not attempt such pettiness. It doesnt become you even
though you tend to be extremely fond of exercising it so very often these
days.
[Hermit 2] As noted before - you read past a whole encyclopedia of
refutations which you didn't reply to before getting here. So this is not
petty, just a simple statement of fact. Count them for yourself. Take your
shoes off first though, because you are going to run out of fingers.
[Mermaid 1] Also...I fully support Yash in his<i am sorry if Yash is female
and mentioned it..I am so confused by this flurry of mails without any order
whatsoever> quest to find something that intrigues him. I wish him all the
best for his journey of discovery. I am not prepared to discourage or
dissect his intentions. This, by no means implies that I support his
claims<although I so not see him making any big, significant claim that he
deserves such acrinomy from some in CoV> or agree with him. If I can assist
anyone in their quest for knowledge, I will do it. As far as the subject
matter is concerned, I am not interested. I have ice mountains to climb.
[Hermit 2] Ok so having supported him - and separated yourself (sensibly)
from him and his little windmill tilting expedition, I hope that the dragons
you lay on the way up the mountain satisfy you, and that you find your
heart's desire, a scarcely used brain labeled "property of a mermaid, not
required on voyage, Description and valuation for customs purposes: 2nd hand
brain, hardly used but of little value" asleep in a crystal box on the top.
[Hermit 1] If Mermaid or Yash assert that the claim is true, an accessible
reference should be cited to allow for independent validation of the claim.
[Mermaid 1] www.amazon.com and search for 'surya-siddhanta'. And all the
nonsense about 'proof of burden' laying with Yash doesnt apply here. This is
not a debate. This is about learning. Everyone gains. So if you have nothing
to add in terms of agreement or disagreement accompanied with something more
than your instinct, I suggest you leave Yash alone and not obstruct his
path. Time wasted here is time not spent reading or researching. And this I
ask in the name of the quest for knowledge you claim to prize so dearly.
[Hermit 2] No. Despite your empty rhetoric, the usual burden of proof still
stands - and indeed, an exceptional burden in this case, because Yash has
about the same degree of credibility at this point as our last "plague" took
two years to earn. Seeing as you are apparently taking up the cudgels
(swords being too subtle for what you appear to be trying (very trying)),
you stand in the dock alongside him.
[Hermit 1] Subsequently, Yash came back claiming that his quotation is cited
from the references he provided. Having perused those references, the only
one supposedly "citing" this is:
http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~anu/facts.html The page acknowledges "These
were taken from the Unserstanding [sic] Hinduism booklet available from the
magnificent Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in
Neasden, London, UK" - yet another religious source attempting to claim
scientific significance in order to bolster the believability of their
faith. As I have previously observed, this is not particularly persuasive.
Even more so, as like Yash, this page does not contain a citation but only
an unsupported assertion.
[Mermaid 1] That is the reason why I gave the information about a book
published on the subject. A book that is not a commentary but a direct
translation of Surya-Siddhanta. That is also the reason I mentioned that
*anyone* with time and inclination can research it. The message was directed
to Yash as well as it was meant for you.
[Hermit 2] Yeah, like my time and inclination is tilted to working through
Vedic bullshit. A citation will do fine. A fucking book is not a citation
doll.
[Hermit 1] It should be further noted that none of the more rigorous sources
appear to make the claim proffered here and that Yash found it necessary to
quote this particular source which appears to have similar religious
objectives and motivations to misrepresent things as Yash himself. Virians
are invited to draw their own conclusions.
[Mermaid 1] There was no 'science' during the times of ancient Indians.
[Hermit 2] Ping! Bingo! Give the [Shit, I was going to say lady but it
doesn't apply - what does?] mermaid a withered violet. Ex-fucking-zactly.
[Mermaid 1] That is why priests were mathematicians and religious men were
also astronomers.
[Hermit 2] But this claim is bullshit. They were astrologers.
[Mermaid 1] But the study of the skies and numbers did exist. They learned
to combine their knowledge with the most predominant feature of their lives
... their religion. This is no big mystery and this doesnt discount the
knowledge of the times.
[Hermit 2] And who the fuck said that it did? And what does this have to do
with Yash's brainstorm, proof, a citation or a reference?
[Hermit 2] And as a by the way, who are the "they" of whom you are speaking?
A period (time, I mean. Not a bloody rag. Although based on your attitude of
late you must have a copious supply of those) will do. As you once said,
precision is so important. It seems you have forgotten more than niceness.
Good luck in your brain quest.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT