Thursday, December 28, 2017

Solar (Margazhi) Garbottam is the basis for general prediction of monsoon next year.

After 2 years of round-the-year observation of astro-meteorology, I have zeroed in on certain features as most reliable ones. They are three in number.

(1) Solar or Margazhi Garbottam that lasts for nearly13 days. This is the time Sun is moving across Purvashada (Pooradam). Each day of this period corresponds to roughly 13 days of Sun’s transit in a star starting from Arudra which happens in June, that is., Vaikasi.

(2) Daily Garbottam which is to be watched every day from December to July. Every day of this period corresponds to 195th day later. Presence of Garbottam on a day is indicative of rainfall after 195 days.

(3) Planetary combinations that support or spoil rainfall at the time of rainfall.

All the three are supposed to work in tandem and must work in tandem to ensure good rainfall. In 2016 they were so and we found only less deviation. Whether rainfall is good or bad, these three must indicate the same thing.

The situation is a little different in 2017 as we find non-concurrence within these three. When non-concurrence is there, which one takes the lead is found out in this year’s situation.

This year (2017) there were 2 major planetary combinations - one occurred in SWM and another (others) in NEM season. The former one was a singular event of Venus in eastern sky in the morning transiting stars Magha to Chitra between Sep 15th and Nov 8th. This corresponded to Solar Garbottam which was posted on 12th Dec, 2017 The relevant part of the table from that post is reproduced below. It rained during this period till Venus completed this transit on 8th November.

Day
Date of Garbottam
Observation
Date of Impact
(Fortnight)
Prediction
7
3rd - 4th Jan, 2017
Wind- Occasional
Drizzles- Nil
Lightening- Nil
Thunder-Nil
Clouds-Good
13th September to 26thSeptember 2017.
Good rains in the 2nd quarter of the fortnight.

Between 18thand 21st Sep 2017.
8
4th – 5th Jan, 2017
Wind- Occasional
Drizzles- Nil
Lightening- Nil
Thunder-Nil
Clouds- Moderate to Good.
27th September to 10th October 2017.
Moderate rainfall in the 2nd quarter of the fortnight.
Between 29th Sep and 2ndOctober 2017
9
5th - 6th Jan, 2017
Wind- Good
Drizzles- Nil
Lightening- Nil
Thunder-Nil
Clouds- Good
11th October to 23rd October 2017.
Good rainfall in the middle of the fortnight.
Between 14thand 18thOctober 2017.
10
6th - 7th Jan, 2017
Wind- Good.
Drizzles- Nil
Lightening- Nil
Thunder-Nil
Clouds- Good.
24th October to 6th November 2017.
Rainfall in the 1st week of November.
11
7th - 8th Jan, 2017
Wind- Nil
Drizzles- Nil
Lightening- Nil
Thunder-Nil
Clouds- Nil
7th November to 19thNovember 2017.
Dry weather.
12
8th - 9th Jan, 2017
Wind- Nil
Drizzles- Nil
Lightening- Nil
Thunder-Nil
Clouds- Nil.
19th November to 2ndDecember 2017.
Dry conditions.
13
9th - 10th Jan, 2017
Wind- Occasional
Drizzles- Nil
Lightening- Nil
Thunder-Nil
Clouds- Good.
2nd December to 15thDecember 2017.
Good rains in the middle of the fortnight.
Between 6thand 10thDecember 2017.

One can notice that Solar Garbottam gave dry days from the 2nd week of November till the end of December with only a few days (6th to 10th   Dec) showing rainfall. This means the major part of NEM 2017 is dry.

Coming to the planetary combinations, the last set of planetary combinations for the year in support of rainfall started on 13th December (Venus- Mercury closeness) while another set started on 16th December. This happened almost in the fag-end of the NEM season. Both of them continued till December end with the former ending on 9th January 2018 and the latter on 14th January 2018.
The reality check shows that the planetary combinations didn’t work in the absence of Solar Garbottam.

The potency of these sets of planetary combinations cannot be doubted as we saw the dates of their occurrence tallying with the directions exactly – but not within the location of NEM. For example, the western section indicated by them pulled cyclone Ockhi to west of India, to Lakshadweep and Mumbai. The North- North east indicator which in normal circumstances should have helped northern limits of NEM regions, dragged it to NE India and Bangladesh. What was South West went beyond India and benefited Arabian Peninsula. What was east rained at Philippines!

Witnessing all these, the inference we can make is that in the absence of Solar or Margazhi Garbottam, the rainfall expected over larger regions under the aid of planetary combinations do not necessarily materialise.  

For Chennai, the local Garbottam also was for a few days in NEM and that is what had happened.
In this NEM (2017) 2/3 features did not support rainfall for Chennai. They are Solar Garbottam and local Garbottam. Even though 3 sets of planetary combinations were present from 13th December onwards, they could not bring in rainfall.

Since the same trend is found throughout Tamilnadu, I have to assume that solar and local Garbottam were negative for rest of TN also. If more people start watching Garbottam in their respective regions at least during the Solar Garbottam, it will be useful to draw better inferences.

PS.

I am planning to start a blog exclusively for astro-weather prediction. I will start posting the basics of Garbottam and how to predict rainfall through that. Initial post will be intimated in the current blogspot while no more weather posts will appear here. Interested ones are kindly asked to follow that blog (after the announcement is made here). However I will be regularly tweeting my posts of the weather blog.  





Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Mitanni- Hittite Treaty – a proof of Aryan Invasion / Migration? (Part 1)

 The Mitanni- Hittite peace treaty of c.1380 BCE is seen by Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) proponents as an external evidence for Aryans before entering India.

In his paper “Early Indian history: Linguistic and textual parameters”, Michael Witzel (1995:15) says, “Although the internal stratification of the Vedic corpus is clear, absolute dates are difficult to establish (cf. Mylius 1970; Rau 1983). There is only external evidence, such as the Mitanni treaty of c. 1380 B.C., mentioning major Rig vedic deities (Indra, Mitra, Varuna and the Nasatyas; [Mitanni-IA is linguistically slightly older than 1400 BCE])..”

In page 29 of the same paper, he says, “Our starting point on linguistic grounds must remain the presence of a branch of Indo-Aryans in Northern Mesopotamia before c. 1380 B.C., names of whose deities - Varuna, Mitra, Indra and Nasatya (Aśvin) - have come down to us in a Mitanni-Hittite agreement.”

Witzel is banking only these four names as a proof of pre-Aryan presence outside India before the so-called Vedic Age started in India. To support this he changes the words of the treaty (& other sources) wherever possible to make it to sound like a Sanskrit word. For example he thinks that the Indo-Iranian ‘zdh’ became ‘edh’ in Vedic Sanskrit (2001:65) but turns a Nelson’s eye when it comes to the letters clinging to Mitra, Varuna etc in the treaty.

The issue of correct translation.

The names of the Vedic deities do not appear as they are in the Vedas.

In the translation of the Luckenbill (1921) (the first one to have translated the treaty by working on the earliest translation done in parts by Winckler in 1907) the names appear as follows:

 the gods Mitrashshil,
the gods Uruwan- ashshil,
the god Indar,
the gods Nashatianna

The same names appear in another part of the treaty that describes a struggle between Shuttarna, son of Artatama, and Mattiuaza, son of Tushratta, for the kingship of Mitanni as follows:

the gods Mitrashshil,
the gods Arunashshil,
the god Indara,
the gods Nashatianna.

One can notice that Luckenbill uses the plural term for all the names except Indra.
What is interpreted as Varuna has a variation in the two contexts as ‘Uruwan- ashshil’ and ‘Arunashshil’. But both treaties were signed in the period of the same Mitanni king. Then is it a scribal error or were they different deities? One sounds like Varuna  and the other like Aruna, meaning the Sun. This meaning is feasible given the fact that the Hittite king called himself as Sun in the treaty.

But Witzel takes them only as Mitra, Varuna, Indra and Nasatyas.

Let’s take a look at Witzel’s translation.

Transcription of cuneiform
Interpretation
Vedicequivalent
a-ru-na, ú-ru-wa-na
Varuna
mi-it-ra
Mitra
in-tar, in-da-ra
Indra
na-ša-ti-ya-an-na
Nasatya-nna
Nāsatya
(taken from Wikipedia article here)

One can see that he has left out the last letters of the names, but he does not take such liberties with words when it comes to using them to show that Mitanni was pre-Vedic. He used to stick to even a single letter to prove his point.

He is also silent on the plural names for Mitra and Varuna. Are there many gods of Mitra and Varuna in the Vedic culture?

Nasatyas are plural because they refer to Asvins. Indra is singular but what is his take on ‘Gods’ of Mitra and Varuna?

Another question is whether there is concurrence among scholars on the exact translation of the names. The very basic names of the treaty, namely those who signed the treaty are spelt differently by Luckenbill. He uses the name Shubbiluliuma which is Suppiluliuma for Witzel. The other name Shattiwaza of Mitanni is mentioned as Mattiuaza by Luckenbill. Since the names Mitra, Varuna etc., are crucial proofs for the presence of pre-Vedic words in that part of the world, Witzel has to first disprove the names given by Luckenbill, besides explaining why the ending letters should be deleted at all if not for serving his own purpose of making them sound like the names of Vedic deities.

Were these Gods from Mitanni or Hatti?

The strangest part of his narration on these names in his paper “‘Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts” is that he keeps repeating them as Mitanni words, while they appear as Gods of Hatti in the treaty.

Hatti and Mitanni were neighbours but they did not share the same language, or we can be certain that they did not share the same Gods as seen from this and other treaties. 


(In the picture Mitanni was located on the east of upper Euphrates and Hatti was to its North West. From the treaty it is known that Mt Lebanon and Euphrates formed its south eastern boundaries.)

This treaty and other treaties of these kingdoms contain references to numerous Gods. But the reference to these four Vedic gods appears only in the context of Hatti-Gods. Hatti was an over powering kingdom as per this treaty which was enforcing terms on the Mitanni king. There is no history of Hittites moving to India in the supposed period of Aryan migration. How then the Hittite Gods entered India?  

Most of the Gods mentioned in the treaty have no name. They were either god or gods of some part of nature like river, mountain, sky and so on. Certain names do occur often – like the names Sin, Samash, Anu, Antum, Enbil and Ninlil. In the treaties translated by Luckenbill the last four names appear six times in comparison to Mitra et al which appear only two times. Anu et al were very popular Gods found throughout the region here. Why then they were not taken by the migrating Indo-Aryans when they entered India? Why only Mitra et al were taken by them? This part also must be clarified  by Witzel.

If names like Mitra matter in deciding which way the migration had taken place, there is a name that sounds recent or post-Vedic in one of the treaties written by the grandson of Shubbiluliuma.

Mutallu, the grandson of Shubbiluliuma re-made a treaty that his father Murshili signed with – hold your breath – Rimisharma!

Sharma in Rimisharma is a common surname in India for Brahmins. It is traced to Sanskrit roots and is interpreted to mean teacher or a chanter. This name appearing in Hittite treaty as the king of Aleppo / Halab (in pic) before 1300 BCE could be interpreted as a strong proof of movement from India to Mesopotamia, if we were to follow Witzel’s logic.


Sharma being a Brahman surname, this name indicates migration of Vedic people from India. Why not we take it this way? 

Moreover this name seems to have changed into Latin as ‘sermo’ and ‘sermon’ (Sharma > serma > sermo > sermon) which means discourse or talk which is what a ‘Sharma’ is supposed to do. 
Isn’t this name Rimisharma a proof of migration out of India and influence on languages of Europe?

(continued in Part 2)

References:

Luckenbil.D.D., ‘Semitic Languages and Literatures’, Volume XXXVII April 1921 Number3 https://archive.org/stream/jstor-528149/528149_djvu.txt
Witzel Michael., ‘Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts’, 2001.
Witzel Michael,. “The home of the Aryans”


[Mailed to Witzel (witzel@fas.harvard.edu)]

Thursday, December 21, 2017

2G verdict: a shot in the arm for Congress!

Shocking – is a milder term if we consider the just delivered 2G verdict. Here after we can use the term ‘2G-ised’ when we come across the kind of verdict we got on 2G corruption case. And it is doubtful whether we will ever come across a repeat of 2G corruption – because such cases, even if they are far greater (or worse) than 2G corruption, would never see the light of day given the kind of nexus in which the political hand is a big suspect.

The biggest gainer is not even the DMK, it is the Congress! Congress has been acquitted of any corruption image as 2G was made out to be face of corruption of all times perhaps. Now we see everything so so good of Congress. It is a corrupt free party. It is secular embracing all religions, Christian, Muslim and now Hindus also. Look at how Rahulji is making temple visits. How Rahulji is younger than Modiji in age and maturity. How Rahulji has not even married for the sake of service to the country. How Rahulji is caring about his mother and women and everyone. Is there anything that is not in Rahulji that you find in Modiji?

What a wonderful template has been handed over to Rahul to help his baby steps make giant leaps! Is the BJP aware of image make-over that Congress has got from this verdict? No one would believe the theory that the court has delivered this verdict without a remote control behind it. If in the coming days BJP sings paeans on the DMK, if Dr Swamy opens his mouth praising the DMK as a Hindu party with which BJP can align and if corruption cases are filed against ADMK leaders, know that a remote control has indeed worked.

Elections are fought in this country on ‘anti’ platforms. BJP gained in the last elections due to anti-Congress vote. Congress was perceived as a corrupt party (thanks to 2G case) and also an anti-Hindu party. Rahul had taken care of latter as was seen in the just concluded Gujarat elections. Now the 2G verdict has wiped out the corrupt image of the congress as a zero- corrupt party. On what plank the BJP is going take on the Congress in 2019?  

Food for Thought from Mahabharata:6-9.

Sanjaya to Dhritharashtra:-
“Brave kings conversant with virtue and profit have become covetous of Earth. Endued with activity, they would even cast away their lives in battle, from hunger of wealth...Desirous of enjoying Earth, the kings, O chief of the Bharatas, have become like dogs that snatch meat from one another. Their ambition is unbounded, knowing no gratification”.
This is the state of Bharat 5000 years ago, and continues to be so even after monarchy has given way to democracy.


Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Science Channel on Ram Setu as man-made structure concurs with Historical Rama.

 A video released by Science Channel on Ram Setu shows scientists saying that the submerged structure linking India and Srilanka is man-made. It consists of series or rocks and boulders sitting on a stretch of sand bed.


The significant information from this video pertains to the dates of the structures. It says that the boulders and rocks found on top of the sand dunes are 7000 years old while the sand dunes are only 4000 years old! The time period of 7000 years BP is the approximate period of Rama at whose behest this structure was built. But the sand dunes that support them being dated at 4000 years BP puts it at post-Krishna period. This could be possible only if the structure was re-built using the same old boulders when the sea level arose.


Boulders of the Ram Setu seen under water.

According to the geologist Dr Badrinarayanan, two dates of rise in sea level was found in this part of the sea, one,  between 7,300 to 5,800 years BP and another between  5,400 to 4,000 years BP. As per the video the bounders correspond to the former date while the sand bed underneath them corresponds to the second and last date of sea level increase. But Dr Badrinarayana finds the occurrence of two sets of corals corresponding to these two levels.


This raises the possibility that the original layer was much below the current one which corresponded to 7000 years BP. For a brief period of 400 years between 5800 – 5400 years BP the sea level came down, exposing the Setu Bridge above the sea level. But once again the sea level rose submerging the structure after 5400 years BP. That was when a fresh attempt could have been made to re-construct the bridge – which was done by raising the height by laying a sand bed and re-laying the same boulders and rocks on top of it. The sacredness of the structure and connection with Rama could have made the re-builders to have retained the same boulders and also re-lay in the same way done originally by the vanaras. Research is needed to ascertain these ideas, but the fact is that research is woefully nil in India in the case of Ram Setu.

What is seen in the picture below as white objects (pic taken from the video released by Science Channel) are in fact the visible regions of the Setu above water – the corresponding regions in Google map is shown below this picture.

Till the 14th  century the structure was well above the water level. In the next 6 centuries no attempt was made to restore the bridge perhaps due to changing or deteriorating political scenes in the ensuing period. Today, in these times of stable nationhood, we must have by now started rebuilding the structure using the same boulders after the lifting up the foundation.

The formation of stable nation with the arrival of Independence did nothing to secure the site back to its glory. In the previous UPA government, the focus was denying the Ram Setu as man-made and historical. It is unfortunate the same trend is continuing even now. Nothing much had happened in India in terms of research in this site. It needs a foreign channel to tell the world that Ram Setu is manmade while it is precisely the same we have known for ages. So what are we going to do now – the Government, the research agencies of India and the people?

In the case of people, I wish to clarify two objections or doubts that we often hear on this subject.  They are given below.

(1) The time period of Ramayana: Rama belonged to Treta Yuga and the general opinion among the people is that Treta Yuga occurred 17 lakh (1.7 Million) years ago. There also exists a claim by NASA that Setu is 1.75 million years old. However there is no confirmation by NASA that it is man-made. There are many Indians who ascribe to this view as a proof of Rama’s times at 17 lakh years before present.

This is not logical as 17 lakh years ago was the time period when man was just beginning to walk upright. The geological conditions of that period also could not be the same as it is now. In this back-drop it is self-defeating to claim historicity of Rama linked to such an early period.  

This issue can be approached from two angles (1) the veracity of NASA image and (2) understanding the true purport of the time period of Rama.

Taking up the first, the NASA image is true as there exists a natural shoal between India and Srilanka. This shoal is actually formed by underwater volcanic material. This has been confirmed in the studies by geologists. From the events of Ramayana we know that a hill called Mainaka existed exactly in the region of the shoal which grew up above the water when Hanuman crossed the sea. Such growth can be linked to a volcanic activity or magma bubbling up.

Earlier to Rama’s times, the sons of Sagara (Rama’s ancestor) were reduced to ashes while digging at this region. (read my article here). Such a description invariably supports the eruption of magma or heat that led to a calamity to them digging up the shoal here. Studies in this region do support such eventualities as heat flow signatures were found supported by hot water springs while drilling. Thus there can no two opinions on the presence of a natural bed formed of the material of the mantle in this region for ages. What NASA had noted in the satellite picture was the exact region of sea bed where magma got piled up (like a suture) Dating of the bed might give us clues on when such eruptions or volcanism first started.

This confirms an opinion that the island of Lanka was an extension of India and not one that got separated by geological activity as held by some. The very name “Ilangai” (Lanka) in Tamil refers to a raised bund in the midst of water or surrounded by water.  Srirangam is an Ilangai by this definition. The ‘Maavilangai’ mentioned in one of Tamil Sangam texts refers not to Lanka as some people think, but to a raised land in the course of a river.

(Bingala Nikantu, Ch 4:104)


The natural bund between India and Srilanka served as an extension of habitation in this part for thousands of years. There is even proof of growth of wild rice since Ice Age in this part, signalling presence of habitation here.

(Fuller et al: 2010)

In the above picture, the connecting region between India and Srilanka is marked with ‘P’. It refers to growth of wild rice since 20,000 years before present. This can be taken as a proof of habitation in this part of India at that date. One can see that the linkage between the two countries was very wide. In the picture below one can see the light shaded regions around India and Srilanka (yellow-line border done by me). The land was extended till then when the sea level was low. As per the above figure, there is evidence of growth of wild rice in this extended region.

With such a naturally present land connection for a wider extent, Srilanka of those times existed as an extension of India much like the Kathiawar peninsula.

So there never existed a need to build a bridge in this part. Such a need could arise only when sea water completely inundated this connecting land. The inundation maps produced by Graham Hancock throw better hints on this issue.  A comparison of them for different time periods is given below to pin point the date when the need arose to link the two countries by human efforts. The availability of maps start from 21,300 years BP.

Until 8900 BP, the land connection was there naturally, helping in the movement of people. But things changed after this period as sea level rose above the connecting land by 7700 BP. The below-maps show this.



By 7700 BP sea water passed through the connecting land. By 6900 BP the connecting land was completely under sea water.

So any construction of a bridge could have happened only around 7000 BP. The naturally occurring base is already there. What people had to do was to raise structures on the base for a few meters. This was what Rama’s Vanara sena had done!

This date tallies with the date of boulders (7000 years) mentioned in the Video released by Science Channel.

This date also tallies with Pushkar Bhatnagar's date of Rama (5114 BCE).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Ramayana is a myth?: There is a group including those from the West claiming that Rama is a myth perpetuated to promote divinity. This arises from a notion that Gods are not born on earth. This notion helps in linking super natural feats with Gods.

The fact is that there is nothing super natural about Gods of Hinduism. There is One God, the All-pervading Brahman and every other God is a manifestation of this Brahman in its different stages of existence. Even man (individual atman) is no lowly creature as he can become God – the all-pervading Brahman. It is only because of Karma binding him, man is born a man (or an animal or a plant). And when he crosses over Karma he is one with Brahman or identical with Brahman. This is what the texts say.

But the easiest way to understand how a man can become a God, the reply by Kalanos to Alexander is an eye-opener. For a question by Alexander on
How may a man become a god?”

Kalanos replied
by doing that which is almost impossible for a man to do”.

(Source: works of Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer of Alexander the Great - here)

When a person does things that no other man can do or which are beyond normal human limits, then such a person comes to be regarded as a God. There comes a discussion on this topic in the Tamil text Silappadhikaram.

From Silappadhikaram

Two women of this story (a real one) showed extraordinary nature. One was Kannagi who despite undergoing terrible times with her husband going after another woman and then coming back to her empty handed, lost him once for all, for the sake of her anklet which the king mistook as stolen from his queen. With all the sense of loss in her heart, Kannagi nevertheless went to the court of the king to establish that her husband did not steal. The king died on the spot on coming to know of his mistake. The strange part of the story is that his queen also died on the spot immediately after him, being unable to bear the loss of her husband.

On coming to know of these developments, the Chera king asked his wife who among the two – the queen and Kannagi – was greater. The Cheran queen preferred Kannagi over the other on the basis that Kannagi put up with the suffering at the wake of the death of her husband to prove the world that he was innocent. So she was fit enough to be celebrated in human world whereas the other, the queen would be celebrated in the other world (heavens). This resulted in consecrating Kannagi as a deity in a temple.

This narration is in tune with what Kalanos said on doing the impossible. There had never been another Kannagi in history!

In the same way Rama, a man born in this world did some extraordinary feats and exhibited extraordinary character that he came to be regarded as a God.

From Ramayana

Rama never considered himself as a God.

He expressed, “I am a human being” (‘Atmaanam maanusham manye Ramam Dasharathatmajam’ -VR 6-117-11)

But Brahma replied, “For destruction of Ravana you entered human body here, on this earth (“Vadaartham Raavanasyeh pravishto maanusheem tanum” – VR 6-117-28).

So it is found within Ramayana that God reincarnates as a human being. Rama was such an incarnation.

As a human being, how do we recognise him as a God?

By the impossible feats that no other man can do.

What was that impossible feat?

This is expressed in Valmiki Ramayana itself through the words of Madodari, Ravana’s wife. On seeing Ravana fallen dead, Madodari wailed that she knew Rama was not an ordinary mortal and therefore should not have been taken to task. Two things she mentioned as proof of this. One was the building of Setu! (The other was vanquishing demons at Janasthana)

 “The day when the terrific monkeys built a bridge on the great ocean, that day itself I believed that Rama was not an ordinary mortal." (VR 6-11- 11)



Ravana was feeling secure sitting at Lanka as it was cut off from the mainland by the sea. Individuals might cross the sea in boats; but to cross the sea with a huge army to defeat him was impossible, Ravana thought.

The impossible feat of laying down a road or a bridge across the sea was unthinkable for any man. That is where Rama scored as super human – a God.

There are other attributes that made him God – all those are impossible for ordinary mortals. Explaining them here is out of context for this article.

What we need to know is that divinity in Hinduism does not make god unreal and unborn.
Rama was very much real as he lived and walked in this country. By the same reasoning of impossible accomplishments, Skanda, who lived in flesh and blood, came to be regarded as a God. He was perhaps the first man identified as a God in the Vedic civilization of the current era of Vaivasvata Manu. In his mantra for establishing Indra dhvaja, Manu invokes Skanda’s name.

By the same reasoning, Vamana, Parasurama, Balarama and Krishna were regarded as Gods. So there is no basis to say that Rama was only a mythical character. Ram Setu is one of the evidences of his time period.