From: george knysh
> GK: The point is that viewing the territory of****GK: Try reading Popper, or Burnham, or some primer
> eastern Ukraine as a component of the PIE homeland
> a great deal of scientific data to support it,
> there is absolutely nothing even remotely comparable
> for India. Kishore Patnaik's comments are simply
> dogmatic, at times (his "Maya" fantasies) verging on
> the totally ridiculous. If you believe something so
> strongly that scientific evidence does not matter,
> then you are in religion or ideology.
> Just can you please define what constitutes
> scientific evidence?
> books, some of them as ridiculous as Alice in****GK: They are no longer accepted automatically
> wonderland can constitute
> fountain heads of historical data,
> Sandrocottus can form the****GK: The issue, I thought, was not the Puranas as
> anchor sheet of Indian history, then why not Puranas
> and the kings listed
> there in? After all, one of the avowed purposes of
> the puranas is to
> recreate the genealogies of the early kings and
> retell the folk lore
> connected with such historical kings.
> asking for so called****GK: He didn't intrude into India very much, did
> scientific evidence, can you please tell me what is
> the archeaological
> evidence available to prove Alexander's intrusions
> into India???
>****GK: It is infinitely more fantastic.****
> My hypothesis about Mayan civizliation is no more a
> fantasy than connecting
> patalibothra and Sandrocottus with not even remotely
> sounding Patna and
> Chandra Gupta Maurya.
>****GK: I can if you keep repeating it without
> No doubt, I may not be putting my thoughts in a more
> systematic way since I
> am not a scholar but all the same, you can not
> dismiss it as religious
>****GK: They are eminently deniable. On tremendously
> I am only trying to connect two sets of data,whose
> similiarities are
> undeniable for any one who cares to study, like any
> other historian does.
>****GK: Sweeping dogmatic assertions can be met with
> Probably, If I presented the same as a paper, it
> would have carried more
> weight- atleast you would have tried to deny it with
> counter evidence,
> rather than with sweeping dismissals.
> Kishore patnaik