Cassiopaean Chronology/Cosmology

After looking at many data points, controversies/arguments surrounding them related to Vedas ( 'battle of 10 kings' part of it), it looked to me that Late Atlantean period is a better fit. This is a long post to mention my thought processes. The date of Rigveda is anchor point of anchor point of Indian History as Indologists visualized. If anchor changes and every thing changes. In any case, C's seems to validate what Vedveer Arya's(VA) date in his books as 16K BCE. He have thousands of data points in his book and he considers every name is a real person, but it is easy visualize most of them are cosmic events ( see the piece of cosmology picture in this post).
@seek10 , my understanding of C's response is that the battle is one of the prototypes similar to the Atlantis war, not just the Atlantis war itself.
These texts has many many layers to it. Particularly Mahabharata which is the world's longest epic poem. If we look at story line, Mahabharat is evolved like a 'one-stop-shop' and it must had been modified for a very long time. I was not expecting C's confirm (Link) that Vedas started collected as long as back 16K BCE. Well, they did it.

The Main character in 'battle of 10 kings' is King Sudas.
The Battle of the Ten Kings (Sanskrit: दाशराज्ञ युद्ध, IAST: Dāśarājñá yuddhá) was first alluded to in the 7th Mandala of the Rigveda (RV) and took place between a king of the Bharatas named King Sudas versus a confederation of tribes. It resulted in a decisive victory for the Bharatas and subsequent formation of the Kuru polity. The Battle of the Ten Kings, mentioned in the Rigveda may have "formed the 'nucleus' of story" of the Kurukshetra War in the Mahabharata.
See "King" Sudas description From Ambedkar's 'Who were the Sudras'. Though Ambedkar's theme in this book is to show Shudras are once Aryan kshatriyas and lost battle with Brahmins to become low class, I think these characters Indra, Varuna, Sudas is cometary imagery.
Enough has been said to show how leaky is the Aryan theory expounded by Western scholars and glibly accepted by their Brahmin fellows. Yet, the theory has such a hold on the generality of people that what has been said against it may mean no more than scotching it. Like the snake it must be killed. It is therefore necessary to pursue the examination of the theory further with a view to expose its hollowness completely.

Those who uphold the theory of an Aryan race invading India and conquering the Dasas and Dasyus fail to take note of certain verses in the Rig Veda. These verses are of crucial importance. To build up a theory of an Aryan race marching into India from outside and conquering the non-Aryan native tribes without reference to these verses is an utter futility. I reproduce below the verses I have in mind:

1. Rig Veda, vi. 33.3.—"Oh, Indra, Thou has killed both of our opponents, the Dasas and the Aryas."

2. Rig Veda, vi.60.3— "Indra and Agni—these protectors of the good and righteous suppress the Dasas and Aryas who hurt us."

3. Rig Veda, vii.81.1.— "Indra and Varuna killed the Dasas and Aryas who were the enemies of Sudas and thus protected Sudas from them."

4. Rig Veda, viii.24.27.—"Oh you, Indra, who saved us from the hands of the cruel Rakshasas and from the Aryas living on the banks of the Indus, do thou deprive the Dasas of their weapons."

5. Rig Veda, X.38.3.—"Oh you much revered Indra, those Dasas and Aryas who axe irreligious and who are our enemies, make it easy for us with your blessings to subdue them. With your help we shall kill them."

6. Rig Veda, X.86.19.—Oh, You Mameyu, you give him all powers who plays you. With your help we will destroy our Arya and our Dasyu enemies.
what is going on at that time, that needed so much praising of Gods. This Cosmology picture that gives idea
Atlantean_cassCosmology.png

Are there many Sudas? Ambedkar Wrote:
The immediate ancestry of the three Sudasas is put below in parallel columns to facilitate the settlement of the question whether they are one or three different persons:
many sudas.png
From the table two things are as clear as day-light. First is that neither Sudas mentioned in the Vishnu Purana has anything to do with the Sudas mentioned in the Rig Veda. The second point which is clear is that if the Paijavana mentioned in the Mahabharata can be identified with anybody who lived in ancient times it can only be with Sudas mentioned in Rig Veda who was called Paijavana because he was the son of Pijavana which was another name of Divodasa.[178]

Fortunately. for me my conclusion is the same as that of Prof. Weber. In commenting upon the passage in the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata on which my thesis is based Prof. Weber[179] says:

"Here the remarkable tradition is recorded that Paijavana, i.e., Sudas who was so famous for his sacrifices and who is celebrated in the Rig Veda as the patron of Vishvamitra and enemy of Vasishtha, was a Shudra."

Prof. Weber unfortunately did not realize the full significance of this passage. This is another matter. It is enough for my purpose to find that he too thinks that the Paijavana of the Mahabharata is no other than Sudas of the Rig Veda.
So there are many overlaps. So much had already been researched during the last 2 centuries and so many characters and interpretations and hard to pin point each. There few major important entities in the entire chronology of Vedas - Horses, Aryans, Sanskrit, Vedas themselves.

Aryans: I belong to a caste called 'Arya Vysya'. How much I ( or any body belonged to it) gave value to that word 'Arya'? Absolutely None. Why there is so much fuss about the word in the West? I was curious of its origins of this 'Aryan Business' and how it evolved.
  • It started with British Indologists collecting Vedas in late 18th century, comparing it with other languages.
  • That led to Aryan racial theories in 19th century, promoted by Max. Mueller (though he disowned later) and others. It is promoted by Theosophists and even promoted in many conferences.
  • That led to Hitler picking up 'Pure Aryan' race theory for his WW II.
  • It is these atrocities in the WW II, used by Zionists and Israel used to control the world.
  • What is the point of all this Aryan saga picked from Vedas? We know from C's that, ultimate aim of 4D STS is to destroy the semitic genes before the transition to 4D. Those are in Russia and Iran. If that is the aim of the real controllers, few scenario's comes into picture.
    • If Hitler really had won the WW II, the first thing in his task list would have been to wipe out Russian Semite. In that sense, Hitler is big failure.
    • Bibi's Madness for the destruction of Iran also makes sense. It doesn't matter for him even if Israel gets destroyed in the process.
    • There is a curious drama happened before British East India Company became British Crown in 1857. Few British Governments fell before Company before it became Crown. The British parliament's obsession to takeover the company only started British's victory over victory over Crimea. 1857 Soldier rebellion is only a final straw. See here what Ambedkar wrote.
      • Note: This is a long quote, but it gives great insight into British mindset, which MOST forgotten or don't care to remember and modern day habit of instant gratification to project all fantastic "stuff" into the past when horrors had happened.
INDIA AND THE ACT OF 1858

The East India Company in spite of the fact that she was a source of great prosperity to England suffered great humiliation at the hands of the British Parliament and people.

The East India Company was jealous of her monopoly of the Indian trade and the British were determined to derive as large a gain as possible for allowing her that privilege. Every weakness in the administration was made an excuse for extortion and interference : and renewal of charter was often an occasion to disgorge her of her wealth accumulated by the monopoly of Indian trade.

Very early in the history of the Company a controversy as to this monopoly of trade had arisen and pros and cons were acrimoniously discussed. Up to 1833 the Company, by means fair or foul, managed to win over the English statesmen to continue her monopoly. But in that year the cry against her monopoly had grown so loud that both the Company and the Ministers had to give in and the East India trade was thrown open to all the English public.

By the Act of 1834 the Company ceased to be a commercial corporation. How the obligations of the Company were met may be seen
from the following :

"The tangible commercial property sold under the Act of 1834, realised £15,223,480 which was thus disposed of: £8,191,366 towards discharges of India Debt: £2,218,831 was applied in payment of territorial charges in England: £ 1,788,525 was applied in liquidation of part of the Home Bond Debt: £ 2,000,000 was paid into the Bank of England, for investment in the funds, to provide a " Security fund " at compound interest, for the ultimate redemption of the capital stock of the Company (6,000,000) in 1874: £561,600 was applied in compensations to ship-owners and other persons : and the remainder of £ 463,135 was retained in England, as an available cash balance for the purposes of government in India. The unavailable assets claimed as commercial by the Company—viz. the India House in Leaden Hall Street, one ware-house retained for a military store department, and house property in India, the whole valued at £ 635,445—remains in the hands of the Company but applicable to the uses of the Indian Government."Though as a trading body the Company disappeared, she continued her existence as a political sovereign of her territories in India. Unfortunately for the Company her days were fast being numbered. It is an error to suppose that the East India Company was abolished because of her inefficiency as manifested in the Mutiny of 1857. On the contrary, before the mutiny had actually taken place, the discussion about the direct assumption of the Government of India by the Crown was set afloat, which is indicative of the fact that mutiny or no mutiny, the British statesmen were impatient to have direct control over the " leaves and the fishes " that came but indirectly from their rule in India by a process of disgorging a corporation which directly fed them on beef fat.

This round about process was tiresome and mentally exhausting for impatient minds. Lord Palmerston having been returned by a strong majority in 1857 as a result of his success in the Crimean War immediately notified the Directors of the Company to their great surprise that he proposed to introduce a Bill for the abolition of the Company and the resumption of the direct Government of India by the Crown. Unfortunately, the mutiny did occur in 1857 and gave a strong impetus to the abolition movement already in full swing.

On the 31st day of December, 1857, the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Company replied to the notification of Palmerston urging that "an intermediate, non-political, and perfectly independent body " similar to the Company was a necessity for the administration of India.

Besides this the Company sent a formal petition to both Houses of Parliament. John Stuart Mill who drafted the petition showed the fallacy in the arguments of the mover of the Bill for the abolition of the Company. From the very beginning the Crown had exorcised its control over the Indian Government through its Minister presiding over the Board of Control. Between the Government in India and the Crown Minister there was the Court of Directors which the new Bill wanted to do away with. Mill argued that this Court of Directors (the organ of the East India Company), the embodiment of experience was a good guide for the Crown Minister who really controlled the entire administration of India, and said that if evils have really arisen from the mode of administration the remedy that was sought viz. of doing away with the Court of Directors and thus making the Crown Minister an autocrat was worse than the disease. " To believe that the administration of India would have been more from error had it been conducted by a Minister of the Crown without the aid of the Court of Directors, would be to believe that the Minister, with full powers to govern India as he pleased, has governed ill, because he had the assistance of experienced and responsible advisers."

A diversity of opinion prevailed as to the future connection of India with England.

The Stanley Review, an important newspaper in England argued that the East India Company be maintained to keep India away from English politics. It made quite a point of the fact that Englishmen who went over to India became autocrats and that in it there was a danger to democracy. It boldly proclaimed that "India, like a colossal torpedo, will paralyse the beneficent activities and benumb the free moral life of England "... and if...... " brought full in sight of England, will serve her as a great school, in which she may learn the principles of the King of Naples and the practices of Mrs. Stowe's Legree."

Others, notably a certain Richard Congreve, a disciple of Conte pleaded that India should be left to work out her own destiny. He maintained that the rule of one people by another is demoralising and not wise for the better development of humanity. In order to prevent any other nation from stepping into India after the English had left he proposed that an international board be appointed to regulate the administration which was ultimately to devolve upon the Indians when they became capable of self-government.

None of these views, however, fall in with those of the British Parliamentarians who decided differently. They were determined to abolish the East India Company and take the government of India immediately-under the Crown : they desired to substitute direct government for the double government. As a result of this neither the petition nor the independent public opinion proved of any effect and Palmerston introduced his Bill for the Abolition of the Company and the future government of India. Before the Bill was passed, the Conspiracy Bill threw out the government of Palmerston which was succeeded by a conservative one under the leadership of Lord Derby. After Lord Palmerston's Bill had gone out by his overthrow, Benjamin Disraeli, the Chancellor under Lord Derby introduced his India Bill. John Stuart Mill's comparison of the merits of the two bills is very instructing and later events have borne out his contentions. He says :—
"The means which the Bills provide for overcoming these difficulties (of the government of one nation by another) consist of the unchecked power of a minister. There is no difference of moment in this respect between the two Bills. The minister, it is true, is to have a Council. But the most despotic rulers have Councils. The difference between the Council of a despot, and a Council which prevents the ruler from being a despot is, that the one is dependent on him, the other independent; that the one has some power of its own, the other has not. By the first Bill (Lord Palmerston's Bill) the whole Council is nominated by the minister; by the second (Disraeli's Bill) one half of it is nominated by him. The functions to be entrusted to it are left, in both, with some slight exceptions, to the minister's own discretion."

Disraeli's Bill suffered worse fate than the one of Lord Palmerston. It simply fell. A new bill was therefore introduced in August, 1858, and passed designated as an "Act for the better government of India."

The Provision of this Act (of Section 75) which still largely regulate the administration of India may be divided into classes according to their nature :
(1) Those dealing with the past affairs.
(2) Those dealing with the future affairs.

We will first consider those that deal with the past affairs— mainly the settlement of the fiscal and commercial obligations of the Company. Section 42 of this Act " provided that the dividend on the capital stock of the East India Company, should be charged and chargeable upon the revenues of India alone."

Amidst all the questions between India and England that had to be settled with equity none was more prominent than the question of the Indian debt. Who should bear the burden of the Indian debt was the burning question of the time. The crux of the question was who was responsible for it and what was its purpose ?

The most enlightening commentary on the problem is that of Major Wingate who immediately after the mutiny argued :

" Have the people of India had a voice in the management of their affairs, or have the taxation and expenditure of the Indian Government been regulated with a view to the welfare of India alone, without intervention or interference on the part of the government of this country ? By no means, the Government of India, whether viewed with reference to its forms or powers, has been, from the first hour of its existence up to the present time, the creation of the British Parliament. The power vested in the Government of India to contract debt, was a delegation of authority from the British Parliament, which, up to this hour, as in the case of the last debenture loan, exerts a right of interference over its exercise...... The East India Company have been declared by Parliament to have been simply trustees for the British nation, which, in accordance with this view, altered the conditions of their trust from time to time, and finally relieved the trustees of its exercise altogether. When the subject is carefully examined, it will be found that the Government of India, so far from being the Government of a distinct state, as been, from the first, simply a department of the British Government. The British ministry, acting through the President of the Board of Control, formed the real motive power which decided the policy of successive Indian administrations, and the East India Company was simply a convenient screen...... If the facts be so, then, and they cannot be gainsaid, we seem to be shut up to the conclusion that the acts of the Government of India, from first to last, have been the acts of the British nation. India has never had even the shadow of a constitution, or of a national government, but has been ruled as a conquered country, according to the views of successive British Parliaments and the British administrations. The Indian debt has really been incurred by the Government of this country : and how, then, can we possibly shake ourselves free of Indian liabilities ?"

Mr. Wingate also appealed to the humane part of the British public by dwelling upon the advantages to England and the injuries to India:

" In proceeding to consider these advantages, there is one most important fact, which should ever be present to the mind of the reader, and that is, that those advantages, be they great or small, have cost the nation nothing to acquire. This may sound as a startling assertion in the ears of Englishmen of this generation, who have not yet forgotten the heavy bills which they have had to pay for Canada rebellions Caffre wars, Ceylon insurrections, and many manumissions of West Indian. Slaves; and who are annually reminded of the cost of governing, or protecting our colonies and dependencies, by the financial estimates submitted to Parliament; but the assertion, nevertheless, is strictly and liberally correct. " Strange," may we wonderingly exclaim, " that we, who have spent so much on our colonial possessions, and have waged so many costly wars for thankless foreigners, should have laid out no money in the acquisition or improvement of our great Indian Empire. The thing cannot be : it is too astounding for belief." Astounding indeed it is: but there is something still more astonishing behind; for not only is it a fact that India has been acquired without the expenditure of a single shilling on the part of this country, but it is equally a fact that, so far from involving outlay, India has regularly paid to Great Britain a heavy tribute, which there is reason for thinking has not fallen far short of the almost incredible sum of a hundred millions sterling in the course of the present century."...... " The Indian tribute, whether weighed in the scales of justice, or viewed in the light of our own true interest, will be found to be at variance with humanity, with common sense, and with the received maxims of economical science."

Touching the grievances of India, Mr. Wingate asked the English public:

" Has our policy in India been determined out of pure, unselfish, and benevolent regard for the welfare of the people of that country, and without the smallest regard for the manner in which it may affect our own away ? Was this the principle which guided us in imposing prohibitive duties upon Indian manufactures imported into this country, and merely nominal duties upon British manufactures imported into India ? Was it out of pure regard for India that cotton exported to Great Britain from India, is exempt from duty, while it is taxed on exportation to all parts of the world besides ? Was it Indian interest which dictated the fixing of import duties upon goods brought to India in British ships, at one-half of the amount levied upon similar goods brought in ships to any other country? Were native interests solely concerned in the exemption of Europeans in India from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of criminal justice, by which native redress for British wrong-doing, has been made a practical impossibility in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred ? Was it out of consideration for the tax paying Hindu and Mohammedan, that the official European in India was provided with a costly ecclesiastical establishment before anything else was done for their education or enlightenment ?

Was it unselfish regard for the natives that dictated the policy of obtaining, upholding and extending British dominion in the East, by means of taxes raised in India, in opposition to the rule obtaining in all other British dependencies, of providing for the costs of their military defence from the British Exchequer ? And lastly, were the arrangements for defraying what is styled " the home charges," out of the Indian revenues, under which nearly one hundred millions sterling of taxes collected in India, have been transferred to Great Britain in the course of the present century, devised for the purpose of benefiting the people of India alone ? Let the candid reader thoughtfully and conscientiously answer these questions for himself, and then say whether British interest as well as Indian interests have not had a share in determining the course of our Indian policy." All the arguments legal and humanitarian failed to win the day. The English Parliament flatly refused to share in the Indian Debt which created the acquisition of the Empire. The entire heavy load of the debt of the East India Company amounting to £69,473,484—mostly unproductive—was placed on the shoulders of the poverty-stricken natives who had no voice in the doings of the Company.

This was not all : the unfortunate mutiny had cost £ 40,000,000, and as a legitimate expenditure for the acquisition of an empire, England in justice ought to have paid the cost of the mutiny. John Bright who often exposed the cause of the Indian tax-payers appealed to the Parliament saying " that the forty millions which the revolt will cost is a grievous burden to place upon the .people of India. It has come from the mismanagement of the Parliament and the people of England. If every man had what was just, no doubt that forty millions would have to be paid out of the taxes levied upon the people of this country (England)."

The practical outcome of these unjust arrangements was that the people of India purchased the empire at many millions for the debt was only a part of the cost, and made an offering of it to the British_Crown : in other words, the Empire was either a gift or a trust.

The arrangements regarding the stock of the East India Company are in the same iniquitous strain. The stock of the Company was redeemed by a loan which was also added to the already enormous debt consolidated into what is known as the India Government Debt.

What the Act really did was to annihilate the Board of Control : the Company though legally extinct continues to live for all practical purposes and enjoys her dividends even to this day in the shape of interest paid out of Indian revenues. The astounding result of this policy was gains to England and costs to India. When every effort at giving justice to India failed in the British Parliament, Lord Derby moved that this enormous debt of India be guaranteed by the Parliament so that on the security of it the interest rate be lowered and the Indian tax-payer be relieved. He said:

" I am aware that the uniform policy of the Parliament and the Government of this country has been to decline all responsibility in regard to the debt of India, which has been held to be a charge only on the Indian Exchequer. Dealing with the present state of affairs I may say at once that I am not going to recommend any change in that policy. I know well the alarm which any such proposition would create and I know the refusal which it would inevitably receive. But this is a question which will recur again and again, and which will have to be considered in the future as well as in the present.

I would likewise ask the House to bear in mind that if ever the time should come when the established policy in this respect should undergo a change, and when a national guarantee should be given for those liabilities, that guarantee would operate to reduce the interest paid upon the Indian Debt by no less than £ 750,000 or even £ 1,000,000 which, formed into a sinking fund, would go far to pay off the whole." John Bright who through sheer short-sightedness opposed said:

" I object to an Imperial guarantee on this ground—if we left the services of India, after exhausting the resources of India, to put their hands into the pockets of the English people, the people of England having no control over Indian expenditure, it is impossible to say to what lengths of unimagined extravagance they would not go : and in endeavouring to save India, may we not go far towards ruining England ?"

Not only was there no warrant for Mr. Bright to magnify this danger so much, but he failed "to see that the people of England would have very soon ceased to neglect the affairs of India, and would have obtained a real control over Indian expenditure, if some share of the liability of the Indian Debt had been thrown on them."

The discussions were all abortive and did not even recompense the breath that was wasted and in no sense did the natives get any relief from "the direful spring of woes unnumbered."

Let us now see what the Act willed for the future. Section 55 said, " excepting for preventing or repelling actual invasion of her Majesty's Indian possessions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possessions by her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues."

With profound respect for the intellect of Mr. R. C. Dutt, one, however, cannot understand on what ground does he characterise this section as " one salutary financial provision ". That it was an improvement over the financial administration of the East India Company no one can doubt. But it is by no means salutary in that the revenues of India have been spent outside India for non-Indian purposes, even after the Act. The fatal error lay in this,—the excepting clause in the above section which sanctions the expenditure of Indian revenue outside of India omits the vital word previous. The clause in order to be salutary in effect ought to run—" the revenues of India shall not, without the previous consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable etc......." and not in the way it does. An unknown writer says, " in all probability that essential proviso was comprised in the original draft, but afterwards eliminated by the same mischievous hand which contrived in Sections 26, 27,28 to secure the entire immunity, irresponsibility, and personal autocracy of the secretary of state."

After showing that Lord Stanley and the Earl of Derby who had so much to do with the framing of the statute were united in including the neglected proviso the writer quotes the opinion of Mr. Gladstone regarding Section 55 as follows :—

In my view it was the purpose of this clause to require the Preliminary consent of parliament to the issue of Indian money for the purpose of operations carried on by the forces charged upon India beyond the Indian frontier, except in certain special cases, which were very carefully defined. It was, in fact, to prevent the use of Indian money for military operations. I remember this; for I myself was the author of the clause, and the present Lord Derby, who was Secretary of State for India at the time, concurred with me as to its objects."

The same writer goes on to say :
"There are few, if any causes, that have brought more disaster and financial damage to " India of the Queen "than has the utter disregard of the safeguards ostensibly ordained under these despised and neglected provisions of the Act. We are well aware that, even had the saving word " previous " been included in the Section, the clamour on behalf of pseudoimperial interests, or the exigencies of party schemes, might have sufficed to override the claims and rights of the Indian people. But that word would, at least, have secured an Invaluable respite, during which the voice of reason might have been heard."

The non-fiscal sections of this Act were :—
(1 ) The territories of the East India Company were vested in her Majesty,the Queen, and the powers exercised by the East India Company and the Board of Control were vested in the Secretary of State for India. He was to have a Council of fifteen members who would hold office during good behaviour, and each member was to have a salary of £ 1200 a year out of the revenues of India. The pay of the Secretary of State and all his establishment would similarly be charged to India.
(2) The Secretary of State was empowered to act against the majority of the Council except in certain specified matters. And on questions of peace and war (which had hitherto been dealt with by the Board of Control through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors), the Secretary of State was empowered to send orders to India without consulting his council, or communicating them to the members.
(3) The Governor-General of India and the Governors of Madras and Bombay would henceforth be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen; and the appointments of Lieutenant-Governors would be made by the Governor-General subject to the approbation of Her Majesty. Rules should be framed by the Secretary of State for admission into the Civil Service of India by competition.

The evil tendencies of the administrative section above referred to have been attested to be (1) autocracy, (2) secrecy, and (3) irresponsibility, ail of which are inimical to the good administration of the country. It is lamentable that the Act made no provision for enlisting the voice of the natives in the administration of their own country. In this vital respect, can any one say that the administration of the Company differed very much from the administration of the Crown ?

In order to give publicity to the provisions of this Act, Queen Victoria asked Lord Derby (apparently not being satisfied with the first draft of it) to issue a Proclamation which, as she said, " should breathe feelings of generosity, benevolence, and religious toleration, and point out the privileges which the Indians will receive in being placed on an equality with the subjects of the British Crown, and the prosperity following in the train of civilisation. "

This Proclamation was read out in India and has been regarded as the Magna Chart of India not that the Magna Chart contained the rights of people but that it was a Great Document. It remains, however, to estimate the contribution of England to India. Apparently the immenseness of India's contribution to England is as much astounding as the nothingness of England's contribution to India. Both are, however true statements if looked at from economic points of view. But from another point of view, if India's tribute cannot be weighed in the scales of justice and humanity then England's contribution cannot be weighed in the scale of gold and silver. The last statement is both literally as well as figuratively true. England has added nothing to the stock of gold and silver in India : on the contrary, she has depleted India— " the sink of the world."—

Her contribution lies in an uneconomic realm: but just the same, it is too great to be measured in terms of coin.
  • When we talk about Aryans, we have to talk about Dasas and Dasyus mentioned in Vedas. Who are they, Ambdekar wrote in the same book 'Who were the Sudras':
SECTION – D​

So much about the aryans, their invasion of india and their subjugation of the dasas and dasyus. The consideration so far bestowed upon the question has been from the Aryan side of the issue. It might be useful to discuss it from the side of the Dasas and the Dasyus. In what sense are the names Dasa and Dasyu used? Are they used in a racial sense?

Those who hold that the terms Dasa and Dasyu are used in the racial sense rely upon the following circumstances: (1) The use in the Rig Veda of the terms Mridhravak and Anasa as epithets of Dasyus. (2) The description in the Rig Veda of the Dasas as being of Krishna Varna

The term Mridhravak occurs in the following places in the Rig Veda: Rig Veda, I. 174. 2; V. 32.8; VII. 6. 3; VII. 18. 3.

What does the adjective Mridhravak mean? Mridhravak means one who speaks crude, unpolished language. Can crude unpolished language be regarded as evidence of difference of race? It would be childish to rely upon this as a basis of consciousness of race difference.

The term Anasa occurs in Rig Veda V.29.10. What does the word mean? There are two interpretations. One is by Prof. Max Muller. The other is by Sayanacharya. According to Prof.. Max Muller, it means 'one without nose 'or' one with a flat nose' and has as such been relied upon as a piece of evidence in support of the view that the Aryans were a separate race from the Dasyus. Sayanacharya says that it means 'mouthless,' i.e., devoid of good speech. This difference of meaning is due to difference in the correct reading of the word Anasa.. Sayanacharya reads it as an-asa while Prof. Max Muller reads it as a-nasa.

As read by Prof. Max Muller, it means without nose. Question is: which of the two readings is the correct one? There is no reason to hold that Sayana's reading is wrong. On the other hand there is everything to suggest that it is right. In the first place, it does not make non-sense of the word. Secondly, as there is no other place where the Dasyus are described as noseless, there is no reason why the word should be read in such a manner as to give it an altogether new sense. It is only fair to read it as a synonym of Mridhravak. There is therefore no evidence in support of the conclusion that the Dasyus belonged to a different race.

Turning to Dasas, it is true that they are described as Krishna Yoni, in Rig Veda VI.47.21. But there are various points to be considered before one can accept the inference which is sought to be drawn from it. First is that this is the only place in the Rig Veda where the phrase Krishna Yoni is applied to the Dasas. Secondly, there is no certainty as to whether the phrase is used in the literal sense or in a figurative sense. Thirdly, we do not know whether it is a statement of fact or a word of abuse. Unless these points are clarified, it is not possible to accept the view that because the Dasas are spoken of as Krishna Yoni, they therefore, belonged to a dark race.
In this connection, attention may be drawn to the following verses from the Rig Veda:
1. Rig Veda, vi.22.10.—"Oh, Vajri, thou hast made Aryas of Dasas, good men out of bad by your power. Give us the same power so that with it we may overcome our enemies."
2. Rig Veda, x.49.3, (says Indra).—"I have deprived the Dasyus of the title of Aryas."
3. Rig Veda, i. 151.8—"Oh, Indra, find out who is an Arya and who is a Dasyu and separate them."
4. What do these verses indicate? They indicate that the distinction between the Aryans on the one hand and the Dasas and Dasyus on the other was not a racial distinction of colour or physiognomy. That is why a Dasa or Dasyu could become an Arya. That is why Indra
was given the task to separate them from the Arya
.
In the above book, Ambedkar argument ( written almost 100 years ago) is that there are no 2 races, it is all one race as reference point is with the assumption that Vedas are written by Aryans. C's also validated VA's data point that, migrants from Krishna's Dwarika are founders of Dravidian territories and C's call them 'Asian Tribes'. Vedas call them Krishna Varna or Krishna Yoni.
Q: Cayce talks about the division in Atlantis between the "Sons of One" and the "Sons of Belial." Was this a racial division or a philosophical/ religious division?

A: It was the latter two, and before that, the former one.

Q: When it was a racial division, which group was it?

A: The Sons of Belial were the Kantekkians.
When did this racial division became philosophical/religious division? From what I can glean from Cayce's Atlantis is it is AFTER 48K BCE. We have to ignore Cayce's take on Jesus myth. Probably, his material wouldn't have got promotion that did, if he was correct about Jesus.
  • Aryan Invasion happened around 6000 BCE
  • There is a some hint of indication that there is some migration/Migration happened 2nd millennium BCE.
(seek10) The C’s mentioned that the Aryan invasion of India was around 6000 BC, but recent genetic analysis of bone samples from the Indus Valley civilization suggests that the Aryans from 6000 BC (Iranian farmers) are different from Kurgon Hypothesis Indo-Aryans. Is this true?

A: Note that Iranian farmers are also Indo-Aryans.

Q: (L) How are they different?

A: Genetic admixture over time.

Horses: This is the biggest controversial point between Left vs Right intellectuals of Indian History. Left rightly points out, there is no horses (as they can't thrive in Indian environment) before aryan arrivals and right tries to show IVC ( seals ) and fails. But pushing Vedic date to late Atlantean period can solve this puzzle.
  • Another word that come often related to horse is 'Ashwamedha'.
The Ashvamedha ( was a horse sacrifice ritual followed by the Śrauta tradition of Vedic religion. It was used by ancient Indian kings to prove their imperial sovereignty: a horse accompanied by the king's warriors would be released to wander for a year. In the territory traversed by the horse, any rival could dispute the king's authority by challenging the warriors accompanying it. After one year, if no enemy had managed to kill or capture the horse, the animal would be guided back to the king's capital. It would be then sacrificed, and the king would be declared as an undisputed sovereign.

The ritual is recorded as being held by many ancient rulers, but apparently only by two in the last thousand years. The most recent ritual was in 1741, the second one held by Maharajah Jai Singh II of Jaipur.

The original Vedic religion had evidently included many animal sacrifices, as had the various folk religions of India. Brahminical Hinduism had evolved opposing animal sacrifices, which have not been the norm in most forms of Hinduism for many centuries. The great prestige and political role of the Ashvamedha perhaps kept it alive for longer.
For some reason, I thought that method of using free roaming horses as a means conquering other lands is weird. In Mahabharata, Arjuna is supposed have did Ashvamedha. But, as per C's Arjuna is fictional character. He seems to have travelled all India and conquered it. What if this Ashvamedha is allegorical representation of comet ( or pieces of it) traversing the sky and destroying the land from north to south and later picked by rulers of the time?

Vedas: Since Vedas were pushed to late Atlantean period and war of 10 kings is from Vedas, i put the time back there. The real question is , Is it real battle of tribes or something in sky rocks battling each other, taken up by individual tribes as their tribal gods and fought with each other?. Most probably that is combination of it. That doesn't mean it was not overlapped over something happened around 2nd Millennium BCE either.

How did the date of Rig Veda came to be 2nd millennium BCE? From book Vedic people
While the external linkages of the Vedic texts are fairly evident, it is far more difficult to interpret them on the basis of their own contents. The texts do not provide any historical dates. An attempt was made by Max Muller to establish a Vedic chronology. His reasoning is given below.

An examination of the language permits the arrangement of the Vedic texts in order of decreasing antiquity: Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, Upaniṣads, and Kalpasūtras. Of all the Vedic texts, the Ṛgveda is the oldest. Its language is the most archaic. All other texts presuppose its existence, while the Ṛgveda does not refer to any other text. It is also obvious that the Āraṇyakasand the Upaniṣads predate the rise of Buddhism. To convert these qualitative statements into numbers, a rule of thumb was applied. The Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas were assigned the time bracket 800-600 BC. The Kalpasūtras, which are younger, were placed at 600-200 BC. Working backwards from the Brāhmaṇas, Max Muller assumed that the Saṃhitās were compiled during 1000-800 BC. Finally, an arbitrary period of 200 years was allotted for the composition of the Ṛgvedic hymns, and 1200 BC was given as the date for the beginning of the Ṛgveda.31

It is obvious that Max Müller's analysis lacks rigour. He himself was aware of it as can be seen from his 1889 Gifford lecture on Physical Religion, where he declared: 'Whether the Vedic hymns were composed in 1000, 2000 or 3000 BC no power on earth will ever determine".32 Max Müller's circumspection was not shared by his successors. Barely 20 years later, Arthur Anthony Macdonell placed the Aryan entry into India at about 1500 BC but insisted rather dogmatically that the oldest hymns of Ṛgveda could not be much older than 1200 BC. Macdonell's logic was rather convoluted but his conclusions have acquired the status of an established truth with the passage of time. Starting with 1000BC as the date of closure of the Ṛgveda, he allotted 200 years for the composition of the hymns on the rather weak ground that this period was sufficient "to account for a development of language and thought hardly greater than between the Homeric [eighth century BC] and the Attic [sixth century BC] age of Greece".33

The next step was to account for the fact that the Ṛgveda makes no mention of the original homeland and the actual process of migration. The Ṛgvedic people, on arrival in India, were allotted a period of 300 years to wipe out old memories and start working on the Ṛgveda. Such a great reliance on the silence of the Ṛgveda is curious because as Macdonell himself pointed out elsewhere, "A good illustration of the dangers of the argumentum ex silentio is furnished by the fact that salt, the most necessary of minerals, is never once mentioned in the Ṛgveda. And yet the Northern Punjab is the very part of India where it most abounds. It occurs in the salt range between the Indus and the Jhelum.'34 One may add that a reader depending entirely on internal evidence in the Ṛgveda would not learn about the existence of the related text of the Avesta. It would thus seem that it was not the intention of the Ṛgvedic authors to prepare a gazetteer of their life and times.

It was erroneously believed at that time that a historical date could be assigned to Zarathushtra. In 311 BC, Alexander's general, Seleucus, managed to establish his rule over all of Iran. During the Seleucid era, the Zoroastrian priests of Pars, or Persia proper, sought to establish a "historical" date for their prophet. From the Babylonian records they appear to have learnt that a great event in Persian history had taken place 228 years before 311 BC. This event was the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BC. The Persian priests, however, apparently wrongly interpreted this momentous happening as being Zarathushtra's own revelation. Since Zarathushtra was held to have received his revelation in his 30th year, it was concluded that he was born in 569 BC.35 With this pseudo-historical date assigned to Zarathushtra, the Ṛgveda also got pegged down to a lower chronology. (Current scholarship36 is inclined to place him at c. 1200-1100 BC, although the actual date could be still earlier by a few centuries.)

The inherent limitations of the nineteenth-century Vedic scholarship need to be noted. The language of the Ṛgveda is highly obscure. The text is full of allusions and passing references for which no contexts are available. The problem is made worse by the fact that in the era of the Vedic studies no archaeological data were available. In the absence of any guidelines from either the field or the laboratory, a student of the Vedic texts had to depend on his own intuition and guesswork. It is noteworthy that even in the field of literary interpretation, the important clues provided by the description of Soma were ignored (chapter 6). Indeed, if we consider the corpus of secondary work on Vedic texts in its totality, we find that almost all possible interpretations have been placed on record.

Rajesh Kochhar. The Vedic People: Their History and Geography. Orient Blackswan Private Ltd.. Kindle Edition.

At the time of canonising the texts, which I think occurred during the height of the Guptas period (circa 300 AD) , they would have taken all of the known material and invented some to put together a coherent story, although a lot of gaps are visible.
Canonizing in the form of Mahabharata is understandable. But Vedas were written in Vedic Sanskrit and it is very archaic ( Vedveer Arya calls it "ritual Sanskrit") whether we call it 1600 BCE or 16K BCE. Coming to the issues related to the word 'Sanskrit'. As per C's:
  • Oldest language on the planet is Sanskrit and it has Atlantean roots.
  • Earlier version of 'Book of Enoch' is written by Sanskritian society in India before 48K BCE after Kantek destruction ( 78K BCE). But, India was occupied by Extinct race called Paranthas (I guess Denisovan type), Native American types and some Kantek types. But, Dravidian language roots goes back to Paranthas.
    • The word 'Society' is used for 2 scopes - one that is 'entire nation' and another is group or community. From copilot:
Society isn't always about large groups or entire nations. It can be as small as a family, a group of friends, a community, or even a club. These small societies still have their own social structures, cultures, norms, and relationships. In fact, many sociologists study these micro-societies to understand larger societal behaviors and dynamics.

Think about your own social circles. They form mini-societies with their own unique interactions and shared experiences.
  • roots are only one part language. What else it had?
Language roots, also known as morphemes, are the fundamental building blocks of words. They are the smallest units of meaning in a language. Here are the key components typically found in a language, including roots:

1. **Roots**: The core meaning of a word.
2. **Prefixes**: Added to the beginning of a root to modify its meaning.
3. **Suffixes**: Added to the end of a root to modify its meaning.
4. **Infixes**: Inserted within a root (less common in English but found in some languages).
5. **Affixes**: Collective term for prefixes, suffixes, and infixes.
6. **Base words**: Standalone roots that can function as independent words.
7. **Bound roots**: Roots that need affixes to become complete words.

A single language may have thousands of morphemes, each playing a crucial role in the structure and meaning of its vocabulary. If you need details on specific languages or linguistic concepts, just let me know!
And, I also think that memory of a battle such as the "Battle of 10 kings" may not last for over 16K years, keeping in mind a full reset during the Atlantis flood therefore I postulate that its a much recent event. FWIW
I too have similar doubts, don't want to believe it and comes with a risk of ridicule (by Indologists and leftists). But reading all these controversial arguments was helpful in identifying that 'there are some SERIOUS oral traditions' exist.

To give example (as per Ambedkar's writing), During British period, rulers claimed that they found some untouched manuscripts and many authors wanted to verify what is written in the Vedas and what is passed down the generations of Brahmins. For their shock, Brahmins recited those Vedic content exactly in the manuscripts though they never even know the existence of Manuscripts. It is written that Druids too have similar characteristics. Having grown up with Brahmin area and schools, I am aware of their memorizing skills and dedication they show in reciting vedas from very early ages.

Few other things to consider:
  • If we add C's confirmation of Atlantean lifespan is average 2500 year (for some Aryan stock, with max. of 8000 years) and 800 years ( for non-Aryan stock). i.e. 16K to 8K BCE, 8000 years is only one or 3 life span or little more.
    • Our current life span is around 70 years. When did life expectancy dramatically went down and What contributed to this declines? - Gravity, cosmic environment, diet etc. How many times cosmic environment had changed since YD period?
      • YD events
      • Diet change happened around 6000 BCE
      • Cosmic events - 5200 BCE ( Oort cloud) , around 3000-2000 BCE Venus related events ( including 22 degrees tilt), 1600 BCE (Oort Cloud) , 1100 BCE and 564 AD ( Giant comet remnants).
      • C's mentioned Lizards lived with humans until 2300 BCE, Megalith technology until 1100 BCE and Giants lived until 564 AD
  • C's said only 19 million out of 6 billion survived and mostly Aryans survived. So there is Lot of destruction all over the place. But, C's said most of the Vedas were written in India and probably by the descendants of Paranthas. The question is when did Parantha descendants (Dravidians) added the content to migrating aryan Vedas? Vedas contains lot of references to Vedic Saraswathi river split, diversion and ultimate disappearance. There is Lot of field research done on this Sarasvati river by major research institutions confirming this. 2 possibilities
    • Before YD period.
    • After Iranian Farmer Aryans with their "archaic Sanskrit" invaded India around 6000 BCE.
YD period, is better logical fit for Vedas than 6000 BCE. Definitely not 2nd millennium BCE as Indologists insist.
 
I made some minor modifications to the picture some additional data points and others. I wanted to make it interactive, but I am not there yet. Here is the latest picture. Cass_Cosm_01182025.png

I am not sure whether picture embed is clear enough. If not, please let me know, I will post high resolution one.
 
Off topic momentarily, but obliquely connected maybe. Besides, I didn’t know where else to put it!😄 So this popped up on my X feed. I’m not sure if it’s a Jackson Pollack of every conspiracy theory buzzword, or a timeline, or a flowchart, or what. So I figured I’d submit it to the group, ideally to compare and contrast with the Cass timeline. Anyhoo..start with the upper left corner.
View attachment 104979
I thought about this type of thing. The above drawing is based on the events of recent period (1 or 2 centuries) where every thing is documented in a common AD format. But, w.r.t C's timelines, they are so old and hard to deduct what led to what.

For example, There are so many cosmic events happened during Atlantean times, it is very difficult to put which event resulted from what Cosmic event.
  • There is a interlinkage of Comet Venus, Mars, Giant comet disintegration events, 3600 year cyclical Oort Cloud event etc.
  • Same with Atlantean Races C's mentioned to the current times. There is so much intermixing happened.
That is one of the reason the cosmology came out to be in the format. Sticking to C's comments as highest trust factor and try to fit in the remaining one as best we can. I ended up putting some colors to show some racial connections in my latest diagram here and here

After looking at different charts on the online, I liked one chart and bought this chart. This specific chart is made manually made on Adobe photoshop tools and printed on Canvas paper with different size option. Those are mainstream timelines where some body clearly made the linkage.

Worlds_History.jpg

There are other timelines that represent in cyclical scale instead of current rectangular format. Not sure which one will workout until we try out.

Probably we can use one of the online mind map tools to map out and see how it goes.
 
I thought about this type of thing. The above drawing is based on the events of recent period (1 or 2 centuries) where every thing is documented in a common AD format. But, w.r.t C's timelines, they are so old and hard to deduct what led to what.

For example, There are so many cosmic events happened during Atlantean times, it is very difficult to put which event resulted from what Cosmic event.
  • There is a interlinkage of Comet Venus, Mars, Giant comet disintegration events, 3600 year cyclical Oort Cloud event etc.
  • Same with Atlantean Races C's mentioned to the current times. There is so much intermixing happened.
That is one of the reason the cosmology came out to be in the format. Sticking to C's comments as highest trust factor and try to fit in the remaining one as best we can. I ended up putting some colors to show some racial connections in my latest diagram here and here

After looking at different charts on the online, I liked one chart and bought this chart. This specific chart is made manually made on Adobe photoshop tools and printed on Canvas paper with different size option. Those are mainstream timelines where some body clearly made the linkage.

View attachment 105143

There are other timelines that represent in cyclical scale instead of current rectangular format. Not sure which one will workout until we try out.

Probably we can use one of the online mind map tools to map out and see how it goes.
I love the ongoing project! When you feel you’ve achieved a final (at least “for now” final), I think I’ll use a parchment paper and frame it as wall art as a genuine museum piece!
 
Hello seek10, thank you so much for your idea and your efforts to make it real : it's really worthy !

Is English your mother tongue ?
I made some minor modifications to the picture, some additional data points and others.
I've noticed a few typos in the last version (v5) that you may want to correct in the next version :
- 890 million YA : Ooart Cloud --> Oort cloud.
- 28.2 million YA : nemesis --> Nemesis
- 27 million YA : Dinosaurs extinct --> Dinosaurs extinction
- 309k YA : remnant of Lumeria --> Lemuria
(BTW, in sciences the symbol for thousands is "k" for kilo, not "K".)
- 77k BCE : Explosition of 5th planet --> Explosion
- 48k BCE : ... & legend of Phoeni --> Phoenix
- 10k-10.6k BCE (YD) : Migration to Canary Island, Egypt, Inca --> Canary Islands, Egypt, Inca empire (or Western South America : Pacific Ocean coast, Andean Mountain Range) cf. Inca Empire - Wikipedia
- 8k BCE : Stone Henge - Druids (Energy redirector) --> Stonehenge (energy redirector) - Druids
- 6k BCE : built by (Lizards & Humans --> (built by Lizards & Humans)
- 3218 BCE : Narmer rebillion (3211 BCE) --> rebellion
- 2200 BCE : Illiad & Odessey --> Odyssey (NB from Old Greek : Odusseus)
- 1100 BCE : Troy (in Britain) destroyed (illiad) --> Illiad
- 44 BCE : Julius Caesar --> Gaius Julius Caesar (if you want to be precise)
(NB Gaius was his real first name, or praenomen ; Caesar his family name, or cognomen ; and Julius his clan or tribe name, or nomen : refering to gens Julia. Caesar family was a branch of gens Julia. Cf. Julia gens - Wikipedia)
- 1100 AD : (Comet fragement impact) --> fragment
- 1972 AD : Relaization of alien tickery --> Realization of alien trickery

A general remark : please do not capitalize most of the words !

I wanted to make it interactive, but I am not there yet.
That would be fantastic !
I am not sure whether picture embed is clear enough. If not, please let me know, I will post high resolution one.
For the images, I would suggest to export them in SVG (vector) format, rather than in PNG (pixmap) format.
As PDF (vector format too, but able to include pixmap images) it allows to zoom in. No more resolution problem.
 
(Sorry, I've been off the time limit of 10 minutes after initial posting. Here is the complete general remark about capitalization.)
A general remark : please do not capitalize most of the words !
A general remark : please do not capitalize most of the words !
Just capitalize all the proper nouns, such as the location names (India, Machu Pichu), species or race name (Neanderthal, Paranthas), individual names (Noah, Julius Caesar), etc. and the first word (or not ?). But not the common nouns (if they're not the first word), for instance : Oort cloud comet cluster first entry - Current periodicity : 3600 years.

Most of the words in (American, etc.) English titles, for books, movies, etc., are capitalized, for some reason (that I ignore), but it's a really bad habit in my (French) opinion : it decreases the readability, one can no more distinguish easily between proper and common nouns.

For instance, compare these titles in English and French for Pierre's last book :
Cometary Encounters: Flash-Frozen Mammoths, Mars–Earth Discharge, Comet Venus and the 3,600-Year Cometary Cycle
Rencontres cométaires: Mammouths congelés, décharge électrique entre Mars et la Terre, comète Vénus et cycle cométaire de 3 600 ans
 
Hello seek10, thank you so much for your idea and your efforts to make it real : it's really worthy !

Is English your mother tongue ?
No
I've noticed a few typos in the last version (v5) that you may want to correct in the next version :
- 890 million YA : Ooart Cloud --> Oort cloud.
- 28.2 million YA : nemesis --> Nemesis
- 27 million YA : Dinosaurs extinct --> Dinosaurs extinction
- 309k YA : remnant of Lumeria --> Lemuria
(BTW, in sciences the symbol for thousands is "k" for kilo, not "K".)
- 77k BCE : Explosition of 5th planet --> Explosion
- 48k BCE : ... & legend of Phoeni --> Phoenix
- 10k-10.6k BCE (YD) : Migration to Canary Island, Egypt, Inca --> Canary Islands, Egypt, Inca empire (or Western South America : Pacific Ocean coast, Andean Mountain Range) cf. Inca Empire - Wikipedia
- 8k BCE : Stone Henge - Druids (Energy redirector) --> Stonehenge (energy redirector) - Druids
- 6k BCE : built by (Lizards & Humans --> (built by Lizards & Humans)
- 3218 BCE : Narmer rebillion (3211 BCE) --> rebellion
- 2200 BCE : Illiad & Odessey --> Odyssey (NB from Old Greek : Odusseus)
- 1100 BCE : Troy (in Britain) destroyed (illiad) --> Illiad
- 44 BCE : Julius Caesar --> Gaius Julius Caesar (if you want to be precise)
(NB Gaius was his real first name, or praenomen ; Caesar his family name, or cognomen ; and Julius his clan or tribe name, or nomen : refering to gens Julia. Caesar family was a branch of gens Julia. Cf. Julia gens - Wikipedia)
- 1100 AD : (Comet fragement impact) --> fragment
- 1972 AD : Relaization of alien tickery --> Realization of alien trickery

A general remark : please do not capitalize most of the words !
Grammar is hard for me (for whatever reason) and particularly English grammar. Thank you for taking time to correct them. I will make the changes.
For the images, I would suggest to export them in SVG (vector) format, rather than in PNG (pixmap) format.
As PDF (vector format too, but able to include pixmap images) it allows to zoom in. No more resolution problem.
I will check this one out.
 
Thank you for taking time to correct them. I will make the changes.
You're welcome. And thank you again.
I will check this one out.
An other advantage of the SVG file format, is that you can include/embed links to the web (URIs) for some objects, such as the "points" (discs) on your timeline. (Same for PDF.) So that could be a way to create a clickable timeline, with links to the transcripts thread (or the transcripts search website).
Of course, you'll need to first check if the tool that you use to generate the image is able to export in SVG format.
 
Back
Top Bottom