Tuesday, 13 January 2026

The “Scientist” Clown At It Again

 

The “Scientist” Clown At It Again

Shrikant G. Talageri 

 

I have written articles on GROK and its persistent lies so often that I finally had to stop. Likewise I have written so many times about the persistent lies of the Jijith-Koenraad pair that I had to stop. But perhaps, a finishing touch was required to end that second saga. This finishing touch has been provided today by Jijith (which will no doubt be endorsed soon by Koenraad Elst), actually posted today, 14 January 2026, on the traditionally sacred day of Makara Sankranti as officially celebrated (regardless of whether astronomically today is really Makara Sankranti or not, which is constantly being contested, rightly or wrongly, by both of them) which incredibly demonstrates his stupidity and incorrigible lying nature after being exposed so many times. Is there any such thing as shame and self-respect among such “scientists” and their supporters?

This, apparently is the post this unstable person has posted today (thereby, I admit, also doubtless raising doubts, in the minds of those who are fed up of this issue, whether I am also slightly unstable that I am still taking note of his rantings and ravings. But this is really the absolutely last time I refer to this liar and pseudo-scholar):

https://x.com/Jijith_NR/status/2011226091973984614

“You are at the tip of a major discovery! This is because the later edits in Puranas portrayed their final destinations as if they lived forever on Ganga since eternity!

This is how Shrikant Talageri got misled when he used the Puranic data to say Ikshvakus lived on the east from the very beginning.

In Puranas & late Itihāsas we Manu founded Ayodhya city, Divodāsa and Sudas lived in Kashi or Ila in Prayaga and Pururavas near her in Prstistana.

But in Rgveda all of them are correctly located along Sarasvati!

Rgveda is the oldest text Puranas are edited in Sunga-Gupta Periods. Between Rgveda and Itihāsa Purāṇas,Rgveda is correct. It is the Sruti Pramana. It is the oldest text.

Archaeology also agrees.

Settlements on Sarasvati are the oldest. 8000-2000 BCE.

Settlements like Ayodhya, Prayaga and Kashi on Ganga are in contrast dated to 2000-1500 BCE”.

5:27 AM  Jan 14 2026


It is incredible that this lying pair is still trying to propagate that my historical analysis is based on the Puranas while Jijith, "for the first time ever", has put up a "totally unrefuted" case based on the Rigveda!

No, I am not going to bother to repeat the details about how or why this clown and his supporters are so persistently lying about me and my analysis, and why they will continue to do so ad nauseam. His tweet exposes his utter stupidity and brazen incorrigibility. His writings are enough to make all scientists hang their heads in shame.



Posted by at

15 comments:

  1. Srikar Pokkunuri13 January 2026 at 20:14

    Namaskaram Talageri ji.

    An individual has done some reconstruction of how apparently the rigvedic hymns sounded when composed. It is quite different from the sakhas which we do pathanam of today ji. Looks very avestan like.

    Can you please take a look 🙏

    https://youtu.be/idqocks32U4?si=YLF_cmGKObmfaTR8

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shrikant Talageri13 January 2026 at 20:39

      Well it is up to experts of Vedic chanting to say how right or wrong it is. But it could be that the toning was initially based on the udatta-anudatta-etc. tones alone and then bacame more elaborate and varied with the passage of time: As I said I am not an expert on Vedic chanting.

      But it does not look as if he has affected any changes in the actual words. So on exactly what basis does it look "Avestan like"? The vocabulary of the Avesta is contemporaneous (with the appropriate Avestan sound changes) with the vocabulary of the later parts of the New Rigveda.

      Delete
    2. Srikar Pokkunuri13 January 2026 at 22:19

      When I mean avestan like what I ment to say that vowels which are monothongs are being pronounced like diphthongs. For example, ojas becomes aujas, deva becomes daiva, asuryam becomes asuriam. Also, the visargah is being spelt च्छ् instead of ह्.

      I do not mean in a vocabulary sense. I am a novice on these technical terms so what i meant by avestan was it sounded like an avestan chant to my ears

      And the attempt seems to be like as if someone is trying to touch the upper palare of their mouth and chant.

      While I am not an expert in Vedic chanting, I do perform sandhyavandanam etc (like I am pretty orthodox guy) so it does sound erroneous to me. Like if we do padapatha of the way he has chanted, I feel it may not fit properly.

      I did send the video to a rigvedic pundit and requested him to see what is it and wants the deal. Waiting for the reply.

      The person claims that he is doing this based on the pratisakhyas. The pratisakhyas make clear distinctions between monothongs and diphthongs.

      So what i felt was that if diphthongs flattened into monothongs, why only at specific places. Rigveda still today has defined diphthongs.

      I couldn't understand by what you meant here.

      But it could be that the toning was initially based on the udatta-anudatta-etc. tones alone and then bacame more elaborate and varied with the passage of time:

      What the guy who did the reconstruction has to say on reddit

      https://www.reddit.com/r/TheVedasAndUpanishads/s/AHbYPcZSM4

      Another reconstruction by a different individual
      https://www.reddit.com/r/TheVedasAndUpanishads/s/9rJ0fB3EFF

      Delete
    3. Shrikant Talageri13 January 2026 at 22:49

      As I said, I cannot answer for or against these reconstructions on Vedic chanting. In any case, in my books and articles I have quoted Deshpande (a colleague of Witzel) saying that originally the hymns may have been pronounced with diphthongs which were later finally reduced to monothongs.

      Delete
    4. Srikar Pokkunuri13 January 2026 at 22:51

      But what is the reason to assume diphthongs wrre reduced to monothongs

      Delete
    5. Srikar Pokkunuri13 January 2026 at 22:55

      And just asking, which vedam do you belong to??

      Delete
    6. Shrikant Talageri14 January 2026 at 00:02

      I personally have no reason to make assumptions about anything. It is Deshpande who has said it in reply to the claim that the Rigveda is later than the Avesta because it has monothings. And about your question, Saraswats as a whole are Rigvedic brahmins, but the reason I studied the Rigveda is not because I "belong to" it but because it is the oldest and the most relevant one for IE studies.

      Delete
    7. Srikar Pokkunuri14 January 2026 at 00:10

      Thanks for the reply ji 🙏

      Delete
    8. Srikar Pokkunuri14 January 2026 at 00:12

      Rigveda doesn't mention bricks right ?? So does this mean they didn't do elaborate yajnas ??

      I am quite confused in these topics.

      Also, were the harappa like the people in the sindhu Saraswati civilization Vedic??

      Is it pre rigvedic, rigvedic or post rigvedic??

      And what do you think of the decipherment of Bharath Rao, aka. Yajnadevam??

      Delete
    9. Srikar Pokkunuri14 January 2026 at 00:13

      So does deshpande say that avesta predates the rigveda ??

      Does that person have a blog like this ??

      Delete
  2. Mohan16 January 2026 at 02:27

    The Sanskrit word for brick is iṣṭakā (इष्टका), and it is mentioned in the Rigveda. First use google to learn about the subject before posting random takes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mohan22 January 2026 at 07:39

    Talageri Sir our friend Mahabharat scholar has raised a valid question in his latest twitter post. I am copy pasting the relevant details for you.

    According to Shrikant Talageri, the 6th Mandala is the oldest. The hymns of the 6th Mandala were composed by eight Rishis belonging to the Bharadvāja gotra, with Bharadvāja Bārhaspatya (son of Bṛhaspati) authoring 59 of its 75 sūktas.

    In this mandala, Bharadvāja refers to King Nami Sāpya (6.20.6). The Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa states that Nami Sāpya was the first to perform the Sarasvatīya Sattra and that he travelled from Plakṣa Prāsravaṇa (the source of the Sarasvatī) to Vinaśana (the place where the river disappeared). This clearly indicates that the Sarasvatī had already been lost in the desert at Vinaśana well before the time of Videha King Nami Sāpya.
    Consequently, Bharadvāja Bārhaspatya must be counted among the latest Rishis of the Rigvedic period. If the 6th Mandala is treated as the oldest, a serious chronological contradiction arises: how could Rishi Gṛtsamada (of the 2nd Mandala) and other Rishis describe the Sarasvatī as the mighty, flowing “nadītamā” river and refer to the Sadānīra — features that belong to an earlier phase when the Sarasvatī was still a perennial river? This makes any relative dating of the mandalas chronologically untenable.


    ReplyDelete
  4. Mohan22 January 2026 at 07:41

    Sir above question was raised by
    @VedveerArya3

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ranjan24 January 2026 at 02:30

    Sir take a look at this tweet by Jijith - https://x.com/Jijith_NR/status/2014919363342873053
    ".......The text records multiple battles on IVC rivers — not myth, not metaphor, but geography-grounded events:

    • Yamunā battle
    • Paruṣṇī (Ravi River) battle — the famous Daśarājña
    • Sarayū (Haro River) battle
    • Varsagira battle near the Indus River.... "
    Varsagira battle is different from sarayu battle in his study?
    Otherwise varsagira happened on far side of sarayu.
    How much is he wrong

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ranjan24 January 2026 at 02:32

    I thought he thinks that varsagira happened on sarayu according to him haro river.
    But now 2 separate battle?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)