Disputed Statements

Brahmi Vocalic L 𑀍, Alphabet Letters

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Origin Period

Currently States Many epigraphists derive Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire

According To Indian epigraphy

Brahmi's ancestry is disputed among epigraphists. Richard Salomon's Indian Epigraphy (Oxford University Press, 1998) surveys two live positions on the origin of the script attested in the Ashokan inscriptions: one derives Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire; the other holds that it developed inside India itself. The dispute turns on the corpus, since Brahmi is securely attested only from Ashoka's edicts in the middle of the third century BCE onward, first read again by James Prinsep in 1837, and no earlier specimen on either side is securely dated. Both camps compare Brahmi's letterforms against Aramaic and other Semitic scripts using the same paleographic method, and without an intermediate dated example bridging the gap between any proposed ancestor and the Mauryan era script, neither derivation has been shown to fit the evidence better than the other.

Source Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, Richard Salomon tier 1

Brahmi Vocalic L 𑀍, Alphabet Letters

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Origin Period

Currently States Others argue for a development inside India, and with no securely dated specimen earlier than the edicts the question stays open

According To Indian epigraphy

Brahmi's ancestry is disputed among epigraphists. Richard Salomon's Indian Epigraphy (Oxford University Press, 1998) surveys two live positions on the origin of the script attested in the Ashokan inscriptions: one derives Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire; the other holds that it developed inside India itself. The dispute turns on the corpus, since Brahmi is securely attested only from Ashoka's edicts in the middle of the third century BCE onward, first read again by James Prinsep in 1837, and no earlier specimen on either side is securely dated. Both camps compare Brahmi's letterforms against Aramaic and other Semitic scripts using the same paleographic method, and without an intermediate dated example bridging the gap between any proposed ancestor and the Mauryan era script, neither derivation has been shown to fit the evidence better than the other.

Source Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, Richard Salomon tier 1

Brahmi Vocalic Ll 𑀎, Alphabet Letters

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Origin Period

Currently States Others argue for a development inside India, and with no securely dated specimen earlier than the edicts the question stays open

According To Indian epigraphy

Brahmi's ancestry is disputed among epigraphists. Richard Salomon's Indian Epigraphy (Oxford University Press, 1998) surveys two live positions on the origin of the script attested in the Ashokan inscriptions: one derives Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire; the other holds that it developed inside India itself. The dispute turns on the corpus, since Brahmi is securely attested only from Ashoka's edicts in the middle of the third century BCE onward, first read again by James Prinsep in 1837, and no earlier specimen on either side is securely dated. Both camps compare Brahmi's letterforms against Aramaic and other Semitic scripts using the same paleographic method, and without an intermediate dated example bridging the gap between any proposed ancestor and the Mauryan era script, neither derivation has been shown to fit the evidence better than the other.

Source Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, Richard Salomon tier 1

Brahmi Vocalic Ll 𑀎, Alphabet Letters

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Origin Period

Currently States Many epigraphists derive Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire

According To Indian epigraphy

Brahmi's ancestry is disputed among epigraphists. Richard Salomon's Indian Epigraphy (Oxford University Press, 1998) surveys two live positions on the origin of the script attested in the Ashokan inscriptions: one derives Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire; the other holds that it developed inside India itself. The dispute turns on the corpus, since Brahmi is securely attested only from Ashoka's edicts in the middle of the third century BCE onward, first read again by James Prinsep in 1837, and no earlier specimen on either side is securely dated. Both camps compare Brahmi's letterforms against Aramaic and other Semitic scripts using the same paleographic method, and without an intermediate dated example bridging the gap between any proposed ancestor and the Mauryan era script, neither derivation has been shown to fit the evidence better than the other.

Source Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, Richard Salomon tier 1

Brahmi Vocalic R 𑀋, Alphabet Letters

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Origin Period

Currently States Many epigraphists derive Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire

According To Indian epigraphy

Brahmi's ancestry is disputed among epigraphists. Richard Salomon's Indian Epigraphy (Oxford University Press, 1998) surveys two live positions on the origin of the script attested in the Ashokan inscriptions: one derives Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire; the other holds that it developed inside India itself. The dispute turns on the corpus, since Brahmi is securely attested only from Ashoka's edicts in the middle of the third century BCE onward, first read again by James Prinsep in 1837, and no earlier specimen on either side is securely dated. Both camps compare Brahmi's letterforms against Aramaic and other Semitic scripts using the same paleographic method, and without an intermediate dated example bridging the gap between any proposed ancestor and the Mauryan era script, neither derivation has been shown to fit the evidence better than the other.

Source Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, Richard Salomon tier 1

Brahmi Vocalic R 𑀋, Alphabet Letters

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Origin Period

Currently States Others argue for a development inside India, and with no securely dated specimen earlier than the edicts the question stays open

According To Indian epigraphy

Brahmi's ancestry is disputed among epigraphists. Richard Salomon's Indian Epigraphy (Oxford University Press, 1998) surveys two live positions on the origin of the script attested in the Ashokan inscriptions: one derives Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire; the other holds that it developed inside India itself. The dispute turns on the corpus, since Brahmi is securely attested only from Ashoka's edicts in the middle of the third century BCE onward, first read again by James Prinsep in 1837, and no earlier specimen on either side is securely dated. Both camps compare Brahmi's letterforms against Aramaic and other Semitic scripts using the same paleographic method, and without an intermediate dated example bridging the gap between any proposed ancestor and the Mauryan era script, neither derivation has been shown to fit the evidence better than the other.

Source Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, Richard Salomon tier 1

Brahmi Vocalic Rr 𑀌, Alphabet Letters

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Origin Period

Currently States Others argue for a development inside India, and with no securely dated specimen earlier than the edicts the question stays open

According To Indian epigraphy

Brahmi's ancestry is disputed among epigraphists. Richard Salomon's Indian Epigraphy (Oxford University Press, 1998) surveys two live positions on the origin of the script attested in the Ashokan inscriptions: one derives Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire; the other holds that it developed inside India itself. The dispute turns on the corpus, since Brahmi is securely attested only from Ashoka's edicts in the middle of the third century BCE onward, first read again by James Prinsep in 1837, and no earlier specimen on either side is securely dated. Both camps compare Brahmi's letterforms against Aramaic and other Semitic scripts using the same paleographic method, and without an intermediate dated example bridging the gap between any proposed ancestor and the Mauryan era script, neither derivation has been shown to fit the evidence better than the other.

Source Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, Richard Salomon tier 1

Brahmi Vocalic Rr 𑀌, Alphabet Letters

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Origin Period

Currently States Many epigraphists derive Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire

According To Indian epigraphy

Brahmi's ancestry is disputed among epigraphists. Richard Salomon's Indian Epigraphy (Oxford University Press, 1998) surveys two live positions on the origin of the script attested in the Ashokan inscriptions: one derives Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire; the other holds that it developed inside India itself. The dispute turns on the corpus, since Brahmi is securely attested only from Ashoka's edicts in the middle of the third century BCE onward, first read again by James Prinsep in 1837, and no earlier specimen on either side is securely dated. Both camps compare Brahmi's letterforms against Aramaic and other Semitic scripts using the same paleographic method, and without an intermediate dated example bridging the gap between any proposed ancestor and the Mauryan era script, neither derivation has been shown to fit the evidence better than the other.

Source Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, Richard Salomon tier 1

Brahmi Ya 𑀬, Alphabet Letters

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Origin Period

Currently States Others argue for a development inside India, and with no securely dated specimen earlier than the edicts the question stays open

According To Indian epigraphy

Brahmi's ancestry is disputed among epigraphists. Richard Salomon's Indian Epigraphy (Oxford University Press, 1998) surveys two live positions on the origin of the script attested in the Ashokan inscriptions: one derives Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire; the other holds that it developed inside India itself. The dispute turns on the corpus, since Brahmi is securely attested only from Ashoka's edicts in the middle of the third century BCE onward, first read again by James Prinsep in 1837, and no earlier specimen on either side is securely dated. Both camps compare Brahmi's letterforms against Aramaic and other Semitic scripts using the same paleographic method, and without an intermediate dated example bridging the gap between any proposed ancestor and the Mauryan era script, neither derivation has been shown to fit the evidence better than the other.

Source Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, Richard Salomon tier 1

Brahmi Ya 𑀬, Alphabet Letters

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Origin Period

Currently States Many epigraphists derive Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire

According To Indian epigraphy

Brahmi's ancestry is disputed among epigraphists. Richard Salomon's Indian Epigraphy (Oxford University Press, 1998) surveys two live positions on the origin of the script attested in the Ashokan inscriptions: one derives Brahmi from a Semitic prototype, most often Aramaic, adapted in the centuries before the Mauryan empire; the other holds that it developed inside India itself. The dispute turns on the corpus, since Brahmi is securely attested only from Ashoka's edicts in the middle of the third century BCE onward, first read again by James Prinsep in 1837, and no earlier specimen on either side is securely dated. Both camps compare Brahmi's letterforms against Aramaic and other Semitic scripts using the same paleographic method, and without an intermediate dated example bridging the gap between any proposed ancestor and the Mauryan era script, neither derivation has been shown to fit the evidence better than the other.

Source Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, Richard Salomon tier 1

Brain Death in Jewish Law, Doctrines

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Structure

Currently States Three documented positions: brain-stem death is death, held by parts of Modern Orthodox authority; death requires cessation of both heartbeat and respiration, held by much of haredi Orthodoxy; and a stringent middle position holding the question in doubt.

Source Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd edition, Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik (eds.) tier 1

Brenda J. Dunne, Historical Figures

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Key Experiment

Currently States The PEAR random event generator programme, reported as a twelve-year review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1997

Robert G. Jahn, Brenda J. Dunne, Roger D. Nelson, York H. Dobyns and G. J. Bradish published Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1997, reporting a statistical analysis of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory's twelve-year database of random-number-generator trials against operators' stated intentions. The underlying database itself, the raw trial-by-trial record, is not disputed by critics; what is disputed is the statistical method for interpreting the cumulative deviation from chance across so many trials, since a very small per-trial effect size compounded over millions of trials can produce a result that looks statistically significant by conventional tests while remaining too small to demonstrate reliably in any single controlled replication.

Source Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program, Robert G. Jahn, Brenda J. Dunne, Roger D. Nelson, York H. Dobyns and G. J. Bradish tier 2

Brigid, Deities

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Point in Dispute

Currently States Historians disagree about the relationship between the goddess Brigid and Saint Brigid of Kildare, the early Christian abbess credited with founding the monastery there. One view holds the saint a genuine historical figure whose cult later absorbed attributes, the sacred flame and the festival date of Imbolc, from an older goddess of the same name; another treats the saint as substantially a Christianized continuation of the goddess herself, with little independent historical basis for the human abbess.

Source A Dictionary of Celtic Mythology, James MacKillop tier 2

Brigid of Kildare, Figures

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Historicity

Currently States Historicity debated

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2005) records that the earliest surviving life of Brigid of Kildare dates to the seventh century, that the saint's attributes, including her feast day and association with perpetual flame, overlap heavily with those of the pre-Christian goddess Brigid, and that scholarship is accordingly divided on whether a historical abbess of Kildare underlies the cult at all or whether the entire figure is a Christianized continuation of the earlier goddess.

Source The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd revised edition, F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (eds.) tier 1

Brigid of Kildare, Figures

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Lifespan or Floruit Start Year

Currently States 451

The source marks this year circa, its own approximate estimate rather than a fixed date.

Source The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd revised edition, F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (eds.) tier 1

Brigid of Kildare, Figures

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Lifespan or Floruit End Year

Currently States 525

The source marks this year circa, its own approximate estimate rather than a fixed date.

Source The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd revised edition, F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (eds.) tier 1

Brigid of Kildare, Figures

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns How Its Legacy Is Contested

Currently States Some scholars argue her cult absorbed elements of the earlier pre-Christian Irish goddess who shared her name, pointing to shared associations with a perpetual sacred flame, healing wells and springtime fertility.

Some scholars, drawing on shared iconography, a perpetual sacred flame tended at Kildare, associations with healing wells, spring and fertility, between the goddess Brigid of pre-Christian Irish tradition and the historical abbess venerated at Kildare, argue the saint's cult absorbed elements of the earlier deity's veneration; other historians caution that direct continuity cannot be documented from the surviving sources and that the resemblance may reflect shared cultural material rather than one figure carried across religions, so the two are treated in Christian hagiography, and in this atlas, as distinct entities pending clearer evidence.

Source Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade (ed.); Lindsay Jones (ed., 2nd ed.) tier 1

Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, Esoteric Texts

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Attributed Author / Compiler

Currently States Traditionally attributed to the sage Parashara.

The Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, the classical foundational treatise of Vedic jyotish astrology, is attributed by tradition to the sage Parashara and placed in the Vedic age, but the surviving manuscripts cannot be dated that early. The Ranjan Publications edition (1984) is the primary text cited here. The method is manuscript-based textual history: the earliest physical witnesses to the text come from the medieval period, centuries after the Vedic age the tradition claims, and the text shows signs of having been assembled and expanded over that intervening span rather than transmitted unchanged from a single origin. Because no manuscript or independent record bridges the gap between the traditional Vedic-age attribution and the medieval date of the earliest surviving copies, scholars disagree on when the text reached its present form, and Parashara's authorship of that specific present-day text, as against a much later compiler working under his name, remains unresolved.

Source Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, Sage Parashara (attributed) tier 1

Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, Esoteric Texts

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Era of Composition Start Year

Currently States 600

No manuscript of the Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra predates its modern printed editions. David Pingree's survey of Indian astral literature situates the received text's compilation in the seventh to eighth century CE on linguistic and doctrinal grounds, arguing the work is pseudepigraphically ascribed to the sage Parashara rather than composed by him. Varahamihira's sixth century Brihat Jataka names an earlier Parasara Hora as a source, and Bhattotpala's tenth century commentary already calls that earlier work inaccessible, so the text read today is a later compilation carrying substantial interpolation rather than a single author original.

Source Jyotihsastra: Astral and Mathematical Literature, David Pingree tier 1

Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, Esoteric Texts

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Era of Composition End Year

Currently States 800

No manuscript of the Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra predates its modern printed editions. David Pingree's survey of Indian astral literature situates the received text's compilation in the seventh to eighth century CE on linguistic and doctrinal grounds, arguing the work is pseudepigraphically ascribed to the sage Parashara rather than composed by him. Varahamihira's sixth century Brihat Jataka names an earlier Parasara Hora as a source, and Bhattotpala's tenth century commentary already calls that earlier work inaccessible, so the text read today is a later compilation carrying substantial interpolation rather than a single author original.

Source Jyotihsastra: Astral and Mathematical Literature, David Pingree tier 1