Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 20:03

shiv wrote:Emotional appeals about people who want to throw out something is simply avoiding the fact that the vedas, THE shruti have been accorded the status of historical document by Max Muller. William Jones, Witzel, Anthony David and a whole lot of "scholars" from the west. the fact that you are sensitive to some of those scholars being named and shamed as being racist is not my problem, it's your.


False. The Shruti and Smriti designation are from our own ancestors. Not from Euros. The Mahabharata itself admits that it is not an original literature as is, it is based on a far smaller original compilation incorporated into it.
The stratification of Shruti over Smriti is commented in our Upanishads itself.


You don't give a rat's ass for the fact that this "smriti-shruti" sentiment/status has been ignored by racist Western scholars while they glean historical meaning from the Vedas and then get all upset at anyone else who may want to glean historical information from the smritis. And you echo the latter act while obfuscating any other relevant information that you know damn well came from racist_western_"scholars".


Bolded part is inconsistent logic. If someone wants to draw inference from a Smriti literature, what is the problem, given that it is accepted as a superior work, amongst the most superior in integrity in Indology ?
Vedas are Shruti. If someone wants to use a part of the Vedas to form a historic window, it is far more empirically sound than doing the same with self-admitted inferior literature.
Again, a crock of nonsense from you.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2017 20:06

SriJoy wrote:If Vedas are sufficiently ancient enough- ie, if it is indeed pre-neolithic revolution, it SHOULD read like a composition of half-wits to us,

Science tells us this

SriJoy wrote:The only chicanery is done by religious people here, who want to throw out the Smriti status accorded to the Ramayana/Mahabharata by OUR OWN ANCESTORS.

No science here. Only emotion.

The possibilities are
1. Apply science to the Vedas and the smritis
2. Apply science to the Vedas and emotion to the smritis
3. Apply emotion to the Vedas and science to the smritis
4. Apply emotion to both smitis and shrutis

Srijoy has chosen option 2. Apply science to the Vedas and emotion to the smritis

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 20:08

shiv wrote:Any knowledge that is not understood by someone could look like the ramblings of half wits. So there is at least a 50% possibility that what you say is ignorance - a fact that causes you great discomfort when pointed out.


Irrelevant obfuscation yet again. Only a racist/cultural superiorist could argue that illiterate hunter-gatherers (ie, if the supposition of the Vedas are pre-neolithic revolution is true) could form works so advanced, that modern man with orders of magnitude greater knowledge at their disposal, are able to translate but is stumped by its meaning. Its the analogical equivalent of a PhD in biology being able to understand an Amazon tribesman's language but unable to understand its content regarding amazonian flora and fauna.



Rubbish. Every half assed racist or non racist western scholar does that. A shruti is not even a text but then again there is a 1:1 probability of your being ignorant of that.

Rubbish from you. Historians use the prevalence of terms in the vedas as window to its historic timeframe. Mention of objects used, topography are pretty much the only relation to history. But only a religious fanatic arguing balderdash can argue that people living in huts, who don't even know the full extent of the solar system, can write text that can be translated but not understood by people with far greater knowledge at their disposal.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2017 20:13

SriJoy wrote:False. The Shruti and Smriti designation are from our own ancestors. Not from Euros.


Euros do not give a rat's as about what you say your ancestors thought. But you go all weepy about "religious people here" not according "smriti status" to what you claim your ancestors wanted. Do not include me. I may well have no Indian ancestry. You don't know who my ancestors are - so quit the emotional rhetoric. Where does your science disappear when you make silly emotional appeals like this?

When "Euros" do something why get your chaddis into a huge twist if "religious people here" do exactly what the Euros (who happened to be racist) did?

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 20:13

shiv wrote:No science here. Only emotion.

The possibilities are
1. Apply science to the Vedas and the smritis
2. Apply science to the Vedas and emotion to the smritis
3. Apply emotion to the Vedas and science to the smritis
4. Apply emotion to both smitis and shrutis

Srijoy has chosen option 2. Apply science to the Vedas and emotion to the smritis


Only emotion is from you. I caught you in the lie that Shruti-smriti designation is from the Euros. It is from our own Upanishads and Puranas.
No emotion is being applied here. I am simply pointing out the FACT that even to our ancestors, the Itihasas were not seen as reliable or consistent.

Which is why both you and Nilesh continue to ignore the fact that the only thing going for the fantasical claims of 10K+ years age of Ramayana, can quite easily also be later era forgeries- which happens to abound in the realm of religious-political literature from the world over. The Egyptians, the Mayans, the Romans, The Chinese, the Babylonians- each and every civilization worth mention- faked their origination/epic historical narrative. Yet, an Indian, arguing that Indians are the ONLY EXCEPTION to this axiom, is to be taken seriously. Seriously, enough pollution from you on this thread regarding treating imprecise, self-admittedly modified fantasical quasi-historical literature as some sort of un-impeachable historical document. Its because of obfuscation like this that OIT gets nowhere, which is expectedly masked by accusations of 'racism' from the establishment.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 20:15

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote:False. The Shruti and Smriti designation are from our own ancestors. Not from Euros.


Euros do not give a rat's as about what you say your ancestors thought. But you go all weepy about "religious people here" not according "smriti status" to what you claim your ancestors wanted. Do not include me. I may well have no Indian ancestry. You don't know who my ancestors are - so quit the emotional rhetoric. Where does your science disappear when you make silly emotional appeals like this?

When "Euros" do something why get your chaddis into a huge twist if "religious people here" do exactly what the Euros (who happened to be racist) did?


Unless you are a Witzel-ian mole on this website, hell-bent to destroy OIT by polluting it with religious quasi-history (which i suspect you are), what Euros think is irrelevant to THIS THREAD, in an INDIAN FORUM. If a culture considers material A is unimpeachable and material B is corrupted, re-written psuedo-history with religious moralisms in it, it behooves any objective researcher to respect said demarcation.

Science does not disappear when a factual observation is made. Science disappears when you claim nonsense like Euros invented Shruti-Smriti demarcation.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2017 20:22

SriJoy wrote:
shiv wrote:Any knowledge that is not understood by someone could look like the ramblings of half wits. So there is at least a 50% possibility that what you say is ignorance - a fact that causes you great discomfort when pointed out.


Irrelevant obfuscation yet again.

Irrelevant because YOu do not want to apply simple science. There is at least a 50% probability that you are wrong. But as I said. Yo hate that possibility



SriJoy wrote:
Rubbish. Every half assed racist or non racist western scholar does that. A shruti is not even a text but then again there is a 1:1 probability of your being ignorant of that.

Rubbish from you. Historians use the prevalence of terms in the vedas as window to its historic timeframe. Mention of objects used, topography are pretty much the only relation to history. But only a religious fanatic arguing balderdash can argue that people living in huts, who don't even know the full extent of the solar system, can write text that can be translated but not understood by people with far greater knowledge at their disposal.


:D As usual the only crutch for your otherwise weak argument is a psychoanalysis of the people who disagree with you.

Toponyms have no dates and only recently has something that is likely to be the Saraswati been dated. That could still be wrong. Currently it dates back at least 6000 years. But relying on a name like Saraswati itself may be wrong for the good scientist. You did say that the Vedas could be a collection of stuff made up by half-wits - so all this reference to Saraswati as a river should be considered myth. How does Saraswati become a valid topographical name to be dated by your historians if it was cooked up by pre-neolithic half wits

Please tie yourself up in your own contradictions. It derails the thread but great fun to point them out
Last edited by shiv on 03 Aug 2017 20:30, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2017 20:24

SriJoy wrote: I caught you in the lie that Shruti-smriti designation is from the Euros.

You caught nothing of the sort. Apply your intelligence and do a word search and produce the quote from me. You are behaving like a desperate loser.

But here I will move on and get back at you after a few days. it's more fun to take on whole cartloads of crock from you

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 03 Aug 2017 20:30

shiv wrote:Irrelevant because YOu do not want to apply simple science. There is at least a 50% probability that you are wrong. But as I said. Yo hate that possibility


Simple science says that when people closer to the source material calls material A as corrupted and inferior, labelling it as such, we, the people in distant future, have no objective reason to override it.

:D As usual the only crutch for your otherwise weak argument is a psychoanalysis of the people who disagree with you.


There is no psychoanalysis in saying :
a) Historians do not use the vedas for anything more than seeing what materials the composers are familiar with (and dating it as such) and topography.
b) people of the Vedas didn't even know of all major planets in the Solar system.

Toponyms have no dates and only recently has something that is likely to be the Saraswati been dated.


Inconsistency in the same sentence seems to be your thing. If toponyms have no dates, then how can Saraswati be dated ?

That could still be wrong. Currently it dates back at least 6000 years. But relying on a name like Saraswati itself may be wrong for the good scientist. You did say that the Vedas could be a collection of stuff made up by half-wits - so all this reference to Saraswati as a river should be considered myth. How does Saraswati become a valid topographical name to be dated by your historians if it was cooked up by pre-neolithic half wits


'Maybes' do not constitute a scientific argument. Maybe we all are a fiction of Rhithik Roshan's imagination. There goes your irrelevant maybes. Maybes are the argument of religious obfuscators.
Even if the Vedas are made up by half-wits, we have no reason to believe that it is a) a lie or b) it has not been accurately preserved. Half-wits do not imply unreliability. Just simplicity.

Please tie yourself up in your own contradictions. It derails the thread but great fun to point them out


You are yet to point out a single contradiction. Infact, you point out your own confusion- by confusing simplicity (half-wit) with lack of integrity ( unreliability). Pretty much elitist nonsense, implying that simple people are dishonest.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby syam » 03 Aug 2017 20:45

SriJoy wrote:
At the end of the day, history of origin of culture is irrelevant to the lives of the large majority. Most white people for eg, do not give a rat's behind about whether history started in Sumer or Egypt or China. Because whether our long-dead ancestors were heroes or chumps, have ultimately very little direct bearing on our lives.

When you lose all traces of proof, only faith can carry the truth to the next generation. Lets not go into that.

I want to know how we can propagate OIT. Ever wonder why British failed to keep its crown jewel? There is no connection between normal folks and British. We can't repeat the same mistake other empires did. Money can't buy everything.
So we again come to same hypothetical situation.

How to induct our version into western academia given the constrains we have today? We want to connect with the western folks at social level.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2017 21:34

SriJoy wrote: confusing simplicity (half-wit) with lack of integrity ( unreliability). Pretty much elitist nonsense, implying that simple people are dishonest.

This is called petitio principii. Assuming the conclusion of a statement and then offering that conclusion as a premise to prove the statement as true.

First claim that pre-neolithic people were "simple" and then say that since they were simple people they should not be accused of something or other and that my mental state (diagnosed by you as usual :D ) of elitism makes me describe the people YOU assumed as simple as being something else.

Adding rubbish to nonsense does not make things better. Any scientist should know that. But you don't.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2017 22:10

SriJoy wrote:
Toponyms have no dates and only recently has something that is likely to be the Saraswati been dated.


Inconsistency in the same sentence seems to be your thing. If toponyms have no dates, then how can Saraswati be dated ?

:D
You display a plodding inability to parse precise sentences for a person who boasted of being able to parse any scientific paper.

Toponyms are names of topographical features. They are nouns and do not come with chronological information. "Saraswati" is a toponym. It has no date mentioned. A river that might refer to that toponym has been dated recently.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby gandharva » 04 Aug 2017 00:53

CHAPT ER 5 - Problems with the Critical Method
(From the book The Nay Science: A History of German Indology by Vishwa Adluri & Joydeep Bagchee)
https://www.amazon.com/Nay-Science-Hist ... 0199931364

The birth of Indology takes place at the crossroads of two great intellectual currents in German history: Romanticism, which gave rise to the search for pristine civilizations and the interest in myth, and Protestant biblical criticism (and its attendant phenomenon, historicism), which shaped ideas of what texts are and how they were to be studied. But the story of the intellectual roots of Indology cannot be told without also exploring the roots of a third intellectual current of the time: the new Wissenschaftsideologie of the nineteenth century. This ideology was to be a potent factor in the development of Indology out of the early grammatical, philosophical, and literary interests of an earlier generation of Orientalists (among them, the Schlegel brothers and the scholar-statesman Wilhelm von Humboldt).

The idea of science or scientifcity as embodying academic rigor, an attitude of skepticism (an ideal with strong moral overtones), and the development of a method tailored to the precise needs of the individual feld rapidly led to the professionalization and specialization of scholarship. Rather than undertaking broad inquiries into human existence, scholarship came to coalesce around the idea of disciplines or departments. Within Indology, there was consistent growth in the establishment of chairs and concurrent growth in eforts by scholars to distinguish their chairs from those of their colleagues.1 Yet, it was not Indology, but a related science, classical philology—“our sister science,” as Oldenberg called it in an essay from 19062—that came to epitomize the new spirit of science in Germany. It was also the discipline on which the most expectations of making a contribution to humanistic education or Bildung were placed.3 It was no surprise, then, that when Indologists sought to legitimate the wissenschaftliche character of their discipline, they turned to philology as a prototype, claiming both parallels and descent from it. By underscoring the philological nature of their researches, Indologists hoped to capitalize on the reputation of German scholarship in classical studies (Altertumswissenschaft). Although an explicit theoretical justifcation of Indology’s claim to being a science cannot be found in the writings of the period,4 we do find a broad acceptance of positivist philology as being basically synonymous with science in general.

In this chapter, we examine some of the strategies used by Indologists to make the case for their discipline as Wissenschaft and how those strategies relate to understandings of science, both historical and contemporary. Te chapter is divided into eight sections. Te frst two sections take a look at how, in the work of Hermann Oldenberg, the leading theoretician of Indology of the day, a new ideal of scientifc scholarship on India emerged, and at how this ideal was then grounded in a positivist philology. Te next three sections present a brief overview of three scientifc currents of the time—positivism, historicism, and empiricism—and show how Indologists were responding to broader movements in philosophy of science, especially the work of Auguste Comte (1798–1857), the intellectual father of positivism and historicism. In the sixth section, we look at criticisms that the positivistic notion of truth has been subject to in the twentieth century; the next section returns the discussion to Kant’s critical project and its historical infuence, already broached in the introduction. Te eighth and concluding section then presents an overview of Gadamer’s criticisms of the attempt to construe the scientifc character of the human sciences along the lines of the natural sciences. Because of the infuence of his seminal Truth and Method on the contemporary self-understanding of the human sciences, we delve especially deeply into his views. Gadamer’s criticisms of the valorization of method over truth in the humanities and of the Enlightenment’s suspicion of all traditional forms of authority are the vantage points from which we evaluate Indology’s claims to being part of the human sciences.

Rest to follow later...

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4954
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby RoyG » 04 Aug 2017 04:53

SriJoy wrote:
RoyG wrote:
He hasn't. I'm glad he brought up Itihasa. His deep assumptions mirror that of Holzmann who used AIT to show how the subcontinental negro tainted the myths brought to them by sweaty white men on horseback. Buddhism was the product of Aryan genius revolting against mythic oppression. So you see, progress was stifled and then resumed just like when the protestants reduced the stranglehold of the catholic church.

AIT is critical to this project. It establishes conflict between groups of people and helps cast the text as some sort of myth similar to the bible which is full of superstition to put the reader victim into a state of borderline mental retardation so that he cant perceive his own oppression.


The first bolded part (by me)- i do not see what that has in relation to your bolded part.
Even if one is OOI proponent, it is undeniable that the golden age of Indian learning coincided with the bulk majority of our (subcontinental) elite class being Buddhist & Jain, with Vedanta Hinduism on the rise.
As such, why can't Buddhism & Jainism be a rebellion against vedic ritualism in the first place and why does that (even if its a supposition), have to include foreign vs native ideology ?
In such a distinction, i feel like you are selling our ancestors short, by implying that the 'ancient Indian' is incapable of change and overthrow of certain systems that are out-dated, on their own, without outside interferance.

What the texts represent, is irrelevant to the Indian civilization as a whole ( or for the matter, any civilization), from a strictly historical perspective, because only a tiny, tiny fraction of Indian society (or any society pre-colonial world) was literate. As such, what those books represent, is oligarchy of knowledge- a tiny, tiny fraction of the population able to read, let alone analyze the texts, while the vast majority are illiterates who 'go by what the priest/king/powerful man is saying'.


1. Since you buy into the idea of brahmanical hinduism and its ritualistic oppression I would like to ask you the following question:

Where did such an idea come from?

2. I find similarities in the assumptions you're making about indian society and that of Holzmann, namely that of Buddhist and Jain 'rebellion' against vedic ritualism. It has its origins in the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent AIT hypothesis. You missed the point entirely.

3. Why do you keep harping back to the historicity of the text? Again, you're missing the point. Itihasa are stories which enabled it to be passed on orally. It was a way to transfer the concepts contained within the Upanishads to the illiterate masses.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4954
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby RoyG » 04 Aug 2017 05:27

SriJoy wrote:
RoyG wrote:
Many overt thematic elements within the Itihasa literature which come directly from the Upanishads so the influence is non-debatable. Now for Pollock and others, this is a big problem. If you want to prove some sort of in-built oppression within the text, some sophistication is needed in the form of ignoring/editing the historical timeline and using the Semitic experience as a template for textual deconstruction.

Now on SriJoy's point on human conflict stemming from greed, kinship ties, etc contained within the text, I agree with him. We had all of that. It's the underlying response to these phenomena which is in question. The Semitic world used myth to transmit its solution in the form of the idea that sovereignty lie with something external and ordinary man is merely a custodian of the domain granted to it.

On the other hand, we used Itihasa to transmit something completely different which has not till date been matched by the West. Itihasa presents the cause of unhappiness within society as desire and it's effects in the form of conflict, and eventual resolution in the form victory for one side. But what's really unique is that the faculties of mind and goal of meditative techniques are encoded within the story to show how one can bring about that change at the individual level. So in other words, Itihasa gives the reader a framework to induce change within oneself and shows how this change can contribute to victory over conflict brought about by desire in society.


You will find no arguments from me, whatsoever, if you want to conclude that the Itihasas of India- Hindu as well as Buddhist (where by the way, there are discrepancies, even in the Buddhist tellings of Mahabharata from the Hindu ones)- represent complex moral and philosophical questions- easily the most complex of its time of writing, along with Greek philosophy.
But from a historical perspective, those books are highly flawed and it is a fact that we are chasing shadows, if we want to construct a historical narrative out of those books. I've read, for eg, quiete elaborate pieces by non-western scholars, consiering 'Sarayu' as 'Harayu' of the Achaemenid era nomenclature (modern day Hari Rud, flowing through Herat, Afghanitsan).
A myth, atleast from historical academic perspective, is a tale that cannot be accurately dated and/or has been conflated with other stories. Homer's Illiad is a perfect example of said myth. So are Ramayana and Mahabharata. But unlike the vaunted western classics, ours is not just a tale of wanton warfare-adventure-love story but deep, philosophical analysis and constitutes the most impressive ideological leap in mankind- from absoluteness of morality to relativity of morality (particularly, in the Mahabharata).


I'm trying to think how to untangle your thought process a bit...okay lets start with this:

1. You accept the assertion that the text itself represents 'complex moral and philosophical questions'.

2. You claim that from a 'historical perspective', those books are highly flawed.

Now what I'm saying is this:

Let go of the historical perspective. There is no need for it because you accept that Itihasa is a repository for insight into the mind in story form. Those who argue otherwise are the same people who invented AIT. They didn't see what we see in the text because they themselves bought into certain assumptions codified into semitic myth. So what I'm saying is you can't buy into one and accept the other.

Now as far as myth is concerned, you can't call both a myth when the intent of the literature and what it contains (by your admission) differ. You wouldn't call a comic a myth.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 04 Aug 2017 07:19

gandharva wrote:The idea of science or scientifcity as embodying academic rigor, an attitude of skepticism (an ideal with strong moral overtones)

scepticism itself is known from the Greeks. No one (from the west) will know or note that the arguments posed by early Greek sceptics were similar to the explorations of truth in the Vedas as expounded in the Upanishads. But all the Greek stuff I read seemed like dull ba$tardized versions of Vedic philosophy. There was likely some contact with Greece before 500 BC

But if you consider the Vedas the rant of a "simple people" then one is "branding" them with a character that goes well outside the spirit of scepticism and enquiry. This was a western failing starting the 1700s and 1800s whose effects are still being felt

The shock of finding biblical stories in deciphered Assyrian texts led to philology becoming big until it achieved orgasm with the "discovery" of Vedic Sanskrit
Read it here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3JNY4 ... sp=sharing

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 04 Aug 2017 11:13

SriJoy wrote:?! Nothing more than more chicanery. I am making no declarations- simply noting the fact that the mahabharata story differs, based on whether one wants to follow Hindu or Buddhist narrative. Just because you are a Hindu and not a Buddhist, does not give any extra credence to 'Balarama' over 'Baladeva'.


First, given the 'anonymous' nature of this discussion how do you declare that I am a Hindu and not a Buddhist? :mrgreen:
Second, it is your misunderstanding that someone "Hindu" would only follow a Hindu perspective - this is pure Abhrahamic framework thinking....
Third, there perhaps is not even one Hindu version, but now you will jump into why that it is all flawed... :rotfl:
Fourth, no one who is either a Hindu or a Buddisht cares about what you think, what they care about is your maligning them in pure idiocy!
Finally, there is no X variations of oral tradition texts which were way much later put to paper and then formed Y variations. That means we cannot now at time T3 calculate and work back towards an original source to seek fidelity for this silly concept that the Western mind invented called History. The time lag between event time - human recording of an event and processing time - human processing the impact of that event and time for reprocessing time - human retelling of the event again and again - are all part and parcel of human existence. Time is not just linear vs cyclical... Human beings perceive time in even more complex ways... for example ~ it is common in India in many languages to say, "its your bad time..." this treats time a windowed ephemeral chunks of perception, not the linear vs. cyclic simplicity of religious belief nonsense spouted by modern western scholars!
Good luck following Western frameworks that can barely handle linear time. :rotfl:

SriJoy wrote:The ideologue apparently fails to realize that a book can be both precious and flawed at the same time.

First, much of what you claim as book, happened to become book much later in time then when the event occurred and was recorded and transmitted.
Second, even in any form - consider the following statement, "I read the poem/book of by Robert Frost and concluded it both precious and flawed!" Such a statement is considered ~ your opinion ~ a rambling at best and a bhasya at worst. :P

SriJoy wrote:Correction. Morality is not a 'western term'. It is an English term. Function of language,not Philosophy. Same with History and Aryan. If you wish to dis-engange from English terms, i suggest you find a non-english medium to communicate. To trash history, simply because it doesn't align with your religious views, does no service to OIT or any thread relating to history- which, last i checked, is the entire fundamental focus of this thread. So perhaps your views belong elsewhere, not in a thread about history.


First, you know nothing about me
Second, you know nothing about my "religion"
Third, Morality ~ Please look up and read Moralia St. Gregory's work on the Book of Job where that word comes form... :eek: :evil:
Fourth, OIT is not about history... it is about identity : make no mistake about it the Western racist care to have AIT in play because of what it does to identity! History is just a tool in this self-identification of the Übermensch with the Aryan ~ which is why it is a racist term.
Fifth, I live only because my ancestors lived and weaving my identity with them is my homage to them the only reason I am alive!
Finally, since all your ancestors are foolish and dead - why do you care if it is OIT or AIT ~ you are be happy peddling HIS-story! :P

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 04 Aug 2017 12:11

Pulikeshi wrote:Finally, since all your ancestors are foolish and dead - why do you care if it is OIT or AIT ~ you are be happy peddling HIS-story! :P

:D

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 04 Aug 2017 15:41

syam wrote:
SriJoy wrote:
At the end of the day, history of origin of culture is irrelevant to the lives of the large majority. Most white people for eg, do not give a rat's behind about whether history started in Sumer or Egypt or China. Because whether our long-dead ancestors were heroes or chumps, have ultimately very little direct bearing on our lives.

When you lose all traces of proof, only faith can carry the truth to the next generation. Lets not go into that.

I want to know how we can propagate OIT. Ever wonder why British failed to keep its crown jewel? There is no connection between normal folks and British. We can't repeat the same mistake other empires did. Money can't buy everything.
So we again come to same hypothetical situation.

How to induct our version into western academia given the constrains we have today? We want to connect with the western folks at social level.


Refer to post 13 Jul 2017 00:23 from me on this thread, where i provided the framework.
Last edited by SriJoy on 04 Aug 2017 16:06, edited 1 time in total.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 04 Aug 2017 15:45

shiv wrote:This is called petitio principii. Assuming the conclusion of a statement and then offering that conclusion as a premise to prove the statement as true.

:eek: :eek:
The disgruntled Indian accusing others of cultural imperialism for 'using big foreign words' is now doing so himself! Oh the wonders of irony.

First claim that pre-neolithic people were "simple" and then say that since they were simple people they should not be accused of something or other and that my mental state (diagnosed by you as usual :D ) of elitism makes me describe the people YOU assumed as simple as being something else.

Adding rubbish to nonsense does not make things better. Any scientist should know that. But you don't.


Your garble and twisting will not help you dodge the fact that you said this:

You did say that the Vedas could be a collection of stuff made up by half-wits - so all this reference to Saraswati as a river should be considered myth


The association of half-wits with myth is the association of simplicity with unreliability. Ie, simple folks are unreliable.
A classic elitist argument.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 04 Aug 2017 15:46

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote:
Inconsistency in the same sentence seems to be your thing. If toponyms have no dates, then how can Saraswati be dated ?

:D
You display a plodding inability to parse precise sentences for a person who boasted of being able to parse any scientific paper.

Toponyms are names of topographical features. They are nouns and do not come with chronological information. "Saraswati" is a toponym. It has no date mentioned. A river that might refer to that toponym has been dated recently.


the above is competely irrelevant to the discussion of OIT.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 04 Aug 2017 16:05

Pulikeshi wrote:
First, given the 'anonymous' nature of this discussion how do you declare that I am a Hindu and not a Buddhist? :mrgreen:

Second, it is your misunderstanding that someone "Hindu" would only follow a Hindu perspective - this is pure Abhrahamic framework thinking....
Third, there perhaps is not even one Hindu version, but now you will jump into why that it is all flawed... :rotfl:
Fourth, no one who is either a Hindu or a Buddisht cares about what you think, what they care about is your maligning them in pure idiocy!
Finally, there is no X variations of oral tradition texts which were way much later put to paper and then formed Y variations. That means we cannot now at time T3 calculate and work back towards an original source to seek fidelity for this silly concept that the Western mind invented called History. The time lag between event time - human recording of an event and processing time - human processing the impact of that event and time for reprocessing time - human retelling of the event again and again - are all part and parcel of human existence. Time is not just linear vs cyclical... Human beings perceive time in even more complex ways... for example ~ it is common in India in many languages to say, "its your bad time..." this treats time a windowed ephemeral chunks of perception, not the linear vs. cyclic simplicity of religious belief nonsense spouted by modern western scholars!
Good luck following Western frameworks that can barely handle linear time. :rotfl:


1. The question was rhetorical for the first bolded part.
2. I am yet to see a Hindu call Balarama by the name Baladeva, which is the name used in Buddhist version of Mahabharata
3. The difference in hindu versions of Mahabharata are differences in incidents. The difference between Hindu & Buddhist versions, is that of identity and heirarchy. In buddhist version, Krisha, the younger brother, is irrelevant and Baladeva, the older brother, is the Machiavelli of the story. Had you actually read the Buddhist versions instead of making an ideological argument, you'd have known this.
4. You are neither the representative nor the authority to say what all Buddhist or Hindus think. So keep your ego-centric 'no one cares' thoughts to yourself
5. If you think history is silly, feel free to exit this thread, which is about history. The re-telling of an event, is deviation from original nature of the incident. As such, those who are interested in accurate information, have very little time or use for the concept of 're-telling a story'. Its called plagiarism. Rest is just anti-western rhetoric.


First, much of what you claim as book, happened to become book much later in time then when the event occurred and was recorded and transmitted.
Second, even in any form - consider the following statement, "I read the poem/book of by Robert Frost and concluded it both precious and flawed!" Such a statement is considered ~ your opinion ~ a rambling at best and a bhasya at worst. :P

Whether it was an oral transmission before writing down, it is pretty well agreed amongst all academia that the Vedas are some of the most precisely preserved literature in human history.



SriJoy wrote:First, you know nothing about me
Second, you know nothing about my "religion"
Third, Morality ~ Please look up and read Moralia St. Gregory's work on the Book of Job where that word comes form... :eek: :evil:
Fourth, OIT is not about history... it is about identity : make no mistake about it the Western racist care to have AIT in play because of what it does to identity! History is just a tool in this self-identification of the Übermensch with the Aryan ~ which is why it is a racist term.
Fifth, I live only because my ancestors lived and weaving my identity with them is my homage to them the only reason I am alive!
Finally, since all your ancestors are foolish and dead - why do you care if it is OIT or AIT ~ you are be happy peddling HIS-story! :P


OIT is all about history. It is a topic of history and only politically motivated non-historians turn history into a case of identity or superiorism/inferiorism.
Identity furthermore, is a far more relative term and is not a function of time. The Germans and Japanese are both fully aware of their much, much more recent entry into civilized folks compared to their neighbors ( Italians/Greeks and Chinese)- yet, it prevented neither one of them from displaying exemplery nationalistic tendencies along with a still-strongly formed identity.
Furthermore, honing in/focusing identity on a bunch of bronze & iron age illiterates from thousands of years ago, ignores the simple fact that our identity of the last 2500 years is quite rich and more established than most others. To focus on the pre-history for identity but ignoring the fundamental study of our own rich & recorded history is throwing out the baby with the proverbial bathwater.

Further, if association of an english word, Aryan, with ubermensch, also mutated from its individualist usage by its author (Neitzche) to a racial trait, is good enough for Aryan to be a 'racist word', then the same exact logic holds for the Swastika and it should also be trashed as a symbol of racist ubermensch.

To you and a few other superiorist/inferiorist minded people - like Hitler for eg- history is a case of identity, where establishing superiority is greater concern than finding what actually happened.
To most others who ACTUALLY are studying history or hold a degree in it, history is simply a record of 'what happened' and the lessons we can learn from the successes and failures of the ancients.
You are not interested in history- none of you OIT proponents here are. Not you, not Nilesh, not Shiv. You are simply interested in 'establishing some glorious account of India and Indians' that'd make you proud. As such, this thread is indicative of it, where pages after pages are dedicated to trying to big-up psuedo-historical novels like Ramayana and Mahabharata yet NOT ONE TAKER- NOT ONE- on correction of the Magadh dynasty ruler-list.
In short, you are not interested in history- you do not know history- you are just checking out history's cute behind as she walks by and fantasizing about 'what could be'.

This is why you have a fundamental lack of understanding of history and cannot see history apart from a pre-determined quest to 'pay homage to your (vastly inferior than yourself) ancestors'. That you are here because of your ancestors, is an exercise in stating the obvious. Why stop there ? you are here because of the first bacteria in this world! So go ahead- go and convince others that this bacteria a billion or so years ago, is just as intelligent, knowing and educated as yourself- because it too, is your ancestor and how dare we point out inconvinient facts about your ancestor ?


Why i care whether its OIT or AMT is because i care about finding out what actually happened. It matters not a jot to me, whether Indians gave civilization to rest of the world or if Indians thousands of years ago, were slaves to people from Tibet and all our knowledge, is stolen from our masters from ZhangZung. My identity is secure in knowing that further back in time I look, more primitive my ancestors become and my post-industrial ancestors are vastly superior to my pre-industrial ancestors. So unlike you, i do not engage in the foolish quest of 'paying homage' to my ancestors, by inventing BS about their greatness. I also have no problem admitting the thought that if i could know all my ancestors for the last 10,000 years, it'd probably include all sorts of people- scholars, doctors, engineers, priests,kings as well as rapists, murderers,psychologically challenged people, etc. So is true for your ancestors or any other person's.

I support OIT because it makes more objective sense to me.
Not because i have an agenda to prove, in trying to big-up my ancestors. So if you feel like history is irrelevant to you- feel free to exit a thread that is about history first and foremost.
Last edited by SriJoy on 04 Aug 2017 16:24, edited 5 times in total.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 04 Aug 2017 16:10

shiv wrote:
gandharva wrote:The idea of science or scientifcity as embodying academic rigor, an attitude of skepticism (an ideal with strong moral overtones)

scepticism itself is known from the Greeks. No one (from the west) will know or note that the arguments posed by early Greek sceptics were similar to the explorations of truth in the Vedas as expounded in the Upanishads. But all the Greek stuff I read seemed like dull ba$tardized versions of Vedic philosophy. There was likely some contact with Greece before 500 BC

But if you consider the Vedas the rant of a "simple people" then one is "branding" them with a character that goes well outside the spirit of scepticism and enquiry. This was a western failing starting the 1700s and 1800s whose effects are still being felt

The shock of finding biblical stories in deciphered Assyrian texts led to philology becoming big until it achieved orgasm with the "discovery" of Vedic Sanskrit
Read it here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3JNY4 ... sp=sharing


false assertion in the bolded part. We justifiably consider any people who do not know the major bodies in the solar system, who posess less than 1% of information in practically every field compared to us today, as simple people. The base-line for life in this world is simple. To deviate from this baseline, we need evidence. No evidece exists that the most educated Vedic scholar imaginable, can hold a candle to a grade 10 student today. Until such evidence comes to light, skepticism of science demand we consider any such people with such limited knowldge, as simple people.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 04 Aug 2017 16:16

RoyG wrote:I'm trying to think how to untangle your thought process a bit...okay lets start with this:

1. You accept the assertion that the text itself represents 'complex moral and philosophical questions'.

2. You claim that from a 'historical perspective', those books are highly flawed.

Now what I'm saying is this:

Let go of the historical perspective. There is no need for it because you accept that Itihasa is a repository for insight into the mind in story form. Those who argue otherwise are the same people who invented AIT. They didn't see what we see in the text because they themselves bought into certain assumptions codified into semitic myth. So what I'm saying is you can't buy into one and accept the other.

Now as far as myth is concerned, you can't call both a myth when the intent of the literature and what it contains (by your admission) differ. You wouldn't call a comic a myth.


The bolded part is where i disagree. Much water has passed under the bridge since those 'racists' were in charge of history. As i said, there are western scholars- Kazanas for eg - who are virulently anti-AMT and pro-OIT/Anatolian hypothesis. Yet, he will be the first one to tell you the value of constructing a historical window from the writings of epics- the knowledge of materials, geography of the authors presents us a quantifiable, data-oriented window into the time-frame.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 04 Aug 2017 16:30

SriJoy wrote:false assertion in the bolded part. We justifiably consider any people who do not know the major bodies in the solar system, who posess less than 1% of information in practically every field compared to us today, as simple people. The base-line for life in this world is simple. To deviate from this baseline, we need evidence. No evidece exists that the most educated Vedic scholar imaginable, can hold a candle to a grade 10 student today. Until such evidence comes to light, skepticism of science demand we consider any such people with such limited knowldge, as simple people.

This is trolling

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9615
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Aug 2017 16:58

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote:false assertion in the bolded part. We justifiably consider any people who do not know the major bodies in the solar system, who posess less than 1% of information in practically every field compared to us today, as simple people. The base-line for life in this world is simple. To deviate from this baseline, we need evidence. No evidece exists that the most educated Vedic scholar imaginable, can hold a candle to a grade 10 student today. Until such evidence comes to light, skepticism of science demand we consider any such people with such limited knowldge, as simple people.

This is trolling


Not even original. I think Carl Sagan propagated some such nonsense as well.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9615
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Aug 2017 17:00

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote:false assertion in the bolded part. We justifiably consider any people who do not know the major bodies in the solar system, who posess less than 1% of information in practically every field compared to us today, as simple people. The base-line for life in this world is simple. To deviate from this baseline, we need evidence. No evidece exists that the most educated Vedic scholar imaginable, can hold a candle to a grade 10 student today. Until such evidence comes to light, skepticism of science demand we consider any such people with such limited knowldge, as simple people.

This is trolling


The Vedic peple started something that propagated across Asia and that continues to this day. May we all be so simple!

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby SriJoy » 04 Aug 2017 17:15

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote:false assertion in the bolded part. We justifiably consider any people who do not know the major bodies in the solar system, who posess less than 1% of information in practically every field compared to us today, as simple people. The base-line for life in this world is simple. To deviate from this baseline, we need evidence. No evidece exists that the most educated Vedic scholar imaginable, can hold a candle to a grade 10 student today. Until such evidence comes to light, skepticism of science demand we consider any such people with such limited knowldge, as simple people.

This is trolling


Nope, it was an explanation on why we should be skeptical for the whole notion of 'advanced prehistoric peoples' ideology.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1146
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby peter » 04 Aug 2017 19:27

SriJoy wrote:
peter wrote:During our earlier exchange many weeks ago I had posted verses from Rg Veda describing heliocentric knowledge amongst Rig Vedic Rishis. Did you read it?
Arybhatta was one author. There are literally hundreds of astronomical texts that have survived. To just pick on one, Arybhatta's , and think that is the only one that describes the extant Indian knowledge of astronomy is not kosher.


You are 100% correct, if seeing in the context of entire Indian history. However, what subsequent writings, such as Brahmagupta, Varahamihira, etc. show, is that the geocentric epicyclic model of Aryabhatta came to utterly dominate Indian astronomy after him. The Indian (Hindu as well as Jain) Calendric calculations are also completely based on Aryabhatta. As such, i am not sure, but it'd seem that Vedic heliocentrism died in Indian civilization post Aryabhatta and probably re-introduced by either the arabs or Europeans.

Nothing dies out completely. Knowledge remains. Arabs regurgitated what they learnt in India to the Europeans and that is what ushered the age of learning in Europe.

The consensus is post 1900 BC Saraswati was not flowing. Did you read the description of Balram's Saraswati Tirtha Yatra from MBH? What is your conclusion?

SriJoy wrote:The versions i've read (translations obviously- i am not conversant in Sanskrit) is that Saraswati was a dying river, petering out to its death somewhere in the Rajasthan-Cholistan desert, called Vinasana.

The description in Mahabharata fits well with the Saraswati from ~3000 BC to ~2000 BC: viz breaking up into ponds (Khairpur lakes) etc.


How will you match above 13 observations if you were the author 1000 years after the war and you had to backfit the plausible sequence ?


SriJoy wrote:I can do it quiete easily, using math: .....


Great! Can you please help us locate which date(s) would the above 13 observations lead us to? Please use computers since you seem an expert in their use.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1559
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 04 Aug 2017 22:36

Link to my first Facebook Live chat (FB Live) organized by Indic Book Club

https://www.facebook.com/nilesh.oak/vid ... 343957924/

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby gandharva » 05 Aug 2017 00:29

gandharva wrote:CHAPT ER 5 - Problems with the Critical Method
(From the book The Nay Science: A History of German Indology by Vishwa Adluri & Joydeep Bagchee)
https://www.amazon.com/Nay-Science-Hist ... 0199931364

The birth of Indology takes place at the crossroads of two great intellectual currents in German history: Romanticism, which gave rise to the search for pristine civilizations and the interest in myth, and Protestant biblical criticism (and its attendant phenomenon, historicism), which shaped ideas of what texts are and how they were to be studied. But the story of the intellectual roots of Indology cannot be told without also exploring the roots of a third intellectual current of the time: the new Wissenschaftsideologie of the nineteenth century. This ideology was to be a potent factor in the development of Indology out of the early grammatical, philosophical, and literary interests of an earlier generation of Orientalists (among them, the Schlegel brothers and the scholar-statesman Wilhelm von Humboldt).



Rest to follow later...


STEPS TOWARD A SCIENTIFIC INDOLOGY

Te development of a new ideal of science at German universities during the nineteenth century has been well documented.5 Scholars note that around the late eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries, the term Wissenschaft took on grand idealist associations of a system of total and comprehensive knowledge. This system integrated both the transcendental principles of knowledge with the more specialized disciplines that developed from out of these principles and carried forward the work of enabling knowledge of the objective world……..

It was not just that there was a sudden burst of intellectual efort, but a change occurred in the very meaning of knowledge, that is, in the notion of what could be studied, what was worth studying, and what counted as knowledge. Turner describes the change in attitudes as follows: “The professor of the eighteenth century had considered his main duty the transmission of established learning to certain professional groups; in addition to maintaining that goal, his nineteenth-century counterparts tried actively to expand learning in many esoteric felds. . . . Research emerged within university ideology as a fundamental duty of the scholar, and a reputation within one’s specialist community beyond the university became more and more a sine qua non for even minor university appointments.”9

This ideology of the scholar as engaged in original research was given explicit sanction in the writings of Wilhelm von Humboldt. In his essay “Über die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin,” which was to be a major infuence on university reform, Humboldt argued that what was unique about the higher educational faculties was that they regarded Wissenchaft as a “never completely solved problem.” They therefore “remain ever at research, whereas the school is only concerned with finished and settled insights.”10 If knowledge was no longer a unity, a single science approximating an eternal model as it had been in the time of the ancients, if knowledge had fractured into multiple felds of inquiry, then original research became a duty of the scholar. There were potentially as many forms of knowledge as methods for discovering them. As Paulsen commented in 1901, “The 19th century first introduced the requirement of independent research in science: only he is capable of being a teacher in science, who is himself actively productive in it. And correspondingly, the task of university education is not [the handing down of] mere tradition, but rather, instruction in how to independently bring forth knowledge.”11 Among the disciplines (and objects) to be discovered in the nineteenth century, were psychology (man as the intersection and functioning of his psychological capacities), sociology (man as social being), philology (text as document), and biology (life as an organic structure embedded in a specifc environment).

Indology, the new science of the study of India, too, emerged in the nineteenth century as part of this general expansion of research into all fields of human activity. It is thus no surprise that it conformed to general ideas of science in the air. Although we do not find an explicit reflection on its status as science (which perhaps would not be undertaken until the early twentieth century), in the writings of the Indologists of the period we do find frequent (and repeated) appeals to the wissenshaftliche character of Indology. Certainly, the threshold of positivity (to use Foucault’s terminology) was crossed quite early in its history, with the thresholds of epistemologization and scientifcity being crossed a little later. Key in this process of evolution was the idea of Indology as a philological and historical preoccupation with the documents of Indian antiquity, just as the science of classical philology (Altertumswissenschaft) was preoccupied with the documents of classical antiquity.

Before the establishment of the first chair for Indology (at Bonn in 1818; the first professor to hold the chair was August Wilhelm Schlegel), German intellectuals had carried out studies into Indian literature from a number of perspectives. Johann Gottfried Herder had produced literary translations of verses of the Bhagavadgītā. Humboldt himself had written an essay on the Gītā, praising it for its philosophical as well as for its poetic qualities.13 Schlegel hoped that the discovery of Indian antiquity would provide a similar impetus for the sciences in the nineteenth century as the (re)discovery of classical antiquity had provided in the fifteenth century.14 He was to be disappointed, however. Initial excitement over Indian thought gave way to a more philological preoccupation with Indian texts. In many ways, this transformation parallels wider currents relating to German philosophy. As Howard remarks, “as the nineteenth-century wore on and under the infuence of positivism, the growth of the natural sciences, disciplinary specialization, and the exigencies of industrialization and technology, Wissenschaft gradually lost its grand, idealist associations and took on a more limited definition with reference to particular academic fields, empirical rigour, and the putative ideological neutrality of the scholar.”15 Above all, it was the new disciplines of history and classical philology that were to meet this idea of Wissenschaft. Turner notes: “The philological and historical disciplines first displayed the intense concern with research and research training. Only later—during the 1830s—were these commitments widely adopted by science professors, often in direct imitation of learned values and institutional models of the humanistic disciplines.”16 Indology’s need to establish itself as a science meant that it quickly imbibed these ideas of disciplinary rigour. In fact, its evolution traced that of philology, which always remained the science against which it measured itself. Thus, just as the “critical, analytic tendencies of the new philology clashed sharply with the philosophic program of a grand synthesis of learning [and] [a] fter 1830 . . . largely replaced the philosophical tradition,”17 so, too, did Indology see itself in a conflict with philosophical interpretation. The efforts of an earlier generation of scholars such as Herder and Humboldt were dismissed as Schwärmgeisterei.18

By the early twentieth century, we find a widespread consensus in the writings of many Indologists that Indology had to be reestablished along philological principles. Hermann Oldenberg, in an essay written in 1906, argued that Indology was concerned with the documents of Indian antiquity, a task that necessitated a historical and philological approach. With this and other publications on Indologie or, as he preferred to call it in explicit contrast to classical philology, on indische Philologie (Indian philology), Oldenberg rapidly became the foremost spokesperson for the new science. Between 1875 (the year he published his dissertation, “De sacris fratrum arvalium quaestiones”) and 1920 (the year of his death), he published six articles or speeches devoted to a theoretical clarifcation of Indology. Te earliest of these, “Über Sanskritforschung,” was written in 188619; the next to follow was “Die Erforschung der altindischen Religionen im Gesamtzusammenhang der Religionswissenschaft: Ein Vortrag” (1904),20 while the two years 1906–7 saw the publication of three of his most important contributions: “Göttergnade und Menschenkraft in den altindischen Religionen” (1906), Oldenberg’s inaugural lecture on his accession to the rectorship of the University of Kiel21; “Indische und klassische Philologie” (1906),22 his most extensive refection on the relation of Indian philology to classical philology; and “Indologie” (1907),23 a recapitulation of modern Indology’s tasks that explicitly closed the door on Indology’s Romantic and humanist heritage.

What were Oldenberg’s main points? In his 1886 text, he was at pains to contrast the more haphazard efforts of British scholars (mainly colonial ofcers such as William Jones) with the systematic eforts of German scholars. Oldenberg saw the establishment of the Asiatic Society (Calcutta, 1784) as the birth hour of Indology. He credited Wilson, Henry Tomas Colebrooke, and others with establishing this “new branch of historical research.” Yet ideas of historical research—however popular—did not suffce to defne the scientifc character of Indology; rather, what was required was a concerted efort at systematic research. Here, German scholars excelled: “Englishmen began the work; soon it was taken up by men of other nations and in the course of time it transformed itself ever more decisively, to a far greater extent than this could, for example, be said of research into hieroglyphic or cuneiform [writing], into an afair of German science [deutschen Wissenschaft].”25 “While Colebrooke still stood at the height of his [creative] powers, participation in researches on India began to awaken in that land which had done more than any other to bring these [researches] closer to a strict, frmly grounded science [Wissenschaft]: Germany.”26 Oldenberg assigned Germany pride of place in this transition from an amateur preoccupation to a formal discipline, the word being used with all its connotations of rigor, dedication, and a structured program of inquiry. Using the two great Sanskrit dictionaries of the time (Monier-Williams and Roth-Böhtlingk) as an example, he typifed the contrast between British and German scholarship as follows: “The contrast between the two great periods [of Sanskrit scholarship] could not be more clearly embodied than in these two dictionaries, in which the development of researches on India is displayed: here, the beginnings, which the English science standing directly on the shoulders of Indian pandithood had made; there, the further development, with the methods of strict philology, in terms of breadth and depth pressing incomparably ahead of these beginnings, at their head German researchers.

Paralleling the distinction Howard traces between the first and second phases of Wissenschaftsideologie, Oldenberg also identifed two distinct phases of the reception of Indian thought in Germany. In the frst phase, German literature, poetry, anid philosophy laid the ground for Indian studies in Germany. As Oldenberg notes, “There could be no more receptive ground for Jones’ and Colebrooke’s discoveries than the Germany of that period, full of enthusiastic interest for the ancient, folk [volksthümliche] poetry of all nations, flled with great movements in its own literature and philosophy; out of the distance, India’s [literature and poetry] now encountered these as though related: so to speak, an Oriental Romanticism and a poetic thought that, in its sweep, sought no less daringly than the absolute philosophy of the Germans to press forward to the formless primordial source of all forms [gestaltlosen Urquell aller Gestaltungen].”28 Yet, this Romantic heritage could, at times, also be a source of embarrassment, as Oldenberg lets out in his criticisms of Schlegel. Schlegel, hargued, had created a “highly infuential fantasy image of India.” Yet, this image was neither “sober” nor “faithful” to the truth.29 In contrast, it was “Bopp, with his researches into the grammatical structure of Sanskrit, who undertook to base the science [Wissenschaft] on the long recognized fact of the relationship of this language to Persian and to mainly European languages.”30 Bopp’s approach was more “modest”; yet, it had “penetrated incomparably deeper” into Indian language and literature.31 Oldenberg was full of fulsome praise for Bopp’s 1816 work, Conjugationsystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprahe, which he considered to have laid the foundation for scientifc study of India. He wrote: “We can here only mention with one word the researches that have been carried out since the appearance of this work . . . and for which Bopp laid the foundation at the time. Seldom has more remarkable work been accomplished for science [Wissenschaft] than here.”32

Bopp’s comparative linguistic approach, however, was only part of the story. The other part, which Oldenberg considered to have divided the evolution of the “science [Wissenschaft] of India” into “two halves,” was the development of historical research, aided above all by a renewed interest in the Veda.33 Here he identifes three great names: Max Müller, Rudolf von Roth, and Albrecht Weber. Roth, above all, appears to have been a paradigm of this new historical consciousness for Oldenberg. He cites the scholar’s view that it would be a “mockery” if the “criticism and acumen” of a century that had successfully deciphered the rock inscriptions of the Perisan kings and Zarathustra’s books, did not also succeed in reading “the history of ideas [Geistesgeschichte] of this people [that is, the Indians] in this mass of writings with certitude.”34 How far did the renewed interest in researching the Veda go toward fulflling Roth’s expectations? Although Oldenberg conceded that much of what Roth had hoped for could not be attained, he argued that “what has been attained has given a completely new look to the picture, which science [Wissenschaft] had of India.” “This picture appeared to lose itself without a horizon in the misty depths of an unmeasured past; now we fnd the boundaries; an external starting point for history that can be the subject of our research is within sight. Authentic sources, originating in the oldest period of India, out of which and concerning which historical sources in the customary sense of the term can be attained, opened themselves up and, instead of the twilight traversed by uncertain, shadowy titanic fgures, in which the epic poems caused this period to appear, the Veda showed forth a reality that one could hope to understand. . . .” Even where the Veda did not succeed in enabling historical knowledge, this was nonetheless “a gain” because “one then at least knew that the information one sought had vanished and what presented itself as this [information] was now exposed as a fantasy image, one that had emerged from the arbitrariness of later creators of legend.” Scholarship into the Veda, Oldenberg concluded, had succeeded in “outlin[ing] the horizon of historical knowledge with signifcant forms.”35

In contrast to the first phase, the second phase of Indian studies in Germany (for which we properly reserve the name Indology) was also marked by increasing technicization. Whereas the Romantics had been inspired by pedagogic and philosophical considerations, such considerations were regarded as increasingly redundant by career Indologists. As we have seen, following Hegel’s review of von Humboldt’s Gītā, German scholars increasingly came to see Indian texts as raw matter for their own historical and critical researches. Hence Oldenberg could now declare, “it is the task of the philological researcher to determine these fates [which the Indian texts have undergone], so to speak, the life history [Lebensgeschichte] of the texts.” He also compared Indian texts, “as they have been handed down to us,” with “the paintings of old masters, across which destruction and attempts at restoration, both by legitimate and illegitimate persons, have alternately been at work.Our aim, Oldenberg declared, was to “know, as far as can be recognized, what the painting originally was like.”36 Here was where German scholarship came into its own. Oldenberg writes:

“We may state [with justifcation] that the most ambitious efforts [and] the most important successes in this feld are associated with the names of German researchers. If we [now] add that it could not easily have been otherwise, then this is not hubris; rather, we thereby merely give expression to a state of afairs that is grounded in the evolution of the science [Wissenschaft] itself. It was natural that the earliest impulses for the nascent research on India, the frst attempts to grasp the material that was imposing itself en masse on us and to fnd preliminary forms for it, are owed to Englishmen—men who had spent a good portion of their lives in India and stood in constant contact with the local scholars of Sanskrit there. But it is no less natural that the honors of further advances [and] deeper insights have fallen to the lot of the Germans. Te two areas of science [Wissenschaft], out of which life and strength primarily fowed to researches on India, were and remain essentially German: comparative linguistics [Sprachwissenschaft], which, one can say, was founded by Bopp, and that deepened, powerful science [Wissenschaft] or, just as rightly, art of philology, as it had been practiced by Gottfried Hermann and, alongside him, permeated by the proud spirit of Lessing, Karl Lachmann, full of astute, goal-oriented skill, precise and true [genau und wahrhaftig] in small matters just as much as in big ones.37”

Systematicity, rigor, intensifcation of research, development of autonomous methods, historical reconstruction, and comparative and philological methods—these, then, were the hallmarks of German scholarship on India according to Oldenberg. They were responsible for endowing the study of Sanskrit with its properly scientifc character. These traits, however, were not unique to Indology. They were the defning characteristic of German scholarship tout court and in particular of classical philology, which remained the science against which Indology measured itself. As Oldenberg clarifed, “even if representatives of this philology [that is, of classical philology] . . . should encounter the youthful science [Wissenschaft] of India with reserve or with more than reserve, this changes nothing about the fact that work on Indian texts, investigation into the literary monuments of India, cannot be learnt from any better teacher than those masters, who knew how to improve and to explain the classical texts with an accuracy of method as this world has never seen before.”38 Yet Oldenberg was not simply being ingenious. By the nineteenth century, it was the “new” philology that, above all, had established the reputation of German scholarship. Howard notes that classical philology and its sister discipline, Altertumswissenschaft, became “the German sciences par excellence, and [the] ones with far-reaching ramifcations for scholarship and the university system as a whole.”39 Under the stewardship of Johann Matthias Gesner (1691–1761) and Christian Gottlob Heyne (1729–1812), philological studies came to take pride of pace within the neohumanist canon of the university. It thus comes as no surprise that Oldenberg sought to construe the wissenschaftliche character of Indology along the lines of classical philology. By underscoring the connection between Indology and philology, he hoped to establish the scientifc character of Indology. He argued a direct ancestry for Indology in classical philology in that he traced its genealogy via Friedrich Max Müller (1823–1900) to Moriz Haupt (1808–74) and Gottfried Hermann (1772–1848), the latter two classical philologists at Leipzig. Indology was scientifc, wissenschaftlich, because it had imbibed ideas of methodological rigor and technical precision from philology, from “that . . . great teacher” as Oldenberg called it in his 1909 article.40 Paralleling the development of the study of ancient languages at German universities, which had gone from being ancillary to theological concerns to becoming independent disciplines in their own right,41 Indian studies in the nineteenth century also underwent a similar process of Verselbständigung, rendering themselves independent or autonomous of philosophical, literary, or theological concerns. Well might Oldenberg underscore the wissenschaftliche character of Indology, if all that was thereby implied was that it had traced the evolution of philology. And yet that is only half the story, for we must still ask wherein the scientifc character of Indology as philology lies. The answer will take us in the direction of a general critique of positivist methodology
To be Continued......

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4954
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby RoyG » 05 Aug 2017 01:47

SriJoy,

If you can't address critical questions posed to you, how can you expect this debate to go on? We are trying to show you that YOUR current view has its origins in the protestant reformation and german indology.

Please pick up The Nay Science by Vishwa Adluri. It shows how the questions and arguments you are using aren't born out of a true social science but instead come from a series of internal debates that took place within Christianity when it made contact w/ the so called heathen traditions of Asia.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby gandharva » 05 Aug 2017 04:45

RoyG wrote:SriJoy,

If you can't address critical questions posed to you, how can you expect this debate to go on? We are trying to show you that YOUR current view has its origins in the protestant reformation and german Indology.

Please pick up The Nay Science by Vishwa Adluri. It shows how the questions and arguments you are using aren't born out of a true social science but instead come from a series of internal debates that took place within Christianity when it made contact w/ the so called heathen traditions of Asia.


This whole claim of "Scientific" and "critical" approach to Vedas and other Hindu texts is nothing but deep down a Protestant Christian impulse. One going through Adluri's book will convince himself of that.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 05 Aug 2017 06:15

SriJoy wrote:Nope, it was an explanation on why we should be skeptical for the whole notion of 'advanced prehistoric peoples' ideology.

The problem I have with this is that these "simple people" views have been expressed by some historians and philologists. But historians and philologists are themselves simple people who cannot know much because the entire work of history or philology represents less than 1% of all the other fields of knowledge put together.

On the other hand medical knowledge represents more than 1% of the knowledge base so medical professionals fall outside the "simple people" category. Therefore I am eminently qualified to refute the claim that the Vedas were created by simple people.

Also a large number or research studies have shown Vedic scholars graded higher than 10th grade in terms of their knowledge, with many having PhDs proving that your assertion about Vedic scholars is wrong.

You need to do more research when you deal with the kind of experts you re attempting to debate with here.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 05 Aug 2017 06:16

The man is a troll and needs to be trolled back or checked by admins if they are kind enough to look at this thread

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2769
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Rudradev » 05 Aug 2017 06:44

The truly damning exposure of SriJoy's abjectly white-worshipping hermeneutics lies not merely in his ignorance of science or his fabrication of history... but in his choice of null hypothesis.

Forget for a moment the flawed, meagre or outright fraudulent standards by which he claims to determine whether any specific piece of evidence is valid. The default state that according to him must be true "in the absence of other evidence" is always, invariably, the subjective opinion of White Jewish or Christian Westerners.

A troll is at least being true to himself at some level. What we have here is a sepoy.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2773
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 05 Aug 2017 06:57

SriJoy wrote:I support OIT because it makes more objective sense to me.


I am surprised you would say that when the existing level of knowledge, information, and evidence are heavily stacked in favor of AIT/AMT.

Now on some future date the OIT proponents can come up with evidence/proof then the opinion can change but so far I have not seen that coming, and I seriously doubt that is going to happen.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 05 Aug 2017 07:30

Rudradev wrote:The truly damning exposure of SriJoy's abjectly white-worshipping hermeneutics lies not merely in his ignorance of science or his fabrication of history... but in his choice of null hypothesis.

Forget for a moment the flawed, meagre or outright fraudulent standards by which he claims to determine whether any specific piece of evidence is valid. The default state that according to him must be true "in the absence of other evidence" is always, invariably, the subjective opinion of White Jewish or Christian Westerners.

A troll is at least being true to himself at some level. What we have here is a sepoy.


Here's an interesting Tweet I saw today
https://twitter.com/Hiranyareta/status/ ... 3604673536
Gora Indologists and their native Sancho Panzas see Vedic texts as raw material for generating their own "Scientific/Critical" मानसतरंग​s.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1962
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Prem Kumar » 05 Aug 2017 10:20

SriJoy: I've reported your posts to the Mods because you are derailing this thread. The last several pages have just been your arguments & counter-arguments. Its putting people off, who come to this thread to get valuable information.

Please stop trolling this thread. Take a break.

Shiv & Others: a request. Kindly stop responding to him. Enough has been said.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1561
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby sudarshan » 05 Aug 2017 19:46

Yes, I don't understand this penchant among some people, to have the last word at any cost. Does everybody in the world have to agree with your views all the time? Shiv saar, I think you too share some blame here, when it's so obvious that somebody is a troll, is it necessary to keep engaging them?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aakashrj, Google [Bot], rvishwakarm, Sathish_A, tandav and 38 guests