johneeG wrote:Now, Bhesterner 1 and Bhesterner 2 come to Hindhus and ask them:
Bhesterner 1 and Bhesterner 2: Hey Hindhu, we both have been arguing for sometime and are not able to reach any clear conclusion. Tell us, who do you accept as correct?
a) Is you literature just a silly mythology i.e. fabricated lies? or
b) Is you history trying to portray the invasion of Oiropean Aryans?
This is like asking: have you stopped beating your wife?
If I say, "yes", then it means I admit to beating my wife previously.
If I say, "no", then it means that I still beat my wife.
Balu is knowingly or unknowingly following the line of bhesterner 1.
I think you are knowingly or unknowingly talking crap and you have made up a story to make that crap sound convincing.
Balu is not doing what you say and your story is too shallow and idiotic for me to be polite any more.
Balu's entire work is probably too difficult for you to express in your silly "bhesterner did this" style. His work centers around pointing out why Indians failed to understand Europeans and got fooled into agreeing with their terms of reference. This is obviously not important to you because you are too busy making up stories that you like.
But Balus work is important in tearing down the edifices built by India''s secular historians in their JNU fortresses in a way that other academics can understand. The fact that you cannot or will not bother to try and understand is fine - but you should not pass comments out of ignorance. You have posted a whole long made up story about "Hindhus" and "bhesterners" simply to show up your ignorance and I think it is high time you stopped. This does not speak very highly of you - because you are hiding your ignorance (or misinformation?) in humongously long posts.
its 'shallow' and 'ignorant' to trade insults and abuses. If you have a point to make, then go ahead and make them. If you think some x, y, z is right, then please argue your case. But, abusing other posters is not going to convince anyone of your case. Rather, it will only show that you don't have much of a case to argue.
Coming to topic:
The long and short of your dear Balu's work is that he is denying Hindhu history. He is basically saying that Hindhuism is a mish-mash of cults and is not even a religion because according to him, a religion would be like X-ism or Mo-ism. If a religion is not like X-ism, then it is not a religion. This means that he has taken the definition provided by X-ism as true and final.
Infact, his book is called 'heathen in his blindness'. It seems that Balagangadhara uses the framework provided by the X-ism to critique Hindhuism. In this process, he is doing what the earliest X-ists did.
They simply said that Hindhu literature was nice poetic literature but did not have any historical value. Balagangadhara is basically saying the same thing in a round about way.
Oiropeans found the Hindhu literature having historical importance only when they woke up to the Aryan Invasion theory. Until then, they simply said that Hindhu literature was just a mythology.
Both these attitudes are still found in many 'secular' and 'westernized' folks. For example, when the issue of Raam Sethu came up, Indian govt said in court that Shri Rama was a mythological figure and not a historical figure.
The Archaeological Survey of India on Wednesday filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that there is no historical and scientific evidence to establish the existence of Lord Ram or the other characters of the Ramayana. Denying the Ram Setu or Adams Bridge is a man-made structure, it said Ramcharitmanas by Tulsidas cannot be taken as a historical record to “prove the existence of the characters or occurrence of events” depicted in it.
No historical evidence!!! What kind of historical evidence are they looking for the existence of Shri Raama? There is his biography written and rewritten in so many languages. His temples are all over the land. Yet, they say that there is no evidence for His existence?! Your dear Balu is saying the same.
When the westerners do accept the historical Raama, they try to bring in the Aryan Invasion theory.
So, its basically two stands:
a) deny history
b) distort history.
Your dear Balu is denying history while Witzel is distorting history.
Anyway, witzel seems to concentrate on Vedhas which are not history according to Hindhu traditions. Vedhas are the 'knowledge'. Infact, the very first distortion of history is trying to create history out of Vedhas.
On the other hand, 'Ithihaasa' is history according to Hindhuism. Puraana are ancient histories.
johneeG wrote:to me, it seems like what Balu is saying is, "Oiropeans thought it was history when it was not history."
Basically, Balu is saying that it was Oiropeans who came up with the unique idea that Ramayana and Mahabharatha are histories. This is utter nonsense. Ramayana and Mahabharatha were always seen as histories long before the Oiropeans came.
Infact, it was the Oiropeans who first started questioning the Ramayana and Mahabharatha as histories. They first denied them historical significance.
shiv wrote:JohneeG please don't expose your shallowness by passing comments without reading or understanding what he writes. Balu writes longer posts than you - so I admit it is difficult to read. But you cannot comment without reading and it is obvious that you have not read what he is saying. Please don't shame yourself.
My opinion of his work is based on whatever I have read of his work. If I have misunderstood his work, please point to specific excerpt from his work which is contradictory to what I said, he is saying. I'd be rather pleased if he is not saying what I think he is saying.
You have made more than 3 posts, saying,"You have not read him. You are mistaking him. You are an idiot if you comment on his work without understanding his great work" You have written many posts trying to explain his theories in your words. However, all those are simply your opinions or interpretations.
It would be far better to directly quote him and let people come to their own conclusions.
answer a simple question: Was Raamayna and Mahabharatha considered as history before the brits came or not?
That means did people think that Raama lived in Ayodhya or not? Do you think brits started this theory that Raama actually lived in Ayodhya? Before that people thought it was just a spiritual literature not a historical chronicle?
It seems to me that Balagangadhara is saying that it was the brits who came up with this unique idea that Raamayana and Mahabhaaratha are histories. If that is his stand, then I think thats a wrong idea.
If I am misunderstanding his stand, then I'll be happy to be corrected.
As for 'Ithi':
Balagangadhara wrote:Iti" is supposed to be "thus". Which is very true. But when you write, in India, Sanskrit language or even in vernacular languages, we used to, maybe we don't any more, we used to write letters to uncles and aunts, etcetra, ending with the word "iti".
"Iti". What does it mean?
It is a meta-linguistic sign, which refers back to what went before. Before what? Before the end, before you sign your name.
There are no quotation marks in Sanskruth. So, "Ithi" is used as a quotation marks also. Because it means 'thus', i.e. it was said thus. Now, in the word 'Ithihaasam', its etymology is quite clear:
Ithi + ha + aasam
thus + of course + it occurred.
Instead of straight forward etymology, Balangangadhara is trying to spin a new meaning by some innovative thinking.
Anyway, heres a simple question to Balagangadhara:
According to him, did Shri Raama live in Ayodhya or not?
According to him, did Shri Krushna live on the earth or not?
Are Raama and Krushna mythological figures(or spiritual figures) or are they also historical figures?
it seems to me that you are the one who misunderstood Balagangadhara's work and you are trying to see it in positive light. To me, it seems that he is just repeating what a typical marxist or X-ist would say. His framework, his definitions, and his ideas seem to be based on X-ism.