Defending Dharmik Traditions

[shivsomashekhar]

My existence proves that my grandfather had children.

Kalyan does not think so He probably has an explanation of how one can exist without a grandfather!

 

[kalyan]

Kalyan does not think so He probably has an explanation of how one can exist without a grandfather!

no you dont get the point I am trying to make, ok let me put it this way without taking relations into matter 'lets say you know a person B's grandfather name and you dont know any of his/her relations' how do you claim he existed ? see what I did there ?

 

[kalyan]

My existence proves that my grandfather had children. Well, your views are yours and mine are mine. They may differ.

so you wont believe that world exists except your lineage....you can clearly claim I don't exist If I have not known you ? sorry but your logic has total fail written over it, even you attempt to call it a logic

 

[Kirran]

so you wont believe that world exists except your lineage....you can clearly claim I don't exist If I have not known you ? sorry but your logic has total fail written over it, even you attempt to call it a logic

Actually, this is an example of the Pramana of Anumana, accepted as a valid source for knowledge in almost all schools of Vaidik philosophy. Aside from Charvaka, I know no schools in which it is not accepted.

For readers: Anumana is a means for acquiring knowledge which can be translated as inference. So if I see smoke, I can accurately infer there is fire. If a person exists, I can accurately infer that their grandfather at one point was alive, as in this example.

 

[kalyan]

Actually, this is an example of the Pramana of Anumana, accepted as a valid source for knowledge in almost all schools of Vaidik philosophy. Aside from Charvaka, I know no schools in which it is not accepted.

For readers: Anumana is a means for acquiring knowledge which can be translated as inference. So if I see smoke, I can accurately infer there is fire. If a person exists, I can accurately infer that their grandfather at one point was alive, as in this example.

yes kirran ,I understand, nice that you brought the pramana .... but how do I prove lets say I exist as from aupmanyav view?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Kalyan does not think so He probably has an explanation of how one can exist without a grandfather!

Oh, yes. I understand. I am a 'swayambhuh' or a direct descent from heaven or hell.

so you wont believe that world exists except your lineage....you can clearly claim I don't exist If I have not known you ? sorry but your logic has total fail written over it, even you attempt to call it a logic

I believe the world and my lineage exists (at least at the illusory level - Vyavaharika). You too exist at the same illusory level (Vyavaharika) and typed this message on an illusory computer.

For readers: Anumana is a means for acquiring knowledge which can be translated as inference. So if I see smoke, I can accurately infer there is fire. If a person exists, I can accurately infer that their grandfather at one point was alive, as in this example.

Well, I am not sure. Read about 'Samanyalakshana' of the Naiyayikas at https://books.google.co.in/books?id=JZWdEymxyp4C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=There+can+be+smoke+without+a+fire&source=bl&ots=AlzvZxmmMw&sig=OLfOuCAxrIXN-Q59LuYECg6rpA4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgKahUKEwiegsmHiN_HAhWJno4KHQHHAU0#v=onepage&q=There can be smoke without a fire&f=false

.. but how do I prove lets say I exist as from aupmanyav view?

But Aup already accepts that.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

My existence proves the existence of my great great grandfather, whoever it was.

My existence proves that my grandfather had children.

Sage VedaVyasa as even the tradition says was son of an indigenous woman. Genetically, the story could even be more murkier .

1. Incorrect, one's mere existence only proves that 'X' had 'a' gggf, not necessarily 'the' gggf one claims be a descendant of, which requires a series of inferences AND reliable testimonies - the inference that because one exists, (s)he must have had parents supported by the testimony that X is indeed their offspring by the parents and not a child adopted or found by the banks of a river; inference that the father of X must have had parents in the lineage as claimed supported by testimony of the parents, so on so forth. You've already agreed to this by accepting "as no man can say that one whom he considers as his son is really his son without DNA profiling"
2. Characters in the works of Kalidasa may be entirely fictional in nature and might have well undergone several interpolations, yet that cannot deny the existence of Kalidasa - nor do we know about the existence of his descendants; and going by your logic even his (and that of other well known poets') existence can be denied.
3. Therefore, for anyone with reasonable intelligence and ability to infer and the clarity on why testimony matters, it is impossible to deny the existence of Vyasa. Your only contention can be "Vyasa did not exist because i don't believe so"; because both by inference and testimony his existence can be shown to be true and justified based on common logic. The process of arriving at it is also reliable as it is not exclusive to only one case.
4. Vyasa's father was as indigenous as Satyavati, and the caste system was certainly not as rigid as it is today. A recent study [http://www.deccanchronicle.com/1506...article/indo-aryan-migration-theory-rejected], rejected any migration into the Indian subcontinent in the last 12,000 years, so it wouldn't be so murky afterall.

AFAIK, nothing of worth was found in Dwaraka, other than some evidence it was a port city dating no earlier than 1500 BC. This does not align with the traditional dates provided for the Mbh nor does it provide any other evidence corroborating the historic value of the epic. Besides, it is common for coastlines to sink over time (Mahabalipuram, etc.,) around the world.

There, this is the typical approach of all western indologists' methods, and this is exactly what i disagree with. Accept a strawman, disprove it, and conclude that such disproval applies to the entire traditional history, even as there is no conclusive evidence on either sides. The exploration was merely at its initial stages and the detailed proposal to study the entire region - further complicated due to continuous dredging - has been biting dust in the Govt offices since 2000, and because nothing much was excavated after the initial studies, isn't it equally unscientific to jump to conclusion? In Jun/Jul 2015 the proposal to undertake a full-fledged study has been granted by the Govt with clear objective of examining the authenticity of both Dwaraka as well as Rama Setu. So, scientifically, it is only too early to either accept or reject. But there are already academic papers published, i think by Witzel - also one of the leading proponents of aryan invasion adapted to migration adapted to trickling theory - that even the rock formations there are actually only natural geometric patterns shaped by movement of water. [http://www.navhindtimes.in/nio-asi-underwater-bid-to-look-for-dwarka-ram-setu/]

In all honesty, our Itihasas texts (including the Puranas) are religious compendiums with countless prayers and allegories, using historic details (if any) as a mere backdrop to make the text more palatable We cannot, in good faith, consider them works on history. The Greek epics are not history either. Herodotus's book - the histories - too, is not history in the modern sense.

What is the basis for translating itihāsa as epic? If you consider the characteristics of purāṇa as one including sarga, pratisarga, vaṁśa, manvantara, and vaṁśānucarita, it is but a historical account, only not limited to recent history. Now, indeed, there are allegories etc, and many poetic excesses but it is definitely not impossible to extract only those premises of historical importance for arriving at a more reasonable understanding - and this is not new, there are several studies even by contemporary western indologists, only, they don't find enough propagation - without a eurocentric bias taken as the established starting point.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Kirran]

Just as a brief point - I don't see Aryan Migration as being by necessity a eurocentric idea. The early Indo-European Urheimat was likely not in Europe, or at best on the fringes. It posits a partial exogenous origin for almost all European cultures too. Rather, the idea that all IE languages come from Sanskrit (doesn't fit linguistic evidence) or that India has, unlike the rest of the planet, had no significant migration of peoples to it over 12,000 years, seems profoundly Indocentric.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. Even if I was picked from Connought Place Outer Circle in New Delhi or from Vishram Ghat, Mathura, that does not negate the existence of my gggf. We are not discussing the question of 'who'. Moreover, whoever I may be, if I am accepted by a house-holder as his son, then according to Shastras there is no dispute.
2. Purported descendants of Kalidasa since there is no proof, just like I am a purported descendant of Sage Upamanyu. That does not really prove the existence of the two gentlemen. The Yadavas claim descent from Lord Krishna and Sri Guru Gobind Singh claimed descent from Lord Rama. Claim and proof are two different things.
3. I did not say that a Vyasa did not exist, Vyasa many a times simply used for a story teller, but there is no proof that a Sage VedaVyasa existed and he was the person who wrote Jaya, BrahmaSutras and 18 purana and asked his pupils to codify the Vedas, and was also known as Badarayana as well as Krishna Dwaipayana. These are beliefs, myths, stories, which may be true or may be false, just as there is no proof that the there was a person named Mark and Gospel by Mark was wholly written by him. History is a very hard task-master.
4. If we do not know about Sage VedaVyasa, it is not of much use to make conjectures about this mother and father and whether they were indigenous or immigrants. We hardly have anything to go by expcept beliefs, myths and stories. Immigration has always been there. Look at the European situation today. And I think the Aryans did have their conflicts and may have been pushed south by tribes that we later think as Scythians (Shakas of the Shakadwipa) from the North. Later these tribes reached India and ruled us (of course, they too accepted Hinduism in time as their names indicate).

Nahapana; Chastana, son of Ghsamotika; Jayadaman, son of Chastana; Rudradaman I, son of Jayadaman ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians
Kanishka I, Vāsishka, Huvishka, Vasudeva I .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire
The Saka (Old Persian: Sakā; New Persian/Pashto: ساکا‎; Sanskrit: Śaka; Greek: Σάκαι; Latin: Sacae; Chinese: 塞;pinyin: Sāi; Old Chinese: *Sək) was the term used in Persian and Sanskrit sources for the Scythians, a large group of Eastern Iranian nomadic tribes on the Eurasian Steppe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

There is no proof of the existence of a Sage known as Vedavyasa

3. I did not say that a Vyasa did not exist

Ok so Vyasa existed.

We are not discussing the question of 'who'.

Hmmm...

Just as a brief point - I don't see Aryan Migration as being by necessity a eurocentric idea. The early Indo-European Urheimat was likely not in Europe, or at best on the fringes. It posits a partial exogenous origin for almost all European cultures too. Rather, the idea that all IE languages come from Sanskrit (doesn't fit linguistic evidence) or that India has, unlike the rest of the planet, had no significant migration of peoples to it over 12,000 years, seems profoundly Indocentric.

Ok, agree in principle. Though you have to consider that there have been several linguists, not necessarily vaidikas, who have promulgated various theories about saṁskṛtam. Standardization and systematization of saṁskṛtam and its grammar were mostly carried out at the fringes of ancient bhārathavarsha - at gāndhāra, currently Qandahar - the grammarians, arguably world's first linguists, toured the entire country in formulating sutras adopting some usages, adapting some, and keeping some out of scope, yet providing sufficient indications for such usage. Linguists who came subsequently, too elaborated on the same. Both of these groups had the opportunity to interact with people and cultures of a variety of nations as evidenced by strong trade relations and findings of coins and other artefacts, arrival of foreign travelers who wrote extensive commentaries, and the evidence of knowledge of Persian culture, practices, and language as evidenced in the Mahabhāratha, etc, thus providing ample scope for comparative study of languages. This can be seen from the flow of abstract mathematical concepts to the arabs as well, though much later, giving rise to what is now known as arabic numeral system. though it was indigenous to India. It is called arabic only because the Europeans received it from them. Yet, not one linguist, until the arrival of the British and their employment of Mueller (at least he gave currency to it), found that their language was in fact derived from an older prototype, though there is absolutely no difficulty in accepting that the scripts for the same have evolved because saṁskṛtam is a language that is used without dependency on the script. It is basically another way saying these linguist know/understand saṁskṛtam better than Pāṇini and/or Patanjali!
So the current linguistic constructions are Eurocentric and despite the numeral system being called arabic, it is not arab-centric because i am speaking from the perspective of who gives currency to a particular notion/theory/hypothesis/etc.
You are right that the alternative theories proposed based on Genetics can be considered Indocentric, but they are certainly not flouting established scientific rules/methods irrespective of the 'centrism', unlike the European linguistic models that ignore grammatical evidences found in earlier works, quoting and even misquoting only those that suit their needs. The whole thing started as a linguistic surmise, and sooner or later, will end up being just that. I'm not alleging that all research by anyone of 'European' descent is biased, there are many who are in fact voicing their opinion against (for eg: http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/default_en.asp) 'mainstream' theories. The only refutation of their works so far has been to label them as Hindutvavādis and therefore fundamentalists or to mute their refutations by not allowing to publish in journals despite meeting requisite quality standards.

That does not really prove the existence of the two gentlemen.

So now you are denying the existence of Kalidāsa?

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

at gāndhāra, currently Qandahar

Kandhar was not Gandhara, though the names are so similar. Gandhara was Peshwar and near about.

Kandhar in Greek times was known as Arachosia and the river there, Argandhab, was once known as Saraswati (Harahvaiti).

 

[Aupmanyav]

So now you are denying the existence of Kalidāsa?

No, I am not denying it, But if somebody asks for proof, then I have none except myths (that intially he was a dumb fool), beliefs, tradition and stories. The same can be said of Buddha. Jesus' historicity is intensely debated.

However, here is a Google Earth location of Panini's village Shalutala, modern name Lahur, in North West Frontier Agency, Pakistan. Let us bow to his memory. I am sure, in his time the hills might not have been divested of trees. The construction of the road has caused land-slide.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

1. There, this is the typical approach of all western indologists' methods, and this is exactly what i disagree with. Accept a strawman, disprove it, and conclude that such disproval applies to the entire traditional history, even as there is no conclusive evidence on either sides. The exploration was merely at its initial stages and the detailed proposal to study the entire region - further complicated due to continuous dredging - has been biting dust in the Govt offices since 2000, and because nothing much was excavated after the initial studies, isn't it equally unscientific to jump to conclusion? In Jun/Jul 2015 the proposal to undertake a full-fledged study has been granted by the Govt with clear objective of examining the authenticity of both Dwaraka as well as Rama Setu. So, scientifically, it is only too early to either accept or reject. But there are already academic papers published, i think by Witzel - also one of the leading proponents of aryan invasion adapted to migration adapted to trickling theory - that even the rock formations there are actually only natural geometric patterns shaped by movement of water. [http://www.navhindtimes.in/nio-asi-underwater-bid-to-look-for-dwarka-ram-setu/]

So, you do agree then, that nothing of value has been found in Dwaraka. Nothing that corroborates the events of the Mbh or the Bhagavatam. The link you posted returns a "not found" error. We are missing the unbiased, neutral perspective, instead choosing sides and viewing this as "us vs. them".

What is the basis for translating itihāsa as epic? If you consider the characteristics of purāṇa as one including sarga, pratisarga, vaṁśa, manvantara, and vaṁśānucarita, it is but a historical account, only not limited to recent history. Now, indeed, there are allegories etc, and many poetic excesses but it is definitely not impossible to extract only those premises of historical importance for arriving at a more reasonable understanding - and this is not new, there are several studies even by contemporary western indologists, only, they don't find enough propagation - without a eurocentric bias taken as the established starting point.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

This is the same problem anywhere. How many interpret tales from the Illiad or Odyssey as history? The authenticity of the person Jesus or of Moses is questioned a lot more than the authenticity of the Buddha. The truth of 12th century Marco Polo's travels is questioned. This is the scientific method and should be applied to all cases, without bias. Are we willing to set sentiment aside and admit that the Mahabharata today is in a state where it is practically impossible to separate fact from fiction? Madhva noted that the Mbh contained interpolations. The MBh itself, says it was originally 25,000 verses and grew in size over time (to about 3 times its original size). The amount of religious material in the text exceeds the amount of non-religious material. The traditional time period allotted to the events does not find corroboration in the form of archaeological evidence. On the other hand, a fake article of radioactive weapons (described in the Mbh) was doing its rounds on the internet. The Mbh has evolved over a thousand years, revised by multiple hands. Archaic, pre-Panian text and classical text exist side by side. Unfortunately, this only serves to undermine its credibility. If it contains factual events, I can safely say that we are in no position to identify them.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

So, you do agree then, that nothing of value has been found in Dwaraka. Nothing that corroborates the events of the Mbh or the Bhagavatam. The link you posted returns a "not found" error. We are missing the unbiased, neutral perspective, instead choosing sides and viewing this as "us vs. them".

I would agree, nothing conclusive has been found. http://www.navhindtimes.in/nio-asi-underwater-bid-to-look-for-dwarka-ram-setu/

This is the same problem anywhere. How many interpret tales from the Illiad or Odyssey as history? The authenticity of the person Jesus or of Moses is questioned a lot more than the authenticity of the Buddha. The truth of 12th century Marco Polo's travels is questioned. This is the scientific method and should be applied to all cases, without bias. Are we willing to set sentiment aside and admit that the Mahabharata today is in a state where it is practically impossible to separate fact from fiction? Madhva noted that the Mbh contained interpolations. The MBh itself, says it was originally 25,000 verses and grew in size over time (to about 3 times its original size). The amount of religious material in the text exceeds the amount of non-religious material. The traditional time period allotted to the events does not find corroboration in the form of archaeological evidence. On the other hand, a fake article of radioactive weapons (described in the Mbh) was doing its rounds on the internet. The Mbh has evolved over a thousand years, revised by multiple hands. Archaic, pre-Panian text and classical text exist side by side. Unfortunately, this only serves to undermine its credibility. If it contains factual events, I can safely say that we are in no position to identify them.

It does indeed contain several redactions, interpolations, additions, but certain things can be proved with veracity. For ex the accurate dating of the war is possible based on the indications described like two eclipses within a 13-days period etc. One's tales about say, travel may be questioned, but mere presence of fiction/metaphorical narratives, cannot be used to disprove the very possibility of the event. Like i said, stories in Kālidasa's Abhijñāna Śakuntalam may be fictional to a great extent, but that doesn't mean Kālidasa's existence itself is only a myth. I haven't seen/read anything about radioactive weapons! The exposition may have expanded given the oral tradition. It is equally possible that later narrators, the parampara is presented in the Bhāratha itself, may have expanded it.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

For ex the accurate dating of the war is possible based on the indications described like two eclipses within a 13-days period etc.

I am sure that the Mahabharat war took place in Kukshetra in Haryana and that the place and the name is not a remembrance of such a thing anywhere else, but getting astronomical dates by such methods has a lacuna. I was reading Tilak's "Orion" where he mentioned the mention of an occurrence of a total solar eclipse three days before the Vishuvan day (Sankhyayana (24, 8) and Tandya Brahmana (iv. 5. 2; 6. 14), "Orion" page 159). I thought now I have something to date the occurrence and immediately shot an e-mail to an astronomical society if they could give me the date.

However, my enthusiasm cooled when I read a foot-nate where Tilak mentioned the difficulty which is like this: "Prof. Ludwig has tried to deduce the date of the hymn from this circumstance. But the attempt is a failure as shown by Prof. Whitney (see the Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XIII., pp. 17-22 ). As the eclipses recur in the same order after a certain period, we cannot use such facts for chronological purposes without knowing the geographical position of the place where the eclipse occurred, and even then the conclusion will be correct only if it can be shown on independent grounds that such a phenomenon did not occur at that place during several centuries before or after the date we determine."

 

[TatTvamAsi]

Had to login just to post in this thread.

I have been reading Malhotra since the "Invading the Sacred" days and had posted about him on HDF etc. many many years ago.

I'm glad some others are seeing the points he has been making and the urgency with which Hindus must act.

Anyway, it is not surprising to see, as usual, other Hindus attacking the OP and tearing his points down. The request was simple enough; support Malhotra's works and join the quest (in whatever capacity you can) to keep Hindu Dharma in the domain of (real) Hindus.

Hindu/Indian studies should be in the domain of Hindus - not someone who wakes up one day and "feels" they are Hindu for 6 months and then changes their mind to go back to their cult of origin.

It should also be noted that Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock and many other anti-Hindus in academia are Jews, NOT Christians. It is aggravating to see so many Hindus just assume blindly that only "missionary/evangelical" Christians are anti-Hindus while others who put on a (fake) smile and spout off a few verses are 'Hindus.'

The crux of the issue is adhikArA - this is simply non-transferable, non-negotiable, and immutable thanks to VarnAshramA Dharma.

Indian/Hindu Studies must be in the domain of dvijA Hindus only.

Malhotra's next book "The Battle for Sanskrit" exposes these western 'scholars' who misinterpret, manipulate, and parse Hindu scriptures/works to fit their agenda - defaming, denigrating, and dispossessing Hindus of their dignity and cultural memory.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hindu/Indian studies should be in the domain of Hindus ..

That is a funny statement. It is like saying that scientific research should be in the domain of United States, Germany or Japan.

It should also be noted that Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock and many other anti-Hindus in academia are Jews, NOT Christians.

They are basically Westerners and whites. A few fruits get rotten. It is immaterial if they are Christians or Jews. But an equal number of westerners and whites have done excellent service to Indian scriptures and archaeology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indology#List_of_Indologists

The crux of the issue is adhikArA - this is simply non-transferable, non-negotiable, and immutable thanks to VarnAshramA Dharma.

The Indian Constitution divided the 'adhikara' equally among all Hindus. You don't like that? Tough luck.
Unless 'varna' is disassociated with caste, it is no go even by Hindu standards. Sage VedaVyasa and Vidura were 'shudras'.