SV: [Y-Indology] AIT in Indian school textbooks

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, Lars Martin Fosse <lmfosse@o...> wrote:

> bhakti.eohn@v... [sMTP:bhakti.eohn@v...] skrev 10. juni 2001

> 09:49:

> > There have been some excellent papers discrediting the AIT,

delivered

> > at the two World Association for Vedic Studies conferences.

Despite

> > the fact that this old Anglo-Germanic racist fantacy has been

> > completely disproven,

>

You have wasted your tirade against 'OIT ignorant ideological

stalwarts' on a person who is not a proponent of the OIT. I have

never insulted any person on this site. I have never attacked

Witzel. I said only that the Invasion theory had been

disproven...which you affirm by your 'updated migration' statement. I

declared no migration or other theory 'dead', and I am not a

bombastic spokesperson for any of the parties or positions you seem

to assume.

 

Prejudice is the enemy of truth. You have pre-judged me from my

first posting in this group, with no knowledge but the content of my

letter, which you completely misconstrued, and my name. Is it

because of my Hindu religious name that you assume me to be an OIT

advocate? I am of German ancestry, American born and educated, and a

Catholic hermit under private vows. I am also a Vaishnava Sannyasi

who has devoted their entire adult life to combating racism and

religious prejudice and fanaticism. I have suffered much from

fanatical Hindus who have attacked my work because I reject BOTH the

AIT and the OIT. In my opinion, both theories are fundamentally

flawed, because they both ignore African and Levantine evidence

regarding the Aryans. 'Aryans' were also found outside of ancient

India and Europe as well. Instead of arguing about the homeland of

the Aryans, the European and Indian Indologists should be looking at

Nostratic Linguistic Macro-family evidence for a better understanding

of what the term actually meant. The term has not been understood in

the larger context of evidence linking the African, Semitic and Indo-

European Languages. Both the Native and European Indologists have

blinders on , narrowing their field of vision. This either-or

argument will dissapear if the broader evidence is ever allowed to

speak for itself. In my opinion, they are both asking the wrong

questions.

 

humbly and respectfully submitted (without a bit of bombast)

your aspiring servant, Bhakti Ananda Goswami

 

> Just for the record, it has not been disproven, quite to the

contrary, it

> has been revised and updated so that it is now a migration theory

rather

> than an "invasion" theory. I suggest you read up on some of the

literature

> available rather than bombastically declare the theory dead. For

instance

> Witzel's last contribution, published on the Internet (see earlier

postings

> on this list).

>

> The problem is rather the Out of India theory. It has met with

decisive

> defeats several times. So far, the OITers have only succeeded in

convincing

> the ignorant and the ideological stalwarts. They have had no

success with

> professionals outside India. There is not a reputable university

department

> from Japan to the US that supports the OIT theory.

>

> Lars Martin Fosse

>

> Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse

> Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,

> 0674 Oslo

> Norway

> Phone: +47 22 32 12 19

> Mobile phone: +47 90 91 91 45

> Fax 1: +47 22 32 12 19

> Fax 2: +47 85 02 12 50 (InFax)

> Email: lmfosse@o...