Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 I don't object if people want to make fools of themselves... .... in case, Talageri again, thanks to the question of "Hello from a new member" Kelkar. Talageri has been answered in great detail in EJVS 7-2. http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/issues.html It is enough to read the first few paragraphs, the rest is detail. (and NOTE: Talageri's tale of what I am supposed to have written is NOT correct). =================================================================== I make my job easy by simply quoting this : "Talageri (2000) is based on the amateurish analysis of the RV (that depends almost entirely on the Victorian translation of R. Griffith, 1896). Talageri's book, self-described as revolutionizing Vedic research and old Indian history for all time to come, stumbles on nearly every major point of interpretation (see EJVS 7-2 for a detailed critique). In summary, two basic problems stand out: (1) Talageri claims that, with minor exceptions involving Book 1, each of the 10 books in the RV originated in a unique time period. The result is that he simplistically assumes that the RV can be rearranged so that one book follows the others in a neatly consecutive way. In fact, it has been known for well over 100 years that all RV books, even those generally viewed as "early" or "late," contain hymns from different periods. In his investigations Talageri was not even aware of Oldenberg's seminal analysis (1888) of RV stratification. (2) Talageri depends heavily on the Anukramanis -- late-Vedic lists of RV poets (many of them totally fictional), deities, and meters. The Anukramanis were not, as Talageri says (2000: 7) "part and parcel of the Rigvedic text from the most ancient times" but were the product of late-Vedic traditions. This has again been known for over 100 years. Due to the last error, Talageri's discussions of RV chieftains, priests/poets, and their habitat and history have less to do with Rgvedic than with late Vedic times, when things were viewed from the East (Bihar), the main area of late-Vedic ritual reform and canonization (Witzel 1997). Consequently, Talageri's claim that the early RV books originated in the East and later ones in the West, composed during the "Aryan" march westwards into the Panjab and coinciding with the heroic Western exodus of some of them out of India, is pure fiction. " ======== Jayatv anusandhaanam! MW >The chronological order of the Rig Vedic Chapters is very important in >determining the direction in which its composers might have moved. >Following are two competing views on the matter: > >Witzel: II, IV, VIII, V, VI, III, VII > >Talageri: VI, III, VII, IV, II, V, VIII > >According to Talageri (2000, emphasis in the original) > >"How does Witzel get a chronolgical order so completely different from >our own (which is VI, III, VII, IV, II, V, VIII)? >The answer is very simple: although Witzel postulates the >establishment of a chronological grid "on the strength of a few >pedigrees of chiefs and poets available from the hymns," HE DOES NOT >ESTABLISH ANY SUCH GRID. > >What Witzel actually does is as follows: He draws up a geographical >picture for each Mandala of the Rigveda; and then, on the principle, >"the more western the geography of the Mandala, the older the Mandala," >he prepares a chronolgical grid ARRANGING THE MANDALS IN SUCH A WAY AS >TO SHOW A MOVEMENT FROM WEST TO EAST. "Pedigrees of chiefs and poets" >paly no role at all in this chronological grid!" > >Quoted from: > >"The Rig Veda: A Historical Analysis," Shrikant G. Talageri, Aditya >Prakashan: New Delhi, page 450. > >This might be the 64 million dollar question worth a doctoral >dissertation. Anyone? ============================================================ Michael Witzel Department of Sanskrit & Indian Studies, Harvard University 2 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge MA 02138, USA ph. 1- 617-496 2990 (also messages) home page: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 First, If the Anukramanikas are so flawed as claimed by Witzel then, why does he himself claim to have used them in his chronological ordering as quoted by Talageri? Second, Can we assume then, that Witzel's chronolgoy is not based on the Anukramikas? If no, then Third: What basis has he used to order the mandals othern than the geography contained therein,to suppossedly show the West to East movement? Satyameva Jayate! Mayruresh Kelkar, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 Quote from Witzel, " I don't object if people want to make fools of themselves... .... in case, Talageri again, thanks to the question of "Hello from a new member" Kelkar." Why does a scholar of Witzel's stature find it necessary to poke fun at personalities as he does above? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 Dear Mayuresh, Mr. Talageri has written a response to EJVS 7.2 at http://www.bharatvani.org/general_inbox/talageri/ejvs/cover.html Please check the book(s) and articles in question yourself. Unlike some, I trust the intelligence of the reader. Sincerely, Vishal INDOLOGY, Michael Witzel <witzel@f...> wrote: > I don't object if people want to make fools of themselves... > > ... in case, Talageri again, thanks to the question of "Hello from a new > member" Kelkar. > Talageri has been answered in great detail in EJVS 7-2. > http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/issues.html > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2003 Report Share Posted January 18, 2003 Preface: 1. As long as Talageri cannot prove that each RV book was composed in one piece, each at its own time, and as long as he cannot prove the hoary date of the Anukramani (as contemporary to the RV composition) we can safely put all of his 500 pp. ad acta and we do not even need to consider them and his long winded replies. That is what I called "garbage in, garbage out": Wrong set of data, wrong results. 2. In my short paper of 1995, I summed up my own research (not all published, actually, see below). (Incidentally, the many printing mistakes were not even noticed by T.) **** Unfortunately, my answer to M.Kelkar had been eaten in a crash, so once again, in brief: M. Kelkar asked: 1. >If the Anukramanikas are so flawed as claimed by Witzel then, why does he >himself claim to have used them in his chronological ordering as quoted by >Talageri? Better read my 1995 paper and see for yourself (p.314-316), don't simply believe the (rather motivated) Talageri. In reality, I used the Anukramani with suitable warnings : "according to the traditional list..." "Anukramani is often (but not always) based on information in the texts themselves"... "quite unreliable where the author of a particular hymn was not known" The point, obvious to all specialists, is : as long as the A. cannot be substantiated from INSIDE the text it is ... well, late Vedic *tradition* only. Traditions change, over time. And, importantly, this section in my 1995 paper stands quite apart from the rest of the paper: it has *not* been used to pinpoint persons and locations. Instead (p. 318, 320), only the CLANS representing the "family" books 2-7/8 were used. And, again with proper warning, see note 16: [book 7 of Vasistha] : "whole book by one person!! (should be checked by linguistic analysis). " What more to say? T. et al. may say or print whatever they like... but must not expect to get away with it (see EJVS 7-2) 2. >Can we assume then, that Witzel's chronology is not based on the Anukramikas? No it isn't. Instead, on DATA DERIVED FROM INSIDE THE RV HYMNS : lists of chieftains ("Kings"), their poets, plus local geography (river names!), direct attestation ("in Swat" type), etc., --- all established from INSIDE the RV, and used. For the "kings" list see p. 319. (The extensive tables with a *detailed* king's list and the whole of the poets' list have not been published yet. The poets' list almost completely corresponds to the data of the chieftains' list. I will prepare a complete grid of ALL relevant data --from persons to nature-- later, when I get enough leisure; many data are in computer files already. Again, my 1995 paper was a *summary* on this and many other topics, not the 500 pp. T.'s on "history") >If no, then >3. What basis has he used to order the mandals othern than the geography >contained >therein,to suppossedly show the West to East movement? (a) excluded the hymns that are late additions (as per seminal study of Oldenberg (1888) -- unknown to Talageri). (b) used data from chieftain & poet's lists to pinpoint certain hymns (or portions of them, if they have Trca structure) © then compared all of this with geographical data contained INSIDE the Hymns (not in the late Vedic Anukramani!) [[ (d) also, *outside* of this scheme, finally, compared post-Rgvedic and old Iranian etc. information. ]] Result as summarized and published in 1995. (To answer another question: it should be obvious now, how Talageri has made a fool of himself: wrong data, wrong results. Only, he does not understand it -- yet). >> Satyameva Jayate! Yes, satyam eva, .... after proper anusandhaana/anviiksaa... MW ============================================================ Michael Witzel Department of Sanskrit & Indian Studies, Harvard University 2 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge MA 02138, USA ph. 1- 617-496 2990 (also messages) home page: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.