Theory is womb. It is sacroscant.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Pattanaik.

 

Has this reply been posted ?

 

Regards

Deepak

 

 

-

ODDISILAB

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:58 PM

Theory is womb. It is sacroscant.

 

 

 

Dear Madam,I used the term 'domain' i.e. an intellectual area for research. Concept or not - i cannot be sure, for i have no intellectual investment in this topic. Nevertheless (domain or concept), the whole idea looks very interesting. i have indeed heard in the past in the News paper about Jehovah/Jesus-Kashmir nexus, et.al topics of research. If any scholar is in a position to label the (own or any else) work so far done as a 'Concept', it then as first step calls for kudos. I do not remember any of your statements even indicating that Jehovah/Jesus was what they were, because of Kashmir or Hindus neither i think you have averred that the two apostle would not have been had there been no Kashmir the land or Hindu thought. If correct then good. A strong group of Hindu Brahmins/scholars owe their pedigree to Kashmir. Your studies/averments i think indicates that other streams are the Hebrew and the Helino-Persian path (and subsequently Christian) ways of human experience and thought expression ? That means not only did human race and human blood evolve from mono genetics, also the human experience, thought, and expression seem to be pointing at a common geographic domain and a common period in the wee past. Between human gene expression (biological evolution) and experience cum thought expression (civilisational/social/cultural evolution) it is experience cum thought expression that has ultra wide spectrum of inflorence, and layers of exfoliation. Therefore determining the common time and place may be daunting and difficult. It is this difficulty that shapes the idea/matter/concept/etc., as very interesting and positions it as good domain for Research.

 

Today that very domain is known as India. At that point of time it may have been as well known by some other signature.Regarding Jehovah or Jesus one (superficial though) point of observation is that, on the date of his enlightment/start of preaching there were very successful/accepted preachers in the direction of the Ganga-Godavari. Possibly the territories to other side offered better opportunity or calling ? On their respective dates the Ganga-Godavari was lush green while the Nile, the Indus and the Tigris valley civilisation had dried up. A decadent scenario is apparent. There may have been need and free space for new thought, new expression to take root.

 

Thought is fluidous and alike atmosphere is compressible. It alike compressible fluids requires a head (gradient) to flow and changes tone and tenor with alterning dynamics. Hence the initial opposition from public.

From our present location in relation to time and place (irrespective of individual's faith) Kashmir and its neighbourhood may be an apparent candidate. At the end of the day it may shift away as well ! Therefore, it is a good domain. More important is the start. Going back, Hindu literature is very sure that there were yugas. To emphasis this point it uses rhetoric. Now a yuga is a very large span of time. They keep on moving kaleidoscopically back wards one after another (4) of variable periods until Satya yuga. However, no literature speaks of the geographical domain nor of any cast, colour, creed.

 

That does not exhaust the need. It remains and gets crying with passage of time.

It can also be interpreted as an opportune sign that global human experience and thought expression may have a common stamen.

 

Let us imaginarily go back to say beside Jehovah. We find he had a father........father-father-father.....That means they had a line of thought as well. The then census was thin. Giving thier own thought even in a new package back (to the same community) was high nigh improbable. Probability theory comes into full play. Therefore, change of place for Dharma prabochana (same as pravartana), is a possibility. It keeps on happening around us.

You ask how would you go about gathering the proof to convince others? Or convince yourself ?

Well, convincing self is very important. Convincing others not. Only (convincing) peer group matters. The informed get self convinced. That is what scholarship (Brahmana) is all about.

 

Regarding giving the credit to India and the methodology - you (discoverer-researcher) have to keep on writing, researching, expressing the (various) view points, and look out for archaeology, report it in a methodical manner. Then take on secondary sources and interface it with archaeology and your experience.

 

India cannot take the credit unless it is given to it. One cannot give it unless it is true, at least apparently true.

Across the globe, authors are inspired from other's, in story telling. Two separate works may be alike, yet sans any inter-inspiration (i.e. two original, as does happen in Noble research). The Biblical stories can also be India stories inspired and not India genetic. Anything. You have to indicate historicity (datum). You have to discuss the distinction and set the concrete to dry. It is a big big task. I guess multi lateral initiative may be needed at end. Most important is that a start has been made. Congratulations !

 

Your Christian faith places you in a advantageous position vis-a-vis the topic.

 

All such and any such difficulty cannot be reason(s) to throw the theory out. Theory is womb. It is sacroscant. History is resplendent with stories of inventor/discoverer (individual) vrs non discoverers (groups). Satyameva jayate (truth always triumphs) is India's sole official slogan. Historically, world wide always researchers and research have been making it happen. There are no alternatives.

 

 

Cordially,

Dr.Deepak Bhattacharya

 

=======================i am enclosing a Paper (presentation that i had made) for your kind perusal. Human observation indeed is very very ancient. Mind loves to record and talk about it. I would like to get this paper published in west.