Broad Sweeping Theories vs. Scholarship (reply to Dr. B.)

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. B.

Your reply is most kind and well thought out. I thank you. I did not mean to step on toes and offend fellow forum members, but from the huge rally cry "Jai Hind" here, I see that I have opened old wounds and deep-seated emotional conflicts. I quite understand.

I presented very controversial theories with the broadest sweep of the brush possible. Any one of them could be an entire independent 'scholarly' book...was Ashoka really Greek? Was there an Aryan invasion? What does the DNA say about Tocharian mummies and other local population? (There weren't any others) Why did ancient philosphers identify Jews with Hindu-Brahmin priests? What did they know or see that has been lost to us? Was Thomas in India? Did Thomas ever really exist? How many graves (or bone relics) are there for Thomas? For Jesus? For Lord Buddha?

I have tried to point a finger in too many directions, saying 'Look here!' 'Look there!'. Buddha said:

"When you point a finger at the moon and say the word 'moon' it is the moon that should get the attention, not the pointing finger."

My objectives have always been to point the finger at the tragic loss and destruction of historical artifacts....the theories are necessary only to make the objects themselves important enough to be worth saving. I knew I wanted to include personal hunches and experiences and so I thought this ruled out a more rigorous "scholarly" approach.

If readers of the books and members of this forum do not see this, do not sense the larger injustice (over the relics and the proof) I tried to convey, then I have surely failed all of you.

Kindest best regards,

Sue

 

 

 

 

, ODDISILAB <oddisilab1 wrote:>> Dear Susan Olsson,> Scholar - Historical Process,> > This term "influence" should have been and should be read as "inflorence" (type error).> > Herein below, i have a set of free advice, provided you only welcome it. > > In place of mentioning the mono term 'India' (it wasn't there pre c.1700 ?) - consider to mention 'Present Indo-sub-continental Geo-spatial region' (PISCGSR) , and thereafter adhere to repeat use of the acronym PISCGSR only (or something alike). It will inflict a dispassionate look to your approach and intention. > > Also in place of the term myth try to use 'Traditions and lore', provided if feasible.> [The Central Institute of Indian Languages1 defines Tradition as "oral delivery of opinion or practices to posterity, includes folk and myth". 1 - Lalita Handoo, Folk and Myth, Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, pp. 1- 45.]> > If you are not an trained scientist (if you be a humanist student) then too do not bother. It is a great advantage. No baggage. First publish another Book of Data (as per your self set objectives and self invented style). > Alphabetically in Chapter No.1. > In Ch-II the same matter with your view points/personal perspectives vis-a-vis that what is already known (brief discussion-non chauvinistic). > In Ch-III repeat of Ch-I but date wise. undated matters should be discussed what could be the date. That what cannot be discussed, just say datum in subsequent publication. > In Ch-IV repeat of Ch-III with Geography followed by date. Maps and sat pictures down loaded from Google maps. and Toposheets, hand drawings ......etc.> Ch - V - xerox of mss (rare mss and all others), field photogrpahs, list of appendix, list of figures..................(end) > > Give detailed narration as to how to reach an physical objective on the field (archaeology), i.e., traveller's route.> > It should become a referal doc. > > The crux is hard field data. If you have it, others don't (and vice-versa). > > If you have it in previous publications and in your field dairies, and within naked eye view....(re-think what i have said and if it merits), re-do. That what you do not have try to get it by making one more field visit - provided it is feasible, OR else do not.> > An old dog need not learn new tricks. It can teach others. Which is why, in the first place, it is old. All professors and Noble laureates are old souls. Just invent the model & the methodology. Let the juveniles frolick with it. To hell with the rest. juveniles matter. They need data for it is they who will be at the steering wheel for all times to come. > > Either we all have to follow yours or have to make it the basis for not to follow ! > > Try also to concentrate hard to make your model so much robust that there are no alternatives left. This is too is also optional.> > Warm regards,> > db> India> > > > - > Suzanne Olsson > > Monday, November 24, 2008 6:50 PM> Re: Theory is womb. It is sacroscant. (reply to Dr. Battacharya)> > > > Dear Dr. Battacharya,> > You said:> > 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 influence, 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.> > 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. (I could not access this paper to read it..when I have completed answering posts, I will try to access it through the 'files' section here)> I do believe that India and its great philosophers are the root from which all these religious beliefs and great philosophies branched off. I believe India is the mother's hand that rocked the cradle and laid the foundations for what was to follow, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. > > I hope I can write a new book that stays closer to scientific-historical methodology and less personal speculation. Thank you for your deep and thoughtful post about this topic. I hope more will take an interest and make public their own discoveries.> > Kindest regards,> > Sue>