[Abhinavagupta] Fascinating journey through Sindhu-Saraswati civilization at LMU

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Koenraad Elstji,

 

You wrote

 

Quote

 

I'm afraid that, on the contrary, no precolonial native chronology of India existed, only bits and pieces from which we now, taught by the colonials in historical methods, may hope to compose a consistent chronology.

 

Unquote

 

Here you are forgetting that in the very ancient times the History in India was never written like the way the western historians wrote History. It is only much later that books like Rajatarangini and Shri Harshacarita appeared. In the ancient past in India the subject of History was never a separate discipline. So the materials of History were scattered but the materials were indeed there and there was no scope for distortion. Indian historical data are available from the puranic sources for several thousand years and it requires an open mind to find out. According to the Matsya purana one of the five requirements of the Puranas is that they should incorporate Itihasa or History in them . So your contention that there was no History of ancient India is absolutely wrong. It was very much there but not in the way the westerners look at History writing.

 

Have you ever cared to open your eyes to find out since when the systematic writing on History began as a separate discipline in the west. The western scholars, with their own way of writing history, came out with their own distorted chronology for Indian History and when that did not conform to the Puranic chronology they tried to condemn the Puranic chronology as unreliable.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

--- On Wed, 3/25/09, Koenraad <Koenraad wrote:

Koenraad <Koenraad[Abhinavagupta] Re: Fascinating journey through Sindhu-Saraswati civilization at LMUAbhinavagupta Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 5:08 AM

 

 

Abhinavagupta, Kaushal Vepa wrote:>> Since the ICIH 2009 conference has been mentioned rather derisively BY Koenraad Elst (...) I should clarify, as the convener of the conference, what our goals were in this conference. incidentally Koenraad was a guest at this conference,and he had made a specific request to be given a slot to speak.I would have hoped he would have the courtesy as a guest to refer to the conference by its proper name .<The circumlocution was because I couldn't remember the exact title, nothing else. But of course the conference was devoted to rewriting history, viz. history as currently taught.> The question of rewriting Indian History is surely an expression of the contempt he has for our attempts. He

specifically alluded to our rewriting of history, and he keeps repeating this even though i patiently explained to him that the question of rewriting only occurs, if we accept the colonial paradigm which was written by British ICS officers and in some cases like James Mills and Karl Marx by people who had never set foot in India. For most of us who grew up in independent India and have never known the proper history of India, this remains a process of discovery and deciphering of our past. That it is an uphill task is certainly no secret>It seems that you mean that the question of rewriting history does not arise because what Mill, Marx etc. wrote is no history at all, and the the chronology of India as presented at the chronology is merely a restoration of an existing history of India that the colonialists and Marxists have wiped under the carper. I'm afraid that, on the contrary, no precolonial native chronology of India existed, only bits

and pieces from which we now, taught by the colonials in historical methods, may hope to compose a consistent chronology. Moreover, if you want to prove the "colonial" historians wrong, a comprehensive rebuttal would ideally contain an explanation of how they were misled into drawing the wrong conclusions. They usually did give specific reasons for e.g. the sheet-anchor Sandrokottos/ Chandragupta. So far, I've only seen those arguments being ignored or being waived in a very loose manner. Thus, when an Ashokan pillar lists five non-Sanskrit king names, each of them resembling Greek names of known Hellenistic kings, what are the chances that all five merely happen to resemble Greek (Aliksundara/ Alexander, Amtiiyaka/Antiochos ) but actually belong to unknown kings of unknown language, as claimed by Sethna?The attitude of far too many Hindu history-rewriters is one of: "Leave me alone with your troublesome questions of method! I don't need

method, I have scripture that tells me all I need to know!" If the outside world refuses to follow you, it may be less a matter of colonial bias than of a normal revulsion at the arrogance of such history-rewriters. I say this even when supporting some of the positions of the history-rewriters, es^p. on Aryan origins. That position, viz. against the AIT, has likewise been compromised no end by the ridiculous reasoning (apart from foul language) adopted by a number of very vocal Hindu history-rewriters.> If Koenraad had expected that as a result of the conference we would change the text books, he is clearly exhibiting a degree of naivete not commensurate with his knowledge of this problem. I do not know what he is talking about when he refers to the usual wailing about the anti-Hindu bias in the textbooks.. Obviously this is a history conference and mention was made about the bias in text books world wide . we could hardly ovid mentioning

that central fact> As if I had ever disputed that the Indian history textbooks are biased. The point is that even any ideal unbiased version of history has no chance of making it into the textbooks if you mess things up as thoroughly as the BJP government has done. Among the invited speakers were prominent participants in the BJP efforts. It simply won't do to let them get away with criticizing the usual Thapars and Habibs without having their own record put to scrutiny.And was it a history conference? Some contributions, yes. But others, oh well. Like that physicist or so who came to project his power-point essentially just juxtaposing Sanskrit words with quantum-physics terms, as in a parody on the "Tao of Physics" genre. I've seen the type too often at similar conferences, WAVES etc.: businessmen who like to see their name on a book cover, contribute a fat wad of dollars to the organization, and in return are allowed to fill a

slot with a totally garbled juxtaposition of half-understood terminology from various unconnected fields. In this instance, a lady Sanskrit professor from Orissa faulted him not for his utter lack of method but for mispronouncing "Patanjali" (with long first a). She agreed with him that it was ridiculous to say Hindus had no sense of history, giving as her reason that "we Hindus have invented history: the word Itihasa means 'history'!" So how is that for a method of proof: a mere word as proof for the existence of the thing designated? The word "centaur" exists, so centaurs exist? Of course the Itihasa writers meant to conserve a memory of the past, but by now "history" means more than that, viz. a critical investigation of testimonies of the past so as to reconstruct it as faithfully as possible. In discussions on lists like BEF, IndiaArchaeology, AncientIndia etc., I still see time and again how Hindus just don't get the merest basics of

historical method, with a childlike reliance on scripture, and then rarely scripture as it really is but scripture as summarized in popular retelling.Most of all, I recall the Lankan professor Gunatilake, who gave one of the best papers, being insulted and interrupted by the chairman who faulted him for bringing in politics (viz. the Christian role in Tamil Eelam separatism), when "Geopolitics" was actually one of the themes mentioned in the conference title. He wondered aloud if he hadn't come to the wrong conference, and in passing lambasted the proposed Purana-based chronology as being totally unscientific. Maybe he was prejudiced about that, but at any rate he hadn't heard any convincing arguments in its favour.But yes, Kosla-ji, I am grateful for the invitation and I had a good time at the conference. Kind regards,[Koenraad Elst][2nd response to Kaushal's post (18 March 2009) athttp://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 4893Rest of this thread at Sunil's post (22 March 2009) athttp://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 4893]

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Koenraad Elst,

 

This is further to my last mail on the subject. You said as follows:

 

Quote

 

Moreover, if you want to prove the "colonial" historians wrong, a comprehensive rebuttal would ideally contain an explanation of how they were misled into drawing the wrong conclusions. They usually did give specific reasons for e.g. the sheet-anchor Sandrokottos/ Chandragupta. So far, I've only seen those arguments being ignored or being waived in a very loose manner. Thus, when an Ashokan pillar lists five non-Sanskrit king names, each of them resembling Greek names of known Hellenistic kings, what are the chances that all five merely happen to resemble Greek (Aliksundara/ Alexander, Amtiiyaka/Antiochos ) but actually belong to unknown kings of unknown language, as claimed by Sethna?

 

Unquote

 

You are quoting the mistakes of Sethna as if to prove that the western scholars / historians were right. Western / colonial historians were wrong in accepting Chandragupta Maurya as Sandrocottus and this happened because of their dependence on the interpretation of Jones, who bulldozed the Account of Megasthenes to establish that Pataliputra was Palibothra. Sethna did not know about the above misinterpretation but he could find the truth separately from the Account of Alberuni. So Sethna was right on the date of Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty whereas the western scholars, including you, are wrong in thinking that Chandragupta maurya was sandrocottus.

 

It is true that Sethna himself goofed up with two things. First he did not know, just like all the western scholars including you did not know too, that Piyadassi (Ashoka Maurya) was different from Devanampiya Piyadassi (Samudragupta - Ashokaditya). Secondly Sethna as well as the western scholars including you did not know that the Ashokan pillar was of Samudragupta. So tell me in what way the western scholars are better off than Sethna in this particular case. This amply proves that you are not interested in facts and you are biased against the scholars who sincerely want to bring out the truth.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Wed, 3/25/09, Koenraad <Koenraad wrote:

Koenraad <Koenraad[Abhinavagupta] Re: Fascinating journey through Sindhu-Saraswati civilization at LMUAbhinavagupta Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 5:08 AM

 

 

Abhinavagupta, Kaushal Vepa wrote:>> Since the ICIH 2009 conference has been mentioned rather derisively BY Koenraad Elst (...) I should clarify, as the convener of the conference, what our goals were in this conference. incidentally Koenraad was a guest at this conference,and he had made a specific request to be given a slot to speak.I would have hoped he would have the courtesy as a guest to refer to the conference by its proper name .<The circumlocution was because I couldn't remember the exact title, nothing else. But of course the conference was devoted to rewriting history, viz. history as currently taught.> The question of rewriting Indian History is surely an expression of the contempt he has for our attempts. He

specifically alluded to our rewriting of history, and he keeps repeating this even though i patiently explained to him that the question of rewriting only occurs, if we accept the colonial paradigm which was written by British ICS officers and in some cases like James Mills and Karl Marx by people who had never set foot in India. For most of us who grew up in independent India and have never known the proper history of India, this remains a process of discovery and deciphering of our past. That it is an uphill task is certainly no secret>It seems that you mean that the question of rewriting history does not arise because what Mill, Marx etc. wrote is no history at all, and the the chronology of India as presented at the chronology is merely a restoration of an existing history of India that the colonialists and Marxists have wiped under the carper. I'm afraid that, on the contrary, no precolonial native chronology of India existed, only bits

and pieces from which we now, taught by the colonials in historical methods, may hope to compose a consistent chronology. Moreover, if you want to prove the "colonial" historians wrong, a comprehensive rebuttal would ideally contain an explanation of how they were misled into drawing the wrong conclusions. They usually did give specific reasons for e.g. the sheet-anchor Sandrokottos/ Chandragupta. So far, I've only seen those arguments being ignored or being waived in a very loose manner. Thus, when an Ashokan pillar lists five non-Sanskrit king names, each of them resembling Greek names of known Hellenistic kings, what are the chances that all five merely happen to resemble Greek (Aliksundara/ Alexander, Amtiiyaka/Antiochos ) but actually belong to unknown kings of unknown language, as claimed by Sethna?The attitude of far too many Hindu history-rewriters is one of: "Leave me alone with your troublesome questions of method! I don't need

method, I have scripture that tells me all I need to know!" If the outside world refuses to follow you, it may be less a matter of colonial bias than of a normal revulsion at the arrogance of such history-rewriters. I say this even when supporting some of the positions of the history-rewriters, es^p. on Aryan origins. That position, viz. against the AIT, has likewise been compromised no end by the ridiculous reasoning (apart from foul language) adopted by a number of very vocal Hindu history-rewriters.> If Koenraad had expected that as a result of the conference we would change the text books, he is clearly exhibiting a degree of naivete not commensurate with his knowledge of this problem. I do not know what he is talking about when he refers to the usual wailing about the anti-Hindu bias in the textbooks.. Obviously this is a history conference and mention was made about the bias in text books world wide . we could hardly ovid mentioning

that central fact> As if I had ever disputed that the Indian history textbooks are biased. The point is that even any ideal unbiased version of history has no chance of making it into the textbooks if you mess things up as thoroughly as the BJP government has done. Among the invited speakers were prominent participants in the BJP efforts. It simply won't do to let them get away with criticizing the usual Thapars and Habibs without having their own record put to scrutiny.And was it a history conference? Some contributions, yes. But others, oh well. Like that physicist or so who came to project his power-point essentially just juxtaposing Sanskrit words with quantum-physics terms, as in a parody on the "Tao of Physics" genre. I've seen the type too often at similar conferences, WAVES etc.: businessmen who like to see their name on a book cover, contribute a fat wad of dollars to the organization, and in return are allowed to fill a

slot with a totally garbled juxtaposition of half-understood terminology from various unconnected fields. In this instance, a lady Sanskrit professor from Orissa faulted him not for his utter lack of method but for mispronouncing "Patanjali" (with long first a). She agreed with him that it was ridiculous to say Hindus had no sense of history, giving as her reason that "we Hindus have invented history: the word Itihasa means 'history'!" So how is that for a method of proof: a mere word as proof for the existence of the thing designated? The word "centaur" exists, so centaurs exist? Of course the Itihasa writers meant to conserve a memory of the past, but by now "history" means more than that, viz. a critical investigation of testimonies of the past so as to reconstruct it as faithfully as possible. In discussions on lists like BEF, IndiaArchaeology, AncientIndia etc., I still see time and again how Hindus just don't get the merest basics of

historical method, with a childlike reliance on scripture, and then rarely scripture as it really is but scripture as summarized in popular retelling.Most of all, I recall the Lankan professor Gunatilake, who gave one of the best papers, being insulted and interrupted by the chairman who faulted him for bringing in politics (viz. the Christian role in Tamil Eelam separatism), when "Geopolitics" was actually one of the themes mentioned in the conference title. He wondered aloud if he hadn't come to the wrong conference, and in passing lambasted the proposed Purana-based chronology as being totally unscientific. Maybe he was prejudiced about that, but at any rate he hadn't heard any convincing arguments in its favour.But yes, Kosla-ji, I am grateful for the invitation and I had a good time at the conference. Kind regards,[Koenraad Elst][2nd response to Kaushal's post (18 March 2009) athttp://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 4893Rest of this thread at Sunil's post (22 March 2009) athttp://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 4893]