India Unvarnished
Murad A Baig August 15, 2000
#9 Posted by satish on August 14, 2000 4:33:55 pm
About the section on ancient history:
Just a regurgitation of tired old rot that was constructed by colonial indology and swallowed by the marxist `eminences` of ICHR (the history `establishment` in India.)
{Aryans came to India in 1200 BC and Dravidian in 3000 BC}
Keep your eyes and ears firmly shut and imagine that the following points do not exist -
1. The date, 1200BC, for the coming of `Aryans` to India was proposed by Max Mueller at a time when there was no science, and no archaeology worth the name in India. The main base for this chronology was the old testament! (World created in 4004BC, great flood of Noah in 2200BC, give some time for different tribes to be generated, so upper limit about 1800BC. All the vedas, brahmans, aranyakas, upanishads known at the time of Buddha, so give 200 years for each level of scriptures, goes back to 1200 BC, lower limit. Why to give the b`ards upper limit, give them the lower!) That is the type of science that generated the AIT. Of course later `linguistic` arguments were forwarded, but all those `proofs` that these arguments put forward, could be substituted with alternate hypotheses.
Moreover, Mueller himself withdrew this time frame in the later part of his life.
2. In all the extensive ancient literature that the ancient Indian civilization has generated, there is not one, repeat NOT ONE line that talks about any `Aryan Invasion`. There is not a single phrase that talks about any other homeland except the area occupied by present India/Pakistan. Colonialists tried to get some phrases out by mistranslating, but that has been convincingly belied. Doesn`t it surprise you that a literature that described the geography of the land in such a great detail, completely, absolutely forgot a homeland of only a few centuries past?
3. The river Sarasvati, of vedas (Ambitame, Naditame, Devitame : Great mother, great river, great devi) has been rediscovered, using satellite remote sensing techniques. Its dried channel is known by the name Ghaggar in India and Hakra in Pakistan. Geological studies indicate that the river dried up at about 1900BC, exactly at the time the Harappan culture ended. Of 2400 harappan sites, 1600 are on this channel, compared to only about 100 on Indus. The drying up of the river is continuously recorded in ancient Indian books. From the great river flowing from snow-clad mountains to the sea in Rgveda, it becomes a much reduced river in the time of Upanishads, and at the time of Mahabharata, it is not even able to reach the sea. And at the time of the later Puranas, it is lost in the sands. We still have the tradition of Sarasvati being one of our great river which is `Antah-Salila` (flowing underground). And they have recently got this `antah-salila` Sarasvati back!. Right there in the middle of the great Thar desert, they have found water at less than 30 feet depth along Ghaggar. The radio dating of this water using tritium analysis shows that this water is almost 4000 years old. So, for 4000 years, this water has not been replenished. Now, vedas could not have been written after Sarasvati dried up, and they could not have been written other than on the banks of Sarasvati. And there was a civilization very much on the banks of Sarasvati right then. What does that tell you?
4. Recently, Krishna`s Dwarka has been found, buried under the sea, exactly as described in Mahabharata. With Dwarka and course of Sarasvati known, the pilgrimage of Balaram from Dwarka to Mathura along Sarasvati can be convincingly explained.
5. As more and more objects are found from the Harappan civilization, it becomes more and more clear that there is a strong sense of continuity between that culture and the supposedly `Aryan` culture of the first millenium BC. Archaeologists have been shouting for years now that they can find no break at any point except that the civilization shifted over from Sarasvati to Ganga and Indus valleys.
6. A genetic mapping and bone analysis of people in Harappa and modern Indian populations show that the basic population of India has not changed for at least 10000 years. There have been no massive invasions, either of `Aryans` or of `Dravidians`.
7. The Aryan Invasion Theories of other countries have been completely discarded. Supposedly `Aryan` towns have been found in Greece, Anatolia, Egypt etc, which predate the so called `Aryan Invasion` period by a couple of millenia. So, why should Aryans reach India so late? And reaching so late, how did they build such an extensive civilization, with its literature so quickly, in a few centuries?
8. Then there is a matter of Occam`s Razor. If you have many explanations, chose the simplest one. Here we have a civilization great in area (The Indus-Sarasvati or Harappa civilization) with many towns and villages, well planned, neat. It must have taken a quite advanced sociopolitical structure to build it. But where is the literature? Where are the traditions?
Then there is another civilization, with extensive literature, traditions, culture, spirituality (The vedic civilization). But there is no archaeological remains! If they came from somewhere else, there must be very extensive archaeological remains there. Where is that place?
Now, if you give this problem to a scientist and tell that both the civilizations lay claim to the same time and space, it wont take him/her a minute to decide that they were one and same! If someone tells they were different, there have to be very very convincing reasons for that. So, where are the reasons?
In fact no ancient India book defines `Arya` as a racial term. It was used to mean a noble person, or a person supposed to be fair, just, honest etc. An Arya could easily become Anarya and vice versa. Ravana was the son of a rishi, a brahmin, but he became a rakshasa, an Anarya. Dasas and Dasyus were called Anarya, but they were not another race. They were tribes from Iran and though the Indian and Iranian tribes fought, they also had frequent intermarriages and many Anarya or Asur kings became great Arya kings. As far as Dravidians are concerned, the most ancient Sangam literature of B.C. period clearly shows the prevalence of vedic practices there, which you could have easily found if you just wanted. The north and south Indian cultures were not competetive, but they freely borrowed from each other. They were complimentary. In fact, Tamil tradition tells of rishi Agastya inventing the Tamil script. A lot of concepts in Indian culture came from Dravidian origins. Of curse I agree that humans may have originated in Africa and came to India at some time in past. But there is no proof that it all happened in last 5000 years, and there were two separate races that migrated at two distinct times. Rather, the boundaries were always porous and people continued to immigrate and emigrate, as they do today, but India even in 3000 BC, was as it is today, a melting pot with numerous influences, but a strong indigenous culture.
And it is about time the rot generated by the colonialists goes to its right destination: the junkbins of history.
Just a regurgitation of tired old rot that was constructed by colonial indology and swallowed by the marxist `eminences` of ICHR (the history `establishment` in India.)
{Aryans came to India in 1200 BC and Dravidian in 3000 BC}
Keep your eyes and ears firmly shut and imagine that the following points do not exist -
1. The date, 1200BC, for the coming of `Aryans` to India was proposed by Max Mueller at a time when there was no science, and no archaeology worth the name in India. The main base for this chronology was the old testament! (World created in 4004BC, great flood of Noah in 2200BC, give some time for different tribes to be generated, so upper limit about 1800BC. All the vedas, brahmans, aranyakas, upanishads known at the time of Buddha, so give 200 years for each level of scriptures, goes back to 1200 BC, lower limit. Why to give the b`ards upper limit, give them the lower!) That is the type of science that generated the AIT. Of course later `linguistic` arguments were forwarded, but all those `proofs` that these arguments put forward, could be substituted with alternate hypotheses.
Moreover, Mueller himself withdrew this time frame in the later part of his life.
2. In all the extensive ancient literature that the ancient Indian civilization has generated, there is not one, repeat NOT ONE line that talks about any `Aryan Invasion`. There is not a single phrase that talks about any other homeland except the area occupied by present India/Pakistan. Colonialists tried to get some phrases out by mistranslating, but that has been convincingly belied. Doesn`t it surprise you that a literature that described the geography of the land in such a great detail, completely, absolutely forgot a homeland of only a few centuries past?
3. The river Sarasvati, of vedas (Ambitame, Naditame, Devitame : Great mother, great river, great devi) has been rediscovered, using satellite remote sensing techniques. Its dried channel is known by the name Ghaggar in India and Hakra in Pakistan. Geological studies indicate that the river dried up at about 1900BC, exactly at the time the Harappan culture ended. Of 2400 harappan sites, 1600 are on this channel, compared to only about 100 on Indus. The drying up of the river is continuously recorded in ancient Indian books. From the great river flowing from snow-clad mountains to the sea in Rgveda, it becomes a much reduced river in the time of Upanishads, and at the time of Mahabharata, it is not even able to reach the sea. And at the time of the later Puranas, it is lost in the sands. We still have the tradition of Sarasvati being one of our great river which is `Antah-Salila` (flowing underground). And they have recently got this `antah-salila` Sarasvati back!. Right there in the middle of the great Thar desert, they have found water at less than 30 feet depth along Ghaggar. The radio dating of this water using tritium analysis shows that this water is almost 4000 years old. So, for 4000 years, this water has not been replenished. Now, vedas could not have been written after Sarasvati dried up, and they could not have been written other than on the banks of Sarasvati. And there was a civilization very much on the banks of Sarasvati right then. What does that tell you?
4. Recently, Krishna`s Dwarka has been found, buried under the sea, exactly as described in Mahabharata. With Dwarka and course of Sarasvati known, the pilgrimage of Balaram from Dwarka to Mathura along Sarasvati can be convincingly explained.
5. As more and more objects are found from the Harappan civilization, it becomes more and more clear that there is a strong sense of continuity between that culture and the supposedly `Aryan` culture of the first millenium BC. Archaeologists have been shouting for years now that they can find no break at any point except that the civilization shifted over from Sarasvati to Ganga and Indus valleys.
6. A genetic mapping and bone analysis of people in Harappa and modern Indian populations show that the basic population of India has not changed for at least 10000 years. There have been no massive invasions, either of `Aryans` or of `Dravidians`.
7. The Aryan Invasion Theories of other countries have been completely discarded. Supposedly `Aryan` towns have been found in Greece, Anatolia, Egypt etc, which predate the so called `Aryan Invasion` period by a couple of millenia. So, why should Aryans reach India so late? And reaching so late, how did they build such an extensive civilization, with its literature so quickly, in a few centuries?
8. Then there is a matter of Occam`s Razor. If you have many explanations, chose the simplest one. Here we have a civilization great in area (The Indus-Sarasvati or Harappa civilization) with many towns and villages, well planned, neat. It must have taken a quite advanced sociopolitical structure to build it. But where is the literature? Where are the traditions?
Then there is another civilization, with extensive literature, traditions, culture, spirituality (The vedic civilization). But there is no archaeological remains! If they came from somewhere else, there must be very extensive archaeological remains there. Where is that place?
Now, if you give this problem to a scientist and tell that both the civilizations lay claim to the same time and space, it wont take him/her a minute to decide that they were one and same! If someone tells they were different, there have to be very very convincing reasons for that. So, where are the reasons?
In fact no ancient India book defines `Arya` as a racial term. It was used to mean a noble person, or a person supposed to be fair, just, honest etc. An Arya could easily become Anarya and vice versa. Ravana was the son of a rishi, a brahmin, but he became a rakshasa, an Anarya. Dasas and Dasyus were called Anarya, but they were not another race. They were tribes from Iran and though the Indian and Iranian tribes fought, they also had frequent intermarriages and many Anarya or Asur kings became great Arya kings. As far as Dravidians are concerned, the most ancient Sangam literature of B.C. period clearly shows the prevalence of vedic practices there, which you could have easily found if you just wanted. The north and south Indian cultures were not competetive, but they freely borrowed from each other. They were complimentary. In fact, Tamil tradition tells of rishi Agastya inventing the Tamil script. A lot of concepts in Indian culture came from Dravidian origins. Of curse I agree that humans may have originated in Africa and came to India at some time in past. But there is no proof that it all happened in last 5000 years, and there were two separate races that migrated at two distinct times. Rather, the boundaries were always porous and people continued to immigrate and emigrate, as they do today, but India even in 3000 BC, was as it is today, a melting pot with numerous influences, but a strong indigenous culture.
And it is about time the rot generated by the colonialists goes to its right destination: the junkbins of history.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#8 Posted by narain on August 14, 2000 3:50:11 pm
Faalsey used to grow in our house in Lucknow. Never in enough quantity though. For that we relied on the guy selling it door to door shouting ``faalsey hai kale kale..``
Thinking of other things we don`t get here, what about the good amrood (guavas)? I haven`t seen any since I came to the US, and I miss the juicy, unripe amrood like crazy! Also ``hare`` chane (or boot chane), which my whole family would eat sitting in the verandah in the hot winter sun.
-narain
PS: This must have been a really well written piece. Even Temporal could find no mistakes in it ;)
PPS: Its good to talk food and not Kashmir once in a while. Its sad though that the author has not yet aparked the onslaught he was anticipating. Maybe somebody wants to remedy that?
Thinking of other things we don`t get here, what about the good amrood (guavas)? I haven`t seen any since I came to the US, and I miss the juicy, unripe amrood like crazy! Also ``hare`` chane (or boot chane), which my whole family would eat sitting in the verandah in the hot winter sun.
-narain
PS: This must have been a really well written piece. Even Temporal could find no mistakes in it ;)
PPS: Its good to talk food and not Kashmir once in a while. Its sad though that the author has not yet aparked the onslaught he was anticipating. Maybe somebody wants to remedy that?
#7 Posted by friend on August 14, 2000 2:17:34 pm
Murad,
While you are engaged in this task of explaining ``unvarnished India`` to us, please also make effort to counter the arguments presented by other scholars. One of such referenc eis given below
http://www.ignca.nic.in/nl_01102.htm
While you are engaged in this task of explaining ``unvarnished India`` to us, please also make effort to counter the arguments presented by other scholars. One of such referenc eis given below
http://www.ignca.nic.in/nl_01102.htm
#6 Posted by ferozk on August 14, 2000 1:33:28 pm
Re: Murad
Welcome to Chowk!
History has been always subjective. Its interpretations have been subjective and such, no nation`s history can be objectivly penned.
India is an experience; it is not an academic task to be conceptualized within an essay format! Indian history has been noble, infuriating, irritating, sad, pathetic, tragic and above all, too human.
The object of history is enliven the past with a sense of life and revive the echos of its former glories to make us understand its forgotten passions and not to itemize its experinces into a sterile lesson!
Still, more than the article, thank you for pointing the way to some interesting sources!
Ciao!
Welcome to Chowk!
History has been always subjective. Its interpretations have been subjective and such, no nation`s history can be objectivly penned.
India is an experience; it is not an academic task to be conceptualized within an essay format! Indian history has been noble, infuriating, irritating, sad, pathetic, tragic and above all, too human.
The object of history is enliven the past with a sense of life and revive the echos of its former glories to make us understand its forgotten passions and not to itemize its experinces into a sterile lesson!
Still, more than the article, thank you for pointing the way to some interesting sources!
Ciao!
#5 Posted by sadna on August 14, 2000 12:24:34 pm
An unemotional examination of your mother`s love for you:
1. Is your mom the best mom in the world?
2. On what basis do you say she is the best mom in the world? Document the number of kisses and hugs, hot chappatis and daily effort, understanding smiles and every encouraging word and philosophy. The realism and objectivity behind your love for your mom and hers for you will be decided by us on that basis.
3. How does your neighbour Ramu`s mom compare, btw, on the above points? Do you think she is a better mom that yours, think unemotionally, now. Don`t be influenced by all those latenight stories or endless coaxings to get you to eat right.
4. Did your mom come with the right pedigree and birth certificate, is she legimately all she claims to be to you?
5. I am asking these questions `without any attempt to condemn, praise or pass judgement on them`, only to get to the bottom of mothers love, so important since its such a great motive force in this world, its benignness nothwithstanding.
In summary, a spurious attempt to fudge the boundary between the `objectivity` of historical facts and the subjectivity of religious belief, as if the first is important to justify the other. Religion is a connection between an individual and his own God, not the documentation of an Aryan or British invasion.
Sadhana
1. Is your mom the best mom in the world?
2. On what basis do you say she is the best mom in the world? Document the number of kisses and hugs, hot chappatis and daily effort, understanding smiles and every encouraging word and philosophy. The realism and objectivity behind your love for your mom and hers for you will be decided by us on that basis.
3. How does your neighbour Ramu`s mom compare, btw, on the above points? Do you think she is a better mom that yours, think unemotionally, now. Don`t be influenced by all those latenight stories or endless coaxings to get you to eat right.
4. Did your mom come with the right pedigree and birth certificate, is she legimately all she claims to be to you?
5. I am asking these questions `without any attempt to condemn, praise or pass judgement on them`, only to get to the bottom of mothers love, so important since its such a great motive force in this world, its benignness nothwithstanding.
In summary, a spurious attempt to fudge the boundary between the `objectivity` of historical facts and the subjectivity of religious belief, as if the first is important to justify the other. Religion is a connection between an individual and his own God, not the documentation of an Aryan or British invasion.
Sadhana
#4 Posted by friend on August 14, 2000 11:56:43 am
Chowk Staff#3
When references are given, they are given against specific points.
Author is attempting to write an authoritative article that covers a very large canvass. Just publishing a list of books available in a library is not giving references. My advise is that he should add reference numbers at appropriate place that should lead to specific pages in the referenced material.
Regards
When references are given, they are given against specific points.
Author is attempting to write an authoritative article that covers a very large canvass. Just publishing a list of books available in a library is not giving references. My advise is that he should add reference numbers at appropriate place that should lead to specific pages in the referenced material.
Regards
#3 Posted by Chowk Staff on August 14, 2000 11:05:07 am
References for India Unvarnished.
Main sources.
Aggarwal, Vasudeva S The Heritage of Indian Art
Allchin, Raymond & Bridget - The Birth of Indian Civilisation
Anderson & Damle - The Brotherhood in Saffron
Ardrey. Robert - The African Genesis, The Social Contract.
Armstrong, Karen - A History of God
Baig. M.R.A - The Muslim Dilemma In India.
Barth. A - The religions of India.
Basham, A.L. - The Wonder that was India.
Bhargava, M.L. - The Geography of the Rigveda.
Boronowsky - The Ascent of Man.
Burger, Julian - First Peoples.
Campbell, Joseph - The Hero With A Thousand Faces.
Chaitanya, Krishna - Betrayal of Krishna
Chaudhuri, Nirad - Hinduism, The Continent of Circe.
Dahiya B.S - Jats, the ancient rulers
Chatwick, Bruce - Nomads and other essays.
Dawson, John - Classical dictionary of Mythology and religion.
Daya Krishna - Indian Philosophy
Debroy, Bibek - The 18 Puranas
Du Ry, Carel J - Art of the Ancient near and mid east
Dutt, R,C. - History of Civilisation in ancient India.
Elwin Verrier - The Baiga
Embree, Ainslie - Sources of Indian Tradition.
Frazer James George - The Golden Bough
Frykenburg R.E. - Delhi through the Ages.
Griffith, Ralph - Hymns of the Rigveda.
Harvard Oriental series: - Vedas and other Sriptures.
Hoffer, Eric - The True Believer.
Ions, Veronica - Indian Mythology.
Jain, Girilal - The Hindu Phenomenon.
Jayakar, Pupul - The Earth Mother.
Keller, Warner - The Bible as History
Ketkar, S.V - History of Caste in India.
Kinsley David - Hindu Goddesses
Kosambi, D.D. - An intro to the study of Indian History, Culture and civilisation of ancient India.
Kulke & Rothermund - A History of India.
Lal, P - Ramayana of Valmiki
Lannoy, Richard - The speaking tree.
Larousse - Encyclopedia of Mythology.
Mahajan V.D. - Sultanate of Delhi.
Max Mueller - Sacred books of the East.
Mujumdar, R.C. - Ancient India.
Nehru, J.N. - Discovery of India.
Oak, P.N. - Some blunders of Indian Hist research
Panikkar. K.M - Hinduism and the modern world.
Piggott. Stuart - Prehistoric India.
Pratt. James Bisset. - India and its Faiths
Radhakrishnan, S - Indian Religions.
Reade, Winwood - The Martyrdom of man.
Richards John F - The Mughal Empire
Richman Paula - Many Ramayanas
Sastri Nilakant - A History of South India.
Schwartz, J. H. - What the bones tell us.
Seth, Pepita. - Initiation of a temple Velichapadu. IIC Quarterly.
Sinari, Ramakant. - The structure of Indian thought.
Spear, Percival. - A History of India .
Stavrianos, L.S. - A Global History
Talageri, S.G. - Aryan Invasion theory and Indian nationalism.
Thapar, Romila. - A History of India, Past and Prejudice. Recent perspectives of early Indian History.
Tokaray, Sergei. - History of religion.
Toynbee, A.L. - A study of History.
Trautmann, Thomas R - Aryans and British India
Upadhyaya, B.S. - Ancient World.
Vettam, Manu. - Puranic encyclopedia.
Vishvanathan, Susan. - Legends of St Thomas...IIC Quarterly.
Zakaria, Rafiq. - Mohammed and the Quran.
BBC and Discovery TV channels
Main sources.
Aggarwal, Vasudeva S The Heritage of Indian Art
Allchin, Raymond & Bridget - The Birth of Indian Civilisation
Anderson & Damle - The Brotherhood in Saffron
Ardrey. Robert - The African Genesis, The Social Contract.
Armstrong, Karen - A History of God
Baig. M.R.A - The Muslim Dilemma In India.
Barth. A - The religions of India.
Basham, A.L. - The Wonder that was India.
Bhargava, M.L. - The Geography of the Rigveda.
Boronowsky - The Ascent of Man.
Burger, Julian - First Peoples.
Campbell, Joseph - The Hero With A Thousand Faces.
Chaitanya, Krishna - Betrayal of Krishna
Chaudhuri, Nirad - Hinduism, The Continent of Circe.
Dahiya B.S - Jats, the ancient rulers
Chatwick, Bruce - Nomads and other essays.
Dawson, John - Classical dictionary of Mythology and religion.
Daya Krishna - Indian Philosophy
Debroy, Bibek - The 18 Puranas
Du Ry, Carel J - Art of the Ancient near and mid east
Dutt, R,C. - History of Civilisation in ancient India.
Elwin Verrier - The Baiga
Embree, Ainslie - Sources of Indian Tradition.
Frazer James George - The Golden Bough
Frykenburg R.E. - Delhi through the Ages.
Griffith, Ralph - Hymns of the Rigveda.
Harvard Oriental series: - Vedas and other Sriptures.
Hoffer, Eric - The True Believer.
Ions, Veronica - Indian Mythology.
Jain, Girilal - The Hindu Phenomenon.
Jayakar, Pupul - The Earth Mother.
Keller, Warner - The Bible as History
Ketkar, S.V - History of Caste in India.
Kinsley David - Hindu Goddesses
Kosambi, D.D. - An intro to the study of Indian History, Culture and civilisation of ancient India.
Kulke & Rothermund - A History of India.
Lal, P - Ramayana of Valmiki
Lannoy, Richard - The speaking tree.
Larousse - Encyclopedia of Mythology.
Mahajan V.D. - Sultanate of Delhi.
Max Mueller - Sacred books of the East.
Mujumdar, R.C. - Ancient India.
Nehru, J.N. - Discovery of India.
Oak, P.N. - Some blunders of Indian Hist research
Panikkar. K.M - Hinduism and the modern world.
Piggott. Stuart - Prehistoric India.
Pratt. James Bisset. - India and its Faiths
Radhakrishnan, S - Indian Religions.
Reade, Winwood - The Martyrdom of man.
Richards John F - The Mughal Empire
Richman Paula - Many Ramayanas
Sastri Nilakant - A History of South India.
Schwartz, J. H. - What the bones tell us.
Seth, Pepita. - Initiation of a temple Velichapadu. IIC Quarterly.
Sinari, Ramakant. - The structure of Indian thought.
Spear, Percival. - A History of India .
Stavrianos, L.S. - A Global History
Talageri, S.G. - Aryan Invasion theory and Indian nationalism.
Thapar, Romila. - A History of India, Past and Prejudice. Recent perspectives of early Indian History.
Tokaray, Sergei. - History of religion.
Toynbee, A.L. - A study of History.
Trautmann, Thomas R - Aryans and British India
Upadhyaya, B.S. - Ancient World.
Vettam, Manu. - Puranic encyclopedia.
Vishvanathan, Susan. - Legends of St Thomas...IIC Quarterly.
Zakaria, Rafiq. - Mohammed and the Quran.
BBC and Discovery TV channels
#2 Posted by friend on August 14, 2000 10:47:24 am
Murad,
You are attempting to write as an expert. It will be appropriate if you start writing your references with each of your articles. I agree that we should not try to undue glorify the past. But here I again sense an attempt to de-glorify and redefine the past.
Way you have organized your questions also indicate a prejudice in your thinking. Here are some examples
26. ``Is the history of the Mahabharata equally uncertain?``
(You are already sure that Ramayana is other uncertain thing!)
38. Was there no Sanatan Dharma or pure Hindu philosophy?
(What is a pure philosophy?)
39. Why is there so much violence in the Puranic myths? Has this affected future generations in India?
( Will you also go into the extent of violence in Bible and Quran and how they affected future generations?)
32. Is practised Hinduism a religion of the Puranas?
33. Was the Vishnu of the Puranas different from the Vishnu of the Vedas?
34. Was Shiv just a tribal deity till raised to the status of a god in the Puranas?
35. Was Ganesh too a creation of the Puranas?
(All of these questions seem to originate from your belief that their has to be a single prophet or book that should be followed to the letter! Am I wrong here?)
58. Why have Muslims become so intolerant today and why has fundamentalism caused so much disruption in the world?
(That earlier muslims were very tolerant? What happened to original inhabitants of Madina and Mecca?)
Will read your article with great interest.
You are attempting to write as an expert. It will be appropriate if you start writing your references with each of your articles. I agree that we should not try to undue glorify the past. But here I again sense an attempt to de-glorify and redefine the past.
Way you have organized your questions also indicate a prejudice in your thinking. Here are some examples
26. ``Is the history of the Mahabharata equally uncertain?``
(You are already sure that Ramayana is other uncertain thing!)
38. Was there no Sanatan Dharma or pure Hindu philosophy?
(What is a pure philosophy?)
39. Why is there so much violence in the Puranic myths? Has this affected future generations in India?
( Will you also go into the extent of violence in Bible and Quran and how they affected future generations?)
32. Is practised Hinduism a religion of the Puranas?
33. Was the Vishnu of the Puranas different from the Vishnu of the Vedas?
34. Was Shiv just a tribal deity till raised to the status of a god in the Puranas?
35. Was Ganesh too a creation of the Puranas?
(All of these questions seem to originate from your belief that their has to be a single prophet or book that should be followed to the letter! Am I wrong here?)
58. Why have Muslims become so intolerant today and why has fundamentalism caused so much disruption in the world?
(That earlier muslims were very tolerant? What happened to original inhabitants of Madina and Mecca?)
Will read your article with great interest.
#1 Posted by temporal on August 14, 2000 10:38:42 am
Murad:
Only you can write a `brief essay` posing some questions that each merit more than one book in answer.
Your findings and conclusions based on responses to these questions would be illuminating. I would be interested in reading them.
rgds
t
Only you can write a `brief essay` posing some questions that each merit more than one book in answer.
Your findings and conclusions based on responses to these questions would be illuminating. I would be interested in reading them.
rgds
t
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- chaltahai: BJ, it wasn't fear... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: badi sharafat se baat-cheet... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- tahmed32: BJ2: writes "A great... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: #59 maybe india can... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- dost_mittar: hamidm:#58: Going by his lota... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: #58 Posted by BJ2... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- jang: #59 cheema, you liked... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- akcheema: Re: # 58 Good post... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
