tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7488245879483190185.post6270678472721060745..comments2024-03-26T00:47:55.322-07:00Comments on Shrikant G Talageri: Parameters for the Writing of Indian HistoryShrikant Talagerihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15700049337974422213noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7488245879483190185.post-34986801709377718982017-10-26T10:29:33.283-07:002017-10-26T10:29:33.283-07:00But then how come Ramayana doesn't mention Bud...But then how come Ramayana doesn't mention Buddha?Prithvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01271990250617887435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7488245879483190185.post-58709755636330364192017-10-26T10:26:55.770-07:002017-10-26T10:26:55.770-07:00So then what kingdoms were there in south India be...So then what kingdoms were there in south India before 600 BC?Prithvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01271990250617887435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7488245879483190185.post-29417429217780264732017-10-21T06:24:44.818-07:002017-10-21T06:24:44.818-07:00The Ramayana (which also mentions these Yavanas an...The Ramayana (which also mentions these Yavanas and Romakas) also mentions the Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas of the South, who existed only after 600 BCE. Were these three entities tribes that existed at the time of the Ramayana (whatever the date you accept for the Ramayana), but are known to history only from the post-Buddha period, or will you accept that the Ramayana was revised and redacted (if not first composed) in post Ashokan times when all these tribes and kingdoms were known? The same goes for the Mahabharata. Both record earlier events, but they are overflowing with revisions, redactions and additions of different later periods. Shrikant Talagerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15700049337974422213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7488245879483190185.post-80025200037425298772017-10-20T13:02:48.181-07:002017-10-20T13:02:48.181-07:00You say: "References in the Mahabharata to Ya...You say: "References in the Mahabharata to Yavanas and Romakas are taken as evidence that these were ancient tribes of the Mahabharata period, rather than as evidence that the Mahabharata was revised and redacted in post Ashokan times when Greeks and Romans were familiar people to the redactors"<br /><br />But if the Anus, Druhyus, Phrygians, Parsavas, Alans, Sakas, etc. were all tribes that existed at one point in India and then later expanded out, then why can't Yavanas and Romakas be another one of those tribes too? <br /><br />Yavanas and Romakas were two of the tribes alongside the others, and they went out to form Ionian (Greek) and Roman civilization respectively. Prithvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01271990250617887435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7488245879483190185.post-89437796241572737512016-05-10T01:45:14.522-07:002016-05-10T01:45:14.522-07:00Dear Sir,
This is an outstanding piece of schola...Dear Sir, <br /><br />This is an outstanding piece of scholarship! You have systematically delineated in your usual detail-oriented style, each and every aspect of Indian studies scholarship. Balance is absolutely paramount, as you have rightly said.<br /><br />That your decimation of AIT (now called Aryan Migration or Aryan Trickle-In Theory) is complete and irrefutable is something that bothers the AIT camp to no end. They simply have no response - neither do the linguists nor do the geneticists; so what do they do? They try to obfuscate matters by harping on useless details or by quoting bombastic jargons.<br /><br />Regarding 2 points I have a few observations/ comments on:<br />a. Why is there ABSOLUTELY NO physical evidence before Ashoka?<br /><br />On Ashoka, during my course of research and based on Sanjiv Sanyal/ Desh Kapoor's study, it came as a shock to me that the real Ashoka (based on actual Buddhist texts and not Romila Thapar NCERT wishful thinking) was a genocidal maniac and a sadist, who had his brothers killed, who had his subjects killed/ beheaded (Jains, Ajivika's), and became a Buddhist much before Kalinga War and was a Welfare-Statist (and hence a favorite of Nehru). It is in fact quite likely, that Ashok systematically destroyed all Hindu (Indic) temples, structures, monuments and pushed Hinduism underground for a long time after that. There are in fact records of many Hindu kings migrating westwards during that time (upto as far as Syria.) <br /><br />b. Ancient Indian Historical tradition.<br />The Western scholarship and elite Indians have absolute disregard for Ancient Indian Historical tradition. however, as you have rightly said, it is quite possible to re-construct traditional historical accounts by taking into consideration Vedic and Puranic materials.<br /><br />I have read many such solid (scholarly and not crackpot) texts - the first I read was Pargiter, but his unnecessary bad-mouthing of Brahmins and Hindu Historical sense was something I found dis-tasteful. But then I came across Bharagava [1956], Aiyar[1937] and later Pradhan [1927] which I highly recommend - the latter, S N Pradhan has systematically put together all textual evidence and drafted a detailed and beautifully synchronized text with very realistic dates, and very plausible scenarios.<br /><br />It would be wonderful Sir, if one day time permitting you could take up this challenging subject and share your thoughts in a post, or better still write a book.<br /><br />AIT days are numbered - in another 2 decades there will be no AIT (and no Europe as well when Muslims finally take over Europe). <br /><br />I sincerely hope that your writings spread far and wide and get the readership and massive impact that it deserves.<br /><br />Regards ..Subhodeep Mukhopadhyayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05004175693134430393noreply@blogger.com