Indica Today:

[R. N. iyengar]

Dear Dr.Roy,

Thanks for your mail. Normally I do not read the writings of the concerned author. However,  since you forwarded it, I read it this time. Perhaps you did so because my name is taken by the author a couple of times. I wish the author had taken my first name Narayana, so that her sins of motivated translation,  attributed by her wrongly to me, could have been reduced by a small amount!  Discussing the article is a waste of time.  I am sad to note that Indic Academy is promoting absurd articles on their web site as research.  Or maybe they take shelter under their "about-us" declaration shown below from their website, wherein they are on record to promote activists of their activities. 

https://www.indictoday.com/about-us

About Us: An initiative of the Indic Academy, Indictoday is a digital platform to promote the works of various academics, activists, authors and artists in order to showcase their activities and events.

But then why do they need a legalistic Disclaimer prominently displayed after the article? 

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.

Yes, opinions can vary but what about Validity of a mathematical/astronomical result?  When it comes to positive sciences of Ancient India they should not be handled as if these are topics in Humanities/Social Sciences without getting the works reviewed by domain specialists. With such stalwarts as Professors MD Srinivas, M.Danino and K.Ramasubramanian on its Council, I wish IA  changes its approach, when purported research articles, on Indic  sciences, astronomy and chronology, are published on their platforms.  

I am sharing this mail with BVP, since many IA posts appear on the BVP site.

Regards

RN Iyengar

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 6:02 AM Raja Roy <rajarammo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Prof. Iyengar,

FYI. Article by Rupa Bhaty, published in Indic Today.

https://www.indica.today/research/revisiting-agastya-vindhya-lore/

Best regards,

Raja

[rupa bhaty]

Respected Shri RN Iyengar ji,

I am quite saddened by your mail on this day, ( my birthday) and it has hurt me to the core of my heart. If quoting your book is a sin, then I should tell you that the word to word translation done by you in the book in regard to Vindhya Lore is questionable. Still I have kept silent on this matter. Neither would I waste my time in regard to your assumptions of this lore. With due respect I am quite clear and have produced facts with clarity in my write up and research. It is not my fault, it is then the fault of Parashara who says in the end that "Agastya after crossing Vindhya, now rises and sets in the South"(this is your translation)--if you want this statement to be for Physical Agastya in an astronomy text as you did for Ilvala-asur, (which i am guessing you will), in our private conversation (email is still with me ) then I cannot do anything about it. 

I know that you have been filled with hatred about me for some different reasons but then it shows the world how your kindself's attitude towards other researchers is, especially those who follow your research.

It appears that BVP is becoming a place of hatred for each other. Instead of respecting, which I always do, and have even promoted your books to be read by the masses and evaluate our lost histories, now appears to be in vain under the shadows of Mr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Everyone has the right to express themselves. You express yours and I will express mine. Your kind self is most welcome to do so. Let people who read ...judge. But by saying sinner...I mean this was quite personal. I will take it as a gift on my birthday.

Thank you for opening my eyes here. Hope Shri Nagraj ji will take note of this event here.

Please note this Sudarshan ji. No more further conversation from my side in this regard.

kind regards

Rupa

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAK%2BHosM_%3DCKSvrk_V-dy%3DimZ%3DQv5NVH9-BDUUYQMxq422GgfeA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Prof. R Narayana Iyengar,

I was not able to respond earlier than this as I had to move to my daily teaching work. 

I am responding here, first as a person representing Indic Academy in response to your negative remarks about the organization for what is published on Indic Today , one of the platforms of the organization. 

The article under discussion is not published as part of publishing the proceedings of our conference on "Puranas and Indic Knowledge Systems"

https://youtu.be/lOkysD1iJNc

Link to her presentation of the same at another platform 

https://youtu.be/DEYllxYqXLs

The proposal of the paper was seen as part of the analysis of 'lore' in the Puranas focusing on forms of physical landscape. How that coverage in the Puranas is analysed belongs to the analyst. 

Participants and other panelists have the opportunity to express their disagreement with the paper presenter during the Q & A part of the conference, related to each paper. 

Even if there was a paper taking a diametrically opposite approach to that of Smt Rupa, we would have allowed. 

In fact , in the Q & A  and  in one of the other papers there was such a different / counter direction /approach reflected. 

Giving opportunity to present such different approaches can not be and should not be viewed as promotion. Our promotion was for our Puranas that too as repositories of Indic Knowledge Systems. Parvata lore is an Indic Knowledge System. We were promoting Puranas as the sources of such knowledge. 

We always proceed by taking it for granted that pro-Indic /pro-Hindu knowledge that we are committed to work for is not monolithic, it has a large diversity of approaches. 

Our providing platform for sharing one of such approaches is neither promotion of that approach, nor a promotion of the individual sharing that approach. 

IMHO, this is the bottomline or even common sense about the way organizations and their units or platforms or activities or events work. 

In this background , I am appalled by your hasty characterization of our work as promotion of an individual or an approach or a position. 

Particularly in the present case I was not able to understand what you were objecting to in the article published. All that I am able to see that might concern you is the author's use of your English translation of a Sanskrit work. 

Did the author misquote words, passages or sentences from your translation ? Is  the wrong quoting, if any, from your translation what you call the sin of the author ? Do you want Indic Academy to check with your original translation for misquoting before publishing? If that is the case, please point out where in the article such misquoting occurred. We will publish a correction with due apologies for not checking with your original translation and will take care of such aspects in future. 

I know from your posts on BVP that you have serious disagreement with the approach of the likes of Smt Rupa Bhaty. 

Is that approach with which you have disagreement, the sin of the author and in turn that of IA, because it published a conference paper with that approach ? 

Or, using your translation for such approach which is wrong according to you is wrong on the part of the author and in turn on the part  of Indic Academy for not checking for the difference of approach between the translator and the author using the translation ?

I know many Marxist authors using English translations of Sanskrit works by translators not holding any political /ideological position like that of Marxism or sometimes by translators holding a political /ideological position opposed to Marxism. I don't think these translators would object to the use of their translations by such authors. 

If the Marxist author says that the translator is a supporter of his argument because it is his/her translation that he /she is using, that is wrong. (I don't think any Marxist author did that or would do that.)

If Smt Rupa said that Prof. Iyengar, the translator of PT that she is quoting is a supporter of her argument, it is similarly wrong.

 If the editors of Indic Today allowed such wrong knowing that the translator has a position opposite to hers, it is wrong on the part of the editors and on the part of IA. But in general how can any editors know the position difference between the translator and author ? So how can IA be held responsible even if   Smt Rupa committed the wrong of saying that Prof. Iyengar, the translator of PT that she is quoting is a supporter of her argument.

(The author uses the original Sanskrit text as the source being discussed by him /her or as a point in support of his argument or claim. Translation is used only as a compensation for the lack of knowledge of or confidence with regard to the understanding of the original Sanskrit text on the part of the author. Using one translation in preference for the other of the same text only shows a respect for or authority attributed to  the translator and his / her translation.) 

In view of the above, your accusing IA for publishing the present conference paper is not justifiable. 

Dragging the names of such stalwarts as Professors MD Srinivas, M.Danino and K.Ramasubramanian on our Council into the discussion about some happenings in some part of IA too is unfair. 

Warm regards,

Nagaraj

  

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAGSn6uOtV9KSgwsk0rkcZvb06zVTaa8QxQ85-nmNVn3UOUxkRg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director, Indic Academy

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, Maharashtra

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

BoS Rashtram School of Public Leadership

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

[rupa bhaty]

Thank you Nagraj ji for your kind intervention. 

If I have done some errata I can be contacted for clarification. Converting from Apple software has always been a problem for me. I have used the original text of PT to understand and I have praised the humongous work of Shri RN Iyengar ji in the talk also. Had he not brought out this book we would not have been able to decipher this lore. Understanding Agastya as a "Star" is very critical. 

Hope to reconcile on this matter soon. I would like to leave the group since it appears that I am or my works are unbearable. Such senior people when they do not respect the female entity doesn't make me feel comfortable. People who want to refute my articles can follow my blogs. 

Kind regards

Rupa

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eY6-sFYv9EuLbnHoejipCHYxM-ezadXP-OF8WFDhe0D3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Correction :

The article under discussion is  published as part of publishing the proceedings of our conference on "Puranas and Indic Knowledge Systems"

Not

The article under discussion is not published as part of publishing the proceedings of our conference on "Puranas and Indic Knowledge Systems"

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAGSn6uNPQzUXL5YQwy2M4%3DHZqJ5c3%3DKvTaLFxsfLsN6tw5DhMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[R. N. iyengar]

Dear Dr.Paturi, I am not interested in joining issues with you. You have made a long belaboured post. I like to respond briefly, shown below in blue.

 On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 9:43:22 PM UTC+5:30 Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

I am responding here, first as a person representing Indic Academy in response to your negative remarks about the organization for what is published on Indic Today , one of the platforms of the organization. 

 

I have not made any negative remarks about the organization you represent. Read my post again.

The article under discussion is not published as part of publishing the proceedings of our conference on "Puranas and Indic Knowledge Systems"

https://youtu.be/lOkysD1iJNc

Link to her presentation of the same at another platform 

https://youtu.be/DEYllxYqXLs

The proposal of the paper was seen as part of the analysis of 'lore' in the Puranas focusing on forms of physical landscape. How that coverage in the Puranas is analysed belongs to the analyst. Participants and other panelists have the opportunity to express their disagreement with the paper presenter during the Q & A part of the conference, related to each paper. 

Even if there was a paper taking a diametrically opposite approach to that of Smt Rupa, we would have allowed. In fact , in the Q & A  and  in one of the other papers there was such a different / counter direction /approach reflected. 

I am not demanding or even seeking any type of explanation from you or IA, about how you select papers for your conferences.

Giving opportunity to present such different approaches can not be and should not be viewed as promotion. Our promotion was for our Puranas that too as repositories of Indic Knowledge Systems. Parvata lore is an Indic Knowledge System. We were promoting Puranas as the sources of such knowledge. 

We always proceed by taking it for granted that pro-Indic /pro-Hindu knowledge that we are committed to work for is not monolithic, it has a large diversity of approaches. 

Our providing platform for sharing one of such approaches is neither promotion of that approach, nor a promotion of the individual sharing that approach. 

I have nothing against encouragement and promotion of pro-Hindu knowledge traditions and IKS. The word ‘promotion’ is not mine; it appears in your website for anyone to see. I only pointed out the absurdity of the article being published as a Research Paper  professing to present astronomical study of PT for Indic chronology, concluding that The Agastya-Vindhyā lore is at least 21000+ years old.  My sadness is because pro-Hindu do-gooders, naïve as they are, shoot their own foot to become easy fodder for the DGH brigade.

 IMHO, this is the bottomline or even common sense about the way organizations and their units or platforms or activities or events work. 

In this background , I am appalled by your hasty characterization of our work as promotion of an individual or an approach or a position. 

Irrelevant and hollow pontification. When someone calls a spade a spade, if you are appalled, so be it.

Particularly in the present case I was not able to understand what you were objecting to in the article published. All that I am able to see that might concern you is the author's use of your English translation of a Sanskrit work. 

It is quite apparent that you have not understood the scientific intricacies involved about axial precession, visibility of stars and their logical (including arthāpatti) importance for Vedic-Hindu chronology.

Did the author misquote words, passages or sentences from your translation ? Is  the wrong quoting, if any, from your translation what you call the sin of the author ? Do you want Indic Academy to check with your original translation for misquoting before publishing? If that is the case, please point out where in the article such misquoting occurred. We will publish a correction with due apologies for not checking with your original translation and will take care of such aspects in future. 

 I am not answering your circular queries item wise, nor looking for an apology from any one. PT text is quoted by Utpala and Ballālasena. I have only compiled the material and published along with a “working translation of technical material” for further study. The author does Time Travel to the previous precession cycle by inserting the choice phrase “due to the effect of very slow motion of pole/axis-“   not to be found in the original Sanskrit and obviously not in my translation. The gem of observational astronomy of Parāśara is the rise and set conditions of Agastya stated as हस्तस्थे सवितर्युदेति रोहिणीसंस्थे प्रविशति॥ the author found no use for this even though it is discussed in my publication.

I know from your posts on BVP that you have serious disagreement with the approach of the likes of Smt Rupa Bhaty. 

So what? 

Is that approach with which you have disagreement, the sin of the author and in turn that of IA, because it published a conference paper with that approach ? 

Or, using your translation for such approach which is wrong according to you is wrong on the part of the author and in turn on the part  of Indic Academy for not checking for the difference of approach between the translator and the author using the translation ?

I know many Marxist authors using English translations of Sanskrit works by translators not holding any political /ideological position like that of Marxism or sometimes by translators holding a political /ideological position opposed to Marxism. I don't think these translators would object to the use of their translations by such authors. 

If the Marxist author says that the translator is a supporter of his argument because it is his/her translation that he /she is using, that is wrong. (I don't think any Marxist author did that or would do that.)

If Smt Rupa said that Prof. Iyengar, the translator of PT that she is quoting is a supporter of her argument, it is similarly wrong.

 If the editors of Indic Today allowed such wrong knowing that the translator has a position opposite to hers, it is wrong on the part of the editors and on the part of IA. But in general how can any editors know the position difference between the translator and author ? So how can IA be held responsible even if   Smt Rupa committed the wrong of saying that Prof. Iyengar, the translator of PT that she is quoting is a supporter of her argument.

These are vaporous lawyer-like leading questions, combined with statements lacking in content that need no response.

(The author uses the original Sanskrit text as the source being discussed by him /her or as a point in support of his argument or claim. Translation is used only as a compensation for the lack of knowledge of or confidence with regard to the understanding of the original Sanskrit text on the part of the author. Using one translation in preference for the other of the same text only shows a respect for or authority attributed to  the translator and his / her translation.) 

The above in parenthesis is like svagatam in Sanskrit dramas. I have nothing to say.

In view of the above, your accusing IA for publishing the present conference paper is not justifiable. 

I have not accused IA. The abstract of the paper claims: "This paper will present original research carried out by the author" and is published by IA under the category - Research Paper. In view of this, yours is a one-sided imaginary judgement.

Dragging the names of such stalwarts as Professors MD Srinivas, M.Danino and K.Ramasubramanian on our Council into the discussion about some happenings in some part of IA too is unfair. 

I did not drag the said names. I took the names with due reverence for a worthy cause, unlike your imputation of unfairness to my well meant comment; a stark example of

अप्रियस्य च पथ्यस्य वक्ता श्रोता च दुर्लभः॥

Nevertheless, I wish IA gets peer review done, before purported original research papers, on Indic sciences, astronomy and chronology, are promoted/published.

sincerely,

RN Iyengar

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Prof. R Narayana Iyengar,

Thanks for telling us what is पथ्य for us. We are good shrotas of such guidance from elders like you. Such guidance is definitely not सुलभ .

The essence of your 463 word brief response to my 910 words long post seems to be that the article being published under "research articles" category is wrong. Yes, I admit. It should have been published under a category like " Conference Proceedings" .

You say , " It is quite apparent that you have not understood the scientific intricacies involved about axial precession, visibility of stars and their logical (including arthāpatti) importance for Vedic-Hindu chronology. " 

I did not join issue with you or do not intend to join issue with you getting inside the topic or content of the paper. My post did not get into or touch any such details. Hence my understanding or not understanding is not relevant here. 

My post was all with regard to the organizational aspects of IA since you mentioned that name. 

I know from my own experience that the chief editor of Indic Today, who is currently hospitalized with Dengue, takes feedback from the subject experts regarding research articles before their publication.  

In the present case, that might not have happened because it is in fact the publication of conference proceedings though it was wrongly included under " research articles" .

Thanks for alerting us about that administrative aspect. 

Coming to the academic aspects,

There can be good or bad research, right or wrong research, good or bad , right or wrong methodology so to say in what is claimed as research by an author. When an author claims research in his /her article we can dispute the goodness or badness , rightness or wrongness of the methodology in that article. We can not conclude " no research" in the article unless we see such a situation. 

For DGH like activities, anything from the Hindu insider side can be a fodder. Isn't OIT objectionable to them ? Do we have to stop publishing OIT articles ? There are AIT theorists too on the Hindu insider side. Do they not take the pro-Hindu ideas of the these AIT theorists as target for their attack ? Should we stop our activities just because some intentionally manipulating groups manipulate any of our work ? 

There are Hindu insider scholars who are not comfortable with taking events in Itihasas and Puranas as History at all. They might say working on the history of the Itihasas and Purana texts could be a meaningful research but not the research on the historicity of the events mentioned in those texts. Among those who are interested in the the historicity of the events mentioned in those texts, chronological conclusions vary from scholar to scholar depending on the method used. Why, even among the scholars following the same method, chronological conclusions conflict with each other depending on the details within that same method followed by each of them. We can't stop providing a platform to any of these multiple mutually debating sides. Each of these sides expressing their objections to the claims, methods and/or arguments of the side that they dispute is common. 

Just as a forum like BVP provided platform for series of articles from one side of the astronomical chronology of the events in Itihasas and Puranas while asking the other side to respond similarly, IA and its units too provide platform for both sides within the same field i.e.,astronomical chronology of the events in Itihasas and Puranas. It is the academic strength of one of the sides that can eventually  make the other side get extinct eventually, not pontifications to platforms not to provide platform to the other side. 

We did use the word promotion and will continue to use the same in all our platforms. But we also did explain the difference between our platforming and our promoting, making it clear that all our platforming should not be taken as promoting. 

Thanks for being a श्रोता to these tathyas from our side. 

Warm regards,

Nagaraj 

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/6aac01bb-0e69-489e-833f-bebf6db1056dn%40googlegroups.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director, Indic Academy

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, Maharashtra

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

BoS Rashtram School of Public Leadership

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com

[BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)]

Namaste  Paturi ji

 

A submission and suggestion : ( made with no compulsion of any sort to accept or reject) pl.

 

On your statement

ORIGINAL –As posted:   < There are Hindu insider scholars who are not comfortable with taking events in Itihasas and Puranas as History at all. They might say working on the history of the Itihasas and Purana texts could be a meaningful research but not the research on the historicity of the events mentioned in those texts. Among those who are interested in the the historicity of the events mentioned in those texts, chronological conclusions vary from scholar to scholar depending on the method used. Why, even among the scholars following the same method, chronological conclusions conflict with each other depending on the details within that same method followed by each of them. We can't stop providing a platform to any of these multiple mutually debating sides. Each of these sides expressing their objections to the claims, methods and/or arguments of the side that they dispute is common.   >   :

 

It may be better to say :

 Suggested Tweaking (BVK Sastry ):   < There are dispassionate traditional scholars who are not comfortable with twisted interpretations of texts and theories.  presenting  ‘ sacred texts of tradition’  to society in a disruptive way by taking events ‘ entered in these texts of  Itihasas and Puranas as History’  with a locale –people context- bearing.

 

       The dispassionate traditional scholars  desire to apply clean Occam Razor principle by ‘Source Language Standards of ‘Samskrutham- used in the construction as per the given Text-context and used in living tradition.  If the ‘text  currently used in native  tradition has a unfiltered, foreign, inconsistent text /language’  and  is used to build / maintain / anchor the  ‘Hindu/ Bharateeya Identities’  ! it can always be sorted out, without offending the faith. In fact such corrections and enhancements- edits have taken place in tradition (including Shaastras !)  The classical articulation by Acharya Madhwa about ‘ Mahabharata’ -Text is a standing reference to take note of.

While working on the history of the Itihasas and Purana texts in the form  they are ‘ available by manuscript/ critical editions could be a meaningful research’ and does carry limited value in understanding the dynamics of current continuing flow of  ‘Land-People-culture- History-Spiritual Traditions and Identities’ . The fact stands that many such research claims have created serious damage to the tradition and utility of texts and disturbing for the welfare of society and ‘atma-nirbhartaa of Bharath’.

 

The writings amply demonstrate that the  historicity of the land-people- locale events mentioned in those texts, and constructed by many academic scholars for chronological conclusions are at variance from scholar to scholar depending on the ‘ Time-Scale Model/  Religion backdrop’ adapted and   analytical tools and methods  used.

 

Why, even among the scholars following the same method, chronological conclusions conflict with each other depending on the details within that same method followed by each of them.  It is so sad  that ‘ many academic researchers working on ‘Samskruth texts’  are happy to ‘ murder the native traditional linguistics, consciously and purposively, by using the IE- linguistic frame work ! Panini gets overruled by Monier Williams !!  

 

In native linguistics,  ‘ LANGUAGE OF TEXT: Samskrutham, is at the least , the language of ‘God/s/goddesses/ Rushi’s/ Yogis’  and deserves a respectable status.  But in IE linguistics,  SANSKRIT is not even the language of ‘ GODS and  GOD-CHOSEN PEOPLE- LAND, A LANGUAGE NOT FIT FOR PRAYERS OFFERING TO GOD/s !!  Sanskrit is just a ‘ foreign language of invaders, a language crafted for  oppression, a derivative of OT ( Old Testament Language branching) , a  social-evolute  of   a ‘proto’ language postulated !! How can the same text yield truth when two different language models as above are applied ?!

 

When modern research for land-time- people-history events analysis is presented as academic, continues to be ripe with  hermeneutic errors and ‘assumptions’; and writings comes up on respectable platforms for consumption by gullible readers, that too  from a forum where arguments freely use  a ‘ dual-standard  on what ‘Samskrutham’ is – one for cultural religious- spiritual tradition and one for academic studies, well it does hurt  the ‘ inside scholars –practitioners of tradition !  

 

I am not telling or defending that inside scholars are ‘all knowers’ ! In fact many are NOT ! Pride takes over to camouflage ignorance and non-readiness to respond –debate- learn -review.  But one thing is sure. Intuitively inside scholar understands ‘what is right and what is not –right’.  

 

The expectation from a scholarly concerned platform like …..  is to serve as a platform to give balanced views and facilitate harmony and understanding.  Taking fig leaf cover behind ‘purpose statements’ does not help.   >

 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nagaraj Paturi
Sent: 18 September 2021 17:34
To: Bharatiya Vidvat parishad
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Indica Today:

 

Dear Prof. R Narayana Iyengar,

 

Thanks for telling us what is पथ्य for us. We are good shrotas of such guidance from elders like you. Such guidance is definitely not सुलभ .

 

The essence of your 463 word brief response to my 910 words long post seems to be that the article being published under "research articles" category is wrong. Yes, I admit. It should have been published under a category like " Conference Proceedings" .

 

You say , " It is quite apparent that you have not understood the scientific intricacies involved about axial precession, visibility of stars and their logical (including arthāpatti) importance for Vedic-Hindu chronology. " 

 

I did not join issue with you or do not intend to join issue with you getting inside the topic or content of the paper. My post did not get into or touch any such details. Hence my understanding or not understanding is not relevant here. 

 

My post was all with regard to the organizational aspects of IA since you mentioned that name. 

 

I know from my own experience that the chief editor of Indic Today, who is currently hospitalized with Dengue, takes feedback from the subject experts regarding research articles before their publication.  

 

In the present case, that might not have happened because it is in fact the publication of conference proceedings though it was wrongly included under " research articles" .

 

Thanks for alerting us about that administrative aspect. 

 

Coming to the academic aspects,

 

There can be good or bad research, right or wrong research, good or bad , right or wrong methodology so to say in what is claimed as research by an author. When an author claims research in his /her article we can dispute the goodness or badness , rightness or wrongness of the methodology in that article. We can not conclude " no research" in the article unless we see such a situation. 

 

For DGH like activities, anything from the Hindu insider side can be a fodder. Isn't OIT objectionable to them ? Do we have to stop publishing OIT articles ? There are AIT theorists too on the Hindu insider side. Do they not take the pro-Hindu ideas of the these AIT theorists as target for their attack ? Should we stop our activities just because some intentionally manipulating groups manipulate any of our work ? 

 

There are Hindu insider scholars who are not comfortable with taking events in Itihasas and Puranas as History at all. They might say working on the history of the Itihasas and Purana texts could be a meaningful research but not the research on the historicity of the events mentioned in those texts. Among those who are interested in the the historicity of the events mentioned in those texts, chronological conclusions vary from scholar to scholar depending on the method used. Why, even among the scholars following the same method, chronological conclusions conflict with each other depending on the details within that same method followed by each of them. We can't stop providing a platform to any of these multiple mutually debating sides. Each of these sides expressing their objections to the claims, methods and/or arguments of the side that they dispute is common. 

 

Just as a forum like BVP provided platform for series of articles from one side of the astronomical chronology of the events in Itihasas and Puranas while asking the other side to respond similarly, IA and its units too provide platform for both sides within the same field i.e.,astronomical chronology of the events in Itihasas and Puranas. It is the academic strength of one of the sides that can eventually  make the other side get extinct eventually, not pontifications to platforms not to provide platform to the other side. 

 

We did use the word promotion and will continue to use the same in all our platforms. But we also did explain the difference between our platforming and our promoting, making it clear that all our platforming should not be taken as promoting. 

 

Thanks for being a श्रोता to these tathyas from our side. 

 

Warm regards,

 

Nagaraj 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eYE9DDF1wGiiu%3Df8n8pMj2FmEMu-PE%2BL5ETVDC1DuY-qg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Can you please help by simplifying your response please, though you are not compelled to intervene and help the two in conversation here. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/030a01d7ad53%246854fcd0%2438fef670%24%40gmail.com.