Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Ba hlika
gira...@juno.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Bahlika
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:12:03 +0530 (IST)
20 11 10 Dear and Esteemed Colleagues, I request you to consider a few points raised below by me. Will it be quite fruitful to try to find evidence about Bactria from Puranic statements. As has been established by several scholars, Vedic evidence is more dependable than Puranic because of the continuous re-edition and recasting of the latter. Did not the Mahabharata, according to its own statement, exist first in 8800, then in 24000 and finally in 100000 verses? What Sukthankar had at hand was even larger so that he admittedly tried to reach as near as possible to the said Śatasāhasrīsṃhitā and not further beyond. For such reasons the Atharvavedic evidence appears to me to be of maximum importance in determining the relation between Bactria and mainland India. According to that Bactria was a cursed land plagued with diseases causing remittent fever. It was indeed the homeland of takman that is fever. This picture fits into the known pre-history of the land. Bactria, born of the alluvial soil of the two biggest rivers of Central Asia, is a fertile land. Before the introduction of iron implements it had to be, like the Terai region, the favorable breeding ground of malaria and kala-azar. For this reason the Atharvaveda knows it as a cursed land, though its evidences speak for traders of the Vedic age keeping contact with the land. That would be natural as Indian glass made way to Iran, most probably through Bactria that was on the Silk-Route. But it was never the coveted land for the Vedic people. The soldiers left by retreating Alexander might have somewhat changed the landscape when the actual iron-age history of Bactria began. Any golden age of Bactria before that, and even after, has to be regarded as myth. Indeed there remains the BMAC to take account of. The facts gathered by me from the reports of several excavations (French, Soviet) carried on from the seventies till the early eighties pertain to pre-iron age settlements based on harrow-cultivation that came to an end around 1500 BCE. How does one relate that to the out and out iron-age production that is the Mahābhārata. I do not deny that the Mbh and the Purāṇas may have recorded memories of lost pre-iron-age civilizations but it is erroneous to see them as contemporaneous with the reported “Lost Atlantean” civilizations. I note some postings on iron in India in the third millennium BC. I shall be glad to have evidences. Till now the majority opinion favours its origin in iron-smelting factories of the Hittite empire. After the dissolution of the Hittite empire (1200 BCE) the secret techniques were carried to faraway lands including India. Without strong evidence to the contrary the theory of any other origin has to regarded as less dependable. But I WILL see them as authentic. None will be gladder that me if that happens. Best wishes DB
--- On Thu, 4/11/10, navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramn...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
____________________________________________________________
Moms Asked to Return to School
Grant Funding May Be Available to Those That Qualify.
SeeCollegeDegrees.com
Dipak Bhattacharya
22 11 10 Dear Dr. Joshi, You are certainly aware of the fact that none of the discussions made since 1859 (Maxmüller) on the date of the Vedas has satisfied every scholar. Whitney, Tilak, Jakobi, Satyavrata Sāmasramin, Macdonell, Abinash Ch.Das, Winternitz, Bhagavaddatta, Keith (CAHI), N. N. Law and Burrow are only some of the names. B. B. Lal (1954-55) too expressed his views -- that the Aryans had entered into India from Iran in 1200 BCE! I do not know of even any Western scholar holding such a view. All these scholars differ widely between themselves but broadly two sides may be discerned -- those who believe in the beginning of the Vedas in the second millennium BCE and those who regard them as hailing from hoary antiquity. The latter subscribe to the view that the Mahabharata as it is was composed by Vyāsa around 3100 BCE. My views on some of the problems (PGW, Parikṣit, the cleavage between the Vedas and the Avesta etc) will be found in a paper The Aryan problem etc (University of Calcutta, 2004). Among the latest scholars who have contributed to the discussion I may name Alexander Lubotsky (Leiden) who more or less agrees with me. Is the second volume of the Paippalāda-Saṃhitā of the Atharvaveda (Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 2008) available at the library of your university? You will find some discussion by me in its Introduction too. Some facts will be found in the Introduction to the third volume too (to be released soon). Again, some notes particularly relating to the AV’s history had been made in 2005 of which I told in an earlier posting that you noted. Hope this mail answers your queries. But since, as told above, I have already expressed my relevant views in well-known, accessible publications and have nothing new to add immediately, I think I should temporarily withdraw from this subject. Best wishes and regards Dipak Bhattacharya |
gira...@juno.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>
To: gira...@juno.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Ba hlika
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:37:15 +0530 (IST)
22 11 10 Dear Dr. Joshi, |
Please do not have any mis-understanding. Hard words (even from highly qualified scholars!!) might restrict discussion in the forum. My desire to withdraw from the current discussion is genuine for reasons stated there. But there is no problem in sending to you my already published papers, if those were of any use to you. You seem fresh and enquiring that is encouraging. I earnestly hope that you would enquire with a free mind. Two of my papers relate to the Aryan problem and some cult differences between the Rgvedic and the Avestic religion. The latter is an intensive study that is necessary before coming to more general conclusions. The others relate to the AV – its role in Indian history, geographical location, cultural and cult features, relation to the Kurus, the enigmas of the Paippalāda-Saṃhitā -- the main Atharvaveda that was once thought to have been lost forever. If you so desire I may send computer-generated press-copies and/or online versions. But how much is the capacity of your mailbox? And I warn that age old beliefs might crumble. For example, as far as I see, Vicitravīrya, Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Parikṣit, his descendants up to Nicakṣu and quite a few other Mahābhārata figures were certainly historical ones corroborated by Vedic evidence. But there is no evidence of the five Pāṇḍavas being historical figures. Admittedly they represent old Vedic cult objects and consequently the pristine Vedic culture. There is evidence of great destruction befalling the Kurus and Pāñcālas but why is the supposed great war not even once mentioned anywhere in the Vedas and the Vedāngas? So much for the present. Best wishes for fruitful work Sincerely Dipak Bhattacharya Reply if any, may kindly be sent to me off the List that is to say to dbhattach...@yahoo.com |
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________
$350,000 Life Insurance
Coverage as low as $13.04/month. Free, No Obligation Quotes.
QuoteWhiz.com