HINDUISM THROUGH HISTORY (PART - 2)

  Jul 16 2008  | Views 231 |  Comments  (18)
   Read Part - 1  Note: Readers please click on the links to get details from refere... Expand

Leave a Comment   Flat Nested


  riverine posted 4 weeks ago


Bharatborn

Your comment is just as simple and clear! Thanks a lot 



  riverine posted 4 weeks ago


Dear Uncle Keshav

I am so glad you wrote in your vviews - from the horse's mouth they say and you are an architect saying that the houses were pulled down and rebuilt... I too have read that: also that some houses with 5000 year old foundations but new walls are still accommodating people - is that true? 
 
The AIT might seem hare-brained to us now, but the power which it wielded politically and psychologically was far too immense and the damage done far too great...still, better late than never to discard the hare brained theory 

(BTW I don't mean you are a horse anyway -- don't want an uncle that neighs ). Thanks!



  bharatborn posted 4 weeks ago

simplicity and clarity. the two pluses for this blog.



  B S Keshav posted 4 weeks ago

Riverine: Excellent! 
Very well researched, most of the hypotheses make sense.
The Aryan invasion theory was indeed one of the most hare-brained ones, invented by the British to validate their racial supremacy. Bullshit... that points to more use of the much revered cattle...

It also makes sense that the Saraswati-Sindhu civilization didn't exist in isolation, nor that it suddenly died out. There also exists archaeological evidence that the houses were re-built repeatedly after being destroyed. This points towards periodic flooding due to changing courses of the rivers. Probably, they got sick of this and abandoned the spot to migrate elsewhere.

cheers,

Keshav



  rajee kushwaha posted 4 weeks ago

Dear Riverine,
   Thanks aton. I respect your views, albeit not convinced---you might like to pardon me for this. I have quoted the BRITISH author only to higlight the CURRENT CUURENCY & APPLICATION of the term DRAVIDA. you need not agree. Regards. Rajee. 



  riverine posted 4 weeks ago


Rajee K

Corrigendum in my comment earlier: I meant it is the 'd' as in 'damaru' and not the 'dh' as in 'vidhya'.



  riverine posted 4 weeks ago


Kishore Patnaik

Thanks a lot for the appreciation. Would try to contact you or better still, you could see my writings/discussions at www.Medhajournal.com as it would give a wider picture with more contributions from several intellectuals/scholars etc.

Thanks again!

 

 

 



  riverine posted 4 weeks ago

Rajee K

You have missed the most important point: I used 'd' and 'dh' to distinguish between the dental and labial sounds (check out the phonetics to understand what I mean). 

Certainly it is the 'dh' as  in vidhya and not the 'd' as in damaru (drum) -- I hope that clarifies.

I have not quoted or referred to any British work here. So I think that section of the discussion is without relevance although I agree with you that misinterpretations and their proliferation were part of Brit/western agenda.

Regarding Tamil-Sanskrit-Prakrit and SS script/language, I shall be writing shortly.

Thanks.



  rajee kushwaha posted 4 weeks ago

Dear riverine,
  I would like to clarify---SANSKRIT root "VID" is KNOWLEDGE and not "VIDH". Pardon me, but probably it is how you in SOUTH pronounce most words---such as AJITH and not AJI---VINITHA and not VINITA. Kindly check on this. As regards " DRI" it is not "DRA"  -------DRI becomes 'DRA' after SANDHI with' VID'   It implies----- one which is liquid----something like DRAVYA ( DRI+ VYA)---- not STABLE---Something you do not possess and are lacking in. This is what DRAVIDA meant when KUMARAILA BHATTA used it  first time in the SIXTH CENTURY. HE DID NOT USE IT FOR SOUTH INDIANS. It was done by ROBERT CALDWELL some 1200 years later--when he read about PANCH DRAVIDA( much later than KUMARILLA--this term was used by some sanskrit scholars)---they are five regions i.e. GUJRAT, MAHARASHTRA, KANNADA, TAMIL and TELGU---to describe the BACKWARD and underdeveloped areas.
    It was certainly not a synonym for SOUTH INDIA.This was done by ROBERT CALDWELL, who deduced it from Budhhists texts where TAMIL has been referred to as DRAMILA or DAMLA. He found some similarity in the TAMIL and south Indian scripts with central Asian and European scripts ---which were closer to PICTORIAL scripts or BRAHMI and PRAKRITI.
   Ever since ROBERTS book of GRAMMAR of SOUTH INDIAN languages in 1854, the word DRAVIDA has got currency to define South Indians--which is a big fallacy. This is my point on the ORIGIN and SUBSEQUENT USAGE of the word DRAVIDA.
   As regards BRAHMINS of SOUTH INDIA---I am repeatedly saying------- they came along with SAINT AUGUSTYA--younger brother of SAINT VASHISHTA. This term DRAVIDA has been used enmasse by ROBERT CLDWELL in 1854 to describe all South Indians. This is the point I am harping about---the WRONG INTERPRETATION by a BRITISHER and its WRONG USAGE.
   Thanks for your patience. these are my views based on EMPIRICAL STUDIES. UTMOST REGARDS. RAJEE.



  kishore patnaik posted 1 month ago

Dear Riverine,

I am an individual researcher into Ancient Indian History.

I have seen your posts and they are very nicely written. Good work.

You can contact me at Kishorepatnaik09@gmail.com as it may not be possible for me to visit here again.

I have given a private mail also.

Please keep up the good work.

best regards,

Kishore patnaik
groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientindia





Leave a comment

Use rich text editor:


Bangalore, Female
Member Since Jan 29 2007
© 1998-2008 Copyright Sulekha.com Connecting Indians Worldwide, All Rights Reserved.