<!--QuoteBegin-Liang Jieming+Sep 13 2006, 10:48 AM-->QUOTE(Liang Jieming @ Sep 13 2006, 10:48 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Very well, I'll repost my last deleted post.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good start. Appreciate it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Liang Jieming+Sep 13 2006, 10:48 AM-->QUOTE(Liang Jieming @ Sep 13 2006, 10:48 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>In my book, South Asia includes Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, geographically speaking, you are right. But your topic is not geographical, it is historical, cultural, civilizational.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->because source texts I use refer to the use of Yantras not just in India but also elsewhere like in Sri Lankan fortresses as well.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. out of context probably but which source? Please specify the one mentioning 'Yantra' in Sri Lankan fortress.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Buddhist texts which contain references to the Yantras are from the northern parts, and the Buddhists place the birth of Gautama Buddha in, if I'm not mistaken, what is now Nepal.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are correct. Lumbini is in Nepal. But when Siddharth Gautam was born, Nepal was not a political entity like it is today, and who knows, after 1000 years, what will be the description of that political entity. This is dynamism of history.
So birth place of Gautam is very much part of 'political' Nepal, but 'cultural' and 'Historical' India. Understand this, because your topic is cultural, historical, civilizational. Cultural, Historical, civilizational India spreads beyond multiple political segmentations of yesterday, today, and maybe tomorrow.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The development of catapults in the Indian subcontinent was a collective effort by all the various groupings and kingdoms which arose in and around the area, including parts of what are now within southeastern Pakistan.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. Once again it depends upon what you are intending to mention - whether the political entities (like Magadh, Koshal, Gandhar) or civilizational entities (like Greece, Rome, Chinese, Egyptian)? For others you have mentioned civilizational entities, so why insist upon Indians to be mentioned in terms of political entities?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have used it to denote an area, much as I've lumped the whole of the Americas into just America, Europe into just European, Islamic as just Islamic with only two exceptions, the Greco-Romans as they span civilisational boundaries, and Japan where they took a differing evolutionary path to catapult development with the rest of East Asia. China stands alone as is obvious since the whole book is on Chinese catapults.</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. You are writing on historical-cultural topic, not geographic-political topic. So, please be consistent. You are rightly referring to ancient civilizations where possible, and falling back upon geographic areas where you can not help it. Good approach and I agree. Since even the title of that section of your book suggests your focus is on civilizations, you are right in mentioning them : 'Islamic', 'Greco','Romans', and when there isnt a single one, you fall back on geographical grouping (Americas, Europe - which were not 'a' civilization)- this is a good approach.
But please be consistent when it comes to India.
Unlike Americas and Europe, India is very much a civilization in the same class as that of Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Roman. Please respect that fact, and use the word 'Indian' when referring to that civilization. All catapults you mentioned are rightly at home if you mention it by that name. Not calling that civilization 'Indian', is denying a fact of history not georaphy.
If one is interested in making geographical reference, then it is a cultural convention of historians to referring that region using references from within and not without. What do I mean? There are two ways in which you can define a large and dynamic politico-geographic region. Either define that group with suggested references to the attributes 'internal' to the area - which is defining from 'within', or using attributes excluding that area - which is defining from 'without'.
Example. The countries of Norway, Sweden and Finland can be referred to as 'Scandenavia' - which will be one way to refer to the whole region, or the second way to refer : 'North Europe' meaning 'that part of Europe which is in the North'. When referring to in terms to civilization, and ancient history, it would be wise to use 'Scandenavia', and when referring to things geographic, we commonly use term 'North Europe', and when referring to the region for political references, we use specific political references - Sweden, Norway, Finland.
This way if you really needed to refer to geography, the phrase always used is 'Indian Subcontinent' which geographically contains different political entities into it.
When you talk about study of populations, statistics, economy, you are free to use this term 'South Asia'
But that term is not consistent for historical-civilizational descriptions, considering the dynamism of history. When it comes to civilization, the name is 'Indian Civilization', or 'Hindu Culture'. Not calling that civilization 'Indian', is denying a fact of history, not georaphy.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Moreover, when Alexander the Great fought his way east, he penetrated as far as the Beas River which is in Punjab and joins the Sutlej River, through to the Indus.Â
The Beas is acknowledged as the eastern most line of Alexander's advance which means that he fought most of his eastern battles not in India but in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You answer your own question. Alexendar never really reached political 'India' of today. Right. But he still used the term 'India' to denote the country he was invading. And the political-cultural movement that started as a result of his invasion included the whole civilization of then-India.
Therefore according to you, should we start saying Alexander invaded Pakistan, Afghanistan and not India? Just proves what I mentioned above.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I cannot in good conscience lump everything under "India".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm? Depends again. Your concern is history or geo-politics? Calling that civilization 'India' is a fact of history, not georaphy. Cultural, not political.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good start. Appreciate it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Liang Jieming+Sep 13 2006, 10:48 AM-->QUOTE(Liang Jieming @ Sep 13 2006, 10:48 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>In my book, South Asia includes Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, geographically speaking, you are right. But your topic is not geographical, it is historical, cultural, civilizational.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->because source texts I use refer to the use of Yantras not just in India but also elsewhere like in Sri Lankan fortresses as well.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. out of context probably but which source? Please specify the one mentioning 'Yantra' in Sri Lankan fortress.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Buddhist texts which contain references to the Yantras are from the northern parts, and the Buddhists place the birth of Gautama Buddha in, if I'm not mistaken, what is now Nepal.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are correct. Lumbini is in Nepal. But when Siddharth Gautam was born, Nepal was not a political entity like it is today, and who knows, after 1000 years, what will be the description of that political entity. This is dynamism of history.
So birth place of Gautam is very much part of 'political' Nepal, but 'cultural' and 'Historical' India. Understand this, because your topic is cultural, historical, civilizational. Cultural, Historical, civilizational India spreads beyond multiple political segmentations of yesterday, today, and maybe tomorrow.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The development of catapults in the Indian subcontinent was a collective effort by all the various groupings and kingdoms which arose in and around the area, including parts of what are now within southeastern Pakistan.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. Once again it depends upon what you are intending to mention - whether the political entities (like Magadh, Koshal, Gandhar) or civilizational entities (like Greece, Rome, Chinese, Egyptian)? For others you have mentioned civilizational entities, so why insist upon Indians to be mentioned in terms of political entities?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have used it to denote an area, much as I've lumped the whole of the Americas into just America, Europe into just European, Islamic as just Islamic with only two exceptions, the Greco-Romans as they span civilisational boundaries, and Japan where they took a differing evolutionary path to catapult development with the rest of East Asia. China stands alone as is obvious since the whole book is on Chinese catapults.</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. You are writing on historical-cultural topic, not geographic-political topic. So, please be consistent. You are rightly referring to ancient civilizations where possible, and falling back upon geographic areas where you can not help it. Good approach and I agree. Since even the title of that section of your book suggests your focus is on civilizations, you are right in mentioning them : 'Islamic', 'Greco','Romans', and when there isnt a single one, you fall back on geographical grouping (Americas, Europe - which were not 'a' civilization)- this is a good approach.
But please be consistent when it comes to India.
Unlike Americas and Europe, India is very much a civilization in the same class as that of Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Roman. Please respect that fact, and use the word 'Indian' when referring to that civilization. All catapults you mentioned are rightly at home if you mention it by that name. Not calling that civilization 'Indian', is denying a fact of history not georaphy.
If one is interested in making geographical reference, then it is a cultural convention of historians to referring that region using references from within and not without. What do I mean? There are two ways in which you can define a large and dynamic politico-geographic region. Either define that group with suggested references to the attributes 'internal' to the area - which is defining from 'within', or using attributes excluding that area - which is defining from 'without'.
Example. The countries of Norway, Sweden and Finland can be referred to as 'Scandenavia' - which will be one way to refer to the whole region, or the second way to refer : 'North Europe' meaning 'that part of Europe which is in the North'. When referring to in terms to civilization, and ancient history, it would be wise to use 'Scandenavia', and when referring to things geographic, we commonly use term 'North Europe', and when referring to the region for political references, we use specific political references - Sweden, Norway, Finland.
This way if you really needed to refer to geography, the phrase always used is 'Indian Subcontinent' which geographically contains different political entities into it.
When you talk about study of populations, statistics, economy, you are free to use this term 'South Asia'
But that term is not consistent for historical-civilizational descriptions, considering the dynamism of history. When it comes to civilization, the name is 'Indian Civilization', or 'Hindu Culture'. Not calling that civilization 'Indian', is denying a fact of history, not georaphy.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Moreover, when Alexander the Great fought his way east, he penetrated as far as the Beas River which is in Punjab and joins the Sutlej River, through to the Indus.Â
The Beas is acknowledged as the eastern most line of Alexander's advance which means that he fought most of his eastern battles not in India but in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You answer your own question. Alexendar never really reached political 'India' of today. Right. But he still used the term 'India' to denote the country he was invading. And the political-cultural movement that started as a result of his invasion included the whole civilization of then-India.
Therefore according to you, should we start saying Alexander invaded Pakistan, Afghanistan and not India? Just proves what I mentioned above.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I cannot in good conscience lump everything under "India".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm? Depends again. Your concern is history or geo-politics? Calling that civilization 'India' is a fact of history, not georaphy. Cultural, not political.