Post 252:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->> From "Veiling of Women in The Brahmanic Religion" by Thanabalu Kalimuthu, courtesy Prof. D.N. Jha<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bharatvarsh, I think the matter is even more complicated. <b>I'll get to the point I wish to make in the next post</b>. First though, about the bit you pasted. Is that by the same communist hysterian D.N. Jha who wrote the following priceless source of infinite laughter?
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/agarwal.html What is the Aryan Migration Theory?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is likely that the early Aryans had some consciousness of their distinctive physical appearance. They were generally fair, the indigenous people dark in complexion. The colour of the skin may have been an important mark of their identity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Never mind that no one's even found any stuff that they're certain is Oryan, let alone found any Oryan corpses they will swear to. Yet Jha wants us to believe he has read their thoughts. After that little gem, people would have to triple check anything he says/writes before accepting it.
As for citing sources, it's the trait of the Eminent Hysterians to pepper their lies by flashing some random sources here and there - in full knowledge that at least 99 out of every 100 readers won't bother checking up sources; and 99 out of a 100 of those that would, won't have access to/be able to read (or understand the language of) the sources their eminencies had bandied about. For instance, see here, Her High High Highness does the usual communist hysteria by following the standard communist methodology:
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/arti...shakashmir.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Elst quotes Romila Thapar
"otherwise they would look up my footnotes and see that I am quoting from the texts of Banabhatta's Harshacharita of the seventh century AD and Kalhana's Rajatarangini of the twelfth century AD. Both texts refer to such persecutions."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Koenraad Elst, referring to Rajatarangini And this is said explicitly in the text which Romila Thapar cites as proving the existence of Hindu iconoclasm. If she herself has read it at all, she must be knowing that it doesn't support the claim she is making. Either she has just been bluffing, writing lies about Kalhana's testimony in the hope that her readers would be too inert to check the source. Or she simply hasn't read Kalhana's text in the first place. Either way, she has been caught in the act of making false claims about Kalhana's testimony even while denouncing others for not having checked with Kalhana.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Moral: communist hysterians lie about history, then lie about their sources and, when caught, lie about their lies. So going by their track-record, until all the statements and refs made by Jha and his little helper can be corroborated, I am completely within my rights in assuming their guilt until innocence is proven.
Looking at the title of the dude's work which Jha cites (which, frankly, says it all), I have even more trouble giving it any credence. But ignoring that as well - I'll be <i>assuming</i> the refs are true below - onto the second issue I have:
One of those works referred to, mentions Sita 'veiling herself' before Parashurama out of respect:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bhavabhuti in his Mahaviracharita gives a clear vivid evidence of purda.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've a question about it. That book, going by its name, appears to be on a Mahavira. Is it the same Mahavira as the last Jain Tirtankara? <i>If so</i>, the person who wrote it was either contemporaneous with him or lived after the Mahavira. Depending on whose dating we follow, Mahavira himself is dated to slightly before the Buddha or (according to the west) contemporaneous with. Either way, nowhere near Ramayanam's time. Any account the writer(s) of the book on Mahavira had about Rama is then obtained either from earlier Hindu Pauranic literature or - where it's not in accordance with said Pauranic lit - from the writer's own imagination, since too huge a time has passed between Rama's period and Mahavira's period/period of author of the Mahavira book.
As I said though - that's if the literature in question was about the Tirtankara Mahavira and also depends on whether the event about Sita can be corroborated in mainstream Hindu Puranas (in sections not added or interpolated later).
<b>But all this is irrelevant now that I have finally been able to make my way to the only point I really wanted to put across on this topic. See next post.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->> From "Veiling of Women in The Brahmanic Religion" by Thanabalu Kalimuthu, courtesy Prof. D.N. Jha<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bharatvarsh, I think the matter is even more complicated. <b>I'll get to the point I wish to make in the next post</b>. First though, about the bit you pasted. Is that by the same communist hysterian D.N. Jha who wrote the following priceless source of infinite laughter?
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/agarwal.html What is the Aryan Migration Theory?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is likely that the early Aryans had some consciousness of their distinctive physical appearance. They were generally fair, the indigenous people dark in complexion. The colour of the skin may have been an important mark of their identity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Never mind that no one's even found any stuff that they're certain is Oryan, let alone found any Oryan corpses they will swear to. Yet Jha wants us to believe he has read their thoughts. After that little gem, people would have to triple check anything he says/writes before accepting it.
As for citing sources, it's the trait of the Eminent Hysterians to pepper their lies by flashing some random sources here and there - in full knowledge that at least 99 out of every 100 readers won't bother checking up sources; and 99 out of a 100 of those that would, won't have access to/be able to read (or understand the language of) the sources their eminencies had bandied about. For instance, see here, Her High High Highness does the usual communist hysteria by following the standard communist methodology:
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/arti...shakashmir.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Elst quotes Romila Thapar
"otherwise they would look up my footnotes and see that I am quoting from the texts of Banabhatta's Harshacharita of the seventh century AD and Kalhana's Rajatarangini of the twelfth century AD. Both texts refer to such persecutions."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Koenraad Elst, referring to Rajatarangini And this is said explicitly in the text which Romila Thapar cites as proving the existence of Hindu iconoclasm. If she herself has read it at all, she must be knowing that it doesn't support the claim she is making. Either she has just been bluffing, writing lies about Kalhana's testimony in the hope that her readers would be too inert to check the source. Or she simply hasn't read Kalhana's text in the first place. Either way, she has been caught in the act of making false claims about Kalhana's testimony even while denouncing others for not having checked with Kalhana.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Moral: communist hysterians lie about history, then lie about their sources and, when caught, lie about their lies. So going by their track-record, until all the statements and refs made by Jha and his little helper can be corroborated, I am completely within my rights in assuming their guilt until innocence is proven.Looking at the title of the dude's work which Jha cites (which, frankly, says it all), I have even more trouble giving it any credence. But ignoring that as well - I'll be <i>assuming</i> the refs are true below - onto the second issue I have:
One of those works referred to, mentions Sita 'veiling herself' before Parashurama out of respect:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bhavabhuti in his Mahaviracharita gives a clear vivid evidence of purda.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've a question about it. That book, going by its name, appears to be on a Mahavira. Is it the same Mahavira as the last Jain Tirtankara? <i>If so</i>, the person who wrote it was either contemporaneous with him or lived after the Mahavira. Depending on whose dating we follow, Mahavira himself is dated to slightly before the Buddha or (according to the west) contemporaneous with. Either way, nowhere near Ramayanam's time. Any account the writer(s) of the book on Mahavira had about Rama is then obtained either from earlier Hindu Pauranic literature or - where it's not in accordance with said Pauranic lit - from the writer's own imagination, since too huge a time has passed between Rama's period and Mahavira's period/period of author of the Mahavira book.
As I said though - that's if the literature in question was about the Tirtankara Mahavira and also depends on whether the event about Sita can be corroborated in mainstream Hindu Puranas (in sections not added or interpolated later).
<b>But all this is irrelevant now that I have finally been able to make my way to the only point I really wanted to put across on this topic. See next post.</b>