09-18-2008, 10:03 AM
HH Post ^ more important
---
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dear XXX,
It is because I have largely identified with the Hindu cause that I
think I can permit myself the freedom to speak of "Hindu polmeicists"
and disparage their idiosyncrasies a bit. They are right to question
the AIT, and therefore I am right in criticizing them for making the
anti-AIT position look ridiculous with their smug counterscientific
claims and their logical fallacies.
When you read in their posts things like "therefore...", "so now you
can't deny anymore...", "thus it is totally evident that...", "only a
fool can still deny...", or "this proves", you'd better reach for
your gun, for chances are that a fallacy is coming. On lists
pertaining to Indian history, Hindu religion, the AIT debate or Vedic
astrology/calendar, you can find hundreds of examples.
The background problem is a deeply defective sense of historicity,
i.e. of the fact that things have a history, as opposed to being
eternal ideas parachuted from heaven and now forming immutable
cornerstones of our world-view. Thus, the MBh has a history. Between
its first inspiration and its final edition, many centuries elapsed,
fifteen or so. Social and religious developments from the intervening
centuries found the place in the final version but stand out as
anachronisms when you read it as an account of the original events
inspiring the epic. There is nothing particularly anti-Hindu about
stating this, it merely extends to the Hindu world a phenomenon in
evidence everywhere else. Thus, in medieval paintings showing scenes
form the Gospel, we see Jesus and his audience in medieval-European
buildings wearing medieval-European clothes. Likewise, the final
editor of the MBh brought his story closer to his audience by
marginally including the Yavanas and other contemporaneous ethnic
groups of whom Krishna had never heard. Sometimes the anachronism was
deliberate and motivated, e.g. the insertion of the brutally casteist
Shambuka story at the end of the Ramayana, reflecting caste relations
of the editor's own time, totally unattested in the Ramayana core
narrative.
Sometimes there is no anachronism but later readers created it by
taking a title too literally: the Manu Smrti is an unabashed account
of the sociology of Hindu society in the beginning of the Christian
age. there is no attempt to make it look mre ancient,-- except for
the name "Manu Smrti" implying the claim that the "laws" laid down in
the text date back to the ancient patriarch Manu. It is unclear how
literal anyone took that claim at the time of its editing. But the
sad fact is that list members do argue in all seriousness that the
Manu Smrti was literally composed by that Manu "long before the MBh
war". Applying the Puranic dynastic lists, which put the Vedic kings
well after Manu (actually as his descendents), they should have to
add that Manu lived "long before the Vedas", but there the logic is
overruled by another Hindu but non-Vedic belief, viz. that the Vedas
are as old as the universe. On that point, if only they'd read
scripture literally! Then they'd know that the Vedic huymns are self-
described human composition, set in space and time and addressed to
(as against dictated by) the gods. There, many Hindus sovereignly
overrule the testimony of their divine scriptures to follow a crassly
irrational notion of a scripture given at the time of creation.
Hindus do their own cherished historical theses, such as the Aryan
non-invasion, great harm by sticking to pre-critical attitudes such
as the literalist reading of scriptures. And I am not asking for a
total overhaul of anything, just read your own writings to notice the
contradictions. Thus, on the HinduCalendar, I see people attempt
to discuss astronomical facts and then interrupt theis scientific
effort with considerations of the Puranic yugas, uncritically
adopting the fairly late interpretation of yuga as being 432,000
years long (or something of that magnitude), an obviously unlikely
and certainly non-astronomical unit. The combination of pretending to
do science and yet sticking to a literal reading of scripture is
often quite comical. And that's the only thing that outsiders
remember after reading it: those Hindus are funny!
So, i think I am really doing Hindus a friend's service by breaking
ranks with the Hindutva society of self-praise.
As for those dinosaurs. I was interviewed last week by a young local
journalist, and some of his questions amounted to an insistent
comparison between Hindu and Protestant "fundamentalists", such as
what they think about abortion, about euthanasia, stem-cell research
etc., and of course about creationism. Some time ago, some Hindu
polemicists alleged that the AIT amounted to creationism and that
atheist Steve Farmer was a Biblical literalist and creationist. In
fact, their own rejection of IE linguistics amounted to a form of
creationism: just as Christian creationists reject the deduction of
dinosaurs from the existence of dinosaur bones, they reject the
deduction of a PIE language from the existence (now or in the known
past) of its daughter-languages.
But let us stick to the topic of creationism in its literal sense,
popular among Protestants and Muslims. Hindus usually pride
themselves on never having had a problem with evolution
theory: "Isn't the series of Vishnu's incarnation a preview of
evolution theory?" Yet, there is a kind of Hindu creation, though it
doesn't lock the world up in a narrow Biblical time-span of six
thousand years, preferring the Puranic mega-million-cycles instead.
Among Hare Krishnas, at least, I find a lot of rejection of
evolution, not in the sense of rejecting the dinosaurs, but in the
sense (after Michael Cremo: Forbidden Archaeology) of rejecting that
humans are descendents of, and later than, monkeys and dinosaurs. In
comic-strips you get to see humans co-existing with dinosaurs; those
Hindus take this literally.
Now, this is a peculiar belief of one Hindu sect, but it feeds upon
an attitude thart is far more widespread among Hindus, viz. a very
defective grasp of historicity. It's an important topic to which we
shall certainly return.
Kind regards,
KE<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->> . What is the root of Aryan?
> ⢠What is the meaning of Aryan?
>
In the 19th century, it was thought that Arya was the common
denomination of all Indo-Europeans for themselves collectively,
i.e. "Indo-European". In this view, the Indians, Iranians and Irish
narrowed the meaning down to only their own tribe once they had lost
touch with the other Indo-Europeans and used it to distinguish
themselves from the non-Indo-Europeans they encountered. This view
was abondoned when the word only held up in Indo-Iranian and other
etymologies were found for "Eire" (Ireland) and also for another word
that had provisionally been linked to it, viz. German "Ehre"
(honour), which is a rhotacism from *aiz-, related to
Latin "aestimare", whence English "esteem".
This left the question of the ultimate etymology of "arya" wide open,
and various explanations started competing: (1) "agriculture",
cfr. "ar-able (land)", whence metaphorically "culture"; (2) "acquire,
possess", as proposed by Indian Marxist RS Sharma; (3) "skillful"
cfr. Greek "aretè" (courage, virtue); and (4) "kind to
others", "hospitable", "host", "owner of this land", causative
from "alios" (other); (5) linked with "rta" (order); and a few more.
But the mature meaning found in Veda and Avesta was limited to those,
not found in any other IE language.
However, it was later found that there is a cognate with the same
meaning in the Anatolian branch: Hittite "ara" (member of one's own
group, peer, friend), and Lycian "arus" (citizen). Old Irish "aire"
(freeman, i.e. non-slave, full tribe member) seems to fit the same
semantic cluster. So, a PIE form has been reconstructed (p.266,
Mallory & Adams: Oxford Introduction to PIE and the PIE World)
as "*h4eros" meaning "member of one's own group", which is exactly
the meaning it had for the Vedic Pauravas and for the Avestan
Iranians.
Maybe there remains something deeper and older to investigate here,
but I think this insight, that "arya" does have an ethnic meaning
after all, does help this debate forwards.
KE
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
---
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dear XXX,
It is because I have largely identified with the Hindu cause that I
think I can permit myself the freedom to speak of "Hindu polmeicists"
and disparage their idiosyncrasies a bit. They are right to question
the AIT, and therefore I am right in criticizing them for making the
anti-AIT position look ridiculous with their smug counterscientific
claims and their logical fallacies.
When you read in their posts things like "therefore...", "so now you
can't deny anymore...", "thus it is totally evident that...", "only a
fool can still deny...", or "this proves", you'd better reach for
your gun, for chances are that a fallacy is coming. On lists
pertaining to Indian history, Hindu religion, the AIT debate or Vedic
astrology/calendar, you can find hundreds of examples.
The background problem is a deeply defective sense of historicity,
i.e. of the fact that things have a history, as opposed to being
eternal ideas parachuted from heaven and now forming immutable
cornerstones of our world-view. Thus, the MBh has a history. Between
its first inspiration and its final edition, many centuries elapsed,
fifteen or so. Social and religious developments from the intervening
centuries found the place in the final version but stand out as
anachronisms when you read it as an account of the original events
inspiring the epic. There is nothing particularly anti-Hindu about
stating this, it merely extends to the Hindu world a phenomenon in
evidence everywhere else. Thus, in medieval paintings showing scenes
form the Gospel, we see Jesus and his audience in medieval-European
buildings wearing medieval-European clothes. Likewise, the final
editor of the MBh brought his story closer to his audience by
marginally including the Yavanas and other contemporaneous ethnic
groups of whom Krishna had never heard. Sometimes the anachronism was
deliberate and motivated, e.g. the insertion of the brutally casteist
Shambuka story at the end of the Ramayana, reflecting caste relations
of the editor's own time, totally unattested in the Ramayana core
narrative.
Sometimes there is no anachronism but later readers created it by
taking a title too literally: the Manu Smrti is an unabashed account
of the sociology of Hindu society in the beginning of the Christian
age. there is no attempt to make it look mre ancient,-- except for
the name "Manu Smrti" implying the claim that the "laws" laid down in
the text date back to the ancient patriarch Manu. It is unclear how
literal anyone took that claim at the time of its editing. But the
sad fact is that list members do argue in all seriousness that the
Manu Smrti was literally composed by that Manu "long before the MBh
war". Applying the Puranic dynastic lists, which put the Vedic kings
well after Manu (actually as his descendents), they should have to
add that Manu lived "long before the Vedas", but there the logic is
overruled by another Hindu but non-Vedic belief, viz. that the Vedas
are as old as the universe. On that point, if only they'd read
scripture literally! Then they'd know that the Vedic huymns are self-
described human composition, set in space and time and addressed to
(as against dictated by) the gods. There, many Hindus sovereignly
overrule the testimony of their divine scriptures to follow a crassly
irrational notion of a scripture given at the time of creation.
Hindus do their own cherished historical theses, such as the Aryan
non-invasion, great harm by sticking to pre-critical attitudes such
as the literalist reading of scriptures. And I am not asking for a
total overhaul of anything, just read your own writings to notice the
contradictions. Thus, on the HinduCalendar, I see people attempt
to discuss astronomical facts and then interrupt theis scientific
effort with considerations of the Puranic yugas, uncritically
adopting the fairly late interpretation of yuga as being 432,000
years long (or something of that magnitude), an obviously unlikely
and certainly non-astronomical unit. The combination of pretending to
do science and yet sticking to a literal reading of scripture is
often quite comical. And that's the only thing that outsiders
remember after reading it: those Hindus are funny!
So, i think I am really doing Hindus a friend's service by breaking
ranks with the Hindutva society of self-praise.
As for those dinosaurs. I was interviewed last week by a young local
journalist, and some of his questions amounted to an insistent
comparison between Hindu and Protestant "fundamentalists", such as
what they think about abortion, about euthanasia, stem-cell research
etc., and of course about creationism. Some time ago, some Hindu
polemicists alleged that the AIT amounted to creationism and that
atheist Steve Farmer was a Biblical literalist and creationist. In
fact, their own rejection of IE linguistics amounted to a form of
creationism: just as Christian creationists reject the deduction of
dinosaurs from the existence of dinosaur bones, they reject the
deduction of a PIE language from the existence (now or in the known
past) of its daughter-languages.
But let us stick to the topic of creationism in its literal sense,
popular among Protestants and Muslims. Hindus usually pride
themselves on never having had a problem with evolution
theory: "Isn't the series of Vishnu's incarnation a preview of
evolution theory?" Yet, there is a kind of Hindu creation, though it
doesn't lock the world up in a narrow Biblical time-span of six
thousand years, preferring the Puranic mega-million-cycles instead.
Among Hare Krishnas, at least, I find a lot of rejection of
evolution, not in the sense of rejecting the dinosaurs, but in the
sense (after Michael Cremo: Forbidden Archaeology) of rejecting that
humans are descendents of, and later than, monkeys and dinosaurs. In
comic-strips you get to see humans co-existing with dinosaurs; those
Hindus take this literally.
Now, this is a peculiar belief of one Hindu sect, but it feeds upon
an attitude thart is far more widespread among Hindus, viz. a very
defective grasp of historicity. It's an important topic to which we
shall certainly return.
Kind regards,
KE<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->> . What is the root of Aryan?
> ⢠What is the meaning of Aryan?
>
In the 19th century, it was thought that Arya was the common
denomination of all Indo-Europeans for themselves collectively,
i.e. "Indo-European". In this view, the Indians, Iranians and Irish
narrowed the meaning down to only their own tribe once they had lost
touch with the other Indo-Europeans and used it to distinguish
themselves from the non-Indo-Europeans they encountered. This view
was abondoned when the word only held up in Indo-Iranian and other
etymologies were found for "Eire" (Ireland) and also for another word
that had provisionally been linked to it, viz. German "Ehre"
(honour), which is a rhotacism from *aiz-, related to
Latin "aestimare", whence English "esteem".
This left the question of the ultimate etymology of "arya" wide open,
and various explanations started competing: (1) "agriculture",
cfr. "ar-able (land)", whence metaphorically "culture"; (2) "acquire,
possess", as proposed by Indian Marxist RS Sharma; (3) "skillful"
cfr. Greek "aretè" (courage, virtue); and (4) "kind to
others", "hospitable", "host", "owner of this land", causative
from "alios" (other); (5) linked with "rta" (order); and a few more.
But the mature meaning found in Veda and Avesta was limited to those,
not found in any other IE language.
However, it was later found that there is a cognate with the same
meaning in the Anatolian branch: Hittite "ara" (member of one's own
group, peer, friend), and Lycian "arus" (citizen). Old Irish "aire"
(freeman, i.e. non-slave, full tribe member) seems to fit the same
semantic cluster. So, a PIE form has been reconstructed (p.266,
Mallory & Adams: Oxford Introduction to PIE and the PIE World)
as "*h4eros" meaning "member of one's own group", which is exactly
the meaning it had for the Vedic Pauravas and for the Avestan
Iranians.
Maybe there remains something deeper and older to investigate here,
but I think this insight, that "arya" does have an ethnic meaning
after all, does help this debate forwards.
KE
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->