History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedHarsha

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Harsha
    Posted: 18-May-2006 at 12:28

I recently found out about this great ruler and I'm quite impressed. I've read about him in Majumdar's "An Advanced History of India". I was initially going to transcribe it here, but it would just take too much time. Anyway, as I see him, he was a great man: although reluctantly taking the reins of power, he proved himself as a great conqueror, recreating during his lifetime, the great empier of the Guptas who preceded him. In addition, he was a patron of the arts and culture. Speaking of which: does anyone know of an English translation of Bana's Harshacharita, preferably available on the web? Anyway, depsite all these achievements, he is virtually unknown in the West. What do you think is the reason for that?

For those of you who haven't heard of this great ruler, here's the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harsha

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287
Post Options Post Options   Quote K. V. Ramakrishna Rao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 00:52
does anyone know of an English translation of Bana's Harshacharita, preferably available on the web?
 
Yes, go to -
 
It is strange for an Indian like me to read that, "Anyway, depsite all these achievements, he is virtually unknown in the West"
when a lot of history or histories is / are written about India, discussed and debated. In fact, the west has accused India that "she does not have any sense of history"! How is it possible?
 
 
You ask, " What do you think is the reason for that? - Can it beattributed to 
 
1.  the west's ignorance of Indian history
 
2. West's suppression of Indian history knowing its history.
 
3. Or it does not want to credit such Indian empires in spite of their achievements.
 
4. Or simply later dubbing that, "he dervived entire thing from the west"!
 
5. Or to suppress the destruction of Nalanda Univcersity? See the remains of it -

6. See how he receives the Chinese pilgrims at Nalanda -
 
 
7. Indians are bewildered about the "western historiography".
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 16:28

No, I would say that it's probably number 1 that's the right answer. Westerners in general are rather ignorant of other regions history, and often even of their own. In the western academic world, Indian history still lags behind in terms of interest to other non-western areas, in particular the Middle East, China and Japan. As far as there being some sort of deliberate suppression of Indian history or refusal to credit India for its achievements, I don't think it's the case.

Then again, perhaps we shouldn't blame the western climate of opinion too much. Why should we blame them for not knowing about a medieval Indian ruler? What does an Indian regular person or even a history academic know about medieval German, Serbian or French rulers? Or about pre-columbian civilizations? My guess would be not much, if anything at all. Every region of the world is concerned with its own history. In some cases, people are not concerned at all with history in general, which compounds this phenomenon. I am personally interested in almost all areas of history, both in a geographic and a focus (military, social, intellectual, economic, etc) sense. But I've learned long ago that I am an exception and, dissapointing as it may be, the great majority of people do not share my enthusiasm. So anyway, let's not look too much into this.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287
Post Options Post Options   Quote K. V. Ramakrishna Rao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 07:24
1. Western historians and even scientists had much interest in Indian history, because of its chronology, arts and sciences.
 
2. Almost all scientists discussed about Indian astronomical tables, which is traced back to Kali era 3102 BCE.
 
3. As India's chronology evidently had been much before other civilizations, in fact, their own calculations gave such results, they took much interest in Indian chronology.
 
4. West wanted to know India, as when it did not have civilization, culture, tradition, heritage India was having all in one plkace.
 
5. In fact, everybody wanted to come to India - why?
 
6. Chinese came to India to collect the sources of knowledge and later that of Buddism.
 
Many middle-eastern civilizations got men and materials from India.
 
Greeks came to study philosophy.
 
Alexander wanted to conquer India.
 
Arabs wanted to find medicine, technology and other sciences.
 
Even mideval people of Europe wanted to come to India to get Indian goods.
 
Columbus wanted to come to India, but landed somewhere, but still he claimed that he reached India!
 
It is said that Vascodagama discovered route to India!
 
Why then all should take interest in India?
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1031
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 08:00
Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

 
Columbus wanted to come to India, but landed somewhere, but still he claimed that he reached India!
 


I understand what you mean, but he actually was trying to get to China, and when he found the natives to be darker he presumed he must have travelled slightly more south and reached India.
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 12:58

Where are you going with all this? The topic was about Harsha, not about the supremacy of India in world history... Anyway, here are some responses to your points.

 

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

1. Western historians and even scientists had much interest in Indian history, because of its chronology, arts and sciences.
 
2. Almost all scientists discussed about Indian astronomical tables, which is traced back to Kali era 3102 BCE.
 
3. As India's chronology evidently had been much before other civilizations, in fact, their own calculations gave such results, they took much interest in Indian chronology.

Yes, India had some contributions to offer the world, I'm not disputing that. But most of the basis for the Western and Middle-Eastern civilizations was laid in Sumer and Egypt. Mesopotamian and Syriac civilization goes very very far back, as much as 9000 years in some cases.
 

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao


4. West wanted to know India, as when it did not have civilization, culture, tradition, heritage India was having all in one plkace.

Uhhh, no... By the time the West had actually heard of India, it already had a civilization of its own. The oldest civilizations in the world are in the Middle East: Sumer and Egypt, which lie much closer to Europe and thus they served as models, not India. Also, the oldest civilizations in Europe (the Gumelnita culture, the megalithic cultures of Iberia, France, Sardinia and Britain, and the exquisite civilization of the Minoans), are all very old: between 6000 and 4000 years old. The statement, "the west did not have a civilization" is thus quite misleading.

 

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao


5. In fact, everybody wanted to come to India - why?

In a word: money. India had a lot of trade goods, especially spices and cloth which were highly prized in the rest of the world. Culture didn't have much to do with it.
 

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao


6. Chinese came to India to collect the sources of knowledge and later that of Buddism.

Yes, the part about Buddhism is true. The part about "their sources of knowledge" is however false. The Yellow River valley gave rise to an indigenous civilization which is almost as old as the Indus Valley civilization. By the time the Chinese made contact with India, they were the heirs of a civilization which was already 2 millenia old.
 

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao


Many middle-eastern civilizations got men and materials from India.

Materials - through trade maybe. Men - some slaves, but not on a large scale. What's your point?
 

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao


Greeks came to study philosophy.

No, Greeks came first as warlords and adventurers, the same way they did all over Western Asia and Northern Africa: from Egypt, to Syria, to Mesopotamia to Iran to Bactria. And when this happened, in the 3rd century BC, the greatest Greek philosophers had come and gone. Also, if you study Greek philosophy, you'll see that it is very different from Indian ideas.
 

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao


Alexander wanted to conquer India.

So? He also wanted to conquer the rest of the world.
 

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao


Arabs wanted to find medicine, technology and other sciences.

Arabs wanted first and foremost to convert as many people as possible to Islam, and a close second was the acquisition of booty. Learning came much later, as an added bonus.
 

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao


Even mideval people of Europe wanted to come to India to get Indian goods.

Yes, as I said before, they wanted to trade to make money.
 

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao


Columbus wanted to come to India, but landed somewhere, but still he claimed that he reached India!
 
It is said that Vascodagama discovered route to India!
 
Why then all should take interest in India?

Money Money Money Money! No one will dispute that India was a rich country, and lots of money could be made by trading with her. And she did have her own advanced civilizations, that were on the level of the rest of the world.


On the other hand, India was not some beacon of civilization in the world, which drew everybody there to learn from it. It was merely one area amongst equals.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1031
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 17:21
Originally posted by Decebal



Yes, the part about Buddhism is true. The part about "their sources of knowledge" is however false. The Yellow River valley gave rise to an indigenous civilization which is almost as old as the Indus Valley civilization. By the time the Chinese made contact with India, they were the heirs of a civilization which was already 2 millenia old.
 


I believe he was trying to state that there were some Chinese students at ancient Indian universities, such as Nalanda University which he posted above, or also Takshashila University, which claims to be the world's first and had students from all over the ancient world.

His entire post is about giving other examples of unknown facts of India (like Harsha's)


Originally posted by decebal


In a word: money. India had a lot of trade goods, especially spices and cloth which were highly prized in the rest of the world. Culture didn't have much to do with it.

can't argue with you there, you hit the nail on the spot

Originally posted by decebal


Uhhh, no... By the time the West had actually heard of India, it already had a civilization of its own. The oldest civilizations in the world are in the Middle East: Sumer and Egypt, which lie much closer to Europe and thus they served as models, not India. Also, the oldest civilizations in Europe (the Gumelnita culture, the megalithic cultures of Iberia, France, Sardinia and Britain, and the exquisite civilization of the Minoans), are all very old: between 6000 and 4000 years old. The statement, "the west did not have a civilization" is thus quite misleading.

Originally posted by decebal


Yes, the part about Buddhism is true. The part about "their sources of knowledge" is however false. The Yellow River valley gave rise to an indigenous civilization which is almost as old as the Indus Valley civilization. By the time the Chinese made contact with India, they were the heirs of a civilization which was already 2 millenia old.


I understand what you mean, however, there were civilisations before the indus valley such as Mehgarh and various underwater cities.

But either way, before yesterday, i knew very little about Harsha, so thanks Decebal :D
Back to Top
Digvijay View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 194
Post Options Post Options   Quote Digvijay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 14:56
Decebeal,
   You have to do a bit more research.  Indian mathematicians and grammerians were far more advanced then all of Europe and China put together. If those civilizations were really far more older then how come they did not make similar progress as Indians did? 

 Panini in 900 BC invented a form of notation which was discovered by Backnus in mid 1950's and became the defacto standard of specifying the grammar of computer languages.

  Decimal system was in use in india Pre BC.

  The theorems attributed to Greeks like Pythagorean theorem were borrowed by Greeks from India.  Donald Knuth, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University has chrnicled this in his book on algortihms.

   Sir William Jones the famous British whose work formed the basis of common origin of world languages had this to say about Sanskrit:
"The Sanskcrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either..."
   So I repeat again if India was the youngest of the civilizations on the planet how come its language (sanskrit), its mathematics, its grammar, its philosophy (remember Vedas were composed in 4th millenia BC ) were most advanced?

  Perhaps the west is all wrong in chronicling Indian civilization.

-Digs
Back to Top
Digvijay View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 194
Post Options Post Options   Quote Digvijay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 15:02
Originally posted by Decebal

I recently found out about this great ruler and I'm quite impressed. I've read about him in Majumdar's "An Advanced History of India". I was initially going to transcribe it here, but it would just take too much time. Anyway, as I see him, he was a great man: although reluctantly taking the reins of power, he proved himself as a great conqueror, recreating during his lifetime, the great empier of the Guptas who preceded him. In addition, he was a patron of the arts and culture. Speaking of which: does anyone know of an English translation of Bana's Harshacharita, preferably available on the web? Anyway, depsite all these achievements, he is virtually unknown in the West. What do you think is the reason for that?

For those of you who haven't heard of this great ruler, here's the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harsha



Decebeal,
  The west is in general not very aware of Indian history and the biggest reason for this is present day indians themselves!  Modern day Indians themselved do not care about there own past and as a consequence a large bit of research is done by westerners and they just pick and choose whatever they like. For example Norman Ziegler and Richard Saran (U Mich Ann Arbor) have done some good work on Rathores of Rajasthan.

   But is this really what you wanted to know?
-Digs
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 17:24
Originally posted by Digvijay

Decebeal,
   You have to do a bit more research.  Indian mathematicians and grammerians were far more advanced then all of Europe and China put together. If those civilizations were really far more older then how come they did not make similar progress as Indians did? 

 Panini in 900 BC invented a form of notation which was discovered by Backnus in mid 1950's and became the defacto standard of specifying the grammar of computer languages.

  Decimal system was in use in india Pre BC.

  The theorems attributed to Greeks like Pythagorean theorem were borrowed by Greeks from India.  Donald Knuth, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University has chrnicled this in his book on algortihms.

   Sir William Jones the famous British whose work formed the basis of common origin of world languages had this to say about Sanskrit:
"The Sanskcrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either..."
   So I repeat again if India was the youngest of the civilizations on the planet how come its language (sanskrit), its mathematics, its grammar, its philosophy (remember Vedas were composed in 4th millenia BC ) were most advanced?

  Perhaps the west is all wrong in chronicling Indian civilization.

-Digs
 
Look, I think that it's a mistake that just because a civilization discovered something or made some cultural advance that is not duplicated anywhere else in the world, to conclude that that civilization must be the most advanced in the world. Different civilizations have different interests, and some are more advanced than others in certain areas. I could come up with a lot of different discoveries that were made in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China or Europe, that haven't been duplicated in India until much later. But I don't necessarily consider that to be a sign of the Indian civilization's inferiority.  The whole concept of superiority or inferiority of a civilization is extremely subjective. Why can't we all simply agree that the great ancient civilizations were really equivalent, while different.
 
I have heard of William Jones, and that quote you posted is very often used by Hindu nationalists. How "advanced" a language is, is very subjective, and is usually a matter of personal opinion. Jones, the European pioneer in the study of Sanskrit, would have naturally felt very passionate about this language that he felt he had a duty to represent well to his fellow Europeans. We cannot take this statement to indicate some sort of superiority of Indian culture over other ones.
 
The assignment of the Vedas to the 4th millenium BC is disputable.  They were transmitted using an oral tradition, and we don't know what could have happened during its transmission, or who its original authors were. Western historians tend to place the Vedas to the middle of the 2nd millenium BC, largey based on their understanding of the AIT (or updated versions of it).
 
Most of my knowledge of Indian history is actually based on Indian historians such as Majumdar or Thapar, so I don't think that I've somehow been unfairly influenced by the western portrayal of Inidan history. As with all areas of history however, caution must be taken before accepting the claims of nationalist historians at face value. Our knowledge of the past is scant, due to the limited evidence, and we have to be careful before accepting claims which are not well backed by those known facts.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Digvijay View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 194
Post Options Post Options   Quote Digvijay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 09:49
Originally posted by Decebal


 
Look, I think that it's a mistake that just because a civilization discovered something or made some cultural advance that is not duplicated anywhere else in the world, to conclude that that civilization must be the most advanced in the world. Different civilizations have different interests, and some are more advanced than others in certain areas. I could come up with a lot of different discoveries that were made in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China or Europe, that haven't been duplicated in India until much later. But I don't necessarily consider that to be a sign of the Indian civilization's inferiority.  The whole concept of superiority or inferiority of a civilization is extremely subjective. Why can't we all simply agree that the great ancient civilizations were really equivalent, while different.



I would like to hear what advances these other civilizations had over India.  Few more things I would like to point out: Metallurgy was most advanced in India. Example is the Iron Pillar at Delhi which has baffled metallurgists even today. They do not have a clear theory, in 2006, that how can iron not rust for 2000 years!
Besides steel was invented in India and Indian swords were made using steel!
The most advanced chariot manuals of the world were from the 'Mittani' people who were a remnant of Indian Aryans and not Iranians as the Mittani seals have proven.
In 11 th century AD Indian mathematicians had invented calculus though world today thinks that Newton invented it just like decimal system, algebra are ascribed to Arabs and geometrical theorems like pythagorean are ascribed to Greeks (See Knuth's reference in previous post).  Besides India had two ancient universities at Nalanda and Taxila.
Can you cite other examples in ancient civilizations which had universities awarding Phd's?
This all round development in various fields is a sign of advanced culture.
 
Originally posted by Decebal


I have heard of William Jones, and that quote you posted is very often used by Hindu nationalists. How "advanced" a language is, is very subjective, and is usually a matter of personal opinion. Jones, the European pioneer in the study of Sanskrit, would have naturally felt very passionate about this language that he felt he had a duty to represent well to his fellow Europeans. We cannot take this statement to indicate some sort of superiority of Indian culture over other ones.


I think you have not read Jones. Jones's main motivation was to prove the biblical origin of the world. He propunded the "Common origin of Languages" to prove the biblical Tower of Babel. Then he goes on to say that Ham (called Ram in India) fathered the Indian race whose brother was Japhet. 
I fail to understand how quoting Jones is a Hindu nationalist POV when the man was clearly driven by christian missionary zeal to show that entire world was created according to the Bible!

Originally posted by Decebal


The assignment of the Vedas to the 4th millenium BC is disputable.  They were transmitted using an oral tradition, and we don't know what could have happened during its transmission, or who its original authors were. Western historians tend to place the Vedas to the middle of the 2nd millenium BC, largey based on their understanding of the AIT (or updated versions of it).

Western dating of Vedas was done by Max Muller to 1200 AD and it was completely ad-hoc as muller lamented later in his life. There are references to constellation changes in Veda which have been dated to 3500 BC.  There is mention of Saraswati flowing and drying up events which took place before 2000 BC.  Indus valley civilization is nothing but saraswati civilization of Vedas and has been dated to 2600 BC.

Originally posted by Decebal


Most of my knowledge of Indian history is actually based on Indian historians such as Majumdar or Thapar, so I don't think that I've somehow been unfairly influenced by the western portrayal of Inidan history. As with all areas of history however, caution must be taken before accepting the claims of nationalist historians at face value. Our knowledge of the past is scant, due to the limited evidence, and we have to be careful before accepting claims which are not well backed by those known facts.

That is how I started reading my history too but it soon became apparent to me that both of them were writing with a certain bias and were not correct.
If you want to we can discuss gross errors by both these authors.

-Digs



Edited by Digvijay - 17-Jul-2006 at 09:52
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 13:24

Again, I am by no means arguing that India did not have an advanced culture. But from there to argue that it was the most advanced civilization in the world is a stretch. The wheel for instance was invented in Sumer, from where it was passed on to other population such as the Aryans. By the way, Mittani people were originally Aryans; but nowhere has it been proven that they actually came from India; rather it is thought that they were a different branch of the people who migrated to India. To assign their accomplishments to India is like assigning French accomplishments to the Spanish because they came from the same stock.

I've said that quoting Jones in this case fits certain Hindu nationalists, because they do selective quoting, just like you have done yourself (I'm not necessarily accusing you of being a Hindu nationalist btw). You first quoted him to show just how "advanced" Sanskrit was compared to other languages. When I pointed out that he praised Sanskrit to elevate interest in that language in the West, you brought up his flaws in reasoning, thus discrediting him. But you were the first one to actually quote him: this is what I mean by selective quoting.

Anyway, talking about historians... A certain amount of bias is natural for any historian. They all have a background, they can all read only a certain number of languages, hence their research will be limited to reading only a certain number of works. Archeological evidence is usually limited and several interpretations are usually possible. Historians, because of their background, will usually choose interpretations that benefit the image of their own country. We just have to be careful. I would give an unrelated example: in the Balkans there were some archeological discoveries dating to the 6th and 5th millenium BC, that contain pottery with certain repetitive symbols. Balkan historians have taken this to be evidence of the oldest writing system in the world. Most other historians point out that the available evidence is not conclusive enough to determine whether the symbols are an actual alphabet or simply that: symbols. Now, it may turn out that the Balkan historians are right, but we can't make that call yet. Along the same vein, I seem to recall that one of the arguments for the supposed advanced mathematical knowledge of the Indus Valley civilization is the standard size of the bricks. That could imply mathematics or simply basic arithmetic: it's just hard to make that call based on the available evidence, but certain historians will read into it what they want.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
M. Nachiappan View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 09-Jun-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315
Post Options Post Options   Quote M. Nachiappan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 01:13

It is ironical to note that Decbal started this column confessing his ignorance about allegedly "mideval Harsha".

He asked about Bana's Harshacarita and the reference was given immediately. And surprisingly, there is no discussion about it by Decebal who requested for. But, the discussion had drifted away finding fault with the details provider.

1.  the west's ignorance of Indian history
 
2. West's suppression of Indian history knowing its history.
 
3. Or it does not want to credit such Indian empires in spite of their achievements.
 
4. Or simply later dubbing that, "he dervived entire thing from the west"!

Thus these points are not discussed.

Now, the Chinese borrowals from India are questioned. Here, the debaters have not considered as to how, when and where the Buddhism reached China.
 
Before Buddhism also, India and China were having contacts and relatioship. In fact, throughout the history, these are the only two civilizations which have been continuously existing, whereas all the other civilizations appeared, flourished and disappeared.
 
Chinese have accepted that Pagodas, alchemy, certain aspects of astroomical  methods, vastu, acupuncture, varma kalai etc., have been derived from India.  Moreover, the Indian and Chinese civilizations have been related resembling many aspects and not opposing or antagonizing. Any give-and-take policy could have been possible in such mutualiy and reciprocity.
 
So let us discuss about the other topics.
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 09:11
Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

It is ironical to note that Decbal started this column confessing his ignorance about allegedly "mideval Harsha".

He asked about Bana's Harshacarita and the reference was given immediately. And surprisingly, there is no discussion about it by Decebal who requested for. But, the discussion had drifted away finding fault with the details provider.

Please note that I did not say "medieval" in my posts. Don't put words in my mouth. I am fully aware that that distinction only applies to Europe.
As for the harshacharita, I must confess that I didn't even notice the link amongst the sea of tangential points made by the person who posted the link, who outlined them in bold colors... I will take a look at it.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Digvijay View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 194
Post Options Post Options   Quote Digvijay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 11:21
Originally posted by Decebal

Again, I am by no means arguing that India did not have an advanced culture. But from there to argue that it was the most advanced civilization in the world is a stretch. The wheel for instance was invented in Sumer, from where it was passed on to other population such as the Aryans. By the way, Mittani people were originally Aryans; but nowhere has it been proven that they actually came from India; rather it is thought that they were a different branch of the people who migrated to India. To assign their accomplishments to India is like assigning French accomplishments to the Spanish because they came from the same stock.

Decebeal,
   You are right in saying that wheel was archaelogically found in Sumeria which on carbon dating gave the appearence of the first wheel.
But what about languages, philosophy, mathematics, metallurgy, medicine of these other civilizations?

Vedic texts are replete with references to chariots and as explained earlier are dated to 4th millenium BC.  West is just plain wrong in accepting Muller's chronology. Whole concept of Aryans coming into India is absurd as genetics is proving that Indian genes record no influx of Europeans/West/Central Asian gene pool. Please read Steve Oppenheimers's "The Real Eve".

Mittani were not Aryan as you understand the word Aryan i.e people originating in Iran who fathered the Indo Aryan language of Avesta.  Mittani seals have proven these people worshipped Gods of Veda and hence represent a group which migrated OUT OF INDIA along with its Vedic religion. Though world still wants to somehow theorise that they were a branch of Iranian Aryans.


I've said that quoting Jones in this case fits certain Hindu nationalists, because they do selective quoting, just like you have done yourself (I'm not necessarily accusing you of being a Hindu nationalist btw). You first quoted him to show just how "advanced" Sanskrit was compared to other languages. When I pointed out that he praised Sanskrit to elevate interest in that language in the West, you brought up his flaws in reasoning, thus discrediting him. But you were the first one to actually quote him: this is what I mean by selective quoting.


Both statements are from Jones himself the one about Sanskrit and the one about his motivation to find the ethnological map of the world based on Bible.  Jones's translation of various Sanskrit plays into English were responsible for Goethe's work and others.
His knowledge about Sanskrit, Greek and Latin was extremely good and he can be believed when he compares these three languages.
On the other hand his ethno theory is easily discardable as archaelogy has proven human beings were there before adam and eve's supposed creation in 2400 BC.
I am not selectively quoting him instead you are understanding things only from your POV. I am giving the man credit where its due and not where its not.

Anyway, talking about historians... A certain amount of bias is natural for any historian. They all have a background, they can all read only a certain number of languages, hence their research will be limited to reading only a certain number of works. Archeological evidence is usually limited and several interpretations are usually possible. Historians, because of their background, will usually choose interpretations that benefit the image of their own country. We just have to be careful. I would give an unrelated example: in the Balkans there were some archeological discoveries dating to the 6th and 5th millenium BC, that contain pottery with certain repetitive symbols. Balkan historians have taken this to be evidence of the oldest writing system in the world. Most other historians point out that the available evidence is not conclusive enough to determine whether the symbols are an actual alphabet or simply that: symbols. Now, it may turn out that the Balkan historians are right, but we can't make that call yet. Along the same vein, I seem to recall that one of the arguments for the supposed advanced mathematical knowledge of the Indus Valley civilization is the standard size of the bricks. That could imply mathematics or simply basic arithmetic: it's just hard to make that call based on the available evidence, but certain historians will read into it what they want.


Not quite.  The mathematical advance of Indian/Indus/Vedic civilization is apparent from  the Sulbha Sutras which were later followed by Greeks to come up with theorems such as pythagorean.  I gave you a reference of Donald Knuth from Stanford Univ earlier.
-Digs


Edited by Digvijay - 18-Jul-2006 at 14:37
Back to Top
M. Nachiappan View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 09-Jun-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315
Post Options Post Options   Quote M. Nachiappan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 06:01

Now Newton doubts the chronology including China, how DECEBAL would reconcile?

 

Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1776
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 06:41
Possibly some new justifications would have to be invented.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.