11th June 2015
Entering into a debate with a Vedic scholar re: OIT theory of Sanskrit/ Rig Veda #3
Following on from the previous blog post. This is Kalicharan Tuvij's response:
Sanjeev ji,I admire the work you are doing, and though you may face impossible difficulties in this effort (as if defying gravity and such), in the end people will remember your name. In the right way. There is no greater goal to attain here and now, IMO.RV is a powerhouse of ideas. Zero is not, as you said, a simple idea; this is a common mistake people commit; ask any mathematician or physicist of the day, and you will know. In the previous reply, I took names of a few prominent Western geniuses who, exploring into Zero, or the identity element of the Abstract, or the tangent spaces of manifolds, moved beyond the "product knowledge" towards the "competency (technology)" knowledge of ShunnA. In the late 1800's and early 1900's they laid a robust foundation to the edifice known as modern Science, by transforming – in the knowledge of ShunnA – themselves from mere consumers to the producers of the product, ShunnA.RV is much, much more than that. But you are not an expert on this subject, and you don't need to be, and this is not going to affect your efforts or acceptance in any way.Zaruthra the person, or any person, is hardly of importance here. The movement, migration, invasion, transmission and preservation is that of ideas, in main.RV is a meticulous documentation of the treasure trove of ideas. By "meticulous" I mean— the prevailing languages of that time (in BhArata) were rationalised, and modelled, as a language (called Sanskrit) so that a precise documentation could be created, supporting all rules – thought necessary – such as meters, accents, etc.The exact forms of this language, therefore, were not so important as the ideas they contained were. That is, the form of language was a "product" rather than "core competency".So, whereas the earlier migrations out of BhArata were content with taking mainly the "product" forms – e.g. terms, words, and a few stories – the later migrations like the Persians – who remained in some contact with us – were looking for "competency" more than "products".Why do I call words also as "products"? Because words denote ideas, and those words denoting evolved ideas make the carrier-people create evolved stuff. Such as, democracy, judiciary, liberty, arts, and so on.So our neighbours were never in know or command of the full range of our "products" let alone the full range of "competencies".However, they were one of us (they were, and are, our great post vedic brothers and sisters); so they documented their "competencies" in a jargon that they felt comfortable with.Documentation – how and what part of it – was therefore not so important to them. In any Industry, this is a well known fact: the people involved in documentation are less creative than those involved in the creation of ideas.Still, Sanskrit is important. Because the framework for Sanskrit corresponds to the ideas it was supposed to preserve. That's why meditating on mantras is effective.In plain words, this is what I am saying: Sanskrit in the full came into being as the vehicle of documentation for the Vedic ideas. Sanskrit was a pan-bhArata invention, and savants from the South had a big role to play in it.Prior to the documentation, there was no organised language as such: the various words denoting various ideas discovered in the many localities of BhArata were – just floating around.The inflection structure of Sanskrit is not something that is naturally evolved. It only comes with lots of deliberation, and invention.As I said, these are complex subjects, and I don't hope that I can make the understanding clear in such conversations. So I will not be angry at you if misunderstood.The Zorros subsequently created Monotheism (using their reserve of ideas; Zaruthrastra the name isn't important, as I said it is the ideas), which proved to be the father and genesis of all Abrahamic religions of the world.In this way, the Parsus continue to dominate the world even to this day. No, they are long dead and gone, but they still continue to rule the world via their.. Ideas.A few minor errors in your earlier reply, but no probs. Again, this isn't a debate. We don't need it. We don't need to even try convince each other, but that is my opinion. I don't have, moreover, any ulterior motive whatsoever, and will rather bow out as a well-wisher, if there is no further clarification on my part required.May you succeed in ALL your noble intentions,Your well wisher and admirer,KT.
I thank KT for persisting try to persuade me, although he then seemingly backs off by suggesting that “this isn't a debate. We don't need it. We don't need to even try convince each other”
Well, I thought KT sent me his first email, with a view to convincing me that my analysis (rejecting OIT) is wrong. I am keen to have an accurate analysis of things, not to promote falsehoods. So anyone who suggests I’m incorrect needs to show me why. This is, indeed, a matter of persuasion. Either I’m right about OIT or I’m wrong. If I’m right, then KT is wrong. And vice versa.
I’m afraid Kalicharan Tuvij is introducing a number of entirely irrelevant arguments into the debate.
How do the qualities of Sanskrit matter to this discussion? What matters is that RV is not found outside India in the precise form and shape in which it was invented. Such presence is the bare minimum requirement for the OIT theory to have some credibility.
The issue of the zero is unrelated to RV and of an entirely different order of magnitude. Regardless of the many uses to which zero can be put, the basic concept (use in numbering) can be explained even to a child of age 3. But it takes at least 15 years to memorise the RV, and many more years to understand it.
Moreover, there are many people who argue that zero (or its antecedents) were discovered in the Middle East thousands of years before India first made use of the zero. That’s a separate debate. But the point I’m making is that once the basic concept is understood, it takes only a blink of an eye to replicate zero. RV is a different ball game.
We are back to the main OIT argument: “earlier migrations out of BhArata were content with taking mainly the "product" forms – e.g. terms, words, and a few stories – the later migrations like the Persians – who remained in some contact with us – were looking for "competency" more than "products".”
My point is – how can you possibly take the “competency”? KT needs to show how (and why) the Avesta copied the “competencies”. And how is singing praise to one god or another a “competency”? There is no remarkable insight in the Rig Veda that gives anyone any competitive advantage. Yes, it gives the priests a job but doesn’t increase productivity, doesn’t increase wealth, doesn’t increase health. What advantage would knowing its “competency” provide to anyone? And how would they copy this alleged “competency” when no brahmin who knew the RV was willing to share it with anyone. (Even the British researchers found it very hard to find any brahmin to share the RV with them or teach them Sanskrit; only after repeated begging did one or two assist, which led to the published translations of the 19th century).
But not just the Avesta, OIT needs to explain the Hittites, Mitannis, the Kassites and the whole lot of related information. Thousands of fragments of rudimentary language/ technology found also in RV are found strewn across the world.
It all makes perfect sense if we say that RV was created in around 1200 bc based on knowledge/ inputs of all these languages/ gods/ technologies that were floating around (not to the east of India, though). But it makes no sense to say that RV was created in 5000 bc but somehow only primitive fragments of “competencies” are found in 3000-1500bc across the world (except India).
The onus is on OIT theorists to show how RV always managed to crumble into smithereens the moment it touched the Hindu Kush. Anyone who took it out of the Hindu Kush forgot it! Always.
Never a full replica could make its way outside India.
I can readily imagine the RV ideas originated in India 5000 years ago and floated around the world for 1500 years before being formalised and converted into the RV in India. That could plausibly explain the fragments found across the West. But that would mean admitting that RV was created in 1200-1500bc.
But you can’t have RV created in 5000bc and still argue OIT. As they say, you can’t have your cake and eat it too!
So, now, if you are willing to agree that RV was created in around 1500-1200bc, I’m willing to discuss the other issues you’ve earlier alluded to (e.g. horses).
But if you still insist that the RV was created in around 5000bc, I’m afraid you’ve got to offer something far more concrete; not wave your arms around. I don’t accept anything till it is fully proven; and unfortunately, you're simply not proving the case; just making assertions.