19th June 2015
Entering into a debate with a Vedic scholar re: OIT theory of Sanskrit/ Rig Veda #5
Around four days ago, I received this fifth installment from Kalicharan Tuvij. I find some assertions (e.g. in red, below) that I don't agree with. Much is interesting but not directly relevant to the issue I'm looking into: the OIT.
Publishing this for the record.
"Well, this information (re: Parsuram, Sudras, etc.) is rather interesting and I'm sure will interest a lot of people."
No sir, this – or anything else – will NOT interest a lot of people. Tolerance for truth is not among the highest in our country, where playing "fighting" into each other is a profitable business ensuring returns even without investment.
Our middle class being a consumer, and not producer, need to be told or taught how to do/ use this or that; sadly, they are completely dysfunctional in every other way.
When RV was redacted (text form) for the first time, the society (except our "beggar-bhaktas", and "village-Hindus") was already dysfunctional. Because it is very clear that those who did the documentation, or did the subsequent commentaries (Yaska, Sayana, even Panini, etc), did not have any clue on what the text meant.
This was because a civilisation had just died a natural death (widely understood under "yuga-cycle"; yeah US will also go, someday:-)), and RV as a written text was an attempt to salvage some of that.
The oral tradition was, therefore, continuing since even before that: prAkrita and Sanskrit existed side by side- none being older or younger to the other. RV is in Vedic Sanskrit, so we don't have any records of Prakrit from that period (other than the substratum in RV).
Indus seal writings have not been deciphered, and will never be, because we don't have Prakrit from that period. It is also a false framework to compare Sanskrit with other IE languages, because Sanskrit IS NOT A NATURAL LANGUAGE, Prakrit is. But we don't have any Prakrit texts from that time to compare with, since Sanskrit was the medium of formal communication; Prakrit was not even one language – it was a guild of a thousand languages.
Ultimately, Sanskrit is as old as the RV ideas. Using the RV ideas, Prakrit was modified, unified, rationalised, and refined to create Sanskrit. Sanskrit, on the other hand, since then, continued to influence Prakrit as well.
Philology is therefore successful when Russian region is shown to be the main genesis of European IE, but fails when it is taken out of context to include Vedic Sanskrit into its application on the Eastern IE.
One doesn't have to be particularly bright to see that Sanskrit has a lot of innovations (sound resolutions, rules inventing, roots arithmetic, and so on), but that doesn't mean that Sanskrit came later: because, as I said, Sanskrit was coexisting with Prakrit. Sanskrit was also a language designed to be an efficient carrier of innovations, its root system is an important tool to support that. PANini didn't create Sanskrit — everyone knows that — he didn't create inflection, roots, any of that. The original Sanskrit is known as "Aindra Sanskrit".
Sanskrit was meant to be the ONE LANGUAGE, as against the many of Prakrit. Sanskrit was meant to be the formal pan-bhArata lingo, so the insistence that there is only one Indian IE, that is Sanskrit, is in the end nothing but an obfuscation.
The native names of places and rivers (small or big) in Punjab, Haryana etc are known to be IE. This is because they are from various Prakrit's, which were all IE's.
Linguistically speaking, and in every other sense as well, India can be modelled as an inverted triangle: the three vertices being — at the bottom TamilNadu-Kerala, at the left upper Punjab-Haryana, and at the right upper Bihar-Jharkhand.
This is the three dimensional "vector" model, where all other regions of bhArata are seen as different sums of these three pure, "basis" vectors.
Among these three, the bottom vertex is the "first among the equals". The RV ideas, even though co-eval, were preceded a bit by the South. Remember, the timelines I am talking here could be tens of thousands of years.
So, even though the three "centres" were the independent contributors to the competencies, these still interacted with each other and kept abreast, so the content remained the same.
Under this triangle model, the IE story is only the third of the whole story.
The Easterners are less bragging than the Westerners, and that is I guess why the Japanese are not claiming a JIT (Japanese Invasion Theory) explaining their connections with the Bengalis or others on the East :-)
To the East, it is not the RV or Sanskrit that played that role: it was primarily the Ramayana culture. Not different languages, just different Ramayana's. Not much military enforcement was required either. Yet, the Ramayana ideas are at the deepest level the same as the RV ideas, even though there is a lot of difference in their respective forms.
So, yes, ideas went outside both from the East and the West of India.
We don't believe in creationist theories of "Aryans" (which nobody, I admit, "believes on paper", either, nowadays. Well, good for them), but the thing is, a lot of evolution and enrichment took place in India which was specially located for this purpose (spent a lot of time even floating there in the sea as an island).
There is a "West", and there is an "East", and we are right there in the Center. For clearly, "east" doesn't mean that "the sun REALLY rises there", neither does "west" mean that "the sun REALLY sets there". (I have read K.Elst earlier say something along this line).
There are many deeper things about these world-views and models, but I will not allow myself to speak more on this; however, the point is, this is the framework (already existing in our native sources) I am suggesting that is relevant here, and admits of all facts.
The liberal narrative demands that various models should be given opportunity to compete with each other. There is no middle path.