Part II, Re: Dr.Thompson' dating of the RV...

[Yaroslav V. Vassilkov]

(Answer to Dr. Agrawal - continued).
        But, in fact, you have such an opinion, Dr.Agrawal, and you formulated
it in your
posting of 18 May. Your starting point was your feeling that Prof. Thompson's
date for the RV - 1000 BCE - gives us too small (as it seems to you) a period
- only (!) 13 centuries - for the development of the great Vedic literature
with all its branches, genres etc. You did not take into account that the most
productive period of Vedic literature falls upon the so called "Axial period"
in the world cultural history, when the great religious and social revolution
took place in different parts of the world, when the civilizations and great
literary traditions emerged, developed at an exceptional rate and sometimes
died after only several centuries of existence. That is why I reminded you of
classical Greece and China. You did not confine yourself to expressing your
feeling that this period is too short, you tried to prove the same by means of
logical arguments. But, I am sorry to say, you demonstrated here total
arbitrariness of approach and lack of logic. You start, e.g., with the
following reasoning: "At present, we have about 200 Vedic texts...We also
know that the extant Vedic literature is a small fraction of what once existed
and therefore can safely assume that there were literally more than a 1000
texts that existed once". Why did you name this exact figure? Why not "more
than 3000"? Or "5000"? Why not "more than 500"? I don't think you are ready
to answer.
Another example of your reasoning: "Maharshi PANini quotes 2 dozen or so
predecessors" (you mention then several pre-PANinean or no-PANinean grammar
texts that have survived)..."My point is that even the current extant texts
pre-suppose several millenia of systematic development" (end of the paragraph).
        Please, try to reread your posting of May 18 in a quiet moment, when
you are free of polemic ardour, and tell us then what logic makes you think
that if PANini had 2 dozen or so predecessors (some of them could be
contemporaries, by the way), and there were also some rival schools, it
necessarily "pre-supposes SEVERAL MILLENIA of systematic development"?
Logically speaking, it would not even presuppose "several centuries".
        If you think that it is not enough, please tell me and I will show
some other logical inconsistencies in your arguments in the posting of May 18
(I have no time for it now).
        Therefore, I do not think that your way of reasoning can be considered
to be "more accurate method" (your posting of 23 May) that the methods used
by modern scholarship.
        I still think, Mr Agrawal, that your participation in the Indology is
benefitial to the List, because you represent in it the position of traditional
Indian scholarship. Modern scientific indology and traditional scholarship are
two quite different, heterogeneous trends of thought, with different aims and
methods; "never the twain shall meet", and no true synthesis, I am afraid, is
possible, but the dialogue between them has always been very fruitful. People
like you can do a great thing by way of establishing the links of dialogue
between two traditions. But the necessary condition of the dialogue is that
participants have to be tolerant to each other, to avoid offensive words and
polemic exaggerations.
        Best regards,
                                                Yaroslav Vassilkov