bones and flesh

[Venkatraman Iyer]

>I agree that the bones/flesh division is pan-Indian.  I was actually
>commenting on the formative input by the Mundas on Buddhist tantras,
>quite apart from this question.   In passing, I also agree with Paul
>Manansala's comments -- it's a pity the the Munda contribution to
>various aspects of Indian culture is played down -- after all, they
>seem to have been in India longer than "newcomers" like the
>Indo-Eurpeans and the Dravidians.  Perhaps when a proper Munda
>etymological dictionary becomes available we can re-evaluate matters.

I have no problems with the Munda contributions; The problem is
when experts in old and new IE, IIr, IA with their deep expertise
of those texts treat Munda and Dravidian on par. Probably because
they are not that knowledgeable of either Munda or Dravidian texts.
At times, the Munda explanations have an equally valid Dravidian
ones which are ignored.

Probably you will agree that Dravidian philology is not
as advanced as that of Sanskrit due to various reasons in Europe
for the last 200 yrs. Along with D. Stampe's Munda etymological
dictionary, Dravidian texts' study has to adavnce lot further
for a proper (re)evaluation of the Indian past.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com