Saraswati: Atomic Scientists reconfirm location

[Sam Garg]

>As far as I can see, no scientist, not even a nuclear physicist or an
>electrical engineer, is better prepared to understand the Rgveda >than
>those scientists who actually devote their lives to studying it.

Agreed.  Then you should have no objection to renaming this forum "Science
of the Rgveda".  Why call it 'Indology'?  As a recent subscriber, attracted
by the name 'Indology', I find it misleading.  It is similar to saying that
Egyptology is the 'scientific study of Egyptian hieroglyphics'.

Sanjay

>From: George Thompson <GthomGt at CS.COM>
>Reply-To: Indology <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
>To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
>Subject: Re: Saraswati: Atomic Scientists reconfirm location
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:59:47 EST
>
>Dear Dr. Kalyanaraman,
>
>Please, stop for a moment and consider this:
>
>we are all of us here, now, in the year 2000, 3rd month, 16th day [accd to
>the calendar that rules the Internet]. Not one of us stands any closer in
>time to the period of the Rgveda than anyone else, whether Vaidika or
>European, Subaltern or American, etc.  No matter who we are, the RV stands
>equally distant and remote and difficult for every single one of us.
>Without
>exception.
>
>As far as I can see, no scientist, not even a nuclear physicist or an
>electrical engineer, is better prepared to understand the Rgveda than those
>scientists who actually devote their lives to studying it.  I don't know
>whether Rahul Oka is a scientist or not. But if you give me a sample of his
>observations about the RV I can tell you right away whether or not he is a
>scientist of the Rgveda.
>
>In my view, if we are talking about the RV, we should try to be scientists
>of
>that text.  If we are talking about IVC, we should try to be scientists of
>IVC.  If we are talking about horses, then we should try to be horse
>scientists. This is simply to say, once again, that this is a scholarly
>list,
>where preference [attention] should be given to those who have studied *as
>scientists* the item that is up for discussion.  I don't think that being a
>scientist of human behavior, for example, gives one any special advantage
>when it come to the science of the RV.
>
>You have an admirable passion for these topics, but I think that it is fair
>to say that you are not a scientist of old Indo-Iranian, nor of comparative
>nor any other kind of linguistics.  This is demonstrated once again by your
>recent comments about sememes, etc.  To talk about meaning divorced from
>phonology and morphology is like talking about Vedic divorced from
>saMhitAs,
>or brAhmaNas, or zrauta sUtras, etc.  It is like separating body and soul
>[you know, signifier and signified, and all that linguistic mumbo jumbo].
>A
>sememe without a phonology, etc., would be a ghost whose existence we could
>not perceive at all, except by means of crystal balls.  That sort of
>methodology is, I think, not allowed on scholarly lists.
>
>I do not deny that you may well be a scientist, and a good one, of other
>things. But in my opinion you have not demonstrated that you are a
>scientist
>of the RV, of Avestan, etc.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>George Thompson

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