Date of the Veda

[Artur Karp]

At 17:39 00-10-25 +0000, N. Ganesan wrote:

 >Does this refer to Klaus Klostermaier? If so, he concurs
 >with N. Rajaram's "new" chronology. Not the mainstream
 >Indologists view. In a Hindutva critique on the AIT,
 >Klostermaier's chronolgy is given.
 >http://www.atributetohinduism.com/aryan_invasion_theory.htm


<<<
 >Questioning the Aryan Invasion Theory and Revising Ancient Indian History
 >By Klaus Klostermaier
 >http://www.icj.iskcon.net/6_1klostermaier.htm>


A slightly different version of the "new" chronology can be found in Klaus
K. Klostermaier's "A Concise Encyclopedia of Hinduism" [Oneworld
Publications, Oxford 1998].

The Author precedes it by the following statement:

"The chronology of Ancient India up to the time of the Buddha is at present
the focus of fierce scholarly debates. The majority of Indian scholars
assume a date of 4000 BCE for the Rgveda, rejecting also the so-called
'Aryan Invasion Theory', whereas the majority of Western scholars maintain
the invasion theory and date the Rgveda to 1500-1200 BCE. The chronology
offered here represents largely the traditional Indian position. [...] On
the basis of the more recent research based on archaeology and astronomy,
the following chronology can be tentatively established:

c. 4000 BCE             Earliest Vedic hymns [...]"

One notices how reality is created by the use of carefully selected phrases.
The reader of course goes for the "traditional... position" - as confirmed
by "the more recent research based on archaeology and astronomy"; no one
would want to follow obsolete theories. No further comments.

With regards,

Artur Karp

University of Warsaw
Poland






--------------------- [POLBOX - REKLAMA] --------------------
http://www.femalelife.pl - najwiekszy serwis o antykoncepcji!
  http://www.schering.pl - najciekawsze informacje medyczne!
-------------------------------------------------------------