Dear Prof. Ask Parpola, 

Can we be sure that the authors of Upanishads were so isolated from the India that used mirrors by the time they were authoring those texts?

While we see Dravidian and south Indian linguistic and other elements in various Vedic texts and Sanskrit , can we propose this isolation selectively in the case of these texts?

Another crucial question is how sure can we be of the exhaustive coverage every piece of material culture, floors or fauna of known to a linguistic group in their texts? Can absence of a word be taken as evidence for the absence of the entity indicated by it?



On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 2:16 PM Asko Parpola via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Dear Dominik,


Thank you for pointing out this recurring slip of mind:  I repeatedly (pp. 3, 4, 21 and 23 [thrice]) wrongly write ākāśa- when I mean ādarśa- ‘mirror’.  Dear colleagues, please excuse this mistake and note the correction.

With best wishes, Asko


On 4 Mar 2019, at 2.17, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Asko,

Your paper is very helpful, as many have already said.

I am puzzled by your use of  "ākāśa" sometimes where I would expect you to say "ādarśa".   Am I missing something?  I have to admit, I haven't read your 2018 prākāśa article.

Best,
Dominik

--
Professor Dominik Wujastyk
,

Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity
,

University of Alberta, Canada
.

South Asia at the U of A:
 
sas.ualberta.ca



On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 03:53, Asko Parpola via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

Some time ago there was a query about the date of the Upanishads.  I have a new answer to this question in my paper 

The Mirror in Vedic India: Its ancient use and its present relevance in dating texts

published today in: Studia Orientalia Electronica vol. 7 (2019): 1-29. A pdf is downloadable at

https://journal.fi/store/issue/view/5490

Here is the abstract:

The major first part of the paper collects as exhaustively as possible all mentions of words for ‘mirror’ occuring in Vedic literature (c.1200–300 bce). The occurrences are presented with sufficient context in Sanskrit and English in order to show how and why the mirror was used in Vedic rituals and Vedic culture in general, and what meaning was ascribed to it. The second part of the paper discusses a fact of major significance that emerges from this documentation: in the extensive older Vedic literature of the Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas and Śrautasūtras (excepting the late Kātyāyana-Śrautasūtra), there is no reference to the mirror at all. This suggests that the mirror was not known in Vedic India until it was introduced to South Asia by the Persian Empire at the end of the sixth century bce. The later Vedic literature, starting with the early Upaniṣads and comprising also the Gṛhyasūtras and Kātyāyana-Śrautasūtra, would therefore postdate 500 bce. In other words, the ‘mirror’ words seem to offer a criterion that for the first time enables a division of the Vedic literature into two clearly separate phases of development. Equally important is the firm historical basis that the mirror provides for dating the transition point. 


With best regards and wishes, Asko


Asko Parpola, Ph.D.
Professor emeritus of Indology 
University of Helsinki
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)