[Y-Indology] The BBC on "AIT"

[Guest guest]

> A real fact is something that cannot be disputed - that is

> precisely what makes it a fact. Presenting facts is one of the

>first steps in any scholarly undertaking, and therefore there

>cannot be any question of 'tempering'.

 

but how much of it is really valid when it comes to Indian history?

 

for example take shankara.

 

what's the conclusive proof that such a person lived, at what point

in time, what his works are etc?

 

in none of the books which are normally attributed to him does he

declare himself as the author - his name or anything.

 

even in the literature which follows him, commentaries on his works

or the polemics of rivals, how many of them directly refer to him or

attribute works to him?

 

yet, not only do we have an "established" date for shankara, we also

have so many of his works which are considered as "authentic".

 

and shankara is relatively recent in comparison to the upanishads or

the buddha, leave alone ait.

 

so ...

 

> Scholarship is about determining facts

> (which, I repeat, are things that cannot be disputed) and then,

through

> a process of sober reflection on those facts, reaching conclusions

that

> on the basis of the present state of knowledge (which is based on

> facts)

 

for example take shankara (a very popular figure in indian history) -

can you list the 'facts' with regards to him, which led to

the 'present state of indological knowledge' on him?

 

if you're not familiar with shankara, you can use the buddha as a

relevant example in our exercise.

[Guest guest]

History before Buddha's time anyways needs to be reconstructed , but it needs to

be constructed carefuly.

 

Although AIT is now obsolete , its replacement needs to be thought of by a

competent body of balanced historians (and not by ordinary inexperienced laymen)

 

For this of course inputs will have to taken from everybody ......

 

 

vpcnk <vpcnk wrote:

> A real fact is something that cannot be disputed - that is

> precisely what makes it a fact. Presenting facts is one of the

>first steps in any scholarly undertaking, and therefore there

>cannot be any question of 'tempering'.

 

but how much of it is really valid when it comes to Indian history?

 

for example take shankara.

 

what's the conclusive proof that such a person lived, at what point

in time, what his works are etc?

 

in none of the books which are normally attributed to him does he

declare himself as the author - his name or anything.

 

even in the literature which follows him, commentaries on his works

or the polemics of rivals, how many of them directly refer to him or

attribute works to him?

 

yet, not only do we have an "established" date for shankara, we also

have so many of his works which are considered as "authentic".

 

and shankara is relatively recent in comparison to the upanishads or

the buddha, leave alone ait.

 

so ...

 

> Scholarship is about determining facts

> (which, I repeat, are things that cannot be disputed) and then,

through

> a process of sober reflection on those facts, reaching conclusions

that

> on the basis of the present state of knowledge (which is based on

> facts)

 

for example take shankara (a very popular figure in indian history) -

can you list the 'facts' with regards to him, which led to

the 'present state of indological knowledge' on him?

 

if you're not familiar with shankara, you can use the buddha as a

relevant example in our exercise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School education Pre school education

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "INDOLOGY" on the web.

 

INDOLOGY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for Good - Make a difference this year.

 

 

[Guest guest]

vpcnk schrieb:

 

> > A real fact is something that cannot be disputed - that is

> > precisely what makes it a fact. Presenting facts is one of the

> > first steps in any scholarly undertaking, and therefore there

> > cannot be any question of 'tempering'.

>

> but how much of it is really valid when it comes to Indian history?

 

As much as elsewhere. Indian history is history, like in other parts of

the world. In the case of India, we actually know more than in the case

of most parts of the world.

 

> for example take shankara.

>

> what's the conclusive proof that such a person lived, at what point

> in time, what his works are etc?

 

There are numerous similar cases in the history of other parts of the

world. For instance, many writings have long been traditionally ascribed

to certain famous ancient Greek authors, but more recent research has

shown that these ascriptions can no longer be upheld.

 

> even in the literature which follows him, commentaries on his works

> or the polemics of rivals, how many of them directly refer to him or

> attribute works to him?

 

Again, these questions are not basically different from parallel

questions elsewhere in the world.

 

> yet, not only do we have an "established" date for shankara, we also

> have so many of his works which are considered as "authentic".

 

There are philological criteria for this. The procedure is basically

(stated over-simply) as follows: one starts with a certain text about

which a literary tradition is more or less unanimous in ascribing to a

certain author (for instance, Sankara). This text is analysed from

different points of view (terminology, general vocabulary, grammar,

style, content,...). The same is repeated with other texts that are

similarly ascribed; in a few fortunate cases, other aspects of the

material texts can also be taken into consideration. At a certain point

one reads a text that differs strongly in one or more respects, and then

one may conclude that it is not by the same author. Works that show an

underlying unity among themselves may be considered the works of one and

the same author. (So, to give one clear example: if one person who is

identified as Sankara writes depreciatingly about theistic practices and

condemns tantrism, and another person called Sankara writes bhajanas, or

the Saundaryalahari in a totally different style and language and with

radically contradictory content, then it is only reasonable to assume

that we are dealing here with two different authors - which of course

says nothing about the relative merits of these works and authors.)

 

> and shankara is relatively recent in comparison to the upanishads or

> the buddha, leave alone ait.

 

These matter of 'ait' is not quite the same as the others: the material

is different, as well as the questions asked. Also in the case of (to

give a parallel) the movements of peoples in European pre- and

proto-history, nobody looks for the precisely datable historical

identities of certain specific individuals.

 

> so ...

 

issues of different nature should not be confused.

 

RZ