Fw: [Ind-Arch] Intentions of Burgess in translating Surya Siddhanta

January 24, 2009

--- On Fri, 1/23/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: [ind-Arch] Re: Intentions of Burgess in translating Surya SiddhantaIndiaArchaeology Date: Friday, January 23, 2009, 12:55 PM

Dear Dr. Koeraad,

Can you please tell us why did Burgess not incorporate the 22 Beeja Samskara verses in his translation of Suryasiddhanta? Was it not due to his prejudice or you have any other justification? May be a proper explanation from you would be more desirable than what you said. I appreciate your zeal to criticize and correct the Hindu History-rewriters.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Fri, 1/23/09, Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst wrote:

Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst[ind-Arch] Re: Intentions of Burgess in translating Surya SiddhantaIndiaArchaeology Date: Friday, January 23, 2009, 8:53 AM

IndiaArchaeology, "kishore patnaik" <kishorepatnaik09@ ...> wrote:> > With these facts in mind, we also have to consider the following facts which> make the intentions of Burgess very clear> > 1. Burgess is a Christian missionary> > 2. He could not digest the discussion by Bailey who pushed the date of> Indian astronomy to 4th Millennium which directly contradicts the Biblical> faith> > And hence, he went to great lengths of pain to prove that what Bailey wrote> was nonsense.> > Well, we can not hide that what Burgess wrote was all with prejudiced mind> and should be summarily rejected, what ever be the other credentials of him.> >Whenever a Hindu history-rewriter uses logical

connectors like "thus", "therefore", "it follows", "hence" etc., you'd better reach for your gun. There is no logical connection between Burgess's alleged prejudice or missionary motives and the truth or untruth of his theses. Whatever his prejudices, they are no justification for a summary rejection of his positions by arrogant Hindus to lazy to argue on substance.Kind regards,KE