Fw: [Abhinavagupta] California History Book Controversy

[Guest guest]

--- On Tue, 3/31/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: [Abhinavagupta] Re: California History Book ControversyAbhinavagupta Cc: hchis006, IndiaArchaeology , vedic_rentindia Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 1:54 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Elst,You said QuoteThe burden of proof of your victory is naturally on you.UnquoteIt is you, who was the first to make the statement that the Hindus were defeated in the Ca History Text book controversy without providing proof. So it your responsibility to substantiate your statement. You may take your own time. I have told you about Mr. Glee Johnson's statement and you must remember that he was no ordinary person so far this subject is discussed. Now you want to escape the responsibility of submitting proof. I stand by my statement that you have made a hasty statement and please do not make any such statement without confirming.You wrote QuoteIn reality, however, they were very much made by men, and the Vedas themselves are

perfectly clear about this. Those Hindus who deify the Vedas are thoroughly un-Vedic.As I told you the Vedas contain spiritual truths and Hindus venerate the Vedas. The Truths seen /experienced/realized by the seers were passed on orally in beautiful verses from generation to generation. Why speak the Veda alone even the Bhagavat purana is deified. It is called Vankmayee rupa of the Lord ie it is Verbal form of God. Being a non-Hindu you cannot perceive this and leave the deification of the Vedas alone as it does not concern a non-Hindu the way you said that the CA History Textbooks are of no use to you in BelgiumYou also said QuoteJust yesterday, I caught you on another list (IndiaArchaeology) producing some other typîcal fallacies, one of which you have just repeated here, if only implicitly this time. It is this one: making deductions about the truth of a statement or theory from real or imagined

shortcomings of the person proposing it. In particular: you manage to find fault with me for not having procured me a new CA textbook, which would be of no use to me here in Belgium, to quote from to you; and then you pretend (this time only implicitly, on many occasions explicitly with a misplaced "so", "this amply proves" etc.) this proves the wrongness of my claim about the Hindu lobby's failure to get its edits into the textbooks.UnquoteWhat kind of scholarship is this to make vegue statement? Please make specific statement as to where did you catch me. What are you hiding from the forum members. Please be transparent and speak out. Let the Forum members know about your self-vaunted scholarship. On the contrary I caught you. You told me that you were one with Mr. Francesco in his statement that the name Saraswati came from the PIE Selos / Helos. Now Mr. Francesco has failed to give any evidence demanded by Mr. Shivraj and you too do

not have any answer to what Mr. shivraj has asked.You stated that the Hindus were defeated in Ca Text Book Issue and at that time time you did not realize that these books are of no use to you in Belgium. And now when I contested your statement you are saying that these books are of no use to you. What kind of logic is this? I shall request you that when you make a statement concerning a group like Hindus please check it first about the truth before making the statement. Kind regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 3/30/09, Koenraad <Koenraad wrote:

Koenraad <Koenraad[Abhinavagupta] Re: California History Book ControversyAbhinavagupta Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 3:57 AM

 

 

Arun and Sunthar are of course right when they observe that the present discussion has badly degenerated and tends to import some of the typical flaws from other Hindu forums. To speak for myself first, it seems I have created the impression that Kosla Vepa was responsible for the attempt to deny Prof. Gunatilake the right to read his paper. Not so, it was the chairman of that particular session who interrupted the speaker on the plea that the political angle he brought in (and that was explicitly provided for in the conference theme) was impermissible. Among those in the audience who protested and ultimately made the chair allow the speaker to continue, was Dr. Vepa.Now for another instance:Abhinavagupta, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dr. Elst,> > This refer to your mail of March 28 on the above subject. You wrote> > Quote> > You

established for a long time to come the impression that Hindus are> untrustworthy, wily schemers with a reactionary and obscurantist agenda.> > Unquote> > Please> desist from ranting without citing instances.<On the Indo-Eurasian list, several contributors have commented to just this effect. Steve Farmer reported that a publisher had asked him to scan a Hindu-written book on Indian history for (to unsuspecting Americans) hidden political distortions. They also congratulate themselves that in upcoming textbook review cases, as in Texas, Hindus will have no chance to get their way precisely because the authorities have been alerted to the danger of Hindu fundamentalism trying to distort the textbooks.> Your very mail on the> California issue shows how you demean the Hindus. In fact what you have> written in the above-quoted lines apply to you and not to me. In one of>

your earlier mails you wrote that the Witzel group considers Dr.> Rajaramji and Shri Kalyanaramanji as Buffoons. What sadistic pleasure> do you get by demeaning others and that too without any facts and> figures?>Again, you can become a member of their list and read along (though I expect they won't allow you to post messages, certainly not of the kind you're posting on so many Hindu forums and now also here). You can see for yourself that Hindu history-rewriting is only mentioned mockingly, except when it is described as a political (not an intellectual) threat. That doesn't require "facts and figures", the existing hostile opinion climate is itself the fact we're concerned with. And my point is that it has largely been provoked by Hindus themselves, with their arrogant denial of scholarly method as well as of elementary rules of politeness. To be sure, I am not demeaning "the" Hindus, indeed I have cited many in

support of my own position. > You wrote> > Quote > > > So I stand by my diagnosis. On all substantive points, the Hindu> position was soundly defeated, the Witzel side totally victorious.> > Unquote> > No> problem if you do not see the truth or want to ignore the truth.<In that case, the Hindu position was not defeated, and the textbooks now carry the proposed edits. The Witzel crowd, by contrast, was defeated and, not being lazy Hindus who prefer to deny rather than remedy their defeat, are now strategizing how to undo the recent court verdict. Well, please prove these points. > Your> attempt to depreciate the efforts of the Hindus will also be likewise> ignored by the Hindus.<I do appreciate the efforts of Hindus, e.g. of the British Hindus who produced fine textbooks upholding the essence of the Hindu position

yet acceptable to the educational authorities and effectively in use in state-supervised schools. It is against that standard that I judge the CA textbook effort as a painful waste and the preceding Delhi textbook failure as a gigantic Hindutva-made disaster.> Further> you do not understand that when we Hindus say that the Vedas are not of> human origin we mean that these are not invented by man and these are> the Eternal Truths only seen by the Vedic seers.> Exactly. In reality, however, they were very much made by men, and the Vedas themselves are perfectly clear about this. Those Hindus who deify the Vedas are thoroughly un-Vedic. They refuse to stand tall, shoulder to shoulder with the Rishis as religious freethinkers, and instead deny the Vedic testimony to their human origin (being addressed to, not by, the gods) to impose on the Vedas a quasi-Quranic status.I suggest we start a new thread to

investigate the claim of "Eternal Truths only seen by the Vedic seers". Which ones are those?> Further you said:> > Quote> > I'd have to see> the new crop of textbooks to verify,-- and I note you don't quote those, only a non-committal oral statement.> > Unquote> > Now> you admitted that you are yet to verify what is in the textbooks.> Please verify and revert to us to admit that you made a hasty comment> earlier without ascertaining the facts. You are also casting> aspersions on the President of California SBE, Mr. Glee Johnson by> expressing doubt on the reliability of his statement.> >I have verified what is in the official SBE and court decisions on the textbooks, and they unambiguously ruled against the Hindu edits on all substantive issues. I have no information that textbook-makers are defying those decisions

and carrying the Hindu edits anyway. If there is such information, please provide it. If you fault me for not quoting the textbooks, please do so yourself. Now you've put yourself in the position of a schoolboy who comes home and boasts of having done well on his exams. His father, who remembers the teacher complaining about Johnny's laziness, will of course want to see the boy's school report. So you, please show us the textbooks. The burden of proof of your victory is naturally on you.This is one of the many breaches of the rules of argumentation that pop up again and again in the "rants" of Hindu textbook rewriters: shifting the burden of proof away from themselves. Just yesterday, I caught you on another list (IndiaArchaeology) producing some other typîcal fallacies, one of which you have just repeated here, if only implicitly this time. It is this one: making deductions about the truth of a statement or theory from real or imagined

shortcomings of the person proposing it. In particular: you manage to find fault with me for not having procured me a new CA textbook, which would be of no use to me here in Belgium, to quote from to you; and then you pretend (this time only implicitly, on many occasions explicitly with a misplaced "so", "this amply proves" etc.) this proves the wrongness of my claim about the Hindu lobby's failure to get its edits into the textbooks. There is no such logical connection. The only valid way to prove the wrongness of that claim of mine is to prove that the edits were accepted, i.e. to show us a recent officially-approved textbook that contains the edits. I already noted in my last post that you conspicuously fail to do so.I thank Sunthar, who is not a paleface foreigner like me but very much a Hindu himself, for his patience with this unpleasant discussion.Kind regards,[Koenraad Elst]

[Guest guest]

A number of US-based Hindus have warned me not to waste any more time on

" know-nothings " like you. You are indeed wasting everybody's time. So, this will

be my final reply.

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

>

>

> --- On Tue, 3/31/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

>

> sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

> Re: [Abhinavagupta] Re: California History Book Controversy

> Abhinavagupta

> Cc: hchis006, IndiaArchaeology ,

vedic_rentindia

> Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 1:54 AM

>

> Dr. Elst,

>

> You said

>

> Quote

>

> The burden of proof of your victory is naturally on you.

>

> Unquote

>

> It is you, who was the first to make the statement that the  Hindus were

defeated in the Ca History Text book controversy without providing proof.  So it

your responsibility to substantiate your statement. You may take your own time.

I have told you about Mr. Glee Johnson's statement and you must remember that he

was no ordinary person so far this subject is discussed. Now you want to escape

the responsibility of submitting proof. I stand by my statement that you have

made a hasty statement and please do not make any such statement without

confirming.

>

 

 

It is indeed wasting everybody's time when you force me to repeat for your

benefit such elementary truisms such as that of course, the one who claims

victory is the one who has to prove his claim. That is why cups and laurels and

other rewards were instituted in sports competitions: in days before modern

communications, when people on the home front had no way of knowing the result

of a competition in Olympia or some other distant arena, the athlete could prove

his victory by showing his tangible reward. Witzel claimed victory in the CAPEEM

court case, and he provided lengthy literal quotations from the court verdict.

He proved his victory. In your case, victory would be a statement by the court

in the CAPEEM case instructing the textbook authors to reject the AIT and other

substantive edits proposed by the Hindu foundations. This, in your countless

outpourings, you have utterly failed to do.

 

Today I got to read the presently effective instructions for textbook authors

and teachers in CA, and they include the instruction that students must be able

to explain the importance of the Aryan invasions, which are said to have taken

place after the collpase of the Harappan civilization, with whose remnants the

Aryan invaders formed a composite culture. So, that's 100% the Witzel version

and 0% the VF/HEF/CAPEEM version. All the evidence available confims that the

Hindu side was totally defeated on all the substantive points. You have failed,

and will continue to fail, to give a single datum amounting to proof of your

claimed victory.

 

 

> You wrote

>

> Quote

>

> In reality, however, they were very much made by men, and the Vedas themselves

are perfectly clear about this. Those Hindus who deify the Vedas are thoroughly

un-Vedic.

>

> As I told you the Vedas contain spiritual truths and Hindus venerate the

Vedas. The Truths seen /experienced/realized by the seers were passed on orally

in beautiful verses from generation to generation. Why speak the Veda alone even

the Bhagavat purana is deified. It is called Vankmayee rupa of the Lord ie it is

Verbal form of God. Being a non-Hindu you cannot perceive this and leave the

deification of the Vedas alone as it does not concern a  non-Hindu  the way you

said that the CA History Textbooks are of no use to you in Belgium

>

 

It only concerns me as an observer whose opinion on the CA developments has been

asked by different parties. As a non-involved observer, I merely notice that

your denial of the Veda's human composition gives the Hindus collectively a bad

name because it is so obviously untrue. It hurts the Hindu cause in every

respect when Hindu spokesmen invite getting caught red-handed in telling lies.

Apart from this (admittedly secondary) PR aspect of the matter, there is a more

fundamental problem with it: it does grave injustice to the Vedas and their

authors if they are reduced to some kind of Quran c.q. to some kind of Mohammed,

who imagined hearing dictations from God when they were so clearly (clear enough

to his contemporaries) a product of his own personal subconscious. This denial

of early Hindus' great merit in composing the Vedas is demeaning. It is typical

for a post-Vedic Hinduism when Hindus preferred to crawl, to disown their

rational faculty and wallow in a submissive sentimentalism.

 

 

> You also said

>

> Quote

>

> Just yesterday, I caught you on another list (IndiaArchaeology)

producing some other typîcal fallacies, one of which you have just repeated

here, if only implicitly this time. It is this one: making deductions about the

truth of a statement or theory from real or imagined shortcomings of the person

proposing it. In particular: you manage to find fault with me for not having

procured me a new CA textbook, which would be of no use to me here in Belgium,

to quote from to you; and then you pretend (this time only implicitly, on many

occasions explicitly with a misplaced " so " , " this amply proves " etc.) this

proves the wrongness of my claim about the Hindu lobby's failure to get its

edits into the textbooks.

>

> Unquote

>

> What kind of scholarship is this to make vegue statement? Please make specific

statement as to where did you catch me. What are you hiding from the forum

members.<

 

People can go and look for themselves on that list. Most list members here are

members there too anyway, just as you and I are. These Hindu lists have this

unclean habit of cross-posting, and it seems I'm getting affected too. In any

case I have specified sufficiently what kinds of fallacies were involved -- they

are common enough on this list too, viz. deducing the truth or untruth of

theories from the real or imagined flaws of their propounders, and vice versa.

 

 

> Please be transparent and speak out. Let the Forum members know about your

self-vaunted scholarship.<

 

What self-vaunted scholarship? When I am questioned or attacked concerning

scholarly matters, I try to answer to the point. I rarely if ever waste time on

irrelevant matters of who deserves to be called a scholar or any other title

because that is irrelevant to the contents of the scholarly question. Even a

fool can say the truth once in a while, and even great scholars make mistakes.

It is for that reason of logic, rather than out of modesty, that I never pride

myself on scholarly qualities that people attribute to me. It so happens that an

Ayurveda school in Belgium just asked me to contribute a lecture and to write

the advertisement for it. A friend in the PR business who read my text remarked

that, for the sake of attracting an audience, I should make tall claims about my

own status, as this is what convinces ordinary people that their entrance fee

will be well spent. I found it difficult to churn out a quarter-sentence of

self-praise, and I realized that within living memory, I had never done this

before. Again, that is not because of modesty, but simply because it is

logically irrelevant to any thesis I may want to uphold, and because

consequently it is considered bad form among genuine scholars.

 

 

> On the contrary I caught you. You told me that you were one with Mr. Francesco

in his statement that the name Saraswati came from the PIE Selos / Helos. Now

Mr. Francesco has failed to give any evidence demanded by Mr. Shivraj and you

too do not have any answer to what Mr. shivraj has asked.<

 

If the list-master is serious about this list, he should intervene now out of

self-respect and cut the cross-posting from mounting to this level. But for now

I will reply. This discussion only confirms that in discussions on PIE, you are

just totally ignorant. PIE, with that " proto " prefix, is by definition, a phase

of language development that is not attested, but deduced. I am aware that some

people, you and Christian creationists among others, abhor the human capacity

for deduction. Creationists see living species but reject the idea that these

may ahve an ancestry and a fortiori that this ancestry can be reconstructed.

They see fossils but reject the deduction of dinosaurs from these fossils. " Show

me a dinosaur " is their taunting proof that dinosaurs are nonsense. And indeed

there is no direct evidence of dinosaur, we can only deduce their existence from

indirect evidence.

 

Likewise, short-sighted people believe that the only languages that have ever

existed, are the ones in existence now, or within material memory: " show me a

PIE inscription " . They can see for themselves that Sanskrit, Apabhramsha, Pali,

Tulsidas's Awadhi, Braj Bhasha, Khari Boli, are all phases of a developing

language, yet they deny that just the same kind of development can have taken

place outside their own horizon, viz. that of available texts and inscriptions.

We, IE linguists, by contrast, thanks to the intellectual efforts of our

predecessors, have emancipated ourselves from this petty self-centredness and

assume that this type of evolution also took place outside our horizon, such as

in the prehistory iof Sanskrit, Greek etc. So we apply our minds to deducing

plausible reconstructions of the earlier phases, knowing fully well that as we

evnture deeper into the past, they become speculative. As for *selos, it is at

the stage just before the split of Indo-Aryan from Greek and has a high

probability. Of course, for people caught up in religious dogmas, the notion of

probability, with which mature people have to reckon all the time in the real

world, is insufferable.

 

 

>

> You stated that the Hindus were defeated in Ca Text Book Issue and at that

time time you did not realize that these books are of no use to you in Belgium.

And now when I contested your statement you are saying that these books are of

no use to you. What kind of logic is this?  I shall  request you that when you

make a statement concerning a group  like Hindus please check it first about the

truth before making the statement.

>

 

But I have checked it amply enough. And in any case it is good enough as the

default assumption: in a hostile situation, CA Hindus would find it very

difficult to wrest victory from their powerful enemies. Unless strong evidence

of contrary developments were forthcoming, it was perfectly reasonable to assume

a Hindu defeat even in the absence of first-hand data. But at any rate, the data

are in, and are conspicuously avoid quoting them. It is also true that I have no

personal use for American primary-school textbooks on a part of history that I

have studied at the feet of the greatest experts. The only person who had an

interest in having them available for direct quotation was you. Indeed, you

could have quoted from them the line that the AIT has been discarded, as the

Hindu edits had claimed, for that and that alone would have proven your claim of

victory.

 

For the record: now that the smear campaign which Hindu losers of your school

have mounted against me also includes the allegation that I am an infiltrator

working for Opus Dei, let me say clearly that I am not with Opus Dei nor an

infiltrator on any interest group's behalf. It is amazing how creative Hindus

are in inventing ways of denying their defeat in the CA textbook affair. The one

thing they fail to do is to correct their mistakes. Then again, i am currently

in touch with CA Hindus who do want to improve their performance, but they are

not the kind who waste time on internet forums monopolized by know-nothings. An

example for me to emulate.

 

Kind regards,

 

Koenraad Elst

[Guest guest]

Sunil ji and Koenraad Ji:

To be certain, I would like to point out that there were two California related

law suits filed. One of these law suits filed by CAPEEM is still going on, and

they have had quite a success in it. You can access it on http://www.capeem.org/

and contains almost upto date status on the case.

Ravindra

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

>

>

> --- On Tue, 3/31/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

>

> sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

> Re: [Abhinavagupta] Re: California History Book Controversy

> Abhinavagupta

> Cc: hchis006, IndiaArchaeology ,

vedic_rentindia

> Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 1:54 AM

>

Dr. Elst,

>

> You said

>

> Quote

>

> The burden of proof of your victory is naturally on you.

>

> Unquote

>

> It is you, who was the first to make the statement that the  Hindus were

defeated in the Ca History Text book controversy without providing proof.  So it

your responsibility to substantiate your statement. You may take your own time.

I have told you about Mr. Glee Johnson's statement and you must remember that he

was no ordinary person so far this subject is discussed. Now you want to escape

the responsibility of submitting proof. I stand by my statement that you have

made a hasty statement and please do not make any such statement without

confirming.

>

> You wrote

>

> Quote

>

> In reality, however, they were very much made by men, and the Vedas themselves

are perfectly clear about this. Those Hindus who deify the Vedas are thoroughly

un-Vedic.

>

> As I told you the Vedas contain spiritual truths and Hindus venerate the

Vedas. The Truths seen /experienced/realized by the seers were passed on orally

in beautiful verses from generation to generation. Why speak the Veda alone even

the Bhagavat purana is deified. It is called Vankmayee rupa of the Lord ie it is

Verbal form of God. Being a non-Hindu you cannot perceive this and leave the

deification of the Vedas alone as it does not concern a  non-Hindu  the way you

said that the CA History Textbooks are of no use to you in Belgium

>

> You also said

>

> Quote

>

> Just yesterday, I caught you on another list (IndiaArchaeology)

producing some other typîcal fallacies, one of which you have just repeated

here, if only implicitly this time. It is this one: making deductions about the

truth of a statement or theory from real or imagined shortcomings of the person

proposing it. In particular: you manage to find fault with me for not having

procured me a new CA textbook, which would be of no use to me here in Belgium,

to quote from to you; and then you pretend (this time only implicitly, on many

occasions explicitly with a misplaced " so " , " this amply proves " etc.) this

proves the wrongness of my claim about the Hindu lobby's failure to get its

edits into the textbooks.

>

> Unquote

>

> What kind of scholarship is this to make vegue statement? Please make specific

statement as to where did you catch me. What are you hiding from the forum

members. Please be transparent and speak out. Let the Forum members know about

your self-vaunted scholarship. On the contrary I caught you. You told me that

you were one with Mr. Francesco in his statement that the name Saraswati came

from the PIE Selos / Helos. Now Mr. Francesco has failed to give any evidence

demanded by Mr. Shivraj and you too do not have any answer to what Mr. shivraj

has asked.

>

> You stated that the Hindus were defeated in Ca Text Book Issue and at that

time time you did not realize that these books are of no use to you in Belgium.

And now when I contested your statement you are saying that these books are of

no use to you. What kind of logic is this?  I shall  request you that when you

make a statement concerning a group  like Hindus please check it first about the

truth before making the statement.

>

> Kind regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

>

> --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Koenraad <Koenraad wrote:

>

>

> Koenraad <Koenraad

> [Abhinavagupta] Re: California History Book Controversy

> Abhinavagupta

> Monday, March 30, 2009, 3:57 AM

Arun and Sunthar are of course right when they observe that the present

discussion has badly degenerated and tends to import some of the typical flaws

from other Hindu forums. To speak for myself first, it seems I have created the

impression that Kosla Vepa was responsible for the attempt to deny Prof.

Gunatilake the right to read his paper. Not so, it was the chairman of that

particular session who interrupted the speaker on the plea that the political

angle he brought in (and that was explicitly provided for in the conference

theme) was impermissible. Among those in the audience who protested and

ultimately made the chair allow the speaker to continue, was Dr. Vepa.

>

> Now for another instance:

>

> Abhinavagupta, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

> >

> > Dr. Elst,

> >

> > This refer to your mail of March 28 on the above subject. You wrote

> >

> > Quote

> >

> > You established for a long time to come the impression that Hindus are

> > untrustworthy, wily schemers with a reactionary and obscurantist agenda.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Please

> > desist from ranting without citing instances.<

>

> On the Indo-Eurasian list, several contributors have commented to just this

effect. Steve Farmer reported that a publisher had asked him to scan a

Hindu-written book on Indian history for (to unsuspecting Americans) hidden

political distortions. They also congratulate themselves that in upcoming

textbook review cases, as in Texas, Hindus will have no chance to get their way

precisely because the authorities have been alerted to the danger of Hindu

fundamentalism trying to distort the textbooks.

>

> > Your very mail on the

> > California issue shows how you demean the Hindus. In fact what you have

> > written in the above-quoted lines apply to you and not to me. In one of

> > your earlier mails you wrote that the Witzel group considers Dr.

> > Rajaramji and Shri Kalyanaramanji as Buffoons. What sadistic pleasure

> > do you get by demeaning others and that too without any facts and

> > figures?

> >

>

> Again, you can become a member of their list and read along (though I expect

they won't allow you to post messages, certainly not of the kind you're posting

on so many Hindu forums and now also here). You can see for yourself that Hindu

history-rewriting is only mentioned mockingly, except when it is described as a

political (not an intellectual) threat. That doesn't require " facts and

figures " , the existing hostile opinion climate is itself the fact we're

concerned with. And my point is that it has largely been provoked by Hindus

themselves, with their arrogant denial of scholarly method as well as of

elementary rules of politeness. To be sure, I am not demeaning " the " Hindus,

indeed I have cited many in support of my own position.

>

> > You wrote

> >

> > Quote 

> >

> >

> > So I stand by my diagnosis. On all substantive points, the Hindu

> > position was soundly defeated, the Witzel side totally victorious.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > No

> > problem if you do not see the truth or want to ignore the truth.<

>

> In that case, the Hindu position was not defeated, and the textbooks now carry

the proposed edits. The Witzel crowd, by contrast, was defeated and, not being

lazy Hindus who prefer to deny rather than remedy their defeat, are now

strategizing how to undo the recent court verdict. Well, please prove these

points.

>

> > Your

> > attempt to depreciate the efforts of the Hindus will also be likewise

> > ignored by the Hindus.<

>

> I do appreciate the efforts of Hindus, e.g. of the British Hindus who produced

fine textbooks upholding the essence of the Hindu position yet acceptable to the

educational authorities and effectively in use in state-supervised schools. It

is against that standard that I judge the CA textbook effort as a painful waste

and the preceding Delhi textbook failure as a gigantic Hindutva-made disaster.

>

> > Further

> > you do not understand that when we Hindus say that the Vedas are not of

> > human origin we mean that these are not invented by man and these are

> > the Eternal Truths only seen by the Vedic seers.

> >

>

> Exactly. In reality, however, they were very much made by men, and the Vedas

themselves are perfectly clear about this. Those Hindus who deify the Vedas are

thoroughly un-Vedic. They refuse to stand tall, shoulder to shoulder with the

Rishis as religious freethinkers, and instead deny the Vedic testimony to their

human origin (being addressed to, not by, the gods) to impose on the Vedas a

quasi-Quranic status.

>

> I suggest we start a new thread to investigate the claim of " Eternal Truths

only seen by the Vedic seers " . Which ones are those?

>

> > Further you said:

> >

> > Quote

> >

> > I'd have to see

> > the new crop of textbooks to verify,-- and I note you don't quote those,

only a non-committal oral statement.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Now

> > you admitted that you are yet to verify what is in the textbooks.

> > Please verify and revert to us to admit that you made a hasty comment

> > earlier without ascertaining the facts.  You are also casting

> > aspersions on the President of California SBE, Mr. Glee Johnson by

> > expressing doubt on the reliability of his statement.

> >

> >

>

> I have verified what is in the official SBE and court decisions on the

textbooks, and they unambiguously ruled against the Hindu edits on all

substantive issues. I have no information that textbook-makers are defying those

decisions and carrying the Hindu edits anyway. If there is such information,

please provide it. If you fault me for not quoting the textbooks, please do so

yourself. Now you've put yourself in the position of a schoolboy who comes home

and boasts of having done well on his exams. His father, who remembers the

teacher complaining about Johnny's laziness, will of course want to see the

boy's school report. So you, please show us the textbooks. The burden of proof

of your victory is naturally on you.

>

> This is one of the many breaches of the rules of argumentation that pop up

again and again in the " rants " of Hindu textbook rewriters: shifting the burden

of proof away from themselves. Just yesterday, I caught you on another

list (IndiaArchaeology) producing some other typîcal fallacies, one of which you

have just repeated here, if only implicitly this time. It is this one: making

deductions about the truth of a statement or theory from real or imagined

shortcomings of the person proposing it. In particular: you manage to find fault

with me for not having procured me a new CA textbook, which would be of no use

to me here in Belgium, to quote from to you; and then you pretend (this time

only implicitly, on many occasions explicitly with a misplaced " so " , " this amply

proves " etc.) this proves the wrongness of my claim about the Hindu lobby's

failure to get its edits into the textbooks. There is no such logical

connection. The only valid way to

> prove the wrongness of that claim of mine is to prove that the edits were

accepted, i.e. to show us a recent officially-approved textbook that contains

the edits. I already noted in my last post that you conspicuously fail to do so.

>

> I thank Sunthar, who is not a paleface foreigner like me but very much a Hindu

himself, for his patience with this unpleasant discussion.

>

> Kind regards,

>

> [Koenraad Elst]

>

[Guest guest]

The discussion on this list reminds me of a summary I recently sent to a “Hindu” list. Of course, it was not allowed.  Therefore, here repeated. Note that it also discusses some of the attacks against Dr Elst as well (who definitely is not a friend of mine). As this has come up on this list,  for balance, this needs to be discussed with a calm mind, not in the uninformed and biased  way that has surfaced.    QUOTE:   Some update on the Californian school book question is in order.   As most of you will remember, the decision of the Californian Board of Education in March 2006 against changing the schoolbooks according to the wishes of two Hindu foundations VF, HEF), had been opposed in two law suits: one by the previously not involved Hindu American Foundation (HAF), and one by the then newly founded CAPEEM. (<http://www.capeem.org/pressroom.php>)   The contention of HAF about the content of the schoolbooks that they wanted to change (“different” rights of women, denial of early caste system in Vedic texts, non-existence of the Aryan “invasion”, monotheistic nature of “God” in Hinduism) has been thoroughly refuted and dismissed by the CA judge at Sacramento in his decision of Sept. 1, 2007. <http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/dept19/sep1d19--06cs00386.doc>   He nevertheless allowed for some procedural changes: the rules  of the CA Dept. of Education were to be updated to conform to recent changes in law --  since done.   However, CAPEEM, founded only after the fact, lodged their own, long prepared law case in March 2006, after the CA decision. Their case is described on their web site <http://www.capeem.org/pressroom.php>   However, for a year now they have not added any updates and details.  Well, since March 2008, they have been *defeated* in the courts three times:   * First by trying to “compel” me to deliver *all* emails that I ever sent to anybody regarding this matter. This was denied in July 2007 by a Massachussets court.   * Second, their move to get a revision of this court decision, again denied by a three judges panel in Massachussets on July 7, 2008 (case  07-2286).  Nothing of that at CAPEEM.org, --  they only revel in their  dated, futile attempt to “compel” me.   * Third, and worse, the Federal Court in Sacramento has now, in March 2009, dismissed -- just as the CA judge did  in the HAF case on Sept. 1, 2007 --  all CAPEEM claims (women, caste system, Aryans, God, discrimination of Hindu applicants by the CA Dept. of Education). The judge did so in sometimes hilariously scathing fashion. See: <http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/Federal.Ruling.2009.pdf> And cf. the summary on March 1, 2009: <Indo-Eurasian_research/message/12178>   The Federal judge, too, has just left open a decision about the *procedural* aspects of the CAPEEM case, which will now go to trial over the Summer.   In short, a total defeat of all unscholarly attempts to fudge US school books. The procedural aspects do not concern scholars, just administrators and politicians.  Comment:   CAPEEM–minded people had been warned by the Hindutva sympathizer Dr Koenrad Elst (Belgium) already in January 2006 –well before the law suits --- about the futility of their unscholarly claims.  See Dr. Kalyanaraman’s now dormant Indian Civilization list @ in January 2006.  Kalyanaraman, who had bold facedly lied about matters in the case, then denounced Elst for spoiling their game. And, major CAPEEM member Kalavai Venkat boasted --before CAPEEM was even founded-- that they had a winning strategy, and were guided by professionals. Well, we have now seen what that strategy was and what it lead to.   However, both HAF and CAPEEM persisted in their law suits in 2006-2009 and Hindutvavadins then shunned Elst (again: … he definitely is no friend of mine -.   Lesson to be learned:   if you want to do something about the self-representation of India and Hinduism, do not claim absurd things but proceed from well-known facts. (Several times, I have actually supported some Hindu initiatives like that, and I am actually member of such organizations!) But blindsided Hindutva attempts are doomed to failure, just as they were in India (by the election of 2004).   Instead, what actual sympathizers like Dr. Elst,  or “just the facts, ma’am” researchers like me, get from Hindutvavadins, is a lot of abuse, defamation and  libel.  See the archives of this list and other lists and use “the Google” for checking the general internet:   Happy April Fool’s Day reading!   M.Witzel     PS: Of course, if desired,  I can upload the relevant *official* files in the list’s file section.   On Apr 5, 2009, at 12:33 AM, Dr. Rabinder K. Koul wrote:Sunil ji and Koenraad Ji:To be certain, I would like to point out that there were two California related law suits filed. One of these law suits filed by CAPEEM is still going on, and they have had quite a success in it. You can access it on http://www.capeem.org/ and contains almost upto date status on the case. Ravindra , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: --- On Tue, 3/31/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: [Abhinavagupta] Re: California History Book ControversyAbhinavagupta Cc: hchis006, IndiaArchaeology , vedic_rentindia Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 1:54 AMDr. Elst,You said QuoteThe burden of proof of your victory is naturally on you.UnquoteIt is you, who was the first to make the statement that the  Hindus were defeated in the Ca History Text book controversy without providing proof.  So it your responsibility to substantiate your statement. You may take your own time. I have told you about Mr. Glee Johnson's statement and you must remember that he was no ordinary person so far this subject is discussed. Now you want to escape the responsibility of submitting proof. I stand by my statement that you have made a hasty statement and please do not make any such statement without confirming.You wrote QuoteIn reality, however, they were very much made by men, and the Vedas themselves are perfectly clear about this. Those Hindus who deify the Vedas are thoroughly un-Vedic.As I told you the Vedas contain spiritual truths and Hindus venerate the Vedas. The Truths seen /experienced/realized by the seers were passed on orally in beautiful verses from generation to generation. Why speak the Veda alone even the Bhagavat purana is deified. It is called Vankmayee rupa of the Lord ie it is Verbal form of God. Being a non-Hindu you cannot perceive this and leave the deification of the Vedas alone as it does not concern a  non-Hindu  the way you said that the CA History Textbooks are of no use to you in BelgiumYou also said QuoteJust yesterday, I caught you on another list (IndiaArchaeology) producing some other typîcal fallacies, one of which you have just repeated here, if only implicitly this time. It is this one: making deductions about the truth of a statement or theory from real or imagined shortcomings of the person proposing it. In particular: you manage to find fault with me for not having procured me a new CA textbook, which would be of no use to me here in Belgium, to quote from to you; and then you pretend (this time only implicitly, on many occasions explicitly with a misplaced "so", "this amply proves" etc.) this proves the wrongness of my claim about the Hindu lobby's failure to get its edits into the textbooks.UnquoteWhat kind of scholarship is this to make vegue statement? Please make specific statement as to where did you catch me. What are you hiding from the forum members. Please be transparent and speak out. Let the Forum members know about your self-vaunted scholarship. On the contrary I caught you. You told me that you were one with Mr. Francesco in his statement that the name Saraswati came from the PIE Selos / Helos. Now Mr. Francesco has failed to give any evidence demanded by Mr. Shivraj and you too do not have any answer to what Mr. shivraj has asked.You stated that the Hindus were defeated in Ca Text Book Issue and at that time time you did not realize that these books are of no use to you in Belgium. And now when I contested your statement you are saying that these books are of no use to you. What kind of logic is this?  I shall  request you that when you make a statement concerning a group  like Hindus please check it first about the truth before making the statement. Kind regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 3/30/09, Koenraad <Koenraad wrote:Koenraad <Koenraad[Abhinavagupta] Re: California History Book ControversyAbhinavagupta Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 3:57 AMArun and Sunthar are of course right when they observe that the present discussion has badly degenerated and tends to import some of the typical flaws from other Hindu forums. To speak for myself first, it seems I have created the impression that Kosla Vepa was responsible for the attempt to deny Prof. Gunatilake the right to read his paper. Not so, it was the chairman of that particular session who interrupted the speaker on the plea that the political angle he brought in (and that was explicitly provided for in the conference theme) was impermissible. Among those in the audience who protested and ultimately made the chair allow the speaker to continue, was Dr. Vepa.Now for another instance:Abhinavagupta, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote: Dr. Elst,This refer to your mail of March 28 on the above subject. You wroteQuoteYou established for a long time to come the impression that Hindus areuntrustworthy, wily schemers with a reactionary and obscurantist agenda.UnquotePleasedesist from ranting without citing instances.< On the Indo-Eurasian list, several contributors have commented to just this effect. Steve Farmer reported that a publisher had asked him to scan a Hindu-written book on Indian history for (to unsuspecting Americans) hidden political distortions. They also congratulate themselves that in upcoming textbook review cases, as in Texas, Hindus will have no chance to get their way precisely because the authorities have been alerted to the danger of Hindu fundamentalism trying to distort the textbooks. Your very mail on theCalifornia issue shows how you demean the Hindus. In fact what you havewritten in the above-quoted lines apply to you and not to me. In one ofyour earlier mails you wrote that the Witzel group considers Dr.Rajaramji and Shri Kalyanaramanji as Buffoons. What sadistic pleasuredo you get by demeaning others and that too without any facts andfigures? Again, you can become a member of their list and read along (though I expect they won't allow you to post messages, certainly not of the kind you're posting on so many Hindu forums and now also here). You can see for yourself that Hindu history-rewriting is only mentioned mockingly, except when it is described as a political (not an intellectual) threat. That doesn't require "facts and figures", the existing hostile opinion climate is itself the fact we're concerned with. And my point is that it has largely been provoked by Hindus themselves, with their arrogant denial of scholarly method as well as of elementary rules of politeness. To be sure, I am not demeaning "the" Hindus, indeed I have cited many in support of my own position.  You wroteQuote So I stand by my diagnosis. On all substantive points, the Hinduposition was soundly defeated, the Witzel side totally victorious.UnquoteNoproblem if you do not see the truth or want to ignore the truth.< In that case, the Hindu position was not defeated, and the textbooks now carry the proposed edits. The Witzel crowd, by contrast, was defeated and, not being lazy Hindus who prefer to deny rather than remedy their defeat, are now strategizing how to undo the recent court verdict. Well, please prove these points.  Yourattempt to depreciate the efforts of the Hindus will also be likewiseignored by the Hindus.< I do appreciate the efforts of Hindus, e.g. of the British Hindus who produced fine textbooks upholding the essence of the Hindu position yet acceptable to the educational authorities and effectively in use in state-supervised schools. It is against that standard that I judge the CA textbook effort as a painful waste and the preceding Delhi textbook failure as a gigantic Hindutva-made disaster. Furtheryou do not understand that when we Hindus say that the Vedas are not ofhuman origin we mean that these are not invented by man and these arethe Eternal Truths only seen by the Vedic seers. Exactly. In reality, however, they were very much made by men, and the Vedas themselves are perfectly clear about this. Those Hindus who deify the Vedas are thoroughly un-Vedic. They refuse to stand tall, shoulder to shoulder with the Rishis as religious freethinkers, and instead deny the Vedic testimony to their human origin (being addressed to, not by, the gods) to impose on the Vedas a quasi-Quranic status.I suggest we start a new thread to investigate the claim of "Eternal Truths only seen by the Vedic seers". Which ones are those? Further you said:QuoteI'd have to seethe new crop of textbooks to verify,-- and I note you don't quote those, only a non-committal oral statement.UnquoteNowyou admitted that you are yet to verify what is in the textbooks.Please verify and revert to us to admit that you made a hasty commentearlier without ascertaining the facts.  You are also castingaspersions on the President of California SBE, Mr. Glee Johnson byexpressing doubt on the reliability of his statement. I have verified what is in the official SBE and court decisions on the textbooks, and they unambiguously ruled against the Hindu edits on all substantive issues. I have no information that textbook-makers are defying those decisions and carrying the Hindu edits anyway. If there is such information, please provide it. If you fault me for not quoting the textbooks, please do so yourself. Now you've put yourself in the position of a schoolboy who comes home and boasts of having done well on his exams. His father, who remembers the teacher complaining about Johnny's laziness, will of course want to see the boy's school report. So you, please show us the textbooks. The burden of proof of your victory is naturally on you.This is one of the many breaches of the rules of argumentation that pop up again and again in the "rants" of Hindu textbook rewriters: shifting the burden of proof away from themselves. Just yesterday, I caught you on another list (IndiaArchaeology) producing some other typîcal fallacies, one of which you have just repeated here, if only implicitly this time. It is this one: making deductions about the truth of a statement or theory from real or imagined shortcomings of the person proposing it. In particular: you manage to find fault with me for not having procured me a new CA textbook, which would be of no use to me here in Belgium, to quote from to you; and then you pretend (this time only implicitly, on many occasions explicitly with a misplaced "so", "this amply proves" etc.) this proves the wrongness of my claim about the Hindu lobby's failure to get its edits into the textbooks. There is no such logical connection. The only valid way to prove the wrongness of that claim of mine is to prove that the edits were accepted, i.e. to show us a recent officially-approved textbook that contains the edits. I already noted in my last post that you conspicuously fail to do so.I thank Sunthar, who is not a paleface foreigner like me but very much a Hindu himself, for his patience with this unpleasant discussion.Kind regards,[Koenraad Elst] ---

[Guest guest]

They kept coming like antsI might remind Prof Witzel that when it comes to not publishing inconvenient rebuttals , his Indo eurasian group has definitely not been a shrinking violet.  He has refused to print the rebuttal to his derisive remarks on the ICIH 2009. People who live in glass houses should not whine when others reply in kind. So when  it comes to 'of course it was not allowed ' i say 'physican heal thyself''

So now the gloves are off and the real culprit is the " Hindu " . One can quibble about the fact that he uses it  in an adjectival form. The intent is clear - to convey the fact that it was a Hindu list that was the key factor in his reply not being allowed The apalling bigotry with which he condemns the members of the faith by such a generalization is not lost on the rest of  the population.If there is one thing the Hindu abhors it is the attempt to stereotype him in a broad category. Too often this individuality of the hindu is portrayed as  a weakness by the Occidental and attempts are constantly made to compartmentalize the hindu into subcategories (the Aryan invasion theory was one of them) and to exploit the differences for less th an noble purposes. In the 19th century it was the attempt to paint the Vedas as a Brahminical construct, forgetting the fact that even those who were not believers in the Vedas  were also part of the Dhaarmic tradiiton. We, the hindus of this planet are immensely conscious that the tradition which is continuously morphing iself , has the genetic longevity of  a cockroach.

This fight is not over yet by any means. We are convinced that there has been a violation of the constitution in not providing us equal treatment under the law , and that the  singling of the hindu tradition for special treatment will eventually  be upheld as a breach of the constitutional protection of equal treatment uder the law. It took a while for the african american to win his first law suit in America and he did not win his frist case till  very recently.

The misrepresentation of the Hindu has been practiced with great diligence by the Occidental ever since St. Francis Xavier instigated the Goan Inquisiton in the16th century, which resulted in the unspeakable tortures and death by hanging and burning at the stake of many thousands of individuals for over 2 centuries until it was finally stopped in the 1800's. The vatican made sure that all associated records were completely destroyed and granted Saihood to Francis Xavier for his part in the resulting genocide. It continued on as Robert di Nobili tried to pass himself of as a Hindu priest

If Prof Witzel thinks the fight is over he underestimates the  tenacity of the Hindu. At kargil, the Pakistani captain remarked that the Indians had climbed up the sheer walls of the cliff like ants and that they kept coming despite the prospect of great bodily harm. 'They kept coming like ants' he repeated in a daze.

I hope Prof Witzel will continue to spout the drivel that he does, because everytime  he speaks and writes  we get a flood of additional recruits to our cause,Kosla On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Michael Witzel <witzel wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The discussion on this list reminds me of a summary I recently sent to a “Hindu†list. Of course, it was not allowed.  Therefore, here repeated. 

Note that it also discusses some of the attacks against Dr Elst as well (who definitely is not a friend of mine). As this has come up on this list,  for balance, this needs to be discussed with a calm mind, not in the uninformed and biased  way that has surfaced.

   QUOTE:   Some update on the Californian school book question is in order.   As most of you will remember, the decision of the Californian Board of Education in March 2006 against changing the schoolbooks according to the wishes of two Hindu foundations VF, HEF), had been opposed in two law suits: one by the previously not involved Hindu American Foundation (HAF), and one by the then newly founded CAPEEM.

(<http://www.capeem.org/pressroom.php>)   The contention of HAF about the content of the schoolbooks that they wanted to change (“different†rights of women, denial of early caste system in Vedic texts, non-existence of the Aryan “invasionâ€, monotheistic nature of “God†in Hinduism) has been thoroughly refuted and dismissed by the CA judge at Sacramento in his decision of Sept. 1, 2007.

<http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/dept19/sep1d19--06cs00386.doc>

  He nevertheless allowed for some procedural changes: the rules  of the CA Dept. of Education were to be updated to conform to recent changes in law --  since done.

  However, CAPEEM, founded only after the fact, lodged their own, long prepared law case in March 2006, after the CA decision. Their case is described on their web site <http://www.capeem.org/pressroom.php>

  However, for a year now they have not added any updates and details.  Well, since March 2008, they have been *defeated* in the courts three times:

  * First by trying to “compel†me to deliver *all* emails that I ever sent to anybody regarding this matter. This was denied in July 2007 by a Massachussets court.  

* Second, their move to get a revision of this court decision, again denied by a three judges panel in Massachussets on July 7, 2008 (case  07-2286).  Nothing of that at CAPEEM.org, --  they only revel in their  dated, futile attempt to “compel†me.

  * Third, and worse, the Federal Court in Sacramento has now, in March 2009, dismissed -- just as the CA judge did  in the HAF case on Sept. 1, 2007 --  all CAPEEM claims (women, caste system, Aryans, God, discrimination of Hindu applicants by the CA Dept. of Education). The judge did so in sometimes hilariously scathing fashion. See: 

<http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/Federal.Ruling.2009.pdf>

And cf. the summary on March 1, 2009: <Indo-Eurasian_research/message/12178>

  The Federal judge, too, has just left open a decision about the *procedural* aspects of the CAPEEM case, which will now go to trial over the Summer.   In short, a total defeat of all unscholarly attempts to fudge US school books.

The procedural aspects do not concern scholars, just administrators and politicians.  Comment:   CAPEEM–minded people had been warned by the Hindutva sympathizer Dr Koenrad Elst (Belgium) already in January 2006 –well before the law suits --- about the futility of their unscholarly claims.  See Dr. Kalyanaraman’s now dormant Indian Civilization list @ in January 2006.  Kalyanaraman, who had bold facedly lied about matters in the case, then denounced Elst for spoiling their game. And, major CAPEEM member Kalavai Venkat boasted --before CAPEEM was even founded-- that they had a winning strategy, and were guided by professionals. Well, we have now seen what that strategy was and what it lead to.

  However, both HAF and CAPEEM persisted in their law suits in 2006-2009 and Hindutvavadins then shunned Elst (again: … he definitely is no friend of mine -.  

Lesson to be learned:   if you want to do something about the self-representation of India and Hinduism, do not claim absurd things but proceed from well-known facts. (Several times, I have actually supported some Hindu initiatives like that, and I am actually member of such organizations!) 

But blindsided Hindutva attempts are doomed to failure, just as they were in India (by the election of 2004).   Instead, what actual sympathizers like Dr. Elst,  or “just the facts, ma’am†researchers like me, get from Hindutvavadins, is a lot of abuse, defamation and  libel.  See the archives of this list and other lists and use “the Google†for checking the general internet:

  Happy April Fool’s Day reading!   M.Witzel     PS: Of course, if desired,  I can upload the relevant *official* files in the list’s file section.

  On Apr 5, 2009, at 12:33 AM, Dr. Rabinder K. Koul wrote:Sunil ji and Koenraad Ji:

To be certain, I would like to point out that there were two California related law suits filed. One of these law suits filed by CAPEEM is still going on, and they have had quite a success in it. You can access it on http://www.capeem.org/ and contains almost upto date status on the case. 

Ravindra , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

--- On Tue, 3/31/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Re: [Abhinavagupta] Re: California History Book ControversyAbhinavagupta Cc: hchis006, IndiaArchaeology , vedic_rentindia

Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 1:54 AMDr. Elst,You said 

QuoteThe burden of proof of your victory is naturally on you.UnquoteIt is you, who was the first to make the statement that the  Hindus were defeated in the Ca History Text book controversy without providing proof.  So it your responsibility to substantiate your statement. You may take your own time. I have told you about Mr. Glee Johnson's statement and you must remember that he was no ordinary person so far this subject is discussed. Now you want to escape the responsibility of submitting proof. I stand by my statement that you have made a hasty statement and please do not make any such statement without confirming.

You wrote QuoteIn reality, however, they were very much made by men, and the Vedas themselves are perfectly clear about this. Those Hindus who deify the Vedas are thoroughly un-Vedic.

As I told you the Vedas contain spiritual truths and Hindus venerate the Vedas. The Truths seen /experienced/realized by the seers were passed on orally in beautiful verses from generation to generation. Why speak the Veda alone even the Bhagavat purana is deified. It is called Vankmayee rupa of the Lord ie it is Verbal form of God. Being a non-Hindu you cannot perceive this and leave the deification of the Vedas alone as it does not concern a  non-Hindu  the way you said that the CA History Textbooks are of no use to you in Belgium

You also said QuoteJust yesterday, I caught you on another list (IndiaArchaeology) producing some other typîcal fallacies, one of which you have just repeated here, if only implicitly this time. It is this one: making deductions about the truth of a statement or theory from real or imagined shortcomings of the person proposing it. In particular: you manage to find fault with me for not having procured me a new CA textbook, which would be of no use to me here in Belgium, to quote from to you; and then you pretend (this time only implicitly, on many occasions explicitly with a misplaced " so " , " this amply proves " etc.) this proves the wrongness of my claim about the Hindu lobby's failure to get its edits into the textbooks.

UnquoteWhat kind of scholarship is this to make vegue statement? Please make specific statement as to where did you catch me. What are you hiding from the forum members. Please be transparent and speak out. Let the Forum members know about your self-vaunted scholarship. On the contrary I caught you. You told me that you were one with Mr. Francesco in his statement that the name Saraswati came from the PIE Selos / Helos. Now Mr. Francesco has failed to give any evidence demanded by Mr. Shivraj and you too do not have any answer to what Mr. shivraj has asked.

You stated that the Hindus were defeated in Ca Text Book Issue and at that time time you did not realize that these books are of no use to you in Belgium. And now when I contested your statement you are saying that these books are of no use to you. What kind of logic is this?  I shall  request you that when you make a statement concerning a group  like Hindus please check it first about the truth before making the statement. 

Kind regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 3/30/09, Koenraad <Koenraad wrote:

Koenraad <Koenraad[Abhinavagupta] Re: California History Book ControversyAbhinavagupta

Monday, March 30, 2009, 3:57 AMArun and Sunthar are of course right when they observe that the present discussion has badly degenerated and tends to import some of the typical flaws from other Hindu forums. To speak for myself first, it seems I have created the impression that Kosla Vepa was responsible for the attempt to deny Prof. Gunatilake the right to read his paper. Not so, it was the chairman of that particular session who interrupted the speaker on the plea that the political angle he brought in (and that was explicitly provided for in the conference theme) was impermissible. Among those in the audience who protested and ultimately made the chair allow the speaker to continue, was Dr. Vepa.

Now for another instance:Abhinavagupta, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote: Dr. Elst,

This refer to your mail of March 28 on the above subject. You wroteQuoteYou established for a long time to come the impression that Hindus areuntrustworthy, wily schemers with a reactionary and obscurantist agenda.

UnquotePleasedesist from ranting without citing instances.< On the Indo-Eurasian list, several contributors have commented to just this effect. Steve Farmer reported that a publisher had asked him to scan a Hindu-written book on Indian history for (to unsuspecting Americans) hidden political distortions. They also congratulate themselves that in upcoming textbook review cases, as in Texas, Hindus will have no chance to get their way precisely because the authorities have been alerted to the danger of Hindu fundamentalism trying to distort the textbooks.

Your very mail on theCalifornia issue shows how you demean the Hindus. In fact what you havewritten in the above-quoted lines apply to you and not to me. In one of

your earlier mails you wrote that the Witzel group considers Dr.Rajaramji and Shri Kalyanaramanji as Buffoons. What sadistic pleasuredo you get by demeaning others and that too without any facts and

figures? Again, you can become a member of their list and read along (though I expect they won't allow you to post messages, certainly not of the kind you're posting on so many Hindu forums and now also here). You can see for yourself that Hindu history-rewriting is only mentioned mockingly, except when it is described as a political (not an intellectual) threat. That doesn't require " facts and figures " , the existing hostile opinion climate is itself the fact we're concerned with. And my point is that it has largely been provoked by Hindus themselves, with their arrogant denial of scholarly method as well as of elementary rules of politeness. To be sure, I am not demeaning " the " Hindus, indeed I have cited many in support of my own position. 

You wroteQuote So I stand by my diagnosis. On all substantive points, the Hinduposition was soundly defeated, the Witzel side totally victorious.

UnquoteNoproblem if you do not see the truth or want to ignore the truth.< In that case, the Hindu position was not defeated, and the textbooks now carry the proposed edits. The Witzel crowd, by contrast, was defeated and, not being lazy Hindus who prefer to deny rather than remedy their defeat, are now strategizing how to undo the recent court verdict. Well, please prove these points. 

Yourattempt to depreciate the efforts of the Hindus will also be likewiseignored by the Hindus.< I do appreciate the efforts of Hindus, e.g. of the British Hindus who produced fine textbooks upholding the essence of the Hindu position yet acceptable to the educational authorities and effectively in use in state-supervised schools. It is against that standard that I judge the CA textbook effort as a painful waste and the preceding Delhi textbook failure as a gigantic Hindutva-made disaster.

Furtheryou do not understand that when we Hindus say that the Vedas are not ofhuman origin we mean that these are not invented by man and these are

the Eternal Truths only seen by the Vedic seers. Exactly. In reality, however, they were very much made by men, and the Vedas themselves are perfectly clear about this. Those Hindus who deify the Vedas are thoroughly un-Vedic. They refuse to stand tall, shoulder to shoulder with the Rishis as religious freethinkers, and instead deny the Vedic testimony to their human origin (being addressed to, not by, the gods) to impose on the Vedas a quasi-Quranic status.

I suggest we start a new thread to investigate the claim of " Eternal Truths only seen by the Vedic seers " . Which ones are those? Further you said:

QuoteI'd have to seethe new crop of textbooks to verify,-- and I note you don't quote those, only a non-committal oral statement.Unquote

Nowyou admitted that you are yet to verify what is in the textbooks.Please verify and revert to us to admit that you made a hasty commentearlier without ascertaining the facts.  You are also casting

aspersions on the President of California SBE, Mr. Glee Johnson byexpressing doubt on the reliability of his statement. I have verified what is in the official SBE and court decisions on the textbooks, and they unambiguously ruled against the Hindu edits on all substantive issues. I have no information that textbook-makers are defying those decisions and carrying the Hindu edits anyway. If there is such information, please provide it. If you fault me for not quoting the textbooks, please do so yourself. Now you've put yourself in the position of a schoolboy who comes home and boasts of having done well on his exams. His father, who remembers the teacher complaining about Johnny's laziness, will of course want to see the boy's school report. So you, please show us the textbooks. The burden of proof of your victory is naturally on you.

This is one of the many breaches of the rules of argumentation that pop up again and again in the " rants " of Hindu textbook rewriters: shifting the burden of proof away from themselves. Just yesterday, I caught you on another list (IndiaArchaeology) producing some other typîcal fallacies, one of which you have just repeated here, if only implicitly this time. It is this one: making deductions about the truth of a statement or theory from real or imagined shortcomings of the person proposing it. In particular: you manage to find fault with me for not having procured me a new CA textbook, which would be of no use to me here in Belgium, to quote from to you; and then you pretend (this time only implicitly, on many occasions explicitly with a misplaced " so " , " this amply proves " etc.) this proves the wrongness of my claim about the Hindu lobby's failure to get its edits into the textbooks. There is no such logical connection. The only valid way to

 prove the wrongness of that claim of mine is to prove that the edits were accepted, i.e. to show us a recent officially-approved textbook that contains the edits. I already noted in my last post that you conspicuously fail to do so.

I thank Sunthar, who is not a paleface foreigner like me but very much a Hindu himself, for his patience with this unpleasant discussion.Kind regards,

[Koenraad Elst] ---