Lies with Long Legs Indology and Aryans: Pardosh Aich is he correct?

[pviyer]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Who is Professor Pardosh Aich? I dont much about him but these details I found about him and his views
Lies With Long Legs, Prodosh Aich, 8187374322, - from Indo American Books (INDIA)

This is what the weblink says about Pardosh Aich
Prodosh Aich was born in Calcutta in 1934.After finishing high school, he studied philosophy in India. This was followed by studies in ethnology, philosophy and sociology at the University of Cologne. He taught sociology at Cologne (Germany), Jaipur (India) and Oldenburg (Germany) universities. Besides books, he has published many papers in Readers and Journals, made radio features and documentary films and participated in radio features and documentary films and participated in radio and television talk shows. In all, he has around 100 titles to his credit. He is still an Indian though he has lived for a longer period in Germany than many Germans.

Here is some information from Tribune
The Sunday Tribune - Books

IN his painstakingly long academic journey through mountains of source material available in Europe, Prof Prodosh Aich establishes that the entire understanding of India developed by self-claimed scholars from West is erroneous, since the initial attempt to comprehend ancient India through the Vedas was itself faulty.

Prof Aich has dissects the methods adopted by famous Indologists for collecting material for their renowned works and made rightful inquires into their sources. A Jesuit father, Roberto de Nobili, in his missionary zeal, went to the extent of claiming that he had been able to find the lost Yajur Veda, which in fact was a copy that he had written to establish that there was indeed a relationship between Christianity and ancient Indian practices preserved and followed by Brahmins. In order to win the confidence of the local Brahmin community, he even called himself a Brahmin from Rome.

The author has put every Indologist under the microscope and exposed the majority. Comparing their descriptions with the writings of Megasthenes and others, the author shows how the 18 and 19th century Indologists did irreparable damage to the people of India.​

Sir William Jones, celebrated as the Father of Indology in the UK, befooled not only his superiors but also the entire academic community by claiming that he knew 32 languages, including Sanskrit. He came to India as one of the Judges and went on to set up the Asiatic Society of Bengal, which closed its doors to the Asians, on January 15, 1784. He disseminated so much false information about India that an entirely wrong image of this ancient society was painted in the popular mind. German Indologist, Friedrich Maximilian Mueller, known here as Max Mueller, despite never visiting India, came to be known as the most authoritative Sanskrit expert.​

It’s now beyond doubt that it was an English conspiracy hatched by none other than Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, who wanted to control Indian minds by ensuring that they should know, comprehend and understand India through books written in English. Mueller became an instrument in Macaulay’s plan to convince the majority of the local population that the English alien rule was better for them.​

Excerpts from his interview
Haindava Keralam - global community of dedicated Hindu Keralites with a peace mission

I call him a swindler. I can provide proofs in support of my assertion. I can reason it out also. Max Mueller had assumed that he was a scholar. From his own autobiography, from biographies written by his son and wife, from other biographies, from his other writings, and from his letters, we can reconstruct his life from birth to his death. After passing the High School, he never appeared in any examination rather never cleared any examination. So obviously he can not possess any academic degrees. Yet he calls himself a Master of Arts (MA). His wife calls him a Doctor of Philosophy. His wife maintains that he was a Ph. D. from the Leipzig University. There is no record at the Leipzig University or any proof that he appeared in any examination there. So how would you describe him:

So this is another part of my book 'Lies with long legs' as we have tried to find out who was the first person, the pioneer, who taught Sanskrit in Europe.

Q: So who was this person?

A: He was a nobody, He was a simple boy of 18 when he came to India as an ordinary soldier. He completed is term and roamed around in India and then reached France. There he said that he knew Sanskrit. Quality of his knowledge of Sanskrit was that he knew the Devnagri alphabet well but beyond that he could not make a distinction between the language and script.

Q :What was his name?

A: Alexander Hamilton was his name. There is a long story about him in the book because people said that he was a great Sanskrit scholar. So we traced his roots also. The most interesting thing while doing this book was that though all the material is available in the libraries, no one else worked on the available material. If some one claimed that a he was a scholar then nobody questioned that claim. Everyone started saying that the person was a scholar as it is written in printed words. It was presumed that if one taught Sanskrit to others then he knew Sanskrit.

Sanskrit was never a spoken language so how can this be learnt without a teacher? The language had to be learnt systematically for 6 to 7 years so that one could translate works like the Vedas?

A: It is not your opinion alone Even some European thought the same. Unfortunately those who learnt Sanskrit systematically did not teach the language in Europe. Heinrich Roth was one such person who came to India and landed in Goa and from there was transferred to Agra. There he became the principal of a Jesuit college. He belonged to Jesuit order. In Agra, he learnt Sanskrit for six years, mastered the language so well that he "discussed" with the Brahmins in Sanskrit. Having understood the importance of Sanskrit, he compiled a grammar book with Latin explanatory notes added to it. As a matter of fact, he produced a simplified version of Panini's grammar, which was compiled at least 4000 years ago.

The Sanskrit grammar vanished in the Vatican library. It was traced in 1988 and all Indologists agree that quality of this grammar book was far superior to the ones upon
which Sanskrit was being taught in Europe. Others did not learn Sanskrit properly but they stoutly maintained that they knew Sanskrit.

There was never a Sanskrit dictionary as grammar is the key to Sanskrit language. But they were trying to compile a dictionary word by word. So in this way they have transported a type of Sanskrit to Europe where I have doubts that it is Sanskrit at all. But the tragic part is that this Sanskrit has been imported back to India. This is what we learn in India with the help of the Sanskrit dictionaries. The standard dictionary of Sanskirt here is of Sir Monier Monier who also never came to India before compiling his dictionary in 1854. He collected all materials and prepared a dictionary diligently. But this dictionary was not available to Max Mueller. Max Mueller had only one dictionary written by one Wilson. He also stayed in Calcutta. He was a medical doctor. He served as Director of a mint because he had some knowledge of chemicals. He interacted with Bengali Pundits and he prepared the dictionary with the help of the Pundits of Calcutta in as late as 1819 when the first Sanskrit dictionary came out. At best, Max Mueller could have used this dictionary. Max Mueller was at a place where Wilson taught Sanskrit. Max Mueller observes in his biography that Wilson did not have enough knowledge of Sanskrit.

Findings are that mention of Aryan was first made by a person who was a swindler. He was neither a scholar nor he knew Sanskrit. But he claimed that in Rigveda there is a hymn. He did not mention which one In this mention, he claimed that people were singing and identifying themselves as Aryans. They came from outside. So whatever culture has been created in this area of the world has been created by foreigners. And he also belonged to this class of foreigners.

Q: You devote considerable space in your book to William Jones. What about him?

A: He had not written an auto- biography but lot of biographies have been written about him. He had left behind his letters. Two volumes of his letters have been published. If one goes through his biography from his childhood till he came to India, one finds out that William Jones was an opportunist. He did everything to make a career and ultimately he claimed that he knew 32 languages And it has come to be accepted by the educated community.

Q; What about his knowledge of Sanskrit?

A: In 1885, he has confessed in a letter to Charles Wittkins in Calcutta that he is too old to learn Sanskrit. But, it is absolutely certain that he did not have command over Sansrkit. He had no time to pick up Sanskrit.

Only one work he has published. That is Manu's laws but even this has been done by others, by hired Pundits. He has put his name on it. If one goes through his biographies and other material then one comes to a conclusion that he too was a fraud. But he was a
fraud of a greater caliber. He came to Calcutta to earn money. In five years, so much of money that he can go back to England and buy a seat in British Parliament. He had calculated that this much of money could be earned in London in 20 to 25 years. His sole objective was to earn 20 to 25,000 Pounds. While he was coming to India, he had a plan to write a world history according to his own design . And he did not need any other material but his own fantasy. So when he arrived in Calcutta, he started selling himself as a great oriental scholar. In the first year, he had invented one Indian God Kamdeva. And the way, he invented Kamdeva. I have documented in the book.

 

[sangom]

I find the following as the "qualifications" of Shri Aich:

"Prodosh Aich was born in Calcutta in 1934.After finishing high school, he studied philosophy in India. This was followed by studies in ethnology, philosophy and sociology at the University of Cologne. He taught sociology at Cologne (Germany), Jaipur (India) and Oldenburg (Germany) universities."

Since Shri Aich claims to be calling every European Indologist's lies, is it not safe to assume that Shri Aich has not done the mistake of adding any degree or doctorate to his name, though he has spent time in India or Cologne. Then he goes on to "teach" sociology only at Cologne, Jaipur and Germany!

Max Mueller was a fictitious personality (mythological legend?) as per this web site ! So, who is the wiser person?

Kindly also see the page here.

It may be very comforting to the egos of some of us, especially if we have above-average patrotism towards vedic India and its achievements, to immediately accept writings like that of Aich. But none of our own indigenous scholars including Aurobindo Ghosh never raised doubts about the western indologists' education, knowledge of sanskrit, etc. Shall we say that they were not as intelligent or well-informed as our Aich?

My own doubt is, why not some of these ardent pro-ancient-vedic-india enthusiasts now take up the much trumpeted "scientific" braekthroughs, develop from there our own very indigenous metallurgy, engineering, aeroplanes and even most deadly weapons of pure indic origins like Brahmastra, Nagastra, Srichakra and so on and obtain international patents too? Our religious mutts can very well extend the necessary financial help for such researchers also, with one overriding stipulation that no item from western science - including paper, pencil, pen, cycle or any modern transport or communication or any other area, should ever be used in such research.

 

[Nara]

....My own doubt is, why not some of these ardent pro-ancient-vedic-india enthusiasts now take up the much trumpeted "scientific" braekthroughs, develop from there our own very indigenous metallurgy, engineering, aeroplanes and even most deadly weapons of pure indic origins like Brahmastra, Nagastra, Srichakra and so on and obtain international patents too?

Dear Sangom sir, I just can't understand why the FCs of India feel so utterly defeated that they have to look back 2000 years or more to find a sense of pride. Who knows for sure what really happened some 5000 years ago? Was there just one Indra, or many? Was Indra an Arya or not, who cares, and does it really matter? May be it does for a few people like us, who wants to argue about it, I must admit I love these arguments, but for more sensible people, with much more important things to worry about, does it really matter?

What is in the past is past, what we make the future out to be, is what is important. Why must we not yearn for a future in which we gladly pay the cultural debts of our forefathers, in as much as we enjoy the assets they have left behind? Why must we equate having to settle for a different option that is no less lucrative so that a long oppressed family can send of one of their own to college for the first time in their family history, to evil? Why must we not forge a future in which we are our brother's and sister's keepers, all our brother's and sister's, not just TB? Why must we let the accident of birth determine who we are, than what even Indian tradition pays lip service to, namely, ahimsa prathamo pushpam, which surely means love of fellow beings is foremost of all kinds of worship? Why must our first response to a call to better ourselves is to find some other group to blame -- it is the politicians, it is the OBC, et al?

Sometimes I feel really sorry for those among whom I was born, living in an imagined past glory, or living in a constant state of whining, is, to say the least, not very productive. I know that freeing oneself from these shackles can usher in a state of unparalleled bliss, a kind of bliss the Vedic texts promise in an imaginary life after death. So, I say to the youngsters who may be reading these posts, the older ones are too vested in the tradition to take heed, make the best of the only life we are sure of, don't fall for the fool's gold that is supposed to be had after we are dead. Love and compassion for all is the only way to experience pure bliss. No god can deliver you this, you have to snatch it for yourself from the jaws of selfishness and inflated ego.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

sangom, Nara,

my sentiments exactly. there are enough current problems. so much water has flowed through the milleniums. even yesterday's history is of no consequence today. these guys tryst with the supposed ancient glory is, i don't know, dances with wolves?

 

[sangom]

Kunjuppu, Nara,

I sincerely feel that most of our younger generation people, and, if I may add - less authoritatively, the girls in particular, are very pragmatic and know what they ought to do with their life. The shadow play that is going on in this and some other forums - I have only just superficial idea about the other forums - is only a "time-pass" for most, on both sides of the divide. I even suspect that some members may be willingly donning the "other side" role (opposite to us) in order that there are as much heated and charged discussions as possible.

But it is a fact that the hindutva groups find it necessary somehow to come out periodically with the "greatness of ancient India" and want to reiterate the point that when the rest of the humans - or were they all "vaanaras"? - were jumping from one tree to another, our Indian rishis had developed extra-sensory perception and what not. Honestly,I don't understand how the hindutva parties expect these claims to translate themselves into votes, in any election!!

Their hobby is, nevertheless, interesting. That is why I suggest that these enthusiasts pick up the thread from where the rishis and other superhuman brains left their marvellous findings, develop on them without any aid from any of the later mleccha findings and inventions (which will definitely be inferior to what our sages themselves would have produced, if fate had not ended their lives, and hence anathema), and get international patents on those inventions as well. I am sure the hindutva people will swear that all such inventions of a purely vedic science research will lead the entire hindu group to moksha.

 

[pviyer]

My own doubt is, why not some of these ardent pro-ancient-vedic-india enthusiasts now take up the much trumpeted "scientific" braekthroughs, develop from there our own very indigenous metallurgy, engineering, aeroplanes and even most deadly weapons of pure indic origins like Brahmastra, Nagastra, Srichakra and so on and obtain international patents too? Our religious mutts can very well extend the necessary financial help for such researchers also, with one overriding stipulation that no item from western science - including paper, pencil, pen, cycle or any modern transport or communication or any other area, should ever be used in such research.

While I appreciate all the points being made by sri sangom, I feel that this quote is plainly attacking people at a personal level. While this might seem like a general statement, it is plainly intended to people like me, who believe in vedas. I started this to have discussion on the real credentials of many indologists . I really dont know and dont have proof of anyone's greatness or fraud. I just put this because it would provoke discussions on scholarly merit of many indologists and sangom's points on sri aurobindo is well appreciated. I am also aware of vivekananda's reference to Max Mueller. If Max Mueller was a high school dropout so be it. That cannot deflect from his scholarship and the discussions should be in that direction. We should all bow down to him even if he is a high school dropout but a real scholar of vedas. The person whose quotes I have used said that "He did not know sanskrit".

When I read, that my immediate reaction was how could he judge about the ability of the indologists. I wanted a debate but this has got again into discussion on traditionalists vs modernists. Many hindutvavadins did not believe in god, are they traditionalist or are they modernist or some weird mix of both?
I am neither with no party affiliations at all. It has been a decade since I have voted and when I did vote I did not vote for BJP at all.
Simplistic arguments, caustic remarks against sincere suggestions of people all this does not really reflect good on this forum.

None of the traditionalists here to my knowledge have ever claimed that they have understood the vedas. They have only cautioned against unrestrained use of elementary translations without showing respect to insights thrown by saints.

Making fun of me for proposing prohibition as though suggesting prohibition would win me some gold coins or some kind of points. If you find arguments in favor of total liquor prohibition, illogical, restrict your argument to that, not to the personal motivations or sincerity of the people's views. I do not know if such statements have been occasioned by similar arguments by so called traditionalists but everybody's behaviour needs correction in that case not only traditionalists or not only modernists.

I had earlier remarked that I might be leaving the forum. But this is my last.
I am not going to be sitting down and writing a long history of kutarkam or explaining my views . There are a lot that I can write about statements made against me and against some others which even if true are nothing short of generalizations and such statements can never be applied against all . This is the real situation of tambra. I did find a few exceptions among modernists as well. I sincerely thank them all for participating in discussion with me.. My best wishes . I dont really dislike anybody here, but when you come across such statements mocking others, rather than add to some productive discussion, it does not feel good. If people could produce new found machines using vedas, they would have already done so. The fact that they cant indicates their inability. None of the traditionalist in this forum has claimed such powers. Each has their own way of reconciling tradition with current life and they make valid arguments suitable to their own logic. If it is agreeable to others then fine , if not critiscize that argument not that person. Each one's reasons for something is different, how can it be generalized?

 

[nachi naga]

reincarnation,life after death,faith based healing,rishi munivars sages of ancient bharath are traditions of our culture.bharat is booming from 2000 and will continue to do well in all modern sphere of the progressive world.the mutts the acharyals are humble and saintly quietly preserve our cultural heritage at the same time move on with x generation.that by force bharathians were cowed down for 1200 years is a matter to ponder upon lest future generations are, never subjected to such alien rule.while its hip to ridicule our ancient discoveries and scientific acheivements,like ayurveda or ganitha shastra or shilpa shastra or vaastu or jyotisham....but it has meaningful solutions to make life harmonious less corrupt and a peaceful co-existance.caste system must go out in its own pace just as racial divisions has to go out.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

pviyer,

The answer to your question is that he is wrong. Though the ideas of Wilson Jones and Max Muller were initially welcomed by the British, later they found the ideas ridiculous. Max Muller paid a heavy price for that. It is sad the Max Muller who was condemned by the Christian church for his ideas is now being condemned by a section of the Hindus.

Müller's comparative religion was criticized as subversive of the Christian faith. According to Monsignor Munro, the Roman Catholic bishop of St Andrew's Cathedral in Glasgow, his 1888lectures on the "science of religion" represented nothing less than "a crusade against divine revelation, against Jesus Christ and Christianity". Similar accusations had already led to Müller's exclusion from the Boden chair in Sanskrit.

Please see this article on Aryan race.

Aryan race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even before the British got interested it is the German scholars who got interested. The Vedas were first translated into German.

To name a few German scholars.

Theodor Benfey -Sama Veda, Sanskrit-English Dictionary

Hermann Grasmann - Rigveda - The dictionary of Rigvedic terms. and Grasmann's law of linguistics.

Friedrich Rosen -Rig Veda

If there has been any secret or uncomplimentary information about Max Muller, it would have definitely come out during the controversy he had with the organized Christian Church.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

PV Iyer wanted to know whether the information he quoted was correct. It is wrong. We can easily prove that the author is wrong.

But is it necessary to attack the beliefs of a section of the Hindus? How is that relevant to pviyer's question?

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

I had mentioned about Max Muller in my post no.46(05/01/2011)in the thread "Theory of ARYAN
invasion and interpreting Scriptures after I read an article about him in "Bharat Swabhiman movement"The artcle was based on materials from British Archives related to Max Muller.

Today I searched through google and found a write up "MAX MULLER-EXPOSE."
There was also a mention about an article by D.Harikumar,The HINDU-Assaulting India's
pluralistic Ethos.
After going through the contents of 'Max Muller expose',I get a doubt about his sincerity and real intentions,though he is accorded the status of a great personality in INDIA and there is Max Muller Bhavans in all important cities in India.
I request Shri.Nacchinarkiniyan to throw some light on this matter.

 

[sangom]

While I appreciate all the points being made by sri sangom, I feel that this quote is plainly attacking people at a personal level. While this might seem like a general statement, it is plainly intended to people like me, who believe in vedas. I started this to have discussion on the real credentials of many indologists . I really dont know and dont have proof of anyone's greatness or fraud. I just put this because it would provoke discussions on scholarly merit of many indologists and sangom's points on sri aurobindo is well appreciated. I am also aware of vivekananda's reference to Max Mueller. If Max Mueller was a high school dropout so be it. That cannot deflect from his scholarship and the discussions should be in that direction. We should all bow down to him even if he is a high school dropout but a real scholar of vedas. The person whose quotes I have used said that "He did not know sanskrit".

When I read, that my immediate reaction was how could he judge about the ability of the indologists. I wanted a debate but this has got again into discussion on traditionalists vs modernists. Many hindutvavadins did not believe in god, are they traditionalist or are they modernist or some weird mix of both?
I am neither with no party affiliations at all. It has been a decade since I have voted and when I did vote I did not vote for BJP at all.
Simplistic arguments, caustic remarks against sincere suggestions of people all this does not really reflect good on this forum.

None of the traditionalists here to my knowledge have ever claimed that they have understood the vedas. They have only cautioned against unrestrained use of elementary translations without showing respect to insights thrown by saints.

Making fun of me for proposing prohibition as though suggesting prohibition would win me some gold coins or some kind of points. If you find arguments in favor of total liquor prohibition, illogical, restrict your argument to that, not to the personal motivations or sincerity of the people's views. I do not know if such statements have been occasioned by similar arguments by so called traditionalists but everybody's behaviour needs correction in that case not only traditionalists or not only modernists.

I had earlier remarked that I might be leaving the forum. But this is my last.
I am not going to be sitting down and writing a long history of kutarkam or explaining my views . There are a lot that I can write about statements made against me and against some others which even if true are nothing short of generalizations and such statements can never be applied against all . This is the real situation of tambra. I did find a few exceptions among modernists as well. I sincerely thank them all for participating in discussion with me.. My best wishes . I dont really dislike anybody here, but when you come across such statements mocking others, rather than add to some productive discussion, it does not feel good. If people could produce new found machines using vedas, they would have already done so. The fact that they cant indicates their inability. None of the traditionalist in this forum has claimed such powers. Each has their own way of reconciling tradition with current life and they make valid arguments suitable to their own logic. If it is agreeable to others then fine , if not critiscize that argument not that person. Each one's reasons for something is different, how can it be generalized?

Shri Iyer,

I am sorry if my observations appeared to you as a personal remark against you. May be the mistake was mine, because those remarks were not at all intended against you, or to attack you. Actually, I had just read Shri Saidevo's post suggesting this site and was reading some of those essays. (I am not able to locate that post now.) Since Shri Aich's opinions looked to me to be of a similar kind, I wrote my comments and those were really aimed at those kind of people. With the wisdom of hindsight I now feel I should have given this link in my thoughts also in my post; may be since it was late night this slip occurred. I will try to be more meticulous in future.

I still feel that my pov is not simple "kutarkkam". Yes, there were some people in ancient India who perhaps thought rationally and scientifically. Vaiseshika was the result of one such attempt, IMHO. But, our overall attitude (of the vedic priesthood) was to ensure that their yajnas, yagas, the huge "dakshinas" which they prescribed as an integral part of the "apourusheya" vedas, (that is, if aranyakas, brahmanas etc., are considered to be integral part of the "apourusheya" vedas) all remained unchallenged. They perhaps did not encourage even a whiff of free thinking and successfully put down progress in this regard. Thus vaiseshika went into the museum, so to say. The original saamkhya reportedly did not postulate a creator, but later on this was incorporated when saamkhya-yoga combination was achieved, and so on. Hence science as we know it today was not allowed to flourish by the vedic religion, just as other religions also did for their part. That is the reason why I find all this claim of greatness tries to hide the real cause of scientific backwardness in our own vedic religion, but tends to blame everything else possible. And that is exactly why I feel what little conjecture was made by some of our people in those days will never be able to be used for any further R&D.

I hope I have made myself clear.

 

[pviyer]

Shri Iyer,

I am sorry if my observations appeared to you as a personal remark against you. May be the mistake was mine, because those remarks were not at all intended against you, or to attack you. Actually, I had just read Shri Saidevo's post suggesting this site and was reading some of those essays. (I am not able to locate that post now.) Since Shri Aich's opinions looked to me to be of a similar kind, I wrote my comments and those were really aimed at those kind of people. With the wisdom of hindsight I now feel I should have given this link in my thoughts also in my post; may be since it was late night this slip occurred. I will try to be more meticulous in future.

I still feel that my pov is not simple "kutarkkam". Yes, there were some people in ancient India who perhaps thought rationally and scientifically. Vaiseshika was the result of one such attempt, IMHO. But, our overall attitude (of the vedic priesthood) was to ensure that their yajnas, yagas, the huge "dakshinas" which they prescribed as an integral part of the "apourusheya" vedas, (that is, if aranyakas, brahmanas etc., are considered to be integral part of the "apourusheya" vedas) all remained unchallenged. They perhaps did not encourage even a whiff of free thinking and successfully put down progress in this regard. Thus vaiseshika went into the museum, so to say. The original saamkhya reportedly did not postulate a creator, but later on this was incorporated when saamkhya-yoga combination was achieved, and so on. Hence science as we know it today was not allowed to flourish by the vedic religion, just as other religions also did for their part. That is the reason why I find all this claim of greatness tries to hide the real cause of scientific backwardness in our own vedic religion, but tends to blame everything else possible. And that is exactly why I feel what little conjecture was made by some of our people in those days will never be able to be used for any further R&D.

I hope I have made myself clear.

Thank you for your clarification . If you have not bracketed all traditionalists into one category to make a criticism of their views then fine, but I would have felt that may have been put across in better ways. Somebody else cannot be criticized for the flaws in me or in my argument by bracketing us all together, the same applies to bracketing me with somebody else. I have no hesitation to say that going by the current popular translations of the vedas, not even a boat can be built, leave alone a ship or a spaceship. But that does not deflect from the fact that genuine translations(coupled with other spiritual practices) can be believed to show the path , like a flickering and fading light in absolute darkness. You can also infer that because even a boat cannot be built using vedas, the vedas must be meaningless. Both approaches are fine, as long as we sincerely devote to our search. We will somewhere come to the same road in pursuit of truth as long as we are passionate and sincere , inspite of moving in contradictory paths. It is question of choice. I think I will stop discussion on validity of Vedas in this thread here and I started this thread solely to understand the merits of indologists all of whom cannot be clubbed under one single group. If people can share their insights on the different indologists it will be really fruitful.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

This could be an informative thread, since we need to have the right perspective about our western Indologists and their Indian counterparts, especially when we have no other choice than their translations to our Vedas and even to the Sanskrit dictionary. Whatever his merits or drawbacks, Pardosh Aich has certainly made a point: that the evil British design in the name of education perpetrated by TB Macaulay has conquered the Hindu minds completely. The only way to counter this is for our Hindu youth to learn and become a scholar in Sanskrit and then research our Vedas and other scriptures on the lines Sangom has suggested (although I would not bar them from using pen, paper, ink, computer or the Internet! There was a picture of Puri ShankarAchArya in the newspapers a few days back, adroitly using his laptop computer. The caption, I think was, 'Tech savvy sage').

shrI Sangom, my post about ancient Hindu science is still at this link:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/6267-modern-science-our-scriptures.html#post75485

A good source of information on the western Indologists is:
Articles - Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism

(I may not be surprised if some of our friends retort, 'but this is the Website of a sage who has been arrested recently for a sexual crime at an age past eighty!')

I would request members to check the articles at the above Website and start the discussion...

 

[sravna]

In my opinion the role of science is in only trying to fill in what we lack in ourselves. A real yogi is one who has all the powers in himself and dosen't need any external help. He acts through the spiritual realm which manifests in the physical realm. So though science compensates for the lack of internal power should not be relied on to such an extent that you lose your real objective of improving self capabilities. The question whether a yogi can able to build a nuclear bomb or design aeroplanes is irrelevant as he doesn't really need to. Their way of accomplishing things is totally different. Having said this, I would say that most people I think cannot become a yogi and hence take resort in science and technology.