01-06-2009, 03:55 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->May I take the liberty to point at some loopholes in the socalled linguistic approach of scholars like Telagheri, although I support and laud their efforts ?
A truly linguistic approach must produce an alternative comparative linguistics which could counter the ideas propounded in masterpieces of IE grammararians like Karl Brugmann. Telagheri and other persons of his school skipped this cardinal issue completely, and what you term his linguistic approach can be called philological, and not linguistic.
I wasted 12 years on IE linguistics and found irrefutable proofs in favour of the fact that the Vedic language was the source of all IE languages, but I was dismayed with the lack of any interest in real linguistics among Indian Homelanders, and found them to be guided more by nationalism rather than by real linguistics. Eurocentric scholars are even more chauvinist. Hence, I did not even care to get my findings written down properly, and thousands of pages of my notes lie scattered in my storeroom, which I do not try to look into, because no one is interested in this topic.
My most important finding was that 'all' roots of the PIE (Proto-Indo-European) language were not merely derived from the Vedic roots, but were exactly same as the Vedic roots, provided we give equal weight to all branches of the supposed PIE and take statistical averages for each phoneme individually to decide the structure of
primordial language, instead of imposing our own hypotheses for influencing the outcome of such inveigationsst, as the Europeanists have done all along.
Secondly, I would like to point out some shortcomings even in the philological line of reasoning put forth by Telagheri &c.
The idea that Saptasindhu signified Indus and its tributaries is a modern myth. Vyas jee has mentioned in MBh that Saptasindhu flowed eastwards, but adds figuratively that as a bad omen they started flowing westwards momentarily when Lord Krishna started his journey for Hastinapur to prevent a war, signifying an impending failure of peace talks. This east-flowing Saptasindhu is the cradle of Vedic civilization, esp of Aryavarta : Kaushiki, Gandaki(Sadaneeraa), Sarayu, Gomati, Ganga, Yamuna and Saraswati. All these rivers are mentioned in the RV. Gayatri was revealed to Kaushika Vishvamitra on the banks of Kaushiki.
Gotam Rahugana, the priest of first king of Videha was the rishi of RV hymns dedicated to Svaraajya (ie, Videha) in first mandala 0f RV. Nyaaya philosophy was started by his descendants. The ashrama of one rishi of this lineage existed at modern Gotamkunda near Ahilyasthana in Darbhanga district.
White Yajurveda was revealed to Yajnavalkya. He was born in western UP but lived in North Bihar. It is an Eoropean propaganda that RV preceded other Vedas. Almost all hymns of Samaveda are found in RV. All four Vedas mention each other profusely. Morphological or semantic comparison of four Vedas do not suggest the type of dating we are taught by Europeans. This dating is based upon their hatred for yajna. Hence, Yajurveda had to be proven as a later invention of Indians after the immigrants settled in India. Europeanists deliberately forget that that Aristophanes explicitly mentioned in his comedy 'The Birds' that the ancestors gave oblations to fire which nourished the gods ; it is a clear evidence of ritualistic yajna among the ancestors of Greeks.
If we leave aside structural linguistics, which is boring topic for Indian scholars, and come to philology, we would be forced to arrive at conclusions which will not be palatable to neither Maxmuller's disciples nor Telagheri's. For instance, 'bhratr' occurs 33 times in the RV in all its declensions, and in 32 instances it has no connection with the popular meaning 'brother'. The latter meaning is probable only once, in the Yama-Yami dialogue in 10th mandala. There too, Yama is a descendant of Sun. Elsewhere, Bhratar is used for Sun. Hence, ancient grammarians deduced it from a root which meant "to shine". Some persons also tried to relate it to bhr, to bear. But the Sun shines as well as bears the world, while a brother neither shines nor bears. It is the father who nears, and later the husband (bhartr). Similarly, Agni is derived from a root which had no connection with any physical properties, but was related to the divine property of Agni-god.
This peculiarity of Vedic language was clear to all ancient scholars. Hence the differentiated Vedic language from Laukika Sanskrita, and devoted their lives to preserve a language which they believed to be divine. This belief was not an invention of priests, but has philological proofs, as I have indicated above. Had the Vedic language been invented by humans, it would have contained Laukika or worldly meanings even during the formative phase when words were being formed from roots.
But in an age of evolutionism, who will believe that the ancients were wiser than us? These evolutionists forget that evolution is never linear, that all species have come to become extinct, that no specie was permanent, that Homo Sapiens is not immortal, and the next higher/lower specie need not be a linear descendant of the present specie which has ethically degenerated into Homo Idiotes.
-VJ
====<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A truly linguistic approach must produce an alternative comparative linguistics which could counter the ideas propounded in masterpieces of IE grammararians like Karl Brugmann. Telagheri and other persons of his school skipped this cardinal issue completely, and what you term his linguistic approach can be called philological, and not linguistic.
I wasted 12 years on IE linguistics and found irrefutable proofs in favour of the fact that the Vedic language was the source of all IE languages, but I was dismayed with the lack of any interest in real linguistics among Indian Homelanders, and found them to be guided more by nationalism rather than by real linguistics. Eurocentric scholars are even more chauvinist. Hence, I did not even care to get my findings written down properly, and thousands of pages of my notes lie scattered in my storeroom, which I do not try to look into, because no one is interested in this topic.
My most important finding was that 'all' roots of the PIE (Proto-Indo-European) language were not merely derived from the Vedic roots, but were exactly same as the Vedic roots, provided we give equal weight to all branches of the supposed PIE and take statistical averages for each phoneme individually to decide the structure of
primordial language, instead of imposing our own hypotheses for influencing the outcome of such inveigationsst, as the Europeanists have done all along.
Secondly, I would like to point out some shortcomings even in the philological line of reasoning put forth by Telagheri &c.
The idea that Saptasindhu signified Indus and its tributaries is a modern myth. Vyas jee has mentioned in MBh that Saptasindhu flowed eastwards, but adds figuratively that as a bad omen they started flowing westwards momentarily when Lord Krishna started his journey for Hastinapur to prevent a war, signifying an impending failure of peace talks. This east-flowing Saptasindhu is the cradle of Vedic civilization, esp of Aryavarta : Kaushiki, Gandaki(Sadaneeraa), Sarayu, Gomati, Ganga, Yamuna and Saraswati. All these rivers are mentioned in the RV. Gayatri was revealed to Kaushika Vishvamitra on the banks of Kaushiki.
Gotam Rahugana, the priest of first king of Videha was the rishi of RV hymns dedicated to Svaraajya (ie, Videha) in first mandala 0f RV. Nyaaya philosophy was started by his descendants. The ashrama of one rishi of this lineage existed at modern Gotamkunda near Ahilyasthana in Darbhanga district.
White Yajurveda was revealed to Yajnavalkya. He was born in western UP but lived in North Bihar. It is an Eoropean propaganda that RV preceded other Vedas. Almost all hymns of Samaveda are found in RV. All four Vedas mention each other profusely. Morphological or semantic comparison of four Vedas do not suggest the type of dating we are taught by Europeans. This dating is based upon their hatred for yajna. Hence, Yajurveda had to be proven as a later invention of Indians after the immigrants settled in India. Europeanists deliberately forget that that Aristophanes explicitly mentioned in his comedy 'The Birds' that the ancestors gave oblations to fire which nourished the gods ; it is a clear evidence of ritualistic yajna among the ancestors of Greeks.
If we leave aside structural linguistics, which is boring topic for Indian scholars, and come to philology, we would be forced to arrive at conclusions which will not be palatable to neither Maxmuller's disciples nor Telagheri's. For instance, 'bhratr' occurs 33 times in the RV in all its declensions, and in 32 instances it has no connection with the popular meaning 'brother'. The latter meaning is probable only once, in the Yama-Yami dialogue in 10th mandala. There too, Yama is a descendant of Sun. Elsewhere, Bhratar is used for Sun. Hence, ancient grammarians deduced it from a root which meant "to shine". Some persons also tried to relate it to bhr, to bear. But the Sun shines as well as bears the world, while a brother neither shines nor bears. It is the father who nears, and later the husband (bhartr). Similarly, Agni is derived from a root which had no connection with any physical properties, but was related to the divine property of Agni-god.
This peculiarity of Vedic language was clear to all ancient scholars. Hence the differentiated Vedic language from Laukika Sanskrita, and devoted their lives to preserve a language which they believed to be divine. This belief was not an invention of priests, but has philological proofs, as I have indicated above. Had the Vedic language been invented by humans, it would have contained Laukika or worldly meanings even during the formative phase when words were being formed from roots.
But in an age of evolutionism, who will believe that the ancients were wiser than us? These evolutionists forget that evolution is never linear, that all species have come to become extinct, that no specie was permanent, that Homo Sapiens is not immortal, and the next higher/lower specie need not be a linear descendant of the present specie which has ethically degenerated into Homo Idiotes.
-VJ
====<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->