tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post6893755218674068541..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: Āgamas and "Aboriginals"elisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-6702336838473616882012-01-23T09:25:55.944+01:002012-01-23T09:25:55.944+01:00Dear Jayarava,
I agree with your point that seein...Dear Jayarava,<br /><br />I agree with your point that seeing every "thought" as monolithic is at least unrealistic and at worst mistifying. I am annoyed by arguments such as "since there is no hint at rebirth in the Ṛgveda, this idea must be non-indoeuropean". Why should the people who used the Ṛgveda have held only one set of beliefs, whereas today's societies are all repleted with different sets of beliefs, held by different social or cultural strata (or by different age- and gender-groups)? Why should the world have been "simpler" in, say, the year 600 b.C.? If one were to say that it was simpler, because it lacked the last 2400 years of human evolution, it could be easily replied that human history had already accumulated thousands of years of evolution even before the year 600 b.C. This does not amount to say that the idea of rebirth was Indoeuropean, but rather that it is hardly possible to determine what the "pure indoeuropean Weltanschauung" was.<br />(thanks for the emendation).elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-74360047712215519882012-01-20T16:07:24.754+01:002012-01-20T16:07:24.754+01:00Hi Elisa,
Yep. This is dangerous territory. It se...Hi Elisa,<br /><br />Yep. This is dangerous territory. It seems that ethnicity, language, material culture, ideas, and territory can all change independently of each other, especially in India.<br /><br />If one looks at parts of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad one can read it (following Signe Cohen) as challenging the authority of the Ṛgveda. So to some extent it is anti-Veda, but written in a Vedic context. It seems like an error to see Vedic thought as one thing, and non-Vedic thought as another. Both are complex, and both have internal tensions as well as external.<br /><br />Dravidian South India does have extra tensions it seems to me, as it is a different culture and territory.<br /><br />I would challenge Varadachari's assumption that borrowing is always from the dominant power or morally superior. Everyone borrows from everyone! <br /><br />Best Wishes<br />Jayarava<br /><br />BTW it's spelt aboriginal.Jayaravahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13783922534271559030noreply@blogger.com