Re: India first (Was: Etruscans)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "kishore patnaik"
<kishorepatnaik09@...> wrote:

>
> ***GK: This is really the point. Cybalist is not a
> forum for the discussion of substantive religious
> issues as such, and certainly not in religious terms.
> "India first" is religion not science.

What would you call "Ukraine first"? Religion or science?


There is a huge

> amount of proper discussion about the scientific
> issues involved as to the origin of PIE in the
> cybalist archives, and the insuperable defects of
> Indo-centrism in this regard. Kishore Patnaik would be
> well advised to spend some time foraging there instead
> of wasting our time with his dogmas.****

I have been posting on thist list for over five years and very
thoroughly involved in the "huge amount of proper discussion about the
scientific issues involved as to the origin of PIE " GK is referring to.

There is no consensus about the origin of PIE and every other
"homlenad" scenerio has equally "insuperable" difficulties as an
Indian homeland scenerio may have. There are very reputable
scholars like Trubestkoy who think reconstructing PIE is
unnecessary. K. Patnaik may want to read the following article:

<http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/IIR.pdf>

M. Kelkar

>
>



> I may clarify that I do not subscribe to India first- every thing

does not

> come out of India.
>
> I only try to explain the known archeological and other evidence on the
> basis of Puranas, which are not taken into account at all by most

of the

> scholars.
> That I am a Hindu has got nothing to do with since most of the names and
> places are secular and have no religious significance- for eg., what
> religious significance do the Mayans have? Not much. That they

originated in

> India or East Africa will have no bearing on the religious dogma.

Or that

> they are depicted as bad people in religion also have no meaning to

the

> efforts to locate them . These are two mutually exclusive things.
>
> Fitting things into Biblical chronology is not the same as reading

Biblical

> genealogies. Same way, I am reading the Puranic genealogies and do

not take

> the longish years described to the number of years of reign this

king or

> life span o that sage into consideration. Those years have a different
> significance and unless we have the key to convert them into the real
> figures of years, they are of no use to the serious scholarly study of
> scriptural genealogies.
>
> kishore patnaik
>