At 2007-07-13 19:00:34 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > *** Whether a given ruler treated them well seems to have been > a toss up, and often did depend on the religion of both parties > (e.g. Shaivite kings might not give two hoots about Vaishnavite > pilgrims, etc.). *** > > It has relevance to the above statement you made a few email earlier.
I'm sorry, it's not enough to say it "has relevance" and leave it at that. *What* is its relevance? I said pilgrims were preyed upon by bandits where they were not protected by the local ruler. You said "I don't think that this was something specific to this part of the world". Uh, OK. I didn't say it was. In fact, I pointed out that they were the same barriers that "outsiders" faced inside the region; and "insiders" faced elsewhere. I said that the fact remains that pilgrims faced monetary and other barriers to free travel, and you said "But the point is you cannot call a people hostile based on this". Huh? What's with the bait-and-switch tactics? > See above statement you made. I think it meant that the king was *not > friendly*, *indifferent*. The actions of such kings can be defined as > hostile. (1) So... you're saying that no kings were ever hostile? > http://www.livius.org/ga-gh/gandara/gandara.html Looks like an article about the history of Gandhara. It makes no mention of princesses or blind kings or the Mahabharata, so it can in no way be used as corroboration for your argument. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar Likewise. I note that the "Name" section mentions possible derivations from Iskandariya (Alexander) and Gandhara, while making no mention of any princesses or blind kings or the Mahabharata. > http://ignca.nic.in/nl002503.htm Oh, very good. The perfect after-dinner entertainment. "Dr. Shambhu Shastry showed that the chatuyuga and manavantara schemes of Hindu chronology are directly from natural astronomical cycles and based on this, he stated, that the human race is about five million years old. He concluded that this helped demythologize the Mahabharata and Ramayana and placed them in the last descending Chaturyuga segment over a time span of not more than 6000 years." *snort* The study of astronomy was fairly advanced in ancient India, and it is not in the least bit surprising that some elements thereof feature in Hindu chronology; nor would it be a surprise to discover plausible references to astronomical events in contemporary fiction. But the argument above is like saying that Jason Bourne is a historical character because his twenty-four-hour day in the books was based on a "natural astronomical cycle". (I notice that they decided, after all, that the Mahabharata cannot be dated from astronomical sources alone.) And in conclusion we have this gem: "Dr. Kalyan Raman voiced the common desire to 'trash Western Indological work done with motivation and instead rewrite Indian history.' [...] Truth, he felt, should be perceived in terms of our national heritage [...]" What a bloody idiot. -- ams
