 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Thanks very much for the reply, Tony, especially because yours was the only
one i received since posting this question.
>Is that why you asked the question ?
Yes, my question was to some extent related to the controversy as to whether
the carvings identified as Muktaphala on Hindu temples could be interpreted as
evidence that maize was present in India in pre-Columbian times. However, the
question was not intended to resurrect that debate so much as it
was intended to elicit an answer in the form, "Muktaphala is the "? "
associated with deity "?" in the text known as "?" wherein it was used to "?",
from any of the many readers of this NG that seem to pride themselves on
knowledge of all things Hindu.
My reason for seeking such an answer was that the only explanation of
Muktaphala i've seen was from an "expert" in the field, a Prof. Shankar of the
Dept. of Ancient History and Archaeology, simply stating that "Muktaphala [is]
a fruit made of pearls - very commonly seen in many icons", as cited by Payak
and Sayan cited as "expert" testimony supposedly refuting Johanesson's and
Parker's claim that was maize.
Of course, an "expert" opinion of this type is virtually worthless, both as
such and as evidence, because the opinion is tantamount to saying, for
instance, that a satyr is a "mythical" animal, rather than the combination of
a man and a goat; or, that a unicorn is "mythical" animal, rather than a horse
with horns. Indeed, given the demonstrable fact that all such mythical objects
were fashioned from features of real ones because of the real or imagined
significance of those features, stating that Muktapahala was a mythical fruit
was akin to saying that Apollo's golden apples were - well - mythical apples.
But, alas, it seems that Muktaphala is just another one of those things which
- like satyrs and unicorns - has no real significance outside of its clearly
decorative purpose and mythological context.
Regards,
Steve Berlant
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|