 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Perhaps someone who is well read in ancient sanskrit and is likely to be
interested in such an inquest would be kind enough to come forth.
A few names that comes to mind are:
1) Dr. David Frawley:
American Institute of Vedic Studies
PO Box 8357, Santa Fe, NM 87504
505-983-9385
2) Dr. Dinesh Agrawal
2500 Buchenhorst Road
State College, PA 16801 USA
email : DXA4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
3) Sudheer Birodhkar, student of Indology and
Author of the book "India's Contribution to the World's Culture"
Email: sudheer_birodkar@hotmail.com
If they cannot give you the answer themselves, perhaps they could guide
you to some one who can.
Best of luck.
Tony Mitra
P.S. If you find something, appreciate if you post it and let us all
know.
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephen R. Berlant wrote:
>
> In article <ghenE78w4p.DFx@netcom.com>, Santanu Mitra <tonu@gate.net> wrote:
> >Hi Stephen,
> >
> >Believe some claim muktaphala to be an imaginary fruit/grain in
> >Sanskrit, as depicted in the temple carvings, while there are others who
> >think it represents a food grain such as maize.
> >
> >Recently there has been quite an energetic debate between
> >paleoanthropologists on this very issue. Maize is supposed to have
> >originated in the Americas. If the temple carving is indeed maize, then
> >that could prove existence of trade between Asia and the Americas in
> >pre-columbian era, raising another angle on who might have discovered
> >the Americas.
> >
> >I guess someone will eventually search out for datable fossilised grains
> >or pollen or something like that in India and provide us with either
> >scientific proof or absence of proof on this issue.
> >
> >
> >Tony Mitra
>
> 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
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|