Saturday, May 4, 2013
comparing your answer with my mail, it does not seem to have *any* connection.
I will not change anything in my article as long as my following statements are not refuted with valid arguments:
1. There is Greek terminology in Varahamihira and Yavanajataka. (no valid rebuttal has been achieved so far)
2. No rashis appear in pre-Puranic texts. (debate is still in progress)
Babylonians play no role in my article. You are looking at the wrong historical epoch.
Surprised because of the thinking that only Sanskrit works can be checked for the 'evidence' that you are looking for. Tamil Sangam texts which were composed before 2000 years convey a lot more. One can not arrive at a conclusion on anything to do with Vedas or Vedic age or any issue of Sanathan Dharma, based only on Sanskrit texts that exist today. Vedas are many and what we have today are only a fraction. To make a judgement from the available little is faulty.//
<Any research can not be based on semantics alone. Particularity the kind of issue / research that Mr Deiter has taken up must be supported by other branches of science and knowledge. If he wants to rely on only literary source I can quote not less than 4 literary sources from Sangam Tamil to show that rashi division was known to the people much long before the Greeks. But I would show evidence from other branches of knowledge also and write them separately addressed to Mr Deiter.>