The divergence between education & accreditation/keys to the cartel has deepened enormously in the American academe. Many from India (myself included) sought that academe primarily for the latter function although for difference reasons. But in the least it offered educational
opportunities outside the classroom, such as through technology access, libraries, talks by experts & sometimes peers. However, that role is diminishing over the years& accreditation remains the most powerful thing going for universities despite their capture by navyonmAda. Real
education is something that both teacher & student enormously benefit from. I still think that is best achieved via the old model where there is a "lock and key" relationship between the two. There is where I think the H system of the teacher & student finding each other remains
relevant for the transmission of knowledge; especially special knowledge that cannot be yet easily learnt & expressed & transmitted by machines. It is a separate question as to whether the machine will eventually get there. But even it does it might be in some man's service.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The pioneer of modern mahAbhArata studies, Sukthankar noted that the Mbh had probably been redacted by the bhR^igu clan. Here are the # occurrences of the bhR^igu/bhArgava & mArkaNDeya across the 18 parvan-s. bhR^igu & his descendants through paulomI are frequently mentioned from
from the R^igveda onward in the saMhitA-s. However, the 2nd line from bhR^igu's wife khyAti doesn't receive any notable mentions. However, in the mahAbhArata we find the emergence of a key member of this lineage mAkarNDeya. While missing the vedic saMhitA-s, tradition remembers
mArkaNDeya as an encyclopedic polymath: he composed the earliest of the paurANika narratives which form part of parvan 3; he's remembered as the composer of the first H work on painting; in H medicine he's remember as embryological theorist though his ideas were rendered false by
1 of the major proponents of Macro-Altaic Robbeets who for some reason gives it a new name "Transeurasian" has rehashed some of their arguments with supposed support from genetics. Now, I used to believe in some form of Altaic. I'm of the non-Greenbergian nature.com/articles/s4158…
opinion that to truly weigh in on some language phylogeny you need to have intimate knowledge of not just the linguistic tendencies but also the philology. Hence, I can hardly considered myself qualified to comment but some commonsense inferences from the general evolutionary
theory definitely applies, &I can comment on that basis. 1. The genetic relationships among the speakers of these language is not entirely surprising given that they come from a similar region. Yes, genetics can have bearing on linguistic relationships (like firming of I-Ir+Bl-Sl
This is a topic I have commented a lot on, nevertheless: "same DNA" thing is what in America goes under the name racism. Race & religion are topics that evoke great passion& there is nothing surprising about it. But people need to have an objective look at it. Theory accurately
predicts that organisms will favor kin. In visual animals like humans this will involve looking for people who appear similar. They are likely to be kin -- nothing peculiar. Hence, there is an innate tendency to favor those who look like you against those who dont. However,
in biology the conflicts span many levels. As some culture had a proverb me against my brother; my brother & me against my cousin; my bro+cousins against tribe, tribe against other tribes etc. or something like that. It is conceivable that groups of people who look more similar
The mentions of kubera in the 18 parvan-s of the mahAbhArata & the 7 kANDa-s of the rAmAyaNa. The normalization is by number of hemistiches (dala-s) which is reasonable given their metrical similarity with anuShTubh/triShTubh dominance. When normalized the rAmAyaNa mentions
kubera 1.96 times more frequently than the mahAbhArata. kubera is most frequently mentioned in parvan 3 of mahAbhArata which houses the rAmopAkhyAna, rich in allusion to the kaubera tradition. This supports the contention that the rAmAyaNa grew within a milieu where the kubera
cult was dominant, even if its main deity is to a degree presented "via supersession" to magnify the ikShvAku heroes. In the rAmopAkhyAna that is less so.
The so called fountain stones, which adorn sacred water outlets in Himachal, have a range of interesting iconography that has been poorly explored. Let's consider a few: This e.g. from Sahi has in the panel above the outlet viShNu nArAyaNa flanked by 4 water goddesses. The top
panel has an interesting combination of shaiva & vaiShNava deities. The central rudra is flanked immediately by saMkarShaNa & vAsudeva. To their flanks are gaNesha and skanda
A fountain stone from the Chamba region showing rudra flanked by gaNesha and likely skanda.
On this one there is a tricephalic rudra on the top; below that a li~Nga. In central left panel rudra & umA with a bull can be seen, center 3 water goddesses; right 2 unidentified deities
This exemplar from Sai, HP has a li~Nga above the outlet; a top panel with the moon& sun archons flanking viShNu, rudra, brahman; 2 goddesses like umA (L) & ga~NgA (R); the 2 figures flanking the li~Nga are likely ritualists.