Originally Posted by Dave31

That is completely false as already thoroughly explained above

From post #4

"So, often, the 19th c. source is simply a starting point. Then she digs up the original, primary sources and provides them in her book in the original languages, with sometimes more than one translations."

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...53&postcount=4

ApostateAbe, despite your claims otherwise, you are not very familiar with her work, as your comments reflect a very shallow and superficial acquaintance with it. You admitted long ago that you've never actually studied her work. Yet, you're always quick to dive in the pile-on to trash her work however you can.

As one would know if they were actually familiar with her work, Acharya uses quotes as a steppingstone for further research, including providing the original sources and primary texts wherever possible - that's what all of her work since "The Christ Conspiracy" has done. But, again, you would need to be familiar with her work, instead of just pretending to be. Also, YOU could actually do the follow-up research yourself, instead of relying on people to spoon-feed it to you.

The neverending parroting of this fallacious 19 century sources argument is just another straw man, handwaving dismissal. While you are wasting time with these same, stupid arguments already long addressed, a TON of FASCINATING INFORMATION from Acharya's books goes undiscussed. Very disappointing and disgraceful, really.

Originally Posted by Dave31

Celsus, you can blather all you'd like about "basic methodological distinctions" but the point will remain that a TON OF FASCINATING INFORMATION in Acharya's books is not being discussed because of people tossing out mindless rhetoric. Instead of wasting time attempting to assert your intellectual superiority, you could actually be reading the material under discussion. That's the intellectually HONEST thing to do.

Originally Posted by Dave31

Yes Jeffrey, everybody here knows you have nothing but pure hatred for Acharya S

Originally Posted by Dave31

Celsus, you can blather all you'd like about "basic methodological distinctions" but the point will remain that a TON OF FASCINATING INFORMATION in Acharya's books is not being discussed because of people tossing out mindless rhetoric. Instead of wasting time attempting to assert your intellectual superiority, you could actually be reading the material under discussion. That's the intellectually HONEST thing to do.

Originally Posted by Celsus

Research isn't about quoting other people and other people quoting you in an endless chain. It's about critiquing previous understandings, drawing out the distinctions between where (you think) they were right or wrong, about using angles to illuminate a problem. Acharya does none of this, she merely regurgitates, and gets lapdogs like you to defend them in hopes that perhaps they will reflect better on her (sorry, doesn't work that way whether you convince this forum or not, academia will still not take her seriously on those grounds).

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Here is an example of Acharya using 19th C sources on "the crucified Krishna", and she suggests a possible reason for why there is no later evidence: the British destroyed the evidence when they moved into India.

This is from her "Suns of God", starting on p. 250. She cites Higgins (died mid 19th) and Rev Lundy (wrote around 1880):

Any evidence of crucified gods in India -- asserted by some to be fairly common in sacred areas, but hidden by the priesthood -- may today be scant. It is an intriguing coincidence that many of the scholars who unwillingly and against interest exposed this information were not only Christian but also British, and that the British took over pertinent places, possibly with the intent of destroying such evidence, among other motives." [24] Higgins also states:

"When a person considers the vast wealth and power which are put into danger by these Indian manuscripts; the practice by Christian priests of interpolating and erasing, for the last two thousand years... he will not be surprised if some copies of the books should make their appearance wanting certain particulars in the life of Cristna...[25]

Neither in the sixteen volumes of the Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta, nor in the works of Sir W Jones, nor in those of Mr Maurice, nor of Mr Faber, is there a single word to be met with respecting the crucifixion of Cristna. How every extraordinary that all the writers in these works should have been ignorant of so striking a fact!"

Acharya then goes on to quote Rev John Lundy -- writing around 1880 -- who describes how some Irish crucifixes (yes, Irish!) "originally brought to the island from the East by some of the Phoenicians" is "simply a modification of Krishna as crucified".

For Dave: Have I represented Acharya correctly here?

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Here is an example of Acharya using 19th C sources on "the crucified Krishna", and she suggests a possible reason for why there is no later evidence: the British destroyed the evidence when they moved into India.