In response to my post below, Dr Kalyanaraman sent me the following note
Bharatiya method of research is based on a trivarga>
s'ruti can be compared to purvapaksha (the state of research on a given subject, why a researcher is justifying new study based on biblio).
tantrayukti is scientific research design (used by Kautilya'a arthas'astra, Panini, all ayurveda writers from Sus'ruta, Caraka). 39 research design methods are mentioned. Bhasha pariccheda is considered important; words should be properly defined and explained in the cultural contexts in which they are used. After all, culture is all about metaphors and meanings assigned to metaphors.
anubhuti is personal experience, introspection.
About Thapar, she has no knowledge of Sanskrit or Tamil or any bharatiya language. How can she read and interpret the texts? Using secondary sources? Straightaway there is researcher's bias.
I asked for a detailed article and he sent me A RESEARCH METHODOLOGY MANUAL
I was also reminded of an email that I sent to a few friends a while ago, on the topic of epistomology
This is one aspect of religion that has always excited me...
The idea of "Proof" . Some religions and philosophies work this way
A: God wrote scriptures B : God exists because scripture says so
Thats whats called circular logic . Drisya writes Drisya-nama and claims himself to be God... How I wish
Contrary, for the Hindu philosophical thoughts, methods of proof are clearly defined. A very basic classification is
1. Pratyaksha : direct.. I saw him
2. Anuamana: Inference.. I heard his voice, it must be him
3. Aagama : scriptures/Vedas
It sounds so much like in the scientific world
1. Direct proof from experimentation
2. Inference - say chemical reactions - The litmus turned red, it must be an acid !
3. References - Oh, 90% of your thesis are sometimes references to older work !!
Anyway, here's a more detailed classification for those interested