SANTO SABA PILIANG
History need not be so sacred that it cannot ever be revised.
History is a continuous dialogue between past findings and new revelations There is no such thing as the Eternal Single Truth that is never subject to revision. Indeed, if it’s wrong we have the right, nay the obligation to amend it!
Let’s take a closer look at this:
The Old consensus based on the limited evidence and circumstances available at the time may no longer stand to be historically valid in explaining specific matters such as the contrast of cause and effect or the reasons for motivation and importance. Interpretations of the past can also change in response to new evidence and discoveries.
New questions and new analysis based on perspectives that were gained over time along with advanced scientific achievement will continue to demand new interpretations of historical events based on these subsequent discoveries and understandings.
Historiography is the study of the writing and recording of history. Historians work on forming public opinion. It is historians that produce history books and, based on the cumulative conclusions of these books, the reader can construct the common interpretation of them based on the historiographies.
As such, the professional-historian paradigm tends towards resistance to any form of historical revisionism – either of fact or interpretation, or both. This is in direct contrast to the single-paradigm form of writing history, being a philosophy of science.
“The social sciences are characterized by several paradigms that are derived from “tradition of claims, counterclaims, and debates over [the] fundamentals” of research.”
“History is a subject that relates to the record of events and facts that tells How…? and why …? the past happened when were said to have happened ….”
Revisionism is a natural process of the study of history. Individuals or groups of individuals work to restore the truth of what happened in the past, when they found new evidence. They rewrite changes to ensure that the future move towards a more accurate version. Most historians will not just ignore but rather will revise and update their explanations on record to the former historical writings. Such revisions could be due to biases towards personality, ethnicity, nationality and other interests that they were the beneficiaries of.
Karl Poppet, a philosopher said:
“Every generation has its own problems and issues, and therefore, interest in historical events, are seen from their own point of view at the particular time they pursue the matter”.
“And every generation later on also have the right to view and reinterpret history in their own way. . . .as per the newer evidence that were collected.
“… however, we study history because we are interested, or have a stake in it, or because we wish to learn something about their problems, our past contemporary …
“… but history, still cannot serve as a valid basis if it stood under the influence of the idea of ‘Subjectivity’ of others that have opposite interest…”
And we too, should not think that only our point of view is the accepted correct version. If we consciously and critically apply only our view to the problems, it will be an inferior and naive stance to believe. …that we have reached a level of objectivity that allows us to present past events and how it actually happened.
Historical Revisionism is a means by which historical records, the accepted and existing history of society as understood in our collective memory, constantly integrates new facts and interpretations of events that are generally understood as history.
Historian James M.Mc Pherson, said: “Revision is the source of life for historical knowledge. The search for endless historians only to understand the past. Revisionism is what makes history important and meaningful. To build tomorrow without Revisionism, we might just be stuck with the picture of a Reconstruction of subjectivity.”
Without the historian Revisionist who has done research in new sources and asked questions with a new nuance, we will remain mired in one of the many, varied stereotypes of meaning.
This region needs an Historical Revisionist who rewrites the historical factual records of its ancestors, not just a follower writer of history, who wants to dictate and rule the masses. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then provokes a revised history.
Breaking up the past knowledge and mastering
So the historical record that exists today does not have to be status quo and sacred.
Throwback Nusantara – the land of the Malays
PHILOLOGY Versus SUITABLEOLOGY
Philology is the study of language in written historical sources; it is a combination of literary criticism, history, and linguistics. It is more commonly defined as the study of literary texts and written records, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning.
Etymology is the study of the historical development of languages, particularly as manifested in individual words while philology is the humanistic study of historical linguistics.
What is the difference between etymology and philology?
The word philology comes from the Greek philologia “love of learning.” Philos which means “love” and the word “logos” is a word with various meanings. It is often translated into English as “Word,” but can also mean thought, speech, meaning, reason, proportions, principle, standard, or logic, among other things. In religious contexts, it can indicate the divine Word, wisdom, or truth.
This meaning then developed into “Happy learning” / “Happy sciences”, as well as happy literature or happy culture. Philology has been used since the 3rd century BC, by a group of scholars from Alexandria who became known as the Philologists. It was Eratosthenes, who first used it in his writings (Reynolds 1968,1).
At that time, they were trying to study old texts that came from Greece. Their study of these texts aimed to find the original form and to find out the author’s intent by setting aside errors.
Philosophical activities that focus research on damaged reading were later called traditional philology.
In this case, the philologist with his intuition chose a text that allowed the compilation of his genealogy to get a reading of a hypothesis that was deemed authentic, or that was closest to the original.
These activities, nowadays, are known as Hermeneutics. Old Greek manuscripts written in letters derived from the letters of the Funisians who came to be known as Greek letters, The manuscripts were written on papyrus leaf material, recording traditions from verbal sources they had about centuries before, starting from the 8th century to the 3rd BC.
The philologists at that time really had to have extensive knowledge. This was so because in order to understand the contents of the manuscript one had to know the letters, the language, and the knowledge inside.
After being able to read and understand the contents, they then rewrote it in the letters and language used at that particular time. That’s how they carried out the work.
While carrying out the work, philologists viewed the differences that existed in various texts as a creation and emphasized its work on these differences seeing them as positive alternatives. In this case a text is seen as a new creation that requires active attention from the reader.
These variants were seen as expressing creative inputs to better understand the text, interpret it, and correct what was seen as inappropriate.
In this view, linguistics, literature, culture, religion, and political order that existed in their day perceived manuscripts as cultural documents, a reflection of current day.
Philology in this aspect of work is called modern philology.
In the Nusantara region there exist many manuscripts such as Negarakertagama (Old Javanese eulogy to Hayam Wuruk), Pararaton (Javanese Book of Kings), Babad Tanah Jawi (History of the land of Java), Babad Dipanegara (the Outbreak of the Java War), Malay Annals or Sulalatus Salatin (Genealogy of Kings), the chronicles of Pasai, The ‘Adat Aceh’ or the Aceh Traditions, and the Banjar (Malay) Annals.
These texts, through a process of philological studies, can be used as historical sources after being tested based on other sources, including foreign sources as well as inscriptions, challenges for modern Nusantara philologists to analyze and study the Archipelago Manuscript for example.
According to the Babad Tanah Djawi, Meinsma edition, the lineage of the Javanese Kings was traced from the days of Prophet Adam who sent down the Prophet Sis; the Prophet Sis sent down the gods; the gods lowered figures of the Pandava family. Then through the Pandava family came the pedigree to the characters, historically Jayabaya who subsequently was the lineage of the kings of the Land of Java.
The general public must understand the true pedigree of his ancestors through the work of philologists and similar sciences so that multiple interpretations do not occur. It is hoped that the Archeology Faculty and the like will not turn into a new scientific field, namely Suitableology, which works by removing references from an un-Indonesian perspective.
FA-HUAN NOTE ON NUSANTARA 337 AD
… did we colour India or did India colour us…
These are the historical records of our ancestors who were … BEFORE …… and the note to “Jaya” will be LOST .. after we “agree” and mistakenly count Saka dates in all the inscriptions to start at the year 78 AD …
Look at these:
Chinese pilgrims who visited the Nusantara archipelago coming earlier in other to study:
- Fa-Huan 337 – 422 M
- Sung-Yun 518 – 521 AD
- Hieun-Tsang 602 – 664 AD
- Hui-Ning 664 – 667 AD
- I-Tshing 671 – 695 M
Fa-Huan or Faxian lived in 337 – 422 AD published like this:
The journey of Fa-Hian or Faxian, a Chinese Buddhist monk travelled on foot from China to “India” between 399 and 412 CE.
… Clarification …
The Land of the Nusantara in the past was commonly written and published as The Indies. Later when the Dutch came, it became The Dutch East Indies. An interesting note is the West Indies in South America. But our historians accept and were made to understand that all those Chinese Scholars’ pilgrimage trips of the above were deemed to be interpreted to be pilgrimages to mainland India.
Fa-Hian records that the places he cited was also found at another location, the Nusantara, thus implying that these journeys were in fact to the Nusantara archipelago.
“… after crossing the Indus … the distance across the South Indian Sea is four to five million li, to a place where the land is flat without valleys, and there were still, barely flowing rivers.
“Going southeast for less than 80 yojana, we passed many temples with a number of priests in them. After passing this place, we arrived at a place called ‘Mo-tu-lo’
“Following the river ‘Pu-na’, right and left there are twenty sangharamas with 3000 priests, The climate here is warm all year round, without snow. The people are very rich, without taxes, without official restrictions.
“Throughout the country, people do not kill poultry / pigeons do not drink wine, they also do not eat garlic, do not keep pigs, do not brew wine. The chiefs build Sangharama for priests.
“Going west one arrives in the village of Na-lo. This is the birthplace of Sariputra therefore a tower was erected here.
“Here at this place of the priests, There is a Sangharama which was built here they made a tower to honor Sariputra, Mudgalaputra, also to honor the Abhidharma, Vinaya and Sutra.
“In the Upatissa Village known as Nālaka there lived a very intelligent young man named Sāriputta whose mother was Rupasari. Because of his mother’s name he was called Sariputra.
“His father was Māṭhara, a Brāhmin, his brother was Mahākauṣṭhila, surnamed Dīrghanakha, Because he is the son of the village leader, he is also called Upatissa.
“He has 3 younger brothers, Cunda, Upasena and Revata then called Khadiravaniya and 3 sisters Cala, Upacala and Sisupacala.
“From east to west 5 or 6 li, from north to south 7 or 8 li, here Sariputra and Mudgalyayana first met Asvajit also Nirgrantha.
“From the south of the city proceeding to the south 4 li, we enter a valley which lies between 5 hills, circling completely like a wall. This is the site of the old city of King Bimbisara.”
Bimbisāra according to the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra chapter XL.1.4. Raja P’in-p’o-so-lo / Bimbisāra, is one of the Kings of the great Kings in Jambudvīpa because of that one hundred thousand Che-tseu / Śākya, all of them became his students and studied at this place.
Fourth-century Fa-Huan records show the same place, but change to mention:
- “Mo-tu-lo” is Malay
- “Nālaka” is Malacca
- “P’in-p’o-so-lo” is Salo / 5 koto
- “Pu-na”, is right and left Pumai / Kampar
- “Śākya” is Saka / Sako / Soko
- “Jambudvīpa” is Jambu Island
- “Tower” is the site of “Muara Takus”
- “Upatissa” is Upanissa / Panissan 4km south of the site
- “Na-lo” is Nu / Nuo / Na lelo / Nuoa – lelo / Gng Lelo, west direction 10 km from the site
- “Sangharama” is a boarding house, a Dharma learning center complex named Dharma Pala
However we would like to note that The University of Nalanda in Bihar, India, founded only in 427 AD did not even exist during his travels and that it was built years after the Fa-Huan 337 – 422 AD, and that it began as a branch of the study of Dharma learning. In today’s term it started as a branch campus.
So if the places were in the Nusantara. in particular Sumatra, that was visited by Fa-Huan, then the Dharmaic were exported from here to India and not the other way around.
We were the ones that colored India …
……….. Dharmic Nusantara, The Initial Philosophy of Monotheism, or Hyang Widhi Tunggal, had been here in the form of the way of life well before the Samawi Religion came here……….