[Prev][Next][Index]
Re : mahabharat
In article <32bqjb$8f6@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
susarla@great-gray.owlnet.rice.edu (H. Krishna Susarla) writes:
> Jaldhar Vyas (jvyas@ritz.mordor.com) wrote:
>
> : : Study of history (Mahabharat) may not benefit a dhaarmik directly.
>
> : or at all.
> :
> : : However, it may help him/her understand the text better, and
therefore,
> : : may strengthen and enhance his/her belief and reverence for the
> : : personalities (Gods?) in it...
>
> : This is the problem. "Modern" Hindus are weak in faith. They think
that
> : being "scientific" will bolster their faith but in fact it will only
> : accelerate their decline into atheism.
Jaldhar is absolutely right here. If you have full faith, the historicity
of Krishna should not affect it at all. If you do not, I do not see how
proving the historicity of Krishna is going to increase it. Such
historicity is based upon so called "scientific" proof, something that
ultimately argues against faith. We all accept that Krishna was an avatar.
Does it make any difference to such acceptance whether Krishna lived
yesterday or 5000 or even 15000 years ago?
>
> And how is that? If science proves that the Vedic literature is correct,
> it would seem to me that this would strengthen the faith of Hindus. On
the
> other hand, if we let this view that Lord Krishna and other great
> personalities were myths go unchallenged, we leave ourselves open to
> conversion to religions with more 'historical' prophets, or degenerate
into
> atheism. With that in mind, why are you so afraid of looking for
evidence of > historical authenticity of the scriptures?
>
Why this basic insecurity about being converted to other religions with
more historical prophets? Their very historicity goes against their
acceptance in exchange to the sanatana dharma that our religion claims to
be. If people still convert, for whatever reason, well so much the better
for them. They will at least be entering a religion that is more
consistent with their limited views. If you point out the basic fact of
the eternality that we claim is central to our religion, that should be
the most effective argument against conversion. No amount of scientific
proof about the historicity or otherwise of our scriptures can do that.
Let me take the liberty of restating the basic position here. It is not
fear of looking into the historical authenticity of the scriptures. The
point is the ultimate irrelevance of the whole exercise. Why do you want
science to prove that Vedic literature is correct? And what do you
classify as Vedic literature? If it is Sruti, well, it contains
philosophical insights that no science can disprove. If it is Smrti, well,
only those Smrtis that are not opposed to Sruti are acceptable. Such is
the view even of ancient Indians. If you also start including the Puranas,
science, or more precisely logic, tells you that most have been composed
so late in time, and some of them are so fanciful as to be almost entirely
fiction. Will this automatically make you an atheist? Or will you argue
against your own logic that science must be wrong, and your favorite
Purana or Tantra must be right? In which case, the science hasn't really
affected your faith, has it? Also, which Puranas do you take and which do
you leave out? The Saiva Puranas are utterly opposed to the Vaishnava
Puranas in most details that both cannot be right at the same time! Take
the case of the spurious "allahopanishad" and the "yesu upanishad".
Seriously, tell me, are you willing to quote these as "evidence" and claim
that Islam and Christianity originally come from Hinduism?!!
Jaldhar has made this point repeatedly, that such is the view not of the
Westerners, but of very Indian Meemaamsakas, who lived some 1200 years
before the white man ever came into India. These people, who lived much
before any important Vedantins came into the picture, dismiss these as
arthavada - ultimately mere fluff. The Vedantins also accept this position
of the Meemaamskas. The Puranas are good, beautiful stories that operate
on the levels of metaphor, allegory and pedagogy. Do not expect more
consistency in these texts than there actually is. Look for the
entertainment, the moral instruction, and the ethical values they
inculcate.
About the Itihasas, however, I think there could be some small point to
the historical inquiry. For the ancient classifiers themselves are telling
us something here, by classifying them separately. Itihasas are probably
more historical than the Puranas are. There are also the known attempts of
astronomers of old to date the Mahabharata. So let us forget totally about
any historical details in the Puranas and also take the findings of our
"historical researches" into the Itihasas with large doses of salt. Let us
also not expect that these findings will in any way increase or decrease
our faith!
S. Vidysankar
