Re: Historicity of Mahabharat
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> you wrote:
> : : 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.
> : 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.
> What if science proved the Vedic literature was wrong? What would you
> do? Modern Hindus either abandon their faith for science or twist the
> words of science to match their faith. Both of these outcomes are very
But it won't prove the Vedic literature wrong. If someone 'proves' that
the Mahabharata war never happened, I would say to them that their 'proof'
is based on incomplete evidence. I guess the central problem here is belief.
You either believe that God exists, and that His spiritual disciples are
capable of recording events accurately, or you don't really believe it at all.
Incidentally, I rarely find Christians or Muslims considering the possibility
that their respective prophets might not be real. It seems like it is only
people who call themselves Hindus who are still under the yoke of this
post-imperialist propaganda because we are the only ones who take this
apologistic stance vis-a-vis our religion.
> : 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.
> Only if we accept the premise that history is superior to tradition. (In
> which case we have already lost and it is only a matter of when we convert not
> if.) I think an ahistorical religion is actually more secure than a historical
You can also accept that the Vedic literature is a history. There is therefore
no difference between history and tradition, except when you consider many
of the degenerated traditions which survive today (i.e. - caste system)
primarily because of scriptural misinterpretation.
> one. The theory of evolution, the findings of archeologists which cast
> doubts on biblical accounts etc have caused tremendous upheavals in
> Christianity, Traditional Hinduism has survived modernity intact.
Well, I'm sorry to report that current Darwinist theory is at odds with the
Hindu scriptural view. Why do you necessarily believe that current theory is
correct? The nature of science is such that theories are constantly changed
in light of new evidence. Since the current views of the creation are at odds
with the Vedic view, I would tend to believe that the scientific theories are
either incorrect or incomplete.
> : With that in mind,
> : why are you so afraid of looking for evidence of historical authenticity of
> : the scriptures?
> Because, as several posts in this thread show, the modern Hindus are not
> afraid to manufacture evidence when it suits their agenda. If people
> wish to study history as a leisure activity, that's fine with me. I do
> so myself. However history should never be used as a guide to how to
> conduct your life.
First of all, to say that someone 'manufactured' evidence is to assume that
a) you can support the idea that their evidence is misleading or
b) you somehow know their evidence cannot be correct.
b) is arrogant, and you have done nothing along the lines of a). Still you
accuse others of manufacturing evidence and so on. This doesn't really get
anywhere, but it does seem to reveal an anti-Vedic bias in the sense of
accepting current theories without question to the point of not being open
minded about other theories that support the Vedic world view.
Furthermore, I don't recall Prasad ever telling you what to do with your life.
But you also repeat this accusation.