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
: 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
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
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.
: 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.
: -- Krishna