[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: World Views: Vedic and Western
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: World Views: Vedic and Western
-
From: f0g1@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Prasad Gokhale)
-
Date: 3 Jan 1995 15:01:48 GMT
-
From news@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca Tue Jan 3 09: 53:34 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
farooq@chemeng.Stanford.EDU (Farooq) writes:
>History is not a dogmatic subject. There is nothing to stop anyone from
>believing what the vedas/puranas say. But you cannot call it history.
There is this question: did our ancestors become gods or it were the
gods that became our ancestors. For instance, Shri Raam and Krishna,
although mortals in their time, are considered as celestial beings
today. It is the immeasureable antiquity that rendered them the divine
status. With the passage of time, same might happen to Shankaracharya,
Vivekananada, etc. with stories woven around them. However, this does
not reduce them to mythological figures and imaginations of the human
mind! Such is exactly the situation the situation with the events from
the Ved(a) and Puraan(a). There are annals of history imbedded in the
highly sophisticated materials from the Ved(a) and it is the job of a
historican to gather what correctly represents history. For example,
the "Home of Vedic people" can be approx. derived from the Vedic
records. Also, the occurance of the Dasharadnya War. Is it not that
the evidence to the "Aryan Invasion Theory" (so-called) obtained from
the RdVed? Why then was it not discarded as a mythological book?
>For example Moses, Jesus, Mohammed are all historical figures. History
>records their existance. This is not to suggest that everything that is
>ascribed to their lives by the adherents of the respective religions that
Even the evidence to the existence of Raam, Krishna, Parashurama,
King Bali, Maya, King Saagar, Chaayamana, Sudas are recorded in the
Ved(a), Puraan, Mahabharat, Ramayan, etc. Just because the Pauranic
dates take us back to remote antiquity, it is unfair to regard the
texts as mythological fables. History records their existence. It
is also not correct to ascribe only a religious (what is termed by the
semetics) origin to these texts. Dharma was a part and parcel of
the daily lives of our ancestors, and therefore, what was recorded
as history also gained the value of a dharmic text.
>great many stories are ascribed to them we cannot consider this to be
>*history*. Indians did not record history. We often have to rely on the
This age old notion that Indians did not have a sense of history is
indeed false. Please note that the Mahabharat, Ramayan, Ved(a),
Puraan have numerous historical truths imbedded in them. To dismiss
them as being narrations of illiterate peoples has been the
propaganda for all these years - it is unfortunate that the blame
has to be placed on the western indologists and also importantly,
christian missionaries. Indians did record history - perhaps not in
the same format as that of today - special scribes called "Sutas"
were ascribed by the kingsfor maintaining historical records and
they did theor job extremely well.
For example, the Puraan indicate the existence of Shri Chandragupta
Maurya in 1534 B.C, which seems to fit to todays data. The established
notion that C-Maurya being the contemporary of Alexander is slowly
becoming obselete.
>writings of travellers and visitors, recall Fa Hien, Huen Tseng, Ibn
>Batuta, Al-beruni, and others to piece together Indian history. So while
Not that their recordings should be dismissed, but please tell me why
should their notings of the above foreigners be regarded as "truthful"
than say, the notings of the Puraan? Also, these people arrived in
Bharat in the last 1500 years and there has been a long historical
tradition in Bharat even before these gentlemen were born!
>I have no right to question anyone's belief in the existance of Hanuman,
>I simply cannot accept that he was a historical figure.
It is not a matter of belief that propels one to belief. There is
evidence from the Ramayan which provides the required evidence that
Hanuman flourished. However, whether or not to consider Hanuman as a
deity is a matter of belief and could be debated upon.
Regards,
---Prasad.
>In article <3ea6e6$2uu@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca> f0g1@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Prasad Gokhale) writes:
>>farooq@chemeng.Stanford.EDU (Farooq) writes:
>>
>>>This is not a flame: I always thought that the vedic/puranic accounts
>>>and stories are mythology, i.e. creative *stories* written by people
>>>which are consistent with their cosmology and world view. Do you agree
>>>with this? In the light of the above what do you mean by "fraudulent".
>>
>>Puraan(s) declare that one of their objectives is to record the
>>accomplishments of kings and great persons. It is therefore that
>>the genealogies of kings are meticulously recorded. Although, some
>>of the data has been lost over times, the chronological sequence
>>of the dynasties, especially after the Mahabharat war, well settles
>>with the available non-literary evidence. (Please note in the table below
>>that Chandragupta *Maurya* flourished in 1534 B.C and *not* in 325 B.C
>>as is generally assumed.) In effect, apart from the stories that the
>>Puraan(s) narrate, interwoven are numerous historical truths that
>>an astute researcher may glean.
>>
>>>I always thought that there was no *historical* evidence that
>>>Rama, Krishna and other names in the mahabharat had any exiatance. They
>>>might have lived. We just cant be sure. This is a lot like some of
>>>the legends of the american indian tribes.
>>
>>Why can't we be sure? There is enough historical evidence that
>>suggests the occurance of the Mahabharat war -- during which Shri
>>Krishna, the Pandavas and others lived. I had posted a few points
>>on this earlier. That the Mahabharat and Ramayan are simply legends
>>is plainly false.
>>
>>The following is a very important piece of information suggesting
>>that Chandragupta Maurya existed long before the advent of Alexander
>>into Bharat. The "Sandrocottus" in the Greek literature, which
>>till now has been interpreted as "Chandragupta" (Maurya) was not
>>a Maurya but hailed from the *Gupta* dynasty. This very important
>>clue gives Gautama Buddha's date to be around 1800 B.C.
>>
>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Dynasty of Maurya
>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Candragupta 1534-1500 34
>>>> Varisara 1500-1472 28
>>>> Asoka 1472-1436 36
>>
>>>While I know very little about the puranas, it is very problematical to
>>>use folk tales as recorded history. The list you have given is long,
>>
>>"Folk tales" are a very important source of history in the absence of
>>any other recorded material. Is it not that some Greek chronicles, which
>>are based on hearsay, accepted to be correct records of history?
>>
>>>Dr. Smith's remarks seem very reasonable to me. Do you believe that
>>>Hanuman really existed? I personally dont. I think there might have
>>
>>Why should one not *believe* the existence of Shree Hanuman? If at all
>>Shri Raam lived as a human, Shri Krishna lived as a human, then
>>why exclude the possibility that Hanuman led a human-life as well? I
>>hope it certainly is not the dress (simian-like characteristics) that
>>is the problem.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Prasad.
>>
>
>
