Continuing the story of Hindu religion. Looking at the universal religions that emerged in India
Discover why the 'Yoga Sutras of Patanjali' are commonly misunderstood http://vedicpath.com/Articles/Dhyana.html
Discover why the 'Yoga Sutras of Patanjali' are commonly misunderstood http://vedicpath.com/Articles/Dhyana.html
Some objections:
ReplyDelete1. What is the basis and source of saying Bhagavadgita is 5th or 6th BCE - when we have archaeological and astronomical dating of Mahabharata about 5200 years back ?.
2. Buddhism, randomly saying is wrong - which Buddhism - Mahayana, Sautrantika (Theravada), Yogaachara or Moolamaadhyamika - each one differs at philosophical level with each other. If you're taking Damma paada of Sri. Siddhartha Gautama himself - then there are huge differences in many things. To reconcile with Vedanta - Sri. Nagarjuna had propounded Moolamaadhyamika (philosophically most sound - but not followed anywhere in the world). The Vajrayana of Tibet is a mixture of Mahayana, Ban, Tantra and Kashmiri Shaivism.
Arsha (aarSha) - means Rishi sambandha (popularly connected with Vaideeka - when we are saying anything with this kind of a title - it should be well researched - else we are making the teachings of our Vedic Rishis' questionable. This is the reason why I have put a posting on Sri. Vidhyaranya Swamiji's "SarvadarshanasangrahaH"
Regarding the first question, do we know for sure that Bhagawad Gita was part of the original Mahabharatha text? There are plenty of pointers for it to be otherwise. Secondly, the arguments supporting the 3000 BCE dating of the MB are not very authentic and generally not accepted by historians. Not going to argue on them as almost all of them are speculative.
ReplyDeleteAbout Buddhism, I was only referring to it as was originally preached by Buddha.
My intent is to provide a logically consistent sequence of the progression of Hindu religion from its origin based on what the current historical evidences in the big picture are pointing. There are plenty of academic research material supporting this but I am going to stay away from quoting them as reference. Again, the goal is to rouse the curiosity of those who may want to find this out for themselves and not produce a research paper.
I will appreciate if you can read the first post on this blog series. I have tried to use an analogy to explain the challenges of peering into the past.
This is the problem which historians - Romila Tapars and Ramachandra Guha and the likes - First their theories have no scientific basis. Second they just regurgitate what Max Muller said initially. Third they don't consider any other alternative views - such as that of Archaeologists like Sir.Alexander Cunningham in 1872-73. Forth they don't even consider what Max Muller himself said later about his first assessment of the time of Veda, Shastra and puraranas was wrong - not only assessment but many other things.
ReplyDeleteWhere as the Archeological and astronomical datings of Mahabharata were accepted in the notorious Indian Science Congress when the session was chaired by Dr. Raja Ramanna. Also the Ocean Technology dept. of IIT-Madras first unearthed and studied the undersea Dwaraka City and the artifacts based on 2 independent carbon dating - Indian and German both have conformed that the artifacts are over 7000 years. Many of the City's physical measurements as given in Mahabharata and the undersea Dwaraka city's measurements match. Thus Mahabharata is not a Myth and also King Krishna is not a myth. Now with respect to whether Bhagavadgita is part of Mahabharata or not.
Bhagavadgita is certainly a part of Mahabharata. The proofs of this I'm giving in reverse order.
- Sri. Jagannatha Pandita in 17th century mentioned in many of his works,
- Swami Madhusudhana saraswati in 16th century - the praise of Mahabharata in the Bhagavadgita dhyana sloka - I have written a detailed post about this in this forum itself,
- Kashmiri Poet and Historian Kalhanana in 12th century in his Rajatarangini,
- In 9th Century Sahitya shastrajna sri. Anandavardhana in Dhvanyaloka about the Prabandha Rasa in 3rd Udyota - on Mahabharata and Gita,
- Adi Shankaracharya in 8th century.
- In 6th Century Sri. Bhartrhari the great grammarian in his work mentioned both Mahabharata and Bhagavadgita.
If you don't want to accept these original works for their proofs given by these diverse people and still with to regurgitate the half-baked opinions of current leftist historians - I can't help. But that can't stand the scrutiny of scholars - may be useful for useless news debates. Because none these so called historians have studied any one of the ancient text in original language or form.
Also quote the no. of Damma pada verse and Geeta verse - and also give the explanation on how you're comparing. Random comparison is wrong because there are differences in Language, Epistemology, and Ontology between Buddha' teachings and Bhagavadgita. The word "dharma" (चक्रवत् लोकस्य अनित्यप्रवृत्तिः) in Buddhism is different from Hindu's "dharma" (यः आचारः ऋतस्य धारणात् पोषणात् संरक्षणात् च सः धर्म उच्यते) and also in Veda the word "dharma" has a different meaning altogether (ऋत धर्म उच्यते) - the same way every single word.
When we talk of "religion" the we need maintain this much minimum discipline.
Appreciate your scholarship.I am not bought into the conspiracy theories that a set of historians are deliberately playing down the antiquity of Indian heritage. I believe that there just aren't sufficient factual support for these alternate theories. (At least not yet).
ReplyDeleteWould like to know your views, that I believe will be based on the researches you have indicated, of a comprehensive, consistent and sequential timeline starting from Vedas thru Ithihasa, Purana, Sutras and up to Adi Sankara. Will be good to see it include the likes of Panini who contributed to the development of Sanksrit language.