Recommended Posts
Now I'm starting to doubt all of western scholarship including my beloved David Gordon White.
I can't trust if selected translations are correct, let alone analysis and commentary.
Although you were correct in the broad sense, you muddied the argument by citing Swami's from the 1800's, believing Krishna dates to pre-history etc.
That depends on the definition of pre-history. I don't buy that 3100 bce is prehistory. 100,000 bce might be.
That depends on the definition of pre-history. I don't buy that 3100 bce is prehistory. 100,000 bce might be.
You are mixing in Hindu fundamentalism with a genuine critique of American scholarship.
You are mixing in Hindu fundamentalism with a genuine critique of American scholarship.
You will learn with time...there are geopolitical motivations behind keeping dates skewed...the status quo isn't always right
-
1
You will learn with time...there are geopolitical motivations behind keeping dates skewed...the status quo isn't always right
Noone is going to accept Krishna lived before the Indus Valley Civilization.
And if you argue about the IVC date, you are crazy, because we have dates for similar Mesopotamian civilization.
Regards Dwai, Seth, Alwayson and those spending some time here...
#!
-
1
Saivism was more dominant than it is today.
I've never seen Buddhist texts concerned with Vishnu or Krishna, but many concerned with Shiva.
Edited by alwaysonHopefully they fix Hinduism scholarship, because the same guys get cited in Buddhism.
Edited by alwaysonI don't buy that 3100 bce is prehistory. 100,000 bce might be.
By the way, 3,200 bce is prehistory. So 100,000 bce is fucking ridiculous.
Noone is going to accept Krishna lived before the Indus Valley Civilization.
And if you argue about the IVC date, you are crazy, because we have dates for similar Mesopotamian civilization.
IVC is not different from the Rg Vedic culture. The Indus Valley Civilization should be rightly called the Saraswati-Indus civilization. There were several fallacious assumptions made regd IVC.
1) That the Rg Veda was composed around 1500 BCE. This was a result of philologists like Max Muller who were also devout christians and therefore believed in the biblical date of the world being created around 4000 BCE. Thereby, ascribing 1500 BCE as the date for Rg Veda.
2) when the IVC sites were first excavated, it was found that these date before 1500 BCE, so based on the first assumption that Rg Veda was composed around 1500 BCE (which was at that time considered to be a "scientific" fact), it was assumed that IVC had nothing to do with the IVC.
3) There was evidence of the IVC sites being abandoned starting around 1900 BCE through 1500 BCE and later. This was construed as evidence (along with flighty and fanciful correlation of obscure passages from the Rg Veda) that wandering tribal savages from Central Asia had "invaded" the IVC and destroyed it...thereby giving birth to the erroneous Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT).
4) recent marine excavations by various Govt. research organizations in India have discovered ruins of the ancient city of Dwaraka in the Gulf of Cambay, whose dates correlate with narratives in the Mahabharata (regarding the location of Krishna's city Dwaraka and it's sinking into the sea).
5) The IVC script (admittedly a hot item of debate and arguments in the scientific circles that do work on it) has been translated as being proto-vedic Sanskrit (albeit there is a lot of what you will find in Invading the Sacred happening in this field too, including mudslinging and character assassinations by stalwarts of Western Academia like Michael Witzel, et al).
6) Traditional narratives in India (Itihaasa, puranas and the actual data within the Vedic texts) do not support the western-imposed timelines and theories like Aryan Invasion or Aryan Migration theory.
7) The biggest problem with Indology is that it started as an extension of Western Imperialism and unfortunately fallacious material that was confabulated in the 19th century by dubious "scholars" is still central to this field of study.
That you think you have to go all the way back to 100,000 BCE to be in Prehistory doesn't say much about your history knowledge.
do not support the western-imposed timelines and theories like Aryan Invasion or Aryan Migration theory.
Again these are not "western imposed". Aryan Invasion Theory was first presented by an Indian Ramaprasad Chanda.
Furthermore the Aryan Migration Theory has been proved by Harvard genetic studies published in the most prestigious journal, Nature.
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2009_Nature_Reich_India.pdf
Edited by alwayson-
1
by stalwarts of Western Academia like Michael Witzel
This guy is a mixed bag. Don't forget he is the guy that destroyed Doniger's Sanskrit translations.
That you think you have to go all the way back to 100,000 BCE to be in Prehistory doesn't say much about your history knowledge.
Whose definition of what constitutes history and what constitutes prehistory should I go by?
The same idiots who concocted crap in the name of indology or traditional Indian narrative?
Whose definition of what constitutes history and what constitutes prehistory should I go by? The same idiots who concocted crap in the name of indology or traditional Indian narrative?
This is standard worldwide history
This is standard worldwide history
Doesn't mean it is accurate.
Doesn't mean it is accurate.
Now you are questioning world-wide history?
I gotta hear your dating of Rama, so I can further laugh my ass off.
Now you are questioning world-wide history?
I gotta hear your dating of Rama, so I can further laugh my ass off.
Son...first grow up and then we can discuss!
Son...first grow up and then we can discuss!
You grow up. You are as ridiculous as young earth creationists.
You grow up. You are as ridiculous as young earth creationists.
Why do you even bother to come and try to elicit responses?
I know you do it because you want to feel important. But why is "defeating these Hindus" so important? Is that part of your Buddhist mission? To arrogantly go forth and convert the Hindus?
Why don't you focus on your own development first? Both spiritual and intellectual...
You do have a sharp brain...but right now it is too befuddled with the drivel you have been fed in your education to actually help your viveka awaken. Once it does, you will realize how erroneous your ways were. I had a similar revelation around 20 years back...
Now I'm starting to doubt all of western scholarship including my beloved David Gordon White.
I can't trust if selected translations are correct, let alone analysis and commentary.
Although you were correct in the broad sense, you muddied the argument by citing Swami's from the 1800's, believing Krishna dates to pre-history etc.
Edited by alwaysonShare this post
Link to post
Share on other sites