RE: Dates

[Guest guest]

Krish writes that dating is a rational effort and that one need not

be overly concerned.

 

However such "rational" efforts have led so called historians to

conclude that Nammazhwar lived in the 10th century and that He

basically preached Judao christian thought. If dating is going to be

objective then that is fine. But I do not believe that present day

scientists have devoted enough time and monetary resources for this

project and those that have concluded about the relatively recent

dates about the time the Azhwars lived have either resorted to

conjecture or have based their findings upon inconclusive evidence.

 

If Nammazhwar lived in the 10th century then there is no question of

losing the Divya Prabandham and it being reinstated to Nathamuni.

Recently when the Nations of Islam held a "million man march" in

Washington DC the crowd estimates ranged from 400,000 to 1.2 million

based on the same helicopter photograph. This estimate depended upon

whether you were talking to a Republican controlled National Park

SErvice or the NAACP interpretation of the same photograph.

 

I am questioning the objectivity of the people engaged in such

research. Besides if one were to read the scriptures Narada was an

expert in not only devotional aspects of life but also mathematics,

astronomy and 20 other branches of science.

 

The presumption that man is more advanced today than he was so many

thousand years ago is NOT beyond reasonable doubt. After so much of

debates about the authenticity of the Mahabharata, in 1987 the

ancient city of Dwarka was discovered off the Arabian Sea along with

Mudras exactly as described in the Mahabharatas. Here is at least

some evidence that our ancient scientists, philosophers etc knew what

they were talking about.

 

Scientific claims contradicting scripture cannot be accepted

as fact without subjecting it to the same microscopic dissection as

the scientists subject to, everything that does not support their

viewpoint,

 

Jaganath.

[Guest guest]

There is one "slippery slope" issue concerned with using

the scientific method (i.e. logic and inference) to date Indian

manuscripts. The same very said method can be used to establish

dates for the Vedas (i.e. Sruti) which is supposed to be anadhi.

 

The traditional argument that I have heard from religious scholars

is that providing dates for Sruti is not in conflict with the notion

of anadhi in the sense that one can say that the dates only refer to

the time when the eternal Vedas were revealed to man. Meaning, a

rishi at such and such a date, through tapas, divinely intuited the

eternal Veda. GTher reason why a particular date was chosen over another

is simply because that particular time was when that portion of the

Vedas was most appropriate for mankind and hence it was revealed.

 

Thus, Chandyogya Upanishad was revealed 900 B.C because in 900 B.C,

the Upanishad was most relevant to the 900 B.C. society. Similarly

the Bhagavad Gita was revealed later because the society did not

need BG till later.

 

Infact, this argument is used to explain

away all inconsistencies in the Vedas (from the viewpoint of

conflict with pramaana). For example, if there is something

in the Vedas that conflicts with what we know of science,

then the argument runs as follows: Yes, pramaanam is correct

(as Mani explained in his previous posting), BUT the Sruti

is ALSO correct. Why? There are two reasons: (1) The Sruti is

meant for everyone, the Gods, the animals, mankind and everything

else in the Universe. Thus, from the viewpoint of those who

do not have the same power of inference, then it is appropriate

for them (hence the need all the more for a learned acharya),

or (2) The Sruti is meant for all time and that what is in

conflict is in conflict only today but need not be in time

past or in time future.

 

For example, I think it is in the Chandyogya Upanishad (perhpas

it is Brhadaranyaka) where Krishna (referred to as Dwaraka Putra)

is mentioned. How can Krishna be mentioned if Vedas is anadhi?

Western scholars would interpret this as implying that the

C-Upanishad came AFTER the M-Bharata. Our religious tradition

forces us to interpret that the Vedas merely were predicting

the future.

 

Another common document whose date comes to question is the

Bhagawad Gita. For example, based on Western dating

(I say "Western" to contrast it from traditional for convenience)

B-Gita came AFTER M-Bharata -- infact, it is dated at roughly

200-400 B.C. (post Buddha). The reasoning is based on

the prose style as well as the fact that none of the earlier

lliterature mention the B-G. This is an important tool in

Western dating, namely, the LACK of observance at an earlier

time. Thus, if there is a large body of literature that makes

no mention of a literary document, then it is argued by

Westerners that the document in question post-dates the

earlier work.

 

The traditional method would say that the Sruti (even if

B-G isn't "strictly" Sruti) was only useful after that date and hence

its mention.

 

Another important tool in dating is the appearance of documents

or principal characters in the documents in engravings, temples and

other physical structures that can be scientifically dated. Here

the scientific method is on much more solid grounds. Once again, a

traditional interpretation would argue that the document in question

was only relevant at that time and hence appeared then. Hence, there

is no disagreement with pramaanam.

 

Thus, by putting hard dates on even Sruti, the scientific method

wishes us to accept that the documents were all NOT anadhi, but had

a defnite origin, both temporally and spatially. The traditional

method doesn't disagree with the scientific method insofar as the

dating, but disagrees in the conclusion.

 

Which method does one want to choose? It is here where faith enters.

Those who believe the Sruti to be truly Sruti, then they will argue

against the conclusion that Sruti has a origin. Those who are

skeptical about the Sruti, they will opt for the "Western."

 

To me, despite my faith, I do find the dates ascribed to Sruti

(which I tend to accept) very troubling. The traditional method hinges

entirely on faith. One's "scientific" education always makes one

nervous if one has to accept something purely by faith -- but here,

I see no other choice.

 

sk

[Guest guest]

My sincere thanks to K Sreekrishna for attempting to reconcile the

Christian dates with ours. I believe that all original scripture

that speak of surrender to the One Almighty God are valid but that

the differences between them have to be reconciled just as Ramanuja

reconciled the apparently Pantheistic Vedas.

 

Jaganath.