The Buddha was not an avatar (proof)

[shvu]

 

I figured I should put together some info, for the convenience of the public.

 

Smriti [viz. Puranas] calls the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Thus the teaching of the Buddha is the teaching of Vishnu.

 

This is to be proved false.

 

Traditional Proof:

 

1. Vishnu being God cannot lie, for otherwise the Vedas themselves have to be doubted as eternal truth.

 

2. Vedantins are agreed that Sruti is authority for it is the word of God and is eternal truth. Smriti is written by man and so is authority only when it does not contradict Sruti.

 

3. The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas and postulated an anti-vedic philosophy of Sunya-vada.

 

1 and 3 contradict each other based on 2 and thus it follows that the Buddha was not an avatar of Vishnu. Calling him as one, violates the fundamental premise of the Vedas being eternal truth because they are the word of God. Besides, this angle leaves the very major question of, who named Siddharta as Buddha [based on what], unanswered.

 

Historical:

 

The Puranas came centuries after the Buddha's time and was cooked up by a bunch of Brahmana scholars with vested interests and thus is summarily rejected.

 

Common objection: What makes you say that the Puranas came after the Buddha?

 

Reply: Because the Buddhist and Jaina literature dated to 500 BC, lists out 62 different existent philosophies in India at that time. Only the Upanishads are mentioned. There is no Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatam, Krishna or Rama mentioned anywhere. Many small-time guys are mentioned, but not the BG or Krishna or Rama. The first extant Purana came up only in 400 AD. Compare this with the traditional date of 3102 BC !

 

18 huge Puranas, were lying hidden, unknown for 3400 - 4000 years is an impossible story to believe for that will raise many questions, the basic one being how then did people identify Siddharta as the prophesized Buddha? It will also mean that the Ramayana and Mahabharata were hidden too, because Rama and Krishna are not mentioned in any literature older than 300 BC.

 

Thus both traditionally and historically, it is proved that the Buddha was not an avatar of Vishnu.

 

QED, my friends !

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-30-2001).]

[shvu]

 

Another important observation:

 

One can either accept the Buddha as an avatar or accept his teachings. But not both, as they are mutually exclusive.

 

Once the Buddha's teachings are accepted, there is no God, no Vishnu. So how can the Buddha be an avatar, anymore? Thus, a Buddhist cannot accept the Buddha as an avatar.

 

Cheers

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I was really excited when I saw the title. I thought, "Finally here it is! The proof!" But I was a little disappointed when I read it.

 

Originally posted by shvu:

1. Vishnu being God cannot lie, for otherwise the Vedas themselves have to be doubted as eternal truth.

 

This is your opinion. The Gita says Krishna is the cheat of the cheats. If one accepts there is a God, then it is pointless to try to limit him according to one's opinion of what he should be like. As Mohini Avatara he cheated the Asuras. As Krishna he told Yudhisthira to tell a lie. As Vamana He cheated Bali out of his land. And as Buddha he tricked the fallen brahmanas so that they would stop killing animals.

 

One would also have to take into considerations what category of avatara buddha belonged to. He was of the shakti-avesha category, or a jiva who is empowered by Narayana's potency. He was not Narayana himself. The same is the case with Parashurama. He was empowered by Narayana, but was not Narayana himself. When Ramachandra met Parashurama, He told Parashurama that his mission was over and that He would withdraw His potency from Parashurama.

 

2. Vedantins are agreed that Sruti is authority for it is the word of God and is eternal truth. Smriti is written by man and so is authority only when it does not contradict Sruti.

Saying 'vedantins' is like saying 'Hindus'. 'Hindus agree that Krishna is God.' There are a variety of opinions that should not be lumped under one category. And technically your statement is false, for different vedantic schools accept shruti as authority for different reasons - not all because it is the word of God.

 

3. The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas and postulated an anti-vedic philosophy of Sunya-vada.

 

Buddha established an upa-dharma, or temporary subsidiary religious principle based on time, place and circumstance.

 

The Puranas came centuries after the Buddha's time and was cooked up by a bunch of Brahmana scholars with vested interests and thus is summarily rejected.

This is your opinion. Some others say these texts were written by Vyasa Muni aproximately 5,000 years ago.

 

Common objection: What makes you say that the Puranas came after the Buddha?

 

Reply: Because the Buddhist and Jaina literature dated to 500 BC, lists out 62 different existent philosophies in India at that time. Only the Upanishads are mentioned. There is no Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatam, Krishna or Rama mentioned anywhere.

 

You use the same logic to conclude Radha didn't exist. Because she isn't mentioned in the Bhagavatam by name, therefore she never existed.

 

I would like to see the list of 62 philosophies, as well as the text that it is written in. Sridhara Swami in his Bhagavatam commentary never refers to a number of philosophies and religions, but you don't use this to claim he is from 3000 years ago.

 

It is a circumstancial evidence at most.

 

Many Buddhist texts do refer to Puranic stories, including passages from the Bhagavatam. I will try to give some examples. I was just reading a book on this topic a couple days ago. Anyway, I expect your answer will be that those buddhist texts are obviously only 500 years old because they cite Puranas. It again comes back to the same opinion one holds.

 

I would be interested in seeing the actual verses of these books you refer to from Jaina and Buddhist manuscripts. I would like to judge them on their own merit, rather than on your words.

 

...because Rama and Krishna are not mentioned in any literature older than 300 BC.

You keep going back in circles. You say the texts are from date XYZ because another text is dated ABC. I'm not convinced.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Originally posted by shvu:

One can either accept the Buddha as an avatar or accept his teachings. But not both, as they are mutually exclusive.

I agree with that, as do most who accept him as an avatara. His teachings were for a particular time a place and for a particular reason. I don't think there are many Hindus who would say we should follow Buddhas instructions and reject the vedas.

[kailasa]

On one Russian forum about material have told: " That take, anything at them is not present ". The god is not present, Budda is not present, Socrat is not present, Puran is not present, the excavation Dvaraca is not present, a print a boot is not present, hide all native, the life on other planets is not present, only here is, there is I and now I shall open to you the truth. The fishes have turned in the people. The point has blown up also all has appeared, is casual.

If all is casual, shvu, What proofs and logic?, my friend can be. If all from brahman, how my friend, eternal indivisible falls up to a level of a not clear and confused emanation?

What sense brahman to fall up to such level? From the point of view nyaya?

How, the source not containing neither reasons nor consequences derivates the world filled by them?

Absolute is indivisible and is not changed, but the part of happiness was transformed, and all can also? Similar here it is more interesting?

The material world, as emanation brahman, sense have can not. From the point of view of mathematics it is possible to name his(its) occurrence casual, ò.î. brahman does not adjust an emanation (what for Absolute casual?) .À if adjusts ò.å, that this quality the truth of the person works purposely.

As brahman is transformed, hence he(it) has at least one quality person - propensity let and temporarily, and can and eternally, to be transformed to illusion, with great mission (!!), whether correctly I have thought up?

It is possible to assume, what if all material qualities are relative and are false, then spiritual display - it complete absence of qualities - it correct logic?

Whether stronger contrast of relative variety, this absolute variety is possible to assume, that

From the point of logic.

 

Smriti [viz. Puranas] calls the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Thus the teaching of the Buddha is the teaching of Vishnu.

 

It is an erroneous parcel(sending).

 

And rest your favourite scientists confirm occurrence of religion Krisna

About 5000 years back. You where shvu, in brahman, with the scientists, with smriti?

If you with the scientists that are not necessary to lean(base) on smriti, at the scientist other authorities, if you in smriti, smriti too everyone confirm, can be you Buddist, I am completely puzzled. Means Krisna

was not, it is necessary to change to me religion , what you will advise? By the scientist, kommunizm, smriti?

 

Please give a little more information for convenience of public.

[kailasa]

Buddha the Supreme Person of the God, Correct your choice. At me 8 questions on sunya. already lay to you

Eventually in any category will get, do not experience. You soul or body my friend? How you to identify?

To result the proofs sastra similar it is not meaningful, let's lean(base) on a thing quite obvious, on a rough reality differently it is all will too be tightened(delayed) for you. It is quite logical that you have addressed in Buddha.

Lord Buddha appeared to stop this nonsense. But those who are so-called followers of the Vedas are more harmful than the Buddhists. Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Aïjanä, in the province of Gayä, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist. To such bewildered persons of atheistic propensity, Lord Buddha is the emblem of theism.. Lord Buddha incarnates at a time when the people are most materialistic and preaches common-sense religious principles.

It is necessary when that to begin to study to trust. You you see trust in set of things, for example, what is where that the people which write on a forum, you them not To see? Not To see, but know what they are, whether the truth? It also is trust. For example Saturn you not To see, but trust that it(he) is,

And still it is a lot of in what you trust be not capable it to check up.

[animesh]

It is wrong to say that Buddha denied the existence of God. It will be more accurate to say that he did not want to say anything regarding God.

[animesh]

Did Buddha really claim that Vedas were wrong or was he just against the animal sacrifices mentioned in Vedas. Arya samaj is based on Vedas. Does this samaj encourage animal sacrifices?

[Dharma]

I understood that it was the animal sacrifice. It is a very interesting discussion.

 

I am a little confused as to age of the various texts. What is the age of the Bhagavat Paurana?

 

The ancient Indians were not particularly adept at keeping written records. Much of the tradition was oral. I would not be surprised if there were not ancient texts.

 

Earlier there was a discussion on no beings' birth with the exception of Kalki, being predicted by texts. On reading it, the magi kings who visited the Christ child came to mind. It would be quite a long ride on horseback to Bethlehem.

 

Yet on the other hand one book of the Bible indicates that the Christ was a toddler when the magi arrived, so perhaps you are right.

 

I would define avatar in the traditional sense as one who changes the "truth". Buddha would score heavily in that arena in my book. Whether he was an incarnation or avatar of Vishnu I will probably never know. I can only believe. However that is what belief is-ignorance and speculation or at the very best hoping that something might be so.

 

It makes me very happy (they say ignorance is bliss!) to believe according to Pauranic tradition that Buddha is the ninth avatar of Vishnu, yet for some reason the idea is upsetting to many Buddhists.

 

[Guest guest]

Dharmaji is correct in his position. Do Buddhists agree with the Puranic version of Buddha being an avatara of Visnu? Do Hindus accept the Buddhist texts as sacred? Do any Buddhist or Hindu text would ever be considered sacred by Christans and Muslins?

 

It is perfectly clear that the modern Buddhism has nothing to do with the original Lord Buddha's preaching. There is no mention in sastra on Lord Buddha preaching sunyavada in that Kali-yuga.

 

That modern Buddhism that is present in that world is religion based in Kapila's Sankhya and so, it is sunya-vada. Gautama Buddha was an ordinary jiva who has spread that doctrine of sunya-vada under Emperor Asoka's sponsorship all over India, on 4th century BC, more than 3,000 years after Buddha-avatara's pastimes.

 

The kind of atheism usually taught by Adi Buddha is upadharma, as mentioned in so many sastras. There is no mention on sunyavada in His teachings. Buddha-avatara has nothing to do with sunyavada doctrine.

 

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam states:

 

deva-dvisam nigama-vartmani nisthitanam

purbhir mayena vihitabhir adrsya-turbhih

lokan ghnatam mati-vimoham atipralobham

vesam vidhaya bahu bhasyata aupadharmyam

 

"When the atheists, after being well versed in the Vedic scientific knowledge, annihilate inhabitants of different planets, flying unseen in the sky on well-built rockets prepared by the great scientist Maya, the Lord will bewilder their minds by dressing Himself attractively as Buddha and will preach on subreligious principles."

When Sidharta Gautama, the Buddha, went to Gaya, Adi Buddha already was being worshiped by Bauddhas, that is another name for Vaisnavas, at that place. Even nowadays, the same Adi Buddha Deity is being worshiped there.

 

These worshipers have their own sastras, describing the astrological moment of Adi Buddha's advent, that is placed circa 1500 after Kuruksetra. Adi Bhuddha father was a bramanin named Jina, and that corroborates what is stated in all Vedic lore concerning Buddha-avatara.

 

This historical fact was extensively denoted by Max Muller in all of his works regarding Buddhism, and it is a sastric, scientific and historical event. One may read Max Muller books on that subject matter.

 

Gautama Buddha went to Gaya and in that place he become enlighten with transcendental buddhi, intelligence, and has postulated his sunyavada doctrine. He was born in Nepal, in a ksatriya family circa 4 th century BC. His father was Sudhodaya, and his teachings were spread under the Emperor Asoka sponsor in a period when Buddha-avatara was almost forgotten in all India.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

I was really excited when I saw the title. I thought, "Finally here it is! The proof!" But I was a little disappointed when I read it.

 

There is still hope, as we will see now.

 

This is your opinion. The Gita says Krishna is the cheat of the cheats.

 

Where exactly?

 

Note that it is in your own interest to maintain that Krishna/Vishnu is not a liar. Or else one can use your own logic to say the Gita is not reliable as it was spoken by a liar. By the same logic, all other scriptures will loose their credibility.

 

As Mohini Avatara he cheated the Asuras. As Krishna he told Yudhisthira to tell a lie. As Vamana He cheated Bali out of his land. And as Buddha he tricked the fallen brahmanas so that they would stop killing animals.

 

Good points. However, there are no lies being spoken anywhere.

 

One would also have to take into considerations what category of avatara buddha belonged to. He was of the shakti-avesha category, or a jiva who is empowered by Narayana's potency. He was not Narayana himself. The same is the case with Parashurama. He was empowered by Narayana, but was not Narayana himself. When Ramachandra met Parashurama, He told Parashurama that his mission was over and that He would withdraw His potency from Parashurama.

 

All right. Still makes no difference in my position.

 

Saying 'vedantins' is like saying 'Hindus'. 'Hindus agree that Krishna is God.' There are a variety of opinions that should not be lumped under one category. And technically your statement is false, for different vedantic schools accept shruti as authority for different reasons - not all because it is the word of God.

 

A Vedantin is one who follows Vedanta. Since you say different schools accept Sruti as authority for different reasons, I request you to give an example.

 

Buddha established an upa-dharma, or temporary subsidiary religious principle based on time, place and circumstance.

 

From the Hindu perspective. Not for the Buddhist.

 

This is your opinion. Some others say these texts were written by Vyasa Muni aproximately 5,000 years ago.

 

Which has no basis in history and remains a tall claim, as explained before. The same sources also talk about people who lived for 33,000 years, etc. Thus, they are to be rightfully doubted.

 

You use the same logic to conclude Radha didn't exist. Because she isn't mentioned in the Bhagavatam by name, therefore she never existed.

 

Forget the Bhagavatam which came in 700 AD. The Mahabharata, which dates back to 300 BC, has not spoken a single word about Radha. Neither do the hari-vamsha [300 BC] nor Vishnu Purana [400 AD]. One would expect at least a word of mention about Radha who apparently was Krishna's own soul. Neither did the Vaishnava Acharyas Ramanuja and Madhva speak about the divinity of Radha.

 

That to me, is proof enough.

 

I would like to see the list of 62 philosophies, as well as the text that it is written in.

 

Sure, Will get you a reference soon as I can remember where I read it. But I wonder what you will do on reading it? Will you accept that the Bhagavatam not not existent during the time of Buddha?

 

Sridhara Swami in his Bhagavatam commentary never refers to a number of philosophies and religions, but you don't use this to claim he is from 3000 years ago.

 

Not clear what this means.

 

Many Buddhist texts do refer to Puranic stories, including passages from the Bhagavatam. I will try to give some examples. I was just reading a book on this topic a couple days ago. Anyway, I expect your answer will be that those buddhist texts are obviously only 500 years old because they cite Puranas.

 

No, but I would certainly want to know about the dates of this Buddhist literature.

 

I would be interested in seeing the actual verses of these books you refer to from Jaina and Buddhist manuscripts. I would like to judge them on their own merit, rather than on your words.

 

Naturally. Will get you references soon.

 

You keep going back in circles. You say the texts are from date XYZ because another text is dated ABC. I'm not convinced.

 

That is exactly the way history determines dates. Or else one will have to come up with a very good reason for why the early Buddhist and Jaina literature does not talk about Rama or Krishna, while talking about the Vedas and numerous small timers who preached non-vedic philosophies.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

His (Buddha) teachings were for a particular time a place and for a particular reason.

This is the opinion of Atma Tattva Das, although he may have got it from some one else. Apparently the Buddha and Shankara were "timely necessities" and their teachings are not permanent.

 

So whose teachings are permanent?

I am guessing, teachings of Vaishnavas [specifically Gaudiyas] are the perfect, true teachings according to Atma tattva das.

 

Buddhism and Advaita are still existent today in prominent numbers. Buddhism is the third biggest religion in the world. The Buddhists are doing fine, and there are no complains about them by anyone. So what does "timely necessity" mean? Buddhism has lasted for 2500 years now.

 

The "timely necessity" logic can be safely dismissed as marketing propoganda.

 

Cheers

 

 

[shvu]

 

I am a little confused as to age of the various texts. What is the age of the Bhagavat Paurana?

Traditionally the Bhagavatam was composed by the same person who composed the Mahabharata and the date is 3102 BC.

 

Historically, the Bhagavatam first appeared between 700 - 1000 AD. The Mahabharata dates between 300 BC - 400 AD. They all evolved over time, and were not written fully by one person. Interestingly the Ramayana came after the Mahabharata, but was made out to look older. Of course, both texts have been interpolated heavily over time and various different recensions exist today.

 

Most scholars are agreed that the Mahabharata may have been based on real events. And they also believe that the actual events may have happened much earlier and existed as oral traditions. Someone later, compiled these stories into one work. Krishna and Rama who were heroes/Gods, were turned into avatars of Vishnu along with the Buddha. By the time of the Buddha, Vishnu was the most popular Aryan God. The old Gods like Indra, Mithra, Varuna had lost credibility.

 

Indologists such as Basham et al., believe that the core material of the Puranas is very old.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-31-2001).]

[kailasa]

Excuse me Buddha it jiva tattva, but representative.

[Guest guest]

 

During my school days we learn that history is to be considered as events that were written. In West writing is the main basis of history. All the period before the invention of writing was to be considered as pre-historical. According the old Western vision pre-historical period also means uncivilized period, when people use to live in caves and are just like aborigines.

 

Therefore, if the Vedic lore including smrti and itihasas were written recently, or after the Egyptian or Greek civilizations, that was a sound proof that all Indian culture is very recently, and at the time of the Roman Empire, for example, the Indian sub-continent was in a barbarian state. So, the birthplace of civilization should be find somewhere else, not in India. All the scriptures that Portuguese and British fond in India were as good as Disney's comics.

 

Nowadays most of the Western historians are not so sure about the superiority of writing as an exclusive method to record and to transfer info. Most of them agree that many old and ancient cultures in the past may had employed another methods such as the one employed by Incas in South America (books made of knots in threads of wool and other textile materials), by runas and by oral tradition too.

 

So, we cannot deny the authenticity of a sastra only because there is no mention of its existence in a form of a written book in ancient times and we cannot deny the info therein simply because they seem to be too bizarre for us. For certain its existence was there as some other kind of recording method and its meaning may be beyond our limited understanding.

 

Shvyji concepts are quite old, and he seems to be a living fossil from the 50's while discussing on historic evidences in general.

 

[shvu]

 

Shvyji concepts are quite old, and he seems to be a living fossil from the 50's while discussing on historic evidences in general.

Perhaps.

 

Let the modern 21st century scholars, update history books with this new age thinking [as yours] and I will change my position too.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Let the modern 21st century scholars, update history books with this new age thinking [as yours] and I will change my position too.

 

For certain they are doing so. You should read some books by Capra and Campbell for example, who were a kind of pioneers in that area, and thereafter some really new age thinkers (I'm a very old fashioned one and not a thinker). You may also take a look at History-channel sometimes and check by your self how the history is always changing.

 

You seem to follow the history book by Burns and your scientific point of view follow the old Asimov's line.

 

[shvu]

 

It is wrong to say that Buddha denied the existence of God. It will be more accurate to say that he did not want to say anything regarding God.

Right.

Did Buddha really claim that Vedas were wrong or was he just against the animal sacrifices mentioned in Vedas.

I believe he rejected the Vedas in toto. His teachings are his own and are not based on any previous scriptures. In fact, early buddhist literature makes it clear that they have nothing to do with the Vedas. I cannot remember offhand, the names of any of this literature.

 

Arya samaj is based on Vedas. Does this samaj encourage animal sacrifices?

No idea. Many existing Hindu traditions are based on the Vedas. But they do not indulge in animal sacrifice. That trend is definitely out for good.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Dharma]

Dear shvu,

Thank you fro the info and estimated dates of the texts. It is interesting what you said about the mahabharata being based on actual events. Some evidence has surfaced within the last decade:

 

Excerpt from the World Island Review, January 1992.

 

A heavy layer of radioactive ash in Rajasthan, India, covers a three-square mile area, ten miles west of Jodhpur. Scientists

are investigating the site, where a housing development was being built.

For some time it has been established that there is a very high rate of birth defects and cancer in the area under construction.

The levels of radiation there have registered so high on investigators' gauges that the Indian government has now

cordoned off the region. Scientists have unearthed an ancient city where evidence shows an atomic blast dating back

thousands of years, from 8,000 to 12,000 years, destroyed most of the buildings and probably a half-million people.

The Mahabharata [an ancient book] clearly describes a catastrophic blast that rocked the continent. "A single projectile charged with all the power in the Universe...An

incandescent column of smoke and flame as bright as 10,000 suns, rose in all its splendor...it was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes an entire race. The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. Their hair and nails fell out, pottery broke without any apparent cause, and the birds turned white.

After a few hours, all foodstuffs were infected. To escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves into the river."

 

A HISTORIAN COMMENTS

 

Historian Kisari Mohan Ganguli says that Indian sacred writings are full of such descriptions...He says references mention

fighting sky chariots and final weapons. An ancient battle is described in the Drona Parva, a section of the Mahabharata. "The

passage tells of combat where explosions of final weapons decimate entire armies, causing crowds of warriors with steeds

and elephants and weapons to be carried away as if they were dry leaves of trees," says Ganguli.

"Instead of mushroom clouds, the writer describes a perpendicular explosion with its billowing smoke clouds as consecutive openings of giant parasols. There are comments about the contamination of food and people's hair falling out."

Archeologist Francis Taylor says that etchings in some nearby temples he has managed to translate suggest that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to

the city...The radioactive ash adds credibility to the ancient Indian records that describe atomic warfare."

Housing construction in the area has halted while the five-member team conducts the investigation. The foreman of the

project is Lee Hundley, who pioneered the investigation after the high level of radiation was discovered.

 

 

 

[jijaji]

Dharma,

 

Cool article..!

 

 

jijaji

 

 

------------------

PEACE NOW

[Love]

Dharma,

Can you please provide me the source from where this information has come. I would really love to read this in detail as it is quite intriguing and interesting. And I would also love to show this to some of my more sceptical friends. May this help them see some better way.

Cheers

[Guest guest]

 

Scientists have unearthed an ancient city where evidence shows an atomic blast dating back thousands of years, from 8,000 to 12,000 years, destroyed most of the buildings and probably a half-million people.

 

So, how primitive pre-historical aborigines could have a nuclear-like device? According most of historians at the time of that atomic blast there would not be 'Homo sapiens' fighting with iron weapons in India. And what about a large city of half million people? At that time they would live in caves!!!

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

No, no, no. It's all mythology. The scientists proved it. All those books were written just 1,000 years ago. Could you doubt an indologist?

 

[shvu]

This article has been doing it's rounds on the internet for quite some time now. One would expect such news to create waves in the world of archaeology (like for instance, the underwater construction recently discovered in Japan).

 

But it has not. I am in touch with some archaeologists and none of them have heard of such a finding in India. While it is possible that there may be a radioactive area in the Rajasthan desert on account of the atomic tests carried out there in the past, there is no news about any ancient city which was destroyed in war, much less a city that was 8000 - 12000 years old. Ironically, this date does not match with the traditional date of the Mahabharata war either.

 

Just another of the many feeble attempts of some people to provoke controversies by conjuring up fictitious findings. There is no dearth of such tabloid articles about para-normal occurences and pre-history. One has to access genuine papers published by scholars, in order to get hold of any available authentic information, which is not an easy task. A good example is the date of the Great Pyramid. There are hundreds of web pages out there which give a fanciful account of Atlanteans/Aliens building the GP in 10,000 BC. Prima facie, it appears pretty impressive. On investigation, on will find that it is complete speculation based on false logic. And they have all been proved false, long since.

 

In brief, people should not be misled by fancy articles on the web about a new version of history. If there is any such finding, sooner or later it will appear on discovery. Or one can also be in touch with some reliable scholars or archaeologists, if there is considerable interest.

 

Dharma,

 

In case you didn't find this on a web page/e-mail, please let me know where you got this news from.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 06-01-2001).]

[shvu]

 

It is interesting what you said about the mahabharata being based on actual events.

It is very likely. Clans getting into war over kingdom disputes, is not unheard of. The Indologists say, just because the Mahabharata was put down in writing in 300 bc, does not mean that the stories themselves cannot be older, which sounds reasonable. Minus all the magic, of course.

 

Admittedly, the Mahabharta war portions describing the effect of a nuclear missile, or the Ramayana describing flying machines, etc, certainly sounds fantastic. Anyway, there is no point in speculating about them.

 

Cheers