Bhagavad Gita and Other Scriptures CORRUPTED in 800 Ad?

[Guest guest]

There is a book called "Bhagavad Gita as it was" by Dr.Phulgenda Sinha..

 

He claims All vedic literature Vedas,upanishads and bhagavad Gita corrupted and interpolated in 700-800 AD.

 

Gita manuscript found in indonesia has just 80 verses (NOT 700) Why?

 

Read: http://vimaln.blogspot.com/

 

"The Truth is…

The Bhagavad Gita that we have now is NOT the original Bhagavad Gita.

 

In fact the original, written by Sage Vyasa, was called simply ‘Gita’.

 

 

The present day Bhagavad Gita has 700 verses.

The original Gita has 84 verses.

Yes, you heard it right.

Just 84 verses.

 

So what happened?

 

Around 800 A.D. , the original Gita was interpolated and ended up having 700 verses. The name was changed from Gita to Bhagavad Gita. The concept of one single Almighty God, or Supreme, Bhagavan, was introduced to Indian society.

 

Till then, before 800 A.D., Indians believed in God. But they believed in polytheism. They were also nature worshippers. They worshipped earth, stone, trees, rain, wind, fire, sun, moon etc.

 

One of my friend mentioned that evidence suggested that the civilizations in Harappa and Mohenjadaro worshipped Gods in idol form. Yes, that’s right. What happened in 800 A.D. was something unique.

One God, One Supreme Being, was introduced to India. This idea was mainly borrowed from Christianity and Islam.

 

The Mahabharata that we have now is also not the original.

The original epic had only 8,800 verses and its name was 'Jaya' (Victory). It was expanded to 24,000 verses and its name was changed to Jaya Bharata and then to Bharatetihas. At a much later time, the epic was expanded to 100,000 verses and got its present name, Mahabharata.

 

Upanishads suffered the same fate.

 

India before 800 A.D. according to the author, the Real India was this.

 

“India prior to 800 A.D. produced philosophers and writers who accepted Man as the Supreme Being. They talked abut two main entities: Purusha (Man) and Prakriti (Nature). Change in these two entities occurs due to the ever-present and everlasting work of three Gunas-Rajas, Tamas, and Sattva. Ignorance, lack of proper knowledge and improper action cause dukha (sorrow or unhappiness). Man can liberate himself from dukha and attain sukha (happiness) by acquiring proper knowledge, mastering certain teachings, following certain practices, and by working according to the Samkhya-yoga theory of action.”

 

India was never conquered before 800 A.D.

Yes, there were some incursions at the border. Persian and Greek invaders came to India. But they were only able to conquer the borders. They were never able to make inroads into India and conquer it. They never crossed Sind, in present day Pakistan.

 

All this changed after 800 A.D.

 

The author adds…

 

“The story of how Brahmans helped the invading Arabs in their conquest of Sind is a treacherous history. We get a very vivid account of the Arabs' incursions and their subsequent conquest of Sind through a book entitles Chachnamah, written by Ali Kufi (of Kufah, Syria) in 1216 A.D. The book was first translated into Persian from Arabic, and was translated into English by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg in 1900.

 

According to Chachnamah, Buddhism was the dominant religion in Sind during the seventh century A.D. There were Buddhist temples and monasteries located all over Sind. The Buddhists and Brahmans lived in amity. The various principalities and their rulers were under the king of Sind, Rai Sahira, a Kshatriya. This kingdom fell into the hands of his chief, Chach, who ruled for many years. After the death of Chach, his son, Dahar (Dahir) became king. It was during his reign that the Arabs conquered Sind.

 

The Arabs began invading portions of Sind during the 640s. According to the Chachnamah, during the reign of Caliph Umar (634-643) "an army of Islam was first sent out to different parts of Hind and Sind, to carry on religious war there." But every attack of the Arabs was thwarted, their forces destroyed, and the leader killed. Their condition changed abruptly, however, when they began receiving support from the Brahmans. The Brahmans had always occupied the high administrative posts before and after Chach. They began helping the Arabs by acting as their informers, by preaching a philosophy of surrender; by predicting victory of Islam and defeat of the local ruler; and by working as an advance-party of the invading Arabs. Let me give an example of how a Brahman's support to Arabs at Debal (a small principality in Sind) provided them with their victory in Sind.

 

The Arabs had invaded Debal in 711 A.D. under the command of Muhammad Kasim (also called Muhammed Ibin Qasim). They had fought for eight days without making any gains. Since Debal was a fortified city, the Arabs had encamped nearby and were waging war from their camps, without success.

 

In the heart of the city of Debal, there was a Buddhist temple with a high dome. On that dome, there was a high pole from which a huge flag was hoisted. This flag worked as a talisman (symbol). It meant that as long as the flag continued to be displayed, the people would be victorious. Inspired by this flag, the people and the army fought bravely, and for eight days the Arabs were held in check. On the ninth day of the battle, while the Arab army was besieging Debal, a surprising event happened.

 

"All of a sudden, then, a Brahmin (Brahman) came forth from the garrison, and cried for mercy. He said, "May the just governor live long!" We have learnt from our science of the stars that the country of Sind will be conquered by the army of Islam, and the infidels will be put to flight. But be it known to you that the standard of the idol-house (temple) ,yonder, is a talisman. As long as that standard of that temple stands in its place, it is impossible for the fort to be taken by you. You must, therefore, try your best to blow off the dome of this temple, and break its flag-staff into pieces. Then only your success will be complete."

 

After hearing the secret of the temple, the commander of the Arab army, Muhammad Kasim, called his engineer, Jaubat Salmi, and offered him a reward for devising a means of blowing off the dome of the temple. The next day, the Arabs destroyed the dome and the flag of the temple. The fall of the flag meant the fall of the Debalese people.

 

After the dome was demolished, the Arab army entered the temple and the fort without a fight. The people surrendered, the idol in the temple was removed, and a mosque was established. The Arabs had won their first victory, and they now knew who their collaborators would be. As a result, when Muhammad Kasim marched from one place to another, he had easy victories. And finally, he was able to conquer all of Sind.

 

Though the Islamic invaders had been trying to expand their rule to other parts of India, they were vigorously resisted by rulers outside Sind. It took them about 200 years to finally expand into other parts of India. It took them another 300 years to capture the whole of northern and western India and a part of South India. The invaders, no doubt impressed by the strength of the resistance, looked to Indian culture and philosophy as the likely source of this strength. This power to resist sprang from the tradition of rational philosophy, which had taught Indians to act and fight for their rights. Unless a change was brought about which would weaken their resistance, Islamic faith and power could not subdue and defeat the Indians.”

 

Why did all this happen?

Why were the scriptures distorted?

 

According to the author, these happened for 2 reasons mainly.

 

The Brahmans wanted to maintain supremacy over the other castes and also have a major hold in the social and political front.

So they modified the scriptures, glorifying the caste system, increasing its rigidity in practice in the society.

 

They also wanted a concept of one single Almighty, one Supreme Being, to fight or resist the spread of other monotheistic religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam. So Brahman, the Supreme Being was introduced. The concept of Heaven and Hell was also introduced.

Inaction was glorified. From Man being the Supreme Being, God became the Supreme Being. Man could only do what fate could dictate. This world was described as a place of suffering. Man’s only objective in life was just to be liberated from the cycles of birth and death and reach God in heaven.

 

So did they suceed in their effort?

Yes, sure they did.

The caste system is still followed in many parts of India rigidly.

The spread of Christianity and Islam was resisted successfully.

 

We saved our God, but we lost ourself.

 

This all happened after 800 A.D. .

The author points how Shankaracharya’s Advaita philosophy fueled this monotheistic phenomenon in the society.

India entered the Dark Age at that time.

For the next 1000 years, India was constantly under the attack/rule of foreigners. Indians did not have the attitude to fight the occupation.

 

The original teachings of Kapila, Patanjali, Buddha, Mahavira etc were distorted.

 

Our thought-pattern changed from philosophic and scientific one, towards more religious.

 

The True India was lost."

[jay74 0]

This topic was discussed in the news groups few years back. I will post some pro and con arguements of this book from the archives.

 

 

[jay74 0]

12. K.V.N.Gopal

Apr 18 1993, 10:05 pm show options

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian

vnk5...@tamsun.tamu.edu (K.V.N.Gopal) - Find messages by this author

18 Apr 1993 22:56:38 -0500

Local: Sun, Apr 18 1993 9:56 pm

Re: Bhagavad Gita as it was (Chapter3)

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

 

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article <1993Apr18.173834....@hls.com> r...@nms.hls.com writes:

 

> [References: <C5LF58...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> <1qnsv4INN...@tamsun.tamu.edu>

> <C5or9D....@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca>

>In article <C5or9D....@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> mvis...@bcr5.uwaterloo.ca writes:

 

>I have generally ignored this discussion because this seems to be carried on by

>people who are biased one way or the other. While some are prompted

>mainly out of their hatred of 'brahmins', the other simply would not accept

>criticism of their chrished scriptures.

 

>I was attracted because of reference to Vivekananda in this thread.

>I am certainly interested in looking at where Vivekananda expressed this opinion.

>Please furnish references. If you must post, please email me a copy of your reply

>(r...@hls.com) also, since I do not regularly read this group.

 

> >Phulgenda Sinha (...) gives convincing evidence of who infact interpolated

> >the Gita.

 

>Please let me know the details of this book (ISBN, publisher, etc). Is there

>any place in the Bay area (this question is addressed to knowledgeable

>nettors in the SF Bay area) where I may obtain this book ?

 

>S Ramakrishnan, Hughes LAN Systems Inc., Mountain View, Ca

 

I had also ignored this discussion for a long time because I found most of theviews on this topic to belong to either extreme and nothing fruitful coming out

of it. But I was prompted to post the rebuttal because I found the OP posting

this article for the nth(n > 4?) time without trying to answer the questions

raised by the other group(atleast satisfactorily). While I do not deny that

many of the ancient works were interpolated and even the Bhagavad Gita may

have been interpolated the reasons as to why there was interpolation of the

texts/when the interpolation was done/who did the interpolation as given by

the author do not stand to reason. I do not have as much time in my hands to

participate in the thread as I would like.But a reading of the book should

convince people that the author was no unbiased scholar seeking true knowledge.

 

For example the author repeatedly stresses some conclusions of his that many

philosophers of ancient India were Kshatriyas( no strong reasons offered except

some examples of Janaka and another person). Buddha and Mahavira may be

Kshatriyas but the author provides no convincing evidence that Kapila (the

supposed founder of the Samkhya philosophy) was a Kshatriya but assumes it all

the same. And how did Vyasa(if ever there was such a real person) become a

Kshatriya( either by birth or Kshatriya). There are many more examples like

this in the book which reveal the author's biased nature.Also he selectively

quotes from several books those portions which support his views though they

have been said in an entirely different context. Why did Mr. Sinha repeatedly

have to say that they are Kshatriyas?. Also he keeps mentioning about Swami

Vivekananda's search for an original text in such a way as to suggest that

Vivekananda was implying that Sankara had done all the interpolation and

twisted the meaning of the original Gita. If the reader is familiar with

Vivekananda's Advaitist leanings he will clearly dismiss such unwarranted

conclusions.

The author in the initial stages claims that he wanted to go around entire

East Asia to search for the original uninterpolated Gita but later gave up

the search as he found internal evidence in the Gita itself( what reasoning).

How did he arrive at the conclusion about the massive interpolation of the Gita

as he claims?

a) He has certain understanding of the Samkhya philosophy as propounded by

Kapila and others.

b) His understanding does not match what he understood by what the Gita says

on it

c)So Gita must have been interpolated as it distorts the original Samkhya

philosophy

d) The earliest extant commentary we have on the Gita is that by Sankara.So

Sankara is the culprit behind all the interpolation

 

e) Whichever verse according to his understanding of them comes into conflict

with his view of the 'original' Samkhya philosophy is an interpolation into

the Gita. And he dismisses about 90% of the existing version as interpolation.

 

And his final conclusion? Advaita philosophy led India into the dark ages

for a thousand years because it advocated that this material world is unreal

and being the one who propagated the Advaita philosophy Sankara was the one

to blame for India going into 'dark ages'.

 

I am not able to give the ISBN number for the book as I do not have it by

my side. After Mr Meenan Vishnu posted this extract repeatedly I made it a

point to go to the library and get this book and ascertain for myself the

validity of these wild claims and I have come to the conclusions that it is

not a scholarly work by an unbiased person.

 

Gopal

 

Gopal

[jay74 0]

Mani Varadarajan

Jul 2 1993, 11:28 am show options

Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil

m...@loiter.Berkeley.EDU (Mani Varadarajan) - Find messages by this author

2 Jul 93 10:25:52

Local: Fri, Jul 2 1993 10:25 am

The Gita: A Partial Refutation of P. Sinha's work (2/2)

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original | Report Abuse

 

--------

 

From m...@king.Berkeley.EDU Tue Jul 7 11:26:55 1992

m...@king.Berkeley.EDU (Mani Varadarajan)

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern

re: Forgeries on Hindu Scriptures (part 2) -- long

6 Jul 92 21:48:47 GMT

Organization: ----

Status: RO

 

In my last article with a similar title, I attempted to refute

some preliminary arguments made by the book ``The Gita as it

Was'', written by a Mr. Sinha (posted by

mvis...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (m vishnu)).

 

I will now tackle his criticism of the Gita itself. The

following is from chapter 4 of his book:

 

> Reworking of the original Gita to form the Bhagavadgita was not merely

> the modification of a book. It was a surreptious plot to dismantle the

> whole intellectual edifice of Indian culture which had been built up

> over a thousand years.

> It has already been mentioned tht when the original Gita was

> altered, the interpolators also made changes in many other works

> of that time to establish textual support in their favor. It was

> for this reason that the interpolations were made in the Rig Veda,

> the Epics, Samkhya Karika and Yoga Sutra. It is obvious that

> there could have been numerous alterations in many other texts,

> still to be detected.

 

The (conscious?) error that Sinha makes in his argumentation

above, is that he makes the same mistake that he accuses the

interpolaters of making: twisting texts to suit his own

philosophical point of view, while at the same time ignoring a

tremendous body of textual criticism and evidence that point to

the contrary.

 

It is indeed surprising that Sinha, who is not an expert in

manuscript analysis, and certainly is not a Sanskrit scholar on

par with others who have done similar work, is the only one who

has come to the conclusion that every text that disagrees with

his philosophy of Sankhya has interpolations. This, despite

the fact that (cf. ``Vaisnavism, Saivism, and Minor Religous

Systems'', by R. G. Bhandarkar) the trend of thought of the

Gita and the Mahabharata is attested to by physical evidence

dating from the 3rd century B. C., that even though there were

interpolations in Smriti texts such as the epics and puranas,

there was such a reverence for the Sruti texts (the Upanisads

and the Vedas), that no one dared interpolate there.

 

He ignores the fact that these texts were passed down by word

of mouth, and *not* written down, and that to have a wholesale

interpolation as he suggests would require coordination across

all of what is now India, which would be simply inconceivable

in those days. It is easy to think that information can travel

as quickly then as it does now; but, frankly, it didn't. The

Brahma-Sutras, the chief systematic text of Vedanta, clearly

predates Sankara by many hundreds of years, as attested to by

modern-day scholars (as well as tradition), and the Sutras

clearly dispute Sankhya as a philosophy---I point this out to

demonstrate that the thoughts behind the Gita and subsequent

Vedanta are not ``inventions'' of some corrupt brahmins. They

have quite a history behind them.

 

> The has also been pointed out that bands of proselytizers for the new

> Brahmanic faith were organized at four different centers (mathas)

> during the time of Shankaracharya. These teachers received increasing

> political protection and patronage.

 

I myself don't agree with the philosophical conclusions of

Sankara's school, but the reason his school received political

protection was because of the sheer brilliance of his

philosophical polemic. In contrast to the 7th century schools

preeminent in his time (and in contrast to what Sinha thinks),

Sankara did not promulgate superstitious thought (like Kumarila

Bhatta's school of Vedic thought did), nor did they believe in

useless sacrifices (like Mandana Misra's school), both of which

dominated the religio-political scene of the time.

 

In addition, the revival of theistic belief in the southern

part of India as opposed to Jainism and Buddhism was much more

due to non-brahmin savants like the Alvars and Nayanars rather

than the brahmin philosophers. So, this tendency toward

``irrationalism'' [i don't think it is, myself] is somewhat

independent of the brahmins.

 

> At the same time, the national

> opponents of the new faith were forced into silence. In such an

> atmosphere, the people had to accept the doctrines of the new faith

> even when they did not agree with them.

 

Note, there are *no* sources cited, and no evidence used to

back this assertion. The fact is, that the caste system

predates Sankara's philosophical renewal by centuries. I do

not and will not apologize for the caste system as practiced by

the people of this time, but there is a large body of evidence

that indicates that the causes of it are far more complicated

than a Sanskrit text. Manu's dharma-sastra dates from around

the 1st century A. D., well before this supposed brahmin

conspiracy.

 

Once again, the situation may have been quite different in

south India. Professor George Hart (UC Berkeley) has written a

very scholarly paper as to the indigenous origins of caste in

the Tamil country [the title of the paper escapes me now].

 

[update: The paper appears in a festschrift to D. Hocking,

and is entitled, "Early Evidence for Caste in South India".]

 

> The teaching of the new Bramanic religion replaced the political and

> secular values with religious ones. THey interpretted the world, the

> kingdonm and the state as maya (illusionary). The highest good in life

> was to surrender to the will of God, render devotion to God, strive to

> go to heaven, and be free from bondage of birth and death. God is the

> protector, preserver, and destroyer of the world.

 

This has also, for over a millenium, been the religion of those

who don't happen to be brahmins. The maya theory is only held

by a portion of brahmins; many other philosophers vehemently

argue against it. This is another place where Sinha uses a

peephole view to look at the religious history of this country.

The beliefs espoused above does not automatically render man

irrational; Gandhi for one, and Martin Luther King, Jr.,

believed the above with a great deal of faith. One can also

cite Malcolm X as a believer in this under the umbrella of

Islam.

 

> Further the caste system was made more rigid and discriminatory through

> the Bhagavadgita. For example, Krishna (who is the creator of the Universe)

> says: "The fourfold caste system has been created by Me in accordance with

> their differentiation of Guna and Karma" (BG IV 13). Their duties are

> distributed in accordance with the qualities they are born with (BG XVIII 41

> -48). Women, sudras, and vaisyas are inferior by birth (BG IX 32).

 

We can argue about what is meant by varna (mistranslated as

caste) in the Gita in another thread, but suffice it to say

that in can easily be interpreted in a non-discriminatory

manner. Gandhi interpreted it this way, as did Ramanujacharya,

to a certain extent. In modern times, Prabhupada of the Hare

Krishna movement also did the same. As for Bhagavad-gita 9.32,

it doesn't conclude that ``women, sudras, and vaisyas are

inferior by birth,'' though people have interpreted it to say

that. But, as Christians are wont to say, ``even Satan quotes

 

>from the Bible.''

 

We shouldn't ignore statements such as Bg 5.18, where Krishna

says that one looks upon all creatures equally; statements that

say that as long as one performs his duty with all sincerity,

they are assured of supreme beatitude. Given all this and

more, the Gita is truly a revolutionary text.

 

> Though still labelled as

> caste, they came to occupy the status of Brama, which was invariably

> interpretted as 'god' (BG IV24,31,34).

 

The Bg never equates a brahmin with Brahman, the Supreme

Reality. I don't see the point of this statement. Brahman ==

God from Upanisadic times.

 

> It is not surprising that prior to 800 AD no foreign power could not

> subjugate the Indian people. The foreign invaders did do some harm here

> and there on several occasions, but they could not establish themselves for

> long. Nor could they expand to other parts of India, even when its central

> rule was broken and it began to be ruled by numerous kings. This condition,

> however, changed after the eighth century AD when the Bramins began playing

> active role in social-political-religious fields.

 

And I suppose that brahmins weren't ministers to kings by

tradition before this?! Kautilya (a brahmin) himself is

evidence to this. The fact is, brahmins have *always* been

ministers; just read Bhasa's Sanskrit plays, which date from

the very early years A. D.

 

> This political submissiveness would not have

> lasted so long if the people had not been taught doctrines of submissiveness,

> political and worldly indiffernce, and maya, through the medium of

> Bhagavadgita.

 

Once again, I decry the caste system propagated by many

brahmins, and I do agree that the subjugation of the majority

of the people in India is great tragedy in our history. But to

attribute this by some false transivity to the Gita is

ludicrous. The text of the Gita, in almost every way you can

interpret it, is a call to action, and in an extremely

literalist view, is a call to fight with bow in hand. How can

this be submission? At best, we can say that the Gita has been

misinterpreted; but I suspect that Sinha is not content with

the philosophical conclusions of Vedanta, so he has set out to

destroy (albeit ineffectively) the basis behind it.

 

> It has already been mentioned (ChI) that the Age of Indian Philosophy

> began with the work of Kapila (700BC).

 

This date is completely unsubstantiated. It is just like

claiming that the Mahabharata was written in 3200 B.C., as some

traditional scholars wrongly do. Frankly, the Sankhya system

of Kapila is an outgrowth of the same philosophical-religious

fertile ground that existed around 600 B.C., and which produced

Mahavira, Yajnavalkya of Upanisadic fame, Buddha, the Ajivikas,

etc. So, his thoughts regarding dukha, sukha, etc., weren't

usurped by other philosophers, but were a common base upon

which they all built.

 

> By changing the original Gita into Bhagavadgita, all these philosophical

> and practical teachings were completely distorted.

 

I am surprised that anyone who reads the Gita can come to this

conclusion. Considering that Gandhi called the Gita ``The

Gospel of Selfless Action'' thereby denouncing selfishness, and

traditional commentators such as Ramanuja saw it as a gospel of

love and action, how can Sinha come to this conclusion? Well,

he tries by denouncing the following:

 

Bg 4.14, 2.47, 2.49, 9.17, all of which argue for working, but

not looking to the fruits of these actions selfishly.

 

Bg 5.10, which advises us to treat all our actions as worship

of God. We therefore aren't bound by the karma (but that

doesn't free us from acting properly---vide Adhyayas 2, 5, 12,

17, etc.)

 

> In various ways, the Bhagavadgita decried all actions other than for

> bodily care, self-purification, sacrifice, and prayer. The actions

> involved in fulfilling wordly goals were denounced and the life of

> sanyasa (renunciation) and devotion to God were acclaimed.

 

Is Sinha ignoring Adhyaya 18, where the topic of true

renunciation is brought up? And is he ignoring Adhyayas 3 and

4, were Krishna distinctly tells Arjuna that it is far better

to act unselfishly for the good of the world, than to renounce

all. He Himself is constantly in action, for ``lokasamgraha'',

the benefit of the world.

 

> If we observe the behavior and thought of the Indian populace in our

> own day, we will find that from farmers to industrialists, students to

> teachers, politicians to social workers, and from housewivesto men on the

> street, with few exceptions, the teachings of Bhagavadgita are followed.

 

I consider very few people to follow the Gita in their everday

lives in India. In fact, very few people know the meaning or

the message of the Gita these days. Thanks to some great work

done by the Ramakrishna Order and other organizations, the

message of Vedanta is getting out in some form. If we look to

Mahatma Gandhi as being a true follower of the Bhagavad-gita

(as he himself claimed he tried to be), how can we say 1) that

the Gita is flawed, and 2) everyone follows the message of the

Gita?

 

> It seems as if India as a nation fails to recognize any heritage

> prior to the period of Bramanic revivalism. The teachings of Kapila

> Mahavira, Buddha, Patanjali, and Vyasa do not seem to have any link with

> the India of today. Keith has observed, "the scientific attitude

> of mind which seeks to find natural causes for events of nature is

> not normal in India" [History of Sanskrit Literature pp 146]

 

There is a great deal to be said for the rationality of the

West, but there is also a lot to be said against the

materialism that is rampant here as well as in India. However,

we have a history of philosophically opposing such materialism,

which many Western Indologists simply have not understood. I'm

not sure Sinha would agree with a lot of what else Max Mueller

and Keith have said; he selectively uses what he likes.

 

For a real index of textual criticism on the Gita, none of

which seriously takes the conclusions of Sinha seriously,

please see ``Studies in the Epics and Puranas'' by A. D.

Pusalker. In addition, I have discovered what can be said to

be a truly marvellous modern English commentary, which truly

applies the teachings of the Gita to everyday life. Other than

a few sections that most of us consider unnecessary today, Dr.

M. Rangacharya's ``The Hindu Philosophy of Conduct: Being

Lectures on the Bhagavad Gita'', is a three volume collection

of transcriptions of a series of lectures delivered at the turn

of the century in English that is masterful in its erudition

and exposition. It is very hard to get, however, and may be

available in a large university's library, or your

grandfather's collection of books.

 

I will conclude my critique of Sinha's work by saying:

 

* He has no demonstrated textual evidence as to why his

version of the Gita is any more authoritative than

the current 700 verse version accepted by all

 

* His conclusions are severely colored by his own

philosophical interests

 

* His assertions many times are without any evidence

 

* He takes a peephole view of the Gita, and attempts

to base all his arguments on those views

 

* He ignores an entire body of evidence which disputes

his conclusions (he may argue that these are all

interpolations, but one can say that about anything)

 

* Can we really believe that *all* brahmins, some of

whom at least believed in the values of truth and honesty

(as Marco Polo noted) engaged in a wholesale conspiracy

to overthrow an entire philosophical tradition, much

of which they were a part?

 

I thank Meenan for bringing up these interesting issues. I

only wish he would use a better authority next time.

 

Peace,

Mani

[Guest guest]

First off, you cannot even begin to presume that the concept of a single God was only introduced in 800 AD, even if the interpolations of the Gita are true and they took place at that period. In fact, I would declare this to be incorrect in any case.

 

Krishna Bhakti took place long ago, in the BC era. There were Greek followers of Krishna several centuries before Christ was ever born/conceptualized, and he was revered as the Supreme Being.

 

Hinduism was NEVER polytheistic. Just the presence of idols and such does not make Hinduism polytheistic. Only to the ignorant and unintelligent does this mean polytheism. Hinduism has ALWAYS believed in many forms of God, but the ultimate reality is Brahman, the singular God from which all other gods come. Hindus worshipped idols, and they still worship them to this very day. That doesn't mean those Hindus who worship these idols are polytheists, and it never meant such a thing.

 

Whoever calls Hinduism a polytheistic religion is either anti-Hindu or ignorant of the religion.

 

 

Hindus have always been worshippers of nature, because they see the presence of the divine in everything. This is nothing to be ashamed of, but beyond this multiplicity, they knew there was singularity. To this day, Hindus worship the sun, the Earth, the fire and everything around them. Harmony is part of what Hinduism is all about. Living in accordance with nature, and with God especially.

 

[Guest guest]

I've heard about this guys and to be honest with you, it looks like he has his own agenda. He's probably a crazy marxist. This guy is trying to say that all our problems happened after 800AD because he believes that's when we started believing in one God.

 

{One God, One Supreme Being, was introduced to India. This idea was mainly borrowed from Christianity and Islam.}

 

This is a joke as the Rig Veda talks of one God behind the various manifestations. And the Rig Veda is much older than the Gita. The Brahman principle is beyods the one God idea and is better described as the ultimate reality.

 

{He claims All vedic literature Vedas,upanishads and bhagavad Gita corrupted and interpolated in 700-800 AD}

 

He's crazy if he thinks you can get all the diverse Hindu sects together and agree to edit HUNDREDS of Hindu scriptures, in a short time and incorporate this change into their life. You wouldn't get them to agree for a start.

 

{For the next 1000 years, India was constantly under the attack/rule of foreigners. Indians did not have the attitude to fight the occupation.}

 

How does belief in God make you weak to invaders? India was attacked by the Greeks before and they absobed some of them like Megasethes who became a Vaishnava. This was before Christ lived.

 

{Gita manuscript found in indonesia has just 80 verses}

 

Easy, it was just part of Gita that was translated or the indonesian's had their own edited version. It is well known that Thailand have their own altered version of Ramayana. So are you gonna believe them too and say the original Indian version is wrong?

 

[ajit12 0]

dear Jay74, Namaskaram,

The truth of the matter is that no Indian Scripture got cooruped in 800AD.only. Let us take Mahabharata,The information is right in that it was called JAY and had around 22000 verses. The additions have been going on since may be 1000 BC. and there is no one person resposible for it .Mahabharata was a folk tale preserved & recited by Suts i.e. a tribe somewhat like Bhands in north India.While this was done by Sautis, several additions have taken place.Kautilya in his Arthashastra in 300 BC. is not aware of several parva of Mahabharat but he speaks about Mahabharta. The same way Bhawatgita has been added over a period of time.Panini again is aware of several stories which are not here in todays Mahabharata.

These additions/deletions were made little by little by various Sautis and they were made as personal liking or hobby rather than any devious plot to distort the sriptures .This process has happened with all the religons.

Caste sytem was always very rigid and that too evolved over a period of time.Warnashram system as laid down by say manusmriti never existed .It was always the caste system with different gods, no intermarriage, no eating together etc.

Hinduism has always beem polyatheistic religon, one can take out hundreds of examples in our scriputures.One god or brahmin is just one school of thought.We had Adwait,Wishist dwaita,Sankhya,Lokayayt or charwaak,Sankhyas,Bhuddhism and Jainism as different philosophical shcools all these schools used to hold debate sessions [Waad Wiwad sabhas] all over India .When you are arguing with other philisophy you need to master it.

however Adi Shakaracharya brought an end to this flowering of philosophical thought.He even destroyed all textbooks and commenterys of all other schools so today kapila's Sakhyayoga is no more available . Lokayat was completely destroyed.Sankhyayoga chapter in Gita is a hold ever which escaped Shakarcharya.Budhism & jainism survived in reduced form as they had there on way of storing books.

I am saying this despite having deep respect for adi shankaracharya and his Bhashyas particularly Shakerbhashya.His intellect is undisputed .But then contrary to Dr. Sinha this took place much before advent of Islam.

I am sorry if this article is rather long.Once again let not curse any contrary view as Adharmiks or marxist.A truly religious man also is tolerent and a respecter of knowledge. Again I am stating historical facts and not my personal opinion.love to all

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

Yes you are right these people know very well what is the truth, still they somehow twist all the facts to make appear Hinduism is corrupted, these are the internal blood-thristy animals wanting the destruction of our religion and culture.

 

As a saying goes , "when the ghost starts ruling, the Shastras start eating the corpse" can't help much here.

[Guest guest]

{however Adi Shakaracharya brought an end to this flowering of philosophical thought.He even destroyed all textbooks and commenterys of all other schools so today kapila's Sakhyayoga is no more available.}

 

Where's the proof that he did this? this is the first time I've heard about this and I'm not at all convinced. What we do know about Adi Shankara is that he just travelled all over India and debated with different philosophical schools, defeated them and won people over. His movement had the ability of absorb concepts from the different schools. Remember Buddhism was the dominant religion of the time, now it's almost dead in India - the country of it's birth, but big in the rest of Asia. The Buddhists were they biggest school to defeat and they in turn defeated all other philosophical schools before them, before shankaracharya. The different philosophical schools just died out because they were no longer relevant and their essential teachings have been incorporated into Vedanta. Schools like the Charvaka had very little to offer and died a natural death as they provided very little for the people. Thir philosophy of "live today, forget about tommorow" cannot survive for long. As for destruction of philosophical texts and commentaries we all know the muslim invaders are most responsible for this. Look at their barbaric history and look at their religion, it's their god-given duty to destroy others.

 

{Hinduism has always beem polyatheistic religon, one can take out hundreds of examples in our scriputures.One god or brahmin is just one school of thought.}

 

Well how do you explain the Rig Veda which talks of one God? The Brahman concept in the Upanishads are in hundreds of books not just one or two and these were passed down by schools, so if inconsistensies were found they would not match the rest. The Upanishads were commented before shankaracharya by the likes of Bodhayana (400BC) of whose philosophical ideas resemble that of Ramanuja more. There's absolutely no way Shankaracharya could come along and change hundreds of texts to fit his idea when he died at age 32...and Brahmins doing it is absurd. The author Phulgenda Sinha seems to think the Brahman concept is just one God and blames Shankaracharya for this, he doesn't seem to understand that Brahman is the Absolute, the ultimate reality, impersonal and nothing like the god of Christians and Muslims and more like the Tao in Taoism (though not the same)...I wonder if he thinks Taoism is corrupted too? The Concept of Ishwar is in Patanlaji's yoga sutras, I hope he doesn't think they are corrupted too because there still are very old yoga schools in India. This is before any christian influence, yet they talk of ishwar.

 

Where the author is correct is that there were arabs who attempted to rewrite and even invent false Hindu texts such as the Allopanishad, which was written to fool Hindus into converting to Islam. Of course they fell flat on their face as sanskrik and arabic doesn't mix and make little sense if they try. Allah and Muhammed doesn't mean anything in Sanskrit. The muslims may have written some false or interpolated puranas too like the one the muslim posters on this board attempt to fool the Hindus by claiming the kalki avatar is Mohammed.

 

I agree that the Puranas which were largely corrupted can be seen as polytheistic and puranic influence has the strongest hold on India today, so it's easy to see why people think Hindus are polytheistic. The Mahabharata has been added to, there's no doubt about that. The original was known as Jaya. And different versions of the Ramayana do not match the original by Valmiki.

 

The author of the article hasn't done his research as he should know the word gita can be used for many books not just the bhagavad gita - they're the Sri Rama gita, Sri Guru gita, the Uddhava gita, etc . Instead he uses an obscure indonesian edition just called the gita to fit his own agenda.

 

All in all, I do not give the author much credit as it looks like he just wanted to create a name for himself for being different. What's more is that no other known indologist or researcher of Hinduism shares his views, even from the west.