Guest guest Posted July 29, 2004 Report Share Posted July 29, 2004 >"indologia2000" <indologia >"Vrn Davan" <vaidika1008 >LORD KRISHNA in the Srutis Vedas? >Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:45:12 -0000 > >--- Are there references about Lord Krishna in the srutis? >(Horacio Fco. Arganis Juárez) >Graduade student of Lingüistic and Literature in the U A de C >in Saltillo City Coahuila, Northest of México. >Kim vidhate kim âcaste >Kim anûdaya vikalpayet >Ity asyâ hrdayam loke >Nânyo mad veda kascana >Mam vidhate 'bhidhatte mâm >Vikalpyâpohyate hy aham >"What is the direction of all Vedic literatures? On whom do they set >focus? Who is the purpose of all speculation? Outside of Me >(Krishna)) no one knows these things. Now you should know that all >these activities are aimed at ordaining and setting forth Me. The >purpose of Vedic literature is to know Me by different speculations, >either by indirect understanding or by dictionary understanding. >Everyone is speculating about Me." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.21.42-43.) >Around 300 years ago, at the start of Indology, British scholars were >very much influenced by the Judeo-Christian paradigm of time. In their >estimation, the creation took place *around (approximately) 6000 >years ago. Having found >testimony in vedic historical accounts that the texts are over 5,000 >years >old, they fabricated many academic devices to obscure the traditional >dating method. For example, John Bentley, feeling his own concept of >time being questioned, employed his knowledge of astronomical science >to discredit the vedic dating formula: > >"By his attempt to uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against >absolute facts, He (?) thereby supports all those horrid abuses and >impositions found in them, under the pretended sanction of >antiquity, ... Nay, his aim goes still deeper; for by same means he >endeavours to overturn the Mosaic account, and sap the very >foundations of our religion: for if we are believe in the antiquity >of Hindu books, as he would wish us, then the Mosaic account is all >be a fable, or a fiction." ((Bentley, John, 1825, Historical View of >the Hindu Astronomy, Osnabruck; Biblio Verlang, etd 1970 pp. xxvii) >Another interesting point is, how these learned men formulated the >borrowing hypothesis. Such tentative speculation, guised by so-called >academicism, stated that Lord Krishna was a Hinduized Jesus Christ. >The logical consequence of this idea would lead the intelligence to >believe that >everything about Lord Krishna, such as His religion, hagiography like >the >Bhagavata, Visnu and the Harivamsa Puranas, were also derived from >Christianity. Therefore, all of these works would be attributed to >After >Dominomaking them post-Christian. Dr. Thomas Hopkins indicates this >academicdevise to be systematically denigrating. (HK p. 111) >Even though Dvyapayana Vyasa wrote that Krishna: vedaih sanga-pada- >kramopanisadih "Whose glories are sung by verses of the Vedas, >of whom the singers of the Sama sing, and of whose glories the >Upanisads >proclaim in full choir." (Srîmad Bhâgavatam. 12.13.1); whenever they >found >any references about Lord Krishna in the srutis, they were >automatically >rejected by virulent hypercriticism from the scholars. >The problem with this paradigm is that the archaeological discoveries >disproved this borrowing lucubration. But even today, some >conservative >hardcore scholars are reluctant to reconsider *mentions (references) >to Krishna in the >srutis. Of course, like the Berkeley Ph. D. Sanskrit student, Beatriz >Reusch wrote: >"Things have changed quite a bit since then. Those were times of >orientalism' and colonialism. Nowadays many scholars try their best >to be >respectful of traditions they are studying as well of the people in >every >part of world. Nowadays, also, no sober scholar will endorse Max >Mueller's >ideas on the Aryan invasion." (Email-letter 3-II-2000) >We will make a few observations suggesting that the above hypothesis >[Lord >Krishna is not in the Veda srutis] has not at all been proven. We >shall not >attempt an exhaustive treatment of the many arguments presented by >scholars, since this would require a voluminous book. Rather, we >shall make a few points. > >Epistemological problems >When we study a body of empirical evidence, we always evaluate it with >our *limiting (limited) assumptions. In the end, the conclusions we >derive from the >evidence reflect our paradigm. If the assumptions change, even >When we study a body of empirical evidence, we always evaluate it >with our >*lmiting (limited) assumptions. In the end, the conclusions we derive >from such >evidence reflect our own paradigm. If the assumptions change, even >though the evidence remained the same, the results shall be different. >Consider what would happen if the traditional history of the Puranas, >**** accepted as real and accurate possibility,( real and accurate >conflice with possibility-- you have to change this sentence) was the >only available evidence about the history of Indian literature to be >studied? The result would be a >completelydifferent picture of the past, contrary to the one *now >(presently) accepted by some Western scholars. >In other words, there are ways to comprehend historical processes >through the Vedic texts. That this is so can be graphically observed >if one performs the mental experiment of looking at the world from a >radically different perspective. >But is necessary to point out that now the epistemology of science >demands, >as the first step, the suspension of any predisposition. This is >called the >epoje. In fact, to be objective, it is necessary to leave aside the >entire >preconception and observe the phenomenon under scrutiny without any >prejudice, after *enumerated (enumerating) the qualities. Only in >this way, the process >can be objective and realistic. Because, theistic, atheist, agnostic, >sceptic, >materialistic speculation, academicism, dubitivism or relativism ( so >called rationalism) etc., are considered to be subjective postures. >In other >words, the methodology of science is realistic, quantitative and is >limited to >observation and describes the phenomena in an inductive way to arrive >at a >general theory. But the results of the science are relative; >approximations, >probabilities and never absolutes. Ultimately, there is no absolute >truth >in science. Nowadays words like laws axiom are already being >eliminated in the objective fields of science. All subjects can be >revised objectively. Science is self-critical and constantly changes >through new realistic and objective reviews. > >Evidences from the Upanisads: >Regarding the Upanisads, the following eleven Upanisads are >considered to be the topmost: Isa, Kena, Katha, Prasna, Mundaka, >Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brhad-aranyaka and >Svetasvatara. However, in the Muktikopanisad, verses 30-39, there is >a description of 108 Upanisads. They are as follows: (1) Isopanisad, >(2) Kenopanisad, (3) Kathopanisad, (4) Prasnopanisad, (5) >Mundakopanisad, (6) Mandukyopanisad, (7) Taittiriyopanisad, (8) >Aitareyopanisad, (9) Chandogyopanisad, (10) Brhad-aranyakopanisad, >(11) Brahmopanisad, (12) Kaivalyopanisad, (13) Jabalopanisad, (14) >Svetasvataropanisad, (15) Hamsopanisad, (16) Aruneyopanisad, (17) >Garbhopanisad, (18) Narayanopanisad, (19) Paramahamsopanisad, (20) >Amrta-bindupanisad, (21) Nada-bindupanisad, (22) Siropanisad, (23) >Atharva-sikhopanisad, (24) Maitrayany-upanisad, (25) Kausitaky- >upanisad, (26) Brhaj-jabalopanisad, (27) Nrsimha-tapaniyopanisad, >(28) Kalagni-rudropanisad, (29) Maitreyi-upanisad, (30) >Subalopanisad, (31) Ksurikopanisad, (32) Mantrikopanisad, (33) Sarva- >saropanisad, (34) Niralambopanisad, (35) Suka-rahasyopanisad, (36) >Vajra-sucikopanisad, (37) Tejo-bindupanisad, (38) Nada-bindupanisad, >(39) Dhyana-bindupanisad, (40) Brahma-vidyopanisad, (41) Yoga- >tattvopanisad, (42), Atma-bodhopanisad, (43) Narada- >parivrajakopanisad, (44) Trisikhy-upanisad, (45) Sitopanisad, (46) >Yoga-cudamany-upanisad, (47) Nirvanopanisad, (48) Mandala- >brahmanopanisad, (49) Daksina-murty-upanisad, (50) Sarabhopanisad, >(51) Skandopanisad, (52) Mahanarayanopanisad, (53) Advaya- >tarakopanisad, (54) Rama-rahasyopanisad, (55) Rama-tapany-upanisad, >(56) Vasudevopanisad, (57) Mudgalopanisad, (58) Sandilyopanisad, (59) >Paingalopanisad, (60) Bhiksupanisad, (61) Mahad-upanisad, (62) >Sarirakopanisad, (63) Yoga-sikhopanisad, (64) Turiyatitopanisad, (65) >Sannyasopanisad, (66) Paramahamsa-parivrajakopanisad, (67) >Malikopanisad, (68) Avyaktopanisad, (69) Ekaksaropanisad, (70) >Purnopanisad, (71) Suryopanisad, (72) Aksy-upanisad, (73) >Adhyatmopanisad, (74) Kundikopanisad, (75) Savitry-upanisad, (76) >Atmopanisad, (77) Pasupatopanisad, (78) Param-brahmopanisad, (79) >Avadhutopanisad, (80) Tripuratapanopanisad, (81) Devy-upanisad, (82) >Tripuropanisad, (83) Katha-rudropanisad, (84) Bhavanopanisad, (85) >Hrdayopanisad, (86) Yoga-kundaliny-upanisad, (87) Bhasmopanisad, (88) >Rudraksopanisad, (89) Ganopanisad, (90) Darsanopanisad, (91) Tara- >saropanisad, (92) Maha-vakyopanisad, (93) Panca-brahmopanisad, (94) >Pranagni-hotropanisad, (95) Gopala-tapany-upanisad, (96) >Krsnopanisad, (97) Yajnavalkyopanisad, (98) Varahopanisad, (99) >Satyayany-upanisad, (100) Hayagrivopanisad, (101) Dattatreyopanisad, >(102) Garudopanisad, (103) Kaly-upanisad, (104) Jabaly-upanisad, >(105) Saubhagyopanisad, (106) Sarasvati-rahasyopanisad, (107) >Bahvrcopanisad and (108) Muktikopanisad. > >There are 108 accepted Upanisads which are generally accepted, of >which >eleven are the most important, *as previously stated* (the previous 3 >words are redundant, you don't need to use them) Now let us see how >they allude to Lord Krishna: >Chandogya III.17.6 Almost all scholars have assented that Devakiputra >Krishna is described here as the disciple of Ghora Angirasa. But the >sceptics reject this attribution because the teachers of Krishna were >Gargamuni and Sandipani in the Puranas. But the *biggest (most >significant) problem with this >assumption is that the original text *does not say so.("does not say >so" is informal - use a synonym) It is Sankaracarya, >who in his commentary on the above-mentioned Upanisad, said that >Krishna >was the disciple of Ghora Agirasa. The passage has to be studied in >reference >to its context, which is given below. The Chandogya describes here >man's life >in the form of soma-sacrifice; the natural function: eating, drinking, >procreating and the cardinal virtues are described as the rewards of >the >sacrifice. When Ghora Angirasa said (Uktva) this, he also told (uvaca) >Krishna Devakiputra- for he had become free from desire--. "In the >final >hour one should take refuge in these tree thoughts: You are the >Indestructible (asita); Your are the unshaken (acyuta); Your are the >very essence of life (prana)." >The teachings which Krishna heard from Ghora Angirasa, is more or >less the >same which He taught to Arjuna in the Gita [XVI 1-2]. Ghora too >already >addressed Krishna as Acyuta, the infallible. In the Gita we find this >term >being used thrice, and each time Arjuna addresses Krishna as Acyuta, >[bg. >1.2, 11.42. 18.73.] Therefore, the self-evident quality of the quote >demonstrates the analogy. But there is not any evidence in other >texts of >any Krishna, as the son of Devaki, besides our Krishna Yadava. The >same work >has another mention, 8.13.1: syama cavalam prapadye savalac syama >prapadye. >Here, Krishna is mention by his epithet Syama which means blackish, >used in >the puranic literature for the Lord. The Sanskrit word prapadye- >surrender, >appears two times, in the same sense as the Gita. >The epithet bhagesam is found in the Svetasvatara 6.6: bhaga-opulence; >Isa-Lord. This Sanskrit word is a synonymous with Bhagavan, a title >used >for Krishna in the Gita and Puranas. >The Mundaka 1.3 reads: kasmin bhagavo vijnate sarvam idam vijnatam >bhavati: "When Bhagavan becomes known, then everything knowable >becomes known." Here >the word Bhagavan is clearly used in the same ontological sense that >the Puranas and Gita use for Krishna. >In the above quoted list of Upanisads , there is the Narayana, which >says: >atha puruso ha vai narayano 'kamayata prajah srijeti.- "The Purusa >Narayana, desired to create the living being." (1) The same sruti >text (4), says: >brahmanyo devakiputra. - "The Brahman absolute is the son of Devaki >(Krishna)." Here the same devakiputra epithet is ascribed to Krishna >as in >the Chandogya and smriti literature. Also the Rig Veda's Purusa is >identified with Narayana and then with Krishna. The same ontological >derivation is found in the Gita and Puranas. Indications of >devakiputra >Krishna are in the Vâsudeva upanisad: devaki-nandano 'khilam >anadayat"- >"The son of Devaki fills the entire world with *delights (delights is >a noun, you must use an adjective to describe "bliss", so change it >to "delightful") bliss" The words are >indicatives and the same name of the text considers Krishna the same >as >Vâsudeva. By a direct reading of these verses, show analogy is drawn >with >Vâsudeva-Krishna and Devaki's son. >The Mahanarayana Upanisad mentions Vâsudeva Krishna, recognised as >Vishnu-Narayana: nârayanaya vidmahe vâsudevaya dhimahi tan no visnu > >pracodayatWe meditate on Narayana who is the son of Vasudeva and >on Him >we should contemplate. Because He is Visnu". >In the Purusa bhodini Upanisad: eko devo nitya mukto bhakta vyaoi hrdy >antarama "The one Godhead is eternally engaged in many sports >(pastimes) in >relation with His devotees". But how is this eko devo who performed >lilas? >The same book explains: gokulasya manthura-mandale...dve parsve >candravali >radhika ca.-"His place is the land of Gokula in the Mathura mandala. >On two >sides he has Radha and Candravali." The quote alludes to the same >geographical area and the gopi associates of Krishna lila indicated >in the >puranic texts. >Gopala-tapany-upanisad, a treatise of Krishnalogy that it's own theme >of >this work is Krishna in the same way that puranic texts: >Sac-cid-anada-rupaya/ krsnayaklista-karine/ namo vedanta- >vedyaya/Gurave >budhi-saksine: "I offer my respects unto Krishna, who has a form of >bliss, >eternity and knowledge. Understanding Him means understand the end of >Vedas >and He is the supreme Guru" (1.1). This Upanisad is part of the >Atharva-veda. >Another interesting work from the above list of Upanisads, is the >Krsna-upanisad, this krisnaite text is part of Rig-Veda: Om Krsno vai >sac-cidananda-ghana krsna adi-purusah krsna purussotamah... >Kaly-upanisad or Kali-santarana: in this text is record: >hare hare krsna krsna, krsna krsna hara hare, hare rama hare rama, >rama >rama hare hare iti sodasakam namnam kali-kalmasa-nasanam natha >parataropayah > >Sarva-vedesu drsyate: "These sixteen Words -Mahamantra Hare >Krishna-Rama-are especially meant for counteracting the contamination >of Kali. To save >oneself from the contamination of Kali, there is no alternative but >the >chanting of this Mahamantra, even after searching through all the >Vedas." >Hare is the vocative of Hari, which means "Oh Lord Hari!." another >meaning >is the vocative of the word hara, which means Radha, the internal >sakti of >Hari. However the word is used, the direct reading of the text >indicates a >relationship with Krishna because the epithet Hari is used for >Krishna. >Therefore the literal translation means, "Oh Lord Hari -Krishna!" >or "Oh >the energy of Lord Krishna!" > > >Brahmanas, Samhitas and Aranyakas > >The Maitreniya samhita of Yajur Veda, makes allusions to Krishna in >the >Narayana gayatri similar to the Mahanaraniya Upanisad. (There are >other >references of the same Narayana gayatri in the Narayana sukta, that >it has >another verse: rtum satyam param brahma purusa krsna pingalam/ >urdhvaretam >virupaksam visuarupaya vaim namo namah: The text has the adjectives >for >Krishna satyam-truth; param- supreme; brahma-Absolute; purusam-Male, >personality, used in the same ontological sense as in the Bhagavata >purana >and the Gita. Unfortunately, we do not have an accurate reference of >this >quote on hand. >Indications that the Vrisni dynasty is part of the Yadu clan, to which >Krishna belonged, are found in the Taittiriya Samhita 3.2.93, the >Taittiriya Brahmana 3.10.9.15 and the Satapatha Brahmana 3.1.1.4. We >find other >evidences that disclose the identity of Krishna in the srutis, which >refer >to Radha, the principal gopi girlfriend of Krishna; in the following >Samhitas: Vasajana 1.4.83, Katha 6.34, Taittiriya 3-10 y >Mandhayandina 3.9. >Jaiminiya Upanisad-brahmana: we find evidences that indicate names of >devotees of Krishna: Krsna Harita - "Captivated by Krishna" (The >teacher >Krishna-Harita is also mentioned in the Aitareya Aranyaka, 3.2-6, and >the >Sankhyayana Aranyaka 8. 10.); Krsna-datta - "Given by or to Krishna"; >Krsna-dhrti -" Determined in Krishna"; Krsna-rata Lauhitya - > "Delighting in >Krishna, who is dark and reddish" (Lauhitya). And there is another >evidence: The epithet of Krsna-dhrti is adjective of Satyaki, the >Yadava hero friend >and relative of Krishna. (KLD P: 268). Later, there is another >reference >[1.6.1] that indicates the relation with Krishna in which the >Vrisni's and >Andhakas, Krishna's family stemming from the Yadava clan, are >mentioned in >the same text. >Kausika Brahmana 30.9 also mentions Krishna in relation to the sage >Angirasa, the same sage mentioned in the Chandogya upanisad quoted >before. >The Vajasaneyi Samhita, 32.11 and the Satapatha Brahman, 2.1.5,4, >mention >the appellation of Krishna as Gopala. The hagiographic puranic works >use >this name for Krishna in his boyhood activities in the company of the >Gopas >in Vrindavana. > >The Vedas suktas > >"Dr. A.L. Bhasam, the doyen of historians, recently observed in the >course >of a lecture that Krishna existed many centuries prior to the Bharata >War, >because he has found his name occurring in the Atharva-veda. On being >asked >by the present writer to substantiate this, he explained that the >Atharva-veda is much early than the Mahabharata where his exploits are >described, and the Chandogya Upanisad, which contains his teaching" >(KHL >p.i.) >We have already quoted from different brahmanas and Upanisads of the >Sama-veda and Yajur-veda. In the context of Atharva-veda (1.3.3) are >found >mentions of Radha with Candravali, the principals Gopis in the >Krishna's >history: radha visake sahabhanu radha. Other records about Krishna are >found in the same book, in the section containing Pipalada's >questions. It is >designated as Caitanya Upanisad by the Gaudiya teachers. In verse (5) >this >reference states: golokakhye dhamni govindo... "Goloka, the home of >Govinda". In number (7): namo vedanta-vedyadya krsnaya paramatmane - I >offer my respectful obeisance unto Krishna, the supersoul, who is >understood by >the study of Vedanta philosophy". There is a explanation of the >Mahamantra >Hare Krishna in (11): sa eva mula mantra japati harir iti krsna iti >rama >iti.- "The mula mantra is murmored, containing the names of Krishna >and >Rama." Its excerpt also makes a semantic explanation of the Mantra >(12): >harati hrdaya-granthim vasana-rupam iti harih krsh samrane tac ca nas >tad-ubhaya-melanam iti krsnah ramayati sarvam iti rama ananda-rupa >atra >soloko bhavati - The names may be explained in the following way: hari >means He who unties harati the knot of material desire in the hearts >of the >living entities; Krishna is divided into two syllables Krs and na. >Krsn means he >who attracts the minds of all living entities. na means the supreme >transcendental pleasure. These two syllables combine to become the >name >Krishna; Rama means he who delights -ramayati- all living entities, >and it >also means he who is full of transcendental bliss." >In the Rig-veda, we can discover references that indicates that the >Bhojas, from Krishna's clan; were connected with the Angirasa family >of priests Rig 3.53.7. This is appointing why Krishna heard the sage >Ghora in the Chandogya and the Kausika quoted before. The Yamuna >region, the playground of Krishna in the puranic literature, is also >mentioned in the Rig-veda: I.22.18, I.154.6, I anuvak 22. Sukta 164. >Rig 31. There are other indicius that suggests: The Rig I.56, >VIII.64.5, Av. Iv.7.8, VI. 12.3 and 17.3, IX.I.18., shows the Giri- >parvata, the favourite hill in Krishna's lila in the Puranas. The >epithet Gopa of Krishna is used for Visnu in the verse VI.7.7: >adabdho gopâ amrtasya raksita. Other reference is I.21.54.6: tam vam >vastuny usmi gamadhye yatra gavo bhuri-srnga atraha tad urugasya >vrsna paramam padam. "O both of you. We desire to attain Your supreme >abode full of splendid surabhi cows with beautiful horns. This >spiritual realm is the abode of You Uragaya, who are glorified by >liberated soul and whose lotus feet fulfil all the devotees desires." >Jiva Goswami already give the etymological purport of this verse, tam- > from tani means them; vam yuvayoh-of You two; vastuni -place of >lilas; ga-madhye- from; gatum, to go to; parpatum to attain; usmamsi- >we desire; yatra -upon the surabhi cows (gava); bhuri-srngah- >beautiful horns or many. Ayasah; splendid; atra in he earthly Goloka; >Urugasya- the original personality of Godhead", epithet of Krishna in >the Bhagavatam ( 2.3.15), vrsnah- means Of Him whose lotus feet >fulfil all desire, also it is a derive word that come from Vrishni >the family of Krishna. Paramam - beyond of reaches of material >energy; padam- abode, bhuri- many ways; and avabhati-manifested. This >verse from the Rig-veda, is in praise of Vishnu and indicate the >relation of Visnu like a Gopa with the cows, the same topic of >Krishna ' lila.. >Other mention in the Rig-Veda about Krishna is, VIII. 96-13-15, that >explain how Krishna encamped on the banks of the river Amsumati with >the thousand soldiers and Indra told his friends, the Maruts, to >fight against him. Sceptical thinkers reject the identification with >Krishna Yadava, under the assumption that this verse referred to a >demon namely Krishna. But the flaw with this common idea is that the >text never said that. Was the interpreter Sayana from XIV century A. >D., who invented this. But unfortunately, we haven't the Sanskrit >quote. But there are similarities in the name, the fight with Indra, >like passed in the Krishna lila, in the banks of river Amsumanti that >suggest the Yamuna river of the Puranas. The soldiers are anologus to >the gopa narayana mention in the Mahabharata. Therefore some >scholars, counter to the common believe from Sayana, >saying:Krishna of the Rig-veda (8.96.13-16), who lived on the >banks of Amsumati (Yâmunâ) and fought against Indra, might have been >a tribal god.." (BG.S p. xv) Other hymns of the Rig-veda (I.116.23 >and 117.17) indicate the existence of Krishna's devotees or his >family members, using the word Krsnîya, that means the genitive case >or patronymic used of the word- "of Krishna or belong to Krishna." >There are other quotes, in the Rig-Veda, that mentions directly to >Krisna's name, that taking them under the context analysed in this >paper, demanded serious reconsideration: (VIII.85.3, I.116.23, >8.74.4, VIII. 85.16, VIII. 36.87). >Krishna and Radharani are described in the following statement of the >Rik-parisista-sruti: Râdhayâ mâdhavo devo, mâdhavena ca râdhikâ, >vibhrajante janesu â: "Radha and the God Mâdhava, are splendid >manifest in company of their associates." >Epistemological flaws and pollutations in the conservative scholarship >Although the objective and liberal modern researchers are more openly >to reviews*** (this is not a full sentence, you must join it to the >next sentence using a semicolon ; )There are a class of >conservative scholars and men of his stamp, proudly on their platform >of knowledge, it should be pointed out for the benefit of members of >the public not *expert (familiar) —in the sophistry—, that men like >them, whose poses as the guardian of "logic", "reason" and >the "scholarship", are sailing on a sinking ship when they, addle in >matters that lie beyond the poorview of their limited paradigm. In >fact, the Indilogy isn't a unified field. Everyone in this area has >his own theory about the history of Vedic literature. They assume, >usually correctly his multiples versions because the scholar's >reputation, for so called probing research and analysis. When >discrepancies become obvious, the scholars usually represent their >own views as the objective picture of Vedic history. >**If compared the version of Vedic texts inside themselves, as we >already did that, we often find the two at opposites poles.** (use: >when comparing, not if compared) ("already did that" is too casual, >say it another way ) Nevertheless, scholars have reconstructed >various historical periods, which they theoretically assign to the >thousands of unaccounted years. Pioneer Indilogist Max Mueller >devised a system of classifying the Vedic civilisation into periods >called "Chandas, Mantra, Brahman and Sutra and a number of scholars >have concurred. Others have also given their own divisions as Vedic, >Epic, Sutra and Scholastic. Generally, the high conservative >academics base their answers to these questions upon the historical >order in which they believe the Vedic books appeared. Thus, there has >arisen the hypothesis that the Rig-veda appeared before the Upanisads >and the Puranas. As hundreds and thousands of years passed and the >people's attitudes changed, concluded that around 200 B. C. >monotheism arose, with Krishna deification like Visnu. Handbooks on >Vedic history differ on specific dates. Indeed, Morris Winternezt, >one of most respect chronologists, argues that any attempt to >reconstruct the Vedic periods is unscientific. He wrote: >"The chronology of the history of Indian literature is shrouded in >truly terrifying darkness"...."But every attempt of such a kind is >bound to fail in the present state of knowledge, and the use of >hypothetical dates would only be a delusion, which do more harm that >good". (Cit. for RVL C. III.) >The Dr. Richard L. Thompson, Mathematical researcher write: >"We have discussed the arguments of Pingree, Toomer, and Van der >Waerden (Indologist historians) in detail to show the kind of >foundations that underlie scholarly conclusion about the origins of >Indian astronomy. The main characteristic of these foundations is >that they are composed almost entirely of unsupported assumptions, >unbased interpretations, and imaginary reconstructions. It is >unfortunate, however, that after many scholars have presented >arguments of this type in learned treatises, the arguments accumulate >to produce an imposing stratified deposit of apparently indisputable >authority. In this way, supposedly solid facts are established by >fossilisation of fanciful speculations whose original direction was >determined by scholarly prejudice. Ultimately, these facts are >presented in elemetary texts and popular books, and accepted by faith >by innocent people." (VCC p. 198) >The Dr. Hridayananda Goswami, Sanskrit PhD from Harvard write >too: "...therefore the occasional practice of commentators to force >on it extraneous doctrines often renders the text obscure where it is >bright, esoteric where it is literal, and impersonal where it is >intensely personal...I should note at once that this principle does >nor away with intellectual response to the scriptures. Rather it is a >call for sober practices for understanding, in which we firsts >struggle to comprehend a scriptural message on its own terms, through >careful study of its internal structures of meaning." (K Bg. p21.) >Fallacious examples of evidence rejection >In this part we show some tactic instances of evasion for cloud the >evidences from conservative scholars: A) means my self. B) One >conservative scholar. >B) Here I want to comment that my remark (cited above) about the >name Krishna as found in the Chandogya Upanisad are not only >the view of "the first indologists" but in his highly >acclaimed translation of the Upanisads from the 1990's also accept >that this Krishna is not the Krishna of the epics. After all, so many >people by the name Krishna must have lived in India. >A. . But we appointed like false concotion, asseverations like >this. For instance, some scholar siad: "In the VI century BC or >before, some compilators, felt the necessity of inserting the >Devakiputra Krishna". Here, the question is, ¿how did he travel to >the past for know the literary necessities (inside of the mind) of >unidentified authors that he never observed?— like the farce of >unknown genius author of Gita—. May be, he can give us the secret >formula of past travels to verify his claims. The Mr. Patrick >Olivelle holds, it is a proof of the how even the modern idology is >contamined by the influence of the speculative concepts from firts >indologists >B. Attempts have been made to shif the date earlie the Bhagavata >Purana still by refering to Gaudapada's bhasya on the Uttara Gîta >where he mentions the Bhagavatam, and quotes this work form the verse >10.14.4. But this Gaudapada is supposed to be a later author of the >same name as that of Sankara's grand theacher. On the contrary, it >can be argued that Bhagavatam borrowed words and ideas from the >Mandukyas-Karikas of Guadapada. Plainly speaking, the Bhagavata as of >quotationes for works of Sankara and Gaudapada, has not been >conclusively proved, as Bhagavatam can be said to be borrower from >Gaudapada or both might have quoted from different common source. >A: One of more used sophisms by seudoscience is when you show >literary evidences of Krishna and the Puranic works from srutis and >other sources; the so-called scholars said, "it is doubitive, >interpolated" or make other interpretation like you. Because, besides >from the words jugglery the questions arise: What is the proof of >other Guadapada, for observing this? What this proof that Dvaipayana- >vyasa borrowed from the Karikas of Gaudapada??? What is the proof of >one different source existing in these times? I should accept these >fanciful speculations like absolute truths without any evidences? >This is an oracle. Also we can see, that Gaudapada already mentions >the Srimad-Bhagavatam in his works, therefore I can not understand >your seudoscientific concoctions. >B: Why is considering that passages may be interpolated pseudo- >scholarship? Madhva, one of the Vaisnava acaryas, says very >clearly in his commentary of the Mahabharata (the Mahabharata- >tatparya-nirnaya) that the verses have been interpolated into the >Mahabharata. He says that in some places verses have been >added, and at other places verses have been removed. Madhva >believed the sacred texts to be really indestructible, but he >admitted that they are now mostly altered. >Also, Jiva Gosvamin of the Gaudiya Vaisnava group says in his >Bhagavat-sandarbha that puranas such as the Skanda-purana are >"full of errors."If the Vaisnava acaryas accept that the scriptures >are altered and full of errors, why is it unreasonable that modern >indologists also believe this? >A) The big problem with your argument is, that any of the vaisnavas >acaryas reject the quotes that show the Puranas and Krishna's >mentions in the vedas. Therefore, if you want accept his opinions, >you can no be arbitrary, and you should accept all his body of >evidence and not only that wich support you whimsical ideas. Also, >let me correct to you,that the acaryas never said that "all the >sastras are full of errors". Jiva Goswami said in the Krishna >sandharba Anuccheda (28. 69): iti siva-sastriyatvac ca natra vaisnava- >siddhanta-viruddhasya tasyopayogah. Yata uktamskanda eva sanmukham >prati sri -sivena. That the Skanda Purana is not like that; but the >Sivaites puranas should be accept only if they are confirmed in the >vaisnava puranas. >You are like one indologist, who was so honest in recognising his >inability to arrived to a conclusion on the topic. And later created >a trinket hypothesis. Where He adulteres the age of Ghata jataka and >the Puranas for He transfers them to the Christian era. This has >been a bogus thing, because the Ghata jataka date of the III century >B.C., and the Puranas are mentioned in the old Upanishads like >Chandogya 7.1.14, Brhat-Aranyaka 2.4.10 and others archaic texts. >B) Certainly the words "purana" and "itihasa" are mentioned in the >two Upanisads you mention. But what is meant by these words in these >texts? We have to consider this carefully, for one of the greatest >scholars and intellectuals of India, Sankara, does not accept that >the words refer to the texts known as Puranas and Itihasas. In his >commentary on Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10. Sankara says, >that "purana" refers to passages such as Taittiriya Upanisad 2.7, >and "itihasa" to stories such as the dialogue between Urvasi and >Pururavas in the Satapatha Brahmana. This is also accepted by the >Mimamsaka School. >A: However, a close observation proof, that your argument is simply a >fanciful interpretation from Sankara and mimansa school, and not in >line with the spirit of the Upanisads verses themselves. At respect, >others of the most serius authoritys in this matter, Dr. Thomas >Hopkings, recognized that such hostility upon the evidence of the >puranic literature in the srutis are: "such objections are mere >pedantry..." (RVL p. ix.) And other expert in the Vedic text, Dr. >Michael Witzel from Harvard openly said: "Still, there is some >evidence that there may be ample reason for calling these things >(Puranas) "the fifth Veda". (V p.23) This is probed by a direct >reading in the text. Because, if you know the more elementary >literary preceptive, you can observe that the words are used in >numeration statement, and the other sustantives, like Rig, Yajur, >Atharva and Sama, are sacred books, and the same categorical status >is given to the Puranas and Itihasas. You can read the same fact, >with open eyes, in other sources, like Atharva veda XI.7.24, >Saptapatha Brahman XI. 5,6,8, etc. Therefore, even the late scholar >Rapson admits that, the Puranas have preserved an independient >tradition, which supplements the prestly tradition of the Vedas and >Brahmanas and which goes back to the same period. (CHI, I.902) So, on >the face of such an elaborated record, it is absurd to build up >hypotheses on basis of vague suspicions and unbridled imaginations. >B: In the Ujjvala-nilamani by Rupa Gosvamin there is a reference to a >passage in an appendix of the Rgveda (Rk-parisista) where the >name Radha is mentioned in connection with the name Madhava >(considered a name of Krsna). The passage where Rupa >Gosvamin mentions this is Ujjavala-nilamani 4.4. However, Rupa >Gosvamin seems to ignore the context in which this passage >occurs in the Rk-parisista. This context dictates that Radha is the >constellation Visakha, and Madhava is the month in spring (now >known as Vaisakh) that coincides with that constellation. >A: The Big problem with this argument is the fault of historical >observation. For example, in the other cultures, the constellation of >Taurus is namely because the bull existed before on earth and the men >assigned this name to the constellation. Other instance is the month >of July or August; this months are called by the influences of >Romanic Kings figures. The Egyptians conceive a cocodrile in a >constellations and the Milk Way they called the celestial Nilo river, >and we can observer that there are many alligators in the river Nilo. >Therefore, the names Radha and Madhava might be also the names of a >month in spring and the constellation of Visakha, however, these >objects have been named after the personalities of Radha-Madhava, and >not viceversa. After all, Vishakha is an intimate friend of Radha in >the spiritual realm of Goloka. >Bibliography >Bentley, John, 1825, Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy, >Osnabruck; Biblio Verlang, etd 1970. >(RVL) Goswami, Sartsvarupa, dasa. Reading in the Vedic literature. >The tradition speak by itself. Bhaktivedanta Books Truths , 1977. >(K Bg.) Goswami Hridayananda Ph. D. Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gîta, >Starling an Exploration in the meanings. Conference in the UCLA. >Editade in the BTG. (Part I, BTG, IX-X p.21, y Part III, BTG, I-II, >pp.32). >(HK) Gelberg, Steven J. ed., Hare Krishna Hare Krishna. FIVE >DISTINGUE SCHOLARS ON KRISHNA MOVEMENT, Groves Prees, N.Y.1983. >(V) Rosen, Steven, Vaisnavism, Cotemporary Scholars Discuss the >Gaudiya Tradition N. Y. Folks Books, 1992. >(VCC) Thompson, Richard L. Ph D, VEDIC COSMOGRAPHY AND ASTRONOMY, The >Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. 1991. >(KHL) Majumdar, Bimanbehari. KRISHNA IN HISTORY AND LEGEND. >University of Calcuta 1969. >In vediculture, "Vrn Davan" <vaidika1008@h...> wrote: > > >"indologia2000" <indologia@l...> > > >"Vrn Davan" <vaidika1008@h...> > > >LORD KRISHNA's DWARAKA CITY? > > >Fri, 23 Jul 2004 02:15:43 -0000 > > > > > >Julio's past 14, in the program discovery territory from Discovery > > >Channel, Mr. Graham Hancock show a documentary on the civilizations > > >submerged pre diluviane in India. Being supported in several > > >scholars, presented systematic arguments against the Arya Inviation > > >theory, he showed the discoveries of the Gulf of Cambay 7500 BC, >the > > >discoveries of the river Sarasvati too, dating them in the 7000 BC. > > >However, he rejected the ruins of Dwaraka, alleging to had have > > >discovered a stone, similar anchor to those used by boats in the > > >Middle Age. In this way, he ignored completely, all the discoveries > > >and investigations carried out by the Dr. S. R. Rao and his team. >At > > >the same time, when I was asking on the status of the Mr. Graham in > > >the idological list, I received the following notification: > > >nevertheless, I wanted more informs on the so called stone of > > >anchoring. > > > > > >: Stephen Hodge <s.hodge@P...> > > > [ agregar a contactos l bloquear l agregar a lista > > >spam l agregar a lista blanca ] > > > > > > Para: INDOLOGY@l... > > > > > > Copia: > > > Fecha: Jueves 15 de Julio de 2004 02:39 am > > > Tema: Graham Hancock > > > > > >Horacio Francisco Arganis Juarez wrote: > > > > > > > Re: Snakes > > >Sorry, but it helps if you change the subject line to indicate a >new > > >thread. > > > > > > > Pranam!!! I am looking for the e-amil addres from Prfr. Hambock >(or > > >some > > >thing like that) Graham of England, may be Durbhan University. > > >Becuase he > > >edite, in territory discovery channel, a very innovative and > > >procative video > > >about pre flood "civilitations in India." Could your fine persons > > >help me > > >and discloset your comentairies on the issue. > > >***** > > >You are, of course, referring to Graham Hancock who is neither a > > >professor > > >(but is a former journalist) nor I hope employed by any >university. I > > >don't > > >think he is available directly by email but there should be a >website > > >devoted to his many fantasies, though depending on your critical > > >sensibilities, the man is either an innovative "researcher" or a > > >deranged > > >and somewhat arrogant crank. I tend towards the latter position. In > > >fact, > > >there is lots of information on the internet debunking his >ridiculous > > >theories which have drawn the deserved scorn of all serious >scholars. > > >Typical of his theories is his claim that the Antarctic was > > >the "original" > > >Atlantis, originally situated thousands of miles to the north in >the > > >middle > > >of the Atlantic which then just happened to "slip" down to its > > >current icy > > >location no more than 10,000 years ago -- despite the evidence of >ice- > > >cores > > >which prove that the Antarctic has been ice bound for several >million > > >years. > > >Virtually all of his claims are demonstrably untrue or distortions >of > > >known > > >facts. However, if you are interested in a plausible account of a > > >possible > > >location for pre-flood (c7000 BCE) civilization in SE Asia, try > > >Stephen > > >Oppenheimer's "Eden in the East". > > > > > >Best wishes, > > >Stephen Hodge > > > > > > > > > > _______________ > > Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from >McAfee® > > Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > _______________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.