historical context enhances beauty of sacred texts

[Guest guest]

Barbara Pijan Lama wrote:

– the end goal of self-realization – requires a profound

tolerance for ambiguity. As we approach a more mature

understanding of sacred texts by appreciating their historical context,

a tolerance for the imperfection of human knowledge and also for the fragile

emotional condition of many believers is surely required.

 

Dear Barbara and members,

Thanks to all for comments on Varaha Mihira and the Rig Veda.

I personally couldn't care less for the ethnicity of Varaha Mihira, whether

he is Indian or Iranian, I am only interested in his astrological conclusions.

The dating of the Vedas and Jyotish texts is always a 'hot potato' in a discussion

group. I only mentioned the Rig Veda as an attempt to reconcile the history

somewhat of the Brihat Parashara Hora--if Parahara was the father of Vyasadeva,

who wrote the Rig Veda, and the Rig Veda dates back thousands of years, how

are we to date the Parashara Hora?

A different approach to dating the Vedas was attempted by David Frawley in

his "Gods, Sages and Kings" Frawley points out that the ancients had knowledge

of precession and noted the various nakshatras and their connection to the

solstices and eqinoxes. For instance there are a number of verses in the

Rig Veda that may point to a time when the Vernal Equinox occurred in Punarvasu

while the Winter Solstice occurred in Revati--this would indicate a date

of 5000-6000 BCE.

I really like the idea mentioned by Barbara (above) regarding a tolerance

for ambiguity. Ambiguity implies that things may have more than one meaning

or may otherwise be vague. This reminds me of something I learned from the

teachings of Jeddu Krishnamurthi. To paraphrase: "If one starts out with

doubts, it may lead to certainty, whereas if one starts with certainty it

can only lead to doubts."

Best,

Steve

[Guest guest]

Dear Barbara,

 

One should take into considerations some aspects of Vedic

culture when pondering about the probable date of origin of vedas.

 

- There were no graves or monuments dedicated to any kings. Dead are cremated

and ashes immersed in holy waters. So, no way of carbon dating anything.

 

- The knowledge was passed on verbally and no texts were in use. For centuries,

vedas were recited by generations and taught in forms of chants only.

 

- 1600 BC does not seem probable because it is only about 800 years before

Buddha. The jains had been in existence before buddha and Mahavir was 24th

tirthankar of Jains. Mahavir was born before Buddha.

 

- Both jainism and buddhism deviated from the well established religious

methods. Vedic culture had already been distorted into several sects like

vaishnavs and shaivs when Jainism originated.

 

- Then there epics like Mahabharat and Ramayana, which created written much

after Vedas. Their dates of creation is still in controversy.

 

The iron age could have come much before the assumed period in

India. Remember, India is a country rich in iron ore and the Magadha region of

Mahabharat period is the richest source of iron even today. Anyone who has any

doubts should go and see the iron pillar of Ashoka placed near Kutub Minar in

Delhi. It is a rust proof iron pillar whose exact composition is still not

known.

 

India was ruled by the british and they had tried every trick to prove

that Indians do not have a rich history. They propounded the Aryan Invasion

theory to justify their own rule over India but forgot that everything

mentioned in Vedas is relevent to India, its culture and its flora and fauna,

not with any other part of the world. Aryans and Vedas originated in India only

and at least four thousand years before the date calculated by western scholars.

 

 

There was and is more to India than what the west knows.

 

Numerous civilizations have developed and perished on earth. Whatever we

know has been known before. The knowledge was lost numerous times. Earth's axis

was in opposite direction 13000 years ago. Then, whatever is desert today was

green and inhabited.

 

Europeans went to all corners of the world searching for uncharted

territories, but found civilizations everywhere. But, they deliberately ignored

their existence. Imagine, an alien ship coming to Earth in New York and a small

alien jumping out and saying, "I claim this planet for XYZ nation on TTY

planet. I have discovered this planet. Hereby, this is a territory of XYZ

nation."

 

 

The west cannot understand the east till they keep on studying east with

western point of view.

 

 

Ashutosh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Barbara Pijan Lama

valist

Sunday, August 14, 2005 06:06

historical context enhances beauty of sacred texts

Namaste:

 

In my view there is no essential conflict between our ability to date a sacred

text historically, and our devotion to the religious traditions embedded in

those texts. I was introduced to text criticism (linguistic dating) years ago

in grad school at the U-Chicago Divinity School (home to such notables as

Sanskritist Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty whose works you may have read). It was a

very exciting time. The Dead Sea Scrolls were emerging; linguistic knowledge

of ancient “near-eastern” languages like Aramaic, Assyrian, Sumerian etc was

growing rapidly; archaeological evidence for time and place positioning was

also getting very strong.

 

Even scholars working in other religious traditions (like me) were excited about

what was happening Biblical research. It offered a paradigm for study of

scripture in all the great civilizations.

 

Immersed in study of sacred texts in this very academic setting, I was often

impressed by the devotional character of my professors – especially the older

ones. I worked alongside Jewish and Islamic scholars, Christian theologians,

experts in Vedic, Dravidian, and Indo-Iranian civilizations, professors from

China and Japan with vast knowledge of Buddhism, Shinto, and a huge range of

Asian traditions, even theorists from some of the non-textual shamanistic

traditions (who read rituals as a text). World experts in religion, they had

all devoted their lives to scholarly research in the history and scriptures of

their faith.

 

These scholars had not drifted into any sort of self-satisfied rationalistic

scientism. Rather, the more they knew about the sacred texts core to their

traditions, the more powerfully they heard divine truth speaking. They were

deeply religious people. Towering intellectuals as well as seasoned mystics -

but of course, not a fundamentalist amongst them. Compassionate, wise, and

unshakably committed to sustaining the religious traditions of their birth,

each worshipped in his own sacred space - church, synagogue, mosque, mandir,

and ling. But in study they were real philosophers: articulate, open-minded,

humble, and above all mature.

 

The humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow wrote that true creativity – the end

goal of self-realization – requires a profound tolerance for ambiguity. As we

approach a more mature understanding of sacred texts by appreciating their

historical context, a tolerance for the imperfection of human knowledge and

also for the fragile emotional condition of many believers is surely required.

 

 

Historical scholarship can support deep belief. Perplexing contradictions in

the holy books we revere today can often be explained by parsing out mixed

lineages, cultural adaptations, and accruals. (E.g., the two different

creation stories Genesis I and II.) As the list was discussing re: uccha and

swakshetra of Rahu/Ketu, there is significant doctrinal contradiction in the

current versions of canonical Jyotisha texts. Historical scholarship can

clarify these issues so that serious students of the vidya can advance in their

intuitive practice.

 

Fundamentalists of all religions choose to resolve scriptural contradictions by

appeal to charisma of a living human authority – preacher, imam, guru, rabbi,

etc. Believers lacking Maslow’s “tolerance for ambiguity” may retreat

emotionally into dogma, fearing the loss of righteousness. But believers

grounded in mystical and intuitive truths of ageless Divinity have nothing to

fear – and very much to gain – by carefully watching eternal truth take a

joyride on the vehicle of human history. In the end, historical scholarship

reveals another beautiful aspect of the interplay between human and Divine.

 

Sincerely,

 

Barbara Pijan Lama

bpijanlamajyotisha (AT) msn (DOT) com

[Guest guest]

Dear Barbara,

 

It has been most interesting to read about your studies and the people you

associated with. But I must pursue my exception to what you said previously

because of your latest email, in which you said

'These scholars had not drifted into any sort of self-satisfied

rationalistic scientism'

 

This is exactly what they did do and what they do today and what scientists have

always done. Scientific investigation and its discoveries by their very nature

require the scientist to stand apart from the universe and to draw conculsions

about it while at the same time excluding their own self from the picture.

After all how else could they lead humanity to so thoroughly misuse the

environment including their own bodies? This process of excluding the most

vital part - themselves - from the picture makes the self-satisfied

rationalistic scientism. What is often also excluded is the self's companion -

reason.

 

Scientists so often espouse silly nonsense which even a layman can see through

that it seems that they leave their reason at home when they go to work.

 

For example you mentioned Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty. I remember the great

hilarity caused when I was studying some years ago by certain of her

translations of the Laws of Manu. No doubt a vast effort went into this

Penguin publication and some of the helpful footnotes are very well researched,

but there are enough real howlers to show that the lady often did not understand

what she was trying to translate.

 

Of course one can date a sacred text historically and be a devout follower of

some faith. But when people start to give serious credence to such notions as

the one under currently discussion in this list, which suggests that Ketu was

some 6th century C. E. addition to Jyotisha, it just demonstrates either they

they are willing to toss their reason into the dustbin because of apparent

historical evidence or that they really do not know the subject itself - or

both of course. The old and quite common practice of referring to Rahu and

Ketu by speaking only of Rahu comes from a deep understanding of the nodes, not

from an absence of Ketu as a concept.

 

It would be nice to think, as you write, that 'Historical scholarship can

clarify these issues so that serious students of the vidya can advance in their

intuitive practice'. Unfortunately that is precisely how not to advance in

one's intuitive practice.

 

Regards

 

Gordon Brennan