Shiv kills sati

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

Rehan Arora

@SnakeEyes

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#31

Don't watch that crap it would be insult of our God...

Quote

Nandini

@NandiniRaizadaa

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 13 years ago

#32

Originally posted by: nniks
youtube is full of junk...there's one story tht Sita left Ram to marry Ravan and had kids with him...Ram killed Ravan and their kids to take revenge 🤢
These vidoes are created to malign Hindu mythology...dont pay attention to it...we know what is right.

This so redious 😆 Dont worry dear. 2000 years of invasions could not change the story , I am sure a few youtube video too wont be able to do it

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Mulan08

@Mulan08

Navigator

Posted: 13 years ago

#33

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
Mira

First things first - I agree to disagree here.

Just one thing about your first point - I agree that dating Hindu scriptures to trace it to its original time of creation is extremely difficult, and that the oral tradition does leave much room for error. In that sense, I agree that a lot of things that are today printed as being written by either Valmiki or Vyasa may not have been there in the original. From that pov, it is good to have a healthy skepticism about whether a certain incident is true just b'cos the available versions of 'original' texts have it.

However, that's completely different from accepting latter day accounts of the same topics, none of which state their sources. It's like let's say there was a car accident in the streets and police, after doing the arrests and everything, took eyewitness accounts of what happened. Now, it may turn out later that some or most or even all of those eyewitness accounts turn out to be unreliable, or downright fabricated.

But in such a case, the police would have to investigate further based on other clues. But one thing you can be sure they'll never do - they'll never visit people who were nowhere near the scene of the accident and ask them what happened, and use their testimony. They'd be laughed out of court if they did that. So the question of whether the eyewitnesses were reliable or not is irrelevant to the fact that people who were not eyewitnesses can not have the facts on the ground.

It's a similar situation here. Scholars would have to trace back as early as possible to find out what the original scriptures actually said, as well as what actually happened. But regardless of what they find out, I'd still say that what mediaeval texts say about them has no chance of being accurate. Much less serials that were done in the 60s to the 80s.

It would be one thing if we were just discussing Grimm fairy tales, or Hans Christian Anderson's or even Disney's. But these stories also influence religious practices, and in many cases define not just religious traditions, but also day to day living. So if some of the latter day versions are problematic, either for being misogynic or other negative attributes, they deserve to be discredited by more 'authentic' ones. Authentic as in - this was written at the time the characters being described existed, and not thousands of years later.

I was about to make a post on similar lines. The thoughts you have expressed so well are on my mind too when I hear and read so many versions of happenings related to God.

We need to use our conscience or "vivek" and check whether the stories spread negativity and darkness or sweetness and light. If they are against the simple principles of human dignity, equality and happiness, they must best be ignored.

Quote

whatthewhat

@whatthewhat

Dazzler

Posted: 13 years ago

#34

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
Mira

First things first - I agree to disagree here.

Just one thing about your first point - I agree that dating Hindu scriptures to trace it to its original time of creation is extremely difficult, and that the oral tradition does leave much room for error. In that sense, I agree that a lot of things that are today printed as being written by either Valmiki or Vyasa may not have been there in the original. From that pov, it is good to have a healthy skepticism about whether a certain incident is true just b'cos the available versions of 'original' texts have it.

However, that's completely different from accepting latter day accounts of the same topics, none of which state their sources. It's like let's say there was a car accident in the streets and police, after doing the arrests and everything, took eyewitness accounts of what happened. Now, it may turn out later that some or most or even all of those eyewitness accounts turn out to be unreliable, or downright fabricated.

But in such a case, the police would have to investigate further based on other clues. But one thing you can be sure they'll never do - they'll never visit people who were nowhere near the scene of the accident and ask them what happened, and use their testimony. They'd be laughed out of court if they did that. So the question of whether the eyewitnesses were reliable or not is irrelevant to the fact that people who were not eyewitnesses can not have the facts on the ground.

It's a similar situation here. Scholars would have to trace back as early as possible to find out what the original scriptures actually said, as well as what actually happened. But regardless of what they find out, I'd still say that what mediaeval texts say about them has no chance of being accurate. Much less serials that were done in the 60s to the 80s.

It would be one thing if we were just discussing Grimm fairy tales, or Hans Christian Anderson's or even Disney's. But these stories also influence religious practices, and in many cases define not just religious traditions, but also day to day living. So if some of the latter day versions are problematic, either for being misogynic or other negative attributes, they deserve to be discredited by more 'authentic' ones. Authentic as in - this was written at the time the characters being described existed, and not thousands of years later.

Hi .Vrish.

Glad to continue this interesting conversation!

To your first point in bold. Scholars using text-historical methods do look for the earliest accounts - but let's not confuse that with "what actually happened". They are 2 separate things. The earliest account has value for being the earliest account. As you yourself pointed out, we must maintain a healthy skepticism even about the earliest accounts - because they are subject to human error. None of the texts we have were written in the period the events are supposed to have taken place. Esp. the Puranas, which are late classical/early medieval texts (look at any reliable history of Indian literature). In fact, Puranas continued to be composed into the early modern era.

When I say antiquity does not equal authenticity, I was not conflating authenticity with accuracy!

To me authenticity does not mean the same thing as accuracy! Accuracy, we may never really have!!!

So I when say I accept the validity of later variations, again, do not confuse that with accuracy!

When I mean authenticity/validity - I mean that later versions reflect the sentiments of a place and people at a certain time that has value, that I recognize and acknowledge and accept. But not uncritically - and what I mean by that is that the variations tell me something about how values change over space and time. That I find interesting. I may not LIKE all the variations, but their existence tells me something about how our society has changed and continues to change.

To your second point in red bold:

I'm not sure how this relates, but okay, lets go here as well.

I feel that if there is anything misogynistic or harmful in any text, we must reject it based on our understanding of human rights as of today!

By your logic of ancient=authentic, what happens if we have something misogynistic in an ancient text? Do we continue to follow it because it is ancient and therefore must be authentic? If there is something misogynistic in a medieval text, sure we must reject it, but not because it's medieval (and therefore inauthentic in your view), but because it's misogynistic! If we find something misogynistic in an ancient text, we must reject that too!

Are you aware of the debates around Sati in the pre-independence period? If you are thats a perfect example!

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#35

Oh, I certainly agree that if there were unacceptable practices in ancient times, they have to be rejected.

The way I used/understood it

Accuracy = what actually happened

Validity = what people who actually witnessed the original events in discussion actually reported

Authenticity = whether the valid accounts of what was originally witnessed was accurately transmitted over the ages, and w/ how much of distortion

Essentially, there is the possibility of valid stuff not being accurate.

Antiquity was not in question. For instance, I even reject the Adhyatma Ramayan written by Vyasa despite the fact that he too was an ancient seer. Reason being that he was not contemporaneous to Rama, as Valmiki and Vashistha were. My criteria is that the sources have to be contemporaneous w/ the events in question.

For instance, there were different accounts of the Mahabharata written by Vyasa, Sukhdev, Vaishapayana and Jaimenaya. All of them pass the test of being contemporaneous. B/w them, one has to analyze which one is more likely to be valid and accurate, and which one isn't.

Edited by .Vrish. - 13 years ago