From: dharma@verdix.com (Manjeri Dharmarajan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Forgeries of Hindu Texts
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:27:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: verdix.4512
Reply-To: dharma@VERDIX.COM (Manjeri Dharmarajan)
Organization: Verdix Western Operations; Aloha, OR

In article <Ydu8Kh_00VB=R8ykYE@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>
>This `communalist liberal' is happy to present to you some more
>food for thought:
>
>The following is from Benjamin Walker: The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic
>Survey of Hinduism, 1968.
>
>FORGERIES: The fact that the Hindu Scriptures bear evidence of consider-
>able tampering need come as no surprise to anyone acquainted with the his-
>tory of priestcraft the world over. The scientific criticism of ancient
>writings has brought to light many forgeries among the works of the Church
>Fathers, to take Christian literature, and the texts of the other great
>faiths are not exempt from this imputation.
>

Are you saying that it is widely believed that the Bible is forged? Can some
Christian scholar back this up?

My impression was that the Vedas were transmitted aurally. At any given time,
thousands of people knew them by heart. This kept them pure, since a revisionist
would have to involve a majority of these people in the conspiracy.

>
>That this mass of Sanskrit texts that had been subjected to interpolations,
>tendentious redactions or plain fabrication, should have escaped detection
>before European scholarship directed its attention to them, was largely due
>to the reverence in which they were held, and the danger that attended any
>attempt to undermine their authority. More than expert knowledge is required
>to detect a forgery. What is more important is the secular approach, which
>implies a refusal to regard the sacred text with the eye of faith, and there-
>fore to see in it a document of human origin subject to the limitations of
>human scribes, copyists, commentators and zealots.

There were (and still are) furious debates on the real meaning of these texts.
There have been many radically different schools of thought, on what exactly
these texts are telling us. These debates were organized by the kings, and
rewards for victory were great (money, fame, power etc).

If there had been obvious tampering, the person who discovered and proved it,
would be famous. No conspiracy can succeed when the rewards for whistle-blowers
are huge. Also, since these debators included Buddhists, it wasn't even in the
interest of all concerned to make these revisions.

The fact that it took Europeans to "discover" these tamperings, argues against
the possibilities that these tamperings happened much before they came.

>The onus of responsibility for the greater part of the tampering can be laid
>at the door of the brahmin priesthood who in order to support their claims to
>superiority and preserve their privileges are known to have suppressed facts,
>changed names, and confused places and periods; who have interlarded fact with
>fiction in accordance with their own religious ends. It is to the period known
>as the Brahminical Revival [1-400 AD] that we can trace most of the counter-
>feiting of scriptures that has characterized the Period of Priests throughout
>recorded history. 

As I argued before, it is remote that there were significant alterations
that early, as they would have been detected long ago. That time period
was when Buddhism held sway over India. Vedanta did not comeback until around
800 AD when Shankara propounded his Advaita philosophy.

>
>The whole vast heritage of Vedic and native material was exploited to buttress
>up the brahminical edifice. To the Revival is due the sanskritization of Indian
>thought and the brahmanization of Indian social codes by the scribes.
>

Buddha was born in 500 BC. Buddhism was partly a reaction against the existing
Vedic Brahminism. This suggests that Sanskrit, and brahmanization of India's 
social code, was widespread much before 1 AD. Such glaring errors on simple
historical facts completely destroy the authors credibility.

>
>In the words of Dharma Theerta,
>
>`There is hardly any Sanskrit composition which has not been tampered with,
>altered or added to by them. There is no famous rishi or teacher in whose
>name they have not concocted scriptures. There is no sacred book into which
>fiction and legend and imaginary history, have not been interpolated.'
>

The author makes numerous claims like this, and quotes other European scholars
making wild assertions about the Sriptures, without any proof, or examples.

>The Epics were long current in the Prakrits before they were rendered into
>Sanskrit. We have the opinion quoted by Keith that the Epics were first written
>in Sanskrit in the early years before and after the beginning of the Christian
>era, and that they were in fact translations and elaborations from Prakrit

Again, unsupported claims.

>
>And in most cases it debased what it influenced. The noble early poetry of
>Tamil, characterized by simplicity and realism, never recovered its freshness
>after contact with Sanskrit, and Tamil literature was thereafter subjected to
>the artificialities of the northern tongue. Practically every vernacular
>literature has suffered in like manner as long as it lay under the influence
>of Sanskrit influence.

Many claim Tamil pre-dates Sanskrit. Many people in Tamil Nadu can read and
understand ancient Tamil texts like the Thirukkural. Tamil has remained
remarkably pure and unaltered. With the anti-brahmin and anti-Hindi fanaticism 
current in Tamil Nadu, I doubt if it will ever change.

Other languages (eg Malayalam) have borrowed heavily from Sanskrit. The author
says it like it was a bad thing. :-)

Actually, the authors bias is incredible. Sanskrit "debased" other literature?
Older poetry was "noble, simple, and realistic," but Sanskrit poetry is not???
Has he heard of Kalidasa? Thyaagaraja? Why, I even like contemporary Malayalam
film songs!

>Max Muller has shown how the
>brahmins `mangled, mistranslated and misapplied' the original word `agre'
>[dwelling] to read `agneh' [fire] in order to provide Rig-Vedic support for
>the burning of widows. 

Is all this still happening before 400 AD? Widow burning was practiced by
the Rajputs in Rajasthan after the Muslim invasion. The only incidence of
widow burning I recall in Indian mythology was Madri's burning after Pandu's
neath. Why didn't these revisionists burn Kunti, too? Why wasn't Vali's wife
not burnt with him? Actually, Tara married Sugreeva (horror of horrors!!!)

I had been told that Max Mueller was a lousy Orientalist. I think I see why.

>while the corruption of the Puranas and Dharma-sastras continued till after the
>Muhammadan conquest. Dr. Ambedkar refers to the well-known case in the time of
>the East India Company, where an entire smriti was concocted to support a
>particular lawsuit. And K.M. Pannikar refers to the fabrication of a Sankara
>text by the brahmins of Malabar to sanction the inhuman custom of unapproach-
>ability.
>
>(ii) Even the Kamasutra was tampered with, in my opinion. For example,
>on methods of increasing the size of the male `lingam', several herbal
>and other presciptions are given -- about twenty or so. Then, the last
>line reads: The blessings of venerable Brahmins, well propitiated, have
>the same effect.    !!!!!!!!
>

The few examples given are either modern, or in non-religious texts. Or does
the author get religious inspiration from reading the Kamasutra!
If the author wants to prove that Hinduism has been subverted by the Brahmins,
I suggest he get some examples from the Gita or the Upanishads. The Ramayana
and the Mahabharata are not religious texts.

Hinduism does not have a clergy. Brahmins typically lived in austerity, had
little wealth or power. The upward mobility of Brahmins began after the British
arrival, because of the emphasis on education. If they revised scriptures to 
make themselves powerful, they failed remarkably.

It is fashionable to blame the ill-treatment of untouchables on Brahmins alone.
People forget that the rest of society didn't treat the Shudra any better.
Also, the Brahmins are hardly a homogenous group. There is no love lost between
Iyers and Iyengars. :-)

Arun Gupta has posted many excellent articles. Unfortunately, he seems to have
taken offense at something, and is out to "get" Hindus. Wearing blinkers is
a sure way to get lost.

	Dharmarajan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan