From: ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Forgeries of Hindu Texts
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:40:09 GMT
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


>From: dharma@verdix.com (Manjeri Dharmarajan)
>Subject: Re: Forgeries of Hindu Texts
>Date: 13 Apr 92 07:27:27 GMT


>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.

About the Bible -- yes, certain portions of the Bible have been suppressed or
mistranslated. I can straightaway give you a minor example from the old Testament,
where the original Hebrew - I'm black and beautiful, in the Song of Solomon,
was translated into the Latin as I'm black but beautiful.

Similarly, I've seen it claimed that Christ's mother Mary is referred in the
old Aramaic as `young girl' rather than `virgin'.

That parts of the Bible had been distorted was a conclusion reached by no less
a luminary than Sir Isaac Newton !

There is plenty of modern scholarship about tampering with the Bible. There
is not doubt that it happened.

>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.

It takes someone who is willing to challenge the text to find tamperings.

Secondly, as is amply demonstrated in the case of the Bible, tampering with
religious text is possible, even when the text is widely available, and widely
debated.

>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.

If the Vedas did not reign supreme then, it would be even easier to tamper
with the texts.


>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.

That Buddhism was a reaction against existing Vedic Brahminism is not a
`historical fact' either.

As a matter of fact, the Vedic schools of Samkhya, Mimamsa, Vaisesika,
Yoga were all founded in this era - around 500 B.C. In the words of
historians, this was a very significant time of history - both in
Europe (Greeks) and in India, the foundations of philosophy were being
laid.

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

The citations were given at the end of the article.

[stuff deleted -- please check the citations

>>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.

Well, the Greeks who came with Alexander recorded instances of Sati. Sati
began well before the Muslim invasion. Get your historical facts straight.
>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.

The two examples given are the most important ones -- regarding the establishment
of caste, and regarding Sati. The Sati case is very unambiguous -- you cannot
talk of remarriage of the widow in verses following the verse in which you
have `sanctified' burning her alive.
The Purusha-Sukta case depends on linguistic analysis, and may be a little
more open to debate.

>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. :-)

That Hinduism doesn't have a clergy is true. But what do you make of rules whichsay that if a woman has committed adultery, she may regain her chastity by
making herself available to any brahmin who visits her house in the next six months ?

That all other sections of society are responsible for mistreating the Shudra
is true, as well.

>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.

Firstly, this article satisfied something matters that were puzzling me: for
example, the disappearance and mysterious re-appearance of Ayodhya in the ancient
literature.

Secondly, it gives an alternate view of history. It never seemed logical to me
that the original Rig-Vedic religion had a  strong caste system, and then
Buddhism came along, and most Indians turned Buddhist and discarded the caste
system. And then they all returned to the caste system again, discarding their
Buddhism. Moreover, the alternate view of history puts paid to the notion that
the caste system was an invention to keep racial separation.

The real point of the article is that our ancient history is still shrouded in
mystery.

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian