Saranga Saikia came in under a video by AronRa (a long thread of 185 msg)

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the Indian age of Kaliyuga and Krishna.... they're all mythology......not history....get your facts straight

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia How much "mythology" can be history and how much can't? How do you tell the difference?

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the historicity of Vasudeva Krishna in the Mathura region of Uttar Pradesh is to this extent- a local hero called Vasudeva elevated to a central status under the greater tradition or Cult of Vishnu in the greater Brahmamical pantheon under the aegis of Puranic Hinduism- a hero whose historicity can be at best pushed to the 1st- 2nd century BCE

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ok... so let's say that the idea of Kaliyuga actually has historical merit to it. But, the end of it's predecessor, the Dvapara yuga doesn't meet it's end by a flood. Nor does the beginning of the Kaliyuga represent the actual reset of the whole human race. It was just the end of the Kurukshetra war or more accurately, death of Krishna.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia "Nor does the beginning of the Kaliyuga represent the actual reset of the whole human race."

I think Hinduism started among people who wanted to ignore there had recently been a flood. Nod nostalgics.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you think? What you think doesn't mean shit. And it's not Hindu, rather Vedic. The Puranas actually have references to a Flood, and a so called Manu building a huge Boat and Vishnu in his first incarnation as Matsya- a giant fish, saves him. But that happens in the Treta yuga, the age of the first Manu...or ancestral man. In the Puranic understanding of time...the age your Judeo- Christian tradition refers has no equivalence of any sort of population wiping. And don't say Brahmanism got it all wrong. Either all of this batshit is true or none is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia No, for a true religion, all of it is true, but for any false religion it is not true that "none of it is".

I don't have a habit of making a difference between Hindu and Vedic religions, though I see what you mean.

I am here talking of early post-Flood, perhaps not even post-Babel origins of both. And these obviously prior to both.

I think Rama was an early post-Flood and pre-Babel hero, and Nimrod would have been "Hanuman", and I think both this and the Flood were pre-posed to much earlier in order to leave a "continuity" between world wars of Nod East of Eden and the world of early post-Flood India - because the civilisation is in some ways built on nostalgia for Nod.

Later on specific wars and heros added an aura around the pre-Flood memories, like Kurukshetra and your view of "Krishna's" origin.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, if we subject the myths to a chronological reading, as proposed by the Puranas, the Kurukshetra episode is placed after the events of the Ramayana.

And your claim of your religion being the one true and all of the rest being false just reeks of arrogance and haughtiness. FYI... though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness, the Indian philosophical schools are characterised by far greater complexity of ideas and concepts about the Atman and Brahman and purush and prakriti, things that actually follow reason, than your Judeo-Christian traditions could ever grasp.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia "No, if we subject the myths to a chronological reading, as proposed by the Puranas, the Kurukshetra episode is placed after the events of the Ramayana."

We would agree both Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranas too were written way after events?

One of the things that oral tradition has a way of muddling up is, chronology. The Bible, even on purely human grounds, has a safeguard : from Genesis 2 to 11, the oral tradition later taken down by Moses and perhaps already by Abraham involved full genealogies from Adam to Flood, from Flood to Abraham (Genesis 5 and 11), and from Genesis 12 on, one can count on some kind of writing being used and also kept in the beduin tribe that would later resettle in Egypt.

Without such safeguards, one thing that can happen is chronological rearrangements. For instance, Germanic legend about the battle of Ravenna pits Ermaneric against Theoderic. When we go to written sources made by Romans (both Latin and Greek speaking, and including Romanised Germanics) we can however see that Ermaneric lived about a century before Theoderic.

The traditions about early kings in Denmark and Sweden come in two versions contradicting each other on the exact topic of chronology: both Saxo and Snorri agree Odin came to Sweden before Frothi Haddingson was king of Denmark. However, to Snorri, Frothi Haddingson was identic to Peace-Frothi, contemporary of Augustus, but to Saxo, they were Frothi I and Frothi II.

Whether one or the other manipulated or both took the tradition as heard from oral tradition bearers, chronology has been manipulated on at least one side.

When it comes to Snorri and Saxo, I think Peace-Frothi and Frothi Haddingson are one and the same, Saxo abusively divided him into two several centuries apart, and when it comes to chronology of Flood, Rama, death of Krishna, I think your tradition has abusively pre-posed Flood and Rama to before the death of Krishna.

"And your claim of your religion being the one true and all of the rest being false just reeks of arrogance and haughtiness."

I think I had already got that you are not a Christian, and I am well aware of that value being one of your errors ... thank you. But though I actually do claim that, and though I worded my expression accordingly, the gist of what I said is, a false religion or a religion not the true one will contain some error, but you cannot take any single statement from it and conclude it is erroneous just because of that.

"FYI... though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness, the Indian philosophical schools are characterised by far greater complexity of ideas and concepts about the Atman and Brahman and purush and prakriti, things that actually follow reason, than your Judeo-Christian traditions could ever grasp."

For your information, I think St. Thomas Aquinas has both grasped that complexity and refuted it.

And as to your saying " though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness," I think I respect Mahabharata and Ramayana more than you do. As sources for history.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl there are a lot to say about everything that you blurted out. How most of what you said was garbage. But that's the whole point. It's garbage. The best I can achieve is losing my mental peace and balance. It's because you so blindly believe what you view is correct, so dogmatic has your upbringing been, it'll be easier proving that the earth is flat than showing somehow that something doesn't hold good chronologically, or asking you to take up an unbiased study of anything. The same thing holds true of all of these pastors that you flock to. They would scoff at anything that isn't their belief, ridicule the fact that anyone is having a world view that isn't centred on Israel. Well, I should have read the rest of your comments.

As for the treatment of Ramayana and Mahabharata, what you mean by valuing it more than is that you see it as a tool to confirm your history. You try to draw parallels between events in them and the Biblical narrative, to the extent that would increase the historicity of your story. Other than that, you don't care if anything else has any historicity, for all you care, it'll be better if they don't have any, something I can gauge from your comments, since in most of the cases, you argue that the other things are wrong. Anyway, you try to see the source as an actual, chronologically, correct, depiction of events. You see the depiction of a certain event, and you shout out, that is just as it happened (because it supports what you believe), and arbitrarily leave out or discredit other details. How I use it is corroborate it with other available evidence, archaeological and literary before ranking them on the basis of authenticity.We have sought, there have been multiple attempts to establish the historicity of the two stories in the time frame mentioned in the books themselves. We have failed miserably. The most blatant obstacle is, obviously, the Harappan civilisation. I can go into details about doubtfulness about authorship and other contradictions and missing plots and stuff. But that's not the main focus of our study. We try to see the events as being representative of the social, political, economic and cultural reality of the times, and by that I mean 5th century BCE- 5th century CE. In this exercise as well, corroboration with other and contesting sources, such as the Buddist texts and archaeological records is crucial for a balanced study and for yielding the best results. The didatic portions are very useful for the study of changing social norms and ideas about dhamma, complex relationships regarding authority as far as interpretation of law is concerned. There are different versions of the texts as well. Studying the variations helps us understand cultural contestations and contradictory socio- cultural norms. It is a beautiful exercise to use these two epics in understanding history of the early historic period of Indian history.

Thus, we can clearly see who respects the sources more and who is honest in their efforts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia I'm not commenting on some of your simple abuse. But you had some other things to say between a beginning and an end that were calculated to disparage me.

"It's because you so blindly believe what you view is correct,"

I believe my view is correct, so do you. Do you believe that blindly?

"so dogmatic has your upbringing been,"

Well, yes I was taught chemistry and round earth and how machines work ... lots of scientific dogmas ... you meant religious ones?

"it'll be easier proving that the earth is flat than showing somehow that something doesn't hold good chronologically,"

It so happens, I perfectly understand that if Puranas are correct, my chronology doesn't work, precisely as if the Bible is correct the one you attribute to Puranas as well as the one you hold as Evolutionist is not correct. I pointed out, before anything was written down in India you had some millennia even into the Kali Yuga - way after all of Flood and Rama, Krishna and his Kurukshetra war would have been finished.

"or asking you to take up an unbiased study of anything."

In history, one is usually not unbiassed.

"The same thing holds true of all of these pastors that you flock to."

Like, I haven't been to Church since 2012 ...

"They would scoff at anything that isn't their belief,"

Well, I didn't.

"ridicule the fact that anyone is having a world view that isn't centred on Israel."

I find it fairly respectable to have a world view at least somewhat centred on pre-Flood and early post-Flood world, as I take hinduism (with predecessors) to be.

"As for the treatment of Ramayana and Mahabharata, what you mean by valuing it more than is that you see it as a tool to confirm your history."

And in the process learning more of it. Josephus says Nimrod defended his brothers, one of whom was called Regma or Rama ... and Ramayana gives me context, I only weed out what is rooted in idolatry, like Rama being an incarnation (among several) of Vishnu or Sugriva or Hanuman being both gods and monkeys. The Protestant pastors you think of would, most of them, throw out all of Ramayana.

Genesis says the earth was full of violence or injustice - Duryodhana both abetting Yudhishthira to gamble and faking the game and when winning Draupadi humiliating her gives me one key of what that could be about (I get other keys from archaeology too), and some vague hints about nuclear bombs or pollutions gives me even more such.

"You try to draw parallels between events in them and the Biblical narrative, to the extent that would increase the historicity of your story."

I think I don't quite need to increase it, but a confirmation is not quite bad anyway.

"Other than that, you don't care if anything else has any historicity,"

On the contrary, the only things I clearly and definitely disagree about historicity with these is where they either contradict theology (Krishna being a god) or Biblical history (sequence of events, timeline).

"for all you care, it'll be better if they don't have any,"

Not the least. I actually went out of my way to mention that Odin came to Uppland region in Sweden ... while I think he was a man, not a god, the pagans before Christianity came to us counted him as the supreme god. I am very well comfortable with maximal historicity of non-Christian sources, within the proviso that they cannot be historically accurate where actually directly contradicting the Bible.

"since in most of the cases, you argue that the other things are wrong."

How about taking a look at in what aspects I thought them wrong?

"Anyway, you try to see the source as an actual, chronologically, correct, depiction of events."

Actual, yes, chronologically, no. Correct, mixed.

"You see the depiction of a certain event, and you shout out, that is just as it happened (because it supports what you believe), and arbitrarily leave out or discredit other details."

I discredit only what my faith cannot accept, and accept most of the rest.

"How I use it is corroborate it with other available evidence, archaeological and literary before ranking them on the basis of authenticity."

Archaeological evidence doesn't speak for itself. It is therefore weaker than narrative. Narrative evidence is obviously of various accuracy, varying between 50 and 100 %, most sources falling in between, and I am taking optimistic views of all sources, until I find evidence to the contrary of something, like my faith does require rejection of certain timelines or attributions of godhood.

"We have sought, there have been multiple attempts to establish the historicity of the two stories in the time frame mentioned in the books themselves. We have failed miserably."

Well, the problem is, you take carbon dates as literal truth. I don't. A pre-Flood event, like Mahabharata, would date before 40 000 BP in carbon dates. A post-Flood but pre-Babel event would date between 40 000 BP and 9600 BC. Harappan civilisation would have carbon dates younger than Göbekli Tepe, which I take to be Babel.

"I can go into details about doubtfulness about authorship and other contradictions and missing plots and stuff."

I don't believe Vyasa was a relative of Mahabharata characters and back then spoke or wrote anything like Indian languages. Before Babel, all spoke some type of Hebrew. I think Vyasa was put that far back in an attempt to both hide the Flood had happened after that and pretend that these Indians had a very reliable history of all details. You would arguably agree on anything of this except for Hebrew as pre-Flood language and Flood as post-Kali-Yuga-starting event.

"We try to see the events as being representative of the social, political, economic and cultural reality of the times, and by that I mean 5th century BCE- 5th century CE."

I believe you when you say that you see politics and culture of the 1000 years around the birth of Christ as mirrored in Mahabharata. How much of that was really totally new back these times? Obviously, if Homer attributes iron weapons to some, he is living in the Iron Age, while those he wrote of lived in the Bronze Age. Some contamination is to be expected from later conditions.

How much was a repetition of pre-Flood conditions? How much of these repeats would have been provoked by a somewhat detailed tradition of them surviving after the Flood through the descendants of Regma, son of Kush? I don't know. But I am optimistic it is fairly much.

"In this exercise as well, corroboration with other and contesting sources, such as the Buddist texts and archaeological records is crucial for a balanced study and for yielding the best results."

It seems we have different criteria on what makes a historic fact reliable. To me one good source, even if it is a partially bad source, is enough, as long as it isn't discredited by better sources. To you, confirmation by other sources is a must ... I can only say, with that criterium, there is lots of history which can't be treated as such. Did Caesar build a bridge over Lake Geneva when battling Orgetorix? Bellum Gallicum book I is the only text that says so, and the earliest manuscript is from Carolingian times.

"The didatic portions are very useful for the study of changing social norms and ideas about dhamma, complex relationships regarding authority as far as interpretation of law is concerned."

I would say the theology of any written work is the theology of its writer. That involves its moral theology. However, this need not mean the seeds for the Indian ethos were not sown in Nod east of Eden before the Flood.

"There are different versions of the texts as well. Studying the variations helps us understand cultural contestations and contradictory socio- cultural norms."

This is like asking what a Medieval text about Troy has to say about the Middle Ages. But recently someone found that a 15th C. text involved detail found archaeologically to be correct about Troy itself. Like 2500 years earlier, before Homer.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl seems like anachronism is your mojo. If that's the kind of flawed methodology that you wanna pursue to reinforce your beliefs, be my guest. No one can teach a blind goat.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia I'm leaving you the final word.

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/04/saranga-saikia-came-in-under-video-by.html