Agnimitra wrote:
Shiv ji, I haven't been following JohneeG ji's posts for a while, but I do remember this was not the case when we were discussing different schools of Vedanta a couple of years ago - I was the one making a case for Indic monotheism in Vedanta, while he was taking the standpoint of Adi Shankara's Advaita.
His bona fides aside - I do think that Indic monotheism can and has been a binding force that devours social distinctions and can forge a new "super-caste" from disparate castes that are otherwise more loosely held together by culture. This is qualitatively different from the type of accommodative social cohesion provided by the monistic method. So it would be useful to plumb those internal resources, while also drawing numerous fine distinctions between Indic Monotheism and the "Angry Schismatic Monotheism" of our West Eurasian friends.
We already have enough indicators to show how Angry Schismatic Monotheism devolved out of a "steal-and-hate" dynamic with India, starting with our Zoroastrian cousins - see this post on the thread here:
Point 33 especially
So we need not call every appreciation of a larger, more mature and holistic Indic Monotheism as being identical with evanjehadi type Angry Schismatic Monotheism. Rather, this neglected piece of Indic civilization may be an important cog to get the wheel turning and churning again.
It will bring the thought process of "being different" full circle, IMHO. I recently dumped some thoughts here:
Between Friendliness and Fascism
blog wrote:There is an unwillingness to distinguish differences between an Infinite but Unique Monotheism that bounds the two ends of the Divergence-Convergence process of Selection, and a fundamentally Angry Schismatic Monotheism that chokes the process of discovery. There is a discomfort with accepting that some level of violence may be part of both processes, but its role and employment in each differ significantly in value, meaning and purpose.
Agnimitra,
even now I am still saying the same thing. I think Advaitha is good. I am not a fan of monotheism. Please don't take the confused rantings of some poster too seriously. If you actually go back and read my posts and even the posts of people criticizing me(actually just attacking me as they can't seem to argue normally), you'll see the point yourself. More than anything else, the ID of Johnee seems to be playing the important role in their conclusions about my posts. If your ID was 'carl', then you would have got a similar reception. Infact, your support for Indic Monotheism would have been accused of being some kind of EJ conspiracy. Now, I can appreciate why you changed your ID.
peter wrote:shiv wrote:....
This man's intent as a closet evangelist should be perfectly clear from the bolded part. The imagination that he knows how Hinduism is practised and others don't is pompous and dismissive.
He seems harmless shiv. If you do not like him would it be better to criticize him privately?
I feel Johnny casts a very wide net and sometimes the catch eludes him for sure and the same applies to us.
At a 20000 foot level Johnny reminds me of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Gr ... comparison
Peter,
2 things:
a) I don't know if that poster actually sees your posts. Because he was claiming to have blocked you. If I remember correctly, he was one of the active guys in deriding you on this thread and archeo-astronomy thread for raising common sense points. It seems to be his way of arguing.
b) Your ID is Peter. So, you are in danger of being accused of playing some kind of devious long con of EJ or Macualay or something.
Prem Kumar wrote:JohneeG: You write the following:
The original MB would have happened around 2300 BCE, if it actually happened. That means that the MB war is older than Dhasha-rajanaya war. By DhashaRajanya war, Shiva was already known.
Elsewhere, you claim that MB might be older than the Ramayana!
Hope you realize that you are either wittingly or unwittingly muddying up the waters. And you do so with a bunch of hypothesis with tenuous links. Not that hypothesis-making is wrong. But the question is: what grand-narrative are you trying to build? Or oppose?
Note who else supports the "late Ramayana" hypothesis - our good friend Sheldon Pollock
Firstly, I really haven't read Sheldon Pollock. And I really don't want to read him either. I don't take these western scholars too seriously when they talk about India. Whether they agree with me or disagree with me, makes no difference to me. Now, if your argument is that because Sheldon Pollock or some XYZ takes a particular view, it must be wrong by default. I disagree with this view. I don't think any view is right or wrong just because some guy holds it. Each view is right or wrong on basis of its strengths. For example, I am sure Sheldon Pollock believes in breathing. Do you think we should all stop breathing because Pollock breathes?
As for Ramayana being later than Mahabharatha:
As for dating MB and other events of Bhaarath, my simple formula is to depend only on Bhaarath's sources as primary sources of info. But, the point is that there is lot of mismatch with Bhaarath's sources... even within Hindhu sources. Thats when I started looking at the dates of each book/scripture before using them to date things. Of course, its tricky.
So, lets analyze them and compare them as objectively as possible. If you point out any mistakes in the analysis, I'll gladly change the view accordingly. No problem.
River Saraswathi & dating:
A huge deal is made out of Saraswathi river drying up in the Puraanas and MB. A famine of 12 yrs is a recurring theme. If Saraswathi had re-appeared, then that too would have been a huge event and recorded. Infact, a river reappearing and wetting the dried up desert might be more romantic theme to explore and therefore no one would have missed it. But, there doesn't seem to be such a theme about Saraswathi. There is Ganga-Avatharna, but no Saraswathi-Avatharna. There is only drying up of Saraswathi river recorded in the scriptures. So, as far as the time-period covered by the scriptures is concerned, there was only one event concerning Saraswathi river: its drying up and the place becoming a desert. Within that time-period, there was no re-appearance because the scriptures don't talk of it.
So, ancient Indian history can be divided into 3 points:
a) Before Saraswathi dried up i.e. when Saraswathi was a major river flowing in full flow: Rig Vedha belongs to this period as Saraswathi is repeatedly mentioned. There is a theme of Saptha-Sindhu which encompasses the region around Saraswathi & Sindhu.
b) while Saraswathi was drying up: MB war parts were written during this period. As MB contains a reference to drying Saraswathi. At certain places Saraswathi had dried up, while it was still flowing in other places.
c) after Saraswathi dried up and a desert was formed: Ramayana belongs to this period as Ramayana contains a reference to Maru.
I think the reference in Raamayana is from a time after the Saraswathi dried up and the place became a desert(Maru). On the other hand, the reference in MB is from a time when Saraswathi was still not totally dried up. It dried up in places(called Vinashana). Saraswathi reference in MB seems to be earlier than the reference in Raamayana. But, the main story of Raamayana is supposed to be much earlier than MB. MB clearly says that there was a Vinashana where Saraswathi dried up. Raamayana talks about Maru i.e. desert.
From geographical point of view: MB is limited to Kuru-Paanchala war fought on the banks of Saraswathi. On the other hand, Raamayana has much larger geographic area. Even if we take the entire MB story instead of just war, MB is limited to Northern India(including Afghanistan) whereas Ramayana talks of entire India. So, the geographical expanse of MB is smaller than Ramayana.
From technological point of view:
Overall, the weapons used in both wars seem to be quite similar. Only Raamayana, one side was living in jungles and hence technologically less advanced. Otherwise, Raavana's Lanka seems to have more or less the same weapons which are mentioned in MB.
From a social point of view:
MB mentions that marriage(or monogamous wife type marriage) was put in place by: Gothama i.e Dheerga-Thamas. Upanishadhs says that marriage(or monogamous wife type marriage) was put in place by: Shwethakethu(who is a descendent of Gothama). The marriages became close-ended for women during the time of Upanishadhs. So, broadly, we can say that before this type of marriage was put in place, the marriages were open-ended. As time passed by the 'good wife' i.e. Sathi became an important ideal. Before this period, marriages seem to be open-ended.
Now, there are almost no 'good wife' models in MB. Dhraupadhi is portrayed as a good wife but she is a common wife of many men which goes against the theme of Sathi. When I talk about Sathi, I don't mean the practice of burning on funeral pyre. No. I simply meant wife being loyal to one husband instead of an open-ended marriage. The earlier Kuru women were not Sathi in that sense because they had children with several different men, some even outside the wedlock.
Following women are mentioned in Kuru dynasty:
- Ganga: ends the marriage. Women ends the marriage unilaterally because the husband violated pre-nuptial agreement.
- Ambika-Ambalika: husband dies young. They have children with brother-in-law.
- Kunthi: Has 4 children with 4 different men.
- Maadhri: Has 2 children with 2 different men.
- Dhraupadhi: Has 5 children with 5 brothers.
On the other hand, Raamayana portrays Seetha as a 'good wife'. Infact, I would say that the main theme of Raamayana was to depict a 'good wife'. Seetha-amma is loyal to her husband throughout Raamayana despite being abducted by Ravana and tempted with various offers. This shows that the society depicted in the core story of MB is earlier than the society depicted in Raamayana. Then, Uttara Kaanda depicts the next phase which shows more rigidness in this aspect where Seetha-amma is rejected only because She is not considered 'good wife' just because She was abducted and remained in abduction for about an year.
Raamayana shows a later society than certain parts of Mahabhaaratha. Mahabhaaratha talks about a society before marriages were monogamous. One woman having children with many different men without being dishonoured. This pattern is seen in many women in MB. Particularly, the older ones. Poor people can do anything to get by. But, rich and powerful have a choice and their choices show the trends of society. And thats why I delineated several generations of women of Kuru dynasty. So, it can't be a co-incidence that so many generations of queens are having affairs with more than one man. If it was seen as deviant at that time, then it wouldn't be recorded in a scripture. If it was a deviant behaviour, then it would be hushed up. So, it was not a deviant behaviour at the time of its happening. But, there is an attempt to justify it later using super-normal explanations. That means, later this behaviour was seen as deviant.
As the time passes by, a more monogamous marriage system is seen. Raamayana depicts a time when marriages had become fairly systematic. Even here, it talks about Thaara and Ahalya.
Finally, by the time Uttara Kaanda of Raamayana is written, women's chastity becomes highly important socially. I think Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda were written at the same time because they seem to have many similarities. And I think Baala Kaanda was written after Kaalidhaasa wrote Raghuvamsham because the dynasty details given by Kaalidhaasa does not match with the details of Raghuvamsham.
So, this is the social progression:
-> society of MB: women marrying many men including brothers at the same time.
-> Gothama(DheergaThamas) and Shwethakethu(Uddalaka's son) institute monogamous marriage for women. Upanishad period because Shwethakethu plays a starring role in Upanishadhs.
-> society of Raamayana: women being loyal to their husbands as long as they live. But, Thaara episode shows that once the husband is dead, brothers could marry sister-in-law. This also explains why Seetha-amma accuses Lakshamana as wanting to kill Raama during golden deer episode.
-> society of Uttara Raamayana: women absolutely loyal to their husbands in life and death. And women rejected by their husbands even if there is a slightest blot on their character.
We are talking about origins of Marriage institution.
I don't mean to say that Raamayana was written totally later than MB because MB itself seems to have been written in many stages. Some of the stages seem to be earlier than Raamayana and some stages may have been later than Raamayana.
If we assume that Ramayana is older than MB, even then the time lapse between MB and Raamayana is not much. Some people seem to be assuming a huge time lapse between MB and Raamayana.
I think Rushi lineages are more reliable than the royal lineages. So,
1) Vashishta (supposedly Raamayana period)
2) Shakthi
3) Parashara
4) Vyasa (supposedly MB period)
5) Shuka
Thats 4 generations only. So, even if we assume that Ramayana is earlier than MB, at best the time lapse between Ramayana and MB would be around 200 yrs. And remember Vashishta was from the time of Vedhas. So, if MB is from around 2100 BCE(as the time when Saraswathi dried up), then Ramayana would be from around 2300 BCE.
There are lot of other points that I haven't touched because the post is already too long.
Lastly, almost all my conclusions are based on my understanding of Indian scriptures. Any western scholar's views on Indian scriptures are irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Actually, now that I think about it, this idea was triggered by my interactions on BRF only. It was Bji who used to talk of marriages. It was Bji's posts which triggered. Initially, I was too conservative to pursue this line. Infact, if you go back and search the forum, you will find me arguing against Bji and taking quite a conservative stance. But, as I studied the scriptures closely, I finally changed my view.
My inclination to monotheism owes to Madhva, not mlechha.