The following doesn't have any bearing on astrology. Can skip.
Had earlier on raised some tangential (unrelated) questions in this thread. Since the real conversation has died down, thought now's not a bad time to post the stuff found.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jan 23 2009, 01:40 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 23 2009, 01:40 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->When do they <b>(the west)</b> say the Mahabharatam was composed? (I know they date Bhagavad Gita rather recently - something that is additionally helpful for them in 'proving' that Krishna was no more than a man who was the victim of apotheosis, as contended by many in the west - but don't know when the west dates the rest of the Mahabharatam.) This is to contrast it with respect to the 700 BCE mentioned above (for when the Romans got their calendar from the greeks).[right][snapback]93652[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both the Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata are given very different dates in different sources.
Bhagavad Gita
- was dated to 2nd centry BCE to "2nd century AD" where I first read it dated in an encyclopaedia (not in my possession, high school library),
- whereas scribes for wacky have kindly found it to be dated to somewhere in 2nd century BCE latest, but "still after the MBh":
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Scholars have opined that the date of composition of the Bhagavad Gita is between the fifth century B.C. and second century B.C[13][15][16]
Based on claims of differences in the poetic styles some scholars like Jinarajadasa have argued that the Bhagavad Gita was added to the Mahabharata at a later date.[17][18]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now the Mahabharatam. This is more interesting:
<b>1. Encarta: "probably" 300 BCE - 300 CE</b>
"Hinduism", Microsoft Encarta 1996 - entry by <b>Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty</b> (Obviously married to an Irishman. She's an Austrian herself, isn't she? And Austria is a catholic nation, so she sounds catholic <i>both ways</i> - whether she can afford to publicly admit to it or not. Explains so much)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Although it is therefore impossible to fix their dates, the main bodies of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana were <b>probably</b> composed between 300 BC and AD 300. Both, however, continued to grow even after they were translated into the vernacular languages of India (such as Tamil and Hindi) in the succeeding centuries.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>2. Encyclopedia Columbia online: "probably" 200 BCE - 200 CE</b>
(So in about 10 years, the range and age of the MBh has come down, courtesy of more nudging by christowest. Columbia can't be outdone by catholic Wendy after all)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/category/Liter...uages/elit.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mahabharata classical Sanskrit epic of India, <b>probably</b> composed between 200 BC and AD 200. The Mahabharata, comprising more than 90,000 couplets, usually of 32 syllables, is the longest single poem in world literature. The 18-book work is traditionally ascribed to the ancient sage Vyasa, but it was...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>3. Wacky: 800 BCE - 400 CE</b>
Wacky is not the most reliable, but slightly more generous in the reverse direction when it comes to the Mbh.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The earliest layers of the story probably date back to the late Vedic period (ca. 8th c. BC)[2] and it probably reached its final form by the time the Gupta period began (ca. 4th c. AD).[3]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Interesting note on the wacky page:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As with the field of Homeric studies, research on the Mahabharata has put an enormous effort into recognizing and dating various layers within the text. The state of the text has been described by some early 20th century Indologists as "chaotic" or "unordered".[6]
The earliest known references to the Mahabharata and its core Bharata date back to the Ashtadhyayi (sutra 6.2.38) of PÄá¹ini (fl. 4th century BC), and in the Ashvalayana Grhyasutra (3.4.4). This may suggest that the core 24,000 verses, known as the Bharata, as well as an early version of the extended Mahabharata, were composed by the 4th century BC. Parts of the Jaya's original 8,800 verses possibly may date back as far as the 9th-8th century BC.[2]
The Greek writer Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40-120) reported, "it is said that Homer's poetry is sung even in India, where they have translated it into their own speech and tongue. The result is that...the people of India...are not unacquainted with the sufferings of Priam, the laments and wailings of Andromache and Hecuba, and the valor of both Achilles and Hector: so remarkable has been the spell of one man's poetry!"[7] Despite the passage's evident face-value meaningâthat the Iliad had been translated into Sanskritâsome scholars have supposed that the report reflects the existence of a Mahabharata at this date, whose episodes Dio or his sources syncretistically identify with the story of the Iliad. Christian Lassen, in his Indische Alterthumskunde, supposed that the reference is ultimately to Dhritarashtra's sorrows, the laments of Gandhari and Draupadi, and the valor of Arjuna and Duryodhana or Karna.[8] This interpretation, endorsed in such standard references as Albrecht Weber's History of Indian Literature, has often been repeated without specific reference to what Dio's text says.[9]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, the dating for MBh given by Doniger/MS Encarta and the Columbia encyclopaedia are obviously accurate (let's not forget that they are as sure as "probably", which all may admit is certainty itself): as it means Alexander thankfully had time to visit the subcontinent so that the MBh can have been written thereafter.
Oh, but of course. Predictable.
Unrelated, but found among the same material. Need to rewind a bit to get back to:
<b>"Hinduism", Microsoft Encarta 1996 - by Wendy Doniger O' Flaherty</b>
In the article, she not only states that Yoga is part of the Indus Valley Civilisation and <i>not</i> part of the invading Oryan religion - that is, that "Yoga is not Vedic" - but she also does not disappoint and gives the old missionary entertainment in the section on the Hindu Gods:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Most popular by far are Rama (hero of the Ramayana) and Krishna (hero of the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata-Purana), both of whom are said to be avatars of Vishnu, although they were originally human heroes."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The christowest always wrongly concludes that just because their gawd is invisible (non-existent) our Gods must be too and that "therefore" all they need to do to get us to relinquish our Religio/Gods is to "disprove our Gods" using some text-based heuristics.
But they don't seem to understand: Hindus do not 'believe'. They don't have 'faith'. <- When a Hindu (or Taoist) makes such statements - ones that the christowest *never* gets but which Hindus immediately understand - they're of course referring to how even today in Bharatam there are households (like in Tamizh families) where older members still see and converse with the Gods regularly. And that's exactly why it will ever be hard for Doniger and others to convince those Hindus who <i>know</i> better of such claims (which are based on what will have to remain incomplete data) - claims like "Rama and Krishna are (were) not Gods" or "Murugan is not Kumara". Hindus do not protest against such claims out of any 'obstinate belief', as the christowest imagines it to be (the way christos and islamists resort to "faith, faith!" because the christoislamic jehovallah is invisible out of non-existence's necessity). Nor do they merely refuse to accept them out of allegiance to 'tradition'. The reason Hindus tend to disregard such claims <i>forever</i>, with whatever power of reasonable even if limited public argument is in their reach, is because these claims are untrue and contrary to facts known to them. Where Hindus are not cornered into having these claims imposed on them as being 'undeniable facts', Hindus merely tend to humour the claimants (usually by silence).
But christowest need not lose heart. They should keep to parroting, it is the best of their methods for subverting Hindu Dharma and for conversion. Besides, "if at first you don't succeed, try try <i>try</i> again." I hear the next generations will believe/rationalise anything. Heck. Even the current ones do.
Had earlier on raised some tangential (unrelated) questions in this thread. Since the real conversation has died down, thought now's not a bad time to post the stuff found.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jan 23 2009, 01:40 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 23 2009, 01:40 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->When do they <b>(the west)</b> say the Mahabharatam was composed? (I know they date Bhagavad Gita rather recently - something that is additionally helpful for them in 'proving' that Krishna was no more than a man who was the victim of apotheosis, as contended by many in the west - but don't know when the west dates the rest of the Mahabharatam.) This is to contrast it with respect to the 700 BCE mentioned above (for when the Romans got their calendar from the greeks).[right][snapback]93652[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both the Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata are given very different dates in different sources.
Bhagavad Gita
- was dated to 2nd centry BCE to "2nd century AD" where I first read it dated in an encyclopaedia (not in my possession, high school library),
- whereas scribes for wacky have kindly found it to be dated to somewhere in 2nd century BCE latest, but "still after the MBh":
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Scholars have opined that the date of composition of the Bhagavad Gita is between the fifth century B.C. and second century B.C[13][15][16]
Based on claims of differences in the poetic styles some scholars like Jinarajadasa have argued that the Bhagavad Gita was added to the Mahabharata at a later date.[17][18]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now the Mahabharatam. This is more interesting:
<b>1. Encarta: "probably" 300 BCE - 300 CE</b>
"Hinduism", Microsoft Encarta 1996 - entry by <b>Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty</b> (Obviously married to an Irishman. She's an Austrian herself, isn't she? And Austria is a catholic nation, so she sounds catholic <i>both ways</i> - whether she can afford to publicly admit to it or not. Explains so much)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Although it is therefore impossible to fix their dates, the main bodies of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana were <b>probably</b> composed between 300 BC and AD 300. Both, however, continued to grow even after they were translated into the vernacular languages of India (such as Tamil and Hindi) in the succeeding centuries.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>2. Encyclopedia Columbia online: "probably" 200 BCE - 200 CE</b>
(So in about 10 years, the range and age of the MBh has come down, courtesy of more nudging by christowest. Columbia can't be outdone by catholic Wendy after all)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/category/Liter...uages/elit.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mahabharata classical Sanskrit epic of India, <b>probably</b> composed between 200 BC and AD 200. The Mahabharata, comprising more than 90,000 couplets, usually of 32 syllables, is the longest single poem in world literature. The 18-book work is traditionally ascribed to the ancient sage Vyasa, but it was...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>3. Wacky: 800 BCE - 400 CE</b>
Wacky is not the most reliable, but slightly more generous in the reverse direction when it comes to the Mbh.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The earliest layers of the story probably date back to the late Vedic period (ca. 8th c. BC)[2] and it probably reached its final form by the time the Gupta period began (ca. 4th c. AD).[3]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Interesting note on the wacky page:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As with the field of Homeric studies, research on the Mahabharata has put an enormous effort into recognizing and dating various layers within the text. The state of the text has been described by some early 20th century Indologists as "chaotic" or "unordered".[6]
The earliest known references to the Mahabharata and its core Bharata date back to the Ashtadhyayi (sutra 6.2.38) of PÄá¹ini (fl. 4th century BC), and in the Ashvalayana Grhyasutra (3.4.4). This may suggest that the core 24,000 verses, known as the Bharata, as well as an early version of the extended Mahabharata, were composed by the 4th century BC. Parts of the Jaya's original 8,800 verses possibly may date back as far as the 9th-8th century BC.[2]
The Greek writer Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40-120) reported, "it is said that Homer's poetry is sung even in India, where they have translated it into their own speech and tongue. The result is that...the people of India...are not unacquainted with the sufferings of Priam, the laments and wailings of Andromache and Hecuba, and the valor of both Achilles and Hector: so remarkable has been the spell of one man's poetry!"[7] Despite the passage's evident face-value meaningâthat the Iliad had been translated into Sanskritâsome scholars have supposed that the report reflects the existence of a Mahabharata at this date, whose episodes Dio or his sources syncretistically identify with the story of the Iliad. Christian Lassen, in his Indische Alterthumskunde, supposed that the reference is ultimately to Dhritarashtra's sorrows, the laments of Gandhari and Draupadi, and the valor of Arjuna and Duryodhana or Karna.[8] This interpretation, endorsed in such standard references as Albrecht Weber's History of Indian Literature, has often been repeated without specific reference to what Dio's text says.[9]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, the dating for MBh given by Doniger/MS Encarta and the Columbia encyclopaedia are obviously accurate (let's not forget that they are as sure as "probably", which all may admit is certainty itself): as it means Alexander thankfully had time to visit the subcontinent so that the MBh can have been written thereafter.
Oh, but of course. Predictable.
Unrelated, but found among the same material. Need to rewind a bit to get back to:
<b>"Hinduism", Microsoft Encarta 1996 - by Wendy Doniger O' Flaherty</b>
In the article, she not only states that Yoga is part of the Indus Valley Civilisation and <i>not</i> part of the invading Oryan religion - that is, that "Yoga is not Vedic" - but she also does not disappoint and gives the old missionary entertainment in the section on the Hindu Gods:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Most popular by far are Rama (hero of the Ramayana) and Krishna (hero of the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata-Purana), both of whom are said to be avatars of Vishnu, although they were originally human heroes."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The christowest always wrongly concludes that just because their gawd is invisible (non-existent) our Gods must be too and that "therefore" all they need to do to get us to relinquish our Religio/Gods is to "disprove our Gods" using some text-based heuristics.
But they don't seem to understand: Hindus do not 'believe'. They don't have 'faith'. <- When a Hindu (or Taoist) makes such statements - ones that the christowest *never* gets but which Hindus immediately understand - they're of course referring to how even today in Bharatam there are households (like in Tamizh families) where older members still see and converse with the Gods regularly. And that's exactly why it will ever be hard for Doniger and others to convince those Hindus who <i>know</i> better of such claims (which are based on what will have to remain incomplete data) - claims like "Rama and Krishna are (were) not Gods" or "Murugan is not Kumara". Hindus do not protest against such claims out of any 'obstinate belief', as the christowest imagines it to be (the way christos and islamists resort to "faith, faith!" because the christoislamic jehovallah is invisible out of non-existence's necessity). Nor do they merely refuse to accept them out of allegiance to 'tradition'. The reason Hindus tend to disregard such claims <i>forever</i>, with whatever power of reasonable even if limited public argument is in their reach, is because these claims are untrue and contrary to facts known to them. Where Hindus are not cornered into having these claims imposed on them as being 'undeniable facts', Hindus merely tend to humour the claimants (usually by silence).
But christowest need not lose heart. They should keep to parroting, it is the best of their methods for subverting Hindu Dharma and for conversion. Besides, "if at first you don't succeed, try try <i>try</i> again." I hear the next generations will believe/rationalise anything. Heck. Even the current ones do.