Bodhi, my original question was about the <b>western</b> dating of MBh and its Gita:
<!--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-->And this post is still going to stay on the same topic of christowestern dating of MBh and Gita.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Feb 19 2009, 08:45 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 19 2009, 08:45 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->By 400s, MBh was already translated into pehlavI, where the writer says he translated it from the hindI language (referring to devabhAShA, but this is the oldest known use of "hindI" as a name for a language).
[right][snapback]94712[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->400s fits in the western dating: in 400s MBh may well be in Hindi and hence Pahlavi. The estimated period given by the christowestern professional provides a 'suitable' time frame to allow for it. Repeat:
<i>Doniger says:</i> MBh "probably" composed between 300 bce - 300 ce
<i>Columbia encyclopaedia says:</i> MBh "probably" composed between 200 bce - 200 ce
As we see, there was sufficient time for people to translate the entire thing into Hindi and then again into Pahlavi in 400<b>s</b> ce.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Feb 19 2009, 08:45 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 19 2009, 08:45 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>MBh as it is, but certainly gItA, appears to be *at least* older than the birth of the bauddha mata</b> -- tathAgata makes several mentions of themes and personages of itihAsa but reverse is not there. same holds for both pAlI and saMskR^ita jAtaka-s. in the oldest known jAtaka compendium, you have references to vidura, arjuna, and yudhiShThira.[right][snapback]94712[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Am still talking of western scholarship, which:
1. States clearly that Bauddha Dharma originated much earlier than the Gita.
See just a little further below for an example of the western scholarship's statements on this.
2. West holds that Gita is younger than MBh and certainly that any references to Krishna as Bhagavan is younger than the relevant parts of MBh which are used to prove that he was not so originally. They've long made it a focal point that the Gita was one of the later added sections to the MBh. (This automatically disallows any Hindu's references to the Gita as argument that "Krishna is God since he declares himself paramaatman in the BG", since this text is supposed to have come later than MBh's origins where Krishna was 'but man'.)
Again, an example from western scholarship follows.
<b>Now for the examples of the above.</b> Let's pick the famous Encyclopaedia Britannica. (Yes, the same encyclopaedia on whose faithful christoness Joseph McCabe has some entertaining revealing remarks! But he didn't know about Encarta or Wackypedia then, so who knows what he'd have said about them...)
Anyway, note Britannica's use of the word 'perhaps', which one may admit is <i>far more substantial</i> than the almost-dubious 'probably' that Doniger and Columbia were forced to use:
<b>0. Britannica says decidedly: 'Gita perhaps composed 1st or 2nd century ce.'</b> That is, entirely after jeebus.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...agavadgita
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Bhagavadgita</b>
Hindu scripture (Sanskrit: âSong of the Lordâ)
Main
an episode recorded in the great Sanskrit poem of the Hindus, the Mahabharata. It occupies chapters 23 to 40 of book 6 of the Mahabharata and is composed in the form of a dialogue between Prince Arjuna and Krishna, an incarnation or avatar of the god Vishnu. <b>Composed perhaps in the 1st or 2nd century ce, it is commonly known as the Gita.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>1. Britannica says: 'Bauddha Dharma arose 6th to early 4th century bce'. </b>
Therefore, hence, and ergo, Bauddha Dharma is older than Gita:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...4/Buddhism
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Buddhism</b>
religion
Main
Reclining Buddha, Polonnaruwa, Sri Lanka.[Credits : Richard Abeles]religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha (Sanskrit: âawakened oneâ), a teacher who lived in northern India between the mid-6th and the mid-4th centuries bce (before the Common Era or Christian era). Spreading from India to Central and Southeast Asia, China, Korea, and Japan, Buddhism has played a central role in the spiritual, cultural, and social life of Asia, and during the 20th century
[...]
<b>The foundations of Buddhism » The cultural context</b>
<b>Buddhism arose in northeastern India sometime between the late 6th century and the early 4th century bce,</b> a period of great social change and intense religious activity. There is disagreement among scholars about the dates of the Buddhaâs birth and death. Many modern scholars believe that the historical Buddha lived from about 563 to about 483 bce. Many others believe that he lived about 100 years later (from about 448 to 368 bce). At this time in India, there was much discontent with Brahmanic (Hindu high-caste) sacrifice and ritual. In northwestern India there were ascetics who tried to create a more personal and spiritual religious experience than that found in the Vedas (Hindu sacred scriptures). In the literature that grew out of this movement, the Upanishads, a new emphasis on renunciation and transcendental knowledge can be found. Northeastern India, which was less influenced by the Aryans who had developed the main tenets and practices of the Vedic Hindu faith, became the breeding ground of many new sects. Society in this area was troubled by the breakdown of tribal unity and the expansion of several petty kingdoms. Religiously, this was a time of doubt, turmoil, and experimentation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>2. To contrast Gita with the Mahabharata.</b>
<b>Britannica says:</b> MBh is a 'source of info on Hinduism's development between 400 bce and 200 ce' and that its present form appeared 'about 400ce'.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...ahabharata
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Mahabharata</b>
Hindu literature (Sanskrit: âGreat Epic of the Bharata Dynastyâ)
Main
The armies of the Kauravas and Pandavas clashing, an Indian painting of a scene from the â¦[Credits : The Granger Collection, New York]one of the two Sanskrit great epic poems of ancient India (the other being the Ramayana). <b>The Mahabharata is an important source of information on the development of Hinduism between 400 bce and 200 ce</b> and is regarded by Hindus as both a text about dharma (Hindu moral law) and a history (itihasa, literally âthatâs what happenedâ). <b>Appearing in its present form about 400 ce,</b> the Mahabharata consists of a mass of mythological and didactic material arranged around a central heroic narrative that tells of the struggle for sovereignty between two groups of cousins, the Kauravas (sons of Dhritarashtra, the descendant of Kuru) and the Pandavas (sons of Pandu). The poem is made up of almost 100,000 coupletsâabout seven times the length of the Iliad and the Odyssey combinedâdivided into 18 parvans, or sections, plus a supplement titled Harivamsha (âGenealogy of the God Hariâ; i.e., of Vishnu). Although it is unlikely that any single person wrote the poem, its authorship is traditionally ascribed to the sage Vyasa, who appears in the work as the grandfather of the Kauravas and the Pandavas. The traditional date for the war that is the central event of the Mahabharata is 1302 bce, but most historians assign it a later date.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Since they have managed to squeeze the text into being finished by 400ce (the way the Vedas and everything else has been squeezed into the christowestern timeframe), they still can say that MBh was well on time for translation into old Hindi and then Pahlavi.
Post-disclaimer: As I said, the above is the christowestern POV. It has absolutely nothing to do with me.
<!--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-->And this post is still going to stay on the same topic of christowestern dating of MBh and Gita.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Feb 19 2009, 08:45 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 19 2009, 08:45 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->By 400s, MBh was already translated into pehlavI, where the writer says he translated it from the hindI language (referring to devabhAShA, but this is the oldest known use of "hindI" as a name for a language).
[right][snapback]94712[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->400s fits in the western dating: in 400s MBh may well be in Hindi and hence Pahlavi. The estimated period given by the christowestern professional provides a 'suitable' time frame to allow for it. Repeat:
<i>Doniger says:</i> MBh "probably" composed between 300 bce - 300 ce
<i>Columbia encyclopaedia says:</i> MBh "probably" composed between 200 bce - 200 ce
As we see, there was sufficient time for people to translate the entire thing into Hindi and then again into Pahlavi in 400<b>s</b> ce.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Feb 19 2009, 08:45 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 19 2009, 08:45 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>MBh as it is, but certainly gItA, appears to be *at least* older than the birth of the bauddha mata</b> -- tathAgata makes several mentions of themes and personages of itihAsa but reverse is not there. same holds for both pAlI and saMskR^ita jAtaka-s. in the oldest known jAtaka compendium, you have references to vidura, arjuna, and yudhiShThira.[right][snapback]94712[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Am still talking of western scholarship, which:
1. States clearly that Bauddha Dharma originated much earlier than the Gita.
See just a little further below for an example of the western scholarship's statements on this.
2. West holds that Gita is younger than MBh and certainly that any references to Krishna as Bhagavan is younger than the relevant parts of MBh which are used to prove that he was not so originally. They've long made it a focal point that the Gita was one of the later added sections to the MBh. (This automatically disallows any Hindu's references to the Gita as argument that "Krishna is God since he declares himself paramaatman in the BG", since this text is supposed to have come later than MBh's origins where Krishna was 'but man'.)
Again, an example from western scholarship follows.
<b>Now for the examples of the above.</b> Let's pick the famous Encyclopaedia Britannica. (Yes, the same encyclopaedia on whose faithful christoness Joseph McCabe has some entertaining revealing remarks! But he didn't know about Encarta or Wackypedia then, so who knows what he'd have said about them...)
Anyway, note Britannica's use of the word 'perhaps', which one may admit is <i>far more substantial</i> than the almost-dubious 'probably' that Doniger and Columbia were forced to use:
<b>0. Britannica says decidedly: 'Gita perhaps composed 1st or 2nd century ce.'</b> That is, entirely after jeebus.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...agavadgita
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Bhagavadgita</b>
Hindu scripture (Sanskrit: âSong of the Lordâ)
Main
an episode recorded in the great Sanskrit poem of the Hindus, the Mahabharata. It occupies chapters 23 to 40 of book 6 of the Mahabharata and is composed in the form of a dialogue between Prince Arjuna and Krishna, an incarnation or avatar of the god Vishnu. <b>Composed perhaps in the 1st or 2nd century ce, it is commonly known as the Gita.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>1. Britannica says: 'Bauddha Dharma arose 6th to early 4th century bce'. </b>
Therefore, hence, and ergo, Bauddha Dharma is older than Gita:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...4/Buddhism
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Buddhism</b>
religion
Main
Reclining Buddha, Polonnaruwa, Sri Lanka.[Credits : Richard Abeles]religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha (Sanskrit: âawakened oneâ), a teacher who lived in northern India between the mid-6th and the mid-4th centuries bce (before the Common Era or Christian era). Spreading from India to Central and Southeast Asia, China, Korea, and Japan, Buddhism has played a central role in the spiritual, cultural, and social life of Asia, and during the 20th century
[...]
<b>The foundations of Buddhism » The cultural context</b>
<b>Buddhism arose in northeastern India sometime between the late 6th century and the early 4th century bce,</b> a period of great social change and intense religious activity. There is disagreement among scholars about the dates of the Buddhaâs birth and death. Many modern scholars believe that the historical Buddha lived from about 563 to about 483 bce. Many others believe that he lived about 100 years later (from about 448 to 368 bce). At this time in India, there was much discontent with Brahmanic (Hindu high-caste) sacrifice and ritual. In northwestern India there were ascetics who tried to create a more personal and spiritual religious experience than that found in the Vedas (Hindu sacred scriptures). In the literature that grew out of this movement, the Upanishads, a new emphasis on renunciation and transcendental knowledge can be found. Northeastern India, which was less influenced by the Aryans who had developed the main tenets and practices of the Vedic Hindu faith, became the breeding ground of many new sects. Society in this area was troubled by the breakdown of tribal unity and the expansion of several petty kingdoms. Religiously, this was a time of doubt, turmoil, and experimentation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>2. To contrast Gita with the Mahabharata.</b>
<b>Britannica says:</b> MBh is a 'source of info on Hinduism's development between 400 bce and 200 ce' and that its present form appeared 'about 400ce'.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...ahabharata
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Mahabharata</b>
Hindu literature (Sanskrit: âGreat Epic of the Bharata Dynastyâ)
Main
The armies of the Kauravas and Pandavas clashing, an Indian painting of a scene from the â¦[Credits : The Granger Collection, New York]one of the two Sanskrit great epic poems of ancient India (the other being the Ramayana). <b>The Mahabharata is an important source of information on the development of Hinduism between 400 bce and 200 ce</b> and is regarded by Hindus as both a text about dharma (Hindu moral law) and a history (itihasa, literally âthatâs what happenedâ). <b>Appearing in its present form about 400 ce,</b> the Mahabharata consists of a mass of mythological and didactic material arranged around a central heroic narrative that tells of the struggle for sovereignty between two groups of cousins, the Kauravas (sons of Dhritarashtra, the descendant of Kuru) and the Pandavas (sons of Pandu). The poem is made up of almost 100,000 coupletsâabout seven times the length of the Iliad and the Odyssey combinedâdivided into 18 parvans, or sections, plus a supplement titled Harivamsha (âGenealogy of the God Hariâ; i.e., of Vishnu). Although it is unlikely that any single person wrote the poem, its authorship is traditionally ascribed to the sage Vyasa, who appears in the work as the grandfather of the Kauravas and the Pandavas. The traditional date for the war that is the central event of the Mahabharata is 1302 bce, but most historians assign it a later date.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Since they have managed to squeeze the text into being finished by 400ce (the way the Vedas and everything else has been squeezed into the christowestern timeframe), they still can say that MBh was well on time for translation into old Hindi and then Pahlavi.
Post-disclaimer: As I said, the above is the christowestern POV. It has absolutely nothing to do with me.