OK, I stick my neck out. Please slash it

[rcscwc]

The Gita is a small part of the Mahabharata. A fairer question would be: what do secular scholars think is the historical basis of the Mahabharata? And the answer would be; very slim. There are far fewer reasons to trust the Mahabharata (or the Gita as part of it) as a historical source than to trust the Bible.

Of course, the Gita’s value does not lie in any historical claims that might be made for it.

If you are claiming that the Gita is a literal record of something that Krishna said to Arjuna thousands and thousands of years B.C.E., then an obvious contrradiction is that the Gita frequently refers to ideas developed in the Upanishads and to the ideas of various Indian schools of thought of the late centuries B.C.E. It was clearly written at some point fairly close to the time of Christ and not thousands of years earlier.

If, however, you take it simply as a theological treatise with a mythical setting, then obviously there’s not much room to point out “contradictions,” is there?

Edwin

Gita is part of Book 6 of Mahanbharata. But then Ruth is very small part of OT. That is no contradiction.

The very historicity of Jesus is doubted. But that douby is no contradictiom.

Some parts of OT are older by a few centuries compared to the others. That is no contradiction.

Some gosples of NT are known to be finalised as late as 300-400 AD. That too is not contradiction.

Some books are mentioned in bible, but are part thereof. It is no contradiction.

Gita mentions only Sankya and Yoga, which clearly pre-existed.

There are NO internal contradictions or inconsistencies within Gita as found within bible overall and within many books.

 

[rcscwc]

Anyone can write a book without supposed contradictions, but that doesn’t make it scripture. It has been done thousands of times in the past. You tell us not to use ‘xian non scriptures’. Why would we want to read a Hindu ‘non scripture’?

I read bible so I can offer reasoned and philosophical objections to, which cannot be easily brushed aside. So you might read Gita from that POV.

 

[kdq042007]

rcscwc - I am interested in reading it; what comparisons/contradictions are you inquring after?

 

[AJTheMan]

I’ve actually been pretty interested in learning about Hinduism recently.

The problem is that it is a bit overwhelming. Some say that we should only worship Krishna, others say Ganesha, others say Shiva, and yet others say Vishnu. Some hindus say we should abide by this text or that text, and yet others go by different texts.

There’s so much division that it’s hard to know where to start. There’s no centrality. I’ll be studying Hinduism for the near future though.

 

[rcscwc]

I’ve actually been pretty interested in learning about Hinduism recently.

The problem is that it is a bit overwhelming. Some say that we should only worship Krishna, others say Ganesha, others say Shiva, and yet others say Vishnu. Some hindus say we should abide by this text or that text, and yet others go by different texts.

There’s so much division that it’s hard to know where to start. There’s no centrality. I’ll be studying Hinduism for the near future though.

Hmmm. Some say physics is best to purue, others say chemistry, biology, dociology etc. Yet physics does not chemistry, biology etc. All three are manifestation of ONE Sceince. After all, there is an underlying unity in these sceinces.

Hinduism is like that. Their is an underlying unity among all deities.

What is centrality? In religion it might also mean hegemony. This so called centrality of xianity has not stopped thousands of sects and thousands of versions of bible. Why protestants and catholics term each other “false” xians?

In Hinduism it is different. Whatever deity you worship, NOBODY will call you a “false” Hindu.

In spite of all those deities Moniam ie One Transcedent Reality, is the central belief. The concept is overhelming, no doubt.
**
take Ganesha, the elephant headed Lord. Hindus are rational enough to know an elephant headed person CANNOT be. But then, it is not physical appearance, but the attributes of Ganesha that matter.

His elephantine persons gives impression of being strong enough to remove difficulties. What can stand in the way of an elephant.

His large ears mean he listens to your prayers, however inaudible. He keeps your confessions to Himself, as signified by his pot belly.

He lovesw sweets, sign of bliss and pleasure that He gives you.

His mount is mouse. Elephant on a mouse? Physically possible? No. But it means that high or low, tou are His beloved one.

 

[rcscwc]

rcscwc - I am interested in reading it; what comparisons/contradictions are you inquring after?

Contradictions I know are none. But you can compare Gita and NT, if you wish. Already many parallels have been found.