15

The details of this primitive war have been in like manner exaggerated beyond all credibility. The leading warriors, whilst fighting with all the bloodthirsty desperation of savages, and burning with all the frenzied wrath of demons, are endowed with superhuman strength and skill which raise them to the rank of demigods.

Magical weapons are employed which are said to have been received from the gods, but which could only have existed in the wild imaginations of Brahmanical bards who were totally ignorant of the practice of war.

The above quote is taken from this answer here: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/38004/4732 This is some historian giving his opinion about the Mahabharata war. He is calling the author of the epic (Rishi Vyasa) ignorant and accusing him of spreading false stories which are only wild imaginations (of the Rishi) according to the historian, besides of course calling the Rishi just a bard (a story teller).

  • Are users here okay with such insult of Hindu scriptures, Rishis, which/who are considered as authority on this site? Should not the answer be deleted?
19
  • 2
    The references mentioned in the post have nothing to do with the scriptures we are following on this site. So, the answer is nope. – Mr_Green Sep 21 '20 at 11:16
  • I am unable to find that answer in the link you provided. – user17987 Sep 21 '20 at 11:19
  • The answer is just now deleted.@idolworshipper – Rickross Sep 21 '20 at 11:21
  • 1
    Critical analysis, using one's own research, is nothing wrong in my view. However, demeaning of Rishies of this land is not warranted. Not only about weapons used in wars, but even in respect of some incidents like non-uterine births of Sita, Draupadi, etc, some members had made comments and posted answers. The thin line where one should stop, though very difficult to draw yet required, in my view, for this site. – Srimannarayana K V Sep 21 '20 at 13:40
  • @srimannarayanakv That is a very mature comment. – user17987 Sep 21 '20 at 14:10
  • 2
    The problem with those members, who quote some authors opinion, is that neither the authors nor these members bother to understand the intricacies of the Veda,brAhmanAs, EPICs, etc. Someone like Max Müller of 1850s, make some research, gains half-baked knowledge and writes some history of India to fit to the dates of Westerners opinion of origin of the Universe. If I remembered correctly, it was 4000 bce. And, those historians with half-baked knowledge decides the period of composition of the Rig Veda as 1900- 1200 BCE and that subsequent literature like brAhmanAs, etc (1/2) – Srimannarayana K V Sep 21 '20 at 15:07
  • 2
    The Indian historians like Romila Thapar, with Indian body but with western and communist minds, simply mimic those western historians like Max Müller. What a pity? Even now, we are studying the books written by those historians with half-baked knowledge. They could not differentiate between SPIRITUALITY as enunciated in the Rig Veda and Religious principles of Western religions. It is because they do not get the opportunity to get exposed to the pure SPIRITUAL aspects. The saddest part is that the Indians read those histories and start arguing with fellow Indians. (2/2) – Srimannarayana K V Sep 21 '20 at 15:13
  • 1
    Why should we blame a few members alone, who are using those references, for posting questions and answers? Having undergone the western oriented education, most of the Indians could not think beyond what was written in EPICs, Puranas, etc. The discovery of statue of lion-man should give us a clue that Nrisimha, as mentioned in Puranas , has a basis of history 35,000 old. The statue is telling us that there existed a civilisation, which made it. That itself indicates that our ancestors did know about that civilisation. – Srimannarayana K V Sep 21 '20 at 15:28
  • I agree with @SrimannarayanaKV on his point about where to draw the line. Each one of us has different beliefs, both in society and on this site. As long as those beliefs are backed up by a traditionally accepted guru ('traditional' as determined by common sense of users of this site), then they are simply repeating that guru's opinion, so we cannot fault the user for also having those opinions. But if the users come up with their own opinions without any backing, then it amounts to disrespect. – mar Sep 22 '20 at 5:21
  • This problem won't arise if we implement suggestions suggested here . – ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ Jan 28 at 7:34
  • You mean such sources won't be allowed to be used in answers if we follow your answer? @Mr.Sigma. – Rickross Jan 28 at 9:57
  • Yup, @Rickross . It will have check on invalid authorities wrangling around Hinduism. – ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ Jan 28 at 12:17
  • 1
    @Rickross First of all, it's opinion based. Even if the question is corrected then it becomes "Where are the magical methods which were used by Ravana, etc.". Since it's talking about Adrishya, only a valid Hindu authority should answer it. – ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ Jan 28 at 13:01
  • 2
    @Mr.Sigma.Basically it boils down to the question "who is qualified?" .. A mathematician can only pass a critical opinion about a mathematical paper and not a doctor or say a historian. And if they do, such opinions won't be regarded with seriousness. Same should be the case with religion, spirituality & Hinduism. But I guess people think that Hinduism is a joke that anyone can pass their expert opinions on it. Now, if it turns out a Q can't be answered at all without quoting an archeologist or a historian then that Q certainly doesn't belong here. It should be closed & not answered – Rickross Jan 29 at 7:31
  • 1
    No I don't. I feel ashamed that a fellow Bengali has made such childish remarks @Ikshvaku – Rickross Feb 12 at 5:32
4

Are users here okay with such insult of Hindu scriptures, Rishis, which/who are considered as authority on this site? Should not the answer be deleted?

Apart from insult being morally wrong, more so it's actually self contradicting. They themselves define Hinduism with its practices, yoga-s, laws, etc. Insulting them in the name of "Hinduism" on "Hinduism Stack Exchange" is self-contradicting & implies collective cognitive dissonance.

Insulting them here is somewhat akin to develop a stage [HSE] to perform a drama [Hinduism] where the theme & storyline of the drama [Content of HSE] is in insulting the same drama that's being performed conspicuously. Whatever you follow after insulting & purging authorities of Hinduism from Hinduism isn't actually Hinduism, It's something else. Wherefore, whatever is being followed here after insulting authorities followed by purging them off isn't Hinduism, so acts of insulting them should ideally be off topic.

Let their insult be unanimously shunned from ourselves; let them insult each other (as it seems in rivalry among various schools), for they are achaarya-s or rishis, but we are neither achaarya nor rishis to insult them.


Even if there is some apparent or obvious difficult work of an authority, then it has be assiduously contemplated upon & discussed in sustained way with faith than to outrightly insulting the work & the author. Insult is counter productive, it doesn't bring any further conclusive truth before us.

-5

Yes, it is tolerable the same way we tolerate Swami Vivekananda who said pretty much the same thing about the writers of Smṛtis and Purāṇas in a different context:

The Smritis and the Puranas are productions of men of limited intelligence and are full of fallacies, errors, the feelings of class and malice. Only parts of them breathing broadness of spirit and love are acceptable, the rest are to be rejected. The Upanishads and the Gita are the true scriptures; Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Chaitanya, Nanak, Kabir, and so on are the true Avataras, for they had their hearts broad as the sky — and above all, Ramakrishna.

The above is already quoted in a few answers:

Is Swami Vivekananda an authority on this site? Would it make you feel better if I replaced one of my citations with the above?

Can I cite Swami Dayananda Saraswati on this site? Is he an authority? Speaking about weapons like Brahmāstra that can be launched out of thin air, he said:

Question — Is it true what is written in Sanskrit books about the arts of fire-arms ? Were there guns and muskets in the ancient time ?

Answer — Yes; it is. There were these fire-arms, for they are the outcome of physical science.

Q — Were they made and used by the influence of gods' incantation?

A — No; it was rules and methods, called the mantras in Sanskrit, according to which the different missiles and weapons were manufactured. These mantras are a number of words, which cannot produce any material object. If a man asserts that a mantra or charm produces fire, he should be told that it will burn the tongue and throat of the man who pronounces or mutters that mantra. He goes to kill his enemy, so to speak, but he is himself destroyed. The truth is, that the mantra is the secret as in rajmantri, which means the person who holds the secrets of a state. So a mantra is the knowledge of certain objects of the world, the application of which afterwards produces various kinds of things, industries and arts.

The way I see it, you don't have a problem with Hindu gurus criticizing Hindu scriptures and their authors but with historians criticizing them. The more Western these historians are the more problematic it is for you to digest some of the things they say. So, instead of responding to their criticism in a mature way, you want to ban and censor them.


To those trying to delete my answer for all the wrong reasons, I strongly suggest they refrain from doing so. Remember that it only takes 3 votes to undelete it. Also, we really don't want to get into a situation where we start downvoting and silently deleting each other's answers by inventing arbitrary reasons when the real reason is that we don't like certain answers/references and we somehow want to censor them.

enter image description here

11
  • 1
    "If a man asserts that a mantra or charm produces fire, he should be told that it will burn the tongue and throat of the man who pronounces or mutters that mantra." - How does this statement insult Rishis? I think Dayananda is saying that someone who pronounces the mantra will be destroyed by that mantra itself. – Ikshvaku Sep 21 '20 at 20:41
  • 2
    The reason the neo-Hindus accept criticism of Rishis by neo-Hindu acharyas (like Vivekananda) is because they are all supporters of Hinduism, whereas Indologists are atheists and try to disprove Hindu beliefs. Moreover, the OP is not a neo-Hindu, and disagrees with Vivekananda's criticism of Rishis. – Ikshvaku Sep 21 '20 at 20:47
  • 'whereas Indologists are atheists and try to disprove Hindu beliefs' - is that why V. S. Sukthankar included the 'nārāyaṇaṃ namaskṛtya' verse in the BORI CE of MBH? He says: "No orthodox Hindu work can begin without a maṅgala; and this edition of the Mahābhārata, critical though it be, is and remains a Hindu work which could not dispense with a maṅgala." Did Sukthankar pass your "Hinduness" test now? @Ikshvaku – Say No To Censorship Sep 21 '20 at 21:14
  • Textual criticism isn't atheist/anti-Hindu, there's even a critical edition of Ramcharitmanas prepared by a Hindu guru and a lawsuit was filed against him because he apparently "tampered with" some spurious verses. @Ikshvaku – Say No To Censorship Sep 21 '20 at 21:20
  • 'How does this statement insult Rishis?' - it is an insult to Rama and his followers. Ramayana talks about Rama launching a Brahmāstra on a crow using grass and just some mantras. So Dayananda Saraswati is indirectly saying that Rama must have burnt his tongue because mantras and a piece of grass don't produce Brahmāstras. And since Valmiki is reporting this incident as if it really happened, it must have burnt Valmiki's tongue also. Also, all the Vaishnava acharyas who just keep narrating this story. @Ikshvaku – Say No To Censorship Sep 21 '20 at 21:30
  • 1
    1) Sukthankar's statement is not saying anything about whether he believes in the "narayana namaskrtya" verse or not; he is simply saying a Hindu work has to have it. In any case, Indology is based upon secular/atheist opinions about religion and the origins of humanity. 2) As I said before, orthodox scholars don't assume a text they received from tradition lineage is highly interpolated. They are very conservative with labeling things as interpolations; they might consider a verse or two interpolated, which is is not to say that it's a false verse (it could be interpolated from another text). – Ikshvaku Sep 22 '20 at 12:42
  • 'Madhvacharya has mentioned that the Mahabharata versions in circulation then are highly corrupted' - do you have reference for this? @idolworshipper – Say No To Censorship Sep 23 '20 at 18:22
  • @idolworshipper Well, he's talking about a different kind of a interpolation when he says "Though the works are really indestructible, they must be deemed to be mostly altered. Mostly all of them have disappeared and not even one crore (out of several crores of slokas) now exists." I really doubt if Mahabharata had more than 100,000 shlokas at any point. – Say No To Censorship Sep 24 '20 at 3:05
  • Sorry, if you felt I am targetting you. I am not doing so. Just doing as per my understanding which I explained to you in a recent answer. – Mr_Green Sep 24 '20 at 18:34
  • 1
    I didn't think you were targeting me. It's better to have open discussions on these things. But I do take objection to you deleting my answer before arriving at a consensus on meta. This is the sort of thing that usually leads to revenge-downvoting/deleting. @Mr_Green – Say No To Censorship Sep 24 '20 at 20:43
  • Yes, agreed. Better not to do so till we arrive at a point. – Mr_Green Sep 25 '20 at 3:47
-6

I don't see why posting an opinion critical of Rishis should not be tolerated. This site should allow posts of all possible opinions. The only time a post should be deleted is if the opinion posted is demonstrably false.

Reading the comments it seems to me that in this site no modern secular scholars can be quoted. This should be made clear. Merely saying that the opinions of Gurus, Acharyas etc are allowed will not suffice. It should also say clearly that the opinions of modern secular scholars are disallowed. This will certainly restrict the scope of this site but clear the confusion. I thought that this site allows all opinions except for opinions based on false facts.

10
  • It is one's opinion. An opinion can't be demonstrated to prove it as true or false. Also, based on new answer accepted by many, such historian answers are not allowed. – Mr_Green Feb 5 at 12:32
  • No, that is not true. Read the book Kali's child where many serious allegations were made against Ramakrishna. The author expressed his opinion that Ramakrishna was sexually active. He claimed by mistranslating and by innuendo that he found this fact by reading Bengali source texts. The opinions expressed in that book are clearly false as can be seen by reading the Bengali source texts. – Pradip Gangopadhyay Feb 5 at 12:36
  • I think I am saying the same. I am still confused by seeing two negatives in your sentence :D - "I don't see why posting an opinion critical of Rishis should not be tolerated". – Mr_Green Feb 5 at 12:44
  • 3
    Hinduism is called Arsha Dharma -- the religion of/by the Rishis. What is the point of having this site if you want to criticize them in the site itself? The Rishis are the authorities here or we? @PradipGangopadhyay – Rickross Feb 5 at 12:47
  • "posts of all possible opinions." -- Sorry you are mistaken. Posting our opinions are never allowed. @PradipGangopadhyay – Rickross Feb 5 at 12:48
  • 1
    Obviously I am not talking of posting our personal opinions. I meant opinions of reputable scholars apart from those of Swamis and Acharyas. Just posting an opinion critical of Rishis do not imply that everyone must agree with that opinion. – Pradip Gangopadhyay Feb 5 at 12:54
  • 2
    Adhyatma Ramayana criticizes Lord Rama. Would Adhyatma Ramayana quote critical of Rama be allowed in this site? – Pradip Gangopadhyay Feb 5 at 12:56
  • 3
    Yes quotes from all scriptures allowed. There is no issue with that @PradipGangopadhyay – Rickross Feb 5 at 12:58
  • 3
    And opinions of all Swamis, Gurus and Acharyas of Hinduism are also allowed as valid sources. – Rickross Feb 5 at 13:09
  • 4
    To criticize the Rishis you have to be a Rishi yourself. Only a scientist can criticize another scientist if the topic of discussion is science. A layman can't do that. We already allow opinions of Swamis, Acharyas and Gurus of Hinduism although they by no means are comparable to the Vedic Rishis upon whom the entire religion rests. We even allow the highly insulting remarks of Swami Vivekananda about the Vedic Rishis. But all this has gone too far. There has to be a limit to everything @PradipGangopadhyay – Rickross Feb 5 at 15:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .