|
Post by malatimanjari on Mar 22, 2011 9:59:58 GMT -6
P.S. Kundali unfortunately didn't develop any relation with Sastriji Maharaji and SND wasn't even informed about the posting of Tattva Sandarbha.
|
|
|
Post by malati on Mar 30, 2011 3:25:50 GMT -6
Haribol
Thanks Malatimanjari
I'll read it in the weekend, Im dont have that much time now.
|
|
|
Post by gerard on May 4, 2012 4:31:45 GMT -6
King Parikshit was poisoned by a snake; he had seven days to live and was told the Bhagavata Purana.
After his death his son Janamejaya cursed the snakes and started to burn them, he was asked to stop and he was told the Mahabharata.
So chronologically first the Bhagavata and then the Mahabharata. But in the Bhagavata we are told Vyasa was not happy with the Mahabharata so then he wrote the Bhagavata.
Am I missing something? Or is this just an oversight of some Namburdiri redactor?
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on May 4, 2012 22:37:40 GMT -6
Dear Sir: Please don’t lost your time with a very unprofessional person that show his emotional answers like ad huminem phalacy ( attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue.) If somebody want to know all the evidences from Dr. Arganis-, he is Ph D researcher scholar in UIE, please look this website: www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/sb.htmRelated: Antiquity of Bhagavatam (MA thesis by Horacio Francisco Arganis Juarez - summary) Sincerily Gopal Gupta Dear sir, I looked at that line of argument and decided there is nothing of worth in it. It is a waste of time to even bother with it. He misreads the evidence and uses percentages as if they were in some way meaningful and in order, no doubt, to give the appearance of some scientific validity. It is just smoke and mirrors. It is a waste of time to even read the thing, much less consider it seriously. All evidence that has any shred of authenticity points to a relatively late (5-6th century CE) and southern source for the Bhagavata. That is the line of inquiry I will pursue here rather than wasting my time on wish-fulfillment and fantasy arguments. From the conclusion of the thesis? Thus the most recent established thesis demonstrates that the Bhâgavatam was compiled in a period that goes from the end of Mahâbhârata age, at the beginning of Kali-yuga (3102 BC) and at the latest around 2600 BC, when the star Alpha Draconis was still in the Polar Axis and the Sarasvati still flowedWow? Really? . However, in spite of all the scientifically rigorous analysis presented in this investigation, we find that mainstream scholars are still very much opposed to this demonstration, as Max Planck observed:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing of its opponents, making them see the light, but rather with the death of such opponents and the rise of a new generation that is able to accept it. Really rigorous?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 5, 2012 12:29:17 GMT -6
King Parikshit was poisoned by a snake; he had seven days to live and was told the Bhagavata Purana. After his death his son Janamejaya cursed the snakes and started to burn them, he was asked to stop and he was told the Mahabharata. So chronologically first the Bhagavata and then the Mahabharata. But in the Bhagavata we are told Vyasa was not happy with the Mahabharata so then he wrote the Bhagavata. Am I missing something? Or is this just an oversight of some Namburdiri redactor? Excellent point, gerardji. I think that the first seven chapters of the First Skandha (at least) were later additions to the text along with probably the whole of the 12th Skandha. In adding to such a text it is easiest to add things to the front of the stack of palm leaves or to the end. Inserting things in the middle requires recopying the whole text which is problematic, not that that did not occasionally happen, mind you. Chapter 14 of the 10the Skandha is a good example of the latter. Anyway, if you study the first few chapters of the 1st Skandha you will notice that they are mostly advertisements of the text and that they speak of the text as if it were something separate and they speak of the author in the third person rather than in the first person. They are a lot like the modern practice in book publishing of putting a blurb on the inside flap of the cover telling readers how wonderful the book is and how they should really read it. The 12th Skandha is more of the same. It might be compared with the inside flap of the back cover. Neither were originally part of the text, but at some point were added on. One can in fact see a sudden abrupt change of topic in Chapter 7 of the 1st Skandha beginning with verse 12. No longer are we talking about Vyasa. Suddenly the story of Pariksit's birth begins without any prior notice. Here is where an earlier version picks up. Whatever led up to it or introduced it or inquired about it has been removed. In fact we don't really meet Suka until the end of the Skandha. So how could anything before that be the Bhagavata composed by Vyasa and taught to Suka?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 5, 2012 12:33:04 GMT -6
Dear sir, I looked at that line of argument and decided there is nothing of worth in it. It is a waste of time to even bother with it. He misreads the evidence and uses percentages as if they were in some way meaningful and in order, no doubt, to give the appearance of some scientific validity. It is just smoke and mirrors. It is a waste of time to even read the thing, much less consider it seriously. All evidence that has any shred of authenticity points to a relatively late (5-6th century CE) and southern source for the Bhagavata. That is the line of inquiry I will pursue here rather than wasting my time on wish-fulfillment and fantasy arguments. From the conclusion of the thesis? Thus the most recent established thesis demonstrates that the Bhâgavatam was compiled in a period that goes from the end of Mahâbhârata age, at the beginning of Kali-yuga (3102 BC) and at the latest around 2600 BC, when the star Alpha Draconis was still in the Polar Axis and the Sarasvati still flowedWow? Really? . However, in spite of all the scientifically rigorous analysis presented in this investigation, we find that mainstream scholars are still very much opposed to this demonstration, as Max Planck observed:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing of its opponents, making them see the light, but rather with the death of such opponents and the rise of a new generation that is able to accept it. Really rigorous? Yes. Isn't it ridiculous? What an idiot! Rigorous must mean something more like rigor mortis, especially above the shoulders. Whoever approved that thesis should be drummed out of the profession.
|
|