Can anyone really remember our scriptures accurately?

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

The vedas predate the written words, and we had only oral traditions.

Sanskrit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The earliest attested Sanskrit texts are Brahmanical texts of the Rigveda, which date to the mid-to-late second millennium BCE. No written records from such an early period survive, if ever existed.

However, scholars are confident that the oral transmission of the texts is reliable: they were ceremonial literature whose correct pronunciation was considered crucial to its religious efficacy.

I know it is a blasphemy to question the oral tradition, but knowing what we know of memory now, it is very difficult to accept that the scriptures are accurate. Even the written Bible and Quran there are various interpretations.

I have no problem in accepting the philosophy expressed in these scriptures. I do have problem in accepting the historical accuracy of any of the sayings.
I apologize in advance to the sensitive people if I hurt your feelings.
Mr. Raju in his posting has indicated this fallacy.

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...y-unknowingly-per-hinduism-13.html#post166016

I propose that the references that we find to these scriptures be taken with a pinch of salt, and not be accepted as truth reveled by God. So there is no finality it is one of the opinions.

http://www.articlesbase.com/relationships-articles/can-we-trust-our-memories-1667653.html


Can We Trust Our Memories? By Sylvia Behnish

We all have memories; good and bad, old and new, accurate and otherwise. For seniors, unable to be active either because of health problems or lack of desire, their memories are very much a part of the person they are. It is their entertainment while they remember past experiences and it is part of the stories they tell. But are these stories true? Memories for children also have an important place in their lives. Their memories, in part, form the basis of their characters and personalities. For all of us, memories are important. But if they are not accurate, how can they play such an important part in our lives?
Some of us remember things with humor, even if the original happening was not funny; others remember a story more negatively or positively than others. Often, another person will have no memory of a situation because to them it was not as important as you had felt it to be. What we remember and how we remember can tell a lot about who we are.


When I write a story about my childhood memories, my brothers will often accuse me of making it up. Although my two brothers and I are within three years, we often remember our childhood in very different ways. I find this difficult to understand when we are so similar in ages.

 

[renuka]

I know it is a blasphemy to question the oral tradition

Dear Prasad ji,

We Hindus do not really have the concept of blasphemy.
Blasphemy is a terminology used when a person has no answers to support his/her claim.

 

[sangom]

Shri Prasad,

While it is difficult to say whether Hindus in general repose unshakeable faith in their various religious scriptures, one thing appears to me to be true, and it is that the three higher castes among the Hindus have managed to preserve the vedas in a very commendable fashion. As you may know, the brothers sāyaṇa and vidyāraṇya with the support of as many vedic scholars from the sub-continent as was possible in those days, attempted to test the veracity or otherwise of most of the scriptures. Since a system of learning the vedas in more than 14 different permutations and combinations, has been in vogue for millennia, it is easy to cross-check any doubt as to the correctness of the word and/or pronunciation by applying these different methods. One actual incident usually quoted in the sāyaṇa —vidyāraṇya endeavour is as follows:

In the Yajurveda (Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19) there is a sentence, न तस्य प्रतिमा अस्ति (na tasya pratimā asti) which means that the Absolute is formless and there is no idol of That. This sentence had been rendered by a large percentage of the scholars as नतस्य प्रतिमा अस्ति (natasya pratimā asti) which means there is idol of one who bows down (to God). You see, this small change had made Hinduism from an idol-less belief system into an idol-worshipping group! To resolve the disputes between the two sides they were asked to render the respective "permutations" which they had studied by heart and its was found that both sides had the two words na & tasya separate, but for inexplicable reasons, one group had joined the two words into one, may be to justify idolatry!

I therefore feel that a good amount of reliance can be placed on what is said in the vedas, and, incidentally, the historical references are mostly of the mythical ages. In regard to Puranas, however, my opinion is that they may not be very accurate historically and care should be taken before accepting their versions of history

 

[suraju06]

Dear Prasad,

I know it is a blasphemy to question the oral tradition, butknowing what we know of memory now, it is very difficult to accept that the scripturesare accurate. Eventhe written Bibleand Quranthereare various interpretations.
I have no problem in accepting the philosophyexpressed in these scriptures. I do have problem in accepting the historicalaccuracy of any of the sayings.
I apologize in advance to the sensitive people if I hurt yourfeelings.
Mr. Raju in his posting has indicated thisfallacy.
Is it a Sin to kill small insects knowingly or unknowinglyas per Hinduism?
I propose that the references that we find tothese scriptures be taken with a pinch of salt, and not be accepted as truthreveled by God. So there is no finality it is one of the opinions.

WhatI did not intend and what I did not want to happen has happened. Perhaps thisiswhat happened to Vedas also.
Let me makeit clear that I do not subscribe to the theory that Vedas can be fallible. They are infallible indeed. What I objected to in my post that is quoted here is to taking out sentences in isolation to support a wrong interpretation. I had in my mind this na thasya and nathasya and a few other instances where interpretations widely differ. But if you take the Upanishads in totality you find that a God is well defined and is supported. Bhethasruthi, Abhethasruthi and Gatakasruthi are all there and our Acharyas have done a lot of work to teach us how to interpret Vedas. Veda is knowledge in its purest form. Languages may at times be deficient to reveal it. This is the stage at which interpretation comes in. Interpretation depends on the deficiencies of the individual doing interpretation. To give a simple example, the universe has been in existence since ancient times. Isaac Newton came and interpreted the forces in nature and we had Newtonian mechanics. We dumped Des Cartes and thought we have finally understood every thing. But that was not to be. Later came Einstein and we have a different interpretation of the forces. Einstein had the benefit of new tools of maths which were not available to Newton. So the journey goes on. Unlike Abrahamic religions, Hinduism does not claim that the Vedas are revelation of truth by God. No where is it said. Vedas are just knowledge. You get the knowledge if you aspire for it and pursue it. You get it depending on your need and capacity to absorb it. Acharyas and all the religious literature available just help you in the process. Period.
Cheers.