An argument against the Hindu scriptures

[indianx]

I came across this argument against the validity and coherence of the Hindu scriptures on another forum, Christian Forums.com. Most of the arguments that you find there against Hinduism are not as structured and substantive as this. I am not as well versed in the theological framework of Hinduism to respond in a suitable manner. I am also interested in seeing and understanding answers to the questions posed here from more learned members.

The samhitas, the four original vedas, have many concepts in them which contradict each other, but all hindu philosophies teach that the samhitas, at least, are infallible. All hindu scriptures, both sruti (those meant to be divinely inspired) and smriti (those which are 'remembered'), are considered vedas. Those sciptures more recent then the samhitas, espouse even more disparate concepts then the vedas, because they are written from the point of view of differing sects and philosophical schools. I'm not sure whether all of the vedas are beleived to be infallible, or if it is just the samhitas, but if it is all the vedas, then this presents massive problems. The belief that just the samhitas are infallible presents problems too.

Many schools of philosophy are much older then most of the scriptures, or at least originated before most of the scriptures existed, which means that at the time, only the samhitas could have been considered infallible. But does the doctrine of infallibility of the vedas by extension include all scriptures that were later written? which adhere to the views of differing philosophical schools?

I understand that the vedas were revealed by many different rishis which accounts for the disparate concepts, but if that is the case then what is the neccessity of believing every statement in the vedas is infallible? Isn't that just irrational tradition? And if gurus or rishis are enlightened or at least very knowledgeable wouldn't they know better than to say all of the disparate concepts and statements in the vedas are infallible? If the rishis who revealed the vedas were enlightened and all of them saw the truth, and all their revelations are infallible, why do these revelations contradict each other? If the rishis had knowledge and experience of the infinite, and this meant that they could reveal very advanced things which have only been discovered by western science recently, why didn't they have advanced technology and medical knowledge? Why didn't they know all of the things that are now known about the brain, for example?

Furthermore many of the so called sages taught reprehensible things like rape, mysogony, human sacrifice, oppression of the lower castes, bestiality etc. In the puranas, the sages don't exactly act like enlightened people. That's not the biggest problem of hindu mythology, considering how ridiculous, inane and irrational it all is. I'm sorry, but its true. And these myths were supposedly revealed by enlightened sages. Even the most staunch non-dualists are steeped in the myths and legends of the puranas. Just how does that make sense? It's just the contradictory and irrational nature of hinduism. Sadhus who are supposed to believe in the uncomprehendable, attributeless supreme reality which is the nature of shiva which we and everything are all a part of, and in the oneness of everything, also believe in the stories of shiva killing the other deities he is supposed to be one with, having wives and children, etc.

This is a link to the thread on the other forum if you are interested in responding to the questioner directly: http://www.christianforums.com/t7381217-8/

[atanu]

Dear indianx,

I do not find any arguments there, only opinions.

Om

[Hiwaunis]

Originally Posted by atanu

Dear indianx,

I do not find any arguments there, only opinions.

Om

I agree. Being an X-Christian I could have easily ripped that post to shredds. But Christian bashing is getting old. It is like being the bully on the playground. Also, it seems to rob one of prescious energy attained through meditation.

Only those who want to know the truth will actually look for it.

Namaste,
Hiwaunis

[Ekanta]

Those arguments are hanging in the air... there isnt a single quote in the original post at that site. Besides most stories have a deeper symbolic meaning.

[indianx]

Originally Posted by Ekanta

Those arguments are hanging in the air... there isnt a single quote in the original post at that site. Besides most stories have a deeper symbolic meaning.

The original post is #79 on the link I posted earlier.

To Atanu, I agree that the post contains some unsupported opinions, but I would still like to respond to the post with ample support showing why those opinions are incorrect. I think the poster is mistaken when he refers to the Puranas as if they are to be regarded as literal stories when, as Ekanta stated, they are meant symbolize deeper concepts.

[Ekanta]

Originally Posted by indianx

The original post is #79 on the link I posted earlier.

You mean post 78 right? And they are just taken out of the blue as said. And I seriously dont have time with all these dogmatic ground sniffers.

About esoteric meaning, here's a nice example I found a few days ago:

The Esoteric Significance of the Devi-Mahatmya
By Swami Krishnananda
E-Text Source: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/fest/fest_14.html

(The Devī Māhātmya consists of chapters 81-93 of the Mārkandeya Purana)

[Eastern Mind]

Originally Posted by Ekanta

And I seriously dont have time with all these dogmatic ground sniffers.

Hmmm. Good one. How long did it take you to figure that out? My experience was at 17 years. Kind of like trying to teach your dog to meow.

Aum Namasivaya

[Ekanta]

Originally Posted by Eastern Mind

How long did it take you to figure that out

If I interpret you right... I've carried it as a memory since birth. 17 was a good year for me too.

[Znanna]

Namaste,

One cannot "understand" paradox. That's the paradox

Any Scripture, Christian, Hindu or otherwise ... all are subject to the bias of translation and interpretation. There is no such thing as "literal Word" .. in that "Word" can't be literal, as time, space and conception have no bearing on "Word" exclusive of our interpretation of same; literal implies ego bias, bottom line.

There's an interesting deconstructionist (ala Sassure and Derrida) version of Buddahism which is gaining in popularity in intellectual circles here in the US, which transits the twilight of interpretation in an interesting way, fwiw.

To me, the bottom line is, if Godz manifest and show, that's good enough for me!


ZN/consider the source

[atanu]

Originally Posted by Znanna

Namaste,

One cannot "understand" paradox. That's the paradox

Any Scripture, Christian, Hindu or otherwise ... all are subject to the bias of translation and interpretation. There is no such thing as "literal Word" .. in that "Word" can't be literal, as time, space and conception have no bearing on "Word" exclusive of our interpretation of same; literal implies ego bias, bottom line.

There's an interesting deconstructionist (ala Sassure and Derrida) version of Buddahism which is gaining in popularity in intellectual circles here in the US, which transits the twilight of interpretation in an interesting way, fwiw.

To me, the bottom line is, if Godz manifest and show, that's good enough for me!


ZN/consider the source

I suppose that word is like a still body of water. One approaches it with muck on face and it reflects that. One approaches it wearing mask and it reflects that.

Similarly of course the deconstructionist will be reflected. Only mergence in word (OM) can be reflection free.

Regards to all