• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are Buddhist and Hindu Scriptures Inaccurate?

George-ananda

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
SalixIncendium said:
It was suggested in another thread that Hindu and Buddhist scriptures may not accurately reflect the lives of Buddha and Krishna.

I am interested in hearing specifically what scriptures and what parts of these scriptures the denizens of RF feel are flawed or inaccurate with regard to the lives of these two avatara.
Click to expand...
I have tried to understand the 'historical Krishna' and become confused and unclear. I leave it at that as those things are not central to what is important to me in Hinduism.

I am clear on a modern Avatara Satya Sai Baba.
 
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I have a bit of evidence to offer.

I've heard a story that goes about like this. One day [a man noted for his sanctity and honesty] was sitting on a rock when a women ran by and asked for help. Men were chasing her to rape her. The [honest man] told her to hide [in a good place] and then the man got up and moved to another rock. The would-be rapists ran up and demanded to know if he had seen that woman. The [honest] man said "not while I've been sitting here" so the would be rapists ran off.

This is clearly a teaching story about being honest but also not being so literally honest that someone comes to harm. The [honest man] varies depending on where you read the story.

So to me looking at hagiography, I assume that some of what is written is possibly historical, some consists of teaching stories attached to the personage and some is myth.

For example I occasionally note archeology and speculation about events in the Bible. In particular, a few years ago someone did some studies and concluded it was possible that the "Red Sea" crossing of fame was really the "Reed Sea" which naturally "parts" depending on wind conditions. Is it confirmed? No. Is it reasonably possible? Yes. Does it really matter Moses went to the Reed Sea and separated the waters versus Moses going to the Red Sea and parting it? I suppose that matters to some but not to me.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
SalixIncendium said:
It was suggested in another thread that Hindu and Buddhist scriptures may not accurately reflect the lives of Buddha and Krishna.

I am interested in hearing specifically what scriptures and what parts of these scriptures the denizens of RF feel are flawed or inaccurate with regard to the lives of these two avatara.
Click to expand...

Do you think Krishna existed, outside of Hindu scriptures?
 
Dawnofhope

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Sunstone said:
I think the reliability of oral transmission might depend on the culture it's transmitted within. Some predominantly oral cultures took extraordinary care to preserve unaltered their oral heritage.

Of all the oral traditions I've heard of, the one that most impresses me is a group of people who now live in India, but who apparently migrated to India at some distant point in the past from what is now southeastern Iraq. There's litany they recite in their temples that seems to date back to the Sumerians.

Here's the interesting part: The people in question do not know the meaning of the words they recite. They just recite them. But they have so well preserved the words that a few decades ago, scholars were able to match them to a clay tablet written in Sumerian thousands of years earlier. The people are reciting a homage to the goddess Inanna, who they no longer worship today.
Click to expand...


I have no doubt about the great effort and care some cultures have taken to preserve their sacred scriptures, the Jews for example. The volume of scriptures would of course present an enormous challenge. The Chinese Canon is estimated be 80,000 pages long. Here is a mathematical exercise. Consider that it might take 2 minutes to recite one page. How long do you think it would take to recite 80,000 pages allowing 8 hours per day to this task?

Then consider how many times the works would need to be recited to memorise it. I’m not saying it can’t be done, rather highlighting the enormity of the task at hand. Then again the Egyptians built pyramids with a fraction of the resources we have today.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
adrian009 said:
I have no doubt about the great effort and care some cultures have taken to preserve their sacred scriptures, the Jews for example. The volume of scriptures would of course present an enormous challenge. The Chinese Canon is estimated be 80,000 pages long. Here is a mathematical exercise. Consider that it might take 2 minutes to recite one page. How long do you think it would take to recite 80,000 pages allowing 8 hours per day to this task?

Then consider how many times the works would need to be recited to memorise it. I’m not saying it can’t be done, rather highlighting the enormity of the task at hand. Then again the Egyptians built pyramids with a fraction of the resources we have today.
Click to expand...

Do you think oral tradition hints at accuracy of Buddhist and Hindu Scriptures?
 
Dawnofhope

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Skywalker said:
Do you think oral tradition hints at accuracy of Buddhist and Hindu Scriptures?
Click to expand...
The most reliable way we can know about what someone taught is if they write it down or we have a reliable transcript from someone who was there. Unfortunately the means to record in writing relied on material such as papyrus before the availability of paper. Oral transmission of sacred Teachings may have been very well developed in some cultures. However because of the lack of contemporary written records we have no way of knowing for certain how this was done. We assume great effort and care would have been taken but we have no way of knowing for certain.
 
Dawnofhope

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Vinayaka said:
Sure ... according to Wikipedia ... which is edited and revised all the time, by people who have opinions, and often agendas attached to said opinions. Either this stuff is conjecture, or it isn't. I don't see how anyone can pick something out as fact, but then see the rest as conjecture. Not that it matters.

I'll stick with 'I don't know.'
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is as good as many other encyclopaedias with reliance on references from those with expertise in their field and the texts carefully edited in a professional manner. Being online it can be updated regularly rather than waiting for the next edition to be published. I would look at alternate sources of information from a source that is trusted. Its too easy to not make the effort to research or think about these types of questions and then say “ I don’t know”. Another strategy is to have an informed opinion and acknowledge the possibility of being wrong. From there we can consider alternative views and do further research. But I agree those having bias and having an agenda always needs to considered, including our own biases and agendas.
 
Vinayaka

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
adrian009 said:
Wikipedia is as good as many other encyclopaedias with reliance on references from those with expertise in their field and the texts carefully edited in a professional manner. Being online it can be updated regularly rather than waiting for the next edition to be published. I would look at alternate sources of information from a source that is trusted. Its too easy to not make the effort to research or think about these types of questions and then say “ I don’t know”. Another strategy is to have an informed opinion and acknowledge the possibility of being wrong. From there we can consider alternative views and do further research. But I agree those having bias and having an agenda always needs to considered, including our own biases and agendas.
Click to expand...

Anyone is free to believe any source. Encyclopedia Britannica, in its early days made an absolute mess of Hinduism. Still, because it was so reputable, a ton of people got mislead. I'm also free to say 'I don't know', but that's a dharmic thing to do, not an Abrahamic thing. Abrahamic faith adherents seem to have this internal pressure to know stuff. I feel no such obligation or need.

So I'll stick with 'I don't know'. Wikipedia is right for you.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
adrian009 said:
The most reliable way we can know about what someone taught is if they write it down or we have a reliable transcript from someone who was there. Unfortunately the means to record in writing relied on material such as papyrus before the availability of paper. Oral transmission of sacred Teachings may have been very well developed in some cultures. However because of the lack of contemporary written records we have no way of knowing for certain how this was done. We assume great effort and care would have been taken but we have no way of knowing for certain.
Click to expand...

Was there papyrus when hindu and buddhist scriptures were written?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top