• 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?

metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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 think if we expect objectivity when it comes to any scriptures we're probably barking up the wrong tree.
 
Dawnofhope

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Vinayaka said:
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.
Click to expand...

So how does the Encyclopaedia Britannica go with Hinduism now? I hope they have improved. There’s enough Hindus around with expertise so it shouldn’t be to hard.

So the Abrahamics are arrogant know it alls compared to the humble Hindus?

I do like Wikipedia.
 
Vinayaka

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Skywalker said:
Do you think palm leaves being what they were written on has anything to do with the accuracy of holy books?
Click to expand...

No. The two ideas are separate. Paper, or a computer screen are no better. I suspect that the earlier stuff, because of the lack of durability, is suspect. Scribe was an occupation back then, a much needed one, and most likely there were mistakes mad in scribing. Paper and the printing press, and now computers have changed that. Much of the ancient Sanatana Dharma scriptures have been lost to insects. Only recently have there been many digitilisation efforts. Painstaking work, but nowhere near the work of scribes. Once should be enough, not every 100 years.
 
Vinayaka

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
adrian009 said:
So how does the Encyclopaedia Britannica go with Hinduism now? I hope they have improved. There’s enough Hindus around with expertise so it shouldn’t be to hard.

So the Abrahamics are arrogant know it alls compared to the humble Hindus?

I do like Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
I believe Britannica has improved, yes, as a function of time, and people complaining. I wish I could say the same for all textbooks. It's a tough job to not let your bias take over. A team of several intelligent people is best.

Arrogance and humility are human traits that run through all faiths.

I like wikipedia as well, for its quickness, for most things. But do I trust it? No.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Vinayaka said:
No. The two ideas are separate. Paper, or a computer screen are no better. I suspect that the earlier stuff, because of the lack of durability, is suspect. Scribe was an occupation back then, a much needed one, and most likely there were mistakes mad in scribing. Paper and the printing press, and now computers have changed that. Much of the ancient Sanatana Dharma scriptures have been lost to insects. Only recently have there been many digitilisation efforts. Painstaking work, but nowhere near the work of scribes. Once should be enough, not every 100 years.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the idea makes sense that religious works will outweigh sins on judgement day?
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Vinayaka said:
Sure, some do, but it's always a temporary state of mind, or place. It's called the narakaloka. Not the eternal hell that some Abrahamic religions speak of. Poor translation, most likely.
Click to expand...

Why do you not agree with the idea of an eternal hell? Crimes have consequences, like life imprisonment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top